Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Small Steps Toward Liberty

November 3, 2011 by  

Small Steps Toward Liberty

Concordia res parvae crescunt.

It’s a Latin phrase made popular during the Revolutionary Period that means “small things grow great by concord.” And in a time when politicians claim the power to control nearly every aspect of your life, it’s a phrase that not only packs wisdom, but gives insight on a possible road map to liberty.

A Quick History Lesson

In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which required the colonies to provide housing and provisions for British soldiers. Like unfunded mandates of today, the colonies had to pay for it all, too. But, when 1,500 British troops arrived at New York City in 1766, the New York Assembly refused to comply, effectively nullifying the act.

The Quartering Act was circumvented in all the colonies other than Pennsylvania. In royal circles, this was yet another sign that the colonies were getting a bit out of control.

In 1767, the British Parliament passed a series of five laws known as the Townshend Acts. Their primary purpose was to raise tax revenue and enforce compliance in the colonies. They included the Revenue Act of 1767, the Indemnity Act of 1767, the Commissioners of Customs Act of 1767, the Vice Admiralty Court Act of 1768 and the New York Restraining Act (a punishment for the very public rejection of the Quartering Act a year earlier).

The “punishment” given to New York? The Assembly had its legislative powers suspended, effectively leaving all decision-making outside the colony. In other words, they had to self-govern as they were told to, or not self-govern at all.

Sound familiar?

The colonies responded. And, although the Townshend Acts didn’t have the same, immediate uproar as the Stamp Act had just two years prior, they were hated and resistance soon became widespread. The most influential response to the acts came from John Dickinson, commonly known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” Opposing the new Acts, he wrote a series of twelve essays known as Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.

Advice, Wisdom

Dickinson’s warning? Don’t concede to new powers just because they appear to be small — or in the case of the Townshend Acts, because the taxes were low — since such concessions always set a dangerous precedent for new and greater powers in the future.

In the first of his essays, Dickinson addressed the New York Restraining Act. He wrote:

If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.

He continued on to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other colonial assemblies to have at least passed nonbinding resolutions informing Parliament that the Act was a violation of rights and it should be repealed.

Why? His answer came through clearly at the end of this first essay, where he signed off with the Latin phrase “Concordia res parvae crescunt.”

Small things grow great by concord.

Assuming Total Power

In many ways, today’s Federal government has suspended the legislative power of State assemblies by assuming control over powers never delegated to it in the Constitution. For example, when the Administration of President Barack Obama threatened to close businesses in California because politicians and bureaucrats in Washington think that a particular plant should be illegal, it made its intentions clear. And when the Administration of President George W. Bush told the people of Montana — and elsewhere — that they wouldn’t be able to fly without a new national ID card, it also asserted the power to legislate for the people of that State.

The Federal government assumes unConstitutional new powers like this almost daily.

When Congressional declarations of war are deemed an “anachronism,” Congress simply abdicates its duty on the question of war and unConstitutionally transfers its power to the executive branch. And when such unConstitutional transfers of power seem unlikely, the executive branch simply redefines war into “kinetic something something” — and then initiates war on its own say-so anyway.

When homegrown wheat that’s never bought or sold and is consumed on one’s own property is outside the sphere of Federal control, the judicial branch simply redefines what the Founders considered “interstate commerce” and dictates that the Federal government controls virtually all commerce, and then even noneconomic activity.

Politicians in Congress and the executive branch — and the lobbyists who benefit financially from their unConstitutional acts — are all too happy to use this wealth of power.

For far too long, people have stood idly by, “voting the bums out” and hoping that a new crop of Federal politicians would ride in and save the day.

But, while new bums have come and gone (and come and gone), the day has yet to be saved.

Step By Step

Pushing off the yoke of an empire is not something that’s done in one fell swoop. This is something that the Penman of the Revolution recognized early on.

When I talk with people about resisting — and slowly but eventually nullifying — unConstitutional Federal acts, I rarely find opposition to the idea. Instead, I often hear things like “Yeah, but they have the guns!” Or, “I’m totally in favor of this, but it’ll never work, the Feds are too strong.” Or, “This will just crumble when DC takes away funding or jails opponents.”

Fear is something that obviously keeps traction through the ages, for Dickinson dealt with these same thoughts. He wrote in his third essay:

“Great Britain,” they say, “is too powerful to contend with; she is determined to oppress us; it is in vain to speak of right on one side, when there is power on the other; when we are strong enough to resist we shall attempt it; but now we are not strong enough, and therefore we had better be quiet; it signifies nothing to convince us that our rights are invaded when we cannot defend them; and if we should get into riots and tumults about the late act, it will only draw down heavier displeasure upon us.”

In the Revolutionary Period, like today, people were afraid of upsetting the status quo; and they urged others to sit idly by.

Dickinson’s response?

Are these men ignorant that usurpations, which might have been successfully opposed at first, acquire strength by continuance, and thus become irresistible?

The message? If we stand by and do nothing, we know what’s coming. Each small step toward liberty is an important one.

Today, dozens of States have considered — and many have passed — nonbinding resolutions reaffirming the Founders’ vision for the Federal government: that it should be one of limited, delegated powers. Fifteen States are actively defying both congress and the Supreme Court by allowing the use of marijuana. More than two dozen States have refused to comply with the Real ID act. Other States are taking steps to consider legislation that would nullify specific Federal acts like Obamacare, warrantless searches by the Transportation Security Administration, legal tender laws, the Food Safety and Modernization Act, and more.

While many of these acts might feel like small steps in the grand scheme of things — risking reprisals from the dangerous beast we call the Federal government — each thorn in the side of the empire is yet another essential step toward liberty.

For as a wise person once said, “Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

NOTE: The preceding is based on Michael Boldin’s monologue at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 20.  Listen to the audio version here.

Dr. Michael Cutler

is a graduate of Brigham Young University, Tulane Medical School and Natividad Medical Center Family Practice Residency in Salinas, Calif. Dr. Cutler is a board-certified family physician with more than 20 years of experience. He serves as a medical liaison to alternative and traditional practicing physicians. His practice focuses on an integrative solution to health problems. Dr. Cutler is a sought-after speaker and lecturer on experiencing optimum health through natural medicines and founder and editor of Easy Health Options™ newsletter — a leading health advisory service on natural healing therapies and nutrients.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Small Steps Toward Liberty”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • FreedomFighter

    Obituary–Very Interesting In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of
    Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some
    2,000 years prior:

    “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
    permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
    the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
    from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
    the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
    the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal
    policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

    “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of
    history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
    always progressed through the following sequence:

    From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage.”
    The Obituary follows:

    Born 1776, Died 2008
    It won’t hurt to read this several times.

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
    Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the last
    Presidential election:

    Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
    Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
    Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

    Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was
    mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

    Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
    tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

    Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
    “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy,
    with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached
    the “governmental dependency” phase.

    If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
    invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the
    USA in fewer than five years.

    If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

    If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much
    is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

    This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a
    Constitutional Republic . Someone should point this out to Obama. Of
    course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The
    Constitution. There couldn’t be more at stake than on Nov 2012. If you as concerned as I am please pass this along.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Al Sieber

      FreedomFighter and sc, good posts.

    • Jeryl

      Very well said. All I can add is: Amen!

    • http://yahoo Skyraider6

      Great post
      semper fi

    • Monte

      Thomas Jefferson said that cities were a boil on the face of humanity. Elsewhere, he stated cities were a hotbed of radicalism and fanaticism. Today, with ‘progressives’ infesting our cities, it bears out his opinion. It was the cities that put the sleazy, god-like-One in office, not the rural areas. Nowhere but in the rural areas is opposition to him and his agenda so consolidated, except perhaps for the South,

      • mark

        Jefferson was a slaveholder and a monstrous hypocrite. The very nation he lived in thrived from the commerce and trade of the cities he decried. Cities proved to be great centers of culture and learning, along with their social problems. Jefferson had an adolescent romantic vision of agrarian life. The screams of his slaves being whipped often awakened him from his day dreams. Luckily for us, Hamliton’s vision won out in America – a mixed economy of industry and agriculture. If Jefferson had his way we would be a Third World country today producing nothing but crops and raw materials like nations of Africa do. It was Hamilton’s vision that won out. Southerners in the 1850s also had a great contempt for cities that is until Union troops from Northern cities destroyed their slavocracy.

        • Monte

          Too bad the Soviet Union no longer exists. A dreaming, utopian like yourself would be right at home as a slave to the state. For your information, slavery on this continent was created by the British, long before the US even existed. It was imposed upon the colonists by the Crown for profit. Until the trade was taken over and monopolized by New England, Britain ran the world-wide slave trade. How do you think all the blacks ended up in the Caribbean? And Britain was a monarchy, not a republic. No one on this continent created slavery; they inherited it along with the slave economy that the British had established. If it had not been for slavery and their own race selling them into servitude, the blacks, living here in one of the highest standards on earth, would be back in Africa, in poverty and killing one another. Your comments are so stupid they don’t even deserve a response.

