PDA

View Full Version : Maybe that Russian intel analyst was right


Hunt
03-17-2010, 6:35 PM
remember a while back the Russian intel analyst that predicted the U.S. breaking up into different regional States. Maybe he was right, the burrough (a city) of Fairbanks AK now has an official militia of 3,500 civilians and they have created their own gov't. Montana has been working on this for 2 years. This is far, far beyond 50 paranoid guys in a remote compound or one family alone in the boonies. This video is long but very, very interesting especialy around 67 min discussions of Law and Courts.
http://vimeo.com/9968399 make copies of video before it gets scrubbed---long video best to let it roll to 55- min then watch there he gets into the meat of the subjects.

The Director
03-17-2010, 6:58 PM
Really? Any other links on this?

anthonyca
03-17-2010, 7:07 PM
Does anyone think they could come up with a better constitution then we have? The only problem is that it is ignored.

yellowfin
03-17-2010, 7:46 PM
The reason the Constitution has been ignored is because it has rarely if ever been enforced against the federal government on any appreciable scale with sufficient results.

magsnubs
03-17-2010, 7:54 PM
We are seeing the effects of turning your back on the principles which you began with. We have "progressed" well past the limits envisioned by our liberty loving founders, giving up the gains that our unique system afforded us earlier on. I think it's safe to say that we are in extreme peril of failing, lacking an extreme turnaround, which, thankfully we are starting to see a glimmer of hope of, recently. I think we just proved the old saying, "if you have a problem and you can't fix it, make it worse!" Because of this, I have some degree of hope.

ZombieTactics
03-17-2010, 8:28 PM
Does anyone think they could come up with a better constitution then we have? The only problem is that it is ignored.
The only "problem" with the Constitution is that it assumes a certain kind of practical literacy uncommon to most citizens nowadays.

The only improvements I can see involve:
Restructuring some wording and syntax to avoid many of the ambiguities which have given rise to mischief.
Establishing something like a "writ of common understandings" as a guide to interpreting the Constitution. It would further detail specific lists of things that the government cannot do by way of example, serving to illustrate the principles in the main document itself.
Establishing some matters as unamendable/unchangeable ... if you want to change these things, you'll have to start a new country.

SanPedroShooter
03-17-2010, 8:35 PM
I found that video to be very interesting. I watched the whole thing but if you skip to about 60min in he gets down to the meat. His concept of natural/common law really resonates. It seems like the simple truth.

After watching, I have a few questions about implementation. How does the court handle situations where no redress is possible? Like murder?
And how does this group avoid paying taxes and supporting the values that seem so wrong? It's one thing to turn your back on the gov. but i bet they dont take it lying down... Theses must be those rightwing terrorists the DHS was talking about.

Jason762
03-17-2010, 8:56 PM
Interesting... I know ElDiabloRobotico lives in Fairbanks. I'd like to hear his input on this...

Meplat
03-17-2010, 9:08 PM
Thin just adopt it, Mean it. And enforse it.

No constitution can survive brigands, scoundrels, thieves, dictators, and megalomaniacs. The founders told us as much. It is only as good as the quality of the people implementing it. The Vietnamese declaration of independence and constitution is almost word for word the same as ours.


Does anyone think they could come up with a better constitution then we have? The only problem is that it is ignored.

Hunt
03-17-2010, 9:40 PM
Really? Any other links on this?

I haven't checked --google the guys name lots of info should show up.
Very interesteing how they propose for the citizens to just build the framework of the next evolution of gov't and just sit back and watch this one fail. I thought it was an excellent presentation on Law vs the use of gov't force and Natural Law. -long video best to let it roll to 55- min then watch there he gets into the meat of the subjects.

Hunt
03-17-2010, 9:45 PM
The only "problem" with the Constitution is that it assumes a certain kind of practical literacy uncommon to most citizens nowadays.

The only improvements I can see involve:
Restructuring some wording and syntax to avoid many of the ambiguities which have given rise to mischief.
Establishing something like a "writ of common understandings" as a guide to interpreting the Constitution. It would further detail specific lists of things that the government cannot do by way of example, serving to illustrate the principles in the main document itself.
Establishing some matters as unamendable/unchangeable ... if you want to change these things, you'll have to start a new country.


they are not suggesting improving or changing the Constitution or altering the current gov't. They want to return to the original Constitution and passively watch the current gov't crash and burn on it's own suicidal path.

command_liner
03-17-2010, 10:04 PM
A few months back -- perhaps it was 2 years -- I saw that analysis and
thought it was about right.

The root of our destruction will be the ignoring of the Constitution by the
Feds. The federal government has grown to an unmanageable,
unsustainable, unknowable size. The entitlements have expanded to
the point where the Cloward-Piven collapse will happen. But when?

Will it be a bankrupt Social Security, Medicade, Food Stamps or WIC
system that causes social unrest? My bet is that either of the serious
quakes -- SoCal or New Madrid -- will demonstrate to everybody in the
US and everybody else around the world that the Feds are unable to
control anything.

