This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog

Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document.  So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it.  It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!

There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture:  A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general.  A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view.  And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves.  As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations.  The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death.  It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…

However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame.  Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud.  Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.

The brutal ignorance on display in mainstream circles against the liberty-minded needs to be addressed.  In my view, the American public is being conditioned to see us as a convenient “enemy” which they can use to project all their internal grief and woe.  Our country is on the verge of collapse, economically, politically, and philosophically.  Corporatized elements of our government and the financial high priests of the international banking sector are behind this calamity, and of course, they don’t plan to take responsibility.  Who better to demonize as the catalyst for all the pain that is coming than the only people who have the awareness and the means to stand against the catastrophe?    

There is no doubt in my mind that a great conflict is near, between those of us who value liberty and constitutional protections, and those who would destroy them.  This battle is unlikely to be solved with words.  The anti-constitutionalist rhetoric is becoming so ruthless, so malicious, that it can only lead to a hardening of our own hearts, and an equally forceful response.

Most of us have seen all the mainstream magazines with front page headlines calling for the retirement of the Constitution.  Most of us know about the suggestions by media entities and political opportunists (including Joe Biden) for Barack Obama to bypass congress and the Constitution, implementing possible gun restriction, registration, and confiscation through “executive order” like a common dictator.  There is an obviously brash and violent effort amongst political players today to mold our government into a godlike entity.  But, this is not what concerns me most.  What concerns me is the subversive boiling poison that is leaking into our culture at the local level, creating freedom hating zombies.  Take, for instance, the anti-constitutionalist crusade by a New Hampshire representative against the New Hampshire Free State Project:


What causes someone to hate freedom-loving people so much that they would destroy their own liberties just to drive us away?  Is this not cutting off their own nose just to spite OUR face?  Or, do they even see the loss of freedom for themselves as a bad thing?

And how about Marine Corporal Joshua Boston, who after sending a letter to Dianne Feinstein stating he would not comply with unconstitutional gun restrictions, is now receiving death threats because of his membership in the NRA:

What is the source of the hatred towards constitutionalists?  Where does it originate?  Here are just some of the personal triggers and methodologies within the mind of the anti-freedom advocate which I believe have sullied them beyond repair…

The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex

I have found in my role as a Liberty Movement analyst and through literally tens of thousands of debates that anti-constitution advocates are, for the most part, of limited intelligence.  These are the average useful idiots who know little of history, politics, economics, etc., but feel the desperate need to appear as though they are experts on everything.  This usually results in constant attempts to show off for anyone who will pay attention, usually with sound-bites they heard on the nightly news coupled with remedial attacks against the character of those who dare to step outside the mainstream. 

The problem is that deep down, they know they are not very bright.  And so, they seek to always travel with the herd on every issue, for if they cannot be smart, they can at least be accepted.  Ironically, if constitutionalism was being pushed by the mainstream, they would automatically change their tune. 

It is probable that they have run into a Liberty Movement proponent (most of whom are well versed in history, politics, and economics) at least once in their lives, went in for an attack, and were utterly destroyed.  Their inferiority exposed, they learn to detest anything associated with constitutionalism.         

The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage

Not all anti-constitutionalists are dense.  A limited few are very intelligent, but morally bankrupt.  The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is also an emotional and spiritual document.  If one does not have a relationship with his own conscience and the concept of natural law, then he will discover little in the founding ideals of America that he agrees with.  Some people (usually corrupt politicians and judges) see the law as a weapon to be used against their ideological opponents, whereas constitutionalists see the law as a shield to protect us from such despots.  The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are both designed to protect our Absolute Freedoms.  That is, freedoms that are inborn and which no person or government is qualified to give as a gift, or take as if they are a privilege.

Nothing angers those who seek power more than a legal framework which they are not allowed to touch, or shift, or “tweak” to suit their private ambitions.      

Constitutional protections are not meant to be subject to the “buts” and “what ifs” common in the lesser legal world.  They are not open to debate.  Our rights are not subject to the demands of the so-called “majority”.  Our rights are eternal, and unchangeable.  Anti-constitutionalists attempt to work around the absolutes of the document by implementing subversive law backed by flawed logic.  But, a law which destroys previous constitutional rights is not a law which any individual American is required to follow.  Even an amendment that undermines our civil liberties is not legally binding.  The freedoms put forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are SET IN STONE (and this includes the right to bear arms in common use of the military of our day).  They cannot be undone without destroying the very fabric of the republic.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All

Some people are predisposed to be followers.  They do not want to take responsibility for their futures or even their own actions.  They do not like questions.  They do not like dilemmas.  They want to be left to wallow in their own private prisons, where they are comfortably enslaved.

I remember participating in an End The Fed rally in Pittsburgh in early 2008 which was, like most activist rallies, meant to expose the uneducated public to ideas they may not have heard before.  I found it interesting that around a quarter of the people who strolled by our picket line automatically sneered, as if by reflex, even though they had probably never heard our position, or even heard of the Fed.  It dawned on me that they were not angered by our political or economic views.  Instead they were angered by the mere fact that we were there.  We were vocal, and defiant, and a disruption to their daily robot-like routine.  They hated us because we were ruining their fantasy of disconnectedness. 

Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists.  We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales.  We do not seek to roll with the tide just for the sake of finding our “place” within the machine.  We do not care about “fitting in” with the mainstream.  This is often confounding and infuriating to those who have labored their whole lives to please “the group”.  They accuse us of being “isolationists” in response.  What they do not comprehend is that illusion and delusion have isolated THEM, while the truth has brought constitutionalists together. 

Constitutionalists Are Not Politically Correct

For the past few decades our society has become engrossed with the idea of “proper language and behavior”.  Of course, their idea of “proper” usually involves ignoring the reality of a thing.  For a Constitutionalist, a spade is a spade, and we tend to call it like we see it.  We don’t bother ourselves with superficial niceties that get in the way of legitimate debate or legitimate change.  We are not “pleasant” and tolerant with those who would kill our freedoms.   We do not pull punches.

We are direct, and sometimes, brutal in our analysis. 

In some parts of the Western world (especially the UK) language has become a game, a game of self censorship and deceit.  This game has made its way to the United States in recent years, and Constitutionalists don’t play.  We know that every overtly collectivist society begins with the fear of open expression.  And so, our blunt honesty rattles those invested in the PC culture.  Their ultimate and ideal revenge would be to see us painted as social malcontents; like people who smoke in public, or wear a mullet…

Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs

A large percentage of men and women in this world have never been truly passionate about anything.  They simply eat, breath, and defecate their way through life, scrounging about the squalor of a broken system for whatever brief moments of comfort they can find.  They have never explored their inner workings or suffered the hardship of individuation.  They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose.  Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them.  Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow.  They have never loved an idea, or a principle.

Constitutionalists LOVE liberty and the mechanics of freedom.  We love the values of a sovereign republic and the opportunities that such a system provides when collectivists are removed from the picture.  There is no question or doubt in our minds; we would fight and die to protect the pillars of the Constitution. 

When confronted with this kind of passion, the average person is shocked and sometimes appalled.  The idea of unshakable will is frightening to them.  They are so used to compromising in every aspect of their lives that when they run into an uncompromising man, they reel in horror. 

That which they see as “fanaticism” is instead an excitement, a boundless joy, a fervent desire to protect something universal and precious.  What they see as “extreme”, we see as essential.

The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us

Most people who seek to deny and destroy constitutional liberties tend to lean towards a collectivist philosophy.  They are usually socialist, or a variation (Marxist, Fascist), and can be professed members of either major political party.  They believe that their vision of a perfect cultural system is the “correct” vision.  They see the Constitution as “archaic” or “outdated”.  They see it as nothing more than an obstacle to progress which must be toppled.

