Mark Levin’s ‘Rediscovering Americanism’

By David Limbaugh

Mark Levin
Mark Levin
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- My friend Mark Levin is nothing if not a patriot of the first order.

He loves the United States and its founding principles — and his latest book, “Rediscovering Americanism,” explains his passion and encourages ours.

Levin believes that America's greatness lies in its unique founding ideals and correctly observes — and documents — how far we've strayed from those principles and the structure of government they inspired.

In his other books, Levin has outlined the problems confronting us and proposed solutions, but in this book, he takes a deeper look into the Framers' vision and examines the anatomy and historical development of the pernicious progressive mindset that has systematically chipped away at our governmental structure and our liberties.

Rediscovering Americanism by Mark Levin

This book is remarkable in its simultaneous succinctness and thoroughness. It's hard to fathom how Levin could have adeptly covered so much important, relevant material in a relatively short book. But he did.

Why would Levin take us on this historical tour of our nation's competing political and philosophical ideas? Haven't we moved beyond such considerations in the modern age, with the federal government micromanaging so many aspects of our lives? Do these lofty notions even matter anymore in our modern era of short attention spans, sound bites and our endless obsession with daily polling? Why contemplate the proper role of government when our ruling class rarely concerns itself with preserving our liberties, when the Washington establishment rarely focuses on whether government has the authority to act but fights instead over the most efficient way it should act?

The answer is that Levin understands that our belief and confidence in our founding principles and our steadfast commitment to them are essential to preserving our individual liberties, our prosperity and our national uniqueness and greatness. In Levin's words, “philosophy and practical politics are linked and, therefore, have a real effect on the life of the individual.” As our history has increasingly demonstrated, we cannot preserve our constitutional structure — and thus our liberties and the rest — if we do not understand and embrace its necessity. For our failure to grasp that truth has resulted in the steady erosion of the system built on it.

Levin is convinced that unless we have a national reawakening of the indispensability of our first principles, we will continue our march toward statism and squander the blessings bestowed on us by our visionary ancestors.

“What will (future generations) say about us?” he asks. “Will they say that we were a wise and conscientious people who understood and appreciated the blessings of our existence and surroundings and prudentially and conscientiously cared for them; or will they say we were a self-indulgent and inattentive people, easily shepherded in one direction or another, who stole the future from our own children and generations yet born, and squandered an irreplaceable heritage?”

In other words, our remarkable system of government, despite its brilliance, is not self-sustaining. An intellectually lazy and spiritually negligent body politic will not nurture and care for this gift, and it will continue to descend by incremental steps into tyranny beyond the point of redemption.

By reintroducing us to our founding ideas and their importance, Levin is both sounding an alarm over the threats that imperil us and calling on us to man our battle stations by first understanding the gravity of our predicament and then arming ourselves with a true understanding of our national uniqueness.

In Chapter 1, Levin unpacks the concept of natural law (and natural rights) — “the foundational principle at the core of American society.” This principle “permeated American thought from the beginning of our republic and well before.”

Rediscovering Americanism by Mark Levin
Rediscovering Americanism by Mark Levin

As clearly and firmly reflected in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal by God and have certain unalienable rights. These rights are universal to all men and are divine and spiritual in origin — not government constructs — and thus no government has the right to deny them. Levin shows further the importance of the rule of law, the mutual dependence between private property and freedom, and the interrelationship between economic liberty and political liberty.

The Framers designed our system to preserve these rights (and liberties), thus crafting a constitution that empowered and limited government — with those powers and limitations each designed to achieve the overarching goal of establishing and preserving our individual liberties. The Framers understood that mankind is imperfect and that a government led by imperfect people would, unless checked, tyrannize citizens and swallow their liberties.

Progressives, on the other hand, believe that mankind is perfectible and that centralized government is the means to achieving this social engineering, and they have been working steadily toward that goal in America for more than a century.

Whereas our Framers ardently believed that mankind's natural rights are transcendent and that the principles they enshrined in the Constitution are also timeless, progressives have always been convinced that our founding principles and documents were applicable only to their unique historical setting and that our system must constantly evolve to accommodate the changing times.

The tragic irony is that our short national history has vindicated the Framers and exposed the folly of the progressives, who are still in denial that their arrogant attempts to engineer human perfection through expansive government — particularly the runaway administrative state — have resulted in a stunning erosion of our liberties.

Unless we dismantle the federal leviathan and its suffocating bureaucracy, we'll slide ever further — and irreversibly — into tyranny. Unless we “rediscover” our “Americanism,” we can't conceivably resurrect and sustain our liberties.

Read this book and rediscover.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

  • 31 thoughts on “Mark Levin’s ‘Rediscovering Americanism’

    1. Once again, and for the last time, out of sequence for lack of a “Reply” button:

      “Amendment 17 is not illegal under Article 5 as it does not deprive any state of one or both of it’s required Senate representation(Suffrage). ”

      That is a common error of those who have not studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the writings of the founders. I will disabuse you of that notion right now, briefly, then I will get on to my work:

      The United States Constitution is internally self-consistent, and it never — ever — fails to distinguish the “States” as a separate entity from the “People.” It never, ever, fails to describe the interests of the States and the interests of the people as separate and distinct interests. Your thesis, if taken to its logical conclusion, would reveal no need for two Houses of Congress, would reveal no need for the House of Representatives to be chosen by the People and the Senate to be chosen by the State legislatures as is specifically mandated by Article I Section 2 and 3. And it would reveal no need to Article V of the United States Constitution to specifically state “Provided … that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

      “State,” Revelator. Not “People.” The People have sufrfrage in the House; the States have suffrage in the Senate. The 17th Amendment was not ratified, because more than ten States were deprived of their suffrage in the Senate. The SecState even declared one State as having ratified it before that State had even gotten it into committee. It was a covert op, involving subversion, Treason, and bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The “Mob Rule” you talk about was nothing but a covert setup for what followed.

      The 17th Amendment was a flat-out mutiny against the ownership of the federal government by the States for the purpose of (incidentally) depriving the States of any legal standing to challenge the illegal, worthless, fiat currency, but in a broader sense it was for the purpose of creating a government that governs from the top down instead of the bottom up. It did this for the same reason the European Union later combined the various nations of Europe, and for the same reason the UN was established to advance binding treaties on all its participants, and for the same reason the international bankster cartels want a One-World Government: LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PEOPLE.

      The founders of our nation created a government in which the people own their State governments and together WITH their State governments, in the two Houses of Congress, I.E., the people and the States together, own the federal government — and THE PEOPLE were given control of the House and THE HOUSE was given control of taxation and the budget: And during the last administration by a First Islamo-Marxist Enemy Agent, his sycophants in the Senate managed to take that control of taxation and the budget AWAY from the House by subversive Harry Reid refusing to bring a House budget to the floor for a vote and forcing an illegal “continuing resolution” to fund government — which provides no controls on spending by the House.

      Our Constitution has been chipped away since the day it was ratified by the States, Mr. Revelator, and the stuff you are talking about would have no effect, and would easily be stopped in its tracks, were it not for the mutiny by the rogue occupation federal government against its creators and owners.

      The rest of your post is so ignorant of the realities of our country I despair of trying to set you straight. The States most certainly do have ultimate sovereign authority as of the date they ceased to be the colonies of the king by sending the King’s henchmen packing back to London with their tail between their legs. They had governments of their own, they became sovereign nation-States on that date. The Declaration of Independence asserted their independence and their sovereign authority to govern their own affairs, but the validity of that document was not decided until the Treaty of Paris. If you can’t accept that basic fundamental fact of our nation’s founding, their is no point in discussing anything further with you because you are not equipped to understand it.

      Now, a quick scan of the rest of your post revealed nothing of any knowledge or substance and I have work to do. Please study the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the other Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States and other documents, such as Roger Sherman’s “Caveat Against Injustice” (Roger Sherman is the only person to have signed all four documents founding our nation, and was described by Thomas Jefferson as ‘never (having) said a foolish thing in his life”) as much as you do the Bible, Mr. Revelator, as I have for the last forty years and you might discover you currently know diddly-squat about it.

      As I said earlier: I’m done here, and I have work to do. Have a nice day.

      1. @Donald Cline
        “That is a common error of those who have not studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the writings of the founders. I will disabuse you of that notion right now, briefly, then I will get on to my work”

        Umm, no, I have studied. I also include more than just the Federalist papers, as the entirety of personal writings of the founders including the Anti-Federalist papers must be considered. However, if you are disagreeing with me on that, I was quoting directly out of the Constitution. Get a copy and read it. It’s in plain English, and especially when paired with the founding fathers’ other writings there is no special “interpretation” needed. They wrote exactly what they thought.

        “The 17th Amendment was a flat-out mutiny against the ownership of the federal government by the States for the purpose of (incidentally) depriving the States of any legal standing to challenge the illegal, worthless, fiat currency, but in a broader sense it was for the purpose of creating a government that governs from the top down instead of the bottom up. ”

        Half right, half wrong. I agree completely that it was a power grab(I.E. mob rule) where the Federal Government overstepped its bounds. However, the reason you gave was invalid, as I cited in my other comment. The last clause you were citing was out of place. The 9 States listed as “non-participatory” in ratification are not needed as long as a three fourths majority ratifies. Again, Equal Suffrage, that is representation, are the two seats given in the senate to the states. It does not mean that those states must ratify the amendment for it to take effect. Thirty Eight states Ratified it. Nine, as stated did not participate, including reasons you gave, but the ratification takes place on the state level. The house and senate can only propose an amendment under the constitution, but the states have to vote to approve or not. Simple math 9 divided by 47 equals 19.15%, and 38 divided by 47 equals 80.85%. More than the three quarters needed for ratification. I will list the ratifying states and the states that did not participate at the bottom.