          • mark

            Then why did you respond? Slavery is as all-American as apple pie. It is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as everyone knows. Just look at Article I section 2 that refers to “three-fifths of all other persons” in Congressional apportionment for the South. Section 9 of Article I calls for the end of the slave trade in 1808 and a tax of ten dollars per imported slave until then. But the morally cowardly Founding Fathers did not have the guts to spell it out so they couched slavery in neutral language like “persons” not slaves when all of them knew exactly who they were talking about. As for your ludicrous statement that the British crown forced slavery upon their colonists, please! The planter class of the South made enormous profits off the tobacco, rice, indigo, and cotton harvested by their slaves. No one had to force them to accept this economic system. They revelled in it and reaped huge benefits from it. Americans continued to purchase slaves from 1776 until 1808 despite their independence. And domestically they enthusiastically bought and sold hundreds of thousands of slaves in the internal market of the South. If this system was forced on them then why didn’t they abolish it once the British had been beaten in 1783? On the contrary if you look at the Congressional Record you will find passionate speech after passionate speech by Southern senators and Congressmen defending slavery, praising slavery to the heavens, demanding its spread into newly acquired Western territories. They sure don’t sound like this system was forced upon them against their will. On the contrary, they show their deep love and support for slavery for which they were willing to leave the Union and fight a major and bloody war. You state correctly that many African kings and tribes were involved in the slave trade. But you only mention the sellers. In every financial transaction there is a buyer as well as a seller. All of the slaves were bought by British, French, Dutch, Brazilian, and American slave holders. From 1492 to 1888 (that last year, Brazil abolished slavery), some 10 million human beings were bought by Europeans – and Americans. Blaming solely the sellers of the slave trade completely absolves the buyers of moral reponsiblity when they after all were the driving economic force behind the trade. Without the huge demand by U.S. inhabitants and Europeans in the Americas for slaves and the giant money they offered for their puchase, Africans never would have engaged in the Atlantic slave trade. We should also note that many European powers maintained forts on the West coast of Africa to provide aid, containment pens, leadership, and weaponry for the kidnapping of slaves. Even at the selling end it was never a wholely African endeavor. In short the U.S. and the Founding Fathers bear a considerable responsibility for the moral crime of slavery in U.S. history. But you are right, they are not the only culprits. Of the millions of slaves transported against their will to the Americas only around 5% went to North America, around 50% went to the Caribbean, 35% to the Portuguese in Brazil, and around 10% to the Spanish Empire in South and Central America.

          • DaveH

            You’re just fabricating facts to suit your own purposes. There were people both in the North and in the South who held slaves.
            How about some references to back up your biased claims?

            Lincoln was a bigot and a phony:

          • DaveH

            For those who want to read a comprehensive treatment of the Slavery issue in the antebellum United States:

          • mark

            For distribution of African slaves in the Americas, see:


          • DaveH

            You don’t even read the articles I link to, do you Mark?

          • mark

            No Dave, I read your articles. Most I find unconvincing and unscholarly but some of them are useful and make good arguments

          • DaveH

            Unconvincing and unscholarly? What a load. And that coming from an ignorant guy who spews almost constant fabricated facts. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, Mark, because the readers who take the time to educate themselves know how ignorant you are. That’s all that matters to me.

          • DaveH

            Here’s just one example, Mark. You stated “As for your ludicrous statement that the British crown forced slavery upon their colonists, please!”.
            Monte said nothing of the kind. He said it was created (established) by the British. Do you know the difference between “created” and “forced”? So, you’re either very ignorant, or you’re purposely lying. What a concept — a lying Liberal.

        • s c

          “m,” how long have YOU been a dumbed-down, overpaid, under-educated, paranoid, ultraliberal utopian progressive? You have nothing better to do than put your semantic trash on this website? Do you ever scan or listen to the CRAP you spew in the direction of others?
          You have so much in common with 99.99999% of the other self-made shmucksters who find their way to this website (get a life while you can). It’s off to bed for you, young brat. Someone change this yahoo’s pooey diapers, and then stand him on his pointed head in the nearest corner.
          Does your family know that you’ve sacrificed your brain for a feel-good fantasy and an utterly corrupt theory that’s been proven wrong?

          • mark

            Thanks s c, I love you, too.

        • DaveH

          You’re the Hypocrite, Mark. You preach against slavery, yet you advocate for an overpowering, enslaving Federal Government.
          Some truth to offset Mark’s slander:
          “Right-wing statists like Gordon, like left-wing statists, have adopted the custom of smearing Jefferson as a slave owner not so much because they are appalled that he owned slaves, but because their objective is to denigrate his laissez-faire/limited-government political philosophy. Gordon includes the Jefferson slavery smear in his article, but fails to mention that his hero Hamilton also owned “house slaves,” which were brought into his marriage by his wife Eliza; he once purchased six slaves at an auction; and he supported the return of runaway slaves to their “owners” under the Fugitive Slave Clause of the original Constitution”.

          • mark

            Of course Dave, you’re right not only did the more famous Southern Founding Fathers own slaves, but many Founding Fathers from the North were also guilty of this hypocrisy, Hamilton included. Yet you are being utterly ridiculous in comparing living under our present federal government with living as a slave on a Southern plantation in the Early Republic or Antebellum years. This just shows the ludicrous extent to which libertarians will overreach to make a point. When was the last time the Federal government came to your house to sell your wife or one of your young children to another man for labor in perpuetuity? When did federal officials come to your residence, tie you and your family members to posts and and whip you? When did they make you work from sun-up till sundown for zero wages or profits? And forgive the frankness of this example, but when have federal officials routinely taken sexual liberties with any American’s spouse or male and female children? Because this is exactly what happened on a widespread, daily basis in the slave system of the American South. The monstrous nature of this tyrrany puts the income tax and x-ray screenings at airports in their proper context. Your analogy is patently ludicruous, Dave, and trivializes the true horror of slavery.

          • DaveH

            You are patently ludicrous, Mark, because you know nothing of just how how the slaves were worked or anything else about them. Like with everything in life different owners treated their slaves differently. And you have no idea how many hours any one slave worked or how hard they worked. Any useless Liberal can fabricate facts to “prove” his point.
            And the Governments take 40% of our GDP. That’s almost half of what we produce. They take that money Forcefully from most of us. Exactly where is the cutoff from voluntary labor to slavery in your Liberal mind? 4 hours a day laboring for others? 6 hours a day laboring for others?

          • DaveH

            And it’s notable, Mark, that you didn’t mention your Hero Hamilton’s ownership of slaves until I called you on it. You will stoop to any level of deception to argue your points won’t you?

          • DaveH

            Some evidence that Mark was blowing smoke up our hineys:
            From the article:
            “In fact, the material conditions of the slave did not differ substantially from that of the free laborer. They estimated that the slave was allowed to keep 90 percent of lifetime productivity (only 10 percent exploitation) and that the use of whippings was largely kept to a minimum”.

          • mark

            Right Dave, but everything you cite always comes from the same two biased sources: Mr. DiLorenzo, your god, and that Hayek Austrian school website. Both are abject worshipers of a free-market capitalism that never existed. Both are apologists for any manifestation of this type of capitalism even slavery which they try to resurrect as a benevolent institution compared to twentieth century centralized liberal government like the New Deal. Of course there was wide variance of treatment in the slave system but the basics of the system are enshrined in all the slave codes and and antebellum state constitutions. Slaves were property, slaves had no rights as persons or citizens affirmed in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. You could basically do anything you wanted to them. Which was what the owners did depending on their individual whims and conscience. Slaves had no constitutional protections like you and I have today. You have a right to assemble, Dave, to vote, to a trial by a jury of your peers, to own a firearm, to be presented with the evidence against you in a trial, to practice religion as you please, to say anything you want provided it does not directly call for violence against others. Slaves from 1776-1865 had NONE of these rights. They were property – NOT PERSONS. This was the basic injustice of their condition, though there were many others all of which flowed from this basic lack of personhood and citizenship. To compare their status in anyway to the status of American citizens today in a more heavily taxed and regulated society than 19th century America is, as I said earlier, ludicrous.

          • DaveH

            What do you cite, Mark? Nothing. We have to slog through your fabricated facts that have absolutely no references. What is wrong with you that you think people want to hear your unsupported personal opinions?

          • DaveH

            And I cite things mostly from Mises, because I have learned to trust what they say as being rigorously researched and devoid of self-interested propaganda, such as that which spews regularly out of your dishonest mouth, Mark.

          • mark

            Well if you want a citation on the 1857 Dred Scott case that established that slaves were not citizens but property, here it is:


            This is pretty much basic knowledge in American history. Although you may consider me a liar, I certainly do not consider you one, Dave. We just happen to have very different opinions on U.S. history, politics, and economics. All three of these fields are open to various perpectives and interpretations. There are very few absolute truths here except for certain dates when events occured and the outcome of specific battles, elections, etc. Everything else is open to legitimate debate. I find it is very important to read the opinions of those I disagree with rather than just read cites, books, and articles written by those who have the same opinion as me. This is key to weighing different arguments and judging which ones have the most merit or are the most persuasive. That’s what bothers me with Thomas DiLorenzo, he only cites evidence in his books that support his cause. He rarely included contrary evidence and weighs its import. As for the Austrian economics school to me they worship a kind of capitalism that has never really existed. There has always been substantial government intervention in the market economy: tariffs, discriminatory taxes, large government arms purchases, government surpluses for transportation systems like roads, canals, and railroads. All these existed in the presumeably golden age of American capitalism before the New Deal. And then of course there is the problem of giant monopolies. If the central government does not impose some regulation on unbridled capitalism this chokes off small-scale entrepreneurship. We also can’t count of the market to ensure public safety. I want the government to inspect meat and drugs because history has proven that for short-term, quick profits some companies will produce unsafe products. But I am sure you have many good arguments to refute what I say. That is what politics, history, and economics are all about – a never-ending argument in which little is ever resolved until the next election, the next new book, or the next new economic breakthrough. I frankly enjoy this great debate on the issues of the day and of the past. And I don’t hate those who disagree with me. Advocates often say: “You are entitled to your own set of opinions but not your own set of facts!” But most of what we argue about can not be proven. Very little in these fields of argument are absolute truths.