The “perfect world” that the collectivist strives for functions on centralization: the removal of options until there are no choices left for the common man except those which the collectivist wants him to have.  This world usually suffers from limited free speech, limited civic participation, zero tolerance for dissent, near zero privacy from government eyes, a completely disarmed populous, unaccountable leadership, and the encouragement of informer networks and betrayal for profit.  The goal is to intimidate the whole of a nation into dependence on the system, until every necessity from food to self defense is parceled out by the state.  

Collectivists understand one thing very clearly; an America without the Constitution is destined to become a centralized country. 

They will, of course, claim this is a gross exaggeration.  They will claim that this time will be different.  That the collectivist experiments of the past, which produced nothing but destruction and genocide of their own populations, are nothing similar to what they are espousing.  They will pretend as if their vision is new, progressive, and far more practical than the vision of the Founding Fathers.   In the end though, all they are promoting is a system as old as history; the feudal kingdom.  The mercantile oligarchy.  The militarized state.

At the height of their vicious sabotage of the republic, they will demonize our very heritage, claiming that it was a sham.  That we were never able to “live up to our beliefs anyway”.  That we are “hypocrites”, and this somehow negates the reverence we give to the Constitution.  Unfortunately for them, we know better.  We understand that the principles of the Constitution are not something we grasp at all times, but rather, something to which we aspire to, and grow into as our nation matures.  They require patience, and wisdom.  They force us to question our own “brilliance”, and our own egos.  They anchor us, preventing us from being swept away in the storms of fear.

There has never been and there will never be a better method of law and governance than that method which defends the individualism and freedom of the people.  The most fantastic of human accomplishments, in technology as well as in philosophy, spring from the nurturing waters of liberty.  Free minds and hearts create.  They refuse to be contained, and the Constitution gives us license to ensure that they will never be contained, even to the point of revolution. 

To deny constitutionalism, is to endorse oppression.  May we forever rebel against the agents of “progress”.  May we forever give them something to hate.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:23 | 3141570 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

To answer that, in part, understand "The Socialist Phenomenon", by Igor Shafarevich:

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:34 | 3141619 mikla
mikla's picture

It is very tempting to abdicate all personal responsibility, and to want to blame someone else when you find that your supper dish is empty (or not as full as you would like).

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:37 | 3141642 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

The anti-constitutionalists are on the side of the occupational government in Vichy DC.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:54 | 3141720 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Not sure where it originated, but I got my first taste of it in High School Civics Class.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:57 | 3141738 fourchan
fourchan's picture

out standing disection of the rot that is the socialist mind.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:43 | 3142287 I am more equal...
I am more equal than others's picture

It comes from Blazing Saddles....

'badges? badges?, we dont need no stinkin badges'

Contempt for authority instilled by humor. 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:46 | 3142298 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The line is from "Treasure of the Sierra Madre"....

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:33 | 3143030 Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

Does the constitution protect whites only?

I couldn't actually blame a black, or mehican, or muzzie for thinking the constitution was unimportant if not a joke because it never protected their rights.  How do you, as a high school civics teacher, stand in front of a racially mixed audience with a straight face and sing the virtues of the constitution or the (slave-owning) founders?

Maybe if you constitutionalists want to expand the range of support for the constitution, you should make some effort to make sure the constitution works for more people regardless of their wealth, race, or religion.  That might work better than just continuously insulting your fellow citizens.  Make a donation to the ACLU.  (Did I hear gagging?)

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 22:30 | 3143206 perchprism
perchprism's picture

Hey, cocksucking faggot Marxist, the Constitution never said anything about slavery, and "mehicans" are not Americans.


Blow me now.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 22:51 | 3143248 Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

Oh gosh, I stand corrected.  By the way, I think you have major issues with your sexuality.  Is that you, Larry Craig?

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 01:21 | 3143467 Karlus
Karlus's picture

A common tactic of a marxist is to make it about race. No one mentioned race until you did.

Its about freedom, child. The founders in this country freed themselves from ownership from a monarch. A remarkable event.

Washington could have been the American king, but instead with others framed a government that protected freedoms.

You and your kind would seek to ruin that for my children and their's. While I will protect your freedom of speech, i will also eliminate your ability to threaten that freedom. Read into that any way you want.

My brothers and I have no desire to return to servitude, be it Obama or any man.

Arm up and be ready....we are

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 03:06 | 3143549 Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

A common tactic of idiots is to attack a straw man and dodge the actual argument.  I am not a Marxist.  Nothing I wrote is remotely Marxist.  It was just common sense.  One reason the constitution gets no particular enthusiasm from large (brown) sections of the population is that they never fully enjoyed its protections or freedoms.  The ACLU represents an alternate strategy to defend the constitution by making it work for everyone equally.  I am guessing you hate that.  I am guessing you hate most of the American people, because in your own closed mind you have labeled them takers, Marxists, etc. never mind the reality.  Do you really think you are doing any favor to the constitution?  I think people like you, spouting labels and death threats, are a dead albatross hanging on the constitution.

It tells a lot about the evolution of the ZH audience that my reasonable and insult-free post was heavily voted down, and the closet-gay troll with personality still stuck in junior high school was heavily voted up.  Says a lot about the "Freedom" movement too.  (I wouldn't be surprised if the troll was truly a troll, posting juvenile bullshit to discredit "constitutionalists", but still he's heavily voted up.)


Fri, 01/11/2013 - 12:20 | 3144366 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Dumbass. How does the Constitution work against minorities?    Does the Constitution need to directly address specific minority groups by name for them to see its value?  If so, fuck 'em.   That is an education problem.  That is caused by propaganda and propaganda alone.   It is a self-defeating philosophy.   If you truly believe this, you are incredibly foolish.

Sun, 01/13/2013 - 04:01 | 3148463 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

I think the ACLU, like many progressive NGOs, work towards the opposite of what the name of their organization implies.

I don't think the ACLU is behind the 2nd Amendment.  I don't think the ACLU is interested in fighting tax slavery.  I think the ACLU is about social justice (code word for socialism).  They hate religion.  I don't think we should be so hung up on religion, as a people.  

What about the MERS/robosigning scandal?  They could have helped millions of people with a few lawsuits in California, New York and Illinois.  Instead, they ignore it. By undermining the sham of austerity, they could of liberated so many people from paying down notes and kept their homes.

Instead they help perpetuate the status quo, importance of government over rights, and support social justice schemes. 

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 02:34 | 3143522 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The above might just be the single greatest non-seqitur and followup I have ever seen...

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 11:33 | 3144207 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Both, actually.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 12:16 | 3144346 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And where do you think the inspiration for BzSd came from????

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 08:54 | 3143759 WarriorClass
WarriorClass's picture

Public schools are prisons for kids where bullies get away with anything and victims are punished, classrooms are turned into laboratories of compulsory leftist social engineering, the more kids hated it—some to the point of homicide.

Abolishing the public-education system has no downside. A few million obese, incompetent, corrupt, vicious teachers and parasitical bureaucrats will finally be fired.

In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower.

But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

The immortal PJ O’Rourke once declared: “Anybody who doesn’t know what’s wrong with America’s educational system never screwed an el-ed major.”

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:43 | 3141669 F. Bastiat
F. Bastiat's picture

It's certainly easier to plunder when it's less burdensome than working. Until plunder is more burdensome than work, expect it to continue.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:52 | 3141714 negative rates
negative rates's picture

That was some story, thanks.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:35 | 3141634 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

True story:

I have a website dedicated to calling a Constitutional Convention by the legislatures of the states.  I figure 50 Governors can accomplish more before lunch than CONgress can in a year.