        “State,” Revelator.  Not “People.”  The People have sufrfrage in the House; the States have suffrage in the Senate.”
        Completely agree with this comment, always have. The issue is that people, largely suburban idiots who would fail a citizenship test voted to have it passed. Whether you look at it as the State Legislature betraying the constitution, or useful idiots voting the people who do it into power, the end result is the same. Next part…..

        “The 17th Amendment was a flat-out mutiny against the ownership of the federal government by the States”
        This part is again 100% spot on. It was a power grab.
        The second part however is where you got off track, as the states never had the right to establish currency under our Constitution. That power resided solely in the hands of the government, whether as coin or certificate, the federal Government was given control. The sad oversight is that the Constitution reads as such. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5, “Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin.” The problem we have stems from the “Regulate the value Thereof” section, as in 1868 a packed Supreme Court once again ruled that paper currency was legal as long as it was backed by gold. I think it is referred to as the Legal Tender Cases. Once again, this is one of those times I am pointing that the Supreme Court was out of control, and why I brought up the Marbury case the other day.

        “Our Constitution has been chipped away since the day it was ratified by the States, Mr. Revelator, and the stuff you are talking about would have no effect, and would easily be stopped in its tracks, were it not for the mutiny by the rogue occupation federal government against its creators and owners.”
        Ok, first of all, I have been arguing from the beginning of strict adherence to our constitution. So if you really believe what you are saying, then why are you arguing with me? Why do you have a problem with me quoting the Constitution itself directly of all things?

        “The rest of your post is so ignorant of the realities of our country I despair of trying to set you straight.”
        “Now, a quick scan of the rest of your post revealed nothing of any knowledge or substance and I have work to do. ”
        “you might discover you currently know diddly-squat about it.”

        So far the only thing discovered is that a Hypocrite who doesn’t know how to read someone else’s writing, comprehend what they are saying, and then carry on a civil intellectual debate is still trying to argue that he is the only one with the knowledge to understand the constitution. If you had instead focused on what I wrote, and read the constitution word for word as I was quoting from it, you probably would not have been arguing with me. That is all I have been doing so far is referencing the Constitution and our founder’s Documents. You’re just angry that it takes all the thunder away from you and does not let you appear to be the smartest person in the room.

        I meant what I said before, I truly do feel sorry for you. In the meantime, you have work to do that is very…. Very. VERY important, so please go do it. It’s pretty clear that Ammoland is a little difficult for you to deal with right now.

      2. Ratifying states for the 17th Amendment (The Traitors)
        1. Arizona, 2. Arkansas, 3. California, 4. Colorado, 5. Connecticut, 6. Delaware, 7. Idaho, 8. Illinois, 9. Indiana, 10. Iowa, 11. Kansas, 12. Louisiana, 13. Maine, 14. Massachusetts, 15. Michigan, 16. Minnesota, 17. Missouri, 18. Montana, 19. Nebraska, 20. Nevada, 21. New Hampshire, 22. New Jersey, 23. New Mexico, 24. New York, 25. North Carolina, 26. North Dakota, 27. Ohio, 28. Oklahoma, 29. Oregon, 30. Pennsylvania, 31. South Dakota, 32. Tennessee, 33. Texas, 34. Vermont, 35. Washington, 36. West Virginia, 37. Wisconsin, 38. Wyoming

        States that did not participate (For Various Reasons, or voted no)

        1. Alabama, 2. Florida, 3. Georgia, 4. Kentucky, 5. Maryland, 6. Mississippi, 7. Rhode Island, 8. South Carolina, 9. Virginia

    2. @VE Vet. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. You and I both remember the days when this country was much more focused on helping their fellow man rather than screwing him and lording over him. We never locked our doors because we had no reason to. All this immigration is changing the fabric of the country and not in a positive way.

    3. It shouldn’t be either/or. Some changes were necessary. The end of the robber barons and their monopolies; increased voter rights; unions, which gave us fairer wages and benefits; an end to child labor are examples. Yes, at times we’ve gone too far left but sometimes a little bit is good. Who wants to go back, for instance, to the turn of the last century?

      1. Larry, you left out the bad parts about the unions though. If you want to champion the success, you have to accept the faults that went along with it. If you want to say it is actually better now, lets look at this comparatively.

        1.Illegal Racketeering, intimidation, and takeover of private businesses.

        2. Higher business costs

        3. Higher Consumer costs from a business being forced to spend more.

        4. Problem workers cannot be instantly removed anymore without Union mediation.

        5. Unions have destroyed businesses, and caused taxpayer funded bailouts

        6. “Safety” is no longer the main concern of a Union, but greed is.

        Now, I will ask you. A hundred years ago, did anyone put a gun to a parent or child’s head and force them to work? What about unions today, holding a gun to an employer’s head saying “Give us more money, or else…”? Or, how about a Union mandating that all its members strike, even if some have no interest in doing so? It’s not hard to compare and contrast and figure out which system is more suited to individual liberty. Did this nation have some problems at its founding, or at the beginning of the 19th or 20th century? Sure. But today is no bed of roses either, and the attitude that the end justified the means does not hold water. Having said that, I would honestly take 1905 with all it’s faults compared to the problems we have today. But I also live here and now, so I am doing what I can to educate others before it is too late, much like the above book is seeking to do. Let it happen now so future generations don’t have to deal with it.

        For a last piece of food for thought, lets look at your “Fairer wages” comment. Which is more fair, a worker keeping 95% to 100% of their pay, or shelling out between a quarter to one third of that in taxes? How far would a $20 bill go back then compared to today? How much gold would $20 buy in the year 1900, and how much could that gold be sold for today? The “Fair Wage” argument is bogus. It sounds good in theory, but in reality it falls short once you get past emotions and look at what happens when you use artificial wage adjustment.

        1. While I certainly agree with your premise about the money — caused primarily by the theft of our gold and silver Coin and its replacement with worthless fiat currency which can be printed without end — I have to take exception to your comment about “did anyone put a gun to a parent or child’s head and force them to work?” Yes, they did. It is called, “you don’ work, you don’ eat.” It is an absolute necessity to work at something to survive. Working for a living is not the free choice your thesis makes it out to be (unless you are a Democrat and think everyone should be given the necessities of life whether they work for them or not — and it doesn’t work for them, either). The reason for the Unions was not merely for purposes of safety, it was also to stop the exploitation of people who had no other choice: If they want to make a living they had better be prepared to work 12 hours a day at a dirty, sometimes dangerous, job for a bare pittance, and you’d better support the “company” over your own family, and you’d better live a lifestyle approved of by the “company” and be prepared to do absolutely anything the “company” requires because if you aren’t there are a whole lot of other starving people out there who will be happy to take your job in a heartbeat — and “the company” is nothing but one sonofabitch with delusions of godhood.

          To a great extent, and to the extent they have become communist-leaning organizations out to live off their members the same way ‘the company” did, they have outlived their usefulness. But slave labor was and ultimately is the alternative.

          1. “You Don’t work, you Don’t eat” is not a gun to the head. In fact, if you are someone who considers yourself a Christian, it is simple biblical principle. Laziness is a sin. Now if someone prevents someone from being able to make a living that is a different nature. If those companies came in and stopped someone from opening a business on their own, you could call it a gun to the head. If they kept them from leaving town physically to search for better work, you could call it that. If they kept them from farming their own land to feed their families you could also call it that. But if a worker who is able to provide food an shelter for themselves and their family looks at the owner of a business and says “They have too much money, I deserve more” then they are violating God’s commandments. I can provide scripture for this should you wish. Not one person is forced to work for a company as opposed to themselves in a free market system. Some may think it is too hard and would cost too much to start for themselves, but that does not justify a claim of slave labor to a company.

            I find it interesting that someone who would accuse me of being a Democrat (I am a Constitutionalist thank you very much) is the one who is towing the Union Slug talking points under his arm. So what does it say about those “poor, pittance earning workers” struggling against a company that there are people even worse off than them that they will gladly accept the same conditions and be happy about it? It is you who is making the claim that they either work for the company or die, not me. If you have hands and legs, you can walk out of town and make a living.

            Necessity is the mother of Invention, and people make do with a situation or improve it, the free market adjusts as needed, and people go where there is a demand. Unions stifle that. How many people did the Unions end up killing because they crossed them that we will never know the truth about? I live just outside a town where a Local Union member targeted a Non Union shop owner. He keyed and graffitied the mans car to set off the alarm at night, then waited for the man to come outside where he shot him. Thankfully, the man survived. The problem is not slave labor. The problem is we have too many greedy people holding out their hands and saying “Gimme!” which makes it harder to actually take care of the people who physically cannot work, which as individuals we are called to do if you believe. Just remember, that while you are arguing that the company was causing “Slave labor” you are at the same time suggesting that the company and its owners should be made into a slave to create “living wages” for workers. That is a very dangerous and unconstitutional case to make.

