# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Yes!  Rand to vote against emergency declaration

## Warlord

Way to go Rand.  This is a tough vote and the sort of thing Collins has called for:

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...cy-declaration

It's the top of Drudge too

----------


## acptulsa

In b4 the shylls tell us Rand is wrong to uphold the Constitution.

----------


## axiomata

Sometimes you got to break the constitution to uphold the constitution don't you know

----------


## TomtheTinker

Good for Rand. Somebody has to stand up to the hypocrisy of the right.

----------


## kahless

This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". 

He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.

----------


## acptulsa

> In b4 the shylls tell us Rand is wrong to uphold the Constitution.


Made it (barely)!

If Republicans won't vote for an upholder of the Constitution, then what this nation needs is a conservative political party.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". 
> 
> He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.


I'm not an open border supporter and support this move. Using words so loosely to the point they don't have meaning in an effort to give yourself powers you're not meant to have is dangerous. Sometimes you can support something but take a stand against the way it's getting done.

----------


## acptulsa

> Sometimes you can support something but take a stand against the way it's getting done.


Not if you're a good team player.

Obviously you are not.  Good for you.  Good team players are the bricks out of which tyranny is built.

----------


## nikcers

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.


The same Democrats we tried to win over in 2016 are going to vote for the pied Piper Democrat like they did last time. Trump is doing the right thing politically whether you support the wall or not he promised a wall in 2016 and people like people who at least try to do what they promised. Plus it gives him the ability to say no to anything the Democrats want, they are going to want something from him eventually. That and it also gives him room to say no to the immigration boondoggle. If he becomes Democrat lite because of this then his base will desert him for being gutless.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Justin Amash agrees...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ith-wall-order

----------


## nikcers

> Not if you're a good team player.
> 
> Obviously you are not.  Good for you.  Good team players are the bricks out of which tyranny is built.


Yeah but the people are only going to hear the talking points and they are going to use this against him the same way they did the Israel foreign aid.

----------


## Superfluous Man

This makes me so proud.

Rand is going to get attacked so hard on so many sides for this. And he's doing it anyway.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". 
> 
> He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.


I agree with you about that, at least in the current political climate, this will hurt Rand more than it helps him. But that's not why he's doing it. He's doing it because it's the right thing to do. His oath to uphold the Constitution obligates him to vote this way, and you know that. When we supported him in 2010, it was with the hope that he would follow in his father's footsteps with votes like this.

----------


## kahless

> I agree with you about that, at least in the current political climate, this will hurt Rand more than it helps him. But that's not why he's doing it. He's doing it because it's the right thing to do. His oath to uphold the Constitution obligates him to vote this way, and you know that. When we supported him in 2010, it was with the hope that he would follow in his father's footsteps with votes like this.


Some do not see this as an invasion and security threat that it is, I get that.  So how about I put it this way. Lets say there was a foreign army flowing across the border.  Do you really want to deny the President emergency powers in that situation and wait for Congress to dick around before something is done?

----------


## Krugminator2

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". 
> 
> He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.




This is actually an important vote where people would be right to criticize Rand had he voted for an emergency declaration. I would have been very disappointed had he voted for this in contrast to the other votes he is criticized for which 99% of the time the people who criticize are retards.

----------


## nikcers

> Some do not see this as an invasion and security threat that it is, I get that.  So how about I put it this way. Lets say there was a foreign army flowing across the border.  Do you really want to deny the President emergency powers in that situation and wait for Congress to dick around before something is done?


The same Congress that has done nothing about the wall or immigration no matter which party has control? I feel like they could be bringing the plague and they would be doing nothing about it. Probably all the kick backs from plague medicine.

----------


## Superfluous Man

This would not be a case of waiting for Congress to act. Congress has already acted and passed a budget deliberately allocating only about $1.4 billion for a border wall.

----------


## jon4liberty

Standing on principle is all fine and good until we dont have a country anymore. I didnt see latin america, asia, or africa with their own bill of rights and constiturion. This open borders is what the elites want low skilled iq voters and low wages to pay less to workers. Its time the libery movement woke up!

----------


## acptulsa

> Standing on principle is all fine and good until we dont have a country anymore. I didnt see latin america, asia, or africa with their own bill of rights and constiturion. This open borders is what the elites want low skilled iq voters and low wages to pay less to workers. Its time the libery movement woke up!


Calvin Coolidge generally preferred a free America creating so many jobs that we didn't have to worry about other people squeezing us out of them.

We're awake.  We just don't take the politicians' or the media's word for what the best solution is.

----------


## jon4liberty

I dont think a wall is the solution either. And id prefer anarcho capitalist system but its not reality. I love rothbard but even he supported Buchanans.

----------


## PAF

Rand and Justin are solid.

----------


## Stratovarious

> I agree with you about that, at least in the current political climate, this will hurt Rand more than it helps him. But that's not why he's doing it. He's doing it because it's the right thing to do. His oath to uphold the Constitution obligates him to vote this way, and you know that. When we supported him in 2010, it was with the hope that he would follow in his father's footsteps with votes like this.


LMAO , now it's a 'Constitutional thing' with you . ''It's the right thing to do''


Good lord do you deliver.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Standing on principle is all fine and good until we dont have a country anymore. I didnt see latin america, asia, or africa with their own bill of rights and constiturion. This open borders is what the elites want low skilled iq voters and low wages to pay less to workers. Its time the libery movement woke up!

----------


## acptulsa

> LMAO , now it's a 'Constitutional thing' with you . ''It's the right thing to do''
> 
> 
> Good lord do you deliver.


It's a constitutional thing with the constitution, too.

I'm not surprised you consider doing something principled to be hilarious, for some reason.

----------


## Krugminator2

Worth noting, Rand is the deciding vote on this. Kind of puts that unproven and always wrong theory that he only votes for something if he knows it won't count (which there are zero instances of that being the case).

----------


## kahless

> You certainly managed to cram a hell of a lot of collectivism in that one little post.
> 
> Did you know the more you publicly trash them, the less they'll read our good ideas and learn from them?  What am I saying?  Of course you do.


When the polling data shows immigrants time and time again will vote against our Constitutional rights it is moronic to ignore it.  Stating facts is not trashing, however referring to groups of people as "them" like you did some say that is a slur.

----------


## kahless

> 


There is absolutely zero chance of this happening after what Rand did today.  He is getting savaged everywhere from the same Republican voters he needs to get elected and they will likely remember it.

----------


## acptulsa

> When the polling data shows immigrants time and time again will vote against our Constitutional rights it is moronic to ignore it.  Stating facts is not trashing, however referring to groups of people as "them" like you did some say that is a slur.


Do you want to know what's moronic?  Let me enlighten you.  Moronic behavior is grousing about how immigrants might vote someday while our own children are being indoctrinated with communism in a manner so effective no foreign school system could hope to compete with it.

That is moronic behavior.  Just about as moronic as cramming posts full of collectivism, then pointing fingers over the use of one innocent pronoun.




> 'There are among us a great mass of people who have been reared for generations under a government of tyranny and oppression. It is ingrained in their blood that there is no other form of government. They are disposed and inclined to think our institutions partake of the same nature as these they have left behind. We know they are wrong. They must be shown they are wrong.'--Calvin Coolidge


Who do we have left who is capable of teaching them?  And can we not help our own people at the same time?

Who is the moron?  The person who thinks people foreign and domestic can learn a better way, and teaching them is a better cure?  Or the person who let's the media circus distract them from that important work?




> There is absolutely zero chance of this happening after what Rand did today.  He is getting savaged everywhere from the same Republican voters he needs to get elected and they will likely remember it.


Nobody will remember this next month but the white nationalists and the constitutionalists.  And the fact that the WNs disapprove would get him more votes, not less.

----------


## acptulsa

Of course we all know that the white nationals know what poison they are, and like to hang out with the supporters of their enemies just to make them look guilty by association.  But I don't give much credit for that.

Those other collectivists taught them how to do it.  You know the ones I mean.  The liberals.

----------


## RonZeplin

> There is absolutely zero chance of this happening after what Rand did today.  He is getting savaged everywhere from the same Republican voters he needs to get elected and they will likely remember it.


All your bases R belong to us, mark your time.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> LMAO , now it's a 'Constitutional thing' with you . ''It's the right thing to do''


Notice how that "you" in your words could apply not just to me, but also to Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and everyone who supports this website's mission.

So then where do you fit in? Are you just here to troll?

----------


## acptulsa

> LMAO , now it's a 'Constitutional thing' with you . ''It's the right thing to do''
> 
> 
> Good lord do you deliver.


A violation of the constitution is a violation of the constitution.  And the more of those Republicans get away with now, the more Democrats get away with later.  That's called 'precedence'.

I thought the danger of Democrats getting away with even more $#@! later was what got your blood pressure up in the first place.

All you want to do is find a way to jump from the frying pan to the fire.

----------


## TheCount

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency".


If the President can spend money however he wants, and it takes a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to override the President's self-appropriations, then why have Congress at all?

----------


## CCTelander

> If the President can spend money however he wants, and it takes a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to override the President's self-appropriations, then why have Congress at all?



It looks better.

----------


## kahless

> If the President can spend money however he wants, and it takes a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to override the President's self-appropriations, then why have Congress at all?


I do not believe the President should have that power unless it is an "emergency" in time of war which includes defending our borders from an invasion which is what we have.

----------


## TheCount

> I do not believe the President should have that power unless it is an "emergency" in time of war which includes defending our borders from an invasion which is what we have.


It's not the President's job to be the judge of "time of war" either.

----------


## TheTexan

> This makes me so proud.
> 
> Rand is going to get attacked so hard on so many sides for this. And he's doing it anyway.


I hope this doesn't mean he doesn't get to play golf with Trump anymore.

----------


## TheCount



----------


## Superfluous Man

> Had he decleared a state of emergency and used funds already allocated to say the military or homeland security to build the fence, then I will agree with u [sic]. But that is not what he did, he is setting a dangerous precedent that other presidents are going to use to enslave us.


How is that not what he did?

----------


## CaptUSA

> When the polling data shows immigrants time and time again will vote against our Constitutional rights it is moronic to ignore it.  Stating facts is not trashing, however referring to groups of people as "them" like you did some say that is a slur.


Oh wait...  Is that the same kind of polling data that gave us President Hillary??

Or is it the same kind of polling data that tells you what you already want to hear??

Or, perhaps, it's the same kind of polling data that is trying to _direct_ public opinion and not measure it.

----------


## donnay

> Changing that law may be a good idea.
> 
> But there's no need to say that he has to support one or the other and can't support following the Constitution right now before that law gets changed (if it ever can), while also supporting changing that law.
> 
> Also, I have seen no evidence that Trump's executive order is really pursuant to that law. Can you point to the part of it that you have in mind? Others here who have made claims similar to yours have not been able to do that.


Here is a good article that breaks it all down:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ional-approval

----------


## Todd

> Oh wait...  Is that the same kind of polling data that gave us President Hillary??
> 
> Or is it the same kind of polling data that tells you what you already want to hear??
> 
> Or, perhaps, it's the same kind of polling data that is trying to _direct_ public opinion and not measure it.




Some polling data is more equal than others.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Here is a good article that breaks it all down:
> 
> https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ional-approval


I saw nowhere in that article that it referred to the law you mentioned, much less showing specifically where it authorized Trump to make this executive order. Maybe I missed it. Could you quote the part of the article that does? And if not (and even better yet), then, since you are acting like you know the law in question, can't you just cite the actual part of the law that you have in mind?

----------


## donnay

> I saw nowhere in that article that it referred to the law you mentioned, much less showing specifically where it authorized Trump to make this executive order. Maybe I missed it. Could you quote the part of the article that does? And if not (and even better yet), then, since you are acting like you know the law in question, can't you just cite the actual part of the law that you have in mind?


There aren't any limits on the President if he declares a National Emergency of which he did.  The National Emergency Act has given him the authority to declare it, which he declared on the southern border because of the caravans invading the country.  Congress could challenge it and Congress can pass a concurrent resolution to terminate the state of emergency, but ultimately it would come back to the President to veto it.

----------


## acptulsa

> There aren't any limits on the President if he declares a National Emergency of which he did.


Could you quote the part of the constitution that says, if the president declares an emergency this document is in abeyance, and its provisions are to be ignored for the duration?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> There aren't any limits on the President if he declares a National Emergency of which he did.


Can you cite specifically where the law says this?

----------


## CaptUSA

> There aren't any limits on the President if he declares a National Emergency of which he did.  The National Emergency Act has given him the authority to declare it, which he declared on the southern border because of the caravans invading the country.  Congress could challenge it and Congress can pass a concurrent resolution to terminate the state of emergency, but ultimately it would come back to the President to veto it.


You realize that logic gives the office of the President power to do just about anything, right?  Forget checks and balances.  Forget Constitutional limitations.

If you agree with what you just wrote, then you shouldn't complain when the other party's Executive does the same thing, or assumes increasing power.

----------


## Todd

> You realize that logic gives the office of the President power to do just about anything, right?  Forget checks and balances.  Forget Constitutional limitations.
> 
> If you agree with what you just wrote, then you shouldn't complain when the other party's Executive does the same thing, or assumes increasing power.



It's an American past time to give the toys to "your guy", then get pissed off and outraged when the next guy plays with them.  Don't you know how this country works.

----------


## donnay

> Could you quote the part of the constitution that says, if the president declares an emergency this document is in abeyance, and its provisions are to be ignored for the duration?


Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the naval and land forces of the United States.[[1]]U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2.[[1]]{{1}} It is generally agreed that the Commander-in-Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed forces to repel attacks against the United States.

----------


## juleswin

> You realize that logic gives the office of the President power to do just about anything, right?  Forget checks and balances.  Forget Constitutional limitations.
> 
> If you agree with what you just wrote, then you shouldn't complain when the other party's Executive does the same thing, or assumes increasing power.


I think they just have to declare a state of emergency first

----------


## acptulsa

> Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the naval and land forces of the United States.[[1]]U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2.[[1]]{{1}} It is generally agreed that the Commander-in-Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed forces to repel attacks against the United States.


And this allows him to allocate what funds...?

----------


## donnay

> You realize that logic gives the office of the President power to do just about anything, right?  Forget checks and balances.  Forget Constitutional limitations.
> 
> If you agree with what you just wrote, then you shouldn't complain when the other party's Executive does the same thing, or assumes increasing power.


It's not my logic, it is the fact that congress over the years have abdicated these powers to the President.  If that disturbs Rand and others than propose the bills to repeal them.  

These are the loopholes that Trump is using.

----------


## juleswin

> How is that not what he did?


I thought he requested more funding than had already been given to him in the 2018 budget

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the naval and land forces of the United States.[[1]]U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2.[[1]]{{1}} It is generally agreed that the Commander-in-Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed forces to repel attacks against the United States.


It seems like you're changing your whole argument now. So you're no longer talking about some law pertaining to national emergencies that was passed in 1976?

Note also that even the president's authority over the armed forces, even when using them to repel invasions, is limited by the funding Congress gives him for that.

----------


## juleswin

> And this allows him to allocate what funds...?


The defense of the invasion I think

----------


## donnay

> And this allows him to allocate what funds...?


Yes.

----------


## CaptUSA

> These are the loopholes that Trump is using.


Oh, well, that makes it all right then...  Carry on.

----------


## donnay

> It seems like you're changing your whole argument now. So you're no longer talking about some law pertaining to national emergencies that was passed in 1976?
> 
> Note also that even the president's authority over the armed forces, even when using them to repel invasions, is limited by the funding Congress gives him for that.


H.R.3884 — 94th Congress (1975-1976)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-c...ouse-bill/3884

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I thought he requested more funding than had already been given to him in the 2018 budget


I'm confused by what you're talking about now. Are you talking about funding that he requested? Or the funding he is trying to allocate via his national emergency declaration?

My understanding is that reallocating  money that Congress allocated to the military in the budget it passed and Trump signed recently to the building of a border wall is what Trump's national emergency declaration does.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> H.R.3884 — 94th Congress (1975-1976)
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-c...ouse-bill/3884


You didn't even bother reading that. Did you?

If you did, then please quote the part that you think supports anything you've said in this thread so far.

----------


## TER

I guess the question then is one of what constitutes an emergency?  This becomes subjective then.  There are arguments that can be made that there is a national emergency at the borders and others can argue differently. 

I respect Rand Paul’s position on this, as it is a principled one, but I agree with Trump that there is an emergency and with his plan to use the military to complete the project.  Especially when it is political games being played to thwart Trump on a project (border walls) which up until recently was a bipartisan issue.   The dems have already demonstrated that fairness and acting for the benefit of the American citizens are things they easily ignore for political expediency and to gain power.  

I hope this doesn’t hurt Rand within the impassioned GOP base at this polarized time because he is by far the best politician in Washington.

----------


## donnay

> Oh, well, that makes it all right then...  Carry on.


I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, it is, what it is.  If Rand and others have a problem with it they need to change it.

I am all for checks and balances.  The democrats are not even willing to have a conversion.  What is the man supposed to do?

----------


## jon4liberty

> I am sorry but Rand is wrong here.  If he wanted to do something about it, he and others in Congress need to change the National Emergencies Act of 1976.  Congress abdicated this power to the President to declare a National Emergency.
> 
> Taking this court will only drag it out that much longer, but when it gets to court, a Judge is going to be reluctant to create a definition and interpret a law that Congress, itself, didn't bother to do in 1976.





> Facts





> If the liberty movement is compromised of guys with opinions similar to yours, then there is no liberty movement.
> 
> fAxTs


And the funny thing is i have helped more Libertarians win office then a keyboard warrior like you. YAL and winatthedoor i played a huge part. While you sit with a bag of cheetos in your mothers basement. Props to you!

----------


## donnay

> You didn't even bother reading that. Did you?
> 
> If you did, then please quote the part that you think supports anything you've said in this thread so far.


I haven't got time to spoon feed you.  Legal scholars have all made the point that the President is within the laws in place.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I guess the question then is one of what constitutes an emergency?


That may be one question. But there is no possible answer to that question which would make Trump's recent national emergency declaration attempting to spend money in defiance of Congress constitutional.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I haven't got time to spoon feed you.  Legal scholars have all made the point that the President is within the laws in place.


You were pretending to know about the law in question yourself.

Is the truth actually that you were just relying on what you were led to believe some legal scholars had said, and actually had no clue what the law actually says?

----------


## TER

> That may be one question. But there is no possible answer to that question which would make Trump's recent national emergency declaration attempting to spend money in defiance of Congress constitutional.


Maybe. Maybe not.  I guess the courts will decide.

----------


## Dr.3D

> My understanding is that reallocating  money that Congress allocated to the military in the budget it passed and Trump signed recently to the building of a border wall is what Trump's national emergency declaration does.


Well, since Trump is the Commander in Chief of the military, doesn't he have have some say in what the military does with that money?

----------


## donnay

> And the funny thing is i have helped more Libertarians win office then a keyboard warrior like you. YAL and winatthedoor i played a huge part. While you sit with a bag of cheetos in your mothers basement. Props to you!


  Bravo! Ooha! For you!  

You must be so special Jon4liberty.

----------


## CCTelander

> Oh, well, that makes it all right then...  Carry on.



Hey, welcome to the New and "Improved" Ron Paul Revolution, where principles and CONstitutional limitations are all well and good until they get in the way of desired outcomes. Then they and anyone demanding adherence to them can be thrown under the bus in the name of expediency and being "realistic."

Quit being sch a doe-eyed idealst and chasing your impractical, unrealistic utopian vision of liberty.

----------


## acptulsa

> And this allows him to allocate what funds...?





> The defense of the invasion I think





> Yes.


Oh.  Well.  Clears that right up.

----------


## TER

Has the political atmosphere in this nation ever been so polarized since the Civil War?  Honest question.

