I know Larken.....As well as a number of other members of the "Patriot/Militia/Tax Protest" movement.
I can shoot bullets in most of their theories, (including Larken's as I have pointed out to him before his, "unfortunate incarceration"; so rest assured, if I, as a defense attorney can slap some of the arguments down, so can an Assistant United States Attorney, and a United States District Court Judge or Magistrate.... Tell Larken I said "Hey"!! I have often wondered how he is doing these days!! KeithInTampa On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Jonathan Ashley < [email protected]> wrote: > Amen, Larken Rose! > > > On 9/15/2010 11:55 AM, MJ wrote: > > > *Constitution Party: Worthless > *09-15-2010 > Larken Rose > > > In my last message, I pointed out that the Libertarian Party has watered > down its message, basically dumping the principle it was founded on, in > order to get votes. Well, while I'm at it, I might as well offend some more > people. The Constitution Party is also worthless. Why? Several reasons: > > 1) Contrary to the divine holiness some people image the Constitution to > have, it really is just a piece of paper (or parchment). While some of what > the Founders wrote -- the Declaration more so than the Constitution -- > expressed some pretty darn important and profound concepts, they still ended > up creating a ruling class. It was supposed to be a tiny, "limited" ruling > class, but they still pretended to bestow upon politicians certain powers > that you don't have, I don't have, and none of the writers or signers of the > Constitution had. Nice trick. > > Sorry, but the term "Constitutional principles" is an oxymoron. The > Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in terms of > rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion) then claimed to > give some of those "equal" people the right to forcibly rob all the other > "equal" people. Yes, the power of "taxation" was supposed to be > significantly limited in several ways, but it was still the power to steal. > How does that match the notion of everyone being "created equal," and the > only purpose of "government" being to protect rights? It doesn't. It is a > direct, blatant, glaring contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a > glaring contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea. > > 2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because it > was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the official, > formal procedure of "amending" out all those pesky limitations, then what? > Then totalitarianism will become "Constitutional," and what would the > Constitution Party say then? The truth is, instead of being some perfect > expression of truth incarnate, the Constitution started as a huge, > self-contradictory, illegitimate compromise, between some people who > actually wanted individual freedom, and others who wanted to rule. > > (It's worth noting that the predictions of the anti-Federalists, who didn't > like the Constitution, turned out to be about a zillion times more accurate > than the promises of the Federalists, who swore that the beast they were > creating would remain small and meek.) > > 3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must be > "legalized" before it is good, that they remain determined to bash their > heads against the wall of the "political process" to achieve it. This is > true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe in > inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for "legislative" > permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights (the first ten > amendments to the Constitution) describes things that "government" was not > supposed to do at all -- yet they do them on a regular basis. If your answer > is to try to elect people who will change that, you're implicitly conceding > that they weren't inalienable rights to begin with. By definition, if you > need a "law" to allow something, it's not a "right." So, aside from the > contradictions in the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the > "inalienability" of rights described therein, you'd be doing whatever you > could -- including things the politicians have deemed "illegal"-- to defend > those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind, or to let you > be armed, or to spare you from random searches and interrogations, and so > on, carries with it the implied message that you need the master's > permission to do those things. As a result, trying to regain "rights" via > the political process is an inherent contradiction. > > 4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult > of statism and the worship of collectivism, don't want what the Constitution > describes. (Neither do I, but for very different reasons.) By playing the > "democracy" game, the Constitution Party is basically conceding that what > the majority wants is what matters. Yes, they would like the majority to > agree with them, but since it doesn't, why play a game (i.e., voting) that > merely reinforces the looney notion that the majority has the right to rule > in any way it sees fit (or in any way it's duped into supporting)? > > 5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not what > it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that's what it > actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment that > there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people would even > support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone expect it to turn > out differently next time? > > (Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the > principles described therein were trashed. If you haven't before, do a > little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Louisiana > Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters. Each of the first > three "Presidents" trashed the Constitution, and any principles it pretended > to be founded upon. Pretty much every President since then has done the > same, though some more dramatically than others.) > > ------------------------------------ > > Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many treat > as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you tell me how > stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this: > > There have always been opportunistic control freaks waiting to take any bit > of truth, any righteous cause, any good idea, and turn it into power and > control for themselves. The Founders stated a lot of profoundly important > truths. For example, had they quit after the Declaration of Independence, I > would have had very few complaints. But the fundamental principles stated by > some were immediately hijacked by others for their own power. > > Ironically, we have a fine analogy to study today. The Republican Party is > now going to great lengths to hijack the ideas and enthusiasm of the "Tea > Party" movement, to use as a source of power for itself. In other words, > they are trying to use *the advocacy of freedom* as a tool to gain *dominion > over others*. This is an exact rerun of what happened a couple hundred > years ago, when a few pro-freedom radicals (e.g., Thomas Paine, Patrick > Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) spoke the truth and got some attention, and > some political conmen hijacked the results, and used it as a tool for power > for themselves. The result was the Constitution. So before you bash me, make > sure you're not accidentally cheering for the usurpers, thieves, liars and > control freaks, instead of the people (like me) who actually *want you to > be free*. > > (P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step *toward* freedom > would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that ever > actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to happen now, > because of any "political" efforts?) > > > http://bit.ly/9XXgSc > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere. > Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts. > http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html > > > -- > *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal > Government* > > *"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's > really happening. What separates politicians from other > criminal organizations is superior public relations." > - Marc Stevens > > "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it > expects something that cannot be." > - Thomas Jefferson* > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