            1. The really silly aspect of our disagreement is that for the most part we agree, and we differ only in a few perspectives. Also, my parenthetical comment “unless you are a Democrat” was intended as a general population ‘you,’ not a specific ‘you.’
              Your (Biblical) perspective: No one is forcing anyone to work for a living; people have the option of figuring out how to survive or they can just die, and you support this perspective with a Biblical reference excoriating the latter option as “laziness” – when in fact the Bible teaches compassion and charity for those ‘less fortunate,’ not their exploitation. Your perspective gives godlike unaccountability to anyone aggressive enough to achieve sufficient knowledge and power to manipulate people and institutions and resources to produce something of value. Indeed, your perspective made absolute grinding poverty, general malnutrition of workers and their families, and dirt-floor living standards and meatless diets the standard for 90% of the population for the 25 centuries previous to our nation’s founding – but it was, after all, “Biblical,” and you think that is superior.
              My (legal, Constitutional) perspective: No one has a right to expect others to support them with the fruits of their labors and no one has the right or the delegated authority to pass laws compelling anyone to do so. However, the law – the State Police power, not the federal Constitution – has the authority to ensure that when people work they are paid for their labors and time and skills and a manner not exploitive of their desperate circumstances. I.e., in your words, payment and benefits sufficient to enable the worker(s) “to provide food and shelter for themselves and their family.” The law rightfully requires that and nothing more.
              This latter condition is accomplished, by the way, by the workers exercising THEIR RIGHT to walk out en masse and demand better working conditions, better pay, and better benefits – and guess what, Mr. ‘Revelator’? That is called a “union.” That is exactly what created the first “union” – people who put themselves in even more desperate straits in order to force the company thugs – and they were, by every measure, ‘thugs’ – to create better working conditions and pay.
              The fact that the unions have gotten too big for their britches is a natural consequence of “Power = Money = Sex” and “Power abhors a vacuum.” As soon as an organization of any kind is formed, its vulnerability to being taken over by the power elite – be it political, corporate, or criminal (do I repeat myself?) – becomes a given.
              Two final observations: First, I lived four years in Australia in the 1970’s under a Labor Government (more or less equivalent to a Communist government, and they admitted it every time they made a public pronouncement of policy) and during that time, if you criticized a union worker, you would find every union in Australia would blackball you. You would have access to NO services of any kind if a service provider knew who you were. I am happy, indeed astonished, to say that somehow the mandatory law requiring trade union membership was repealed a number of years later, and the union membership dropped from 53% of the workforce to about 22%. You don’t have to abolish unions. All you have to do is make their membership optional by law.
              Secondly, the main reason the whole issue of sweat shop labor and the necessity of unions, etc., came up was because originally under our Constitution (and now illegally ignored along with most of the rest of it) mandated a monetary system of gold and silver Coin. Workers were paid in intrinsic value, and there was a constant ascendancy from unskilled labor to skilled to professional to captains of industry, and the book “1900” at the turn of the century reported that during the previous 100 years, the average working man, woman, and child improved their living standard more than they had during the previous 25 centuries. Then the international bankster cartels who wholly-owned Great Britain when we fought for our Independence stole our monetary system from us (they wanted their colonies back) and replaced it with fiat currency I.O.U.’s representing our national debt to them. Today, workers earn debt, and it is next to impossible to move up the ladder unless you start off rich in the first place.
              Lastly, Mr. Revelator, please be careful calling yourself a ‘Constitutionalist’ when in fact you are a ‘Biblican.” I do believe the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were divinely inspired, but they are the supreme Law of the Land, and make the application of Christian principles optional at the federal level.

            2. Donald, the way you came across is what is at issue. Please go back and read where you said “I have to take exception to your comment”, as that is what made it come across that way. And My biblical reasoning is accurate, allow me to explain. Please, if you question it, read through all of it, print it out, and take it to a few priests/pastors and sit down with them and go through it.

              First, I would advise you to read the book of Proverbs and what it has to say about laziness. (You run into the word “Sluggard” used in place depending on the translation) Try 6:6(This is where we get the story of the ant and grasshopper told to children), 6:10-11, 10:4-5, 12:11, 12:24, 12:27, 13:4, 14:23, 18:9, 19:15, 20:4, 20:13, 21:25, 24:30-34, 26:13-16.. There’s more than that, but it is a good place to start.

              Now I can already sense someone getting ready to say “But that is Old Testament stuff. We only need to worry about the New Testament!” Ok well here is the New Testament quote for you. Paul wrote to Timothy in his second direct letter to him, verse 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” Jesus taught out of the Scriptures which were the Old Testament. The New Testament is our way as Christians to understand it. This is why Jesus differentiated between man made traditions(Mosaic law used for ritual) and God’s Laws. I will reference that shortly.

              Paul also wrote in 2nd Thessalonians “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” What he is saying is that believers should work with the understanding that they are to live their faith, and in doing so are an example to others. We are also told not to accept or enable sin. Laziness is a sin, so if you enable it then you as the believer are then sinning. You see, there are two sides to our command to be merciful and compassionate. You cannot take one and say “I like this part, but God you got this whole other part all wrong so I am just going to ignore it.” God doesn’t work that way. That is why I was able to tell people that Hillary Clinton is not a Christian if she believes that as a Christian “our deep seated faith and beliefs have to change to adapt to modern times.” God doesn’t change. To be fair, I said the same thing about Donald Trump. Rule number one as a Christian is “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” So when he said he has never had to ask God for forgiveness(repent), that is where I knew he does not read or actually know the bible.

              So why 2nd Thessalonians? Why did I choose that verse specifically. Because the church in Thessalonica had problems with it before. In the first letter to them Paul wrote (4:10-12) “For that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.” and then (5:14) “And we urge you, brothers, ADMONISH THE IDLE, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. ” I could keep going. I can quote from Hebrews, Matthew, James, Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, Peter, Romans, Corinthians… The point is, while the bible calls for INDIVIDUALS to be merciful and compassionate, it also states that we are to do all things in accordance with God. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. I’ll explain that one in my next comment.

            3. I’m about to share my Principles with you mr Cline, and explain why I call myself a constitutionalist.
              1. God first.
              2. Constitution(which I recognize as being the charter established by the Covenant this nation made before God, the Declaration of Independence)
              3. Family/Friends/Neighbors
              4. Myself
              5. The US Government and everything else comes in dead last.

              If it looks familiar, it should if you are a fan of sports. Now, since they are principles, not one of those things can jump ahead of another and take its place. They are stone firm. I am a Constitutionalist to the point where it does not try to force me to break my faith. If it ever does that, God wins out. And yes, that does mean I will stand up and tell my country’s government “NO!” even if it means jail time or more likely, a bullet to the head because I won’t budge. You know what else? That is what Thomas Jefferson was saying when he said “Disobedience to Tyrants is obedience to God.”

              Now, to correct a few points on Constitutionalism that you presented incorrectly. The Declaration of Independence is what gives our Constitution authority, but that authority is also limited. Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land, but it is a Charter in place to restrict all branches of Government from interceding on the rights of the people. That is why it defines and LIMITS the Government to very narrow positions. When that started going off track was in the early 1800s, but the big blow was not British Banking. First, it was the inclusion of the Income tax. The second blow was by FDR when he confiscated all privately held gold. The third, when we went off the Gold Standard in the latter half of the 20th century.

              Now, can you tell me where in the Constitution it says the “state police power” has the authority to mandate how someone must distribute their property(holdings) amongst workers? Please, explain. And also please don’t try to cite US Code either after openly stating the Constitution is the Law of the Land, because US Code does not Supersede the Constitution. Now, I can tell you right now, that the Free Market will usually balance things out. If a Company makes its wages too low, people won’t work for them. As you pointed out, people have a right to walk out en masse. However, if there are people willing to work, it is the business’s right to go and hire them. But if no one wants to work for those wages, the company then either goes out of business or they raise the wage to meet the demand. That is the Constitutional method based on free market principles. Your argument is that a group of people can walk out, and then hold the company hostage until it gives them what they want. That is not in the Constitution. People do have a right to peaceably assemble and organize, but they do not have a right to dictate to someone else what they do with their own property. I could insert your Straw man argument of “If you are not for this, then you must be a…” here, but not going to. I will just say please remember that property rights are protected as well.

              Ok, so here is the likely point where you would bring up an argument like “But the Supreme Court said….” in regards to Police State Power(Yes I reworded it that way on purpose) supporting the Governments position that the Minimum wage is Constitutional. I’m talking about the most pressing point you could bring up, and that is United States vs Darby(1940).

              The Tenth Amendment plainly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Period…. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. However, in Darby the Supreme Court looked at that plain English and threw it out. They didn’t like what it said, so they decided to ignore it because they wanted to support a power grab by the Federal Government. to quote the Supreme Court, they said “the Tenth Amendment does not deprive Congress of “authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” Uhhhhhh, yes it actually does do that. It states that not only Congress, but all three branches of the Government are limited to the scope of the powers outlined for them in the Constitution and everything else is outside of their hands.

