The Tea Party

[Frosty]

Copied from: DUF Digest, 12-16-13

On Dec. 16, 1773, the Boston Tea Party took place as American colonists boarded a British ship and dumped more than 300 chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest tea taxes. (I note that the Library of Congress does not list this event on its “Today in History” web page.)

[dipisc]

Hi;

     Congress is getting an earfull from "The People" , the last thing Congress wants is protesters outside Congress' doors.  Why put a Historical event up on a Gov't web page to remind "The People" of what needs to be done ?

[tombogan03884]

Copied from: DUF Digest, 12-16-13

On Dec. 16, 1773, the Boston Tea Party took place as American colonists boarded a British ship and dumped more than 300 chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest tea taxes. (I note that the Library of Congress does not list this event on its “Today in History” web page.

A year later on the evening of Dec 15 1774 Patriots in Portsmouth NH seized arms and ammunition at cannon point from the garrison of Ft William and Mary. (Now "Ft Constitution" )
These were the arms the British were marching to seize  the following April.

[Rastus]

It's rigged on the GOP side and it's rigged on the Dem side.  For some reason people vote against their beliefs and vote Dem every time because of the no-good, blankety-blank Republicans.  Republicans keep voting for trust fund babies and industrialists (and I would add MBA's to that) because they believe the lie of having to have someone who is electable. 

I would also say and point out that people believe if we just get enough conservatives in office it will be well.  Well, when last did "conservatives" have the majority in the legislature, court and administration and what did that get us?  We need Americans with an understanding of liberty, our founding history and beliefs to pull us out of this.  We need the hand of God upon us to prevail.

I challenge you to find a single Dem or Repub who is not Tea Party that considers the Constitution and what powers the federal government actually possesses when they write, sponsor or vote on a law. 

What we get from both parties is less liberty.  Liberty dies at the feet of tyranny...and we are, if not gasping for breath, finding it now hard to breath.  There is some, and I would say enough, political process existing for freedom loving people to reclaim their government from those who live for their own avarice and desire to control others.

Our form of federal government is supposed to be limited by the powers given it in the Constitution...but no more. 

If you want to reclaim government we need to do more than to talk and to vote.  We need to act and become a part of the process.  We need to work to educate and get voters out and be that process. 

Yes it is finished if we say it is.  It is finished if we do not actively engage and support the process.  It is finished if we separate civil and religious liberties.

Civil liberty is what we desire when we want our gun freedoms that are illustrated in the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment does not give us our freedom, it merely states that we have that God given freedom. 

But if we allow the sacrifice of religious freedoms will not civil freedoms be diminished?  And if we allow the sacrifice of civil freedom to "ensure" some measure of religious freedom is not religious freedom diminished?  Yes, the sacrifice of either diminishes the other because you now have acknowledged you do not have a God given right but have allowed a government to establish the limits of your rights by the sacrifice of another. 

We have had animated discussions about the existence of God and you may differ from me and not believe in God...that is your right.  Your right of choice and an exercise of your free will.  But even if you disagree with me about our Creator surely you recognize that when you limit rights of someone you are empowering a government to control others.

In this I say that yes we support our 2nd Amendment rights.  I also say, that if we as 2nd Amendment champions do not support religious and other liberties we will surely lose our civil rights to gun ownership with increasing restrictions.  You cannot provide an example on this planet where civil liberties are curtailed and religious liberties do not follow or where religious liberty is curtailed and civil liberty did not follow.   We were that bright shining star on the hill where we had that thing called freedom where civil and religious freedom did exist in plenty.

Now our star dims.  If we follow the trap of party, the call of electability or the lie of personal conservative values the politicians do not follow then we will neither maintain or reclaim our freedoms.  We must become active, we must engage and we must fund with money, time and sweat our cause of liberties to enjoy the promise of freedom.

It is our duty.  It is our right.

[Solus]

Very well said, Rastus.

Let me quote from the Declaration of Independence.

 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

For those who do not believe in God or any named deity,  Nature's God form the Declaration will suffice. 

All men are created equal and with inalienable rights by the fact of their birth, be it by the hand of God or the course of Nature. 

The only time these rights, civil or religious, should be restricted is when they are used to directly diminish the rights of others.

[Sponsor]

[Rastus]

Solus, the writers of the Constitution were a crafty bunch indeed.  The issue du jour' is same sex marriage; is it legal or what?  What the writers of the Constitution knew, communicated and did otherwise record is that no man has any right to supersede God's moral laws or nature's laws.

Again, whether someone here believes in God or not is your right but verify the above for yourself before you type and post.  You have a right to not believe in God and though we cannot agree on that because it requires faith we can agree on history being accurate or not. 

To pick up again, the writers did not communicate about homosexual marriage because the Christian belief is that marriage is an institution created by God between a man and a woman and that the natural order is that males and females procreate.  This concept that there is natural law and God's morality is pivotal and historically correct and accurate to frame the beliefs of the writers of the Constitution and why they acted as they did. 