          • DaveH

            Mark says “That’s what bothers me with Thomas DiLorenzo, he only cites evidence in his books that support his cause”.
            Duh. That’s what references are, Mark. Maybe you should try some to support your fabricated facts, if you can find any.

          • mark

            No, a true historian also explores and analyzes contrary evidence to his argument to show that it is insufficient or has been misinterpreted or misunderstood. To withhold evidence that goes against one’s thesis from your reader and only show him sources that you have cherry-picked without analysis of contrary claims is dishonest. This is one of the problems of DiLorenzo who is not an academically trained historian but has his PhD in economics. For some good examples of properly done history that examines both sides or three and four sides to an argument see James E. Crisp’s Sleuthing the Alamo or Thomas L. Krannawitter’s Vindicating Lincoln where the author carefully weighs the argumnents of many different critics of Lincoln. Krannawitter by the way is a conservative not a liberal. Being honest and careful with the sources one chooses is also important. An example of this can be seen in this article from the Claremont Institute by Krannawitter. This again is a conservative think tank not a liberal or progressive one:


          • DaveH

            You wouldn’t know the first thing about a “true historian”, Mark. And you know nothing about Dilorenzo’s investigative efforts. What I know is that he’s an expert economist, a professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. While you’ve been proven to be ignorant at best, and probably a purposeful liar.

        • Joe Republican

          Mark, most people have completely forgotten that the national monument to Hamilton was… the United States from 1789 to 1970 [when "free trade" really began wrecking the country]. Washington completely embraced Hamilton’s American School of Economics for a prosperous country and so did the Republican party for 160 years. BTW, Jefferson’s disagreements with Hamilton led to Jefferson being kicked out of Washington’s Administration, by the father of our country.

          So far there is only one candidate who sounds like the Republicans who led the country to manufacturing, science and technology world leadership [which also creates high employment], that guy is an old Republican, Buddy Roemer.

          • DaveH

            Government does not Create Jobs. Government Destroys Jobs.

        • ChristyK

          Jefferson did own slaves, but they weren’t mistreated. He repeatedly brought forth legislation in Virginia to abolish slavery. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he originally wrote “life, liberty, and property”. He changed “property” to “pursuit of happiness” because he didn’t want to risk the protection of property being used to perpetuate slavery. If Jefferson released his slaves, most likely they would’ve been enslaved again by others. He protected his slaves and encouraged the education of slaves. Too many people have been taught incorrectly.

          In reality, in the time of our founders, most people accepted slavery because they had never been taught otherwise. Those who even spoke against it were looked as radicals, but many of our founders that are constantly maligned were those working to change the common misconceptions about slavery of their time. Looking back it seems obvious, but when people know nothing else, it is a big leap. In the future, I believe that people will look back at abortion in the same way that we look back on slavery. “How could anyone not think that the (black/fetus) was not a valuable human life. How could anyone think they were (property/a choice).”

        • Old Henry

          “If Jefferson had his way we would be a Third World country today ”

          Stick around Lil mark and you may be seen as profetic if this communist Muslim is not deposed.

        • Void1972

          You are very good. See how liberals are able to distract by changing the subject.
          We are not talking about slavery, it is the last thing that any American should be thinking about right now, or maybe we should be.
          If obama and his legions succeed in their plans of destroying America, we will all be slaves.
          Mark will enjoy this because he has never been free. He has been dependent on our government and our tax money, like all slaves were dependent on their owners for food, shelter and everything Mark has been living on his entire life.
          Mark and millions of minorities and illegals are still slaves, and they don’t even no it.
          This was a great article and freedomfighter, great post, but don’t let the liberals distract us from our cause.
          The survival of these United States of America.
          God bless America, and those who fight for her!!!!

        • CJM

          mark: your distortion of history is sickening an disgusting. Jefferson did much for this country while Hamilton did very little. If you want to present history, then at least be accurate.

      • Joe H.

        the closest I’ve lived to the country is just outside Tecumseh Michigan. I have voted as conservative as I could and am securely behind Ron Paul. This said, I have not, would not, never considered, voting for nobummer!!! BTW, I live in the NORTH! also, the last straw poll won by R. Paul was OHIO!!! Cut the North/South bit, the war is LONG over!!

      • Revere

        Probably because cities are where most of the people are.

    • mark

      Personally I would never want to live in a republic. All of them are based on slavery. The Greek and Roman republics all thrived on slavery. So did the American Republic up until 1865. Lincoln destroyed the American Republic and Thank God. His was the greatest act of humanity and political accomplishment in American History. Thanks to Lincoln, we now live in a democracy. Death to all slave republics and Long Live Democracy!

      • Average Joe

        “Personally I would never want to live in a republic.”

        Delta is ready when you are! And don’t let the door hit you in the arse on your way out……

        A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
        Douglas Adams

      • DaveH

        Only a fool would advocate for a Big Centralized Government where the representatives are far from the people who elect them. Such a Government can’t help but enslave those it supposedly represents. And our Gargantuan Federal Government has proved this point with multitudinous laws which intrude into the citizens personal choices, and confiscatory taxes which treat our money as their own, only to be doled back to us as they choose with Strings Attached.
        Mark gives lip service against slavery, but with his words proves that he is a Slavery Advocate.

        • http://Yahoo BobfromSoCal

          Amen to that. This country started out with around 20 federal laws, and now has around 4,500.

        • Joe H.

          how else can mark nurse from the givernment teat??? Probably hasn’t worked an honest day in his life!!

      • Emoke

        Yes Lincoln did destroy the Republic. That man was truly despicable. He never set out to free the slaves but to consolidate the power of the Federal Government. Freeing the slaves was a way to cripple the southern states that resisted him. Many people forget or are never taught that slavery was alive and well in northern states for a couple hundred years until industrialization made them unnecessary. The northern states never fess up to that fact. At that point there were people, Lincoln included, who proceeded to ship all the former slaves to the Caribbean or to Liberia so they could remove them from within their midst. The civil war was never about slavery but about State’s rights. Getting rid of State’s rights has ended well hasn’t it?

      • Joe Republican

        Mark, a Republic is what the Founder’s setup after a long study of history. It worked very well from 1789 to 1970 and could again if we get all special interest money out of politics.

        Your Lincoln reference leaves me a little baffled.

        Rule by elites [royalty/money] or rule by mob [total democracy/Criminal Communism] always leads to disaster. Unfortunately we have no longer have either party promoting American prosperity by the American School of Economics.

        Red China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, and 140 nations around the world utilize the lessons from Hamilton, while we, the originators of manufacturing pre-eminence have forgotten what made us great.

        • DaveH

          Spare me. Hamilton’s followers took us away from Freedom and into the same kind of Mercantilism that our founders fought a revolution to escape.
          Read “Hamiliton’s Curse” by Thomas DiLorenzo and lift the veil:

          • Monte

            Dave, his book ‘The Real Lincoln’ is excellent as well. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in the events that led to the fix we’re in today. The historian Forest McDonald said, and he may have got it from someone else (to paraphrase): Events play out. Then it’s the job of the establishment historians to invent a myth to replace the reality.
            It is incredible how misinformed we are. We are led to beleive some of the most destructive people in our history as our greatest leaders. We have had chains put upon our wrists and then taught to worship the people that did it. Amazing!

          • DaveH

            Yes, I’ve read the Real Lincoln, and it was indeed an eye-opener as to just how severely we’ve all been propagandized by the public schools and the MSM.

      • BrotherPatriot

        Your comment regarding not wanting to live in a Republic tells me everything I need to know about you.

        Don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out of our Constitutional Republic country…and good riddance.

        God Bless the Constitutional Republic of America…may we one day actually govern ourselves in such a manner instead of living in the illusion that has been provided by the ruling “elite” & their banker buddies.

      • Common Sense

        So ……. when are you moving to North Korea so you can enjoy the benefits of a dictatorship?

      • cincerely

        The United States IS a Republic.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        When are you leaving? You are not welcome in this great Republic, anyway.

      • al metcalf

        Do not think that a ‘Republic’ is a bad or good form of government. A Republic is merely a government with a ‘set form of laws that all have adopted to obey’.
        A Republic can be whatever the adoptors have determined that they wish it to be.
        The United States Republic is pretty much defined by our Preamble to our Constitution even though we did not truly live by the Preamble until well after the civil war and then in the early 1900 once again we were conned into trashing the Constitution by the so called ‘Progressives’ which gave rise to Socialism and our present problems.

      • metalflyer11

        Mark, you have this slavery thing totally obstructing your reasoning. We all know slavery was bad and we are glad is over. What you do not seem to understand is that slavery is coming back in the name of debt. Either be national or personal thanks to the unconstitutional Private Federal Reserve. The US has been held hostage by it ever since. This is exactly what Alexander Hamilton wanted, a Central Bank. Jefferson was totally against it because he knew eventually it would morphe into what we have today.
        Democracy vs Republic lesson 101

        Democracy = 2 wolves & 1 sheep vote on what is for dinner.

        Republic = Same as above but the sheep has a gun.