              Since that doesn’t leave room for argument, and is a plain example of government over reach and lawlessness by the supreme court, my next guess is that you would turn to the Commerce Clause for your argument. Remember I said early 1800’s was when things started going downhill Constitutionally? Yep, right there. We can get into that if you like, however I don’t recommend it. The last guy who tried ended up saying some things that did not do his argument any favors because that position ultimately leads to the support of a tyrannical, fascist socialism, or communistic form of government.

              Now, you have said some things “Describing my position” as you put it. I’m going to tell you straight out, Stop lying… You can twist my position all you want, I understand the why and the how of the way you are trying to do it. First, I did not say “No one is forcing anyone to work for a living” I said that Individuals don’t have to work for just one company, they can move and start over fresh, or they can rally public support to put pressure on the company(You know… a Boycott..) That is why your argument does not hold water, and why in this case you are resorting to what I have termed one of the “Three D’s” In this case, it is “Destroy”, in which you are trying to poison the well of the argument by. The next point you tried to make regarding the bible vs “Exploitation” is the second part of that, followed right up by the claim that I favor Unaccountability. It’s a very weak attempt to paint me as a villain since I began referencing a Moral argument as well as a Constitutionalist one. Because it is improbable and almost impossible to overcome the opponent attacks the messenger while largely avoiding or only alluding to the message.

              For those curious, the other two D’s are “Deny” and “Dismiss/Distract.” The three in concert form a very predictable pattern of argument where an individual arguing an opinion devolves into a pre conditioned pattern psychologically as a self defense mechanism. It is common among(but not limited to) Liberals and SJW’s when factual evidence contradicts their points.

              Back to you mr Cline. You quite sardonically asked me to be careful about calling myself a Constitutionalist at the very end of your argument. I’m going to make two points about that. First, you brought up Australia and their issues. Like with our second amendment, Australia does not have or operate by our Constitution. What they do does not bear upon whether the action would be acceptable here. Second, I have just raised points where you are arguing against the constitution to favor certain opinions you have about these subjects, your perspective as you put it. I’ll ask you to consider the points I raised before you continue. If you want to keep going then I am game. However, if you do be very careful that you do not rely on opinion to argue, because I argue on factual evidence and keep my opinions separate. If you do not know “what” it is that you are arguing with, how can you make a case against it? Would you tie weights around your ankles before jumping into water that you do not know the depth of? Take a day or two and think about it. Until then, stay safe, and God Bless.

            4. We have run out of the reply tree branches, so this must be posted out of index.
              My Response to your first:
              “You cannot take one and say “I like this part, but God you got this whole other part all wrong so I am just going to ignore it.” Yes, I can. I can say anything I wish. I can live my life as I wish. I can worship God and Christ as I wish, not as you wish. And thou shalt not judge.
              “Rule number one as a Christian is “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” So you say. I have a different definition, and it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not.
              “So when he said he has never had to ask God for forgiveness(repent), that is where I knew he does not read or actually know the bible.” That is an arrogant presumption on your part. You “know” nothing of the kind. You choose to believe that to give you domination over those you wish to belittle.
              With regard to your first reply, thank you for confirming you are an arrogant theocratist, what I call a “Biblican,” using the Bible to justify your desire to belittle others and to elevate yourself above the common herd whom you consider to be “sinners.” Personally, I doubt either God or Christ would favor your misuse of that Holy Document. But you are free to do as you wish, and be accountable for the consequences, as am I.
              Response to your second:
              “I am a Constitutionalist to the point where it does not try to force me to break my faith.” The Constitution does not, cannot, require you to break your faith. It can and does, however, prohibit you from imposing your faith upon others by force of law. (And I am not talking about ‘separation of church and State,’ which is a concept that does not appear in the Constitution.)
              “The Declaration of Independence is what gives our Constitution authority, but that authority is also limited.” No, winning the War for Independence is what established the States as sovereign nation-States in their own right, no less so than England, France, Germany, or any other nation. That’s why our States are called “States;” as opposed to provinces, prefects, etc. Our sovereign nation-States created the U.S. Constitution; the Constitution did not create our sovereign nation-States. In creating the Constitutional compact the sovereign nation-States agreed to be “United,” and agreed to the creation out of their sovereign powers a federal government not to govern the States and the people in all manner of governance, but to exercise unified sovereign State authority over specific issues, policies, and jurisdictions, such as foreign affairs, interstate commerce, and regulations pertaining to navigable waterways. When a sovereign nation-State delegates authority to its creation, it does not lose that authority for itself, for it is the States’ sovereign authority being enforced by the States’ creation according to the rules established by the States. (It was not until the federal government illegally declared the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913, when that amendment is specifically prohibited by the last clause of Article V unless every State Consents [and ten did not] that the federal government started claiming sovereign authority in its own right contrary to the U.S. Constitution.)
              “When that started going off track was in the early 1800s, but the big blow was not British Banking. First, it was the inclusion of the Income tax.” The Income Tax (16th) Amendment was also declared ratified in 1913, not the 1800’s, when in fact more than half the States the SecState claimed ratified re-wrote it first and ‘ratified’ something that had not been proposed. And this was done specifically because of the intent, by the international bankers President Andrew Jackson kicked out of the country in 1832, to steal our gold and silver Coin and replace it with worthless fiat paper currency: The bankers knew it was necessary to tax a portion of the fiat currency out of circulation every time it changed hands in order to spread out the debilitating effects of inflation over a period of years instead of hours, so – as British Lord Economist John Maynard Keynes wrote in “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” (1920) – “not one man in a million can detect the theft.” This is also why the 17th Amendment was falsely declared ratified: To remove the legal standing of the sovereign nation-States over their wholly-owned creation, the federal government, and to prevent them from invoking the Constitutional prohibition against States declaring “any Thing but old and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt.”
              “Now, can you tell me where in the Constitution it says the “state police power” has the authority to mandate how someone must distribute their property(holdings) amongst workers? Please, explain.” I just did, but to recap: The sovereign nation-States created their wholly-owned federal government, not the other ‘way ‘round. The States have the Police Power; the federal government does not. Other than specific waivers of State sovereign authority, such as the prohibition against making any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of debt, the only authority the States prohibited to themselves were in the Bill of Rights: The States conditioned their ratification of the Constitution on a Bill of Rights, they demanded one, they got one, they ratified it … and then claimed from the very beginning, that it only applied to the federal government, not to the States. This is in direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution which says the Constitution (and laws IN PURSUANCE THEREOF) are the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, the Constitution or Laws of any State notwithstanding.
              “Your argument is that a group of people can walk out, and then hold the company hostage until it gives them what they want. That is not in the Constitution.” Nor is it in what I said. The striking workers are not ‘holding’ anything belonging to the company. They are merely throwing the ball back to the company, who has the right to close their doors, hire new workers (if any are willing to cross the picket line), or negotiate the workers’ demands. Furthermore, I will point out that nothing in the Constitution authorizes limited liability corporations, either, and in fact prohibits them as the exact analog of the British feudal aristocratic “Titles of Nobility,” which are entrenched in British law for exactly the same reason: To protect the aristocrats from legal liability for their violations of the rights of the people. Note, by the way, that the officers of the corporation have only those rights given them by the government as “artificial persons;” they have no natural rights given them by God. Thus they do not have the right to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms on their premises open to the public, but the government allows them to do so because government prefers a docile citizenry without the means to resist. Let the corporation refuse to bake a cake for a disfavored class of individuals, however, which is the perfect right of a natural individual at law, and the government will be all over it hammer and tongs.
              “I will just say please remember that property rights are protected as well.” Are they? Including the right to choose with whom you wish to associate (bake a cake example, above), build a home on your own property near a creek (EPA regs), keep and bear arms in any location you have a right or have purchased permission to be?
              “ supporting the Governments position that the Minimum wage is Constitutional.” The minimum wage is Constitutional (the federal government is not delegated the authority to deal with it in any way) but it is one of the dumbest ideas State and local governments have ever come up with: All it does is establish a higher wage level as the poverty level. All it does is make everything more expensive and therefore does not help the worker in the slightest beyond the first few weeks of its implementation. And worse, it causes unskilled workers to lose their jobs or have their hours cut back because they are not producing enough profit for the company to pay them the higher wage. To add insult to injury, the workers demonstrating for it in Seattle discovered they lost their welfare benefits due to their higher wages. It is a fact of reality that a worker’s time, labor, and skills have to be more valuable to the employer than they are to the worker, or it is not profitable for the employer to hire the worker or keep him on.
              Re: “Darby.” It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the Supreme Court has engaged in expediency rather than supreme Law. However, there is a remedy: Again, the federal government – including the SCOTUS – is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign nation-States that created it and delegated to it certain limited powers from the sovereign power of the State. Any State has the sovereign authority to declare the 17th Amendment null and void for lack of ratification, demand to seat its own chosen Senators in the U.S. Senate to advance the interests of the State instead of the people, and tell the SCOTUS to go pound sand because that ruling is NOT what the Constitution says, and the SCOTUS is not delegated the authority to make law.
              Re: “Commerce Clause” It is obvious from your arrogant tone since the very beginning you have totally and thoroughly misjudged me, and the provenance of the U.S. Constitution as well. The “Commerce Clause” argument is a bogus one used by the Marxist Mafia to justify dismantling our national rule of law. The Commerce clause conveys absolutely ZERO authority to the federal government to do more than regulate the commerce between the States. It does NOT authorize regulation of any product or activity that has PREVIOUSLY passed in commerce between the States. It also does not, for example, authorize compelling a farmer to restrict the amount of wheat he can grow or put to market, and does not authorize paying him a bribe to do or not do either one. See Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) 317 U.S. 111 for the most egregious example of his misuse of the Commerce Clause, and it is the ruling that fully jump-started the bogus idea that the federal government could do anything at all it chose, and thus become the rogue occupation government we have today.
              “Remember I said early 1800’s was when things started going downhill Constitutionally?” Thomas Jefferson said that ten years after the Constitution was ratified.
              Re: ‘The Three D’s”: Very good illustration of the Frankfurt School application of “Critical theory,” in which every principle, every standard of decency, every fundamental tradition is criticized incessantly on the theory that when all standards of conduct have been demolished, Marxism will be the default left behind. It is the theory exercised most often by Marxist apparatchiks and their ‘useful idiots’ in my fight to restore and justify respect for the United States Constitution and our liberties and Rule of Law our nation was founded to preserve and protect, and I am very familiar with it. I recognize its use immediately. That being the case, I don’t believe I used the technique on you and I would not use it on others. I do, however, as I said, object to your tone of moral (Biblical) superiority and I said so outright. I did not ridicule or dismiss you for it – i.e., I did not attempt to denigrate you in the court of public opinion without substance as common with that technique; rather, I stated my objection to your face.
              I believe I have adequately corrected your perception of the relationship between the States, the people, and the federal government, so I accept your offer to continue this game if you wish to discuss it as equals rather than as a moral superior talking down to an uneducated parishioner.

