Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, and more accurately it is statists that believe that .GOV as the ultimate authority and power, and not Rule of Law and the Natural Rights of the People.
Straw man. I honestly have never personally met anyone who believes this. I also however have no doubts whatsoever that you genuinely believe that people actually do feel this way. Almost half a century ago, Richard Hofstadter identified "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" that had infected and ultimately led to the defeat of the Goldwater wing of the Republican Party. In 1964 he described circumstances that with only tiny changes sound like they could ripped out of today's threads here at City-Data:
Quote:
Events since 1939 have given the contemporary right-wing paranoid a vast theatre for his imagination, full of rich and proliferating detail, replete with realistic cues and undeniable proofs of the validity of his suspicions. The theatre of action is now the entire world, and he can draw not only on the events of World War II, but also on those of the Korean War and the Cold War. Any historian of warfare knows it is in good part a comedy of errors and a museum of incompetence; but if for every error and every act of incompetence one can substitute an act of treason, many points of fascinating interpretation are open to the paranoid imagination. In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship, is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it has managed to survive at all.
The basic elements of contemporary right-wing thought can be reduced to three: First, there has been the now-familiar sustained conspiracy, running over more than a generation, and reaching its climax in Roosevelt’s New Deal, to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism. A great many right-wingers would agree with Frank Chodorov, the author of The Income Tax: The Root of All Evil, that this campaign began with the passage of the income-tax amendment to the Constitution in 1913.
The second contention is that top government officialdom has been so infiltrated by Communists that American policy, at least since the days leading up to Pearl Harbor, has been dominated by men who were shrewdly and consistently selling out American national interests.
Finally, the country is infused with a network of Communist agents, just as in the old days it was infiltrated by Jesuit agents, so that the whole apparatus of education, religion, the press, and the mass media is engaged in a common effort to paralyze the resistance of loyal Americans.
Does any of that sound familiar? Of course it does. Even though nothing the right-wing paranoids believed in 1964 turned out ultimately to be true, and Communism as a meaningful political idea collapsed in ruins less that 30 years later... the right wing paranoid does not learn from previous failure.
The megaphone of the Internet has changed the political dynamic somewhat. What would have been a loose network of conspiracist "nutjobs" thirty years ago can now coalesce into a intense community fueled and fed back by an exclusive echo chamber in which opposing viewpoints are only heard when they serve to be attacked and mocked. This is where the tea party comes from. This is where Truthers, and Birthers, and Chemtrailers come from.
This is what we are seeing in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biz901
Moreover, statist politicos make up rights as they go, which are to be controlled by the .GOV of course - The interpret all Rights as .GOV conferred privileges:
Okay... so, your original concerns seemed to be that ".GOV" was taking your rights away. Suddenly you are asserting that ".GOV" is making up new rights... which consistency should have led you to embrace and celebrate. Which is it? Are rights an individual prerogative or a statist plot?
I think something really fundamental that people often forget (and the fact that they do forget is a sad testament to how far we've strayed from this notion) is that the governent is, ostensibly, supposed to be us. Remember: by, of and for The People.
I am not saying that the gov't in this country actually functions that way, and it has grown less inclined to do so all the time since its inception. There's a pervasive "Citizens v Government" feeling, some of it not unearned.
Frankly, neither party is doing "The Will of The People."
This country, at the national level, is bought and sold and run by multinational CEOs, heads of global banks and energy concerns, and wealthy and powerful lobbying groups. It's them that runs things.
Long before there there was a USofA (created by the Declaration of Independence & American Revolution), and long before there was a US Constitution, Natural Rights existed and it was the legal reason and justification that the Sons of Liberty revolted against King and Parliament.
The Declaration of Independence is a dividing line in history between monarch ruled feudalism, and other assorted types of tyrannical regimes and democratic/populist reform and the creation of nation states thereof.
When James Otis and Samuel Adams organized the Boston Caucus in response to the Stamp Act and Writs of Assistance in 1765, Otis was the firebrand that lit the fuse of the Revolution when he publicly declared that King George and Parliament has violated the People's Natural Rights - specifically the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property - Otis did this on several occasions at Boston Town Meetings, the Massachusetts House of Representatives, the Stamp Act Congress in New York City, et al.
THIS was the rallying cry of the revolt.
If people weren't so ignorant in this country, they would realize that the current regime in the USofA in no way reflects the vision of the Founding Fathers and the common man that fought against the most powerful nation on the planet, to be free and live without their Natural Rights being trampled.
Jefferson was NOT the Founding Father that first quoted Locke and stirred the Colonies to revolt, nor was he even present at the time.
With that said, I realize I am an anachronism speaking to modern Amerika, espousing out-of-date concepts, but it is the historical record and I feel it should be presented (even if it is of -0- import).
I guess this entire endeavor is nothing but a complete waste of time...
As far as I have noticed, I am the only one that has specifically mentioned a time period here, specifically the status of Emergency Powers since 1933, did I miss some theoretical you discussed?
You missed that those Emergency Powers were ended in 1976. They lasted for 43 years, and they ended 38 years ago.
Long before there there was a USofA (created by the Declaration of Independence & American Revolution), and long before there was a US Constitution, Natural Rights existed and it was the legal reason and justification that the Sons of Liberty revolted against King and Parliament.
Natural rights would hardly be the first or only figment of the imagination that people have fought and died for.
The Bill of Rights does not grant, but recognizes and guarantees some, but not all, G-d given Rights that inhere in all human beings.
You are correct, sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
You are correct. It's just some people that want permission slips from the government stating what they can and cannot do.
Which of these rights is granted by god?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And where will I find these god given rights in any religious text of your choosing.
There is no such thing as an inherent right (you can say there is, but it doesn't mean much beyond sounding inspirational).
After all, an amendment could get rid of any and all of our rights.
Also, the bill of rights originally applied only to the federal government, and not state governments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