Anyway, one of the first troll strikes I get is: "You all should be tried and shot for Treason"

At least he allowed for trial first -- lol.  You can't make this shit up.  People exercising their first amendment rights in support of an article of the Constitution are now considered treasonous by the unwashed masses.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:52 | 3141686 mikla
mikla's picture

The issue would relate to, "who decides the constitution?"

For example, if a few statists merely decide that the government can do whatever it wants, some may see it as an illegitimate "seizing" of the nation.  We had rules, and then your convention changed the rules illegitimately.

A response could be, "but we agreed the rules could be changed" (e.g., we could have a "Constitutional Convention").

The response would be that your "convention" is invalid because you're assuming government can seize authority that fundamentally cannot be seized:  The US is purported to be a nation where the "tyranny of the majority" (e.g., "Mob Rule") is held-in-check.

If your convention is merely to establish "Mob Rule", then it is both illegitimate, and against the current rules, regardless of whether you think you followed the correct process.  The Constitution is merely a written recognition of what was understood:  That people are not required to abide by tyranny, no matter what the rule makers think of themselves.

It might be nice to attempt to "revert" to an earlier version of the Constitution, before people got all the free stuff, and before individuals lost all sovereignty.  However, we now have "mob rule", and it is unlikely any "convention" would result in anything positive.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:56 | 3141731 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

If you can't even win the WH and control of the Senate, how would you expect to keep a Constitutional Convention on the right track?  

We would end up with something like the old Soviet Constitution, with all sorts of rights and no practical chance to exercise them.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:59 | 3141744 mikla
mikla's picture

Agreed.  A "convention" would likely result in the complete oppression of the individual.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:15 | 3141826 seek
seek's picture

Yes. A convention isn't transparent at all. If we need changes, the normal amendment processor via the states is fine, and far more transparent. With a convention we could lose the entire bill of rights literally overnight.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 23:27 | 3143323 August
August's picture

What the US government needs is an asteroid strike.

Ask Paul Krugman, he'll tell you.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:34 | 3141930 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Unless I have grown daft,38 states could call a Con Con, and elect their OWN delegates.

And 38 Red States could Amend the Const and change all the powers delegated to the Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS.

And it would be a done deal, and there is nothing that could be done by ANY branch to overturn them.

Am I goofy, or has my history of old slipped due to age?.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:10 | 3142404 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You could be goofy and old, just like me.  But, having a successful Convention and making the changes that would be appropriate would be just more paper hanging.  TPTB don't abide by the laws we already have -- why would a few more laws or Constitutional changes make any difference?  The only good thing I could see coming from a Convention would be the further division of the various and sordid factions which already exist.  And I'm not saying that's a bad thing!  Whatever brings this thing to its explosive conclusion could be a good result.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 19:22 | 3142633 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Unfortunately (for us) I think Rockys right on this.

The answer is not more laws or amendments. No one (well, very few anymore) respect the law and what its supposed to stand for or do...from CEO to welfare brood mare...we are surrounded by thieves. 

You cannot convict or even have a reasonable investigation or discussion of criminal activity when the crimes were & are sanctioned by THE LAW in the first place.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 01:25 | 3143470 Karlus
Karlus's picture

There are remedies that exisit outside and above that "law."

Government should work for us and fear us....not the other way around.

Sun, 01/13/2013 - 04:07 | 3148468 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

Too many Red politicians are really progressives.  It's Welfare or Warfare.  They're called Neo-Cons and they love a strong Presidency when the President is a Republican.

There is no hope for a real positive change towards liberty.  I was skimming Jefferson Mack, linked from another post in ZH. I'm reposting so click here if you want to read it.

If Government feared us, would we be on this site?  Sometimes I think there's ten of us and 4 are Cass Sunstein-employed trolls.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 06:18 | 3143649 Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

And that's the name of that tune

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 22:07 | 3143147 dirtbagger
dirtbagger's picture

And us that live in the Donor states can quit subsidizing the Red states and with drink in hand watch them go bankrupt.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 22:33 | 3143213 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The so-called donor states will starve to death thinking they are rich.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 22:43 | 3143226 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Agree with all you folks that see a great change of some kind is needed.  What about succession? It could be easily argued that what we have in DC is completely and utterly corrupt. No solution will come from there, only more problems. You don't 'pour new wine into old wineskins.' 

Sun, 01/13/2013 - 04:10 | 3148471 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

I agree with change being needed.  

I disagree that anyone will do anything about it.

I'm beginning to think the stories of the Founding Fathers are complete and utter propaganda.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:11 | 3142129 DaddyO
DaddyO's picture


When we quit trying to rationalize the legislation of morality and realize we have already been given the framework for a civil, free and liberty minded society, all that will be required for revival is revolution of the mind.

Unfortunately, the education system, local and state governments and the federal government have been co-opted by the anti-constitutioalists and they're not going to give it back without a fist fight!!


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:07 | 3141786 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

Thoughtful response and quite true in some respects.

I think that a couple things need clarity.  For one, the amendment process in Article 5 as it pertains to the states I think was put there to do exactly the opposite of what you say.  It wasn't put there as a back door entry to 'mob rule' nor is that how I would envision it being used.  To the contrary, I think it was put there as a protective measure that the states would not be streamrolled by a tyrannical and out of control federal government.  This was the serious concern of the day with respect to ratification (Jefferson and Madison in particular but also Frankin and others).  

My hope would be that the states could reclaim SOME of their power, neuter the federal government's (in some areas), perhaps clarify that the Bill of Rights are just that RIGHTS (and not subject to judicial interpretation), etc.  If nothing else, the states could at least band together and end the absurd practice of unfunded federal mandates.

I actually had the occasion to discuss this with G Gordon Liddy once back in my Hill days... he thought the idea was brilliant and scary at the same time.

I see your point that it COULD be dangerous and I am not deluded enough to believe that it could happen easily.  It will be interesting to see who fights it the hardest... Any guesses?

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:41 | 3141883 mikla
mikla's picture

I hear the "pro-Federalist" and "anti-Federalist" consider the Constitutional Convention as a way to achieve his goal.  Unfortunately, IMHO it can only possibly result in a disempowering of the individual (and the States).

<snip, Article 5>, I think it was put there as a protective measure that the states would not be streamrolled by a tyrannical and out of control federal government. <snip>, 

My hope would be that the states could reclaim SOME of their power, neuter the federal government's (in some areas), perhaps clarify that the Bill of Rights are just that RIGHTS (and not subject to judicial interpretation), etc.  If nothing else, the states could at least band together and end the absurd practice of unfunded federal mandates.

IMHO, that can't happen.

First, the States already have that authority and power.  They don't acknowledge it now, and won't at the convention.  Rather, they would explicitly abdicate their responsibilities.

Second, the Bill of Rights exists, with established understanding of he "limited powers" of the Federal Government.  What you *want*, already *exists*.  The only thing that can happen is the weaking of individual and State powers (expansion of Federal power).  This is because the Federal government is already way-out-of-bounds regarding its authority, but would *love* to claim new explicit authority.

Third, the States will not, and cannot "band together".  The current system is that the Federal Government prints money to "buy-off" the States.  Because the States cannot print money, they are willing participants of this "free largesse" that they could not get through any other means.

In short:  The Nation was founded by Great Men and inherited by Less Great Men that do not understand their role (and I don't think they care), and use their position to usurp for personal gain.  (They have been, "bought-off".)

I see your point that it COULD be dangerous and I am not deluded enough to believe that it could happen easily.  It will be interesting to see who fights it the hardest... Any guesses?