      • CJM

        Well, mark, I guess you’ll have to leave the Good Ole USA…because WE ARE A REPUBLIC….not a democracy which you erroneously believe. Where do you want to live? Most places are now socialistic in nature so that leaves you with pathetically few choices.

    • mark

      This is a totally false internet rip-off that has been going viral for a while on right-wing websites. The evidence that debunks and exposes it for the distortion it is can be found at:

      • BrotherPatriot

        Snopes…not your best friend when it comes to anything that threatens the established “elite’s” version of things.

        A perfect example of their corruption is virtually anything regarding Obama…like his Birth Certificate that they brought out just before Jerome Corsi’s book.

        Stop believing everything that you see on tv from the main stream media…and question virtually everything you have been taught by the government controlled education system. Learn on your own about things such as…

        …Did you know back in 1826 a political party formed called the Anti-Masonic Movement? It ran for several years but eventually evaporated into the Whig Party and then that was absorbed by the Republican Party. I’ll let you do the research to find out why the movement started but that’s not something that is taught back in School by the current education system.

        …How about who the real Christopher Columbus is and the simple fact that we should not have a holiday for that mass murderer? Research more about the atrocities that he committed & why he was returned to England in chains but eventually pardoned by the same corrupt system that is in place today.

        …and soo, soo, soooooo much more.

        So no…be very wary about Snopes and what they are telling us is the “truth”.

        God Bless.

        • Joe H.

          Brother Patriot,
          As I posted yesterday, I think, Snopes was founded by a very left leaning husband and wife team. If you want to see the level of their BS, look at what they have on the medical volenteer program in the service circa 1970 to 75. BS!!!

    • peter

      Your concern is well founded, but unfortunately the majority ( 95%) are either too ignorant or plain stupid to assess a dire situation for themselves and definitely beyond educating and more importantly, Obama knows just how stupid they are and will continue to take advantage of them for as long as he can. How can illiterates possibly know how to vote? They don’t, all they want is a hero, even if he is a liar. God help us all.

    • Hank

      I simply do not understand Americans and their Repoplican Tea Party movement. – Americans do not like poor people – they do not like strangers – but they believe in an eternal life after death – what’s wrong in America. – You have the best president ever – but does not deserve it. – But you`re lucky – you have Shara Palin and her Tea Party movement – vote for hir in 2012 – and America will be in a freefall into the abyss – and you will no longer be the leading economy . – But save a prayer for Shara Palin – she will need it.

    • Papa

      Only one small problem with your quotes… They’re totally bogus…

      Alexander Tyler was not a “Scottish History Professor” and he never wrote anything remotely resembling what you quote as his work.

      Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul ,
      Minnesota never made any such remarks regarding this. All he ever did was forward the email message which he received from a colleague.

      This is a very old “internet hoax” which was debunked many years ago… Go check your sources…

    • Victor Langhorne

      “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.”

      I am cautious about the analysis referenced above in FreeomFigher’s post. It sounds semantically compelling, but is it historically and logically accurate?
      What were the “world’s greatest civilizations” and what criteria were used to classify them as such? Were Chinese dynasties considered among them? Were longlasting native civilizations like the Hopis considered? Or were just European “nations” considered?

    • Sue

      Hey FREEDOM FIGHTER and everyone else:

      Most of this is an E-RUMOR!

      Please fact-check everything before posting. See below:

      Mr Livingston, I am generally happy to receive your emails, but now I feel like I have to be on guard with what you allow to be posted.


      Law Professor Points Out Some Interesting Facts Concerning the Presidential Election-Fiction!

      Summary of the eRumor:
      A forwarded email about a “Hemline” University School of Law Professor named Joseph Olson who pointed out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election and the murder rate in red and blue counties.

      The Truth:
      Joseph Olson is a real Professor at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota but he did not write this, according to his faculty bio page on the university site. Olson called it “bogus” in his disclaimer and said that the eRumor dates back to 2000 and originally was a commentary about the Bush/Gore election which quoted an 1800′s Scottish philosopher Alexander Tyler.

      updated 01/21/09

      A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
      Interesting Statistics
      Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

      Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
      Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000
      Republicans: 2,427,000
      Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million
      Republicans: 143 million
      Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
      Democrats: 13.2
      Republicans: 2.1

      Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.

      Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the”complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

      If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years

      Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

    • Incredulous1

      Abolish the 17th Amendment!(Biggest mistake in our country’s history.) It changed These United States into THE United Slaves supporting a dictatorial democracy. It was unconstitutional when allegedly ratified in 1913 and it is unconstitutional today. It destroyed our Republic and is directly responsible for the mess we have today. And we can’t clean up the mess until we eliminate the garbage producer – The 17th Amendment. IT MUST GO!

    • Steven

      Though I dearly enjoy most of the writings that you bring out, just like everything else that I see in today’s hack/spin world we will write and say anything no matter the accuracy of any of it…….

      • Sunny

        Many of you are missing the point of this article. We are in huge trouble, America, but most of you would rather prove the quotes wrong or have “gotta moments” rather than take heed to the fact that we are loosing our liberties every day unless “WE THE PEOPLE” determine to fight and speak out against the forces that desire to bring us down. Stop with the petty bickering and pay attention to the warning signs that are EVERYWHERE! While you are squabbling the enemy is taking advantage and will use every opportunity to defeat us as a nation.

    • Rick
    • ONTIME

      Always good to see the US History put before the readership and even better to see the support it draws. I hope many of you who read this convey to others, your kids, grandkids and lib friends the importance of our history and the pride we should express and feel whenever we are able to use the knowledge we store. If the scholls won’t teach then those who are aware of our sacrifice need to teach it and keep it alive and well.

    • Sunny

      Many of us, who love our country, our Republic, our Constitution and our American spirit, are praying daily as well as fighting against the socialist/communist agenda, and boldly speaking up for our God-given rights to be free. We will never, never, never give up because that which needs to be purged and brought down is already starting to crumble under it’s own deceit and corruption and if it means starting from ground zero, we will be ready and willing to lead the way. It is our heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for ourselves.

    • Peter

      Freedom Fighter, always, always check your sources before posting:

      The Fall of the Athenian Republic
      Claim: Law professor demonstrates that the results of the 2000 presidential election correspond to an 18th century historian’s prediction of conditions accompanying the downfall of democracy.


      Example: [Collected via e-mail, December 2000]

      At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior:

      “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

      “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

      From Bondage to spiritual faith;
      From spiritual faith to great courage;
      From courage to liberty;
      From liberty to abundance;
      From abundance to complacency;
      From complacency to apathy;
      From apathy to dependence;
      From dependence back into bondage.”

      Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

      Population of counties won by:
      Gore = 127 million
      Bush = 143 million

      Square miles of land won by:
      Gore = 580,000
      Bush = 2,2427,000

      States won by:
      Gore = 19
      Bush = 29

      Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
      Gore = 13.2
      Bush = 2.1

      Professor Olson adds:

      “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare …”

      Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the “apathy” and “complacency” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

      Origins: The item cited above began circulating on the Internet since shortly after the 2000 U.S. presidential election, reappeared briefly after the 2004 presidential election, and saw a strong resurgence (in a modified form which replaced the names “Bush” and “Gore” with “McCain and “Obama”) after the 2008 presidential election. What follows is our analysis of the statements included in the original piece as it initially appeared in 2000, including information helpfully provided to us by Mike Powell of Kennewick, Washington.

      Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University was not the source of any of the statistics or the text attributed to him above. When contacted via e-mail, Professor Olson confirmed that he had no authorship or involvement in this matter, and as Fayette Citizen editor Dave Hamrick wrote in January 2001:
      I really enjoyed one recent message that was circulated extremely widely, at least among conservatives. It gave several interesting “facts” supposedly compiled by statisticians and political scientists about the counties across the nation that voted for George Bush and the ones that voted for Al Gore in the recent election.

      Supposedly, the people in the counties for Bush had more education, more income, ad infinitum, than the counties for Gore.

      I didn’t have time to check them all out, but I was curious about one item in particular… the contention that the murder rate in the Gore counties was about a billion times higher than in the Bush counties.

      This was attributed to a Professor Joseph Olson at the Hamline University School of Law. I never heard of such a university, but went online and found it. And Prof. Olson does exist.

      “Now I’m getting somewhere,” I thought.

      But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the “research” was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn’t do the research either, and didn’t remember who had e-mailed it to him.

      In other words, he got the same legend e-mailed to him and passed it on to Olson without checking it out, and when Olson passed it on, someone thought it sounded better if a law professor had done the research, and so it grew.

      Who knows where it originally came from, but it’s just not true.
      The “Alexander Tyler” quoted at the head of the article is actually Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish historian/professor who wrote several books in the late 1700s and early 1800s. However, there is no record of a Tytler’s having authored a work entitled The Fall of the Athenian Republic (or The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic), and the quoted material attributed to him above is likely apocryphal.

      The population of the counties and square miles of area won by each Bush and Gore appear to be accurate. They are consistent with the election-result map published by USA Today on 20 November 2000.

      The number of states won by each candidate is inaccurate. The numbers given (29 and 19) imply that the piece was written before the results of the Florida and New Mexico vote counts were determined. The final tallies were 30 states for Bush and 20 for Gore.

