Why Americans are Saying 'No'

To do that we will need to dissolve the standing army. If you and other "conservatives" on this forum believe and practice what our Founding Fathers demanded then you would call for that because they were the ones who said a standing army is the greatest threat to freedom anywhere. Dissolve the Pentagon and we will begin to solve our problems.

 

If Americans are free, and the government officials are their servants, why do the American people consistently allow their public servants to wage non-stop wars of aggression around the world?

There are 2 possible answers:

1. The American people are really captives and have no say. (They are outgunned by officialdom)
2. The American people are as war crazy, ugly and vicious as their public servants.

PS,
Ever since Lincoln & Marx pulled off their Communist revolution, America has been a Communist Dictatorship. The Constitution is a constitution of no authority. See Lysander Spooner's 1870 CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/
[video=youtube;dWESql2dXoc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc[/video]
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/

 

Still no new stuff. Too bad.

 

Wait for it - Don't be so impatient .(wink)

 

Hey, events are happening and no update. It was a great podcast.

 

You are not well informed. Article V bypasses the national government. Article V of the US Constitution provides a way for the state legislatures to call for a convention to propose amendments. No shots need be fired to overturn the national government and return to a federal government constrained by the Constitution once again.

 

I believe we merely need repeal the 17th Amendment to restore a balance for States' rights.

 

It would be a good first step.

 

Because they never owned the land either as a country or as individuals until they were offered this right by the UN and refused. Israel accepted and became a country and still they continually refused it until only recently accepting third rate 'statehood' as an 'observer nation' at the UN.

In short, Israel is not an invader unless you are going to say they are not a country recognized by the bulk of the world in which case I shall ........












































































































Laugh.

 

Laughing like a brainless mcaque shows that you don't know what you're talking about, ------First of all, NON-BINDING - UNGA Res 181 was a proposal - subject to further negotiations for which UN Envoy Folke Bernadotte was appointed. and who Zionists terrorists Jews , promptly murdered when they heard his report wasn't entirely in their favour.


Instead of flouting your ignorance I recommend you learn more abt this complex political problem , start here :


The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel

"There is a widely accepted belief that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 “created” Israel, based upon an understanding that this resolution partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority or legitimacy to the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. However, despite its popularity, this belief has no basis in fact, as a review of the resolution’s history and examination of legal principles demonstrates incontrovertibly.


====

On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly declaring its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”, and even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs constituted a majority.[5]

Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs.[6] In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land,[7] while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]

----
With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.[10]

In other words, the report explicitly recognized that the denial of Palestinian independence in order to pursue the goal of establishing a Jewish state constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination. And yet, despite this recognition, UNSCOP had accepted this rejection of Arab rights as being within the bounds of a legitimate and reasonable framework for a solution.

Following the issuance of the UNSCOP report, the U.K. issued a statement declaring its agreement with the report’s recommendations, but adding that “if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”[11] The position of the Arabs had been clear from the beginning, but the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement on September 29 reiterating that “the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status”. It instead

advocated freedom and independence for an Arab State in the whole of Palestine which would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law, and would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.

A sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11.

It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise “that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity”, which was “not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.” With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, “there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state”, which “would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate” and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.”

It concluded that “no further discussion of the Palestine problem seems to be necessary or appropriate, and this item should be struck off the agenda of the General Assembly”, but that if there was a dispute on that point, “it would be essential to obtain the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue”, as had already been requested by several of the Arab states.

It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not


deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country….

The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine


http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/


....

 

I only have a doctorate degree in the field of law which may tend to suggest that I likely know the subject just a tad better than you do.

As for overturning the Federal government, there is no need to actually do so - the better way to limit it is to dissolve the Pentagon just as our Founding Fathers would have done.

 

Even the stupid news about the 'shut down' and the Tea Party circus to 'stop ObamaCare' is nothing but a circus created for public consumption, to keep the activists engaged since their hero, the COINTELPRO SLIMEBALL, Breibart died. So that the steam of doesn't run out of their Ultra Rich, Daddy War-bucks financed 'alternative' viewpoint political movement, I'm sure they'll want to keep their base tuning into Twitter, Facebook, and ClearChannel, the billionaires propaganda and mass survelliance spyware organs, for push-button agitprop and faux outrage calculated to make the dog salivate and foam at the mouth, since Red State and the "Freepers" Free Republic are about as dead as Ronnie Ray-Gun. But at least you can still read Chuck Norris Op-Eds at World Nut Daily. Pffff

 

Golly Marlowe, an impressive amount of hubris from a guy who denies the Holocaust and says Hoess was tortured yet have no backing for this whatsoever. You really ought to take this evidence to a place where they can learn from you .... say the UN where Israel is a recognized nation of the world and completely legal in every sense of the word. Or better yet, take a flight to Tel Aviv and as they check your passsport state you don't have one and then start shouting how Israel is illegal and they have no right to ask you for a passport.

Israel exists as a nation and country of the world, get over it.

 

Very simple; [video=youtube;KjmjqlOPd6A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A[/video]

 

Yes he is. Very simple indeed. And he employed simpletons.

'So, where are the WMD hidden Mr. Rumsfeld?'

'Oh, North, West, South and East of Tikrit. Somewhat'. (Paraphrased). Here's the real deal from the Genius that is Mr. Rumsfeld: http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm

 

Since when did the law ever get in the way of a Fascist takeover ?

Do you think its possible the whole 3 Branch, 2 Party System of supposed "Checks and Balances" is merely a drama, spoon fed to the American public to convince us that our supposed Republic is "Representative"of we the citizens? Isn't it just an illusion?

Aren't all the major decisions really made by the special interests, the corporatized and Elite controlled AFL-CIO for example, or our foreign policy being controlled by Big Oil corporations and high-tech Weapon manufacturers with unlimited access to the policy makers?

Look at the Democrat Party in Congress and the White House, hardly blinked an eyelid when corporate America decided to strip away the power
of the unions. And this was a decision based on the views of union members and Democrat constituents?


Not.

____