Yes.  It would be mob-rule, and they will be mystified when after, "following the process" a great number of "citizens" will cry "foul" and deny legitimacy to the results.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:08 | 3142108 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

I get it now... it's not so much that you think it can't be done... it's that you have become cynical beyond repair.  I am right there with you... but thinking that the states could rise up and re-affirm their power allows me to sleep at night.  Thanks for leading me back to drinking :-)

Seriously, unless I am misreading Article V, the state legislatures have to authoirize the Con Con.  I think that fact alone would keep it from becomming mob rule.  I think it would be limited to 3-4 key provisions only.  Just MHO. Bottom line, it's never been done so there would be legal challenges regarding the process to be sure.

Also, from a romantic point of view, it seems somehow poetic that the bankster fuckshites would have to buy off the legislatures of all 50 states to keep their asses out of the line of fire.  No doubt they would do it but it would cause them some serious chafing...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:24 | 3142186 mikla
mikla's picture


I'm merely describing how the system works.  I am quite positive (look forward with optimism) regarding the future.  However, we are experiencing a "step-function" change, and that is uncomfortable.

I get it now... it's not so much that you think it can't be done... it's that you have become cynical beyond repair.  I am right there with you... but thinking that the states could rise up and re-affirm their power allows me to sleep at night.  Thanks for leading me back to drinking :-)

The states *can* rise up.  However, the Convention will give them "zero" ammunition.  They only need to find their balls.  Or, absent that, the checks will stop coming from the Feds, and the States will, "do the right thing" for their people because they will be forced to do so (e.g., manage the pragmatic aspects of what their citizens need after failure in Fed-printing).

Seriously, unless I am misreading Article V, the state legislatures have to authoirize the Con Con.  I think that fact alone would keep it from becomming mob rule.  I think it would be limited to 3-4 key provisions only.  Just MHO. Bottom line, it's never been done so there would be legal challenges regarding the process to be sure.

The state legislatures will rubber-stamp the Feds until the Feds stop sending checks.  (The states are "bought off".)  This is how the system works today, and why all government officials willingly perpetrate the fraud (illegal and unconstitutional behavior).

Also, from a romantic point of view, it seems somehow poetic that the bankster fuckshites would have to buy off the legislatures of all 50 states to keep their asses out of the line of fire.  No doubt they would do it but it would cause them some serious chafing...

They print money for free.  It will cost them nothing.  The more they print, the more power they have.  This exercise will make them stronger than ever.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 20:20 | 3142810 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

upvoting your above posts just doesn't satisfy my desire to thank you for them, mikla.

this exchange with BoNeSxxx has provoked a great face-to-face discussion over *here* at my place, and that's the real value in hanging out at the 'Hedge, getting people to talk about what is happening before our eyes. . .

best to you both!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:35 | 3142991 Dewey Cheatum Howe
Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

States are allowed to make gold and silver coins a tender in payments of debt. They just aren't allowed to print or issue their own paper currency.

Utah I think is the only state that has a law on the books allowing for gold and silver eagles among other coins issued by the mint to be used as a form of payment. My understanding is by doing this they treat them as U.S. dollars and as such are not subject to capitol gains taxes.

Frankly I only see this whole mess playing out in one of 2 ways. It is a race to the bottom with currency collapse as the hare and a masochistic populace as the turtle. We are going to find out just how masochistic the populace is before this whole thing plays out.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 19:10 | 3142602 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Have you noticed that the Constitution says nothing about how delegates to a Convention are selected? Read Article 5 carefully, and think how the enemy could twist the meaning.  For example, 2/3 state legislatures could call the Convention, yet nothing about the Convention delegates. You may say, "Well, they are appointed by the legislature obviously." Not so.  Maybe each constituency, 'the poor', SEIU, AFSCME, AFLCIO, etc send delegates. The Constitution is silent on this matter. 

Now read the part about ratification. By the Legislatures OR by conventions in the several States. Who are the delegates to State conventions? Again the Constitution is silent.  Do you want a state ratification convention run by the state Democrat Party machine?

To your point of limition to 3-4 provisions. Absolutely not. Once the convention is running they will propose any amendment they want. Because once the new constitution is ratified (by coordinated state conventions, not the legislatures) it is the law. The limits you wanted are declared invalid.

Do not think Article 5 will be interpreted the way you think it should. A Constitutional Convention is the worst idea imaginable. I say no, a thousand times NO! 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:34 | 3141929 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I'll agree with you, and up it a notch - MANY things need clarity at this stage.

My hope would be that the states could reclaim SOME of their power, neuter the federal government's (in some areas), perhaps clarify that the Bill of Rights are just that RIGHTS (and not subject to judicial interpretation), etc.

I like this as a baseline - clarify exactly what the Bill of RIGHTS is, who is included, who is excluded and why.  in fact that would be an excellent place to start for all the questionable rules and laws held over people.

as usual, Brandon's heavy on the lofty rhetoric, virtually every paragraph is loaded with "liberty, liberty-minded, Libertarians" all positioned against anyone who "isn't" - I'd like some baseline definitions of exactly what "liberty" is defined as, and who are these capital L Libertarians, what exactly do they stand for, and who is excluded from their ranks.  I've seen many different Libertarian groups, with differing rules, so I'd like to know who I'm dealing with.  I would hope others do too?

it's not enough to just nod to popular memes folks, everything is being questioned now - and that's HEALTHY in my opinion - hopefully those being questioned will step up with some answers, and in doing so, inspire a bit more confidence going forward.

words are not enough now.



Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:01 | 3142071 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

as someone who once thought that an A5 convention would be the eye through the needle, i understand from where you're coming.    however, upon really considering it in detail, there were a few points that made me believe otherwise:

1) all of the states are dependent on federal money for their survival as governmental entities, thus by calling for a convention in the hopes of limiting federal power, they would be biting the hand that fed them. 

2) Article V is extremely vague in its verbiage (intentionally so?) of how a convention can be called and, more importantly, the procedures by which it would go down if and when it were ever to be called (including the selection of delegates).   obviously, this vagueness is to the distinct advantage of those who hold the reins of power.

3) the state legislatures, by & large, are as corrupted and corruptible as the federal.

some thoughts to consider before putting all your eggs in one basket.


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:11 | 3142128 BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

+1 see above.  You read my mind.

Great discussion though I think.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:58 | 3142583 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

indeed, thanks for bringing it up.   too bad it's not being had in civics classes and rotary clubs across the land.  back to drinking ;~)

fyi, John Michael Greer wrote a piece of spec fiction on the end of the Empire that brings in A5 as a plot device.   it's pretty good reading.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:19 | 3142179 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

That where the second amendment fits in nicely.

Barring that, that's where citizen's ownership of guns fits in nicely.

Sun, 01/13/2013 - 04:19 | 3148479 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

I know it's not cool to say, but the 2A was meant to keep citizens armed so we'd have the means to kills soldiers (and several decades later, cops).  That's it.  It's designed for shooting agents of a government gone bad.  

Not turkeys. Not Indians. Not deer.  

Members of government who work to oppress us.  

But no one will fight.  Why fight alone?  Why die alone?  Why die with your friends like those kids did on the barricades in Paris?

No one cares.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:14 | 3142976 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

You start out with a nation, the finest nation ever conceived in human experience, and dedicated to the radical notion that mankind is capable of individual liberty, and indeed deserves it. Governments are either utilitarian servants or illegitimate tyrants. Surely if we are to make pretense to being more than beasts, or even a very special type of beast that can conform his conduct to and honorable existence, the nation bequeathed to us is irreplaceable, and we should perish rather than permit it to disappear. Indeed as stewards to the promise of government by the people, for the people and of the people we are obligated to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to preserve it to posterity. We have no other choice if we would call ourselves men. 