            5. Donald.
              1. On picking and Choosing what is ok biblically. I never said you had to believe it, or that I would force you. Just that the bible is very clear about what it says and what you have to do if you are going to be a Christian. It was Jesus who said “The only way to the father is through me” and “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Even those who proclaim to be Christian are spoken against if they choose to follow their own wishes instead of Christs teaching.

              2. Sin began with original sin as recorded in Genisis, if you believe in the bible. That is why all people are plagued with Sin. You are welcome to believe differently, as that is your right, but you’re not arguing with me on that definition so much as one of the basic tenets of the Christian Faith.

              3. No, Trump said exactly what I said he did. It’s not an “Arrogant Presumption” made to belittle him or anyone else. It’s a statement of what the bible says. It’s not seeking domination either. Sadly this is the second time you have tried to link this lie in conjunction with what I said by trying to twist it to fit your narrative. “but it was, after all, “Biblical,” and you think that is superior.” remember? But of course, trying to put words in other people’s mouths is in no way “Arrogant Presumption” intending to belittle or discredit now is it? The difference there is I am quoting Donald Trumps own words and comparing them to the Letter of the Bible. You are trying to equate my doing so with intentional malice. The bible has a term that it uses for that practice quite often. It’s called hypocrisy.

              4. ” you are an arrogant theocratist, what I call a “Biblican,” using the Bible to justify your desire to belittle others and to elevate yourself above the common herd whom you consider to be “sinners.”  ”

              Hmmm, I think I did mention that “All” have sinned, and that includes myself. I do not put myself above anyone else, but on equal footing, which ironically is exactly what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution try to recognize. That all are created equal. This is also tied into the hypocrisy covered in point number three.

              5. you brought up “Thou shall not judge.” the full verse is ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2) However, if you look at the verses immediately following that (4:3-5) it explains the context. Do not practice Hypocrisy. The term “judge” is also one of the most misused points of that verse, as Paul described in Romans(Romans 2:3) the difference between good judgement, and passing judgement. The second is what you are referencing, and the word most appropriate for that is Condemnation. If you are trying to use that verse in Matthew then as a shield for your actions, then that tells me that something I said upset you enough if you are a believer that it triggered your conscience.

              Since you included the Constitution, I will address those in my next comment to keep things organized.

            6. First, we have to address why I am saying the Constitution is a charter. Lets turn to what created the separate states in the first place. The Declaration of Independence.

              “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

              That right there is expressly what I am referring to. It is not just limited to the Federal Government, but applies to the individual states as well as the localities within them. Remember, the United States of America did not exist until March 4th, 1789. Prior to that we operated under the Articles of Confederation, which were agreed to in 1777, but not put into place until March 1st, 1781. The document which prescribed the institution of these documents is the Declaration of Independence, which is why I have called them Charters since that document which was adopted on July 2nd, 1776 is what stated the “Why” and “How” they are formed, and for what purpose. It was not winning the war that did it. It was instituted from the start. It states that the “Right” is present not after the war was won, but was what they were invoking on and predating July 2nd 1776. If you want to challenge this, go ahead but you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers.. Now, lets address the points you made.

              1. “The Constitution does not, cannot, require you to break your faith.  It can and does, however, prohibit you from imposing your faith upon others by force of law. ” Again, you are trying to claim that I am advocating a position that I have not, nor ever will support. First off, The Constitution prohibits Government mandate for religion, and also prohibits the restriction of it provided it does not violate another individual’s rights(Satanic cults cannot practice human sacrifice as an example, but other than that they may worship as they choose). The attempt to allude to an idea that I would support such mandate is a flat out lie, and has no supporting evidence. Nice try GIL!!! =)

              Your point also precludes any situation where the Constitution might be amended, whereas the Government would then try to claim it has the right to force someone to violate their faith/right of conscience under the Constitution. Of course that would never, ever, ever happen……. Sweet Cakes by Melissa anyone?

              2. I think you need to go back and read the 17th amendment, and Article 5 one more time. Lets start with Article 5.

              Article 5 places a twenty year ban on amendments linked to Article 1 Section 9, clauses 1 and 4. That is dealing with the importation of Slaves, and the taxation of that importation. That date is listed as 1808. Amendments are to require three fourths of the states or congressional assemblies to Ratify. And finally, no State shall be deprived of the representation of two senators(The same as every other state) without it’s consent.

              Amendment 17 is not illegal under Article 5 as it does not deprive any state of one or both of it’s required Senate representation(Suffrage). What it did do was an incognito power grab to institute Mob Rule within the states. The original position of Senator was to be appointed by Representatives voting to seat them, that way each district had a say in who was seated as the Senators were supposed to represent the diverse make up of the state, not just isolated population centers. The creation of General Elections for senate seats stripped the protection from less populated districts in violation of the original intent of the Constitution. It’s why LA and San Francisco are dictating all of California’s politics. Please read before you post.

              3. “The Income Tax (16th) Amendment was also declared ratified in 1913, not the 1800’s,” Correct, however that is not what I was saying. What I said was that we started getting off Track from the Constitution in the 1800’s. I never said that the Income Tax happened at that time. I only referenced it as one of a three part attack on individual wealth(Your statement that we are paid in debt.)

              So allow me to point you to the exact time and date when we started getting away from the constitution. February 27th, 1801. Congress passed the Circuit Court Act which led to the “Midnight Judges” appointed by John Adams. The Federalists had just lost the election of 1800, and on the eve of leaving, they created forty two new positions for Adams to pack the courts with Federalist supporters as a way to maintain power and weaken the incoming administration and congress. Sound familiar? It’s happened a lot since then. In the case of Marbury vs Madison, Marbury was someone appointed, but whose commission had not been delivered. He sued the incoming Jefferson administration in the Supreme Court, who stated that under Article 3 Section 2 the Supreme Court did not have Jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Marshall had been president Adams Secretary of State, not to mention the man who failed to deliver the commission to Marbury. It was he who illegally and unconstitutionally usurped power for the Supreme court when he unilaterally declared “the Supreme Court is the Final Arbiter of the Constitution” and “Has the authority to Disallow acts of Congress or the President it feels has violated the Constitution. He rubber stamped his own power to enable him to protect his own political party in violation of the Constitution. As I stated, it began right at the start of the 1800’s.

              4. Economist John Maynard Keynes is well known in economic circles. However, you may not want to reference him as Keynesian economics are the biggest source of our problems in this country today. It was Keynes that postulated the idea that during a recession aggregate demand(total spending) is what stimulates economic output. Translation, “when everything crashes, keep spending more and more money!” He is the guy FDR turned to to validate his stances on everything he was doing in the 1930’s.

              5. Ultimate Sovereign Authority. You know, this is why I quoted the Declaration of Independence straight off. The States do not own Ultimate Sovereign Authority. Neither does the Federal Government for “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Individual Citizens are the sole possessors of Sovereign Authority, and why I quoted the Tenth Amendment yesterday. It is by our consent that the state has any Powers(See also Administrative privileges) at all, and the same goes to the Federal Government. That is why should we as a people ever decide to remove Governments both at the state and Federal level, it is our right to do so. It Predates the Constitution.

              6. “Other than specific waivers of State sovereign authority, such as the prohibition against making any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of debt, the only authority the States prohibited to themselves were in the Bill of Rights:  The States conditioned their ratification of the Constitution on a Bill of Rights, they demanded one, they got one, they ratified it … and then claimed from the very beginning, that it only applied to the federal government, not to the States.  This is in direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution which says the Constitution (and laws IN PURSUANCE THEREOF) are the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, the Constitution or Laws of any State notwithstanding.”

