-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
Brainfart I alway group them together as I see them as complimentary to each other, even though the dec was more a statement to Britain. The part about the rights of men though is important to the const.
I should have just said freedom of religion, guns,speech etc...
Not forgetting that the framework to prevent tyranny by a big central gov is what's really important.
anyone?
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
excerpt from an e-mail...
Bless you Harold B. Estes.
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
excerpt from an e-mail...
Bless you Harold B. Estes.
G
greenmatter
^^^^^ "changed?"
no !!!!!
getting the lawyers, bankers and general bottom feeders out of the process of how it can be perverted would be a huge plus though.
no !!!!!
getting the lawyers, bankers and general bottom feeders out of the process of how it can be perverted would be a huge plus though.
Last edited:
BET THIS INFO DOESN'T MAKE
HEADLINES.
Do you know the park in NYC that the
Wall Street protesters are occupying? It's Zuccotti Park . Did you know this
park is not owned by the city of New York? It is owned by Brookfield Properties.
Brookfield Asset Management received an Obama Department of
Energy Loan guarantee of over $160 million within 10 days of approving the take
over of the Park.
Brookfield is a Canadian company with assets of
70 billion. Google it. It is all on their website - and WHY is the US Taxpayer
guaranteeing a loan to a VERY wealthy Canadian company?
Who was just
hired by Brookfield Properties as an attorney? Vice President Joe Biden's
son.
Who sits on the board
of Brookfield Properties? Mayor Bloomberg's live-in girlfriend.
Now,
guess what company just received some of the last of the Obama Stimulus wasted billions. That's right, Brookfield Properties.
Isn't life
great in America!
Now, guess what, on a completely unrelated note,
Wisconsin is shaping up to be the swing state in the 2012 presidential
elections. Not Florida . Not Ohio . But Wisconsin .
Now, guess who owns the
company that will be tabulating the electronic votes in Wisconsin.
That's right, the biggest contributor to Obama, the puppeteer
George Soros. What a coincidence!
Remember what Stalin said.
"He who votes does not have the power. He who counts the votes has the
power."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790976/posts
HEADLINES.
Do you know the park in NYC that the
Wall Street protesters are occupying? It's Zuccotti Park . Did you know this
park is not owned by the city of New York? It is owned by Brookfield Properties.
Brookfield Asset Management received an Obama Department of
Energy Loan guarantee of over $160 million within 10 days of approving the take
over of the Park.
Brookfield is a Canadian company with assets of
70 billion. Google it. It is all on their website - and WHY is the US Taxpayer
guaranteeing a loan to a VERY wealthy Canadian company?
Who was just
hired by Brookfield Properties as an attorney? Vice President Joe Biden's
son.
Who sits on the board
of Brookfield Properties? Mayor Bloomberg's live-in girlfriend.
Now,
guess what company just received some of the last of the Obama Stimulus wasted billions. That's right, Brookfield Properties.
Isn't life
great in America!
Now, guess what, on a completely unrelated note,
Wisconsin is shaping up to be the swing state in the 2012 presidential
elections. Not Florida . Not Ohio . But Wisconsin .
Now, guess who owns the
company that will be tabulating the electronic votes in Wisconsin.
That's right, the biggest contributor to Obama, the puppeteer
George Soros. What a coincidence!
Remember what Stalin said.
"He who votes does not have the power. He who counts the votes has the
power."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2790976/posts
I'd like to say I'm surprised but I'm not. With the gov denying protest in certain places, premitting predator drones over our cities for whatever reason to collect data, and now openly allowing the NSA to record all our communications, purchases, etc, we are no longer the land of the free.
We are the land of the spied on and the home of the throat stomped. I don't get it. I really don't get it. Why don't they just come out and say, "We, the Government, have decided we are now going to be this......form of government." Things just aren't making sense unless we are headed down the road to some form of dictatorship. The first steps are crushing forms of speech and complete domestic spying. Now we have cleared the 1st 2 hurdles. What's next?
Correcting trolls is becoming such a chore.
hey bom, stop trying to negate the importance of the constitution by acting as if the framers were proud slave owners.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
" O
ne of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words:
“Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”
These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.
The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery—and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.
Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).
It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.
Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil—and their support went beyond words.
For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens,to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift,and many more.
In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” —George Washington
Notice a few additional examples of the Founder's strong antislavery sentiments:
“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” —John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery?It is admitted by all to be a great evil.” —Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.
“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].” —John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.
“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.” —John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.” —Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.
“t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.” —Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.” —Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four… (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. “To the Citizens of the United States.”
“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.” —James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.
“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others… and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.” —John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.”
Numerous similar quotes could be cited.
Yet despite the progress made by many of the Founders to end the institution of slavery and to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misportrayal of the truth.