There are wildcards to consider. The quake in Washington state will
be bad. The collapse of the oil wealth in Mexico in 28 months might
destabilize that country to the point where we get _another_ 30
million Mexicans hiding in the south-west US. Iran?

The Chinese can smell blood in the water and will be an irritant for
the next decade. But they will not push hard: they will watch us
collapse. China will act ONLY if a strong American leader comes
on the scene. Some combination of Sarah Palin and Tom McClintoc
with a bit of Reagan would scare the Chinese.

CaliforniaLiberal
03-17-2010, 10:13 PM
I googled Schaeffer Cox and find that he's had a spot of trouble with the law a couple of weeks ago.

Not making any judgements, not knowing any details but I'm curious if he has faced the Common Law Court.

Interesting stuff. I like the idea of ad hoc creating our own structure of self governance that does not conflict with the present system and then watching as the present system crumbles and dies of it's own contradictions.

The Director
03-17-2010, 10:23 PM
I googled Schaeffer Cox and find that he's had a spot of trouble with the law a couple of weeks ago.

Not making any judgements, not knowing any details but I'm curious if he has faced the Common Law Court.

Interesting stuff. I like the idea of ad hoc creating our own structure of self governance that does not conflict with the present system and then watching as the present system crumbles and dies of it's own contradictions.

He was arrested - therefore he will be in the normal court system.

infernoford
03-17-2010, 11:30 PM
Very, very interesting. Schaeffer Cox sounds like Thomas Jefferson reincarnated. It is sad that some people would consider him a wacko. Thank you for sharing this with those who are willing to listen.

gorblimey
03-18-2010, 3:16 AM
The current government represents the (stupid, ignorant, easily manipulated) "will" of the mobocracy. If we are to have better government, we'll need better people. Impossible at the national level, but perhaps localized concentrations of better people.

CalNRA
03-18-2010, 4:27 AM
Interesting... I know ElDiabloRobotico lives in Fairbanks. I'd like to hear his input on this...

wait, he ran away from CA and to the state of Sarah Palin and Republicans? Oh the irony. :rolleyes:

yellowfin
03-18-2010, 5:18 AM
they are not suggesting improving or changing the Constitution or altering the current gov't. They want to return to the original Constitution and passively watch the current gov't crash and burn on it's own suicidal path.I wish the current govt't could crash and burn by itself without inflicting harm on our well being in the process. :(

SanPedroShooter
03-18-2010, 6:22 AM
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/6504090/article-2nd-Amendment-Task-Force-leader-Schaeffer-Cox-arrested--charged-with-assault?instance=home_most_popular

Here's the article about S. Cox recent arrest. I've definitely learned not to belive everything you read (see Ben Cannon case). But, it doesnt sound very good on first go round.
If he gets convicted, no more gun ownership, right? Or maybe not, it is Alaska...

Hunt
03-18-2010, 8:14 AM
The current government represents the (stupid, ignorant, easily manipulated) "will" of the mobocracy. If we are to have better government, we'll need better people. Impossible at the national level, but perhaps localized concentrations of better people.

your comments are interesting about "better men", that brings us back to the same old, same old, analagous
fiction that professional wrestling is real and our Gov't is just and the 2 parties really are different. This guys comments about how Natural Law is equivilant to the laws of physics as NL came into existence with our creation and no better man can change them, this is why the "rule of Law" is necessary for a viable and just society. As we can easily see, the rule of so called "better men " is clearly unjust and putting America on the path of destruction. Excellent video

kcbrown
03-18-2010, 12:32 PM
The only "problem" with the Constitution is that it assumes a certain kind of practical literacy uncommon to most citizens nowadays.


I like the changes you propose, but the biggest problem is that there's no check against the Congress itself. There's only a relatively mild check against the laws it may pass.

The "shall not" provisions of the Constitution need teeth behind them. For instance, a provision that any member of Congress who votes in favor of a law that is later struck down in part or in whole as Unconstitutional (either by the Supreme Court or by the people -- see below) shall be removed from office immediately. The same would be true of the President.

Additionally, there needs to be a similar check against the Supreme Court: for any law which the Supreme Court rules is Constitutional but which the people later vote as Unconstitutional, all Supreme Court justices who sided with the majority opinion shall be removed from their positions immediately.

All these people swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That oath needs teeth behind it in the form of a major and automatic smackdown in the event the oath is violated.

All of the above obviously implies that the Constitutionality of a law can be decided, after a Supreme Court ruling, by the people via a vote. That would have to be an additional provision. Note that the provision I'm proposing in that regard only allows the people to strike down laws -- it does not allow them to overrrule the Supreme Court when the Court strikes down a law as Unconstitutional.

The intention is to make it as difficult as possible for a law to remain on the books. Why? Because a law is, almost by definition, a restriction on someone's freedom.


Another provision I might add would be that all laws passed shall have at most a 10 year expiration time, after which the law in question would have to be passed using the same process for passing new laws for it to be renewed. Of course, there would also be a provision that no law shall address more than one specific subject, and a law that violates that rule is Unconstitutional on its face and shall be struck down as such.