      The county-by-county murder-rate comparison presented in this piece appears to be flawed. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in the year 2000 the national murder rate was about 5.5 per 100,000
      residents. Homicide data by county for 1999 and 2000 was downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD), and the counties won by Gore and Bush were identified using the county-by-county election results made available by CNN. (The NACJD provided not only the number of reported murders for each county, but also the population for each.) The average murder rate in the counties won by Gore versus the rate in the counties won by Bush was determined from this data.

      By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we found a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the average Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach was to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yielded the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate:

      Gore: 6.5
      Bush: 4.1

      There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush).

      The tagline to the piece maintains that “The map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.” However, according to an analysis of federal spending and electoral votes in the 2000 election prepared by Dean Lacy of Ohio State University:
      In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending.
      The information in that study corresponds to a chart chart prepared by the Tax Foundation for fiscal year 2005 that ranks states according to federal spending per dollar of taxes paid.

      Last updated: 30 December 2008

      Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2011 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
      This material may not be reproduced without permission.
      snopes and the logo are registered service marks of


      Hamrick, Dave. “Don’t Believe, Or Pass On, All You Read.”
      The [Fayette] Citizen. 17 January 2001.

      Lacy, Dean. “A Curious Paradox of the Red States and Blue States.”
      2 March 2002.

      Tax Foundation. “Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005.”
      9 October 2007.

    • Munnster

      Amen brother! Semper Fi!

    • John Kevany

      I find such hypocracy from those who are quick to denounce America for its sins of the past (such as slavery) but wish for us to head down that very road through socialism. We paid greatly for that sin in our bloodiest war with 600,000 of our bretheren dead. Those same hypocrites are the ones who while detesting the US, hold in high regard monsters like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Jung (mentally) Il. Add to them anti-semite beasts like Hitler and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (or as I call him, “my mood i’m in a jihad”) and you wonder who the hell these people really are that hold them in high esteem but see someone like Ronald Reagan as a facist.

  • s c

    Occasionally, “some” American citizens must be reminded that we were given a Republic. We were NOT given a democracy. A republic has chance to exist, grow stronger and last for a long time. A democracy is a creation that has a built-in time bomb in it.
    Why some prefer the latter is beyond me. Long live
    our Republic. Flush democracies before they get a chance to flush you, your family and all of your friends. Up the rebels!

    • Sharon

      Thank you for clarifying the point that we have been given a Republic–not a democracy as our form of government. So many people say we live in a democracy and it is one of my pet peeves that so many in our country do not know the difference. Our form of government, given to us by the Founding Fathers, is a democratic republic and it, I believe, actually has a chance to survive so long as the people are educated on the Constitution and vote for those men and women who would uphold it.

      • home boy

        am i hearing the word dictatorship?

        • Michael

          Coming from the White House’s own mouthpiece. If the Occupy movements continue, stand by for martial law and a “temporary” hold on elections, etc.

          • JeffH

            Michael, yepper! Why else would the Marxist in charge and Nazi Pelosi encourage the OWS protesters.

            Just a note, the commie Van Jones and his SEIU and ILWU(who control all of the US cargo ports)”union” brothers are really pushing the movement hard in Oakland. But, it appears that the peaceniks and the communists at Occupy Oakland are fighting with each other. Ones wants a peaceful demonstration. The Communists need violence.

          • Common Sense

            And a permanent hold on the Constitution. Do you know that when Martial Law is declared, the Constitution is “temporarily” suspended? Well, in Obama’s case, “temporarily,” like what they do with other words, will no doubt be “redefined” to mean “permanently” suspended.

          • Angel Wannabe

            JtfH, Sarcasm Alert!__Isn’t it odd that Van Jones is from Oakland and they have the biggest turnout of OWS idiots yet?

          • Angel Wannabe

            E-Gads, I Can’t type your name today jeff!

          • Karolyn

            Angel – There was a large turnout of vets in Oakland because of the one who got his skull fractured. Are you calling them names too?

          • JeffH

            Karolyn, the Oakland OWS just like all of the other OWS crowds have been infiltrated by Marxist/communist “revolutionaries” with the sole intent of escalating violence. This is irrefutable.
            FYI…I live in central California and get both bay area(Oakland/SF) radio and television. I lived and worked in the area for 59 years.

            The peaceful protester should denounce and disenfranchise themselves from the sh*t disturbers. To stay and protest with those that advocate violence is nothing more than approving it. How much damage can be done before enough is enough and it should be stopped?

          • Karolyn

            OWS peaceful demonstrators are trying to distanciethemselves from those violent people, but alal they can really do is apologize with messages written on walls and in interviews and blogs. There’s no way to keep the lower-class element out. Unfortunately, there will always be those who grab onto the coattails of those with a mission and subvert that mission.

          • Angel Wannabe

            and Karolyn, Your talking to blatant skeptic, I’ll lay ya two to one, most of those folks dressed in fatigues are not Vets, but are protestors Vet drag!__ C’mon, do you always believe what you see & hear, without analyzing it even a little?

          • Joe H.

            correctimundo!! how else will nobummer be able to declare Martial Law????

          • Honestly

            ACORN is behind the Occupy movement and we should have known that something like that was from the get go.

    • ChristyK

      Republic = Rule of Law
      Democracy = Mob Rule

      • Common Sense

        Yes, have you ever noticed that the media almost NEVER uses the term “Republic?” They ALWAYS use the term “Democracy” when speaking about the United States, (the US Corporation). A democracy, in reality, is the same as Communism, (the “collective”), meaning the majority rules. This means that if 51% of the people are in favor of something, (usually as a result of some sophisticated brainwashing and dumbing down of the people), this means that the will of the 51% is imposed and FORCED upon the other 49%. This is why they are constantly conducting poles – not that I even trust the results of the poles. In a Republic, the INDIVIDUAL is king. Even if 99% of the people have one opinion and the 1% has a different opinion, the 1% can still live by their opinions AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE. This is how things are SUPPOSED TO BE according to the Constitution. But what they are really after is a complete dictatorship, which is even worse than Communism. In a dictatorship, the will of all of the people is irrelevant, no matter what it is. Everything is done by the will of the dictator. In our case, that would be whoever is pulling Obama’s puppet strings.

        • mark

          Yeah right, democracy is the exact same thing as communism. Castro, Stalin, and Mao were all democrats who held authentic multi-party elections every two years. I give up on this website! The statements that some people make here are off the charts. You do realize, Common Sense, that every political office except the presidency is democratically elected. We are much more of a democracy today than in 1788 when only white males who owned property could vote. That was a republic. Today we live in a system that is much more democratic. Thank God!

          • Joe H.

            you give up on this site?!?!?! Promise?!?!?

          • BrotherPatriot

            Joe H…I’m hoping the same thing!

            God Bless.

    • mark

      Right! Up the rebels! Especially those protesting against Wall Street! For once, I agree with you.

  • peter

    I am a little closer to understanding what is meant by a democracy and have always maintained that there is actually no such thing, but Alex Tyler’s words, by courtesy of freedom fighter have been very helpful. Thanks for that. Now I will say again, long live the Republic and screw the false democracy supporters. Time to do what is right, not what is expedient to a political career or someone’s idiotic pretense to understanding what politicians are up to. We know what they are up to and we don’t have to like it.

    • mark

      This whole argument is an internet fraud. See:

      • Joe H.

        SNOPES?? REALLY?? Is that the best you can do???

        • Sue

          Joe H. says:
          November 3, 2011 at 10:45 pm
          SNOPES?? REALLY?? Is that the best you can do???

          JOE H.: YES, THIS IS AN INTERNET HOAX. It isn’t just on Snopes. You can find it on Hoax Slayers, Urban Legends, Truth or Fiction, etc.


  • Patriot1776

    What is truly scary is to hear some Americans talking about what is going on in this country today. I read last night about a poll of “Walmart moms” in Florida. They were 43% favorable on obama saying that “he is doing the best he can with what he was given”, still buying into the liberal media presentation and the left’s sales pitch that the economy is still Bush’s fault. Even after a disasterous 3 years of stimulus spending the country into outlandish debt, these women can’t open their eyes and see that this president has no intention of getting this country back on her feet. I don’t know if any of the candidate from the Republican party are any better than obama, but what I do know is that if this emporer is given the approval to go forward with his destruction, this country will not survive another 4 years. We need to fight, state by state, county by county to fend off the liberal attacks on our freedoms, or accept domination by the communist left. What kind of legacy are we leaving our children and our children’s children? Not the legacy that we were given.

    • Jeryl

      Obama and his ilk have full intentions to destroy this economy and strengthen the government’s hold on our lives. By the way, read the law passed a couple of years ago defining the definition of the territorial waters of the USA. It includes even puddles on private property. In other words, when it rains, the puddles on your property belong to the government. This may sound like a joke, but it’s dead serious.

      • s c

        Jeryl, an old expression says that opposites attract. That’s true (especially in science), but when it comes to politics, it’s not so “true.” In the matter of Obummer and his jockstrap supporters, I have no choice but to conclude that self-made retards attract other self-made retards.
        That explains most of Obummer’s ‘popularity,’ and it also explains why/how any so-called adult can fall for the insanity or race-hating, treasonous behavior of a criminal politician.

      • mark

        No, this is just another cuckoo clock right-wing conspiracy that you apparently have fallen hook, line, and sinker for.

        • DaveH

          If you’re going to tell somebody they’re wrong, the least you can do is provide proof. What a dweeb.
          Is this what you’re talking about, Jeryl?