That having been said, there was no reason to put into the Constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman. 

The federal government is limited in it's power and that which is not specifically given to the federal government is the jurisdiction of the states.

So...when the case is made that the Constitution does not prohibit homosexual marriage the case is made that there is no specific prohibition against it.  In doing that the Supreme Court strikes down state prohibitions against homosexual marriage.

So, if what is not prohibited is then therefore legal what else is not prohibited?  This is a foolish path but it is the basis for the argument to strike down state laws.  Does anyone see where murder is illegal in the Constitution or that because it does not say it is illegal to rob banks that you are not prohibited by the Constitution and can rob banks?   The retort to this is that, "Of course anyone can see murder and theft is wrong." and in that you don't need to specify that in the Constitution. 

Which brings you near what the founders believed about natural law and God's moral laws...you do not need to specify God's moral laws and natural law in the Constitution.  That is because the writers of the Constitution knew that God's moral laws and natural law is superior to the Constitution and that's what their premise was when writing the Constitution.  Again...you may not believe in God and that's your right...but you need to know what the writers believed and why they crafted the Constitution the way they did to better understand and appreciate the application of the Constitution.

So we see an increasing powerful, hostile and indifferent federal government.  Progressive's love to go to the Constitution when they can twist it to benefit them....hate it when you examine its proper use in detail.

[Solus]

As I said, you do not have the right to diminish the rights of others.

Theft and murder along with other acts DO directly affect the rights of others, which is what the Constitution implies.

I do not think homosexual relations are "natural", although I cannot say I have proof that the tendency to be homosexual occurs under the control of the individual.  I suspect is is either innate, in which case the individual had no control, or developed as a result of their environment, which the individual may have more control, or both innate and environmental.

I ask my self, what would it take to make me decide to be homosexual and there is nothing that would change my orientation...and again, I suspect that is the product of my DNA and environment, in some combination.

As I cannot change my sexual orientation, on what basis am I empowered to demand others change theirs?  Especially when I find not one mote of damage their preference does do diminish any of my rights.

There are a lot of things that exist that are not Nature's Way.  Color blindness, for example..but that should not be illegal.

I guess the bigger question here is if the Constitution was intended to keep the government out of religion but only as long as it was the Christian religion?
 

[Pathfinder]

Rastus -

Good posts, thanks.

Solus, re' your last question, I think any so-called "religion" that seeks to deprive citizens of their rights is un-Constitutional. This would include Jonestown (which is probably one of the reason Jones moved his cadre to South America), Shin-ryo (the wonderful folks who dumped Sarin into the Tokyo subway), et al. This IMHO would also include Islam for their whole convert-or-die mindset.

Back to Rastus -

In your first post, you talked about the system being rigged. I agree. I have told my wife that Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the SAME corruption. Again, IMHO, nothing will change in this country until politicians and bureaucrats are held accountable for their criminal actions. With the current DOJ, nothing will be done except to harass (and prosecute where possible) Constitutionalists.

So it is up to the people to hold ALL politicians and bureaucrats accountable, from the local school board through the POTUS.

[Rastus]

<snip>
Theft and murder along with other acts DO directly affect the rights of others, which is what the Constitution implies.
<snip?

The Constitution directly affects what powers the government has so that our rights, whatever they may be, are preserved.  I don't see where it enumerates an implication as you cite it.  What is does is to restrain the government....not restrain individuals from themselves.  So we should focus on the fact that it is specifically to define and limit government and tell it how to operate within itself to accomplish being a federal governent.  States are granted powers to legislate outside the power of the federal government.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution was specifically written and added so that the government would not misconstrue the meaning(s) of the Constitution and affect an individual's rights.  Again...it is a restraint on the federal government telling the federal government how to act and not on individual's interpersonal dealings.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

So I would say rethink the common belief of what Constitution is to understand it in it's historical context.  Otherwise we're running to a centralized government (which is all anyone thinks of anymore) for every whim....and we know how that turns out.

[tombogan03884]

I think any so-called "religion" that seeks to deprive citizens of their rights is un-Constitutional.

This right here is exactly why liberals are so much more effective at convincing people that Christians are all theocratic A holes.
There is no religion that is "unconstitutional".
That's the whole point of that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" bit in the 1 A . (although I'd be OK with gassing Muslims )

The fact that we are even having this discussion proves that the founders were just another bunch of short sighted politicians.
They skipped doing anything about slavery because Jefferson's were mortgaged to the hilt and not enough of the others thought blacks were actually human.
On top of that, they assumed an informed, INVOLVED electorate that did not allow drones to vote.
And secondly, they assumed  office holders would be intelligent men of honor and character .

I have come to the conclusion that the Constitution might as well be flushed with the other crap since the sheep have proven they don't deserve any rights.