LOSER FROM LOSERVILLE
- -----Original Message-----
From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:21 PM
To: James Alan Daum
Subject: Re: LOSER FROM LOSERVILLE
**Actually, you have lived long enough for the appearance to be given
that it happened. And the CinC never had unfettered power to take over.
He still doesn't. The CinC is just one of many elected servants
inhabiting three separate branches or departments of goferment�. All of
those servants have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution. Treason, failure to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution, is punishable by death.**
Ahem? COMMANDER AND CHIEF? This guy is already a one-man junta staging
a coup d'etat that has essentially bankrupted this country.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."
There is a reason that they are called the ARMED FORCES!
**What you have seen is the practice of FEAR. It is an acronym for False
Evidence Appearing Real. Most believe the false. Hence they cannot
understand ruling your servants in a republican manner, preferring
instead the lie that they are ruled by masters.**
It is not an acronym. What you are seeing is the fear of the founders
that a strong military is expensive and dangerous.
**Ooooowwwwww, the least you could do is argue! ;-)
Yes, the majority are content to be told where to crap in their own
beds. What is needed is a tireless irate minority keen to set brushfires
in the minds of men, to expose the lies that are taught by willfully
ignorant bureaucrats whose purpose is to entrench their position at the
public trough at the expense of the education of the Children of the
You're back on the public education system? I have mixed feelings about
it since I learned to read, write and count there. Wouldn't it be
better if people bred less so there were fewer children to educate?
**We are on opposite sides of a semantical argument. There is a state
and there is the state. One is the people assembled. The other is a
conglomeration of bureaucrats intent on shedding the chains of servitude
and donning the Holy Vestments belonging to the Ever Living One and
acting in His stead. It was the state of people who risked their lives.
It was not the state of bureaucrats, whose putrid stench befouls the
land, that took up the weapons to drive out a tyrant.**
Pretty graphic there...
"L'�tat, c'est moi"
I simply refuse to see the state as a creature and you can't make me!
Nyah, nyah, nyah! Such beast would be a Reich...
**You make a distinction without a difference. A man ruling another man
is tyranny, no matter how benign the rule. The ideal is for all to be
ruled by the [Creator] of the Universe by whose power all exists, and to live
in loving fear of turning to the right or the left instead of walking in
the Way. From where I sit, the local mayor or council member are petty
tyrants ruling their little fiefdoms and using the weight of bureaucracy
to inflict their own peculiar brand of tyranny on the people. Both
George's are different sides of the same coin.**
ACTUALLY, I don't want anarchy.
**I agree that the enacted Thirteenth circa 1812 was superfluous--if in
fact it was ever enacted. The Constitution was (and remains unchanged)
chains upon the departments and their minions, not the people. The
minions were prohibited from creating royal offices for themselves from
the power granted to fulfill the missions granted to them.**
This was stated well enough that I'm not going to give you an argument
**The "clues" are a deception. I refuse to believe that an ass is a god.
The Constitution as enacted in 1787 and amended in 1791 continues to be
the law for our servants. Our families left us law as a weapon to whip
servants who would be tyrants back into line. We need to be doing more
whipping. The only weapons they have are money to hire goons and thugs
to ignore the law and intimidate us. The more of us who take money away
from these tyrants the less power they have. We ought to be about our
Father's business. He said the children are free.**
The additional articles clarify and strengthen the main body and are not
exceptions as you might define amendments. Hamilton opposed them as
they would seem to give additional powers to the Reich.
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain
every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE
PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution
for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of
popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal
figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound
much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of
government." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the
extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the
proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain
various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account,
would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For
why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to
do?" Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84
**Presidents are constrained by an oath to preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution also. They are constrained to specific powers and
reasonable and necessary powers to enforce the specific powers. It is
only by illusion that they seem empowered to rule. They are not so
You depend more upon the oath of a madman than I. What if his illusion
is that he is the personification of the state? What if the masses
share this illusion? What will you do when they come for you?
**There is some confusion on the term and I suspect I should have
defined "federalist" before I used it. The federalism that I hate is
that which calls for a strong central government of men who rule others.
I support your definition as being an honorable calling.**
Is the position of War Czar still open?
fascism 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- noun Italian fascismo, from fascio
bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J.