          • mark

            No, you and Jeryl are right, Dave. If it rains on any part of your land, the federal government immediately owns it. This is the law now. It would not surprise me in the least if you believed this. As long as it was on a conservative or libertarian website, it must be true.

          • DaveH

            Don’t know for sure what you’re implying there, but Jeryl said that the puddle belonged to the government, not his land. And he’s correct. You’d know that if instead of trying to back up your ignorance with personal attacks and condescension you would instead read the article.

          • Joe H.

            I though mark said he was giving up on this site???? Darn! Another progressive lie!!!

    • blesstheusa

      Reminds me of comments I heard two co-workers make for the election in 1992, ‘I think I’ll vote for the cute one!’ Reading the WalMart poll makes one think ‘you, out of the gene pool!’

    • Joe H.

      i don’t know how much weight I’d put on a poll by Walmart. After all, they ARE in bed with obummer!! Hence, the spy cameras in each and every store plus the propaganda films going 24/7!!

  • http://yahoo Skyraider6

    send him back to kenya. mr cain should have sealed all his records, but i guess he had nothing to hide, i think?

    • BrotherPatriot

      Oh he has stuff to hide…like what organization he’s connected to…but most people don’t want to hear this truth or at least will not believe it.

      God Bless.

      • Gary

        Perhaps you are right, but the truth has lately become a very rare thing to come across. Especially from the media.

        • BrotherPatriot

          True, Gary…especially the “elitist” controlled media that spews the constant propaganda that most people swallow whole. Such as slaying Bin Laden…bleh, what a farse that was!

          Such a sad state of entitlement mentality our country is in…*sigh*.

          God Bless.

  • Phil

    Patriot1776, you mention that the walmart moms can’t open their eyes, yet you say you don’t know if any of the republican candidates are any better. For those paying attention, there is only one candidate that is about restoring our liberties and he is Ron Paul.

    • DaveH
      • Capitalist at Birth

        Dave H. What will you do when Paul does not win the nomination?

        • DaveH

          I’ll vote for Ron in the main election if he runs as an independent, or I’ll vote for the Libertarian Candidate. I rarely vote for Republicans.

          • DaveH

            And I never vote for Democrats.

  • http://yahoo Skyraider6

    he maybe the One

  • Ellen

    Patriot, You nailed it stating they listen to the liberal media. It is sad that our country has devolved to this. People can’t get true and accurate information from most of our news outlets. A huge percentage of people still don’t grasp this, so they trust what is spoon fed to them on their TV. The bigger problem is that they SHOULD be able to get accurate news from these places. Early in Obama’s presidency, there were many comments about the book 1984 and his deceptions. Now, 3 years later that comparison is truer than ever.

  • 4-just_us

    If we the people keep doing what we have been doing, why would we
    expect anything to change. It’s up to we the people to change. My idea of a good change is for a new updated constitution. Our present one is way to vague,ambiguous,and just to many ways to interpret it.
    Ron Paul would be my hope for a better union.

    • Jeryl

      There’s nothing wrong with the Constitution we have. Our government just needs to read it and honor it, rather than tearing it to shreds. You cannot begin to imagine the danger in opening up a new Constitutional Convention.

      • DaveH

        Especially at this point in time when there are so-many brainwashed victims, of the public schools and the MSM, who know little about Freedom.

      • Joe H.

        You expect them to read it when they won’t even let it be taught in public schools?? They pass that up for what they consider IMPORTANT. Like billy has two moms, or abortion as birth control!!!

    • Monte

      I believe replacing our Constitution would be the greatest error we could possibly fall for. It would not be to our benefit any whatsoever. Our current Constitution was a product of compromise. Each state had their own idea of what it represented when they ratified it. A lot of the ambiguity is due to this compromising spirit. For one state, or group of states, to dictate to another what it means, or does not mean, is pure tyranny if it is not clearly defined in the document, since their interpretations may have been different from the beginning. I would like to see amendments added to close up elastic clauses that are used to usurp power, such as the welfare and commerce clauses. Some of the amendments we have, we would be better off without.

      • DaveH

        We would be better off without the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment. Both were created to aid in growth of the Federal Government.

        • mark

          The 16th amendment definitely increased the power of the federal government, I agree with you there, Dave, but I don’t see the 17th as doing so. It came into being due to the enormous corruption of state legislatures where railroad and banking interests early in the 20th century controlled legislatures through large scale graft. For this reason the Populists and later the Progressives called for the direct democratic election of senators so they wouldn’t be appointed or elected by crooked state assemblies. Similar corruption certainly existed and still does in the federal Congress but people wanted more of a direct say in who their senator would be. This was a move towards the democratic reform of the Constitution. So was the 19th amendment ferociously opposed by conservatives, that gave women the right to vote, and of course the 15th amendment that briefly gave blacks the right to vote for a short period before Jim Crow took it away again until the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Those of us on the left look forward to a future Constitutional amendment to end the electoral college so that we can have direct democratic election of our presidents. But I am sure you disgree with this, as is your right. It takes 3/4 of the states to get a Constitutional Amendment through as you know, so this is an uphill battle for any reform agenda. Nonetheless it is a threshold that has been attained numerous times in our history.

          • DaveH

            The Founding Fathers in their wisdom separated Congress into two parts. The House of Representatives represented the people, and the Senate represented the States. Our Founders knew that the State Legislators would be more apt to watch their representatives closely and provide an offsetting influence for the natural inclination of Politicians (in the Federal Government) to grow their power at the expense of the States’ Sovereignty. The 17th amendment usurped that separation of powers and turned all Congressional representatives into Politicians who were elected by the people, who were much less likely to ride herd on the Federal Legislators, thus allowing the Federal Government to grab more power. The Wilson administration knew exactly what they were doing. The 16th and 17th Amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act all contributed mightily to the Growth of a Big Central Government.

          • Incredulous1

            Mark, read “Free to Choose”, by Milton Friedman if you want a “better understanding” of the 16th and 17th Amendments and how they, along with the Federal Reserve, have truely destroyed our once great country.

  • http://yahoo Skyraider6

    Can we have one day without the media mentioning obie’s name, maybe then we can forget the harm he has done to this country, at least for that day

  • Angel Wannabe

    If you’d like to know where the Country is headed, (as if we didn’t know), watch this live Twitter feed of Occupy Wall Street, most of the comments are outrageous and is getting violent. Scroll down the feed is on the right. This is our future leaders folks, I hope I’m dead by then! Libbies, I guess Glenn Beck wasn’t to far off the map was he?

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Glenn Beck is, and has been 100% right all of the time.

      • Angel Wannabe

        Capitalist at Birth, Quite honestly Cap, I’ve prayed on several occassions Beck & Bob Livingston would be wrong, but they aren’t, they just aren’t, so sad to watch!

        Prepare for the worst and hope for the best!_God Bless!

      • mark

        Only God is 100% right all the time. No human being has possesses this infallibility.

        • Angel Wannabe

          mark, I happen to think the Good Lord is working through them! :)
          nuf said!

          • Joe H.

            Angel Wannabe,
            when you checked out that site, did you check out the story of the deadly beating of the homeless autistic man??

  • Monroe Riddle

    It sounds like we have hope , lets call upon our God to give us the courage to fight Monroe Riddle

  • William Cocker

    Congratulations! You have looked in the mirror and seen the face of the enemy, yourselves! Someone once said; “There are two legitamate ways of changing a bad government, ballots and bullets.” Method number one has ceased to serve you well. Perhaps it is time for method number two. You don’t have to wait for November 2012 to hold a rebellion. Strike now while there is still something left of your country! You are not alone! Up here in Canada there is a rebellion, or should I say there are rebellions going on practically on a daily basis. But we don’t make much noise about them. We find it easier to quietly cut the guts out of a political party or its leadership or its policies without overt violence. Ploys like “malicious obedience” are part of our heritage. Watch for tipping points and when those you would get rid of reach the edge, give them a kick or a shove. Good Luck!

  • Jack F.

    It’s about time. Lets take bigger steps now.

  • http://moniquer7 Merlin

    Some valuable history lessons here. It would be hoped that we could learn from them. But it appears that we are set to make some of the same mistakes of the past rather than the correct choices that were made.

  • Joe

    We may not need bullets to take back our country. The answer could be as simple as to have the heartland stop supplying food to the cities where the liberal mind set has it’s power based. The government can give the peasants all the food stamps and welfare checks that they can print but if there is no food to be had in the inner-cities the people will follow their empty stomachs and not the empty promises that the Fed spews out. The people rule the vast majority of this country, the Feds only rule the cities.

    • FreedomFighter

      If it comes to it:

      Stop paying taxes, govermetn falls, we reset it.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • DaveH

        As long as the Federal Reserve exists it would be an exercise in futility to stop paying taxes.

        • FreedomFighter

          It would be start Dave, this is Lucys world at the moment, but resistance is not futile.

          Laus Deo
          Semper Fi

          • DaveH

            I don’t care if they call them the Illuminati or NWO or whatever. I care about Freedom. It doesn’t matter to me who takes it away, be he a well-meaning man of God, or a self-serving tyrant. I want a society where people control their own bodies and property absent the stifling hand of Big Government. I want a society where people can trade freely with each other without the overpowering intrusion of Big Government. I want a society where our property rights are considered to be sacred and where we can’t be forced into personal choices not of our choosing.
            I want a Libertarian Society:

          • FreedomFighter


            To know who the enemy is dosnt hurt in the efforts.

