|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 7, 2022 2:51:38 GMT
When I went to school we had to take civics. Civics is the study of the (R)rights and obligations of citizens in society. The problem is, the government misinformed me. It would be fixed by getting involved in politics, managing political campaigns, going back to school to study law, being a Justice of the Peace, working in the legal field, working as a political activist, going to court, having encounters with the system, etc. In other words, I'm a graduate of the University of Hard Knocks and ScrewU.
Here are FIVE things that the publik skool cistem (Fonix werked for me) taught that were false:
1) The public school system taught me there are three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial
TRUTH: That is FALSE. There are SEVEN branches of government and most of them have no legitimate authority under the Constitution. They are multinational elite corporations and the rich whose money runs the show. They usually operate under the cover of various organizations (many times charitable fronts); they finance campaigns; operate left wing think tanks and educational / political organizations; purchase the controlling stock of the controlled news media. The next branch of government is the controlled news and entertainment media that creates the issues and runs the propaganda machine so that the people never have a say in any of the issues. The third branch of the government are regulatory agencies and pseudo regulatory agencies that, in theory, answer to the Executive Department. In reality, they tell the Executive Dept. to pound sand and those agencies have their own laws, their own courts, and their own private interpretations of what the laws mean. Then the fourth branch of government is the Federal Reserve System. It's no more "federal" than Federal Express and they have no reserves. But, they do control the money supply in America - and without constitutional authority. Then you have your Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government
2) I was taught in school that the United States Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what the law is. Even the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court quakes in his shoes at the mention of three letters: IRS
3) They tried to teach me that America is a "democracy." The Constitution (Article IV Section 4) says that "the federal government shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." That is the antithesis of democracy. Well, the teachers would admit that and then alter their lie which bring us to...
4) The teachers would try an alternative lie. They would say we are a Democratic Republic. Wow. Did they ALL fail history AND civics? The Democratic Republican Party was started in 1792 and dissolved in 1834. Today we have Democrats and Republicans. In theory they are two distinct political parties and the people that control our national narrative would have you believe they are opposed to each other
5) The public school system is always pushing that lie about a separation of church and state. Funny... the founders and framers forgot to mention it in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution of the United States. Our system DOES, however, have an unofficial state religion. It is Secular Humanism. The tenets of faith for those who subscribe to secular humanism will find their tents to be public policy in the United States. Could we be more screwed up!
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410 
|
Post by professorx on Jul 7, 2022 15:55:22 GMT
Here is a thought along those lines. Check that link. The man has a lot of stuff about what is supposedly legal and illegal in his videos. It is entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 14, 2022 12:23:31 GMT
I had started another thread about the law, but deleted it so that we could make law a part of civics. The old maxim is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I want to shame you into reading this: The people who come from foreign countries know about our government by the time they take the citizenship test than the American citizenry knows. That's inexcusable. When people are in an adversarial exchange over what the law is, there is something called authority. This has a very specific meaning in a legal research context. You will need to read the following link if you really want to understand what I'm talking about: library.famu.edu/c.php?g=276173&p=1842542So, suppose that we are in a discussion or debate about what the law is. Can you intelligently decide who is right or wrong factually? I'm skeptical. For YEARS I have been arguing with political propaganda prostitutes who deny what the law is and try to insult me by saying a first year law student... blah, blah, blah as if I'm BS-ing my way through the discussion. The masses want to believe what is popular; what supports their position. But, what if they had to defend it in a court of law? Which of us would win? In this instance, I'm always arguing over immigration law. The right bought into left wing socialist solutions and now they cannot sustain the argument. They end up banning me on sites because they don't want you to know the truth. But you deserve the truth. And this keeps playing itself out the same way, over and over. I present the HOLDINGS in court cases, have the top authorities on the subject explain it, and refer people to who has the authority to make the decision. In this example, people will show you hundreds of links to non-profit organizations and opinions by laymen and political hacks that want you to buy their political agenda. I come along with a HOLDING from the United States Supreme Court and declare that those other people are wrong. Who would win in a real court? I will explain in the next post. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jul 14, 2022 14:39:33 GMT
In the previous posting I left a link to a chart so that you know what weight to give to any legal authorities you may see cited on the Internet. What you get from layman dictionaries, Internet sites that are promoting one political cause or another or people wanting to cite something as if their personal opinion is authoritative is total B.S. Don't expect me to sugarcoat it for you. In our system of jurisprudence, the courts do three major things relative to this:
1) The courts define words to suit their needs regardless of dictionary definitions
2) The courts explain how they arrive at decisions. Cases contain what is called orbiter dicta or dicta, which is the reasoning of the court and
3) Courts interpret the law and their HOLDING is the bottom line.