----------


## donnay

> Well, since Trump is the Commander in Chief of the military, doesn't he have have some say in what the military does with that money?


Glad you brought up the obvious.  Legal scholars from the left and right have said he is within the laws set for him to do this.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Maybe. Maybe not.  I guess the courts will decide.


So if a court says something that makes it true?

----------


## TER

> So if a court says something that makes it true?


No. It makes it legal or not within the powers of government.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Well, since Trump is the Commander in Chief of the military, doesn't he have have some say in what the military does with that money?


Yes, but only within the limits that Congress places on it in the way they appropriate it by law.

----------


## jon4liberty

> I am sorry but Rand is wrong here.  If he wanted to do something about it, he and others in Congress need to change the National Emergencies Act of 1976.  Congress abdicated this power to the President to declare a National Emergency.
> 
> Taking this court will only drag it out that much longer, but when it gets to court, a Judge is going to be reluctant to create a definition and interpret a law that Congress, itself, didn't bother to do in 1976.





> Facts





> If the liberty movement is compromised of guys with opinions similar to yours, then there is no liberty movement.
> 
> fAxTs





> Bravo! Ooha! For you!  
> 
> You must be so special Jon4liberty.


Facepalm.....i was defending you.  Was directed a tinke tomi. Im reminded daily why the liberty movement is but dust in the wind.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No. It makes it legal or not within the powers of government.


I am surprised to see you say that.

The oath Rand took was not to uphold what a court claims the Constitution says, even if they claim if falsely, but to uphold the Constitution.

----------


## TER

> I am surprised to see you say that.


 Im not sure why you would be surprised.

----------


## donnay

> Oh.  Well.  Clears that right up.


The invasion from the border, is a clear and present danger to the citizens.  Now we can argue all day, but it is one chink in the amour to stop the democrats from allowing the flooding of our nation.

----------


## TER

> The invasion from the border, is a clear and present danger to the citizens.  Now we can argue all day, but it is one chink in the amour to stop the democrats from allowing the flooding of our nation.


I agree.  The rise in illegal immigration and the surge of socialism in American politics are related hand in hand.  There is an emergency as I see it.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Im not sure why you would be surprised.


Because most of us around here do not support the view that the court has the authority to legislate from the bench.

----------


## TER

> Because most of us around here do not support the view that the court has the authority to legislate from the bench.


So you are saying that in the real world, the juridical system has not been legislating from the bench?

----------


## PAF

I will state again...

If we were engaged in actual war declared by Congress of the people, major typhoons shredding across the land, a meteor that would impact the continent... a true "emergency"...

But since this president, or republicans (certainly when they had control), has not called for an End to Incentives before or during this so-called "crisis", to me this is nothing but setting precedent and preparing to line the pockets of the Police-State-Industrial-Complex.

They get enough of my money, I am sick of my Rights and Freedoms continuing to be taken in the name of "government help me save me take more money from me".

----------


## CaptUSA

> Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution names the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the naval and land forces of the United States.[[1]]U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2.[[1]]{{1}} It is generally agreed that the Commander-in-Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed forces to repel attacks against the United States.


Even using the War Power Act, the President would need Congressional approval to use the troops for more than 60 days.  But that's so they'd have a chance to authorize it.  Congress has already had a chance to authorize this action and they didn't do it.  Giving the Executive the additional authority to declare an emergency to over-ride Congressional authority basically gives the Executive a blank check to do whatever they want, regardless of any Congressional oversight.  

I mean, you're using circular logic to get something that you think you want.  But there'll be nothing to stop the next guy.  So, you really shouldn't complain about it - you _wanted_ it that way.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So you are saying that in the real world, the juridical system has not been legislating from the bench?


No. I am saying that the court claiming that something is constitutional doesn't make it so.

Rand did not take an oath to uphold court rulings, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

It is a fact that Trump's national emergency declaration is unconstitutional. Even if a court ruled otherwise it wouldn't change that fact.

----------


## jon4liberty

> I am sorry but Rand is wrong here.  If he wanted to do something about it, he and others in Congress need to change the National Emergencies Act of 1976.  Congress abdicated this power to the President to declare a National Emergency.
> 
> Taking this court will only drag it out that much longer, but when it gets to court, a Judge is going to be reluctant to create a definition and interpret a law that Congress, itself, didn't bother to do in 1976.





> Facts





> If the liberty movement is compromised of guys with opinions similar to yours, then there is no liberty movement.
> 
> fAxTs





> I agree.  The rise in illegal immigration and the surge of socialism in American politics are related hand in hand.  There is an emergency as I see it.


But but but if we just teach free markets and democracy South America, Africa, Asia would be a free market liberty loving paradise!....and Chicago too! /s

The caravan of mostly military aged males is a clear danger to our citizens and needs dealt with. Time is running out. People need to wake up and live in THE REAL WORLD. If we arent pragmatic an Austrian Utopia will never exist. Our founders would be ashamed of how liberals, libertines, commies etc have taken this nation down

----------


## donnay

> I agree.  The rise in illegal immigration and the surge of socialism in American politics are related hand in hand.  There is an emergency as I see it.


Indeed there is an emergency--if they keep on coming in, it won't be long before we are in the situation that Venezuela is in or France.  The democrats are making sure the illegals have everything they need, off the backs of the citizens.  Of course that is the agenda.  This should be clear to many people, unfortunately hatred blinds many.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Our founders would be ashamed of how liberals, libertines, commies etc have taken this nation down


Our founders did not believe that the Constitution they ratified empowered the federal government to restrict immigration.

They were on Ron's, Rand's, and Amash's side on this question, not Trump's.

----------


## TER

> No. I am saying that the court claiming that something is constitutional doesn't make it so.
> 
> Rand did not take an oath to uphold court rulings, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.


Which is why I respect him and say he is the best statesman in Washington. 

Unfortunately, in this political climate, with the weaponizing of the media and alphabet agencies against Conservative principles and traditional values, playing by the rules went out the window a long time ago.  It’s honorable to defend the life of a victim who has a gun pointed to their head  with a sheet of paper and pointing to laws, but sometimes you need to bring a bigger gun in order save their life.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Indeed there is an emergency--if they keep on coming in, it won't be long before we are in the situation that Venezuela is in or France.  The democrats are making sure the illegals have everything they need, off the backs of the citizens.  Of course that is the agenda.  This should be clear to many people, unfortunately hatred blinds many.


You're right that I don't see the emergency that you do.

But even if I did, the Constitution would still say, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

----------


## CaptUSA

> Unfortunately, in this political climate, with the weaponizing of the media and alphabet agencies against Conservative principles and traditional values, playing by the rules went out the window a long time ago.  It’s honorable to defend the life of a victim who has a gun pointed to their head  with a sheet of paper and pointing to laws, but sometimes you need to bring a bigger gun in order save their life.


The justification of tyrants since the beginning of time.

----------


## acptulsa

> The caravan of mostly military aged males is a clear danger to our citizens and needs dealt with. Time is running out. People need to wake up and live in THE REAL WORLD. If we arent pragmatic an Austrian Utopia will never exist. Our founders would be ashamed of how liberals, libertines, commies etc have taken this nation down


The road to tyranny has, to date, been paved with scraps of the constitution which have been torn out in the name of expediency.

There is no reason at all to assume they'll start paving that road with something else.

The U.S. system used to be the best on earth.  Poking holes in the constitution has not improved it.  Not even once.  Poking more holes in the constitution to see if that improves it is the definition of insanity.

----------


## TER

> The justification of tyrants since the beginning of time.


Yes.  It has also led to the protection and survival of the nation in history.

----------


## donnay

> Even using the War Power Act, the President would need Congressional approval to use the troops for more than 60 days.  But that's so they'd have a chance to authorize it.  Congress has already had a chance to authorize this action and they didn't do it.  Giving the Executive the additional authority to declare an emergency to over-ride Congressional authority basically gives the Executive a blank check to do whatever they want, regardless of any Congressional oversight.  
> 
> I mean, you're using circular logic to get something that you think you want.  But there'll be nothing to stop the next guy.  So, you really shouldn't complain about it - you _wanted_ it that way.


He doesn't have to use the War Powers Act he is using the National Emergency Act.  But the part of the Constitution I posted was to answer another question.  So if you put what I said in context then you would see that it is not what I said, it is what Congress has allowed and abdicated.  These are the loopholes President Trump is using to circumvent the nasty democrats.

If people in congress want to stop it, then they need to do so.  You projecting things at me as though I have the power to do these things.  I am just point out why I think Rand is wrong in this regard.

----------


## TER

> The road to tyranny has, to date, been paved with scraps of the constitution which have been torn out in the name of expediency.
> 
> There is no reason at all to assume they'll start paving that road with something else.


Yes. Politics is a beast.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> He doesn't have to use the War Powers Act he is using the National Emergency Act.  But the part of the Constitution I posted was to answer another question.  So if you put what I said in context then you would see that it is not what I said, it is what Congress has allowed and abdicated.  These are the loopholes President Trump is using to circumvent the nasty democrats.
> 
> If people in congress want to stop it, then they need to do so.  You projecting things at me as though I have the power to do these things.  I am just point out why I think Rand is wrong in this regard.


Congress does not have the authority to delegate to the president what the Constitution requires to be done by Congress. That would take a constitutional amendment.

Moreover, you keep claiming that Congress passed a law giving the president this authority, but you have not been able to find anywhere written in the law that this is the case.

Why do you keep claiming this, as if you know it to be true, when you actually are not aware of any evidence to support your claim?

----------


## jon4liberty

Donnay go play with mike adams maybe he can help your crappy website.

TER, swordsmyth and i got this

----------


## jon4liberty

What we have seen throughout US history is a piece of paper drafted illegally in Philadelphia giving Federal gov too much powers hasnt protected our freedoms. Thomas jefferson couldnt even.be prinxipled while in office. They didnt envision immigration from third world. Libertarians need to live in the real world. You guys arent in politics either...show me an effective Libertarian.........waiting....

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What we have seen throughout US history is a piece of paper drafted illegally in Philadelphia giving Federal gov too much powers hasnt protected our freedoms. Thomas jefferson couldnt even.be prinxipled while in office. They didnt envision immigration from third world. Libertarians need to live in the real world. You guys arent in politics either...show me an effective Libertarian.........waiting....


I agree.

Given that the problem is that the Constitution gives the president too much power already, I don't agree that the solution to this problem is to give the president even more power than what the Constitution does.

----------


## jon4liberty

And our bought and paid for Congress will save us?

Maybe when surrounded with spears the piece of paper will lessen their blows to evil racist people

----------


## jon4liberty

I think you guys got high on your own supply and maybe when sober will live in the reality. You think the demographic change  will help libertarians?

----------


## acptulsa

> I agree.
> 
> Given that the problem is that the Constitution gives the president too much power already, I don't agree that the solution to this problem is to give the president even more power than what the Constitution does.


But of course it is!

Don't you see what he's saying?  Checks and balances don't check or balance, so vote for tyrants because they're 'effective', and hope your team's tyrant is more effective than the other team's tyrant after the electoral pendulum swings.

Because giving one person in government more power is obviously the cure for government having too much power already.

----------


## jon4liberty

Our bought and paid for supreme court will save us!!...oh wait. We the people need to save ourselves no politician i  this climate can help liberty lovers but ourselves

----------


## acptulsa

> I think you guys got high on your own supply and maybe when sober will live in the reality. You think the demographic change  will help libertarians?


Men, here's the situation.  We're in a hole.

Dig faster!

----------


## jon4liberty

> But of course it is!
> 
> Don't you see what he's saying?  Checks and balances don't check or balance, so vote for tyrants because they're 'effective', and hope your team's tyrant is more effective than the other team's tyrant after the electoral pendulum swings.
> 
> Because giving one person in government more power is obviously the cure for government having too much power already.


Exactly!

Rand/justin 2020 will save us!!!! Wait the republicans wont vote for them....dems wont.....libertarian party is a joke......

Least we have our principles just not our country

Wait till you see 3rd world tyrants

----------


## CaptUSA

> Donnay go play with mike adams maybe he can help your crappy website.
> 
> TER, swordsmyth and i got this


Yippee.  The troll farm found another dormant account to co-opt.

----------


## TER

Men, here’s the situation.  There are major holes on this ship and we are sinking fast.  

Complain faster!

----------


## acptulsa

> Men, here’s the situation.  There are major holes on this ship and we are sinking fast.  
> 
> Complain faster!


Should we plug the holes?  Or would we better serve the ship by trying to stop the other people on the ship from drilling more holes?

----------


## jon4liberty

No troll. Like facts. Greedmedinfo all the way. Big pharma is a major problem in this country i dont see our politicians stopping them

----------


## TER

> Should we plug the holes?  Or would we better serve the ship by trying to stop the other people on the ship from drilling more holes?


Sure, ideally we should plug the holes.  The problem is some methods of plugging the holes are simply not fast enough to prevent the ship from sinking.  Maybe the best method is to create a putty substance and cut the wood and use a certain technique which simply wouldn’t work because of the particular situation.  For example, too many holes!  Sometimes you have to bend the rules in order to save the ship and cover the holes with less satisfactory methods in order to save the ship and the crew and buy time to eventually repair it the correct way.

It’s not the ideal fix, but emergency situations are rarely ideal.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Men, here's the situation.  We're in a hole.
> 
> Dig faster!

----------


## acptulsa

> Sure, ideally we should plug the holes.  The problem is some methods of plugging the holes are simply not fast enough to prevent the ship from sinking.  Maybe the best method is to create a putty substance and cut the wood and use a certain technique which simply wouldn’t work because of the particular situation.  For example, too many holes!  Sometimes you have to bend the rules in order to save the ship and cover the holes with less satisfactory methods in order to save the ship and the crew and buy time to eventually repair it the correct way.
> 
> It’s not the ideal fix, but emergency situations are rarely ideal.


But our fellow sailors are drilling more holes.

And no, they aren't immigrants.

We have seen the enemy, and it isn't them.  It's us, going off half-cocked and taking the devil's word for what will fix the problem the devil created.

----------


## TER

> But our fellow sailors are drilling more holes.


Yes. That is why Gitmo was just made much larger.

Their trial comes later.  Right now, saving the ship is the priority.

----------


## Origanalist

> No troll. Like facts. Greedmedinfo all the way. Big pharma is a major problem in this country i dont see our politicians stopping them


No, no, no, of course not. In fact, there are no trolls here.

----------


## CaptUSA

> No troll. Like facts. Greedmedinfo all the way. Big pharma is a major problem in this country i dont see our politicians stopping them


Lol - "no troll"  lol

Do you think the website doesn't have a search function?  We can see what the original user of that account thought.  (of course, this was prior to the 3 year dormancy and before you found it.  Man, you guys should really research these accounts before you steal them.)




> Anyone opposed to anarcho capitalism and claims to be a "libertarian" "constitutionalist" "conservative" still have some awakening to do. The Constitution was formed illegally in the dead of night behind closed doors by the bankers and their puppets. Anyone who believes a ruler should lead them in all aspects or even limited areas that are "necessary". Market failures= BIGGER GOVERNMENT FAILURES. I will gladly welcome any debates on any issues by the statist on this site.

----------


## TER

> But our fellow sailors are drilling more holes.
> 
> And no, they aren't immigrants.
> 
> We have seen the enemy, and it isn't them.  It's us, going off half-cocked and taking the devil's word for what will fix the problem the devil created.


I’m not blaming the immigrants.  They are tryin to find a better life. 

I’m blaming the political class, the evil media which has Mammon as their god, and the ignorant uneducated citizens who have been indoctrinated and have made the government (or even the Constitution, ala the libertarian purists) as their gospel.

----------


## acptulsa

> Lol - "no troll"  lol
> 
> Do you think the website doesn't have a search function?  We can see what the original user of that account thought.  (of course, this was prior to the 3 year dormancy and before you found it.  Man, you guys should really research these accounts before you steal them.)


The anarcho-capitalist yearning for more 'effective' heads of state?

I'm so sorry to hear about your head injury!  I'm glad you survived it...  Sort of...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I’m not blaming the immigrants.  They are tryin to find a better life. 
> 
> I’m blaming the political class, the evil media which has Mammon as their god, and the ignorant uneducated citizens who have been indoctrinated and have made the government (or even the Constitution, ala the libertarian purists) as their gospel.


What gospel are you following that supports the position you're taking with respect to Trump's executive order?

----------


## TER

> What gospel are you following that supports the position you're taking with respect to Trump's executive order?


Common sense.

----------


## jon4liberty

Lol the trolls left because this site is dead....i grew and my thinking evolved with it. You guys are your own worse enemies. Contact cliff or david fisher with YAL im legit. Probably done more for this movement. While your on the keyboard we draftex and filled bills extending exceptions to vaccination, removing licensing from professions, introducing medical mushrooms, eliminate state income, constitutional carry

----------


## CaptUSA

> Lol the trolls left because this site is dead....i grew and my thinking evolved with it. You guys are your own worse enemies. Contact cliff or david fisher with YAL im legit. Probably done more for this movement. While your on the keyboard we draftex and filled bills extending exceptions to vaccination, removing licensing from professions, introducing medical mushrooms, eliminate state income, constitutional carry


Yeah, that's the ticket!

----------


## jon4liberty

I love mike adams too. Was saying donnay should get help from him on his site. 

If i need help getting cheeto stains off my moms couch ill call you guys.

Meanwhile our country is dying while your on the keyboard...."muh principles"

Ive been to all the kokesh events and our people left and involved mostly are a joke. Our optics suck

----------


## jon4liberty

I didnt hear what capitals you guys are working at to help advance liberty ideas

----------


## CCTelander

> Yeah, that's the ticket!



I'd bet he's seen Morgan Fairchild naked too.

----------


## jon4liberty

You guys help prove my point.  Young guys with no life experience and have done nothing but sit on a keyboard.

I got elected delegate in my precinct for rand went to county convention and trying to infiltrate the GOP meanwhile pat yourselves on the back for calling a fellow patriot a troll. Im sure we will succeed as a movement if we keep it up

----------


## acptulsa

How is it that statism has deprived him of the ability to communicate in complete sentences?

We should investigate that scientifically.  We could learn something useful.

----------


## Dr.3D

> How is it that statism has deprived him of the ability to communicate in complete sentences?
> 
> We should investigate that scientifically.  We could learn something useful.


Government education?

----------


## jon4liberty

> The anarcho-capitalist yearning for more 'effective' heads of state?
> 
> I'm so sorry to hear about your head injury!  I'm glad you survived it...  Sort of...


Good luck being effective as an anarcho cap in state politics....once you guys achieve it your mind will change on how to be effective because a pure 100 ancap is 0 percent effective in state politics

----------


## acptulsa

> Good luck being effective as an anarcho cap in state politics....once you guys achieve it your mind will change on how to be effective because a pure 100 ancap is 0 percent effective in state politics


I have never been an ancap.

You are the one who, by posting on that account, is claiming to be a reformed ancap.

By posting on that account, you are also claiming you can or could type complete sentences.

----------


## jon4liberty

If this situation wasnt as serious you guys would be comical. Any credentials? Havent heard just constact troll claims.

Im sure Bill Weld or GJ will be your saviour....haha you libertines give libertarians a bad name

----------


## jon4liberty

When you guys were combing my acc$#@! maybe you saw the post of how i helped a LIBERTARIAN WIN. And linked his website.

----------


## acptulsa

> saviour


Yet another Brit.

They sell us Jaguars and we sell them forum accounts.

----------


## jon4liberty

Well good luck im sure u guys will advance the message of liberty in your smug circle of 5. Love your credentials guys

----------


## juleswin

> Well good luck im sure u guys will advance the message of liberty in your smug circle of 5. Love your credentials guys


Well, good luck to you hitching your wagon behind Donald Trump. Just because you have credentials doesn't mean you have any more authority to tell which is the right direction to go to. Trump could have built his wall when he had the senate and house, why didn't he do it?

----------


## TomtheTinker

> And the funny thing is i have helped more Libertarians win office then a keyboard warrior like you. YAL and winatthedoor i played a huge part. While you sit with a bag of cheetos in your mothers basement. Props to you!


You sound pretty self righteous slinging the same insults as anti ron Paul people used in 08 and 12.

----------


## juleswin

> You sound pretty self righteous slinging the same insults as anti ron Paul people used in 08 and 12.


I noticed that, i guess he thinks he can get away with doing that with all the credential on his CV

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Its fair to say that there are Republicans who are not supporting the emergency declaration based upon Constitutional principals. It would also be a statement of fact that the vast majority, if not all of the Democrats who are voting against it are doing it for purely partisan demagoguery.

There are three issues at play:

1 - Limits on POTUS power.
2 - Border Wall.
3 - Immigration policy and enforcement.

While many claim that #1 is a key issue, in reality it is secondary, if at all. This applies to almost all Democrats.

Rand can credibly say that #1 is his primary concern here. Same as Amash, Massie, and eleven other GOP House members.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Jim Sensenbrenner:




> Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) issued the following statement after voting for a resolution of disapproval to nullify the recent national emergency declaration:
> 
> “It is a principal role of the federal government to protect the American people, and, to that end, I support securing the southern border with a physical barrier. A wall, fence, or other barrier is vital to confront the scourge of violent gang members, drugs, and human trafficking ravaging communities across the country.
> 
> Democrats’ refusal to provide the necessary funds requested by the Department of Homeland Security is a dereliction of this constitutional duty, and I share the President’s frustration and disappointment with the recent funding bill’s failure to address these needs.
> 
> More funding is required. However, where that money comes from matters for the integrity of government.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers organized three co-equal branches of government, and Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power of the purse. The debate surrounding our southern border has been at the forefront of Congress for months, and insufficient action—however frustrating it may be—is still the prerogative of the legislative branch. It is imperative that no administration, Republican or Democratic, circumvent the will of Congress.
> ...

----------


## CaptUSA

> I noticed that, i guess he thinks he can get away with doing that with all the credential on his _the_ CV _he stole from a dormant account_


FTFY

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Has the political atmosphere in this nation ever been so polarized since the Civil War?  Honest question.


The internet and social media has enabled people to be hateful and vicious, without the burden of being in the presence of another human.

----------


## donnay

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 4


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and *shall protect each of them against Invasion*; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

----------


## acptulsa

> U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 4
> 
> 
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and *shall protect each of them against Invasion*; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


That says the president can allocate money?

It doesn't even define "Invasion".

----------


## donnay

> That says the president can allocate money?
> 
> It doesn't even define "Invasion".


The money was already addressed and the democrats wouldn't even talk.  So the National Emergency needed to be used to get it allocated.

So you need "Invasion" defined for you?  Knowing that caravans of illegals (of mostly men) are heading up to our southern border to enter into a country is not considered an invasion?

----------


## acptulsa

> The money was already addressed and the democrats wouldn't even talk.  So the National Emergency needed to be used to get it allocated.


But the statute does not say it can be used to allocate money, and has never been used to allocate money before,




> So you need "Invasion" defined for you?  Knowing that caravans of (mostly men) are heading up to our southern border to enter into a country is not considered an invasion?


If only we could check with the founding fathers, I'd be willing to bet solid silver that they considered it to mean an armed force with other intentions than finding a job and applying for citizenship.

----------


## CCTelander

> That says the president can allocate money?
> 
> It doesn't even define "Invasion".



I guess the T-62s must have started rolling when I wasn't looking?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 4
> 
> 
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and *shall protect each of them against Invasion*; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Allocation of any money is to be determined by Congress (starting with the House of Representatives)- not the President.  

Supposing a President Clinton were to declare a National Healthcare Emergency and wanted to seize funds to set up a national healthcare system. Would you support such a move? That could be allowed if this move to seize additional powers by Trump is allowed to stand. 

More relevant portions of the US Constitution:  https://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/...00893227e.html




> Article I, Section 8 clearly states that the* Congress will have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.*
> 
> The power of the purse is unmistakably embedded in the Congress, as in Section 7, which states that *All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House, and are then sent to the Senate before it becomes a law.*
> 
> And then there is this additional warning in Article I, Section 9:* No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequences of appropriations made by law.*
> 
> *The presidents sole power over raising revenues is to either approve the bill with his signature, or return it to the Congress with his objections*.


Appropriations can by law only be made by the Congress.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The money was already addressed and the democrats wouldn't even talk.  So the National Emergency needed to be used to get it allocated.
> 
> So you need "Invasion" defined for you?  Knowing that caravans of illegals (of mostly men) are heading up to our southern border to enter into a country is not considered an invasion?


Trump himself acknowledged that the caravans were successfully stopped by his amazing border patrol (see my sig). Also interestingly he stopped tweeting about caravans once the election was over.  No need to stir up fears after that?  Just like Bush in his re-election.  When he started to slip in the polls, a vaguely worded "terror alert" was issued.  The alerts stopped once the election was over.

----------


## RonZeplin

> Exactly!
> 
> Rand/justin 2020 will save us!!!! Wait the republicans wont vote for them....dems wont.....libertarian party is a joke......
> 
> Least we have our principles just not our country
> 
> Wait till you see 3rd world tyrants


We already have a  Third Word Tyrant,  Banana Republican Donnell of NY, NY.  



NYC is a 3rd world craphole.

----------


## donnay

> But the statute does not say it can be used to allocate money, and has never been used to allocate money before,


How does the President protect his citizens then without using funds to do whatever necessary to stop an invasion?






> If only we could check with the founding fathers, I'd be willing to bet solid silver that they considered it to mean an armed force with other intentions than finding a job and applying for citizenship.


Oh yeah and lot of them with their prayer rugs, no doubt.  Our Sovereignty depends on people coming in legal.  There are forces outside our country who are helping to turn this country into Venezuela and are funding these caravans or haven't you been paying attention?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> How does the President protect his citizens then without using funds to do whatever necessary to stop an invasion?


You mean how does he do it without violating his oath of office?

He does it using the funds Congress appropriates for that purpose.

----------


## acptulsa

> How does the President protect his citizens then without using funds to do whatever necessary to stop an invasion?


Well, that _is_ a problem, isn't it?

It doesn't help that immigrants were coming here for 235 years before anyone thought to call them an 'invasion'.

Kind of a shame, really.  In my time kids grew up with a nice sense of security knowing the U.S. had never been invaded.




> Oh yeah and lot of them with their prayer rugs, no doubt.


Mexican Catholics with prayer rugs?

Really?




> Our Sovereignty depends on people coming in legal.  There are forces outside our country who are helping to turn this country into Venezuela and are funding these caravans or haven't you been paying attention?


Those caravans were funded from *in*side the country.

I still think Trump did it.  It would explain why they stopped the moment the election was over.  I'm sure they'll just as suddenly start again in 2020.

Hey, I have no complaints.  Whenever the Bushes wanted to be reelected, they'd start a war with Iraq (not that H.W.'s timing was good).

----------


## donnay

> You mean how does he do it without violating his oath of office?
> 
> He does it using the funds Congress appropriates for that purpose.


He isn't violating his oath of office.  

Invoking the Emergency allows him to circumvent congress and take money from other allocated areas.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> How does the President protect his citizens then without using funds to do whatever necessary to stop an invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh yeah and lot of them with their prayer rugs, no doubt*.  Our Sovereignty depends on people coming in legal.  There are forces outside our country who are helping to turn this country into Venezuela and are funding these caravans or haven't you been paying attention?


It was on the internet! It must be true!  Trump said it! It must be true! Fear mongering works. That is how we got the Patriot Act and increased government surveilence approved.  

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/18/181884...s-tweet-border




> The Washington Examiner’s piece is* centered on a single, anonymous rancher who presents no evidence for the claim* that prayer rugs are being found along the border.
> 
> “There’s a lot of people coming in not just from Mexico,” the woman is quoted as saying in the piece. “People, the general public, just don’t get the terrorist threats of that. That’s what’s really scary. You don’t know what’s coming across. We’ve found prayer rugs out here. It’s unreal. It’s not just Mexican nationals that are coming across.”
> 
> *If prayer rugs were indeed found, you might expect the article to include a photo of one of them. But it doesn’t. Instead, the rancher — who admits in a video accompanying the piece that she’s never seen “Middle Easterners” crossing the border — is photographed holding a bottle.*

----------


## donnay

> Well, that _is_ a problem, isn't it?
> 
> It doesn't help that immigrants were coming here for 235 years before anyone thought to call them an 'invasion'.
> 
> Kind of a shame, really.  In my time kids grew up with a nice sense of security knowing the U.S. had never been invaded.


They came in the legal ways.  Pearl Harbor:  Hawaii was invaded guess you forgot that.






> Mexican Catholics with prayer rugs?
> 
> Really?


*Border rancher: 'We've found prayer rugs out here. It's unreal'*
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ere-its-unreal

*Ranchers, farmers finding prayer rugs along border*
https://onenewsnow.com/national-secu...s-along-border







> Those caravans were funded from *in*side the country.
> 
> I still think Trump did it.  It would explain why they stopped the moment the election was over.  I'm sure they'll just as suddenly start again in 2020.
> 
> Hey, I have no complaints.  Whenever the Bushes wanted to be reelected, they'd start a war with Iraq (not that H.W.'s timing was good).


*Latest migrant caravan marches on as Trump again demands border wall*
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rch-trump-wall

Can you cite any of your sources?  The Globalists fingerprints on the caravans and we know how much they love liberty and freedom.

----------


## donnay

> Article I, Section 9, clause 7 says:
> 
> 
> Notice how there is no "except during national emergencies" loophole in there.


Appropriations allocated in the Military Budget and other budgets for the amount he already asked Congress for.   Congress abdicated with the National Emergency Act (1976).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> They came in the legal ways.


For most of this nation's history, all ways were legal ways. There was no such thing as federal laws restricting immigration. No requirement of visas, no need to show passports, no need for employers to tell the feds the identities of the people they hired, no deporting people for lack of paperwork, etc.

And nobody dreamed that that condition constituted being invaded, because the definition of that word that you're using isn't what it meant when the Constitution was ratified, or even what it means today to anyone other than people with an anti-immigration agenda.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Appropriations allocated in the Military Budget and other budgets for the amount he already asked Congress for.


Those appropriations do not include money for a border wall. That was the whole point of the recent government shutdown.




> Congress abdicated with the National Emergency Act (1976).


No they didn't, as proven by the fact that you yourself can find no evidence of that law saying what you claim.

Additionally, since the Constitution requires that only Congress can appropriate funds, Congress couldn't abdicate that with a simple law, even if the law you're talking about really did say what you think it says.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'd bet he's seen Morgan Fairchild naked too.


I'll one up you. I bet "he" has seen a female member here naked.

----------


## donnay

> Whew...  Well, that's good.  I'm sure no other President will invoke an "emergency" that you don't like.
> 
> You know...  to circumvent a branch of government you do like.


Stop making it about me, I am not saying I am for it.  I am saying President Trump is within his legal right and not breaking any oath by invoking the same thing many Presidents before him have done.  If Congress doesn't like that then it is up to them to change it.  However, they have long ago abdicated this power to the executive branch.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They came in the legal ways.  Pearl Harbor:  Hawaii was invaded guess you forgot that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Border rancher: 'We've found prayer rugs out here. It's unreal'*
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ere-its-unreal
> 
> ...


One anonymous rancher with not so much as a picture claimed he saw one rug (she did share a picture of a bottle though). And admitted to not having any proof whatsoever.  Czechoslovakians invading too according to her (even though Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1993).  But let's pass the Patriot Act to monitor everybody just in case.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I am saying President Trump is within his legal right and not breaking any oath by invoking the same thing many Presidents before him have done.


Please find one example of a previous president using a national emergency declaration to reallocate money to something that Congress refused to fund.

To make it easier for you, here's the list of all previous national emergencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

You keep repeating this same falsehood that Congress passed a law permitting the president to do this. What would it take to get you to admit that there is no such law?

----------


## donnay

> One anonymous rancher with not so much as a picture claimed he saw one rug (she did share a picture of a bottle though). And admitted to not having any proof whatsoever.    But let's pass the Patriot Act to monitor everybody just in case.


You really need to learn how to read.  I posted two articles and the video from the first article.  The first article does, in fact, have picture of the rug.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You really need to learn how to read.  I posted two articles and the video from the first article.  The first article does, in fact, have picture of the rug.


That isn't a rug. It's a bottle.  




> A New Mexico rancher* holds a bottle found* while touring her property near the U.S.-Mexico border, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019.


And the first line in the video: 
"I obviously don't have any proof of it".

"So have you seen any of these people?"

"No, I've never run into any."

With that much proof it is a slam dunk case!

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You really need to learn how to read.  I posted two articles and the video from the first article.  The first article does, in fact, have picture of the rug.


I'm confused. Where's the picture of a rug? That's a picture of a bottle, just like Zippy said. It even says so in the picture caption.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That isn't a rug. It's a bottle.


Your rep bar should be green just for posts like this one.

----------


## jon4liberty

Congrats Zippy is on your side! Your logic... You all must be trolls!

That convention in Orlando was a joke. Oh you werent? Seriously guya get out of your basement. For having accomplished nothing you sure are all full of themselves.

Yes NYC is a $#@! hole and the whole US is being turned into one. With some of these members it would have accelerated even faster.

Trump is a phony and has played both sides. I will praise him when doing right and condemn him when wrong. You guys just attack bad orange man. Rand was playing it right with Massie until this point. Even if trump didnt declare and the dems get office in 2020 they surely wpuldnt use the power of the executive no way at all. Muh principles. Again congrats on being Beta keyboard SJWs raise your testosterone with MACA and horny goat weed and you wont be basement dwellers who are so principled no one takes them serious thus they wield no political power.

----------


## jon4liberty

And yes i agree get rid of incentives but slowing or halting immigration seems more likely in this climate. The crimes and burden they put on Americans apparently doesnt raise your eyebrows whoch the  you wpuld allpw people who didnt assimilate to destroy pur history of the bill of rights and declaration. Maybe your overlords will just put you in slave labor since you defended them and beat this "evil troll" up

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Rand was playing it right with Massie until this point.


What do you mean until this point? Do you expect Massie to support Trump's national emergency declaration?

----------


## CaptUSA

RPF must be doing something right to be worth the investment in these division trolls...

I wonder what kind of organization has the kind of resources necessary to waste on finding, training, and funding these guys??  Oh yeah.  Governments.

----------


## jon4liberty

One just keeps mouth shut and isnt vocal. You have to play politics

----------


## jon4liberty

CaptUSA your contribution to this has just been calling everyone trolls who take a different stance. Says a lot...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> "I've talked to several agents that I trust. There’s not a lot that I do trust, but the ones I do trust, I talk to them," she said during a tour of her property. "What Border Patrol classifies as OTMs [other than Mexicans] has really increased in the last couple years, but drastically within the last six months. Chinese, Germans, Russians, a lot of Middle Easterners, *those Czechoslovakians they caught over on our neighbor’s just last summer.*"


Ah yes, those darned Czechoslovakian terrorists.  Too bad Czechoslovakia ceased to exist in 1993.

Tweet in the article:  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ere-its-unreal

----------


## CaptUSA

> Imagine if Obama did this for a pet project. The screams of tyranny would be shrill.
> 
> If this happens, you are going to have national emergencies for gun control, climate change, poverty, the education crisis.  This is most short sighted $#@!ing thing I have ever seen. This is like Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster. He doesn't care. He doesn't have live with the consequences of giving the Democrats unlimited power under the next Dem President and Senate.


Outta Rep.  But yes.  Exactly.

----------


## donnay

> That isn't a rug. It's a bottle.  
> 
> 
> 
> And the first line in the video: 
> "I obviously don't have any proof of it".
> 
> "So have you seen any of these people?"
> 
> ...


My apologies, I thought that was the picture I saw in another article.  I cannot find it at the moment.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> My apologies, I thought that was the picture I saw in another article.  I cannot find it at the moment.


Hint: It doesn't exist.

----------


## axiomata

> My apologies, I thought that was the picture I saw in another article.  I cannot find it at the moment.


I thought it was an Aladdin genie lamp. One of the wishes could have been for a flying carpet.

----------


## jon4liberty

> Imagine if Obama did this for a pet project. The screams of tyranny would be shrill.
> 
> If this happens, you are going to have national emergencies for gun control, climate change, poverty, the education crisis.  This is most short sighted $#@!ing thing I have ever seen. This is like Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster. He doesn't care. He doesn't have live with the consequences of giving the Democrats unlimited power under the next Dem President and Senate.



Guess what! All that will happen even if trump didnt use it. You are very naive and dont have a hand on the pulse of current politics

----------


## CCTelander

> Imagine if Obama did this for a pet project. The screams of tyranny would be shrill.
> 
> If this happens, you are going to have national emergencies for gun control, climate change, poverty, the education crisis.  This is most short sighted $#@!ing thing I have ever seen. This is like Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster. He doesn't care. He doesn't have live with the consequences of giving the Democrats unlimited power under the next Dem President and Senate.



^^^^THIS^^^^

+rep

----------


## PAF

> Guess what! All that will happen even if trump didnt use it. You are very naive and dont have a hand on the pulse of current politics


Standing principled and educating others is what this is all about. Giving in to statists and growing government is not.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CCTelander again.

----------


## juleswin

> Imagine if Obama did this for a pet project. The screams of tyranny would be shrill.
> 
> If this happens, you are going to have national emergencies for gun control, climate change, poverty, the education crisis.  This is most short sighted $#@!ing thing I have ever seen. This is like Trump wanting to nuke the filibuster. He doesn't care. He doesn't have live with the consequences of giving the Democrats unlimited power under the next Dem President and Senate.


Don't forget a potential flu epidemic, I am sure Donnay would not like that one at all. If Trump had pushed for this wall during the last  years, he wouldn't have had tp pull this stun now. Hate it that he did not push for the wall when he had majorities in both house.

----------


## acptulsa

> Guess what! All that will happen even if trump didnt use it. You are very naive and dont have a hand on the pulse of current politics


But at least then it'll be the Democrats and other statists and would-be tyrants calling for it.  It won't be the RINOs and self-styled "conservatives" trampling the constitution, and trying to trade the American rule of law for a boondoggle that can be defeated by any old airplane--or a few guys with shovels.




> Standing principled and educating others is what this is all about. Giving in to statists and growing government is not.


Trading the constitution for boondoggles.  Such a Democrat thing to do.

----------


## jon4liberty

How can you stand on principle and convince when your enemies have imprisoned you for political wrong thought or end up in the gulags? The time for that was during the ron campaign days. We have to fight back or there will be nothing including us to stand up for the bill of righta and the declaration. I thought just like you guys just a year or two. Things have changed drastically. And to think you wont be a target is naive. You want to end the fed? To want to remove that mechanism makes you their enemy both sides.

----------


## PAF

> Don't forget a potential flu epidemic, I am sure Donnay would not like that one at all. If Trump had pushed for this wall during the last  years, he wouldn't have had tp pull this stun now. Hate it that he did not push for the wall when he had majorities in both house.



It’s no secret that I’m no trump-humper, but deep down I wonder if he saw the error of his way (maybe heard RP talk about it) and looked for ways to walk back that stupid promise.

Still waiting for that tweet if he wants to redeem himself.

----------


## acptulsa

> How can you stand on principle and convince when your enemies have imprisoned you for political wrong thought or end up in the gulags? The time for that was during the ron campaign days. We have to fight back or there will be nothing including us to stand up for the bill of righta and the declaration. I thought just like you guys just a year or two. Things have changed drastically. And to think you wont be a target is naive. You want to end the fed? To want to remove that mechanism makes you their enemy both sides.


We pick our battles.  And fighting against the constitution is not the battle we pick.

We prefer to stymie the bad guys, not further their cause.

----------


## jon4liberty

> But at least then it'll be the Democrats and other statists and would-be tyrants calling for it.  It won't be the RINOs and self-styled "conservatives" trampling the constitution, and trying to trade the American rule of law for a boondoggle that can be defeated by any old airplane--or a few guys with shovels.


True. Atleast if its the dems or rinos we can point our fingers at them and say hey you cant do that while they rewrite laws with the constotution and eliminate anyone who disagrees with them. Atleast we have our hill of principle!...until the FEMA camps but atleast we will have our own circle jerk in the camps and try to write a constitution in there.

----------


## jon4liberty

> We pick our battles.  And fighting against the constitution is not the battle we pick.
> 
> We prefer to stymie the bad guys, not further their cause.


In all seriousness and no sarcasm how is that battle going? 

Ive watched over the years as the dailypaul went and the RPFs dwindled and saw lack in enthusiasm in the Rand campaign of which i helped. The battle isnt looking good from my perspective.

----------


## acptulsa

> True. Atleast if its the dems or rinos we can point our fingers at them and say hey you cant do that while they rewrite laws with the constotution and eliminate anyone who disagrees with them. Atleast we have our hill of principle!...until the FEMA camps but atleast we will have our own circle jerk in the camps and try to write a constitution in there.


1.  Trade the Constitution for an ineffective physical barrier.

2.  ???

3.  Escape the FEMA camps.

We'll get those FEMA camps a whole lot quicker if we roll over every time they come for another bite of the constitution.  I don't care which capital letter they're wearing at the time.




> In all seriousness and no sarcasm how is that battle going?


You'd have us believe it's going poorly, indeed, if former Ron Paul supporters are willing to trade the one thing still sort of protecting our God-given rights for an ineffective boondoggle.

Fortunately, we've already ascertained you bought that password.  So that evidence is tainted.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> True. Atleast if its the *dems or rinos* we can point our fingers at them and say hey you cant do that while they rewrite laws with the constotution and eliminate anyone who disagrees with them. Atleast we have our hill of principle!...until the FEMA camps but atleast we will have our own circle jerk in the camps and try to write a constitution in there.


(sounding oddly like Swordsmyth) 

So what brought you back to this website after only five posts since 2014?

----------


## PAF

> In all seriousness and no sarcasm how is that battle going? 
> 
> Ive watched over the years as the dailypaul went and the RPFs dwindled and saw lack in enthusiasm in the Rand campaign of which i helped. The battle isnt looking good from my perspective.



It may not be huge numbers but folks in our meeting groups have changed position and now oppose the wall after being presented with RP, Walter Block and other videos and info.

Each day is a new day that I look forward to. Since Christmas we brought 2 more steady folks into our group.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> There has never been a time.  What you don't realize is this President, no matter what he does, he doesn't get many in the compromised congress to agree with him--even the Republicans.  We saw that last time when the RINOs made promises to him and gave him nothing in return.


Congress is not obligated to agree with him. He is obligated not to spend money outside of the ways they appropriate it, whether they agree with him or not.




> It isn't a falsehood.  Go read the National Emergency Act yourself.


I have read it. You haven't. It doesn't say what you claim it says.

And yet, in spite of the fact that you have never seen a bit of evidence to support the assertions you keep making about it, you continue making those assertions. Why?

And even if the National Emergency Act did authorize the President to spend money in contradiction to how Congress appropriated it, that would just make that Act unconstitutional. The president would still be violating his oath of office (which is to uphold the Constitution itself, and not unconstitutional laws) by doing that. You can't possibly fail to see this.

----------


## jon4liberty

Lol zippy seriously.... trying to virtue signal me. 

I was a dailypauler and thought the liberty movement might resurrect with our people down to one forum and be able to formulate ideas. I didnt see that happen instead RPF scared off most dailypaulers.

My thinking evolved. I experience life more. Liberty still runs through my veins despite you guys claiming im a troll with the help of a known troll. If anything i can be the martyr that united zippy/krug and the RPF lol i might have to return to zerohedge and lewrockwell. 

The purist is not how you get a movement/revolution going and it seems the 6 active members here are doing their best to keep there small circle so pure and dear not have other ideas i jected as to how liberty can be achieved. Im sure they are plotting and formulating a great plan to achieve this in our political system.... (breath held)

----------


## jon4liberty

> It may not be huge numbers but folks in our meeting groups have changed position and now oppose the wall after being presented with RP, Walter Block and other videos and info.
> 
> Each day is a new day that I look forward to. Since Christmas we brought 2 more steady folks into our group.



PAF i actually applaud you and want to thank you for helping the liberty movement. Seriously. I dont believe in a wall but atleast its trying something to stop the spiraling of this country.

Unfortunately these others are only competent behind a keyboard and arent helping the liberty movement like you and I.

----------


## juleswin

> It’s no secret that I’m no trump-humper, but deep down I wonder if he saw the error of his way (maybe heard RP talk about it) and looked for ways to walk back that stupid promise.
> 
> Still waiting for that tweet if he wants to redeem himself.


I doubt it, from the beginning I have been saying that he is a fraud. I don't think he ever wanted to build the wall and as Ann Coulter said, he knows full well that the dems would sue him if he tries to use the emergency declaration to build the wall. So this is just him buullshyting his supporters and buying himself time until next election

he should have just built it when he had the numbers, like the saying goes, strike while the iron is hot. Not 2 years after with a broken hammer handle. I have also said before that I wouldn't be bothered if a patriotic leader used underhanded tactics to save the nation from foreign invaders but I see Trump as the person this nation should be protected from and not the other way around

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I doubt it, from the beginning I have been saying that he is a fraud. *I don't think he ever wanted to build the wall* and as Ann Coulter said, he knows full well that the dems would sue him if he tries to use the emergency declaration to build the wall. So this is just him buullshyting his supporters and buying himself time until next election
> 
> he *should have just built it when he had the numbers*, like the saying goes, strike while the iron is hot. Not 2 years after with a broken hammer handle. I have also said before that I wouldn't be bothered if a patriotic leader used underhanded tactics to save the nation from foreign invaders but I see Trump as the person this nation should be protected from and not the other way around


Blaming the Dems is a nice excuse for failure to fulfill his campaign promise. It doesn't look as good to blame Republicans. Trump vowed to veto any spending bill which did not include any money for his wall- even when his party controlled both houses.  He never vetoed a single one of them.

----------


## PAF

> PAF i actually applaud you and want to thank you for helping the liberty movement. Seriously. I dont believe in a wall but atleast its trying something to stop the spiraling of this country.
> 
> Unfortunately these others are only competent behind a keyboard and arent helping the liberty movement like you and I.



Thanks. I disagree about the keyboard statement though, they are very intelligent, principled and provide valuable feedback and perspectives. I don’t engage in heavy debate like would like to do due to my own circumstances, so I have learned to read/listen to members of this forum which I bring to my bi-weekly’s.

There is no 1 way to engage in the liberty movement, we each have our own paths that are equally valuable:-)

----------


## acptulsa

> My thinking evolved. I experience life more. Liberty still runs through my veins despite you guys claiming im a troll with the help of a known troll. If anything i can be the martyr that united zippy/krug and the RPF lol i might have to return to zerohedge and lewrockwell.


What kind of life experience turns a carefully- and well-spoken ancap into a sloppy typist who is so rabidly partisan his idea of fighting for freedom is trading the constitution for a boondogwall he doesn't think will work?

Lord, please protect me from life experiences like that!

----------


## invisible

> RPF must be doing something right to be worth the investment in these division trolls...
> 
> I wonder what kind of organization has the kind of resources necessary to waste on finding, training, and funding these guys??  Oh yeah.  Governments.


This!  At one time, this site was a hub for organized activism.  Liberty Candidates were being elected into state legislatures, and even into Congress.  That success could not be allowed to continue.  Now, instead of organized activism, this place has been reduced to nothing but arguing with shylls who simply outshout everyone by flooding the discussion with their venom and propaganda.  But just as has happened on a national basis, fear-mongering works here as well.  It works so well that everyone started arguing with the shylls and forgot all about getting Liberty Candidates elected, the vast majority of genuine activists have left, and now you even have people like AF advocating for the police state and government cultural control.  On a privately owned website, this would have been simple to prevent, but it was obviously sanctioned by the site owner.  Why do you think there has been an almost complete turnover in mod staff since 2013-14?

----------


## jon4liberty

Lol this schill has gotten many liberty people on the state level to office.

This schill also has to type fast because i work at the capital. Trying to advance a realistic liberty agenda 

You guys point at me as if im a schill yet have done much groundwork for this movement and unlike PAF i think your keyboarding doesnt do any good. RPF is just an echochamber for you 6. You guys are the reason the site is what it is.

The fact zippy, krug, capt, and che are opposed to me sounds like I'm on the right track

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Guidelines reminder:




> If you take issue with another member:
> 
> Do:
> 
> Debate the issues. Attack bad ideas and questionable information.
> If a user keeps rehashing the same debate, call for a "Site Issue Evaluation" debate thread on the issues in accordance with our "Site Issue Evaluations - Managing Contentious Issues" policy. Message the staff for details if needed.
> *Put the user on your ignore list.*
> 
> Don't:
> ...

----------


## Stratovarious

> PAF i actually applaud you and want to thank you for helping the liberty movement. Seriously. I dont believe in a wall but atleast its trying something to stop the spiraling of this country.
> 
> Unfortunately these others are only competent behind a keyboard and arent helping the liberty movement like you and I.


Welcome back.

----------


## juleswin

> Lol this schill has gotten many liberty people on the state level to office.
> 
> This schill also has to type fast because i work at the capital. Trying to advance a realistic liberty agenda 
> 
> You guys point at me as if im a schill yet have done much groundwork for this movement and unlike PAF i think your keyboarding doesnt do any good. RPF is just an echochamber for you 6. You guys are the reason the site is what it is.
> 
> The fact zippy, krug, capt, and che are opposed to me sounds like I'm on the right track


Come on now, I am on your side. I have supported Trump's effort to build the wall, he campaigned on it, won with it and I don't understand the roadblock by congress. My issue is that he is not honest about this effort.

So it is Zippy, Krug and capt who are against you, Donnay, swords and Che are with you on this

----------


## Zippyjuan

RonPaul is opposed to the wall. Rand supports a strong border but is against Trump trying to usurp more power to fund it.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> H.R.3884  94th Congress (1975-1976)
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-c...ouse-bill/3884





> What kind of life experience turns a carefully- and well-spoken ancap into a sloppy typist who is so rabidly partisan his idea of fighting for freedom is trading the constitution for a boondogwall he doesn't think will work?
> 
> Lord, please protect me from life experiences like that!


Lol

----------


## TheCount

> I wonder where I'd be if the President used these "National Emergency" powers to halt all spending??
> 
> I suppose I'll never have to worry about _that_ moral dilemma.


The President doesn't _have_ to spend all appropriated funds.  I don't think there's any dilemma there.

He cannot, however, appropriate funds for his own purposes.

----------


## TheCount

> Imagine if Obama did this for a pet project. The screams of tyranny would be shrill.



Picture it:  In 2015, the the subject of an RPF thread reads "President declares national emergency, seizes land from states and private parties"


What do the replies to that hypothetical thread look like?

----------


## jon4liberty

> Lord, please protect me from life experiences like that!


That did make me laugh

Jules...its the avatar my apologies lol

Brian i didnt mean for this thread to be derailed.

I agree walls dont work for stopping drugs and immigrants will still get in. I dont believe in eminant domain. I dont want a reckless executive branch with more powers. 

Every single branch is corrupted to the very core! These people spit on the Constitution and bypass daily.

I believe the emergency declaration was in good faith on trump though. People do respect someone trying to do their promises. Trump has had both sides against him and the media is against him. (Yes i understand they helped him in primary, hillary thought would be easy opponent). Maybe thats why im rooting for him i guess. Hes seen as what america once was (i understand his lifestyle and politics go against that but people perceive him as such). Sometimes people need so.ething to believe in. 

Rand cant do it alone....time is against us everyone....sometimes we have to do things we arent proud of but if it means saving this country....

I also think with military he has been abiding by condtitution in regards to military and the  national emercy act of 1976 with the wall could be interupted in his favor.

----------


## acptulsa

> Picture it:  In 2015, the the subject of an RPF thread reads "President declares national emergency, seizes land from states and private parties"
> 
> 
> What do the replies to that hypothetical thread look like?




These people want to make RPF partisan so bad.

And that's what their attempts to do it are--so bad.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Guidelines reminder:


Mission reminder:




> Mission:
> This site is dedicated to facilitating discussion and initiatives that aim to advance society in a civil manner for the betterment of all. We seek to:
> ...Secure individual liberty
> ...Seek justice
> ...Promote honest and free markets
> 
> To support these pillars we aim to:
> ...Develop excellence within society and governmental bodies
> ...Build up local communities
> ...

----------


## jon4liberty

Im extending the olive branch man...

The republicans are cucks, democrats are psychopaths, and the LP is a joke....

Believe in the Q....lol

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Guidelines reminder:


Reminders will be laughed off.

----------


## PAF

> Im extending the olive branch man...
> 
> The republicans are cucks, democrats are psychopaths, and the LP is a joke....
> 
> Believe in the Q....lol



Q is a letter of the alphabet, which makes up many words. The words I read are On the Record and in the bills, no msm or personality stars required.

Here is a good example that contains both:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-On-The-Record

----------


## kahless

> Lol this schill has gotten many liberty people on the state level to office.
> 
> This schill also has to type fast because i work at the capital. Trying to advance a realistic liberty agenda 
> 
> You guys point at me as if im a schill yet have done much groundwork for this movement and unlike PAF i think your keyboarding doesnt do any good. RPF is just an echochamber for you 6. You guys are the reason the site is what it is.
> 
> The fact zippy, krug, capt, and che are opposed to me sounds like I'm on the right track


Amen brother.

----------


## juleswin

> Mission reminder:


Good thing forum guidelines and mission statement are rarely followed. How else could the Trump candidacy and policy be promoted on this site?

----------


## Stratovarious

> These people want to make RPF partisan so bad.
> 
> And that's what their attempts to do it are--so bad.


I believe the forum was set up as a partisan forum, Libertarian / Constitutionalist.

''Change my mind''

----------


## Stratovarious

> Mission reminder:


Antifa, communists,  and Liberals promote none of this;

''We seek to:
 ...Secure individual liberty
 ...Seek justice
 ...Promote honest and free markets

 To support these pillars we aim to:
 ...Develop excellence within society and governmental bodies
 ...Build up local communities
 ...Strengthen families
 ...Foster individual excellence''

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I believe the forum was set up as a partisan forum, Libertarian / Constitutionalist.
> 
> ''Change my mind''


Exactly.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Antifa, communists,  and Liberals promote none of this;
> 
> ''We seek to:
>  ...Secure individual liberty
>  ...Seek justice
>  ...Promote honest and free markets
> 
>  To support these pillars we aim to:
>  ...Develop excellence within society and governmental bodies
> ...


Neither do the invaders or the Demoncrats they vote for.

----------


## acptulsa

> I believe the forum was set up as a partisan forum, Libertarian / Constitutionalist.
> 
> ''Change my mind''


You say the forum is partisan, then name more than one political party.

Come back when you have something to change.




> Exactly.


What are _you_ on about?  I've never seen you say anything nice about Libertarians, and you seem to consider the Constitution expendable on the altar of GOP Team Plays too.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Neither do the invaders or the Demoncrats they vote for.


Fact.

----------


## Stratovarious

> You say the forum is partisan, then name more than one political party.
> 
> Come back when you have something to change.


ha aha!!!!!1

Wut?

----------


## Stratovarious

Kudos to Rand for standing up.
We need a wall in concert with the 'rest of the pkg' I and others have laid 
out, it is on the Liberals that deny us defense of our borders.
They are traitors in spades.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What are _you_ on about?  I've never seen you say anything nice about Libertarians, and you seem to consider the Constitution expendable on the altar of GOP Team Plays too.


I have said many nice things about libertarians, the Libertarian party on the other hand has shown itself to be controlled opposition.
I have also said nice things about the Constitution party.
I only consider the "CONstitution" (as so many here refer to it) expendable when the other side has broken the system and abiding by it prevents the resoration of liberty or aids in the further reduction of liberty, liberty is the object, the "CONstitution" is just a tool to achieve it.

----------


## acptulsa

> I have said many nice things about libertarians, the Libertarian party on the other hand has shown itself to be controlled opposition.
> I have also said nice things about the Constitution party.
> I only consider the "CONstitution" (as so many here refer to it) expendable when the other side has broken the system and abiding by it prevents the resoration of liberty or aids in the further reduction of liberty, liberty is the object, the "CONstitution" is just a tool to achieve it.


Gee, that's nice.

You're still as close to being a partisan a GOP hack as anyone this site has ever seen.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Kudos to Rand for standing up.
> We need a wall in concert with the 'rest of the pkg' I and others have laid 
> out, it is on the Liberals that deny us defense of our borders.
> They are traitors in spades.


Watch out, you can be given an infraction for calling those who provide aid and comfort to the enemy "traitors" around here.

But the anarchists and leftists can hurl all of the insults they want without consequence, right @Bryan?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". 
> 
> He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have  pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or  nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.


Nor will Republicans, for the reason that Republicans are also uninterested in small government. 




> When the polling data shows immigrants _virtually the entire electorate_ time  and time again will vote against our Constitutional rights it is moronic  to ignore it.




Indeed

----------


## acptulsa

> Watch out, you can be given an infraction for calling those who provide aid and comfort to the enemy "traitors" around here.
> 
> But the anarchists and leftists can hurl all of the insults they want without consequence, right @Bryan?


Republicans get _all_ the breaks around here.

The people who don't are the white nationalists.  Is that what you're whining about?

----------


## TER

It’s coming out that the Democrats including the President (Obama) ordered a political campaign to be illegally spied on by a BS FISA warrant which was based on a fake dossier paid for by the Clintons and allowed to slide by a politically weaponized FBI and DOJ, and some here are worried that if Trump fullfills his campaign promise which got him elected by the people to build a wall (which up until TDS appeared was a bipartisan notion) via emergency declaration, it may send a bad precedent!

Like the other side gives a crap about the rule of law and the Constitution!  LOL!  Don’t remember ever seeing the country as polarized as it is now (thank you Soros and the rest of the rats and media whores).

I’m sorry, but as far as I see it, there is a WAR going on and we are most certainly in an emergency situation, where you have the will of the people being subverted by an immoral Deep State whose weapons (the news media, entertainement industry, social media outlets) have done everything possible to bury this duly elected President and destroy this nation.

I hope Trump declares more emergencies and smokes out all of the rats!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nor will Republicans, for the reason that Republicans are also uninterested in small government. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed


Immigrants vote against liberty at much higher rates.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Kudos to Rand for standing up.
> *We need a wall* in concert with the 'rest of the pkg' I and others have laid 
> out, it is on the Liberals that *deny us defense of our borders*.
> They are* traitors in spades*.


People like Ron Paul?  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/ron-...migration.html

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Republicans get _all_ the breaks around here.
> 
> The people who don't are the white nationalists.  Is that what you're whining about?


LOL

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Like the other side gives a crap about the rule of law and the Constitution!


If I understand you correctly, you're being sarcastic. You really mean they don't give a crap about the rule of law or the Constitution. And your whole point in this thread is that you agree with them about that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> People like Ron Paul?  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/ron-...migration.html


Ron has called for increasing border security many times, many around here oppose the concept entirely.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Watch out, you can be given an infraction for calling those who provide aid and comfort to the enemy "traitors" around here.
> 
> But the anarchists and leftists can hurl all of the insults they want without consequence, right @Bryan?


True, but there's a 'first person' distinction in that we have trolls here that turn observations into
direct PERSONAL ATTACKS, you don't tend to do that, neither do I.
The problem is as you say, trolls are allowed free speech and we are not.

This site does not need mods, we need spam filters, and self management.
I'm still shocked that Ron and Rand allow censorship to thrive here.

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL


Well, what I said wasn't funny.  So, I presume that was that sort of nervous laughter that says I struck a nerve.




> direct PERSONAL ATTACKS, you don't tend to do that, neither do I.


Now, see, _that_'s LOL funny!

----------


## PAF

> I have said many nice things about libertarians, the Libertarian party on the other hand has shown itself to be controlled opposition.
> 
> Watch out, you can be given an infraction for calling those who provide aid and comfort to the enemy "traitors" around here.
> 
> But the anarchists and leftists



Hmm... what do you consider me?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Ron has called for increasing border security many times, many around here oppose the concept entirely.


Opposing Trump's vision of a wall tougher to climb than Mt Everest does not make one "open borders" and against any border security.  False dichotomy.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Opposing Trump's vision of a wall tougher to climb than Mt Everest does not make one "open borders" and against any border security.  False dichotomy.


One I didn't use, many around here oppose the concept of borders entirely.

----------


## acptulsa

> False dichotomy.


What do you expect from False Dichotomies R Us?

----------


## Stratovarious

> Hmm... what do you consider me?


You're not allowed to solicit someone to call you names.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Well, what I said wasn't funny.  So, I presume that was that sort of nervous laughter that says I struck a nerve.


It was hilarious in its inaccuracy.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Hmm... what do you consider me?


Figure it out for yourself.

----------


## RonZeplin

> What kind of life experience turns a carefully- and well-spoken ancap into a sloppy typist who is so rabidly partisan his idea of fighting for freedom is trading the constitution for a boondogwall he doesn't think will work?
> 
> Lord, please protect me from life experiences like that!


Reminds me of Senator McCain's 2008 campaign, when he vowed to do something about Global Warming even if it wasn't real..

----------


## Stratovarious

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Now, see, _that_'s LOL funny!


Do tell/

----------


## TER

> If I understand you correctly, you're being sarcastic. You really mean they don't give a crap about the rule of law or the Constitution. And your whole point in this thread is that you agree with them about that.


Yes I’m being sarcastic.  The left has put us into this emergency because they don’t follow the rule of law or Constitution (see FISA thread) and because they care more about political hits than the security of this nation.  In that case, I am fine with Trump calling it what it is - a national emergency, and give him my blessings to build the wall and round up any traitors.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> One I didn't use, *many* around here *oppose the concept of borders entirely*.


Like who?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> True, but there's a 'first person' distinction in that we have trolls here that turn observations into
> direct PERSONAL ATTACKS, you don't tend to do that, neither do I.
> The problem is as you say, trolls are allowed free speech and we are not.
> 
> This site does not need mods, we need spam filters, and self management.
> I'm still shocked that Ron and Rand allow censorship to thrive here.


I have hurled the occasional personal insult because that was the environment I found here and they were used against me, I have reduced such instances after finding out how biased the enforcement of the guidelines is.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Republicans get _all_ the breaks around here.
> 
> The people who don't are the white nationalists.  Is that what you're whining about?



Are you writing for SNL now?

----------


## acptulsa

> Like who?




They're on sale this week at False Dichotomies R Us.

----------


## TER

This is a war started by the dems (FISA, fake news about Russian collusion, Uranium One, etc etc) and continued by the dems (talks of further investigations, impeachment, media propaganda to degrees worse than the Soviet Union).  Who suffers from all the fake news, ceonsorship and political BS?  The American people.  Important work could be done, but the DS has other plans.

We most certainly are in a national emergency.

----------


## Stratovarious

> I have hurled the occasional personal insult because that was the environment I found here and they were used against me, I have reduced such instances after finding out how biased the enforcement of the guidelines is.


I rarely initiate insults, but when attacked, they lose , I can't be civil to those that 
initiate conversations with personal attacks,  then the nannies come in on 
all Censorship forums and  make horrible decisions, and tell you not to  
protect yourself.

----------


## Stratovarious

> This is a war started by the dems (FISA, fake news about Russian collusion, Uranium One, etc etc) and continued by the dems (talks of further investigations, impeachment, media propaganda to degrees worse than the Soviet Union).  Who suffers from all the fake news, ceonsorship and political BS?  The American people.  Important work could be done, but the DS has other plans.
> 
> We most certainly are in a national emergency.


Russian collusion , the meme, was a Hillary Shield, it worked.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Yes I’m being sarcastic.  The left has put us into this emergency because they don’t follow the rule of law or Constitution (see FISA thread) and because they care more about political hits than the security of this nation.  In that case, I am fine with Trump calling it what it is - a national emergency, and give him my blessings to build the wall and round up any traitors.


And, just to be clear, you want Trump to do exactly what you're saying the left does.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Like who?





> 


LOL

I have been attacked by quite a few anarchists around here for believing in borders at all, your attempts to deny they exist are pathetic.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And, just to be clear, you want Trump to do exactly what you're saying the left does.


The left does far more while we fight with both hands tied behind our backs, you are advocating that we continue to pretend that the Marquess of Queensberry Rules still apply after our enemy has drawn a knife and poured poison on the blade.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Yes I’m being sarcastic.  The left has put us into this emergency because they don’t follow the rule of law or Constitution (see FISA thread) and because they care more about political hits than the security of this nation.  In that case, I am fine with Trump calling it what it is - a national emergency, and give him my blessings to build the wall and round up any traitors.


This is true, however I have to side with Rand on the constitutionality, it's a shame we have 
to ignore 30 years of abuses , but I guess we have to stop it at some point.
Either way, liberals are standing in the way of securing our borders, for this they should pay.

----------


## Stratovarious

> They're on sale this week at False Dichotomies R Us.



Speaking of dichotomies , do you see the border behind you little scare crow, why on earth is that needed.....

----------


## jon4liberty

This is a political war now. When your enemy is spying not only on trump, his campaign, and administration/transition team and later it will come out the entire republican field was spied on. Attempts have been made on our people!!!! You guys are playing a losing strategy! 

The immigrants arent assimilating! They dont have republics anywhere else in the world! The LP is controlled opposition for the globalist with their open border agenda. Walls wont keep out all the drugs that are now being laced with fentanyl even in stimulants as a war agaonst americans like what was done with the chinese. The wall wont keep out all immigrants who are voting in favor of more socialism. It will help it wont work entirely but a wall will slow down an enemy army.

----------


## TER

> And, just to be clear, you want Trump to do exactly what you're saying the left does.


No.  

What the left is doing is ruining this country.  They are actively trying to turn this country into a socialist hellhole with people reliant on government and a complete welfare state.  They do unConstitutional things all the time in order to empower themselves politically at the expense of the taxpayer.

 What Trump is doing is trying to save it.  He is trying to save the sovereignty of this nation and protect its citizens.  If he has to do something unConstitutionally (which happens every damn day in the swamp called DC) in order to save the nation during war (which is what I believe we are in now), than I can accept it and can live with it.  Sometimes you have to cut off the leg in order to save the patient.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> LOL
> 
> I have been attacked by quite a few anarchists around here for believing in borders at all, your attempts to deny they exist are pathetic.


So yet another claim you cannot support.  Thanks for trying, as usual!

----------


## Origanalist

Guess I'm going to have to go with Rand and Justin on this. If I can't support those two what's the point?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So yet another claim you cannot support.  Thanks for trying, as usual!


I can support it:




> Repeal the laws that stop them from  coming to America legally, and then illegal immigration will  disappear.





> Legalizing rape will make it disappear?





> No. Rape is not defined by being deemed  illegal by laws that human beings made up. Illegal immigration  is.


I just don't have to dig up every instance on demand.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No.  
> 
> What the left is doing is ruining this country.  They are actively trying to turn this country into a socialist hellhole with people reliant on government and a complete welfare state.  They do unConstitutional things all the time in order to empower themselves politically at the expense of the taxpayer.
> 
>  What Trump is doing is trying to save it.  He is trying to save the sovereignty of this nation and protect its citizens. * If he has to do something unConstitutionally (which happens every damn day in the swamp called DC) in order to save the nation during war (which is what I believe we are in now), than I can accept it and can live with it.*  Sometimes you have to cut off the leg in order to save the patient.


So the end justifies the means.  Would you also support a move by say Obama to declare a national emergency to institute a National Healthcare plan? Setting a precedent now would make that easier in the future.  Or should the Constitution be protected as Rand Paul says?  Trump has wall.  He was given money for more.  He says the border is sealed.  Yet he wants more.  And more powers.




> Paul, the “libertarian-ish” senator from Kentucky, offered a candid explanation for his decision to rebuke the president’s attempt to circumvent Congress to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. “In September of 2014, I had these words to say: ‘The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must,’” Paul wrote in an op-ed for Fox News, referring to his opposition to Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration. “I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama.”





> I must vote how my principles dictate.* My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party*. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice.* Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.* I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But *Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.*


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...onal-emergency

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Speaking of dichotomies , do you see the border behind you little scare crow, why on earth is that needed.....


And what is the purpose of the scarecrow?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> So the end justifies the means.  Would you also support a move by say Obama to declare a national emergency to institute a National Healthcare plan? Setting a precedent now would make that easier in the future.  Or should the Constitution be protected as Rand Paul says?  Trump has wall.  He was given money for more.  He says the border is sealed.  Yet he wants more.  And more powers.


O'Bummer already spent money on O'Bummercare without Congressional approval and some ends do justify some means as do some circumstances, (like the left throwing the Constituion out the window in an attempt to enslave us all)

----------


## Stratovarious

> So the end justifies the means.  Would you also support a move by say Obama to declare a national emergency to institute a National Healthcare plan? ...


What's the difference zippy, he did it under 'color of law' anyway.

----------


## acptulsa

> I can support it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't have to dig up every instance on demand.


And not a single one of those quotes shows you being attacked for believing in borders.

Not a single one.

----------


## Stratovarious

> And what is the purpose of the scarecrow?


ha ha, good point.

----------


## jon4liberty

> So the end justifies the means.  Would you also support a move by say Obama to declare a national emergency to institute a National Healthcare plan? Setting a precedent now would make that easier in the future.  Or should the Constitution be protected as Rand Paul says?  Trump has wall.  He was given money for more.  He says the border is sealed.  Yet he wants more.  And more powers.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...onal-emergency


What do you propose we do when the checks and balances of this nation fail us because a piece of paper wont protect us?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I can support it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't have to dig up every instance on demand.


Um- those quotes agree with what Ron Paul has said.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> What do you propose we do when the checks and balances of this nation fail us because a piece of paper wont protect us?


You are right- maybe we should just declare Trump King or Tsar.  Let him do whatever he wants.  What if the next King is a liberal?  Do whatever they want?  Trump hated checks and balances- he throws a tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants.

----------


## TER

> So the end justifies the means.  Would you also support a move by say Obama to declare a national emergency to institute a National Healthcare plan? Setting a precedent now would make that easier in the future.  Or should the Constitution be protected as Rand Paul says?  Trump has wall.  He was given money for more.  He says the border is sealed.  Yet he wants more.  And more powers.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...onal-emergency


Zippy, you are the least liked, least trusted person on this website, pushing the DS narratives day in and day out likely for some shekels to fill your pockets, so please don’t try to preach to me what the consequences are of what Trump is doing.  I am well aware of them, and still support him.

In 2016, I felt we were at a precipice.  If Hillary won, this country would be lost, never to be the same what it used to be, and gone the way of Canada which is wallowing in PC bull crap where kids can be taken from their parents and given transgender treatments without the parents consent.  We are close though!  Infanticide, green new deal, illegals getting voting rights, getting rid of the electoral system, Middle East wars by proxy, etc etc etc.  What was that book Obama was studying?  The Post-American World?

Trump has bought this nation some time, so though we are not going 100 mph toward the cliff, we are still heading there due to the powers of the DS and their proxies in the news media, entertainment industry and social media giants.  

God blessed us with Trump winning and bought us some time and gave us a fight to reclaim this nation.  And in this fight, bringing a sheet of paper and some law books mean less when the other side couldn’t care less about the law unless it serves their purpose.

What’s that saying?  All is fair in love and war?  They want war, they started it.  Trump has my blessing to finish it.

----------


## jon4liberty

They will do whatever by any means possible it has been evident this past decade especially since 08...

METAPHORICALLY speaking is like bringing a knife to a gun fight

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And not a single one of those quotes shows you being attacked for believing in borders.
> 
> Not a single one.


It shows my original assertion that some here are against the existence of borders, the attacks were in other posts that I don't have to dig up just to satisfy you.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You are right- maybe we should just declare Trump King or Tsar.  Let him do whatever he wants.  What if the next King is a liberal?  Do whatever they want?  Trump hated checks and balances- he throws a tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants.


Our founders launched a war and imposed their political will through force, they then set up a system where that wasn't allowed.
We can do the same.

----------


## acptulsa

> It shows my original assertion that some here are against the existence of borders, the attacks were in other posts that I don't have to dig up just to satisfy you.


No.  They don't do that either.

Those quotes say there are much, much better, more effective ways to reduce illegal immigration than a goofy, overpriced wall.

The rest was created at False Dichotomies R Us.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Um- those quotes agree with what Ron Paul has said.


And disagree with other things he has said.
Not only is an appeal to authority an empty argument but it is doubly so with an inconsistent authority.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No.  They don't do that either.
> 
> Those quotes say there are much, much better, more effective ways to reduce illegal immigration than a goofy, overpriced wall.
> 
> The rest was created at False Dichotomies R Us.


LOL

----------


## TER

> They will do whatever by any means possible it has been evident this past decade especially since 08...
> 
> METAPHORICALLY speaking is like bringing a knife to a gun fight


Exactly

----------


## TomtheTinker

I find it unbelievable that I'm on Ron Paul forums aka liberty forest and watching people defend Rand for..well..being like his father.

----------


## jon4liberty

Ron Paul 2012 ran on our military on the border. Why does the RPF hate protecting the citizens against a threat. Why are you guys playing right into the globalist hands. You are the reason LP types big money is pushing them because of their open borders. 

Why is Libertarianism, Bill of Rights, or Republics not spreading throughout the world? Maybe those peoples cultires dont have the same values? Yet we bring them in withoit assimilation?

----------


## CCTelander

> I find it unbelievable that I'm on Ron Paul forums aka liberty first and watching people defend Rand for..well..being like his father.



It truly saddens and sickens me that it's even necessary to defend Rand for being like Ron. But here we are.

----------


## PAF

> The left does far more while we fight with both hands tied behind our backs, you are advocating that we continue to pretend that the Marquess of Queensberry Rules still apply after our enemy has drawn a knife and poured poison on the blade.


Join the liberty movement, let's bolster our numbers, then maybe they can't smack us for being split among ourselves... and then maybe, just maybe they'll hear us once in a while.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Join the liberty movement, let's bolster our numbers, then maybe they can't smack us for being split among ourselves... and then maybe, just maybe they'll hear us once in a while.



Who's Liberty Movement ?

What is the platform?

----------


## PAF

> Who's Liberty Movement ?
> 
> What is the platform?



http://ronpaulinstitute.org/

http://www.walterblock.com/

https://mises.org/

http://www.kopubco.com/pdf/An_Agoris...er_by_SEK3.pdf

----------


## Stratovarious

> ....


Open Borders in there somewhere........


The Liberty Movement.

----------


## PAF

> Open Borders in there somewhere........
> 
> 
> The Liberty Movement.


Borders are meaningless, as I eluded in another thread. Without Ending Common Core first and foremost all bets are OFF. You can build a 1,000 ft wall, line up military every 10 feet and push every last immigrant into another country, but as long as INDOCTRINATION CAMPS continue, legal Americans will STILL vote democrat. Even todays REPUBLICANS are yesterdays democrats.

----------


## CCTelander

> Borders are meaningless, as I eluded in another thread. Without Ending Common Core first and foremost all bets are OFF. You can build a 1,000 ft wall, line up military every 10 feet and push every last immigrant into another country, but as long as INDOCTRINATION CAMPS continue, legal Americans will STILL vote democrat. *Even todays REPUBLICANS are yesterdays democrats.*



Hell many of today's Republicans are worse than the Dems from my early days as a liberty advocate.

----------


## jon4liberty

> Borders are meaningless, as I eluded in another thread. Without Ending Common Core first and foremost all bets are OFF. You can build a 1,000 ft wall, line up military every 10 feet and push every last immigrant into another country, but as long as INDOCTRINATION CAMPS continue, legal Americans will STILL vote democrat. Even todays REPUBLICANS are yesterdays democrats.


What's a realistic solution then?  Again time isnt on our side

----------


## Stratovarious

> Borders are meaningless, as I eluded in another thread. Without Ending Common Core first and foremost all bets are OFF. You can build a 1,000 ft wall, line up military every 10 feet and push every last immigrant into another country, but as long as INDOCTRINATION CAMPS continue, legal Americans will STILL vote democrat. Even todays REPUBLICANS are yesterdays democrats.


OPEN BORDERS, that pretty much answers my question...........

----------


## PAF

> What's a realistic solution then?  Again time isnt on our side


You have nothing BUT time.

This country has been tanking since pen hit the parchment. Certainly since 1913, 1971, and other notable points in history.

Organize locally, other cities and states if you are able. Teach that liberty is the answer to many if not most of the problems and begin to change hearts and minds. RP is still doing it. I and folks from my group do it bi-weekly. Every now and then you pick up another for our side.

----------


## jon4liberty

Not quick enough. No time is not abundant and this spiral has accelerated like never before.

----------


## TER

> Not quick enough. No time is not abundant and this spiral has accelerated like never before.


Never has socialism been pushed so hard.  Never has the foundations of this nation (family, property rights, freedom of speech, etc) been so under attack.  The media is corrupt as hell.  The people are widely fed disinformation.  The education system is grooming the next generation into historical illiterates and the dems  use race and religion to divide the people. Look at what is glorified on the television. Look at the deviance which is normalized. Even pedophilia is slowly being pushed to be normalized.  Infants being ripped in pieces and sold to the highest bidder. We still may not get out of this downward spiral.

----------


## jon4liberty

Amen brother.

"All that is necessary for the triumpth of evil is that good men do nothing"

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You have nothing BUT time.
> 
> This country has been tanking since pen hit the parchment. Certainly since 1913, 1971, and other notable points in history.


That is why we are almost out of time.

----------


## TER

Our Constitutional Republic works when you have a free press which holds high and ethical journalistic integrity to disseminate the truth in an unbiased manner.  

It works when you have freedom of speech and do not allow the ability of monopolistic media outlets whose intentions are not for the good of the nation state (and its citizens) to be censoring conservative voices which run counter to the globalist agenda of their traitorous masters. 

It works when you have a well informed, morally sound and educated citizenry. 

When those three are corrupted, evil men flourish and do selfish and traitorous acts which chip away at the fabric and foundations as well as ultimately the freedoms of those they seek power over. 

I firmly believe we are at a historical crossroads in this nation.  The nation is sick and in many ways dying.  The old rules may not apply as well when the corruption is so great and the time so short.  Sometimes you need to send 300 watts of electricity right into the heart, knowing that in normal times that may be lethal, to give the dying person in front of you a chance to survive.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Our Constitutional Republic works when you have a free press which holds high and ethical journalistic integrity to disseminate the truth in an unbiased manner.  
> 
> It works when you have freedom of speech and do not allow the ability of monopolistic media outlets whose intentions are not for the good of the nation state (and its citizens) to be censoring conservative voices which run counter to the globalist agenda of their traitorous masters. 
> 
> It works when you have a well informed, morally sound and educated citizenry. 
> 
> When those three are corrupted, evil men flourish and do selfish and traitorous acts which chip away at the fabric and foundations as well as ultimately the freedoms of those they seek power over. 
> 
> I firmly believe we are at a historical crossroads in this nation.  The nation is sick.  The old rules may not apply as well when the corruption is so great and the time so short.  Sometimes you need to send 300 watts of electricity right into the heart, knowing that in normal times that may be lethal, to give the dying person in front of you a chance to survive.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TER again._

----------


## jon4liberty

TER has been killing it all day and night and no logical rebuttals just personal attacks or i miss old RPF like liberals when they move from cali or ny and ruin another state not realizing its them




> Our Constitutional Republic works when you have a free press which holds high and ethical journalistic integrity to disseminate the truth in an unbiased manner.  
> 
> It works when you have freedom of speech and do not allow the ability of monopolistic media outlets whose intentions are not for the good of the nation state (and its citizens) to be censoring conservative voices which run counter to the globalist agenda of their traitorous masters. 
> 
> It works when you have a well informed, morally sound and educated citizenry. 
> 
> When those three are corrupted, evil men flourish and do selfish and traitorous acts which chip away at the fabric and foundations as well as ultimately the freedoms of those they seek power over. 
> 
> I firmly believe we are at a historical crossroads in this nation.  The nation is sick and in many ways dying.  The old rules may not apply as well when the corruption is so great and the time so short.  Sometimes you need to send 300 watts of electricity right into the heart, knowing that in normal times that may be lethal, to give the dying person in front of you a chance to survive.

----------


## TER

I respect and admire the staunch fidelity set forth by the libertines who are consistent with their ideological positions and trust  towards the Constitution.  It’s what drew me to Ron Paul when I started to awaken to the corruption of the government post 9/11. 

But as good as Ron and Rand is, they are not infallible. And as good as the Constitution is, it too is neither infallible nor some kind of holy book or gospel that I hold to be as some sort of panacea or ultimate authority.  I do not worship at the altar of the Constitution. It works pretty well in a normal functioning Republic, (with the conditions I mentioned above - like free and honest press, free speech, informed citizenry) but, as is evident in the mess we are in right now, it does not eliminate corruption or prevent serious degradation.  When the foundation which allows a Republic to work is destroyed, then the Constitutuon can only do so much.  “A Republic, if you can keep it”. Well, we have pretty much lost much of our government to foreign interests and entities, fighting wars for corporate profit and losing our blood and treasure in the process.   We were one President away (Hillary) from seeing the implementation of a one world government and loss of this country’s sovereignty to the NWO globalists. 

I can not be upset with Rand, because I agree with him on 98% of his positions. But, I do not worship at the altar of the Constitution nor do I blindly follow any man, be it Rand, Ron or Trump.  I follow what my heart and my mind feels is right given the circumstances that are present, knowing I too am not infallible. But I can only do what my conscience and heart believes is right.

----------


## Swordsmyth

This belongs here:




> Rand Paul Introduces ‘BE SAFE’ Act to Fund Border Security
> https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/dr-...order-security
> 
> 
> March 4, 2019
> 
> WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the *Border Enforcement, Security, And Funding Enhancement (BE SAFE) Act* to strengthen border security and improve other aspects of our broken immigration system.
> 
> The legislation would impose a *$2,500 border security fee on  each new  green card issued to fund the construction of new border walls  or  physical barriers and other immigration-related improve*ments.
> ...






> Since it involves revenue and spending, it is supposed to originate in the House.





> Maybe Rand should be more careful after  attacking Trump over a less clear cut Constitutional question.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> It’s coming out that the Democrats including the  President (Obama) ordered a political campaign to be illegally spied on  by a BS FISA warrant which was based on a fake dossier paid for by the  Clintons and allowed to slide by a politically weaponized FBI and DOJ,  and some here are worried that if Trump fullfills his campaign promise  which got him elected by the people to build a wall (which up until TDS  appeared was a bipartisan notion) via emergency declaration, it may send  a bad precedent!


Not 1 in 100 of the people currently  complaining about FISA as it relates to Trump cared about FISA in the  past. The people currently complaining are pure partisans, whose love of  due process is awakened only when the lack of it affects the chimps of  their own tribe. They will revert to their former Bush-voter selves  (i.e. utter indifference to due process) the moment it's the other  tribe's chimps being harassed. 

There are people (i.e.  libertarians) who aren't so much opposed to Trump's emergency  declaration because it's a laughably overt violation of the  Constitution, which will set a precedent for more of the same, but  because the underlying policy (i.e. kidnapping people who, unlike Trump,  never stole any American's property) is obviously unjust, and motivated  by the xenophobic fantasies of illiterates who are themselves the  cause, every election, of the march toward socialism which they're told  is the fault of foreigners. 




> I’m sorry, but as far as I see it, there is a WAR going on and we  are most certainly in an emergency situation, where you have the will  of the people being subverted by an immoral Deep State whose weapons  (the news media, entertainement industry, social media outlets) have  done everything possible to bury this duly elected President and destroy  this nation.
> 
> I hope Trump declares more emergencies and smokes out all of the rats!


The will of the people is worth exactly nothing.

How readily you swallow the entire world-view presented by the party's  media organs (Deep State, etc) demonstrates the above point.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not 1 in 100 of the people currently  complaining about FISA as it relates to Trump cared about FISA in the  past. The people currently complaining are pure partisans, whose love of  due process is awakened only when the lack of it affects the chimps of  their own tribe. They will revert to their former Bush-voter selves  (i.e. utter indifference to due process) the moment it's the other  tribe's chimps being harassed. 
> 
> There are people (i.e.  libertarians) who aren't so much opposed to Trump's emergency  declaration because it's a laughably overt violation of the  Constitution, which will set a precedent for more of the same, but  because the underlying policy (i.e. kidnapping people who, unlike Trump,  never stole any American's property) is obviously unjust, and motivated  by the xenophobic fantasies of illiterates who are themselves the  cause, every election, of the march toward socialism which they're told  is the fault of foreigners. 
> 
> 
> 
> The will of the people is worth exactly nothing.
> 
> How readily you swallow the entire world-view presented by the party's  media organs (Deep State, etc) demonstrates the above point.


The abuse of FISA against Trump was unprecedented and his emergency is not.
Your characterization of defending our border against the communist invasion is to idiotic to even bother with.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The abuse of FISA against Trump was unprecedented


FISA has existed since 1978. 

What evidence supported the previous 40 years of secret warrants and how was it stronger than the evidence put forth against Trump?

SS: "But, r3v, I don't know, it's all secret.."

r3vo: "QED."




> Your characterization of defending our border against the communist invasion is to idiotic to even bother with.


Your ignorance of basic principles of libertarian ethics, or basic human decency (like, kidnapping is bad...), is totally unsurprising.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> FISA has existed since 1978. 
> 
> What evidence supported the previous 40 years of secret warrants and how was it weaker than the evidence put forth against Trump?
> 
> SS: "But, r3v, I don't know, it's all secret.."
> 
> r3vo: "QED."
> 
> 
> ...


LOL

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Picture it:  In 2015, the the subject of an RPF thread reads "President declares national emergency, seizes land from states and private parties"
> 
> What do the replies to that hypothetical thread look like?


(2015)

ABC user: "Tyranny!!?!?!"

XYZ user: "That's what you can expect from the feds, Rand should never have endorsed Romney!"

(2019)

ABC user: "Gotta stop the invasionnnnnnn!!!!!"

XYZ user: "See, Rand's on board with Trump; he's saving the country (and he's not even a politician)!"

r3volution 3.0:

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Not quick enough. No time is not abundant and this spiral has accelerated like never before.


Yeah, a wall is going to save us. Sure.

----------


## jon4liberty

Remind us your strategy?

----------


## juleswin

> Remind us your strategy?


Love your schtick of pretending that you don't know how to use the reply function. That says to members that you haven't been around much but you know my enemies call me Che and/or most importantly that you are a very slow learner. 

Love, love, love it

----------


## jon4liberty

Personal attacks between yesterday and today such intellectual debating. I understand the paranoia of trolls but has gone entirely too far. Proceed to just personal attacks and running off members for your small echo chamber.

----------


## jon4liberty

Che was a CIA stooge. So your big middle finger is such a strong indication of how anti globalist you are lol the fact a commie is one of the few people here saddens me.

----------


## CaptUSA

Ahh yes...  "attacks"  and "paranoia"   lol


Can I get you a tissue?



We know why you're here.

----------


## juleswin

> Che *was* a CIA stooge. So your big middle finger is such a strong indication of how anti globalist you are lol the fact a commie is one of the few people here saddens me.


Ah, one of those people that think everybody is CIA. Trump is CIA, Gaddafi is CIA, Mao is CIA, Castro is CIA, Maduro is CIA, KGB is CIA all complete and utter rubbish. Jon4liberty CIA? hmm, can't say if it makes any difference 

I bet you used to be a liberty person and now you are a Trump fan boy. There are kinds of people in the world, those who change for the better and then we have you. I am still trying to figure out which member you are cos I don't believe your story.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I respect and admire the staunch fidelity set forth by the libertines


Somebody who scrupulously upholds moral standards even in the face of a threat that doing so is disadvantageous to them is the opposite of a libertine.

Ironically, the very position you've been defending throughout this entire thread, the one that prescribes doing away with the necessity to do what we know is right, and adopt in its place a path that we know to be sinful which you justify with the belief that we are being threatened by other people using sinful means themselves, is truly libertine.

I don't share your fears that we're facing some existential crisis that can be solved or even mitigated by a border wall. But even if I did, there is a time when it is right for a man to stand up with integrity before his enemies and say to them, "You may war against me with all the weapons of Satan. But I will die before I do the same." I follow a Savior who did that, who, by a stroke of irony that can only be attributed to the cosmic design of God himself, defeated his enemies by letting them shed his blood, and who commands me to take up my cross and follow him.

I am not a libertine. The utilitarian ethics that you and others cling to as a nonnegotiable is a foreign thing to me.

----------


## jon4liberty

> Ah, one of those people that think everybody is CIA. Trump is CIA, Gaddafi is CIA, Mao is CIA, Castro is CIA, Maduro is CIA, KGB is CIA all complete and utter rubbish. Jon4liberty CIA? hmm, can't say if it makes any difference 
> 
> I bet you used to be a liberty person and now you are a Trump fan boy. There are kinds of people in the world, those who change for the better and then we have you. I am still trying to figure out which member you are cos I don't believe your story.


Lol between you, captusa, and super i can see the torch of liberty has been left in the right hands. Yall are doing great work sniffing out trolls while zippy and krug are in your corner lol you 5 are jokes...great work you all are doing.

This CIA troll has to be at the capital with real liberty people getting real things done not with tinfoil hats and flashlights

----------


## Todd

> I don't share your fears that we're facing some existential crisis that can be solved or even mitigated by a border wall.


And that is all you need to know.  The unbelievably magical thinking of some here that the damn Wall is a Panacea for immigration control.

----------


## PAF

> This CIA troll has to be at the capital with real liberty people getting real things done not with tinfoil hats and flashlights



You stated that a couple of times the past couple of days. What is the phone number at the capital where I can reach you?

----------


## juleswin

> And that is all you need to know.  The unbelievably magical thinking of some here that the damn Wall is a Panacea for immigration control.


If the wall is such a non solution, why is it that all the pro immigration people are against it? 
 @jon4liberty, see I am on your side

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You stated that a couple of times the past couple of days. What is the phone number at the capital where I can reach you?


You can see it listed at the Capitol's contact page here.

----------


## PAF

> You can see it listed at the Capitol's contact page here.



Sweet, I wonder if they have good hot wings! Are bikers welcome, and is smoking allowed?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Are bikers welcome, and is smoking allowed?


I will leave it to readers of his posts to conclude for themselves whether or not you even need to ask.

----------


## TER

> Somebody who scrupulously upholds moral standards even in the face of a threat that doing so is disadvantageous to them is the opposite of a libertine.
> 
> Ironically, the very position you've been defending throughout this entire thread, the one that prescribes doing away with the necessity to do what we know is right, and adopt in its place a path that we know to be sinful which you justify with the belief that we are being threatened by other people using sinful means themselves, is truly libertine.
> 
> I don't share your fears that we're facing some existential crisis that can be solved or even mitigated by a border wall. But even if I did, there is a time when it is right for a man to stand up with integrity before his enemies and say to them, "You may war against me with all the weapons of Satan. But I will die before I do the same." I follow a Savior who did that, who, by a stroke of irony that can only be attributed to the cosmic design of God himself, defeated his enemies by letting them shed his blood, and who commands me to take up my cross and follow him.
> 
> I am not a libertine. The utilitarian ethics that you and others cling to as a nonnegotiable is a foreign thing to me.


Good for you. 

I don’t hold the Constitution to be a holy book or the Founders to be Saints.  I don’t recall Christ, the Apostles, or any inspired Scriptures or writings of the Saints espousing Constitutional Republics to be some sort of panacea against the evil in the world.  My Lord said be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.  To be in the world, but not of the world.  God wants us to be firm and stand up to injustice and evil, not to be worshippers of the State or the Constitution which it is based on.  The only government sanctioned by God (begrudgingly) and blessed by Him is the monarchy, which is an image of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Look at what this governmental system we have here now has allowed to flourish?  Infanticide, sexual degeneracy being glorified, rampant materialism and relativism. 

I think our governmental structure can work when under the framework which the Founders stressed were required.  But when degeneracy has become widespread within the people wholesale, it can also be one of the worst forms of government.   So, I believe there are times when a monarchy is needed, other times when a Constitutuonal Republic is preferred, but far away from me to put my faith or worship in some governmental structure, especially one foreign to the teachings of the Saints and which has led us to the condition we are currently in.

----------


## acptulsa

> Somebody who scrupulously upholds moral standards even in the face of a threat that doing so is disadvantageous to them is the opposite of a libertine.
> 
> Ironically, the very position you've been defending throughout this entire thread, the one that prescribes doing away with the necessity to do what we know is right, and adopt in its place a path that we know to be sinful which you justify with the belief that we are being threatened by other people using sinful means themselves, is truly libertine.
> 
> I don't share your fears that we're facing some existential crisis that can be solved or even mitigated by a border wall. But even if I did, there is a time when it is right for a man to stand up with integrity before his enemies and say to them, "You may war against me with all the weapons of Satan. But I will die before I do the same." I follow a Savior who did that, who, by a stroke of irony that can only be attributed to the cosmic design of God himself, defeated his enemies by letting them shed his blood, and who commands me to take up my cross and follow him.
> 
> I am not a libertine. The utilitarian ethics that you and others cling to as a nonnegotiable is a foreign thing to me.


This whole meme of we might as well kill the constitution because its half dead anyway sickens me.  It's the law of the land until a majority grow stupid enough to say its not, and when we do they go full Stalin on us.

These libertines who call themselves virtuous call that "worship" of a piece of paper, but that paper has helped us make this the greatest nation on earth by the grace of God.  Then those same people say trust Trump, who honestly hasn't done much for us but give us silly things to focus on (like walls) to distract us from real solutions.  Or they misplace their faith in Q, who hasn't done jack for anyone.

This is maintaining the faith?  This is hewing to the path God laid out for us, which is proven?  Putting faith in these men follows Biblical advice?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Good for you. 
> 
> I don’t hold the Constitution to be a holy book or the Founders to be Saints.  I don’t recall Christ, the Apostles, or any inspired Scriptures or writings of the Saints espousing Constitutional Republics to be some sort of panacea against the evil in the world.  My Lord said be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.  God wants us to be firm and stand up to injustice and evil, not to be worshippers of the State or the Constitution which it is based on.  The only government sanctioned by God (begrudgingly) and blessed by Him is the monarchy, which is an image of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Look at what this governmental system we have here now has allowed to flourish?  Infanticide, sexual degeneracy being glorified, rampant materialism and relativism. 
> 
> I think our governmental structure can work when under the framework which the Founders stressed were required.  But when degeneracy has become widespread within the people wholesale, it can also be the worst form of government.   So, I believe there are times when a monarchy is needed, other times when a Constitutuonal Rebublic is preferred, but far away from me to put my faith or worship in some governmental structure which has led us to the condition we are currently in.


What I am advocating is not the US Constitution in and of itself. What I am advocating is precisely what Christ and his apostles commanded.

The Lord condemns the tools of the state, and explicitly forbids me to use them to rule over others like the rulers of the nations do (Matthew 20:25-26; Mark 10:42-43).

You know full well that were you to rule over me and others the way you call for the government to do that it would not be permitted for you to treat us that way by God's moral laws. You should also know that God has no double-standard, and that just as you are prohibited from ruling us that way, so is everyone else. There is no loophole for "the government" that makes what is unjust when you or I do it just for them to do. God is no respecter of persons, which the scriptures proclaim repeatedly as one of the grand unifying themes of the biblical doctrine of the state.

Even if I shared your belief that it would be beneficial to my material well-being if I were to abandon God's laws (which I do not), I would not resort to your libertine prescriptions.

I may not be able to convince you to change your mind. But you should at least use words truthfully, rather than with the exact opposite meanings of what they really have, such as the way you used the word "libertine."

----------


## TER

> These libertines who call themselves virtuous call that "worship" of a piece of paper, but that paper has helped us make this the greatest nation on earth by the grace of God.


Some most definitely worship the Constitution.  That is sickening to me.




> Then those same people say trust Trump, who honestly hasn't done much for us but give us silly things to focus on (like walls) to distract us from real solutions.  Or they misplace their faith in Q, who hasn't done jack for anyone.
> 
> This is maintaining the faith?  This is hewing to the path God laid out for us, which is proven?  Putting faith in these men follows Biblical advice?


What is proven?  The American experiment?  How old is it?  240 years old?  Look at where we are!  Look at the degeneracy!  Has the Constitution protected us from the financial systems being overrun?  Has it protected us from illegal and immoral wars?  Look at the newspapers and the media and enterntainment industry and what they are glorifying?  Has the Constitution made us a moral people?  I say we are worse than most of the nations in history in degeneracy and immorality.  But people keep pushing the Constititution like it is the cure for our problems.  The truth is, only God alone is the cure for our problems, and this world is headed to destruction in spite of the Constitution or any other government formed by men.

----------


## PAF

The anti-federalists were right, the constitution enslaves.

The Bill of Rights are merely an outline of Natural Rights, but the Bill of Rights were written with loopholes to serve the state. Also, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that outlines consequences/punishment for government if/when government/politicians violates people Rights.

I never signed that contract. But that does not prevent me from contacting representatives to exercise my "Natural Right" outlined in the 1st Amendment, to vote Yay or No on proposed legislation. It is, after all, the system that is in place.

----------


## acptulsa

> Some most definitely worship the Constitution.  That is sickening to me.


Is it worship?  Seriously?

Did Russia have one?  How many of them were killed by their own government?  Did Germans stand by theirs?  How many of them were killed by their own government?  The Spanish?  Cambodians?  Rwandans?

The fruits of the Founding Fathers' labor have prevented suffering--_untold suffering_--among your brothers and sisters, and you want to dismiss respect for it as idol worship?

And replace it with what?  The biggest woman-divorcing, limo-riding, pussy-grabbing, 24K gold toilet-using libertine the White House has ever seen is a 'gift from God' because he does nowhere near half as good a job of "holding the line" as the Constitution has done?




> What is proven?  The American experiment?  How old is it?  240 years old?  Look at where we are!  Look at the degeneracy!  Has the Constitution protected us from the financial systems being overrun?  Has it protected us from illegal and immoral wars?  Look at the newspapers and the media and enterntainment industry and what they are glorifying?  Has the Constitution made us a moral people?  I say we are worse than most of the nations in history in degeneracy and immorality.  But people keep pushing the Constititution like it is the cure for our problems.  The truth is, only God alone is the cure for our problems, and this world is headed to destruction in spite of the Constitution or any other government formed by men.


Oh.  Well.  Adhering to the standards of the Constitution and demanding the politicians do the same (and doing our best to fire them if they do) is worshipping a piece of paper, but expecting that piece of paper to maintain the line against evil and spoon feed us liberty even as we do dumb things like nearly worshipping loudmouth libertines with R's next to their name is not worshipping a piece of paper.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Some most definitely worship the Constitution.


I think especially in Mormonism there's a heretical elevation of the Constitution to a divine status. Sometimes outside those circles people may say things that verge on that, but I think they're more rhetorical than intended to be taken literally.

I don't put the Constitution on that pedestal.

But when a person in government makes a promise that they will not exercise any powers over us outside of those authorized for them by the Constitution, they ought to keep that promise. And the excuse that someone else broke the promise doesn't give them an out.

----------


## TER

> I think especially in Mormonism there's a heretical elevation of the Constitution to a divine status. Sometimes outside those circles people may say things that verge on that, but I think they're more rhetorical than intended to be taken literally.
> 
> I don't put the Constitution on that pedestal.
> 
> But when a person in government makes a promise that they will not exercise any powers over us outside of those authorized for them by the Constitution, they ought to keep that promise. And the excuse that someone else broke the promise doesn't give them an out.


Good post.  I concur.  The reality is promises are broken all the time, unfortunately.  The point in this thread is what is an emergency and what is to be done?  I understand that you do not feel there is an existential crisis going on with this nation, but I would subjectively disagree.  And here is where I think that maybe the Constitution may have to amended when the government is so corrupt as it is now?  How else do we get out of this mess?  We are headed off a cliff...

----------


## acptulsa

The Constitution of the United States was created by imperfect men who were trying to secure the God-given rights of "themselves and their posterity", who are us.  We can resist the temptation to throw it under the bus when adhering to it seems like hard work or it seems like an inconvenience, and put our faith (despite advice in the Bible to the contrary) in a pussy-grabbing libertine and in an anonymous internet poster.  Or we can stick with what really has worked for centuries even if it isn't easy.

Which is really and truly the more sinful path?  What price might we pay for taking the more sinful path?

----------


## TER

> The Constitution of the United States was created by imperfect men who were trying to secure the God-given rights of "themselves and their posterity", who are us.  We can resist the temptation to throw it under the bus when adhering to it seems like hard work or it seems like an inconvenience, and put our faith (despite advice in the Bible to the contrary) in a pussy-grabbing libertine and in an anonymous internet poster.  Or we can stick with what really has worked for centuries even if it isn't easy.
> 
> Which is really and truly the more sinful path?  What price might we pay for taking the more sinful path?


What is the more sinful path?  Monarchism?

----------


## acptulsa

> What is the more sinful path?  Monarchism?


The more sinful path is giving up on the foundation of a once-Godly society because maintaining it is hard work.  The sinful path is assuming God sent us the guy who brought Our Earthly Team a victory, and not holding him to anything like a Godly standard, because if God didn't send him we might have to work at straightening this mess out.  The sinful path is standing by while someone causes instability, war and pain in South America, even though that'll result in our children dealing with even more refugees, because today he's helping us be un-neighborly.

Monarchism?  Like saying the Head Libertine in Charge is sent by God and sacrificing the foundation of our society (which generations of our forebearers fought and died to preserve) to his convenience?  Yes, that is the more sinful path, it's short term thinking, and we will all rue the day some if us succombed to the temptation.

----------


## TER

> The more sinful path is giving up on the foundation of a once-Godly society because maintaining it is hard work.  The sinful path is assuming God sent us the guy who brought Our Earthly Team a victory, and not holding him to anything like a Godly standard, because if God didn't send him we might have to work at straightening this mess out.  The sinful path is standing by while someone causes instability, war and pain in South America, even though that'll result in our children dealing with even more refugees, because today he's helping us be un-neighborly.
> 
> Monarchism?  Like saying the Head Libertine in Charge is sent by God and sacrificing the foundation of our society (which generations of our forebearers fought and died to preserve) to his convenience?  Yes, that is the more sinful path, it's short term thinking, and we will all rue the day some if us succombed to the temptation.


So you believe.   I disagree with you.   There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of government.

----------


## acptulsa

> So you believe.   I disagree with you.   There are advantages and disadvantages to all forms of government.


So you bestow the medieval "Divine Right of Kings" on your Team Red Libertine.  Then what?  When the Democrat gets installed, and you put on sackcloth and ashes and wail and gnash your teeth, will you expect me to point my finger elsewhere out of charity?

----------


## TER

> So you bestow the medieval "Divine Right of Kings" on your Team Red Libertine.  Then what?  When the Democrat gets installed, and you put on sackcloth and ashes and wail and gnash your teeth, will you expect me to point my finger elsewhere out of charity?


lol

There would be no 'Democrats'.

But I confess, the dangers of monarchism is you may get stuck with a bad king.  People would need to revolt,which is tough though possible.

Of course, you don't need monarchism to get stuck with a bad government.  You can get what we have here.  A welfare state, in endless wars, with a growing transgender population, where abortion is the leading cause of death, and government funded infant organ trafficking.

Now, if you had a great king (and they have existed, much greater than Trump could ever dream to be), then you get to understand why it is the only form of government blessed and sanctioned by God.

----------


## Sammy

I like Rand Paul...But he is weak on immigration..
I hope he doesn't get voted out for this

----------


## acptulsa

> Now, if you had a great king (and they have existed, much greater than Trump could ever dream to be), then you get to understand why it is the only form of government blessed and sanctioned by God.


That's why you want to toss a form of government that has brought more aid and comfort to people than any other?  Because you imagine yourself to be doing God's will?  God has chosen to remain silent on the topic for _two thousand years._



This is God to you, requiring us to confine ourselves to the togs of our mutual childhood?

----------


## acptulsa

This attitude of, we musn't move forward because every path is fraught with evil is very Amish.  But the Amish left a king behind and came to the Land Run By Committee.  Ask yourself why.

----------


## TER

> That's why you want to toss a form of government that has brought more aid and comfort to people than any other?  Because you imagine yourself to be doing God's will?  God has chosen to remain silent on the topic for _two thousand years._
> 
> 
> 
> This is God to you, requiring us to confine ourselves to the togs of our mutual childhood?


Perhaps you need to study more about the history of Christianity.  God has _not_ remained silent for two thousand years.  The Holy Spirit has been active in the Church since the Day of Pentecost.  And as for the Christian Church, it is quite evident that Monarchism is the God-ordained form of governance as taught by the Christian Saints.  Indeed, the Saints looked down upon governances such as democracies which placed the authority in the polis (men) and not a divinely ordained monarch sanctified by God for the purpose of leadership.

   Here is some material for you to consider. https://www.czipm.org/orthodox-monarchist.html

From the article: 

_Democracy may be valued as the lesser of two evils – less evil, for example, than communism or fascism. But it is in itself an evil insofar as it is based on a false, even blasphemous theory of the origin of legitimate political power, and insofar it tends in practice, as Alexei Khomyakov pointed out with regard to Athenian democracy, towards the secularization of society, the relativization of morality and the confinement of religion and faith to an ever-decreasing private sphere having no influence on public education or political life._



Pretty much sums up where we are now in this 'progressive, modern, post Christian western' world which you imply has matured from the 'togs of our mutual childhood'.  So mature that men think they are women, women think they are men, innocent infants have no rights, and if you question it, you may be liable to government sanctioned punishment.

----------


## acptulsa

Oh.  Well.  You should move to England.  They still have a monarch.  She may be descended from Crazy Assed George III, but she's there, so surely she's God's Will.

Oh, wait.  Britain's even farther down that garden path than we are.  Meanwhile, atheist communist China isn't.

No wonder my church puts our faith in God, not in your mortal saints.

----------


## TER

> Oh.  Well.  You should move to England.  They still have a monarch.  She may be descended from Crazy Assed George III, but she's there, so surely she's God's Will.
> 
> Oh, wait.  Britain's even farther down that garden path than we are.  Meanwhile, atheist communist China isn't.
> 
> No wonder my church puts our faith in God, not in your mortal saints.


What Church is that which you are in again?

----------


## acptulsa

> What Church is that which you are in again?


Not that it's any of your business, really.  I'm not trying to be rude, mind you, I'm just weighing Matthew 6 in my head.  I was raised Presbyterian.

----------


## TER

> Not that it's any of your business, really.  I'm not trying to be rude, mind you, I'm just weighing Matthew 6 in my head.  I was raised Presbyterian.


Im pretty sure Presbyterians would give some creedance into what the Church Fathers who they considered to be God-bearing vessels of the Holy Spirit of God had to say about such things.

----------


## mrsat_98

No matter which way this turns out I see it as a win win situation. 

Trump wants a wall to repel invasion. 

The Never Trump Democrats do not want whatever Trump wants and they nixed the issue leaving Trump the option of declaring National Emergency.

Trump declared National Emergency and the House and Senate voted with the Senate being so close Rand stepped in and saved the day leaving Trump no option but to Veto the House and Senates action. 

Can't get much more of a controversy. 

Next Step is Trumps move and after  he does it goes to Court expedited and Out comes a ruling on what Presidents and Congress critters can do with regard to National Emergency.

Hopefully it creates a $hit $torm and the Permanent State of Temporary National Emergency will have lived under all our lives (Senate Report 93-549 see elsewhere)  gets it due attention.

Something tells me Rand and Don are laughing together while the Demoncrats are unaware.

----------


## acptulsa

> Im pretty sure Presbyterians would give some creedance into what the Church Fathers who they considered to be God-bearing vessels of the Holy Spirit of God had to say about such things.


Sure.  But not because of ranks which are purported to be Godly, but are bestowed by people.  Not by ancient church committees.  Certainly not by ancient bloody battles, followed by generations of inheritances.  Not even if those continue for centuries.

Time proves some ideas, and disproves others.  The Gospels are full of Jesus saying, the church elders (remember the Pharisees?) are doing it wrong.  Salvation is for those who use the brain God gave them and think these things through.

----------


## TER

> Sure.  But not because of ranks which are purported to be Godly, but are bestowed by people.  Not by ancient church committees.  Certainly not by ancient bloody battles, followed by generations of inheritances.  Not even if those continue for centuries.


Instead, you put your trust in ranks developed by Freemasons and Diests.  While the bloody battles are not ancient, they are very much bloody and indeed followed by generations of inheritances, just not so overtly.  Wonder why we are in the mess we are in now...

----------


## acptulsa

> Instead, you put your trust in ranks developed by Freemasons and Diests.


Do I?

The presidency was created by freemasons and diests.  Which of us says the current one was sent by God?

----------


## TER

> Do I?
> 
> The presidency was created by freemasons and diests.  Which of us says the current one was sent by God?


Are you not the one espousing the American form of government as being above all other forms of government?

----------


## mrsat_98

> Do I?
> 
> The presidency was created by freemasons and diests.  Which of us says the current one was sent by God?



https://www.gematrix.org/?word=donald+j+trump

----------


## acptulsa

> Are you not the one espousing the American form of government as being above all other forms of government?


I say it's as imperfect as any human endeavor, but the way it spreads power out, instead of concentrating it in the hands of whatever libertine is charismatic enough to tickle the fancy of the mob with his third grade bully talk and his admissions of his own corruption and get elected, worked better than most while we actually followed it.

I'm looking forward to the Kingdom of God as much as you are.  But I have no faith to spare for any other kings but the One who is perfect.

Until then, I believe power looks best which is dispersed.

----------


## axiomata

> Im pretty sure Presbyterians would give some creedance into what the Church Fathers who they considered to be God-bearing vessels of the Holy Spirit of God had to say about such things.


Presbyterians are known for their love of the English monarchy. /s

----------


## TER

> I say it's as imperfect as any human endeavor, but the way it spreads power out, instead of concentrating it in the hands of whatever libertine is charismatic enough to tickle the fancy of the mob with his third grade bully talk and his admissions of his own corruption and get elected, worked better than most while we actually followed it.


I agree with you!  It did a great job for a while.  But the particular weakness with it is that is eventually leads to what we have here now, which is a secularized, materialistic, and relativistic mess.  Happened first in western Europe, and now into America with full force.

----------


## acptulsa

> Presbyterians are known for their love of the English monarchy. /s


LOL




> Let a thing here be noted, that the prophet of God sometimes may teach treason against kings, and yet neither he nor such as obey the word, spoken in the Lord's name by him, offend God.
> 
> John Knox





> Happened first in western Europe...


...under the tutelage of kings, sometimes _because_ it suited their royal short-term political exigencies.

----------


## TER

What is one to do when a King is corrupt and is a tyrant and goes against the will of the people?  It is a horrible situation that often requires a bloody revolution to instill a new King.

What is one to do when the people are the ones who have become so corrupt which are the ones who democratically choose a government which goes against the will of God?  Fire and brimstone?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What is one to do when a King is corrupt and is a tyrant and goes against the will of the people?


It is odd to me that in the midst of defending monarchy as the right model of government over against more democratic models you would bring up violating the will of the people as a criterion for labeling the king a tyrant. Sometimes what the people want is wrong, and it would be right for a king to go against it. I would have expected that a defender of monarchy over against democracy would make the point that the monarch can violate the will of the people when the will of the people is wrong, as a point in favor of monarchy.

What makes this more odd to me is that the incident that incited this discussion throughout this thread is your desire to see the regime that rules over America engage in tyranny. This is what separates the position you're defending in this thread from the quotes attributed to Church fathers in the article you linked. Those fathers opposed tyranny, while you promote it.

----------


## acptulsa

> What makes this more odd to me is that the incident that incited this discussion throughout this thread is your desire to see the regime that rules over America engage in tyranny. This is what separates the position you're defending in this thread from the quotes attributed to Church fathers in the article you linked. Those fathers opposed tyranny, while you promote it.


He's right, you know.  You can argue about immigration, and whether limiting it is or isn't tyrannical.  But that isn't his point.  His point is, the President appropriating money the House didn't disperse is a tyrannical act.

----------


## TER

> It is odd to me that in the midst of defending monarchy as the right model of government over against more democratic models you would bring up violating the will of the people as a criterion for labeling the king a tyrant. Sometimes what the people want is wrong, and it would be right for a king to go against it. I would have expected that a defender of monarchy over against democracy would make the point that the monarch can violate the will of the people when the will of the people is wrong, as a point in favor of monarchy.
> 
> What makes this more odd to me is that the incident that incited this discussion throughout this thread is your desire to see the regime that rules over America engage in tyranny. This is what separates the position you're defending in this thread from the quotes attributed to Church fathers in the article you linked. Those fathers opposed tyranny, while you promote it.


I am not promoting tyranny.  I am promoting fighting and winning the war our government is currently in within itself, between Patriots and Traitors.  Is there not a Deep State, or is Rand Paul delusional?  What is the mechanism in place to retake the nation from powers who are anti-American?  A coup?  Well, that is an option I guess.  A bloody one for sure.  But isn't a coup happening now, though less bloody, and being perpertuated by the DS against a duly elected President?

Who is the one promoting tyranny?  The one who is fullfilling a campaign promise the people voted for, or the ones who are stalling government, creating divisions and controversies and suicidal policies in order to maintain their power over the people?

----------


## acptulsa

> Who is the one promoting tyranny?  The one who is fullfilling a campaign promise the people voted for, or the ones who are stalling government, creating divisions and controversies and suicidal policies in order to maintain their power over the people?


Hm.  Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?

A minority of the people voted for Trump--not any one campaign promise, mind you, but Trump.  The Electoral College installed him because it weights the voices of the people in less populous states so the big states don't roll them over.  As a citizen of a small state, I approve--but I don't try to translate that into some kind of popular mandate for whatever.

You want to know what I think of this wall?  It's spending a gazillion dollars we don't have on symbolism.  It's a good deal for the contractors who get the contracts.  But otherwise its just another boondoggle.  And what's more...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Who is the one promoting tyranny?  The one who is fullfilling a campaign promise the people voted for, or the ones who are stalling government, creating divisions and controversies and suicidal policies in order to maintain their power over the people?


So now you're for democracy?

And if this the argument you want to use, then why not also account for the 2018 election, in which the American people elected a House of Representatives the majority of whom ran on the promise of not appropriating funds for Trump's border wall? Should Trump be allowed to overthrow the will of the people expressed in that election to take money from those people to spend it in a way they do not want?

For me these are rhetorical questions, because I don't accept the premise that it matters what the majority wants, when what they want is to tyrannize the minority, such as what you're defending.

----------


## TER

> So now you're for democracy?
> 
> And if this the argument you want to use, then why not also account for the 2018 election, in which the American people elected a House of Representatives the majority of whom ran on the promise of not appropriating funds for Trump's border wall?


I'm not married to any form of human governance.  Sometimes a democracy is better (with an educated, moral, informed citizenry), sometimes a monarchy is better (with a good, virtuous and just king).  I call it like I see it given what the leaders demonstrate and what the polis demonstrate.  What the signs of the times are.  Hell, put me in a nation like Sodom, and I would prefer a virtous dictator.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not married to any form of human governance.  Sometimes a democracy is better (with an educated, moral, informed citizenry), sometimes a monarchy is better (with a good, virtuous and just king).  I call it like I see it given what the leaders demonstrate and what the polis demonstrate.  What the signs of the times are.  Hell, put me in a nation like Sodom, and I would prefer a virtous dictator.


That's nice.  Until you say, we should expediently ignore the Constitution today, and obey it later when things have changed.  Because the evil in power later will latch on to every precedent we give them.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I'm not married to any form of human governance.  Sometimes a democracy is better (with an educated, moral, informed citizenry), sometimes a monarchy is better (with a good, virtuous and just king).  I call it like I see it given what the leaders demonstrate and what the polis demonstrate.  What the signs of the times are.  Hell, put me in a nation like Sodom, and I would prefer a virtous dictator.


I can appreciate your ambivalence about forms of government. I am too. To me the issue is more tyranny/statism versus freedom than one model of government versus another. And actually, I would take that same thing away from most of the church father quotes that the article you cited had. I didn't see the obligation to promote monarchy as a form of government in them to nearly the degree the author of the article did.

But then you keep sprinkling in lines about the leader following or violating the "will of the people" as if that should matter at all, which I don't understand how that fits into your argument, unless it's just something you bring up as an excuse for promoting a border wall that you think "the people" want.

If something would be wrong for me to do do my neighbor, then it would still be wrong for me to get together with the majority of my other neighbors and all of us to do that neighbor collectively, and it would still be wrong for me to do to my neighbor if I were a king, with or without the approval of a majority of my other subjects.

----------


## jmdrake

> Way to go Rand.  This is a tough vote and the sort of thing Collins has called for:
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...cy-declaration
> 
> It's the top of Drudge too


To all of the Trumpskiite bootlicks, Rand needs to stop Trump on this.  The last thing we need is a precedent where a future president Alexandira Ortega Cortez (or whatever the hell her name is) declares a state of emergency to redirect federal funds to "fight climate change."  She would actually have a better argument for that than does Trump for his piece of wall.  (Oh you didn't get the memo?  He's not even TRYING to build a wall all the way across the border.  He's just trying to repair and extend the partial wall the dems already built.)  AOC could claim "We need to re-direct disaster relief for hurricanes to fight climate change because climate change is causing the hurricanes."  You can say that's bollocks all you want.  But there's more reason to believe she's right on that then to believe Trump's contention that this will somehow stop mass migration from central America.  Hello?  Earth to Trumpskiites.  The last time we had a mass migration they marched right up to the already existing wall.