The vermin do not understand this, they are "moderns." They suppose that they accidentally "evolved" to equality of character and worth with absolutely no requirement for their own input. They insist that they are as good as anyone, though their moral worth is negative. They despise those who would be men because it exposes the bitter bargain they have made; to ape humanity in exchange for mindless degradation. They adopt the furious hatred of their father, Lucifer. In their nihilistic rage against their own degraded character, they will viciously attack anything that demonstrates their putrid state by comparison. They hate work, they hate productivity, they despise virtue, commitment, responsibility, wisdom, courage. They replace love with their vile sexual paractices and they devour themselves and everyone that comes into their reach. They. Are. Evil.  

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:37 | 3141645 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Correct.  I've noticed that many folks start to hate many things when the free shit stops coming.

Ever read the signs in the wilderness areas and national parks regarding why they don't want you to "Feed the animals"?

The stated reason is because "the animals will grow dependent on the handouts and will not be able to fend for themselves".  The animals also then have a "tendency to attack innocent people".

Think about it.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:18 | 3141840 trav777
trav777's picture

africa's population has quintupled in the last 30 years on the back of western food aid.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:22 | 3141860 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Food aid? No. It is a bargain of food against resources.

'Americans' transfer wealth. To speed up the transfer, they need a large population so that the aggregated demand is increased.

'American' nations are middle class societies that do not bear competition on their middle class consumption segment.

That is why a lot of poor people are required around to speed up the transfer.

'Americanism' at work: the current situation has to be the fault of someone's else.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:36 | 3141941 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

 "africa's population has quintupled in the last 30 years on the back of western food aid"


Western food aid is just an easy way to systematically take control of a continent populated with people... & Let's not forget "central banking" [you know ~ controlled by those 'Trekkies'] is a major part in allowing 'food aid' to occur in the first place... [Unless you think it's all those $1.25 monthly contributions from grandmas in Iowa to give poor flea bitten Hadji in the ditch a sandwich]...  

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:48 | 3141994 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Yes, 'wealth transfer'. I've heard it before. In fact, marxists have been complaining about it for oh...200 years. Which leads to the question: if it's only a matter of one bucket's content going to another, how much time remaining for the transfer to be done ? 200 years tells me the analysis is simply wrong.

Certainly there is pillaging from western countries in poorer ones, but that doesn't allow someone to conflate everything with this truth though...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:05 | 3142096 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Adam Smith spoke about wealth transfer. One cause he was a firm advocate for colonization.

Irrelevant though because as usual, it takes one 'american' to outdo an 'american'

So because after 236 running, there's still stuff to transfer, that has to be false.

That is what you call shooting for the stars.

In 236 years, 'Americans' have been consuming the planet like nobody else before (actually, nobody else is unworthy of comparison to 'americans') but it was not fast enough for that 'american''s liking.


The train is not heading fast enough for the cliff, 'americans' do not want depletion of resources for tomorrow, they want it now.


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:22 | 3142193 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Flatulence from the mouth of AnAnonymous:


The train is not heading fast enough for the cliff, 'americans' do not want depletion of resources for tomorrow, they want it now.


Have you finished my laundry yet? Chop chop, Chang - no cleanee, no payee.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:31 | 3142493 alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

Yes, because China and command control economies alike are a bright example of resource utilization. Enjoy paying for your polluted ghost cities mate. No matter how crazy the west seems to you, ghost cities surely are a Chinese inovation. +1 for the originality.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:21 | 3142994 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

I wonder how this one would define "resources?" His evident contempt for anyone who would consume these precious commodities reveals a shocking incoherent rage. Just what are these resources for if not to be consumed? Are they not consumed because these specific commodites offer something useful and valuable to the consumer? Why is that contemptible exactly? Who exactly is being defrauded if humanity uses up all the "resources?" Who or what is being denied what is rightfully theirs/its? 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:28 | 3142226 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous retched up this hairball:

Food aid? No. It is a bargain of food against resources.

Yes, the resources being consumed by the Chinese.

'Americanism' at work: the current situation has to be the fault of someone's else.

AnAnonymism at work: the current situation, and every misfortune and unpleasantry throughout history, has to be the fault of 'Americans'.

Such self constrained "thinking" is the result of the excremental illness and insanitation afflicting Chinese citizenism citizens.


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:23 | 3141863 Uber Vandal
Uber Vandal's picture

Sam Kinison (RIP) had this figured out 20 years ago....


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:16 | 3142158 Metal Minded
Metal Minded's picture
Greening the Desert II: Greening the Middle East

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:24 | 3143004 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

Humans are a clever bunch. Why should the collectivists so hate that truth? Why can't they be satisfied simply loathing themselves and their own wretchedness? Why must they export their misery to others?

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:57 | 3141952 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I shouldn't worry much trav, Erik da Prince is gonna take care of that problem for you, and "China" soon,


Erik Prince, the man who founded Blackwater, the private military contractor that became synonymous with mercenary excess during the Iraq war, has apparently begun a bold new business venture: He's going to be investing with a group of unnamed Chinese government-linked companies in resource extraction and infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa.


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:20 | 3141850 The Miser
The Miser's picture

Great Point.  One is in greater danger in Chicago with 505 murders in 2012.  You have a better chance in the wilderness. .

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:30 | 3141908 The Miser
The Miser's picture

If you keep and feed a aligator, tiger, boa or any large animal and if they grow large and you stop feeding them, you may be their next meal.  The "talkers" are growing in numbers.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:25 | 3141877 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The stated reason is because "the animals will grow dependent on the handouts and will not be able to fend for themselves". The animals also then have a "tendency to attack innocent people".

Think about it.

Best. Sure, next time, I cross path with a running dog, I will marvel at its inefficiency to provide for itself.
Experiments show a long time ago that domesticated animals are able to return wild life in a trice. Domestication is just a varnish,nothing more.

Best point being that they have a tendency to attack innocent people.
Best for this day, very likely.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:28 | 3141897 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

best to keep people in cage like animal, in line with chinese citizenism.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:45 | 3141981 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Ah, a valuable remark.

Chinese citizenism is fantasy brought in by 'americans' in order to escape the reality of 'americanism'

Basically, 'americans' on here are trapped in this fantasy and are unable to escape it.

They are indeed caged in it.

A bit of difference though: whatever happens, 'americans' are still human beings, not animals.
'Americans' have this big interest in denying human condition. Others? not so much.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:59 | 3142363 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Trapped, just like the folks in china.  None of this will end well.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 10:05 | 3143926 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

The reality of Chinese citizenism is a letter secreted in Halloween decorations begging for help..  How are those labor camps treating you?  Start criticizing your own government.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:31 | 3142239 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Best. Sure, next time, I cross path with a running dog, I will marvel at its...

...deliciousness after wokking it in umbilical cord broth and serving with a spicy ginger sauce.

Signed: AnAnonymous

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:51 | 3142563 Intoxicologist
Intoxicologist's picture


Dog is running because he doesn't want to be wokked!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:50 | 3141708 pupton
pupton's picture

Yeah, but those guys all owned slaves...  <sarc - eye roll>

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:17 | 3142427 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I just wish Constitutionalists were passionate about all the amendments.

Unfortunately they are usually only passionate about their guns and their right to talk about them. They also often like to hide in their houses and clean those guns.

If Constitutionalists would instead spend their time organizing and fighting for those other rights that are in danger or vanishing, like the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, then we might have more success in defending all those rights.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:23 | 3141576's picture

Don't hate me because im beautiful...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:36 | 3141640 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

They don't. They hate you because you are smart.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:57 | 3141737 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

They hate you for your freedoms too.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:24 | 3141584 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

The communists, statists and socialists absolutely HATE the constitution - and since they are all in control of the media they project the image through their broadcasts that there are far more of them than there are and that those who defend the constitution should be marginalized.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:32 | 3141915 DollarMenu
DollarMenu's picture

My experience at the Washington State Republican Convention was that mention of the words "Constitution", "Liberty", or "Freedom" from Tampa delegate candidates drew loud boos and hisses from the assembled Republicans.  You see, those words were interpreted as code for Ron Paul, and therefore verboten.