Regardless of anything else that goes on in the world, what a court says is the law IS the law. That remains the law until Congress changes the law or a court of higher authority says the lower court is wrong. Higher courts may overturn a lower court's rulings (HOLDINGS) in any of the four ways:
Vacate
Overturn
Modify a ruling
Remand (which means they send the case back to the lower court for further consideration)
For purposes of this thread, I will use the most extreme case. THE EXAMPLE IS NOT A DEBATE. WE HAVE A THREAD FOR THAT. THIS THREAD EXPLAINS THE PROCESS OF HOW YOU ARRIVE AT WHAT THE TRUTH IS AND WHAT THE LAW IS. DO NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO DEBATE THE EXAMPLE ON THIS THREAD. In our example we have been arguing over whether or not a statute is a crime OR a civil violation of the law. Political pundits misinform the people for their own purposes. The following explains how this played out:
The person wanting to prove that a specific violation of the law is a crime so he states, ""Here's a few links to articles at the top of Google when I searched "prosecutions for unlawful" ... (insert your favorite violation)
"Political Propaganda site" notices that "(Section of law) makes it a crime to unlawfully (insert favorite violation of law.)" CLEARLY the statute is not a criminal section of the law because
1) The statute is in a civil section of the United States Code
2) When that section of the law refers to crimes related to that civil violation, it clearly states that the crimes will be prosecuted under Title 18 (which is the Criminal Code)
3) In EVERY instance where Title 18 crimes are mentioned in that civil section, there is a corresponding criminal statute in Title 18 by which a person can be tried for the related crime. As for the improper act (of which the statute addresses) that statute makes sure to divide the civil from criminal and then state that they will be prosecuted differently
4) The improper act is NOT listed anywhere in Title 18 as a crime.
Let's see if there is any interest in this aspect of understanding the law before proceeding along those lines.
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Jul 22, 2022 17:24:58 GMT
|
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on May 29, 2023 18:08:28 GMT
The American people I believe know that that the Government Agencies, Media and large corporations run everything. I however believe many people are so confused by the way things operate they feel there is no hope, or some simply don't care. I have discussions with people nearly every day. One man is convinced no matter what FOX News is the only true media. Even sharing the facts to this man doesn't do help him. Some people simply desire to be blind.
How can we as Americans change and alter the course of events currently against us?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on May 31, 2023 2:34:50 GMT
The American people I believe know that that the Government Agencies, Media and large corporations run everything. I however believe many people are so confused by the way things operate they feel there is no hope, or some simply don't care. I have discussions with people nearly every day. One man is convinced no matter what FOX News is the only true media. Even sharing the facts to this man doesn't do help him. Some people simply desire to be blind. How can we as Americans change and alter the course of events currently against us? I wanted to take a day to think this one over before giving a response. This is the best I can come up with: If you had asked me twenty years ago how to change the course of things, I could tell you. We would rent a banquet room in a restaurant and organize a public meeting. We then advertised with flyers at gun shows, flea markets and almost anywhere locally. People showed up, we presented our ideas and things happened. In years past the Fair Tax was conceived in my legislative district and my congressman at the time, Rep. John Linder, introduced it. We fought National ID and won. We had fights against eminent domain abuse and were successful. We even helped one man win a tax evasion case before the United States Supreme Court. Then 9 / 11 happened. AFTER 9 / 11 the entire constitutionalist, conservative and patriot communities fell apart. The left flipped the right and " conservatives" jumped on the liberal bandwagon, taking some of the left's bread and butter issues from them and embracing them as if the right was for tyranny all the time. National ID and the silly idea to build a wall around America were the domain of the left, but the right not only embraced them, but pretended as if they invented those proposed solutions. The so - called " Patriot Act" and the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify BS were introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican. And it goes on all the way to today. The right will wail, moan, cry and complain about issues. Then Democrats come along, pretending to be Republicans and talk the talk, but introduce bills that only benefit cultural Marxism. Look at their standard bearer, Donald Trump. Trump promised to be for gun Rights, but then he told Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein he could talk the NRA into accepting a Universal Background Check. Trump not only passed the bump stock ban, but advocated that we raise the age limit to buy a firearm and that we suspend due process and take away peoples firearms based upon the mere accusation that they broke a law. He took a dump on the Second and Fourth Amendments and he even worked to eliminate the electoral college (one of the last vestiges of the constitutional Republic we're guaranteed in the Constitution.) Trump endorsed Stacey Abrams (Domonrat) over Brian Kemp (Republican) in the governor's race in Georgia. But in my mind, the worse thing Trump did was to berate the liberals and tell them they were afraid of the NRA and that he wasn't AND Trump said he would pass gun control... which he did. That move sent a message to the Democrats that they could have the BATFE act as Jackbooted Thugs and even do house to house confiscations of anything they didn't like. Boy did they! BATFE is busy knocking on doors to take bump stocks, pistol braces, certain triggers, oil solvent traps, etc. They were NEVER that ballsy until Trump showed they could be used for tyrannical purposes without any push back by the people. But, I digress. That is what you're up against. You're relatively young and you are stepping into the shoes of the generations that preceded you. Some of