M1A Rifleman
03-18-2010, 12:38 PM
The only "problem" with the Constitution is that it assumes a certain kind of practical literacy uncommon to most citizens nowadays.

The only improvements I can see involve:
Restructuring some wording and syntax to avoid many of the ambiguities which have given rise to mischief.
Establishing something like a "writ of common understandings" as a guide to interpreting the Constitution. It would further detail specific lists of things that the government cannot do by way of example, serving to illustrate the principles in the main document itself.
Establishing some matters as unamendable/unchangeable ... if you want to change these things, you'll have to start a new country.


Go back to the requirement that only property owners have the right to vote. This would eliminate many problems that we are currently facing with who gets elected.

Flopper
03-18-2010, 12:59 PM
Go back to the requirement that only property owners have the right to vote. This would eliminate many problems that we are currently facing with who gets elected.

How about only those who pay taxes can vote? That would solve all our problems immediately ;)

gorblimey
03-18-2010, 1:34 PM
your comments are interesting about "better men", that brings us back to the same old, same old, analagous
fiction that professional wrestling is real and our Gov't is just and the 2 parties really are different. This guys comments about how Natural Law is equivilant to the laws of physics as NL came into existence with our creation and no better man can change them, this is why the "rule of Law" is necessary for a viable and just society. As we can easily see, the rule of so called "better men " is clearly unjust and putting America on the path of destruction. Excellent video


What I meant was this:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams

And my point is that we are so freaking far away from where we need to be on this, especially given the cultural destruction from the 60s onward, that it is no wonder the Republic is in its final throes.

macadamizer
03-18-2010, 3:51 PM
they are not suggesting improving or changing the Constitution or altering the current gov't. They want to return to the original Constitution and passively watch the current gov't crash and burn on it's own suicidal path.

Are you speaking of the pre-13th amendment "original constitution" -- the one that said slavery was cool?

The "original constitution" was a great document, but it is also seriously flawed in some respects.

Go back to the requirement that only property owners have the right to vote. This would eliminate many problems that we are currently facing with who gets elected.

I am sure the many renters on CalGuns will approve of your suggestion. :rofl:

But just following along the theme, should we allow women to vote? Do we include the 19th amendment in the "original constitution?"

Legasat
03-18-2010, 4:36 PM
I watched the video. I don't agree with the way that he sees everything, but he does articulate several very good points.

Lifeofahero
03-18-2010, 6:07 PM
Wow... haha wow.

ChuckBooty
03-18-2010, 6:18 PM
remember a while back the Russian intel analyst that predicted the U.S. breaking up into different regional States. Maybe he was right, the burrough (a city) of Fairbanks AK now has an official militia of 3,500 civilians and they have created their own gov't. Montana has been working on this for 2 years. This is far, far beyond 50 paranoid guys in a remote compound or one family alone in the boonies. This video is long but very, very interesting especialy around 67 min discussions of Law and Courts.
http://vimeo.com/9968399 make copies of video before it gets scrubbed---long video best to let it roll to 55- min then watch there he gets into the meat of the subjects.

I can't find anything about an independent government having been formed in Alaska. Do you have a source on that?

magsnubs
03-18-2010, 6:19 PM
I'd repeal the commerce clause.

bulgron
03-18-2010, 6:32 PM
I'd repeal the commerce clause.

No, just reword it so that it isn't so easy to abuse.

And I really like the required 10-year sunset provision on all laws provision.

chrisw
03-18-2010, 6:42 PM
How about only those who pay taxes can vote? That would solve all our problems immediately ;)

but i dont like paying taxes

kcbrown
03-18-2010, 6:46 PM
Go back to the requirement that only property owners have the right to vote. This would eliminate many problems that we are currently facing with who gets elected.

By doing that, you'd be going against one of the foundational principles of the republic, which is consent of the governed.

One needn't own property to be governed.

No, sorry. If you're lawfully here in a permanent fashion, then you should have a say in how you're governed. Otherwise, you'll be setting up the very same situation against which the country's founders rebelled (one of their mantras was "no taxation without representation", but that's precisely what you'd have if only property owners were allowed to vote).

rp55
03-19-2010, 11:20 AM
Does anyone think they could come up with a better constitution then we have?

Actually yes I think we could. Look at the Swiss Constitution (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sz00000_.html). They learned from us and avoided some of the pitfalls we fell into because of vague wording (e.g. Interstate Commerce Clause).

Consider Article 9, "Every person has the right to be treated by the state organs without arbitrariness and in good faith." This rule is illimitable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illimitable). I like the word illimitable much better than the phrase "shall not be infringed." This rule covers their entire legal system. If we had it here CA would be de facto shall issue.

Then, for example, consider their Article 35, "Fundamental rights have to be effectuated ( that mean give "effective protection") throughout the entire legal system.". The is their equivalent of our 14th amendment and ensures that the Constitution's fundamental rights are binding on all levels of state authorities and are directly enforceable in the courts. No Slaughterhouse for the Swiss.

They also do a better job defining their citizenship, official languages and other issues than we do. Not that we should adopt is wholesale but perhaps someday, when the United States gets reorganized, we should look to the Swiss as an example.