The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:
“It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” (emphasis added)
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
While there were a few Founding Fathers who were pro-slavery, the truth is that it was the Founders who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This is a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Pennsylvania, but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. A close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, he went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address entitled “To the People of Color,” Allen reminded them:
“Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal.” -Richard Allen"
hey bom, stop trying to negate the importance of the constitution by acting as if the framers were proud slave owners.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
" O
ne of the most frequent tactics employed to discredit America's Founding Fathers is to say that the Founding Fathers were all pro-slavery racists and hypocrites. Therefore, why should we care what their views were on any subject? African-American professor Walter Williams wisely explained the use of this tactic in these words:
“Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers' ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists.”
These people paint a false picture of the Founding Fathers and the issue of slavery. The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers.
The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery—and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.
Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).
It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.
Nevertheless, despite the support in those states for slavery, the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil—and their support went beyond words.
For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens,to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift,and many more.
In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” —George Washington
Notice a few additional examples of the Founder's strong antislavery sentiments:
“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” —John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.
“[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery?It is admitted by all to be a great evil.” —Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Kate Mason Rowland, Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1898), Vol. II, pg. 231.
“As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they …[c]urse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery].” —John Dickinson, Signer of the Constitution and Governor of Pennsylvania. Charles J. Stille, The Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1898) p. 324.
“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.” —John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1891), Vol. III, pp. 168-169. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts… by agreeing to this duty.” —Richard Henry Lee, President of Continental Congress and Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee and His Correspondence With the Most Distinguised Men in America and Europe (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea, 1825), Vol. I, pp. 17-19. The first speech of Richard Henry Lee in the House of Burgesses.
“t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.” —Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity… It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.” —Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four… (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. “To the Citizens of the United States.”
“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law… The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.” —James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Justice. James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Robert Green McCloskey, editor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), Vol. II, pg. 605.
“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others… and take away their liberty by no better right than superior force.” —John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), p. 81, “Lectures on Moral Philosophy.”
Numerous similar quotes could be cited.
Yet despite the progress made by many of the Founders to end the institution of slavery and to recognize in practice that “all men are created equal,” it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misportrayal of the truth.
The records of the Constitutional Convention make clear that the three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision. As Professor Walter Williams explains:
“It was slavery's opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South.” (emphasis added)
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.
While there were a few Founding Fathers who were pro-slavery, the truth is that it was the Founders who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This is a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Pennsylvania, but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. A close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, he went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address entitled “To the People of Color,” Allen reminded them:
“Many of the white people [who] have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal.” -Richard Allen"
Do you really believe that the paradigm this country operates under right now is anywhere ideologically relevant to the basic underpinnings of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Bill of Rights being most important.
We desperately need a new paradigm and we'll get one soon enough IMO. For better or worse.
your country operates under the paradigm of the constitution, maybe not to the extent you hope it should, but it still does.
compare your basic liberties that you take for granted with the basic liberties in Sudan, or Iran.
you guys protest and become scandalized at the mere mention of monitoring the internet and limiting acess; well, in Iran there's no internet.
that's a little perspective for you.
and of course a new paradigm will arise, because the old one (current consitution etc...) cannot support today's world.
dag, it seems silly to have to point out to you that I have a life outside icmag and cannot be in this thread all day long answering all your questions. there are many other more interesting threads here too.
but one quick answer to your faulty question: first, like I already told you, no need to change the constitution, as it is, it stands as a relevant historical document, stress the historical part. and it may well serve others to imagine/create a new paradigm to operate with.
however, just the language of the current constitution, and the endless interpretation problems that have arisen due to it being too vague when what is needed is something specific, is one thing you can surely count as a disadvantage.
also, the belief that any written document, whether it be the constitution or Plato's Republic, is all it takes to lay down the foundation of how things should work the best, is also flawed; as things always change and situations are not always the same, malleability instead of cement-like guideless, etc...
you have missed the point.
the point is not that since the 'founding fathers' owned slaves, that then the constitution has no meaning at all and should be used as toilet paper.
the point is that since the 'founding fathers' owned slaves, they are not perfect, and the constitution they came up with is not either; specially when people try to universally apply it to every scenario and every age, thinking that the 'founding fathers' forsaw the future and were able to forsee things they surely never did.
And of course the ff knew things would change a time went on, which is why they allowed for amendments to be made to it.
For some reason you seem to think computers should somehow be a good reason to replace freedom. Laughable. Did we destroy the constitution when telephones were invented? When railroads began crossing our nation? Didnt think so.
If anything, we need the constitution and attendant bill of rights now more than ever. We are living in a tyrannical freedom stripping nanny state. Precisely what our ffs warned against and designed the constitution to protect us from.
Call logic and reason a cult mindset all you want, won't change facts.