them did a good job up until the late 1990s - early 2000s and then, in my opinion, the Internet changed everything. Online, the most radical, miseducated and evil people are on a level playing field with those who spent years working in the movement - researching, lobbying, fighting court cases, and trying to educate the people. Actually it's not level at all. My generation is now either in their retirement years or working toward it. We didn't have the Internet and most of us can't navigate it. Without that skill set, I'm not sure how you reach people to change minds on a large scale. HOWEVER...Every journey begins with a single step. I would say that if we adopt the idea that each one teach one, it will have to spread at some point. Sometimes the cycles of history work against you, but history is cyclical. For example, Noah spent 120 years trying to warn the people of the impending flood that would occur. In the end, only his family supported him. By the time you get to the times of Jesus, he only had twelve apostles. Regardless of whether or not you believe he is the Son of God is irrelevant because you have to realize that with only twelve apostles, Jesus changed the world. Then you have to study guys whose motives are questionable. Adolph Hitler took a country no bigger than the size of Texas and nearly took over the world. To borrow the words of Samuel Adams: " It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams You might not be able to change the course of history, but what you can do is mitigate the damage that the NEW WORLD ORDER can inflict on you. You can inspire others; you can build a community within a community with people that limit their dealings with the masses. You can become self sufficient, self reliant and you can get off the grid as much as possible. Become the man you want others to be. " Study to shew thyself approved" (II Timothy 2: 15) Finally, heed this piece of advice: " Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." When you see people on the right going to prison for their activities; when you see them being sued for violating the " civil rights" of the protected classes; when you watch them fighting each other because their current leaders are not what will win back our Liberty - when you recognize those things, maybe that last piece of advice may come in handy. If I think of something else applicable to your question, I'll be back. |
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Jun 2, 2023 21:03:39 GMT
Thanks, this information I take notes on it is worth writing a book on. These two statements stand out greatly as well as everything you wrote:
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams
We must strike the hearts of the people with Truth as Samuel Adams stated here, setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
I have always lived by this verse. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
|
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Jun 5, 2023 12:17:06 GMT
It is really hard not to cross a line between the conspiracy view of history and civics. Once we know what the government can or cannot do but violates the law it makes us wonder about things. Most realize that the government violates the law and gets away with it. The conspiracy view of history accounts for the way the legal community thumbs their nose at the law. What other explanation is there?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jun 20, 2023 2:29:48 GMT
Now that we finished that thread on securing the border, I can return to this and hope someone benefits. In school I was taught that the legislative branch of the government passes the laws, the executive branch executes the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law. In reality, the president (executive branch) passes Executive Orders that have the force of law and they use regulatory agencies that write their own laws. The courts try to reinterpret their own rulings which has the force of legislating from the bench and the legislators put on a circus act, never doing anything meaningful. Professional lobbyists can lobby Congress, but you cannot contact a legislator out of your own district. That eliminates the possibility of citizen based initiatives. If the dolts in Congress don't have a good idea and your legislator is from the opposing party as you, then you are SOL (Sh!+ outta luck.) The dullards in Congress haven't had an original idea in at least 25 years. the fourth branch of government, the news and entertainment media, give them all their talking points. My real fear is the courts. Here is my personal opinion: In theory, the legislature passes a law and it is signed by the president. Now that law becomes a statute. The courts then decide what that statute means. I'm all with that. Then in Marbury v. Madison, the United States Supreme Court decided that they were the final arbiters of what the law is. Nobody, even Jesus himself, has ever challenged that. So the co-equal notion of separate powers is a fantasy. The problem is, that if you read a statute and research the applicable holdings that the court has ruled on, then you only THINK you're following the law. The United States Supreme Court can always decide that they will hear the issues again and reverse their own holding. I call B.S. on that. If the United States Supreme Court doesn't like their previous rulings, maybe the Justices should step down and seek a constitutional amendment to change what they don't like. Legislating from the bench is a bad idea. But, that is the reality of our system and part of Civics 101. I'd like to present for you a link regarding how laws are made (in theory) according to the government. Later I will quote from it and tell you the rest of the story: www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 410
|
Post by professorx on Jun 20, 2023 12:10:57 GMT
Legislating from the bench truly is a bad idea. We should go a step beyond this and discuss something else. Not only does the SCOTUS reinterpret their own rulings but once they create a legal mess of things they turn everything over to regulatory agencies and tell them to deal with it. It is called the Chevron deference. It just means when the SCOTUS can't understand the issues or their own rulings they defer to regulatory agencies to make up and enforce new laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Jun 23, 2023 18:07:56 GMT
There is plenty of information out there regarding how a bill becomes a law. Schools teach procedure. But, how does legislation make it into Congress to be proposed?