The hatred for the Constitution comes straight from the rotten core.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:50 | 3142014 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

Thus the junks.  Statists also HATE being called out too :)

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:25 | 3141590 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Heard on the radio :

Biden : If you don't register your guns, the government will confiscate them

They really want civil war uh??

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:35 | 3141637 Jonas Parker
Jonas Parker's picture

Come and get 'em, azzholes!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:45 | 3141681 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Restrictions of private firearm ownership and gun confiscation led to the killing of over 100 million people

An ultimate pro-gun debate point

The 'genocide chart', with nine 20th century government episodes of governments killing millions ...

The common element in each one, was government confiscating guns beforehand

Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Communist China, Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and most recently Rwanda in the 1990s

Specific laws to limit and confiscate privately-owned guns, documented in each case

From the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or JPFO, 'Death by Gun Control'

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:07 | 3142114 Blazed
Blazed's picture

Except the Weimar Republic was where the gun confiscation and laws were initiated for Germany. Hitler actually removed some restrictions, for ethnic Germans. But you can are absolutely correct about the Soviet Union, where Jewish led Bolsheviks started and dominated the revolution and creation of the USSR, and the disarmament of the Russians. Made it easy for the murder of millions and paved the way for their later starving of 10 million in the Holodomor.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 07:37 | 3143681 Random
Random's picture

But you can are absolutely correct about the Soviet Union, where Jewish led Bolsheviks started and dominated the revolution and creation of the USSR, and the disarmament of the Russians. Made it easy for the murder of millions and paved the way for their later starving of 10 million in the Holodomor.

Small amendment, the Bolsheviks were formed mostly of Jews and indeed did these despicable acts, but they were merely the executants of the plan (very zelous at that, sick motherfuckers) but the plan was devised and controlled by the Jesuits/Vatican.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:47 | 3141694 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

Did he really say that?

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:54 | 3141721 pupton
pupton's picture

Perhaps We, The People will come and confiscate YOUR guns, ya cocksuckers!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:27 | 3141888 The Miser
The Miser's picture

Biden said, "They'll put 'youall' in chains" in a different context.   

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:17 | 3142165 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

The craziness of that statement is summed up in one question. How will the Government know that you have them if they are NOT registered?


With the New York Newspaper publishing Gun Owner addresses with a map and the Government allowing it, COMPLICIT in it, it is evident that the Government cannot be trusted with your personal information. Now you may own unregistered firearms. But if you own just one registered firearm then the Government will know where to go to get the unregistered firearms.


Personally if I owned a gun I would consider selling it, transfering ownership into someone else's name who will register it, before it got STOLEN. 


Of course if it were STOLEN then I'd have to report that immediately to the authorities. 


But I do not have to concern myself with that as I do not own a gun to my name. I just do not suggest that anyone owns any guns to their name.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:59 | 3142364 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

States already pushing back?


For shiggles, look at the comments, specifically those about the cause of the civil war. Note the 'profession' of those in the minority(is that racist?).

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:26 | 3141593 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

it comes straight from the Zionist in Israel

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:37 | 3141646 e_goldstein
e_goldstein's picture

Where they all open carry?

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:42 | 3141654 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Here's what the "founders" thought


"I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews … I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves … Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."

~ Benjamin Franklin

“Fireams stand next in importance of the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

~ General Washington

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of the counties whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

~ James Madison

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

~ Thomas Jefferson

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." 

~ President James Madison


Here's what some others thought:

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying civilization."

~ Aristotle

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:03 | 3142085 Thisson
Thisson's picture

The Benjamin Franklin "quote" is a hoax.  Check snopes for details.  Anyone up-arrowing you is willfully ignorant.  Once again, you're undermining an otherwise valid point by inserting stupid, bigoted remarks.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:45 | 3142297 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

It should be noted that this is actually a dis-information tactic often used by an opposition in an environment of anonymity.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:01 | 3142370 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

SNOPES is run by a husband and wife team...

There is no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers... It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby...

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website in the mid 90's... They have no formal background or experience in investigative research...

They are Jewish...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:25 | 3142464 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

...again with the dog and pony show. 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:53 | 3142557 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Look 'coon...


If some motherfucker wants to SNOPES me with some dumb ass fucking comment about fact checking [whereby the founders of SNOPES are nothing more than a fucking Jew mom & Pop hobbyist husband & wife tag team from the fucking 'Valley'] ~ that's their problem... You're making it YOUR PROBLEM by even getting involved...

I thought it was only '2 to a fight' in FIGHT CLUB... I guess I'm wrong... Pile on at will...

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 00:12 | 3143398 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You really are a very smart guy; that's easy to see.  Why you let yourself get dragged around by your prejudices is beyond me.  I guess I must be the stupid one.   And BTW, attacking the messenger (argumentum ad hominem) is a fallacious argument in the case of Snopes.  I don't have any opinion on the folks at Snopes, but I find it ridiculous to dismiss information because the messenger is wearing funny clothes or has bad hair.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 05:30 | 3143625 SWIFT 760
SWIFT 760's picture

I knew I'd find my bro Francis on this topic. He's absolutley correct. The fucking kikenvermin jewshit have systematically destroyed the US Constitution. Extortion, murder, theft, bribery...on and on.

The jewshit prance around as democrat liberals using the cloak of antisemitism to silence anyone who speaks against their inhuman agendas.

jews have no home in America.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 08:02 | 3143701 Random
Random's picture

Please note that jews are new to the scene of history, as a powerful entity. Even at the apex of their power they were nothing compared to the adjacent empires (economically or financially, as military they were a joke all the time). The jews, as a whole, started to gain prominence in the second half of the 17th century and really bloomed in the 18th century, way too close to the U.S. founding date to be considered such a menace by the "founding fathers". Thus, we must look for the true power in other places (and must exclude for obvious reasons the FAR-East and the Americas). In this respect we must look to Greater Middle East, North of Africa and Europe. The greatest power in this respect is the Roman empire, that endured in one form or the other to this day (temporal or religious, or both). The great adversary is the Roman empire and there lies all the power in THIS world, the rest is smoke, mirrors and scapegoating.

A major shortcoming of the "truth" movement is the inability of seeing the big picture and the causal relationship between the various components of the MACHINE. Some focus on the "Illuminati", other to "Jews" etc but fail to see that Rome controls all of them, BY PROXY i.e.: Rome controls the Jesuits that control the "Knights of ...." that chartered the "Illuminati" that chartered the "Skull and bones - charter 322"; any secret society can be traced back to the Jesuits and thus to Rome!

Ever wondered why folks think of the Rothschilds as the richest of the rich but nobody question the wealth and power of the REALLY OLD money families (think Roman Republic/Empire/Various Italian City States)? Do you think that these families lost all their gold (and political power) in a tragic boating accident? And to whom do these families owe their fortune and power (and continuation of)? ROME!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:27 | 3141598 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

The hatred for the constitution comes from statists. They live in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington DC and NY.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:03 | 3141767 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Not Illinois.  Chicagah..., and Indonesia.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:28 | 3141601 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I don't get it. "Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists.  We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales..."???