Anyway, cult traditionally infers some sort of religious entanglement, but I know we all have very different spiritual beliefs, we just all happen to support freedom.
Aren't you not even in the us?
For some reason you seem to think computers should somehow be a good reason to replace freedom. Laughable. Did we destroy the constitution when telephones were invented? When railroads began crossing our nation? Didnt think so.
If anything, we need the constitution and attendant bill of rights now more than ever. We are living in a tyrannical freedom stripping nanny state. Precisely what our ffs warned against and designed the constitution to protect us from.
Call logic and reason a cult mindset all you want, won't change facts.
Anyway, cult traditionally infers some sort of religious entanglement, but I know we all have very different spiritual beliefs, we just all happen to support freedom.
Aren't you not even in the us?
So no you have no specific examples of the irrelavance......
Just more vague platitudes.
No instance to point to? You point out Iran has no internet(not true but wth) are you saying the delegation of powers putting the regulatory authority on the shoulders on all three branches is an outedated mode?
I know you are quite busy and I do apologize. But I have been asking for three days and you have posted in this thread between questions. But im sure you just missed the posts.
So ill try yet again.
What specifically(assuming you know the meaning of the word specifically) is outdated.
What specific issue should the uscon not be applied to?
apologies for the vague nature of my question earlier I am sure between my beating around the bush and your busy schedule over the weekend is the reason you keep not answering with specifics and in no way does your lack of specifics illustrate a fundamental weakness in your cognitive reasoning.
Just more vague platitudes.
No instance to point to? You point out Iran has no internet(not true but wth) are you saying the delegation of powers putting the regulatory authority on the shoulders on all three branches is an outedated mode?
I know you are quite busy and I do apologize. But I have been asking for three days and you have posted in this thread between questions. But im sure you just missed the posts.
So ill try yet again.
What specifically(assuming you know the meaning of the word specifically) is outdated.
What specific issue should the uscon not be applied to?
apologies for the vague nature of my question earlier I am sure between my beating around the bush and your busy schedule over the weekend is the reason you keep not answering with specifics and in no way does your lack of specifics illustrate a fundamental weakness in your cognitive reasoning.
id put my house up this fool hasn't even read the constitution.
which would be why he cant answer your question...
what the fuck are you guys even talking about anymore? What does this have to do with any of the canidates who are running for PRESIDENT.
Fact is, Ron Paul has yet to say he is running for PRESIDENT, only the hopelessly lost GOP nomination.
(The third amendment is superfluous in the 21th century is it not? If anything it codifies the legality of quartering solders (under conditions). Fuck that shit.)
Fact is, Ron Paul has yet to say he is running for PRESIDENT, only the hopelessly lost GOP nomination.
(The third amendment is superfluous in the 21th century is it not? If anything it codifies the legality of quartering solders (under conditions). Fuck that shit.)
3rd party for me. Can't do Obama and Romney makes me sick to my stomach. Time to run the flag up the pole upside down. We are in trouble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luomCCvgT1M .. Interesting to watch this video!! monkey5
You obviously missed the point of the article.
Your generalizations about slave ownership are wrong. Some ffs never owned slaves, many who did freed their slaves, and several were among the first to open anti slavery institutes. It was rallied against as a terrible thing forced upon america by the british. These men were at least 80 years ahead of the national a curve against slavery. Speaks volumes about their foresight and respect of basic human freedoms.
I'm sure you didn't read the whole thing though.
As for future telling, check the other post
You have no argument, not even a weak argument. The fundamentals of the Constitution are sound, its the people that neglect to follow them that are not. People give you excellent rebuttals and you are stuck on repeat. Keep repeating yourself though if you must.
and you completely miss the point that it is not about a piece of paper, it is about the principles it represents that are thousands of years old. FREEDOM. LIBERTY.
Patriotism in America is not loyalty to a piece of paper or some historical figures, or a government. It is about upholding the principles of the personal freedoms and liberties of the INDIVIDUAL. these are the principals that protect the minority from the majority.
The bill of rights and the constitution are just the living documents meant to keep FREEDOM and LIBERTY alive and present in the forefront of people's thoughts to prevent Tyranny from over taking a non thinking population. When you let the Bill of rights get shredded then you Freedom and Liberty get shredded.
That is why preserving the original intent of the document is dire. It preserves the YOUR RIGHT to live your life the way you chose with out being economically, religiously, vocally, controlled. It protects your right to not have to use your property to house soldiers and government. Do you know how many societies before the constitution required families to have an imperial solider on their land? Most of them. It protects your right to protect your self and property with the most advanced form of small arms of the day.
ALL OF THESE PRINCIPALS ARE TIMELESS IDEAS. THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE FIRST SMALL GROUP OF HUMANS DECIDED TO SPLIT OFF FROM THEIR CONTROLLERS.
- Status