I used to believe that we chose our candidates not only what they said they were for or against, but what they were going to do once in Congress. Man was I wrong! I found out that the most pabulum puking liberal congresscritter had right wing conservatives on their staff. By contrast, in the case of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, I found liberals that held me incommunicado so that the bill I pioneered and Greene introduced would never get any kind of traction. Apparently the federal government hires the staff for congresscritters.
Additionally, the federal government wants to make sure you and I never have a citizen initiative that gets voted into law. They allow highly paid lobbyists to interact with congresscritters, but you and I (as citizens) are prohibited from contacting any legislator outside of our own district even though those other congresscritters vote on legislation that affects us personally.
Unless the legislator you voted for is trying to climb the ladder to the presidency, they mostly go to Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption to play political games. So, who is really proposing the new laws?
You have the highly paid lobbyists that can influence Congress, but there is a bigger and much more dangerous threat: the controlled news and entertainment media. Their motto is if it bleeds it leads. Imagine what would happen if the news media began reporting on each individual drug overdose and DUI in America. All of a sudden drugs and alcohol would be as politically incorrect as firearms are. The media enlists big name celebrities to appeal to you for political change; the media picks and chooses what kinds of stories to report and they ALL take basically the same position on the issues. They use phrases like “some say” in order to make their political jockeying look like news, but “some” are never identified. The fourth branch of government proposes legislation via the stories they report on and the political positions they take. Legislators just kiss the backsides of the media and play games like WWE wrestlers in denouncing their partners in crime.
|
|
lee
New Member
You have unalienable Rights from Jesus Christ our Creator; No Government can take it away.
Posts: 122
|
Post by lee on Jun 27, 2023 16:42:29 GMT
I have never agreed with Lobbying I believe it to be Bribery in most cases, We need Patriots in local offices and work harder than the liberals. I believe many good Americans have given up inside in fighting against the liberals politcally but at heart wil do what needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Sept 21, 2023 18:42:53 GMT
Due to some issues that came up off this site, I wanted to come back and revisit this as it should be a primer and resource for those who want a real civics lesson. Let's begin: I got into a spat with another poster on another board who claims that America is a " democracy." Let's get REAL. This isn't conspiracy theory; this is the honest and brutal truth 101. America was founded as a constitutional Republic based upon Christian principles for the advancement, protection, and preservation of White people. That is not my opinion. It is the factual truth. To wit: The Preamble of the Constitution provides: " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis mine, of course) In 1857 in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford Chief Justice Roger Taney laid out the many laws that maintained that We, the people, in that constitutional context were the Posterity mentioned in Preamble to the Constitution. NOBODY is qualified to debate this issue until they have read Taney's input, so read it before judging me: www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dred_scott_v_sandford_%281857%29Just a sampling to show that what I stated is NOT opinion, but fact, let me submit a few words from our first immigration statute that was passed only weeks after the ratification of the United States Constitution: " SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof," govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/1/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdfThe statutes and other laws that restricted citizenship were nullified with the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment. This will become extremely important later in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by noclevername on Sept 22, 2023 12:46:27 GMT
People think there is something evil when facts like this are presented. Facts do not have feelings. They never care whose bubble gets burst. If is so wrong for America to have been created for the benefit of the white race it is equally wrong that nonwhite countries are not integrated. I am curious as to where we go next with this.
|
|