              This one is more complicated. You got it partly right, partly wrong. The federal government has the power to declare war and negotiate treaties, mediate in trade between the individual states, mint currency, the power to levy Taxes(Tariffs on foreign goods back then), control immigration, and to mete out punishment for crimes of Treason. So it was actually quite a bit more than what you listed. What you did get correct was that the Constitution is the Law of the Land, and applies to all Governmental levels, Federal, State, and Local. No law passed by any may be enforced if it is contrary to the constitution and its prohibitions against government over reach.

              The last part of it is a little bit murky. Are you including Silver Certificates in accordance with “Fiat Money”? That is why I brought up the Gold Standard. There is a difference between bills backed by a set amount of actual bullion vs currency which is printed without backing.

              7. Titles of Nobility. This has nothing to do with LLC’s. What it is saying is that no Citizen can be awarded a post of Honor or Nobility or power from a Foreign Country, and that no public servant may be awarded a title of Nobility. Essentially, they can’t be handed that seat as a life long post. That is Article 1, section 9, clause 8. An LLC is a means of separating your private property(Home, car, tv) from your business property for purposes of protecting them from civil suits, while still maintaining ownership of your company unlike a Corporation.

              8. “I will just say please remember that property rights are protected as well.”  Are they?  Including the right to choose with whom you wish to associate (bake a cake example, above), build a home on your own property near a creek (EPA regs), keep and bear arms in any location you have a right or have purchased permission to be?
              “   supporting the Governments position that the Minimum wage is Constitutional.”  The minimum wage is Constitutional (the federal government is not delegated the authority to deal with it in any way) but it is one of the dumbest ideas State and local governments have ever come up with:  All it does is establish a higher wage level as the poverty level. ”

              Again, you got this partly right, and partly wrong. Lets start with your question to my quote.

              YES! They are! Right now our government is in violation of the Constitution. The Second amendment prohibits the Government of any level from preventing you from acquiring or using means of self defense. This is not just firearms, but hand held devices. Stun guns, Knives, Swords, clubs, Sprays.. It is tied directly to our pre-existing and Unalienable right to life! So yes, and the Fourth amendment protects property, both physical and intellectual. It’s not just for searches, it is for Seizures, that is the taking of property without sufficient compensation to give to another entity. It doesn’t matter if that entity is Governmental or individual. Due Process must be followed.

              For the EPA, Only Congress has the power to write laws, and the Executive branch enforces them. EPA Regulations currently are enforced with the power of law with applicable penalties in violation of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for Congress to delegate their authority to someone else so they don’t have to vote on unpopular things! This does not just go for the EPA, but every level of bureaucratic over reach happening in Federal and state Governments today. Already covered the cake issue up above. If you don’t understand that simple principle, how can you honestly keep claiming to support the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land if you are trying to argue against that point, or allude that “Well some exceptions have to be made” just because you want to disagree with me?

              9. “The minimum wage is Constitutional (the federal government is not delegated the authority to deal with it in any way) but it is one of the dumbest ideas State and local governments have ever come up with:  All it does is establish a higher wage level as the poverty level.  All it does is make everything more expensive and therefore does not help the worker in the slightest beyond the first few weeks of its implementation.  And worse, it causes unskilled workers to lose their jobs or have their hours cut back because they are not producing enough profit for the company to pay them the higher wage”

              This part you got absolutely Correct except for one part. Again, Where does it say in the Constitution that the Government can mandate how much and to whom a person’s property is given under force of law. It isn’t. If it isn’t in the Constitution, that Authority does not exist. What does exist is in cases of criminal or civil recompense as outlined by Due Process.

              10. Any State has the sovereign authority to declare the 17th Amendment null and void for lack of ratification, demand to seat its own chosen Senators in the U.S. Senate to advance the interests of the State instead of the people, and tell the SCOTUS to go pound sand because that ruling is NOT what the Constitution says, and the SCOTUS is not delegated the authority to make law.

              Congratulations. You got this part 100% Correct, no corrections needed.

              11. The Commerce clause conveys absolutely ZERO authority to the federal government to do more than regulate the commerce between the States.  It does NOT authorize regulation of any product or activity that has PREVIOUSLY passed in commerce between the States.  It also does not, for example, authorize compelling a farmer to restrict the amount of wheat he can grow or put to market, and does not authorize paying him a bribe to do or not do either one.  See Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) 317 U.S. 111 for the most egregious example of his misuse of the Commerce Clause, and it is the ruling that fully jump-started the bogus idea that the federal government could do anything at all it chose, and thus become the rogue occupation government we have today.

              This part is also perfectly correct, and is EXACTLY what I was getting at! In fact, had you bothered to look up my other posts on this very subject, you would see that that is exactly what I have stated and maintained in the past!

              12. Re: “Commerce Clause”  It is obvious from your arrogant tone since the very beginning you have totally and thoroughly misjudged me, and the provenance of the U.S. Constitution as well.  The “Commerce Clause” argument is a bogus one used by the Marxist Mafia to justify dismantling our national rule of law. 

              Funny, accusing me of being a Marxist with arrogant tones, name calling, and completely ignoring that I argue against the interpretation used by said argument. Hello pot? Yeah, its kettle. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?

              13. ““Remember I said early 1800’s was when things started going downhill Constitutionally?”  Thomas Jefferson said that ten years after the Constitution was ratified.”

              Hmm, covered the above, and that puts us right at the election of 1800.

              14. Re:  ‘The Three D’s”:  Very good illustration of the Frankfurt School application of “Critical theory,” in which every principle, every standard of decency, every fundamental tradition is criticized incessantly on the theory that when all standards of conduct have been demolished, Marxism will be the default left behind.”

              First of all, its not a theory. Its a practice used by Marxists So how does my outlining and explaining why it is a practice used by idiots to justify their lack of an argument make me a Marxist?

              15. “It is the theory exercised most often by Marxist apparatchiks and their ‘useful idiots’ in my fight to restore and justify respect for the United States Constitution and our liberties and Rule of Law our nation was founded to preserve and protect, and I am very familiar with it.”

              Fighting to restore it by arguing against parts of it, or ignoring parts you don’t agree with? *Head scratching

              16. “I do, however, as I said, object to your tone of moral (Biblical) superiority and I said so outright.  I did not ridicule or dismiss you for it – i.e., I did not attempt to denigrate you in the court of public opinion without substance as common with that technique; rather, I stated my objection to your face.
              I believe I have adequately corrected your perception of the relationship between the States, the people, and the federal government, so I accept your offer to continue this game if you wish to discuss it as equals rather than as a moral superior talking down to an uneducated parishioner.”

              So you deny any name calling, any condescending remarks attempting to falsely label me something I am not politically, speaking down to me as though I do not know the constitution? Well, let me state my objection directly to you, again. You have tried to lie about what I have said. You have done so because you want to appear as the smartest individual in the room. As you stated, You are willing to say whatever you want or feel the need to because you don’t like that I have quoted scriptures and shown my work. Somewhere in your mind you have it that I have made you look bad, while you were the one who started this little conflict.

              So, I’ll ask you. Are you ready to continue a conversation as an equal, or are you going to keep ignoring what I have shown and engage in hypocrisy to try and demonize me so you don’t actually have to debate the points I’ve made(such as trying to label me a Marxist now. Boy that one is funny! Whoooo boy…)

            7. Again, the lack of a ‘Reply’ to your last message requires me to respond out of the proper index:
              “1. I never said you had to believe it, or that I would force you.” No, you just assumed that I would accept your assumptions as the Gospel, and expressed your assumption as fact that if I did not buy into your assumptions I was not a Christian. My response was to make you aware that you don’t get to say whether I am a Christian or not. It is insufferably arrogant of you to do so. That is true regardless of the accuracy or the error, as the case may be, in your faith, which is not for me to say just as it is not for you to say whether I am in error or not.

              I will also point out that Christ also said something to the effect that it was more important to do what he, Christ, was doing than it was to be technically correct in quoting the Bible or in carrying on the requisite good works in the community.

              “2. Sin began with original sin as recorded in Genisis, if you believe in the bible.” I commend to your consideration the Book of Genesis in the Book of Urantia. You don’t have to believe it, and I don’t have to, but you will find that if the Book of Genesis in the Book of Urantia is how Genesis REALLY happened, and the miraculous story was told, and retold, by word of mouth father to son for about 25 generations, the Book of Genesis in the Bible would be the likely result. And further, it would explain how the original intent to teach the Power of Love of God was subverted into the Love of Power for all humankind. (I would also recommend you investigate the 13 or so translations and transcriptions of the Bible, each produced by a patron who had an axe to grind and transcribed by scribes who, although bound to the original meaning, nevertheless had their own agendas that creeped in here and there. In addition, there were groups of men appointed here and there to decide what books were to be included in the Bible and what books were not. Dare I ask you if you even have a clue who ‘Lilith’ was? More than one extremely dedicated Biblical scholar has announced his conversion to believe in God and Christ without depending upon the Bible as a result of these discrepancies.

              “3. No, Trump said exactly what I said he did.” I never said he didn’t. I wasn’t challenging what you claim he said; I was challenging your accusation that he is not a Christian if he does not act in a manner indicating he believes as you believe. Regardless of what the Bible says to you, you don’t get to say whether another is a Christian or not; you are not the Judge of Man pronouncing your judgments from On High, and the United States of America is not a Theocracy.