            Laus Deo
            Semper Fi

          • BrotherPatriot

            DaveH…I really appreciate your post & hear what you are saying.

            I want the same things you do, brother…and many, many others all want the same thing. However, I view myself as an American…not a libertarian.

            I’m gettin tired of the classification of Republican, democrat, independant and libertarian, etc. I think it’s time we just stand up and pursue what common sense tells us is right & just…all within the framework of the great effort that has already been put forth that encapsulates our founding documents…the Constitution, the Bill of Rights & the Declaration of Independence.

            Now regarding those documents…there has been some tampering of them by the use of amendments. I believe we need to readdress these amendments and find out who benefitted by having them in place, what organizations were those people attached to, were those amendments ratified or not by the states, and basically…review them all and perhaps nullify those that are found unconstitutional.

            Many of you know what I’m talking about…but namely…the 3rd central bank called the Federal Reserve. This is “their” greatest tool that they use to control us.

            As they have even said themselves, “Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes the laws.” A timely quote by Mayer A. Rothschild.

            A great deal of our current corruption was initiated many years ago by the people who are attached by bloodline or politics to the people who formed organizations such as the UN, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Round Table, Skull & Bones…etc. I think many of you know already at that which I’m hinting at, basically…the NWO & Illuminati.

            Educate yourselves people…learn the truth of this world before it runs you & your children into the ground.

            God Bless.

          • DaveH

            Mises just had an article yesterday that talked about the creation of the Federal Reserve Act:

          • BrotherPatriot

            Enjoyed reading your above link, DaveH.

            God Bless ya, brother. :)

  • dixiesuzan

    And another Revolutionary War phrase (though older than that):
    “Resistance to tyrants is obediance to God”
    A goog phrase for the Obama administration to remember

    • Joe H.

      Been reading the good Rev I see.

  • Suzanne

    235 years later and we are all still suffering from the consequences of slavery in the early years of the USA. Isn’t this enough to convince us that slavery in any form, whether overtly such as the enslavement of African blacks, or covertly when we are all held in the chains of repressive government, is something to be fought in every way and at all costs? Dickinson was right. The longer we wait to act the worse the fight will be. Let’s not hesitate for so long that the conflict degenerates into violence.

    • dixiesuzan

      ALL civil government requires obedience, whether it is voluntary or non-voluntary. To violate law is called crime. People who rebel at voluntary obediance do that daily. They want to become their own source of law. Civil government IS POWER to compel involuntay obedience if necessary. The key isn’t in voluntary or involuntary obedience, rather the key is in WHO is the sovereign agent of the civil government which is legislating and executing and adjudicating the laws. The USA was to be sel-governed by legislative process and strict executive process under judicial understanding and peaceful settlements in courts of law. There is NO civil government which operates on merely suggesting obedience to this or that. Such a claimed civil government isn’t one at all. It is a suggestion machine only. Hence, claiming slavery is a distorted perspective if you are the slave and you are also the master and civil government is your agent to compell obedience to laws your agents make. There is NO slavery under those circumstances.
      Slavery comes in when a man, a group of men or a political party claims sovereignty as absolute. Now ye serf, knell or else.

      • Michael Boldin

        Maybe it would be better to say that all civil government requires DISobedience….

        disobedience to tyrants.

  • dixiesuzan

    State citizens and then US citizens have always asserted their obedience is paid to the power of the laws they make in Legislatures of representatives, and not to the persons who are entrusted with the duty of executing them.

    What were the rights belonging to the state governments prior to the existence of the federal Constitution? They were those which belong to all sovereign and independent States.

    The US Constitution is binding upon State citizens, because States in their sovereignty adopted it. The US Constitution becomes part of all the State Constitutions with equal force and obligation with the other organic laws of the people of the States in their sovereignty. The US Constitution provides for government within the State. It has equal force on the sovereign people of a State with their own Constitution, and no more, and no less, as it is to represent the will of the State, and is law so long as it has the solemn consent of the people of the State, acting in their sovereignty. By a State Constitution, the people of a State delegate the power of representing their sovereignty, but they do not renounce their sovereignty or transfer their sovereignty. All a Constitution does is make agents to exercise powers of government, and limits and defines the spheres and powers of these agents. The agents are fundamentally the servants of the people. It does NOT transfer the basic sovereignty from the people to their agents, making the agent to be sovereign, and the former sovereign people to become the obsequious humble serf.

    From all appearances, the Obama administration is continuall operating as though the States and the people have given up their sovereignty to the Presidential office, no longer an office of public trust, but an office of sovereign power upon whose throne he sits.

    Every legitimate Constitutional government announces that all powers are derived from the will of the people, and all powers not granted by the people are reserved(see US Constitution 10th amendment). The agent cannot have more delegated powers than the principal who delegates. The creature cannot be greater than its own creator.
    Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God

  • BenDoubleCrossed

    Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington State have written resolutions in support of Amending the Constitution to eliminate corporate influence in elections and restore flesh and blood citizens 1st Amendment rights.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    But these resolutions fail to understand the purpose of the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does not establish our freedoms; it only denies Congress authority to write laws that abridge those freedoms. The State Constitutions establish freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly.. State representatives to the Constitutional Convention, fearing possible overreach by a Federal Government, demanded the inclusion of the 1st Amendment.

    Rather than attempt a Constitutional Amendment to restore their citizen’s 1st Amendment rights, The States should reassert the 10th Amendment: “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.”

    Consider there are no federal elections only elections for federal office held in the States. The Founding Fathers left regulation of political campaigns to the States. The Supreme Court consistently re-interprets the Constitution to extend the authority of the central government in contradiction to the clear wording and intent of the 1st Amendment.

    The Federal Government wrote no campaign regulations until 1907 and did not establish an enforcement mechanism or try cases until after the Federal Campaign Act was passed in 1971.

    But State legislatures (with the exception of Kentucky) have mirrored Federal Campaign law that exempts commercial media (newspapers and broadcasters) from reporting requirements and monetary limits that apply to communications by candidates, political parties, individuals and citizens groups. How do State Legislatures propose to justify News Corporation’s exemption with their resolutions to prevent corporate influence in elections and restore flesh and blood citizen’s rights?

    I assure you newspapers and broadcasters are special interests who depend on the advertising dollars of other special interests. Both Democrats and Republicans agree news is biased and only differ on which networks and newspapers are guilty. And does anyone doubt advertising dollars result in spiked and underreported stories?

    • FreedomFighter

      They are controlled by for worse than you think:

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

      • BrotherPatriot

        I thank God for you, FreedomFighter.

        Thank you for your efforts…your link brings tears to my eyes for the truth that was being spoken then and how we as a country are still, in majority, ignorant of what was said.

        We must, each and everyone of us who believes in God & what America is supposed to be…we MUST try and educate our brothers & sisters to these simple truths.

        Stop listening to the propoganda that being spewed by the controlled media. Obummer is not good. The people in power are not good. Our entire government and how it’s being ran is not good. It’s painfully obvious that there is an Agenda in place to destroy not just America but all countries sovereignity. Please get off the couch and help promote these self evident truths regarding what is going on…before it’s to late. Tell your friends & family about what you read here…and take the time to fully listen to FreedomFighters 2 hour link.

        It might just save you & your childrens lives.

        God Bless.

      • BrotherPatriot

        Here is actually the cleaner & more informational link of that one your provided, FreedomFighter. It has alittle more information in it.

        God Bless the Good fight.

  • dixiesuzan

    You may down load a free 1769 scanned original bound copy of “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania” and another set of letters from the following site:

    1769 – The Farmer’s and Monitor’s letters to the inhabitants of the British colonies

  • BrotherPatriot

    How many here has heard about this upcoming march on Washington…?

    Thank God for alternate sources of news, eh…

    God Bless us all during these & the coming times of troubles…

  • BrotherPatriot

    Here is some more compiled information about Obama & his name…

    The video is the first one and it’s about 1 hour long…for those interested in learning more about some factual information about Obummer…take the time to listen to the compiled research proving that the Usurper is not elligable for the highest office of our land…and why he’s not.

    God Bless.

  • BrotherPatriot

    By the way…excellent article, Michael Boldin.

    God Bless your efforts.

    • Michael Boldin

      I really appreciate that feedback. thank you!

  • 45caliber

    “When homegrown wheat that’s never bought or sold and is consumed on one’s own property is outside the sphere of Federal control, the judicial branch simply redefines what the Founders considered “interstate commerce” and dictates that the Federal government controls virtually all commerce, and then even noneconomic activity.”

    Well, OBVIOUSLY it affects interstate commerce! After all, if you eat your own wheat, you aren’t buying wheat from someone else. And if you aren’t buying it from someone else, some middle man can’t get his cut – particularly when that cut is the biggest one of the price. And the feds can’t tax it either.

    All these reasons can cause problems so the government MUST be able to stop you for messing up the system!

    • Michael Boldin

      yup, that’s EXACTLY how they put it. But a government should not be trusted when it claims the power to regulate “anything that moves”

  • cincerely

    I continue to marvel at the persistance of Republicans to spout erroneous data to support their premises, i.e., states etc. won by Obama and McCain. Obama won 28 states. Check that and other real data for yourself.

    Don’t believe everything that you read because it came from a Republican source – or, for that matter, disbelive what you read from the left.

    As for the Obama record, here is what he has accomplished/not accomplished during his presidency:

    This is a great overview of the Obama presidency (compiled by Robert P. Watson, Ph. D., Lynn University, October 4, 2011). It covers his numerous accomplishments as well as those things he has not accomplished.

    Click on the icon for PDF copy.

    Lengthy, but well organized and well worth the read. Please share with your friends – at least those interested in learning the facts/truth.

  • Buck

    We are no longer a constitutional republic , as of the crowning of King Obama we have abdicated all pretentions of a free and just society . It was done not by a violent upheaval but by a quiet infilltration of socialism into our goverment by a ” progressive ” movement , however I do not see anything progressive in becoming enslaved to a dictatorship reminiscent of Chavez in Venezuela . America is dead , long live the United Socialist States Of America .

  • Roger, Canadian Libertarian

    MARK, you are wasting your time.MOST Americans,and Canadians,(to a smaller degree), do not want to admit to how they truely became the Wealthy Powerful nation (s).

    They wish to ignore or forget that it involved three main stategies: 1.) Plundering native land by the pioneers (aided by government soldiers) and murdering many. 2) Slavery with attendant murders also and 3) Invading countries around the world for the resources and in most ,installing co-operative dictators. Of course this example continues to date.

    One piece of advice though ,MARK,not ALL lIBERTARIANS think alike UNLESS they are true Libertarians.In truth we have NO DESIRE for or RESPECT of Government with power, only DUTIES.

    • mark

      Yes, Roger, I agree with much of what you say. Most great powers, the United States included, don’t like to conduct a real critical analysis of their own history. It is often too painful. The United States has certainly done some great things in this world. It helped defeat fascism, it provided lots of opportunity and a better way of life for millions of immigrants. It created an open and socially mobile society for most of its citizens. It prevented Stalinism’s spread in Europe and other parts of the world. But the U.S. certainly has many terrible stains on its historical record many of which you noted. Even in its two great foreign victories over fascism and communism, it used many brutal, wrong headed tactics that did more harm than good in lots of areas of the world. Unfortunately if you try to discuss some of these things, you are a traitor and unAmerican in some circles. I try not to let it get me down, and keep plugging ahead.

      • DaveH

        You have no idea what you’re talking about, Mark.
        Read this to get a clue about reality:

      • DaveH
      • DaveH

        FDR did nothing to limit Communism. In fact, due to the US inaction, many of Germany’s victim countries were turned over to Communist Russia for more victimization.
        Shedding some light on reality:
        From the article:
        “A majority in Congress surely were aware of the dangers of Communism, while Roosevelt never seemed to grasp the total evil of Stalin or Communism. Roosevelt gave Stalin everything he wanted throughout the war and referred to this mass murderer as “Uncle Joe.” The wartime conferences at Teheran and Yalta clearly demonstrated Roosevelt’s complete and secret capitulation to Communism in Russia and China”.

        • DaveH

          I know, Mark, that you will read none of the links that I provided. That’s fine, because I’m not really trying to educate you. But the other readers will see that you have no clue what you’re talking about.

          • mark

            No, I have read several of them. Most I find unconvincing. Others make some good points that should be considered.

          • DaveH

            Unconvincing? Are you going to tell me next that you read the 900 page book in the few hours between my posting it and your latest comment? You have little credibility, Mark. You are unconvincing (to put it mildly).

        • mark

          Yes but FDR died when all this was still in flux. When he met at Yalta most of Eastern Europe was already in the hands of the Soviets. What could he do other than start a new world war with the Soviet Union? In anycase he died shortly after the conference. His successor Truman took a hard line against the Soviets and moved toward a policy of containment. We will never know if FDR would have done the same. But FDR’s last couple of telegrams to Stalin were tough and critical.

          • DaveH

            References, Mark. You know those things that Thomas Dilorenzo puts in his books to back up his statements? Unlike a fact-fabricating Liberal who thinks he can just say whatever he wants while expecting others to believe him.

        • mark

          Yes but the U.S. needed Stalin as an ally 1941-1945. It was only when Stalin encroached on Eastern Europe that the critical conflict began. FDR died before it could be resolved but his view on Stalin hardened in March and April 1945 on the eve of his death because of Stalin’s broken promises in Poland to allow a democratic, multi-party government.

          • Joe H.

            mark, the only one that wanted to get tough with the russians at that time that I’ve read about was Patton. He told the gov that he would go in with his men and tanks, make it look like the ruskies started it and kick their azzes to hell and back. I honestly believe he would have given them all they could handle and more. Of course, you know what the answer was.

          • DaveH

            There was no need at all for FDR to get involved in World War II, other than leaders doing what they do best — using the citizens for their piggy banks and cannon fodder to accomplish their personal goals. If you read the book I linked to you would know that your hero FDR was a lying murderer who was willing to sacrifice thousands of military personnel at Pearl Harbor to get his way. But then, I can see why you would idolize him.

  • Angel Wannabe

    Keep abreast of OWS__I’m always amazed at the OWS’s suppos-ed grassroots protests (tongue in cheek)and they’re ability to afford to pay for they’re own newpaper printing, and new websites.

    • JeffH

      Angel, thanks to George Soros’ influential donations…

      …and yes, isn’t it ironic that communist Van Jones has his headquarters in Oakland.

      More Van Jones food for thought.

      Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, “mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world” on the night after Sept. 11, 2001.

      In 2011, Jones worked with to launch the Rebuild the Dream campaign, which was intended to start a progressive American Dream movement to counter the Tea Party movement. Van Jones and Rebuild the Dream announced a “Contract for the American Dream”, intended as a counter to the Tea Party-supported “Contract from America”.

      In October, Van Jones compared the Occupy Wall Street movement to an “American Autumn” comparable to the Arab Spring uprisings, saying, “You can see it right now with these young people on Wall Street. Hold onto your hats, we’re going to have an October offensive to take back the American dream and to rescue America’s middle class.”

      This is clearly “community organizing 101″ and Van Jones is not a noble man.

  • Lawrence Ekdahl

    Soon, money will be worthless. With the government in full control of a slave state. we need to first repent of our sins to Almighty GOD and then work out a barter system with fellow believers. Of course as christians. we need to obey all laws which are not against our faith, trust in GOD, and depend on him and ourselves.

  • Vi Walz

    Maybe changing the subject, but I’d like to see the US cut off funds for the UN and for the UN to get OUT of the US. Maybe the Occupy group could take that up!

  • FreedomFighter



    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Angel Wannabe

      FF, LMAO!!!

    • Joe H.

      and here I thought it was

  • Mad Max

    If your tired of being treated like slave, arm yourselves with “The Nuclear Option”, the last hope for America.

    Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( )

  • Bill Wright

    There is good and bad in all people,rather they Aare a common man or some one important.If you study each President ,you can find something they screwed up on,some more than others,The greater the President ,the less he screwed up while in office.I know I’ve screwed up afewtimes in my life,But I ‘ve never made the same mistake twice.But in the case of Jefferson (1801-1809) And Lincoln(1861-1865)I think these Great Presidents Deserve More respect than what some people said aboput them on this web site.Sure they wern’t perfect but neither is anyone else for that matter.Jefferson may have been a slave owner ,but ownibg slaves was still allowed during that time.He also Double the size of Our country.(has any other President done done that yet?)And Lincoln Was killed while still serving his country.Any one disagreeing with this is within their own rights to do so,however Most Americans living today would consider both of these Presidents to be among the most respected and loved.
    ve sc

  • Cep.

    I couldn’t have said it any beter than that ,Bill,a lot of thsesguys that wright into some of thses web-sites are mad at everybody else ,except themselfs.Sure things are bad,But theres nothing that cann’t be changed.I didn’t vote for Obama,and I won’t vote for him in 2012.Besides Obama Didn’t create some of thisa mess ,its been coming on for the last sixty years(FDR).

  • RightGunner

    The subject of responses here should be about the history cited and remedy’s proposed in “Small Steps Toward Liberty” by Michael Boldin. I agree completely with his Tenth Amendment Center’s promotion of State nullification of unconstitutional laws, regulations and the Federal Government’s execution of unconstitutional powers.

    However besides having states pass nullification laws and communicating them to the Federal Government, we should in parallel, be taking legal action directly against the Federal Government to bring the unconstitutionality issues to a head. The Tenth Amendment Center, if it hasn’t already, could help the States by prioritizing the list of offenses, because the time and resources to act require starting with only the most important first.

    Has anyone of this audience thought about the incremental Federal encroachments, battles which we have already lost by inaction. Battles may have been lost, however the war is not over, and all citizens need to begin acting as the Boldin article implores. Do you agree with the nullification concept? Why not state your support or rejection of the Boldin ideas here, along with your additional ideas on the subject of Federal unconstitutional actions.

  • Chris

    This is what a Nations gets. for being so dumb a– when it comes time to vote.This nations got people in WashingtonD.C. That don’t belong there.Do I Make myself Clear? Lets vote them out in 2012.

  • Buck

    People keep writing of the “sin ” of America and the ” stains ” on our history . Might I remind those that they are no worse than failings of any other country in the history of the world , but America has unarguably done more good in the world than any other nation in world history as well . When has America ever set out to take over another country aside from our own continent ? What country has ever been more charitable to the rest of the world ? What other country has ever worked so hard to make up for its mistakes ? I’m awaiting all the answers .

  • Highway Hero & Alice Cooper

    The events of lately remind me of parts of a Stephen King novel,sad but true . As we take steps to protect ourselves , we have to make sure that we double check our info so that we are really on the same team . Happy trails H-H & A-C


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.