----------


## acptulsa

> To all of the Trumpskiite bootlicks, Rand needs to stop Trump on this.  The last thing we need is a precedent where a future president Alexandira Ortega Cortez (or whatever the hell her name is) declares a state of emergency to redirect federal funds to "fight climate change."  She would actually have a better argument for that than does Trump for his piece of wall.  (Oh you didn't get the memo?  He's not even TRYING to build a wall all the way across the border.  He's just trying to repair and extend the partial wall the dems already built.)  AOC could claim "We need to re-direct disaster relief for hurricanes to fight climate change because climate change is causing the hurricanes."  You can say that's bollocks all you want.  But there's more reason to believe she's right on that then to believe Trump's contention that this will somehow stop mass migration from central America.  Hello?  Earth to Trumpskiites.  The last time we had a mass migration they marched right up to the already existing wall.


Didn't you get the memo?  Nobody thinks the wall will actually _work_.  We're spending a gazibillion dollars in order to...

1.  Keep offhand campaign promises.

2.  Make a statement.

3.  Screw everyone who lives between the wall and the Rio Grande.

4.  Get Trump kickbacks from wall builders.

5.  Give the next president, who will very likely be a Democrat, a precedent to use in avoiding the Constitutional balance of power.

----------


## invisible

6.  Further turn our country into east germany or north korea

----------


## TER

> I can appreciate your ambivalence about forms of government. I am too. To me the issue is more tyranny/statism versus freedom than one model of government versus another. And actually, I would take that same thing away from most of the church father quotes that the article you cited had. I didn't see the obligation to promote monarchy as a form of government in them to nearly the degree the author of the article did.
> 
> But then you keep sprinkling in lines about the leader following or violating the "will of the people" as if that should matter at all, which I don't understand how that fits into your argument, unless it's just something you bring up as an excuse for promoting a border wall that you think "the people" want.
> 
> If something would be wrong for me to do do my neighbor, then it would still be wrong for me to get together with the majority of my other neighbors and all of us to do that neighbor collectively, and it would still be wrong for me to do to my neighbor if I were a king, with or without the approval of a majority of my other subjects.


I appreciate the fact that you read the article.  You probably were the only one who did.

----------


## TER

> Didn't you get the memo?  Nobody thinks the wall will actually _work_. ]


Apparently, thats not what the border agencies are saying.  They say it is extremely important and that they do in fact work.

----------


## TER

> To all of the Trumpskiite bootlicks, Rand needs to stop Trump on this.  The last thing we need is a precedent where a future president Alexandira Ortega Cortez (or whatever the hell her name is) declares a state of emergency to redirect federal funds to "fight climate change."  She would actually have a better argument for that than does Trump for his piece of wall.  (Oh you didn't get the memo?  He's not even TRYING to build a wall all the way across the border.  He's just trying to repair and extend the partial wall the dems already built.)  AOC could claim "We need to re-direct disaster relief for hurricanes to fight climate change because climate change is causing the hurricanes."  You can say that's bollocks all you want.  But there's more reason to believe she's right on that then to believe Trump's contention that this will somehow stop mass migration from central America.  Hello?  Earth to Trumpskiites.  The last time we had a mass migration they marched right up to the already existing wall.


lol, do you think the Dems would stop from doing such a thing in the future whether or not Trump declares an Emergency to build the wall?  The precident of defying the Constitution was set long before Trump came into the picture.

----------


## Schifference

You cannot hold this against Rand. He normally votes for liberty.

----------


## juleswin

> 6.  Further turn our country into east germany or north korea


You should have voted in the last election, their candidate won on a promise to build the wall. And why North Korea or East Germany? Israel has a wall separating her with the Gaza. Maybe we would turn into Israel or we are already Israel and building a wall wouldn't make it any worse than it is right now.

----------


## mrsat_98

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...cy-declaration

Before Washington became consumed with Michael Cohen testifying on Capitol Hill about the misdeeds of Donald Trump, a majority of the House of Representatives voted to overturn the national emergency declaration on the southern border. The measure looks likely to pass in the Senate, but there are not enough votes in either chamber to overturn a possible veto by the president. This raises a important question. Is this effort worth the time when so many other issues command attention from Congress?

The answer is yes. Numerous lawsuits have already been filed seeking to challenge the validity of the national emergency declaration. ...   [more at link]

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You should have voted in the last election, their candidate won on a promise to build the wall. And why North Korea or East Germany? Israel has a wall separating her with the Gaza. Maybe we would turn into Israel or we are already Israel and building a wall wouldn't make it any worse than it is right now.


The last election was the one that just happened in 2018, in which the American people elected to a majority of the House of Representatives Democrats who ran on the promise of opposing Trump's desire to build a wall. Even if restricting immigration were a legitimate function of government (it isn't) or a power delegated to the federal government in the Constitution (it isn't), it would still be Congress's call, not the President's.

He could well have mentioned Israel in there with North Korea and East Germany though. That certainly wouldn't have taken anything away from his point.

----------


## mrsat_98

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...-1452119107923

----------


## juleswin

> The last election was the one that just happened in 2018, in which the American people elected to a majority of the House of Representatives Democrats who ran on the promise of opposing Trump's desire to build a wall. Even if restricting immigration were a legitimate function of government (it isn't) or a power delegated to the federal government in the Constitution (it isn't), it would still be Congress's call, not the President's.
> 
> He could well have mentioned Israel in there with North Korea and East Germany though. That certainly wouldn't have taken anything away from his point.


You have a point this is why it is so frustrating to see Trump trying to do this now when he could have had far less resistance doing it the proper way with republicans having the senate and house. 

Believe me it wuld have had a less damning effect if he used Israel instead of N Korea and E Germany.

----------


## jmdrake

> I am not promoting tyranny. I am promoting fighting and winning the war our government is currently in within itself, between Patriots and Traitors.   Is there not a Deep State, or is Rand Paul delusional?


There is a deep state and Donald Trump has sworn allegiance to it while pretending to be against it.  Trump installing face scanning cameras at airports and on the current border wall promotes the deep state.  Trump banning a gun accessory through executive order promotes the deep state.  Trump going along with the Obama coup of Venezuela because...they have oil, promotes the deep state.  Ron Paul is against the wall 100%.  That doesn't mean Ron Paul is for the deep state or somehow a traitor.  I mention Ron here as opposed to Rand on purpose.  One could say "Rand is doing X to get re-elected."  But Ron has dropped out of politics.

----------


## jmdrake

> lol, do you think the Dems would stop from doing such a thing in the future whether or not Trump declares an Emergency to build the wall?


Do you not understand how precedent works?




> The precident of defying the Constitution was set long before Trump came into the picture.


Trump has made it worse.  His unconstitutional bumpfire ban by executive order just got upheld by the Supreme Court.  Obama never dared go after the 2nd amendment the way Trump already has.  With all of the mass shootings under Obama, he (Obama) never said "Let's do an assault weapons ban" the way Trump did.  Come to think of it, it was Ronald Reagan who banned machine guns.  It's the type of blind naivete' that you are sadly displaying that allows tyranny to flourish.  "Oh let's allow republicans to trash the constitution because the democrats are going to do it too."  I would have expected that kind of logic from dannno.  I'm shocked to see it coming from you.  The Ron Paul movement is (was?) a liberty movement, not a republican movement.  The plan was to take over and reform the republican party.  It seems that we are the ones who have been changed and not for the better I might add.

----------


## TER

> There is a deep state and Donald Trump has sworn allegiance to it while pretending to be against it.  Trump installing face scanning cameras at airports and on the current border wall promotes the deep state.  Trump banning a gun accessory through executive order promotes the deep state.  Trump going along with the Obama coup of Venezuela because...they have oil, promotes the deep state.  Ron Paul is against the wall 100%.  That doesn't mean Ron Paul is for the deep state or somehow a traitor.  I mention Ron here as opposed to Rand on purpose.  One could say "Rand is doing X to get re-elected."  But Ron has dropped out of politics.


Trump is not a libertarian.  Dont think he ever claimed to be.  Im not a fan of all the things he is doing.

But if you think that he is the one chosen by the DS, and that he is pretending to be against them while being their pawn, then either he is an amazing actor and I have been decieved, or you are simply delusion.  I guess we will learn in time who is what.

----------


## jmdrake

> Didn't you get the memo?  Nobody thinks the wall will actually _work_.  We're spending a gazibillion dollars in order to...
> 
> 1.  Keep offhand campaign promises.
> 
> 2.  Make a statement.
> 
> 3.  Screw everyone who lives between the wall and the Rio Grande.
> 
> 4.  Get Trump kickbacks from wall builders.
> ...


I thought you were being facetious....and then I went back and read part of this thread.    This place has really gone downhill.

----------


## TER

> Do you not understand how precedent works?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has made it worse.  His unconstitutional bumpfire ban by executive order just got upheld by the Supreme Court.  Obama never dared go after the 2nd amendment the way Trump already has.  With all of the mass shootings under Obama, he (Obama) never said "Let's do an assault weapons ban" the way Trump did.  Come to think of it, it was Ronald Reagan who banned machine guns.  It's the type of blind naivete' that you are sadly displaying that allows tyranny to flourish.  "Oh let's allow republicans to trash the constitution because the democrats are going to do it too."  I would have expected that kind of logic from dannno.  I'm shocked to see it coming from you.  The Ron Paul movement is (was?) a liberty movement, not a republican movement.  The plan was to take over and reform the republican party.  It seems that we are the ones who have been changed and not for the better I might add.


Is there a precedent for a President to use a fake dossier created and paid for by his party to get a FISA warrant using a politicized FBI and DOJ to frame a sitting President?

We as a nation are in uncharted waters.  There will be many precedents in the future from both sides.

----------


## jmdrake

> Trump is not a libertarian.  Dont think he ever claimed to be.  Im not a fan of all the things he is doing.


Good.  Well his unconstitutional power grab is just one thing to be against.  So...be against it.




> But if you think that he is the one chosen by the DS, and that he is pretending to be against them while being their pawn, then either he is an amazing actor and I have been decieved, or you are simply delusion.  I guess we will learn in time who is what.


You know that Trump was an actor before he became a politician right?

You need to watch this documentary.  https://vimeo.com/116273297  It covers how George C. Wallace, a liberal progressive, fooled the entire country into thinking he was a right wing racist for nothing but political gain.  When he lost the Alabama governors race in 1958 to someone endorsed by the KKK he said "I got out n*ggered.  I will never be out n*ggered again."  But the whole time he was governor he was pushing left wing progressive policies.  Trump is doing some of the same.  (More money for HBCUs than any other president including Barack Obama.  More money for black farmers than any other president. ect.)  I'm not mad at him for that.  Black colleges and universities and black farmers have been shafted.  That's just not what his *base* thought they were electing him to do.  I get why he's fighting so hard for the wall.  It's not that he really gives a damn about it.  But going into 2020 he needs to do something for his base or risk losing him.  He's a prisoner of his own over the top rhetoric.

----------


## jmdrake

> Is there a precedent for a President to use a fake dossier created and paid for by his party to get a FISA warrant using a politicized FBI and DOJ to frame a sitting President?


Hillary Clinton paid for the fake dossier.  Last time I checked she didn't get elected president.  Or are you in some alternative universe?  And let's be real about something.  In all crime families there are rivalries and assassinations political or otherwise.  Hillary was supposed to be president when Obama one but he outflanked her.  That doesn't mean Obama wasn't controlled.




> We as a nation are in uncharted waters.  There will be many precedents in the future from both sides.


We are in uncharted waters every year.  But these waters are somewhat familiar.  There was an investigation of the Clintons that Hillary deemed a "vast right wing conspiracy" but ultimately turned own Bill getting caught committing adultery and lying about it.  There's been an investigation of Trump that is deemed a "deep state conspiracy" but ultimately it so far has turned on Trump getting caught paying hush money to cover up adultery.  The republican house impeached Clinton but they didn't have enough votes in the senate to remove him and ultimately they helped boost Clinton's popularity through sympathy.  The democratic house will likely impeach Trump but they will not have enough votes in the senate to remove him and ultimately they will help boost Trump's popularity through sympathy.  Donald Trump is the second coming of Bill Clinton.

----------


## invisible

> You should have voted in the last election, their candidate won on a promise to build the wall. And why North Korea or East Germany? Israel has a wall separating her with the Gaza. Maybe we would turn into Israel or we are already Israel and building a wall wouldn't make it any worse than it is right now.


I always vote, in every election.  If you're referring to the 2016 general election, I had to leave the top spot on the ballot blank, as there were no good candidates on the ballot, and write-ins aren't allowed in my state, so I couldn't write in Rand or Ron Paul.

Another good example of a country with a wall that spies on it's citizens is china.  Funny how the trumpettes claim that a wall will somehow protect our freedom, yet all the countries that have built walls are hardly examples of freedom.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is an "emergency" declaration.  The keyword being "emergency". 
> 
> He just killed his political future with Republican voters.  He may have pleased his open borders donors but not the voters in his home state or nationally if he plans to run for President again.   Democrats will never vote for him no matter what he does.


I would rather him defend the constitution than defend his political aspirations.

And no, this is not a real emergency.  The only emergency was the fallout Trump was facing from his base for not fulfilling a hollow campaign promise.

----------


## acptulsa

> lol, do you think the Dems would stop from doing such a thing in the future whether or not Trump declares an Emergency to build the wall?  The precident of defying the Constitution was set long before Trump came into the picture.


They've never done it before.  Their whole _modus operandi_ has been letting Republicans take each successive bite out of the Constitution, because Republicans only howl when Democrats _set_ those precedents.

It's not like the first nibble voided the whole thing.  No, they know how to boil a frog.  Keep denying the water temperature just went up a few more degrees.  You aren't fooling any of us, but maybe you can keep yourself fooled.

----------


## TER

> Hillary Clinton paid for the fake dossier.  Last time I checked she didn't get elected president.  Or are you in some alternative universe?  And let's be real about something.  In all crime families there are rivalries and assassinations political or otherwise.  Hillary was supposed to be president when Obama one but he outflanked her.  That doesn't mean Obama wasn't controlled.


What if Obama signed the authority for the FISA warrant?  Want to bet he did?
What if Obama knew everything going on during that time?  I recall the Strock-Page text about the POTUS wants to know everything going on.

Obama is just as guilty as Hillary with regards to the Russian hoax.




> We are in uncharted waters every year.  But these waters are somewhat familiar.  There was an investigation of the Clintons that Hillary deemed a "vast right wing conspiracy" but ultimately turned own Bill getting caught committing adultery and lying about it.  There's been an investigation of Trump that is deemed a "deep state conspiracy" but ultimately it so far has turned on Trump getting caught paying hush money to cover up adultery.  The republican house impeached Clinton but they didn't have enough votes in the senate to remove him and ultimately they helped boost Clinton's popularity through sympathy.  The democratic house will likely impeach Trump but they will not have enough votes in the senate to remove him and ultimately they will help boost Trump's popularity through sympathy.  Donald Trump is the second coming of Bill Clinton.


yeah, no.  I disagree.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They've never done it before.  Their whole _modus operandi_ has been letting Republicans take each successive bite out of the Constitution, because Republicans only howl when Democrats _set_ those precedents.
> 
> It's not like the first nibble voided the whole thing.  No, they know how to boil a frog.  Keep denying the water temperature just went up a few more degrees.  You aren't fooling any of us, but maybe you can keep yourself fooled.


O'Bummer spent money without Congressional approval and without the emergency law.

----------


## jmdrake

> What if Obama signed the authority for the FISA warrant?  Want to bet he did?
> What if Obama knew everything going on during that time?  I recall the Strock-Page text about the POTUS wants to know everything going on.
> 
> Obama is just as guilty as Hillary with regards to the Russian hoax.


I'm not an Obama fan.  I'm just pointing out that Hillary paid for the dossier.  And I don't play the "what if" game.  If Obama signed for the FISA warrant just provide a reference and I'll believe you.  No need to bet on it.




> yeah, no.  I disagree.


You can disagree all you want but you don't have any factual or logical reason for that disagreement.  This impeachment game with Donald is playing out exactly the same as it did with Bill.  It's all boiling down to lying about adultery and party pushing for impeachment has the political strength for the impeachment but not for the removal.

----------


## TER

> I'm not an Obama fan.  I'm just pointing out that Hillary paid for the dossier.  And I don't play the "what if" game.  If Obama signed for the FISA warrant just provide a reference and I'll believe you.  No need to bet on it.


Your smart not to bet on it.





> You can disagree all you want but you don't have any factual or logical reason for that disagreement.  This impeachment game with Donald is playing out exactly the same as it did with Bill.  It's all boiling down to lying about adultery and party pushing for impeachment has the political strength for the impeachment but not for the removal.


Bill, while President, had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office and then lied to it under oath.
Trump, while not a politician, had sex with a porn star.

Both were stupid.  The first one could be construed as criminal.

----------


## jmdrake

> Your smart not to bet on it.


I don't bet.  I also see no relevance to the point that you seem afraid to actually back up with evidence.  





> Bill had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office.
> Trump, while not a politician, had sex with a porn star.
> 
> Both were stupid.  The first one could be construed as criminal.


1) Having consensual sex with an intern in the Oval Office is not criminal.  Not even in the least.  It can't be construed as criminal.  

2) You don't have to commit a crime to be impeached.  Andrew Johnson was impeached for not being hard enough on the South during reconstruction.  Impeachment is a political process masquerading as a legal process.  The SCOTUS has long held that impeachment is political, not legal.  There are enough democratic votes to impeach Trump.  There are not nearly enough democratic votes to remove him from office even with republican defectors.

----------


## TER

> I don't bet.  I also see no relevance to the point that you seem afraid to actually back up with evidence.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Having consensual sex with an intern in the Oval Office is not criminal.  Not even in the least.  It can't be construed as criminal.


How about lying about it under oath?

----------


## acptulsa

> How about lying about it under oath?


How about using campaign donations to bribe the woman to lie about it?

----------


## jmdrake

> How about lying about it under oath?


Yes that's criminal.  So is using campaign funds to pay hush money.  Donald could have been out of this mess months ago if he had listened to Rudy Giuliani.  Rudy said that Trump paid Stormy Daniels but he used personal money.  But nooooooo!  Christian conservatives had a fit.  "Trump couldn't have lied to *us*."  (Yeah he did).  So Trump threw Rudy under the bus.  The rest is history.

That said, even if nothing Trump did was illegal that doesn't matter when it comes to impeachment.  Again....consider the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.  And finally, Bill Clinton didn't lie under oath until he was forced to testify under oath.  So far Trump hasn't had to testify under oath.  It remains to be seen if he will escape that trap the rest of his presidency.  Here is Judge Andrew Napalitano explaining how Trump's political and legal issues are at cross purposes.

https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/05/...stormy-daniels

----------


## TER

I would like to thank everyone (jmdrake, acptulsa, Superflous Man, and everyone else) for the spirited discussion earlier today.  I do take what is posted to heart and do appreciate the other points of view.

I just want to be clear that I respect Rand sticking to principles, as well as my friends here.  My difference in opinion may be because I sense a greater threat happening now then others do (whether I am wrong or right is debatable), and I really feel like there is a war happening within the government.  My prescription for handling it differs from how others would, and I can appreciate that.   I can understand the concern about precedents and stooping to a low level just because the other side is.  That said, I sill support Trump’s decision to proclaim an emergency and seek wall funding through doing so (75,000 illegals apprehended at the border in February alone) because I fear that if Trump is removed and the left wins the next election, we are in for a very scary future here in this country.  That may not be a good enough reason for some, but it is for me at this time.

Again, thank you all for the debate!

----------


## Valli6

*12 Minutes about his Opposition to the Emergency Declaration from Senator Rand Paul*
Around 2:50 Rand calls out the hypocrisy of the media and the democrats for never standing up to Obama for doing the same thing.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Don't vote based on the Constitution.  Vote to give me more money and powers. 

"I didn't need to do this.  But I would rather do it faster!"

----------