              3. (Continued): “The difference there is I am quoting Donald Trumps own words and comparing them to the Letter of the Bible. You are trying to equate my doing so with intentional malice. The bible has a term that it uses for that practice quite often. It’s called hypocrisy.” No, I am equating your doing so with insufferable arrogance; the malice arises entirely unintentionally. And “hypocrisy’ is saying one thing and doing another; the word you meant to use was “apostasy” – which is what your accusations against Trump amount to, and which is exactly the insufferable arrogance I am trying to bring to your attention.

              4. “I do not put myself above anyone else, but on equal footing, which ironically is exactly what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution try to recognize. That all are created equal.” That sounds like a good start, but that is exactly what you were doing: You believe in the Bible as the unfailing Word of God and that is what makes you a Christian therefore anyone who believes otherwise or chooses to live his life otherwise is not a Christian in your eyes and it is your job to open their eyes to the Light of God and Truth and Right. I repeat what I said above: You don’t get to judge whether another man is a Christian or not, at least not out loud. And you don’t get to appoint yourself Counselor to anyone else without their invitation.

              “5. you brought up “Thou shall not judge.” the full verse is ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2)” I know what the full verse says, and I think you should apply it to yourself.

              Further, I was not using that verse as a shield for my actions; I don’t measure the rightness of my actions by Biblical verses taken out of context, and I say “taken out of context” on the grounds that whatever you decide that verse means is out of context where I am concerned. I was telling you that where my actions and beliefs and your limited understanding of my actions and beliefs are concerned, you shall not judge.

              Now if you wish, you can take our entire exchange and throw it in the nearest ash heap if you need to, if necessary to avoid deeply considering what I have said here about insufferable arrogance. I have known evangelists in the past and I have listened to them because they talked about their experiences and their faith and their beliefs in a manner that I could relate to, that I could compare with my own and come to my own conclusions as to their value. But I have challenged you here because you are the kind of evangelist that needs others to see it your way at all costs because by that means you validate yourself and your beliefs. And you are not the first self-appointed evangelist I have found necessary to light up for their insufferable arrogance. I’m done here. Have a good day.

        2. A hundred years ago the average lifespan was 40. There was no overtime pay. There were few benefit programs. Credit was hard to get. There were still kids working full time hours. Yes, the unions, as institutions often do, went too far, but without them the average worker would have been worse off IMO.

          Pure Capitalism works no better than Communism. Neither gives due consideration to human nature. I tend to agree with TR on wages. Some sort of oversight must exist on all institutions, including unions, corporations and government.

          1. Larry Brickey,
            Seems my second post has not been moderated yet. I will tell you straight out that I do not believe in Oversight other than that practiced by individual citizens. It’s our duty, not the government’s That is the way a Free market works. It gave us people like Andrew Carnegie, who spent the later years of his life trying to give much of his wealth away. John D. Rockefeller did the same thing(Not that I agree with everything he did) funding projects all across the country.

            Henry Ford always felt his workers were family to him and said that if someone worked for him, then he would always pay them in a way that they could easily afford one of his automobiles. That is what Free Market American Capitalism empowers. Not just the entrepreneurial spirit, but the generosity that follows success. Interestingly enough, it was FDR who brought the Government in and strong armed Ford into becoming a Union operation. Ford didn’t want it, his workers didn’t need it, but an overbearing and dictatorial government did. Please do not mistake much of today’s Crony Capitalism for actual Free Market Capitalism as it was intended under the Constitution with minimal interference. They are two separate and wholly different animals. Crony Capitalism is socialism, aka Communism lite. That is why you don’t see much difference between the two.

          2. by the way, Thank you for posting again. We may not agree on everything, but at least we can have a civil discussion about it. I was not attempting to be mean spirited in my original reply to you, and I think you understood that. That is the heart of honest debate.

            God Bless, and enjoy your weekend Larry.

            1. I’m neither a student of the Constitution or Economics but I stand by my observations. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

        3. Ok, I’m going to answer your points with each corresponding number. I will try to keep it as simple as possible to avoid confusion as well.(Not talking down to you, will explain at the end)

          1. First of all, we are talking about the Christian Bible.. It is the bible that is used for teaching in all protestant churches in the US(The Catholic bible has a few extra chapters on church doctrine), and traces its history to the Geneva Bible of 1560. Second, it’s not about what I am saying. It’s about what Christ said, and as I have shown according to scripture if you are not doing that, if you want to try and say you can ignore parts of Christ’s teaching you don’t agree with, then you are not a Christian. Sorry, that is what Christ said. If you have a problem with me quoting the scripture where he said it, then your problem is not with me, it is with God.

          2. The book of Urantia… Yeah… You mean the book that was written in the 1920’s and was popular until about 1950 or so? That book? I’m sorry, but comparing that book to Christianity is akin to comparing Marilyn Manson to being an exemplary church elder. The closest “Religion” to it today is that of Scientology, at least as far as methodology and cosmic population theory go. Here is an article which presents where Genesis came from, while being understanding that our modern version was composed after the fact during the time of the Exodus. http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm I actually would be interested to know what you honestly think after reading it.

          Second, yes I am aware there are many books written, but not contained in the bible. Many come from dubious sources with subjects that delve into the realm of insanity. I am quite aware that “Lilith” was one of the characters from one of these and that she is presented in that document to be Adam’s first wife.. However, that is also along the same lines as the “Gospel of Judas Iscariot”, and others claiming an illicit love affair between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I also recognize your reference to at least the first Ecumenical Council of 325AD. I have taken a university level Church History course which covered everything from the period of 50AD all the way up to 1900AD. I am quite aware of the history and the actions that happened during the formation of the early church, including several murders that took place at the councils. That is why I turn back to the actual documents we know were written by Paul, and peter to the early churches when it comes to matters of Doctrine, the actual witnesses of Jesus Christ, and not to controversial points made later at the ecumenical councils.

          3. Again, turn to point one. It’s not me saying it. If you don’t follow Christ’s message to the letter, you are not a Christian. You may be practicing some faith or religion, and you can be a very good person, but Christ said “Narrow is the path, and even narrower is the gate.” All I am doing is repeating Christ’s teachings, and the lessons given by those he commissioned to teach the church. If your conscience feels its under attack or being condemned by what I am saying, then pick up the bible and start reading. God is probably trying to tell you something. Stop trying to make this about the messenger, when the message given isn’t opinion, but actually what the bible says.

          3. Part 2…. Hypocrisy is the correct word. I shall demonstrate. Your position on my supposed “Insufferable arrogance” yes? You are saying “How dare you try to tell people what they are and what they aren’t!! How dare you act all high and mighty!” But yet you turn around and try to tell me you have the providence to tell me exactly what I am from your very first comment. On the argument of “Moral Superiority”, would you like me to begin listing each of your comments where you have done the very thing you accuse me of doing? You understand the definition of hypocrisy, but in your attempt to forcefully make me acknowledge the superiority of your opinion you are failing to see how you are engaging in Hypocrisy. I present this quote as evidence, “which is exactly the insufferable arrogance I am trying to bring to your attention.” What you are doing is saying “How dare you!! It’s my job to correct the error of your ways!” Do you see the problem there?

          4. No, my job as a Christian is to spread the word, not as I see it but as it is written, and to also live according to it. Acta Non Verba. Actions, not words. That also includes the Principle of free will, or the choice God gives to each, to accept or deny him. I can only present the message, and point to it when correcting an inaccuracy, but I cannot and do not try to force anyone else to believe or “Convert.” That is between them and God, and if they choose not to follow his will, then that is on them. That is why I can talk to non-believers and they don’t view me as a threat, because I will not force them to share my belief. The larger issue comes from believers who just want a “washy washy feel good on Sunday cause I’ll go to heaven if I sit in a pew long enough” when I or anyone else begins reading directly from the bible. The usual response is “How dare you judge me!!” Again, it’s not me or another person judging them, it is their conscience attacking them. It’s not just a single person it can happen to either, it’s all believers. I’d point to the story of Peter. It took Jesus telling him against his will that he would deny him(Christ) three times to show him he wasn’t in control if he was going to follow Jesus.

          5. I already cited my work on that subject, and showed it was not my opinion that I was talking about. There is a difference between discernment(Good Judgement) and condemnation(Passing Judgement). Secondly, I do apply that verse to myself. That is why I posted chapter and verse for scriptures that I was referencing.

          Evidence proves fact, fact shows truth. Opinion does not enter into it anywhere. You have a right to believe whatever you want, to think whatever you want, but it does not change fact and it does not change the truth.

          “But I have challenged you here because you are the kind of evangelist that needs others to see it your way at all costs because by that means you validate yourself and your beliefs.  And you are not the first self-appointed evangelist I have found necessary to light up for their insufferable arrogance. ”

          You didn’t actually challenge me. All you did was attempt to shout me down because you did not like the content of what I was saying. I argued for the Constitution to be followed the way it was written. I cited Scripture. Apparently those two things offended you because they contradicted your OPINION.

          You keep throwing the words “Insufferable Arrogance” around like the more you use it, the more likely it will become true. At the same time, as I have replied calmly while citing scripture, dates, and founding documents, you have continued to do the very things you are claiming that I have supposedly done when I have not. And also, claiming I have not replied to what you have said? No, I have refuted much of it, and even acknowledged when you got something right!