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:45 | 3141682 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Good point...can't speak for the author but I think he maeant to say that "individuals have rights" not "individualists" since been definition an "individualist" would not allow a Government to grant him his freedom but only God or "his battle between his self and nature." (the Mountainman or Voyageur legend.) This is a real problem on the whole "ideological spectrum" because while the individualists are pontificating the Government is being robbed blind by those "other individualists" namely "the publicly traded Corporation" (so named an individual in spite of the fact it most definitely is not.) the irony on the flip side is those who believe in the "Collectivist Fable" who think "Socialism exists to help the greater good through Government intervention." Nay...veerily...this is clearly falsehood too as "Government solely exists to rob from everyone and give to the Plutocracy who then turn around and tell these same Government folks "thanks but we need more" which leads directly to "a big war somewhere" (in this case "Syria" - trademark copyright all rights reserved 2012-?) and, get the idea.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:01 | 3141759 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

yup, now I indeed get the idea, thx. So this guy is on the "left" side of outright anarchists and the "right" side of all "redistributionists"

here we would call him a national-conservative - it's mainly the libertarian "spin" to his conservative message that I find a bit foreign and confusing, we tend to have separate parties for the two

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:27 | 3141887 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

That 'american' author has crossed the border. Either he wants to write for Hollywood or he can no longer distinguish between reality and his fantasy.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:44 | 3142296 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Ah, ah, fantasy best thrives in native fantasy environment, that being AnAnonymism.

Hollywood interest not being in fantasy of weirdo Chinese citizenism citizen dishwasher. Self thriving AnAnonymous fantasy of Chinese citizenism too retardated even for Hollywood strange standards of bizarreness.

On other (dung) hand perhaps it gives interest in documentary based on this video clip of AnAnonymous:

Best.....and crustiest.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:48 | 3141993 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

it's an evolving meme Ghordius, and will need to be carefully unpacked for "agenda" - as it should be - people need to be asking questions amid all the shouting and chest-thumping, or they'll end up just playing yet another game of "follow the leader" - rinse, repeat.

post-election meltdown of "parties" means people are looking for a new "party" to align with. . . personally, I find this self-defeating, simply because running around looking for a group distracts from all that is being done behind the scenes now.

political parties are old-skool, IMO - the time would be better spent finding community that you have a common language (defined terms) with and can trust going forward. . . the "political" is a dead end.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:08 | 3142106 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

personally, I find this self-defeating, simply because running around looking for a group distracts from all that is being done behind the scenes now.

How so? The group is all for 'americans'

That behaviour is nothing like self defeating in 'americanism'. It is salvation.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:48 | 3142307 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

How so? The poop is all for Chinese citizenism citizens.

That behaviour is nothing like self excreting in 'AnAnonymism'. It is communautist roadside salivation.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:49 | 3142316 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

maybe it would assist your arguments to define "americanism" for the thread(s) - as most of my posts are calling for.

for what it's worth, I have my own interpretation of your "americanism" meme, and at times I am sympathetic to your points - but obviously, you are raising hackles with many who identify themselves with the word/idea, as they define it.

so, as to your opinion above, yes, "americans" are group'd in their thinking, as are ALL peoples who choose to identify with their nation-state-fictions.  ALL peoples who make the decision to align with State against individuals, are choosing to identify themselves as part of a group.

in my opinion.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:34 | 3142505 Intoxicologist
Intoxicologist's picture

No offense, CA, but you're wasting your "breath."

"Never try and teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and annoys the pig."

Please don't feed the animals....errr, trolls.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:50 | 3142536 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well, I've been referred to as a "troll" here too, so I take the labels applied with a handful of salt.

AnAny's posts often collect a number of upvotes, so I'm guessing a few here do read "his" posts - since "he" decided to reply to mine, thought I'd make a point re: definitions.

as to feedin' times, this zoo regularly feeds AnAny's posts, the trough is overflowing, heh. . .

(no offense ever taken when engaged in dia-logue sir)

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 19:01 | 3142591 Intoxicologist
Intoxicologist's picture

I get what you're saying, but his replies to anybody are simply volleys back at'cha with more "american citizenism" table pounding and are not dia-logue in the least.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 20:26 | 3142826 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I agree, this round is a loss.

but there have been others - I don't think it's a single person there, and sometimes the replies are more nuanced - but yes, I do get your point, there is enough thread clutter to scroll by as it is.


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:48 | 3142306 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Any rights the collective has come from the natural rights of the individual, not the other way around; you can have droplets of water without an ocean, but not an ocean without droplets of water.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:01 | 3142369 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, nice thought, but completely naive... Our freedoms and liberties arise from a mutally agreed upon social compact. The lesson from History is very obvious in this regard...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:42 | 3142531 falak pema
falak pema's picture

social compact sounds like Max Factored; social contract sounds like nailed in place like by William Tell tale. 

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 10:29 | 3144003 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Ha, is that the social compact that allows you to control me to satiate your gaia warming fantasies? If your not in Europe move as you cannot make me live outside my GOD bestowed rights, I will slam your social compact in your statist piehole. Example whether you or others think I should own a modern sporter rifle is immaterial to my rights.  Is that the history where Pol Pot and his followers thought folks with glasses should die?  Nice social compact you got there, shame if something were to happen to it..

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 12:15 | 3144338 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So you argue that liberty is only achieved only via the barrel of a gun or some other weapon....

I can accept interpretation as it is consistent with my thesis.... There ain't no such thing as a god given inalienable right....

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:29 | 3141605 lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

well,  you know what they say:   if you don't like it here ...... LEAVE !

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:01 | 3141758 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

You will, of course, have to make sure all of your taxes are paid to the satisfaction of the IRS, and then you will have to find a country that will take you, move there, and make an appointment at the local US Consulate there and pay $450 for the privilege of renouncing your citizenship.  Take a book ... it's too funny to watch all the iToy junkies twitching because they didn't believe they couldn't take their fav iToy into the consulate.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:45 | 3141982 Doña K
Doña K's picture

No need to do any of these. The law is clear. Once you accept another country's citizenship, you lose the American one. The only exeption being if the other country granted you citizenship due to paternal/maternal rights.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 21:44 | 3143071 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

Like Obama did when he becamse a citizen of Indonesia? Gee, when did he repatriate? 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:41 | 3141955 jamezelle
jamezelle's picture

So, I guess we should have told that to the women suffrage and civil rights movements? If yo dont like it just leave? 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:37 | 3142512 Intoxicologist
Intoxicologist's picture

At the risk of being presumptuous, I think lynnybee forgot her sarc tag.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:31 | 3141609 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Weak minded people who cannot/will not take care of themselves. I want one thing from government-leave me the fuck alone

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:40 | 3141657's picture

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." -- Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:51 | 3141699 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Brandeis ~


Oh, you mean the dude who "became active in the Zionist movement, seeing it as a solution to antisemitism in Europe and Russia, while at the same time being a way to "revive the Jewish spirit."?...

The dude who "arm-twisted" his way to his nomination because his 'HANDLERS' had Woodrow Wilson over a barrel based on a "sex affair" back at the old Princeton crib?...

The "United Nations" (Agenda 21) Brandeis?...

That dude?

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:56 | 3141712's picture

Yeah, that dude. And because that dude spoke out in favor of the right to be left alone by the government that becomes a jooright in your opinion and is to be attacked. Only gentiles and those who have never erred in their lives will be tolerated by francis.

Just for fun, please establish the connection between Agenda 21 and Brandeis who died in 1941, four years before the founding of the UN. Make it good because any error on your part places you in the category of men who have made mistakes!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:11 | 3141753 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Wrong Wrong Wrong...


Instead ~ I'm SUGGESTING (for others to ultimately decide for themselves) that the quote that you COPY & PASTED [from Brandeis] was nothing more than hollow rhetoric, scribed into the record books in much the same way as Bernanke saying" "Subprime" was not a problem, or that some Treasury Secretary believes in a "Strong Dollar Policy"... You hardly think they're TELLING you that their other hand is in your pocket stealing yur wallet while they smile at you, do you?...


You likely won't undestand this until every last dollar [cough] has been stolen from you [much in the same way that you have ZERO understanding of who is/or is not "tolerated" by francis_sawyer ~ as if me "tolerating" anyone makes a shit of difference to anyone but myself]...

Think of me as the "Pre-Cog" that pro-offers the MINORITY REPORT...

Note: I should have also mentioned that Brandeis himself was "cherry picked" by his handlers to be the key figure in the establishment of 'The United Nations' [which, in the planned machination of the process, became the FULFILLMENT of the 'Balfour Agreement', under duress ~ which allowed for the unpopular ratification of what became the 'Apartheid State of Israel']... IOW ~ The Federal Reserve was not the only legacy that poor old Woodrow Wilson left us with... 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:20 | 3141806's picture

I think of you as a guy who makes those who present rational arguments against fiat money look like idiotic assholes by association. Do I really have to hate the Jews in order to oppose the Fed? I've already shrugged by giving up the retail side of my business so that I contribute as little as possible to the warfare-welfare state. But as shrugging was suggested by Ayn Rand -- a Jew! -- that just proves that withdrawing support from a corrupt system assists the corrupt system in your fevered brain. I probably shouldn't even mention Mises or Rothbard.

And where is your "minority report" which directly links Brandeis to Agenda 21? Don't you realize that Minority Report wasn't just a movie, it was a joovie?


Minority Report is a 2002 American neo-noir science fiction film directed by Steven Spielberg

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:26 | 3141855 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Agenda 21 is a United Nations construct... Frankly ~ I can't honestly say that Brandeis had anything todo with it... What I AM saying, however, is that it's all part of a larger, MORE ORGANIZED construct...


Unless you're a fucking idiot, there's little RANDOMNESS in following a timeline from:

- Rothschild

- to 'Balfour Agreement' (which has the godamned Rothschild signature on it)

- to the teamwork coercion applied to Woodrow Wilson

- to the League of Nations

- to Brandeis himself [who was just their ponyboy of the day ~ much as Bernanke, or Geithner, or Lew, or who the fuck ever is today]

- to the United Nations

- to the ratification of the State of Israel

- to Agenda 21


I'm waiting to hear a better story from your 'VAST THEORY OF COLLECTIVE RANDOMNESS' trickbag...


Note: I could give a rats ass about Spielberg [or the 10,000 ways he's managed to tell the story of the 'Holocaust', or put a Nazi-meme into anything he puts on celluloid]... I'm still waiting for the Spielberg movie that tells the story of 'The Creature from Jeckyll Island'...

Spielberg has only come out with one good movie... DUEL (1971)... He should have stopped there...


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:28 | 3141899 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

Francis, did u say Rothschild ?

It's getting blatant now

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:49 | 3142000 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Duke ~ I'll tell you where it's going...


They want ALL the land between the Suez Canal & the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers [Pause & think about that for awhile]... Based on that objective ~ we're only in the 3rd or 4th inning of this baseball game [which may end up to be a doubleheader]...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:55 | 3142038's picture

"They" have a funny way of showing that:

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 17:47 | 3142281 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

I was about to point out the difference between Judaism and Zionism. The Zionists are an offshoot of the Zealots of 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ would not align Himself with the Zealots so the Pharisees and Saducees attempted to paint him as one before Pontius Pilate.


Pontius Pilate, being a clever Politician, in order to expose the collusion, the conspiracy, between the Pharasees, Sadducees and Zealots, offered up Barrabas, a known Zealot and insurrectiionist, as a trade for the life of Jesus.


Of course, being intent upon the overthrow of Roman Rule, the Pharasee arranged crowd chose Barrabas. Thus by crucifying their Messiah the Pharasees and Sadducees inadvertently exposed themselves as the plotters of insurrection and overthrow of Rome. Pilate played his role well.


The Zealots were Antichrist. The Jews were not given the opportunity to save Jesus the Messiah. Today's Zionists share that with there forefathers.


I have nothing against the Jews as they are God's Chosen. My boss is a Jewish Carpenter...Jesus' saving Blood is upon them and their children. But I am diametrically opposed to the Antichrist.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:17 | 3142400 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Nice story, but I'm not interested in who your 'BOSS' is...

I'm not interested in a semantic discussion of 'Zionism vs. Judiasm'...

I'm fucking interested in WHO THE FUCK IS STEALING MY MONEY & WHO IS STARTING WARS FOR PROFIT [& handing me the 'bill' for those wars as well as saying that I had anything to do with the body count ~ even by implied obfuscation]... When are you dipshits going to get that through your domes?...

['Trekkies' aren't on the USUAL SUSPECTS list this time around]

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 19:03 | 3142594 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

TALL TOM (personal biography ~ published on ZH)


Gold and Silver Trader...
I lead a G Rated life...God...Gwennie...Gold...Guns
The only clue that I have is that I do not have a clue.
All that I know can be found in a book
I only know that which I can define. If I cannot define it then I do not know it.


I'm guessing you got so tall because you drank a lot of milk... (& probably still do ~ except for the occasional kool-aid)

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 00:02 | 3143383 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

In order to find the people responsible you must first learn to differentiate. When presented with an unknown Gemstone the very first method which I use to identify it is I determine what it is NOT. As I gather information about what it is not then I can pretty well infer that which it is.


Likewise if you are interested in finding out who is stealing the money then you first consider who is NOT stealing it and eliminate them from your suspect list. That gives you a shorter list of suspects. Now if you blame all Jews collectively then your suspect list is rather large. When you narrow it down to the Zionists then your list has become much smaller. Further differentiation will yield that information which you are seeking.


It is a standard method of identification employed by most scientists that I know.


That is the intelligent approach.


As for what I enjoy drinking I am rather impartial to Mountain Dew.

Fri, 01/11/2013 - 00:24 | 3143415 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

You obviously don't read many of my comments then... I've said many times that I don't blame the 'Muslims' [because USURY is forbidden by Sharia Law]... & that is NOT to make this a religious discourse... I've also said that I do not blame Jews COLLECTIVELY [another distinction that you have seemed to miss]...

How can I possibly argue with you folks who can not or will not accurately read my comments, don't bother trying, or are too stupid to undestand?

& for the record... I'm sick & tired of the 'Zionist' vs. 'Jew' obfuscation...

I'M SICK OF BANKERS STEALING MY MONEY... Most of them are Jews [or, if you're unhappy with that, an unreasonable proportion of them versus their overall representation in society makes their presence SUSPECT]... That's all the 'scientific method' I need to know...

I'll tactfully refrain from 'Mountain DEW' comments...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 18:40 | 3142523 falak pema
falak pema's picture

what a bean stalk you talk and what a tom thumb you smell of. 

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:53 | 3142025 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


big hat, tipped to the Duke.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 22:54 | 3143257 BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

I remain, maám... your loyal carcass.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:28 | 3141900's picture


I could give a rats ass about Spielberg


But you compared yourself with characters in his joovie. You can't claim that that is just a part of a 'VAST THEORY OF COLLECTIVE RANDOMNESS,' can you? It proves by your own criteria that you are a minion of the jooooos.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:43 | 3141975 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Are fucking stupid or something?...

On any given heirarchy, we're ALL characters in some movie... [Or wait ~ maybe I need to go consult with the 'God of Abraham' to see if I really exist or not]...

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 16:52 | 3142018's picture


On any given heirarchy, we're ALL characters in some movie


So you are going to try to explain away your self comparison to a character in a movie produced by Jews as part of a 'VAST THEORY OF COLLECTIVE RANDOMNESS.' How is it that you are the only person on Earth who has a connection to Jews (one you asserted yourself) who is not a part of the supposed joo conspiracy to rule the world?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!