          I’m going to share a little secret with you now on how I was able to do so. I don’t argue opinion. When I state an opinion, I label it as such. What I did was citation of works that were not my own, founding documents, the bible.. I argue evidence. That is why all that you had left was name calling and trying to distract, dismiss, and destroy. It’s why I kept pulling the conversation back to what the source material actually said each time you tried to pull away on a wild tangent. And now because I cannot be shouted down you are going to play the “I don’t like this game anymore! I’m going home and taking the ball with me!” response?

          I truly feel sorry for you. I don’t know what was done directly to ultimately plant the level of loathing and contempt you have for others to the point where you feel the need to act this way, and I am not going to make any speculations either. I hope that one day you are able to get past whatever it is, and if you would like prayers I am more than willing to pray for you. I don’t hold any ill will, and I offer my forgiveness for what you have tried to say out of malice against me. I’m just not somebody that you or anyone else can shout down. Be safe, and God Bless.

        4. Ammoland website freaked out on me again, and jumped the comment this was supposed to be posted under.

          Ok, I’m going to answer your points with each corresponding number. I will try to keep it as simple as possible to avoid confusion as well.(Not talking down to you, will explain at the end)

          1. First of all, we are talking about the Christian Bible.. It is the bible that is used for teaching in all protestant churches in the US(The Catholic bible has a few extra chapters on church doctrine), and traces its history to the Geneva Bible of 1560. Second, it’s not about what I am saying. It’s about what Christ said, and as I have shown according to scripture if you are not doing that, if you want to try and say you can ignore parts of Christ’s teaching you don’t agree with, then you are not a Christian. Sorry, that is what Christ said. If you have a problem with me quoting the scripture where he said it, then your problem is not with me, it is with God.

          2. The book of Urantia… Yeah… You mean the book that was written in the 1920’s and was popular until about 1950 or so? That book? I’m sorry, but comparing that book to Christianity is akin to comparing Marilyn Manson to being an exemplary church elder. The closest “Religion” to it today is that of Scientology, at least as far as methodology and cosmic population theory go. Here is an article which presents where Genesis came from, while being understanding that our modern version was composed after the fact during the time of the Exodus. http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm I actually would be interested to know what you honestly think after reading it.

          Second, yes I am aware there are many books written, but not contained in the bible. Many come from dubious sources with subjects that delve into the realm of insanity. I am quite aware that “Lilith” was one of the characters from one of these and that she is presented in that document to be Adam’s first wife.. However, that is also along the same lines as the “Gospel of Judas Iscariot”, and others claiming an illicit love affair between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I also recognize your reference to at least the first Ecumenical Council of 325AD. I have taken a university level Church History course which covered everything from the period of 50AD all the way up to 1900AD. I am quite aware of the history and the actions that happened during the formation of the early church, including several murders that took place at the councils. That is why I turn back to the actual documents we know were written by Paul, and peter to the early churches when it comes to matters of Doctrine, the actual witnesses of Jesus Christ, and not to controversial points made later at the ecumenical councils.

          3. Again, turn to point one. It’s not me saying it. If you don’t follow Christ’s message to the letter, you are not a Christian. You may be practicing some faith or religion, and you can be a very good person, but Christ said “Narrow is the path, and even narrower is the gate.” All I am doing is repeating Christ’s teachings, and the lessons given by those he commissioned to teach the church. If your conscience feels its under attack or being condemned by what I am saying, then pick up the bible and start reading. God is probably trying to tell you something. Stop trying to make this about the messenger, when the message given isn’t opinion, but actually what the bible says.

          3. Part 2…. Hypocrisy is the correct word. I shall demonstrate. Your position on my supposed “Insufferable arrogance” yes? You are saying “How dare you try to tell people what they are and what they aren’t!! How dare you act all high and mighty!” But yet you turn around and try to tell me you have the providence to tell me exactly what I am from your very first comment. On the argument of “Moral Superiority”, would you like me to begin listing each of your comments where you have done the very thing you accuse me of doing? You understand the definition of hypocrisy, but in your attempt to forcefully make me acknowledge the superiority of your opinion you are failing to see how you are engaging in Hypocrisy. I present this quote as evidence, “which is exactly the insufferable arrogance I am trying to bring to your attention.” What you are doing is saying “How dare you!! It’s my job to correct the error of your ways!” Do you see the problem there?

          4. No, my job as a Christian is to spread the word, not as I see it but as it is written, and to also live according to it. Acta Non Verba. Actions, not words. That also includes the Principle of free will, or the choice God gives to each, to accept or deny him. I can only present the message, and point to it when correcting an inaccuracy, but I cannot and do not try to force anyone else to believe or “Convert.” That is between them and God, and if they choose not to follow his will, then that is on them. That is why I can talk to non-believers and they don’t view me as a threat, because I will not force them to share my belief. The larger issue comes from believers who just want a “washy washy feel good on Sunday cause I’ll go to heaven if I sit in a pew long enough” when I or anyone else begins reading directly from the bible. The usual response is “How dare you judge me!!” Again, it’s not me or another person judging them, it is their conscience attacking them. It’s not just a single person it can happen to either, it’s all believers. I’d point to the story of Peter. It took Jesus telling him against his will that he would deny him(Christ) three times to show him he wasn’t in control if he was going to follow Jesus.

          5. I already cited my work on that subject, and showed it was not my opinion that I was talking about. There is a difference between discernment(Good Judgement) and condemnation(Passing Judgement). Secondly, I do apply that verse to myself. That is why I posted chapter and verse for scriptures that I was referencing.

          Evidence proves fact, fact shows truth. Opinion does not enter into it anywhere. You have a right to believe whatever you want, to think whatever you want, but it does not change fact and it does not change the truth.

          “But I have challenged you here because you are the kind of evangelist that needs others to see it your way at all costs because by that means you validate yourself and your beliefs.  And you are not the first self-appointed evangelist I have found necessary to light up for their insufferable arrogance. ”

          You didn’t actually challenge me. All you did was attempt to shout me down because you did not like the content of what I was saying. I argued for the Constitution to be followed the way it was written. I cited Scripture. Apparently those two things offended you because they contradicted your OPINION.

          You keep throwing the words “Insufferable Arrogance” around like the more you use it, the more likely it will become true. At the same time, as I have replied calmly while citing scripture, dates, and founding documents, you have continued to do the very things you are claiming that I have supposedly done when I have not. And also, claiming I have not replied to what you have said? No, I have refuted much of it, and even acknowledged when you got something right!

          I’m going to share a little secret with you now on how I was able to do so. I don’t argue opinion. When I state an opinion, I label it as such. What I did was citation of works that were not my own, founding documents, the bible.. I argue evidence. That is why all that you had left was name calling and trying to distract, dismiss, and destroy. It’s why I kept pulling the conversation back to what the source material actually said each time you tried to pull away on a wild tangent. And now because I cannot be shouted down you are going to play the “I don’t like this game anymore! I’m going home and taking the ball with me!” response?

          I truly feel sorry for you. I don’t know what was done directly to ultimately plant the level of loathing and contempt you have for others to the point where you feel the need to act this way, and I am not going to make any speculations either. I hope that one day you are able to get past whatever it is, and if you would like prayers I am more than willing to pray for you. I don’t hold any ill will, and I offer my forgiveness for what you have tried to say out of malice against me. I’m just not somebody that you or anyone else can shout down. Be safe, and God Bless.

          1. To the moderators, please delete the duplicate comment, apparently something is going on with the website tonight.

    4. Americanism hate that term. We are Americans in one since as well as Mexicans are Americans, central Americans are Americans and Canadians are Americans, don’t forget the South Americans. But we are U.S. Citizens, of these United States of America.

    5. Once again our resident leftist troll comes out from his Mommy’s basement and tries to add his excrescence to the conversation. Pay him no mind folks – he’s probably just had his dosage of Chairman Mao, Karl Marx, Vladimir Iilych Lenin and Josef Dugashvilii (Stalin) today. It cleans like a white tornado donchaknow.

      1. VEV, if you’re referring to GFYG, I agree. I try not to address ‘it’ directly as every response to ‘it’s’ trash means another donation from george sorass to GFYG’s basement lair. ‘It’ knows that he is on the wrong website for any constructive dialog, so ‘it’s’ only purpose is to throw feces into the punch bowl. After all, the trolls need to survive, so a check from georgy boy is better than nothing. Eventually, if we just ignore ‘it’, it will return to ‘its’ LBGTQRST sites where his courage is appreciated. Just visualize ‘it’ sitting there with ‘its’ pink ‘kitty’ hat on.

      1. Levin believes the U.S. is for Constitutionalists only. Too bad for you that ‘Conservative Christians’ seem to be the only ones meeting that standard.

    6. All the Progressives have done is taken us backward historically. Because of the Founder’s Vision we have brought mankind farther in 200 years than any other society has and it has been through the innovation spawned by freedom. But the leftist swine through their greed and lust for power have stifled that innovative spirit under a butt load of regulations. They think that they know what is better for We the People that we do. I say it is time to recaim the Spirit of 1776 and kick their smarmy asses out of our country. This includes the Unions, and anyone else who thinks the left/ or Socialism is a good idea!

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *