I find that hilarious. Self defense can only be initiated when there is a threat or intimate fear of a threat. Inciting to riot cancels all of that as that is the threat.

And just what protection of property prevails when one set of crazies line up on the street and another set of crazies arrive to challenge? There is no way any protection can be claimed, just the possibility of even more damage and danger.

Hate to break your little bubble but statutes are far from laws, they are color of law, legal. But if you want law then refer to the state constitution, Article 1, Section 1. That is the law.

And that is one screwed up constitution but what can one expect, it was during the tenure of Lincoln, after the republic was abolished and the corporate state started.

Refer to: Congress Adjourns Sine Die March 27th 1861, the day the constitution died.

Hey, fixed the link. I love that one, wow up to 3.7 million views.

I think you're question is on much too high a level when "same" is instilled.

That seems very obvious, why be exact when generalities are so convenient and keeps one from ever being pinned down on taking a stand.

Right and wrong, it's all about morality. It's not right versus left. It's right versus wrong.

A deep understanding of morality, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior, lies at the very heart of natural law. What morality actually means is common sense. It is the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong that describes common sense.

Another way of saying this law would be to say that the presence of truth and morality in the lives of the people of any given society is inversely proportional to the presence of tyranny and slavery in that society. True freedom can never exist in a society that embraces "Moral Relativism" (the idea that there is no inherent and objective difference between right and wrong, so humanity may arbitrarily "create" or "decide" right and wrong for themselves).



Mistaken, only if one were to suffer from the understanding of morality, the disease of Moral Relativism. Those so inclined to ignore history is destined to repeat it.



The constitution created nothing outside a written trust for the benefit of the people. It is but pieces of parchment and incapable of creating a mess, that prospect is left to the unwashed masses that have forsaken morality for entitlements as a reflection of just how depraved Moral Relativism can get and sadly, it still hasn't reach bottom but it wont be long.

It is not the constitution that is flawed, it is the illiteracy of the unwashed masses. As was so elegantly stated by the founders, they gave us a republic but it was up to the people to guard their own liberty. It is only an idiot that forsakes history and pretends that lessons of the past have no meaning. And it seems pretty obvious just where we stand here.



No argument with the base assumption here, the argument is in the assimilation of the information into an intelligent conclusion as not all is equal when measured in reality. That is where Moral Relativism comes into being. It is hard to apply the appropriate weight when there is no ability to separate right from wrong.



And this is where without hesitation that I can declare your logic totally flawed. You state it a flawed platform and I say where? Oh, I forgot, there is no necessity to be exact, just general.



Not really, the founding principles are very sound. The re-examination is where did they go? The question is where is the republic? I do not despise the principles of a republic, just the lack of those principles that exist now. Unfortunately, without understanding morals and liberty, little would be understood of how today is not what was created but the result of an immoral and slave based society.



Sir, I do not have to think, I know and misguided would not be the operative word. And to even think to try and "prove" a negative, that is the task for a fool and idiot so please feel free, I'll pass. As to document that you are incorrect, that I have been doing all along.

As for misguided, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding", in this case wanting to be exact instead of generalities. it is always in the eyes of the beholder to determine the validity of any knowledge. I provide the means of establishing a link to that knowledge so that any thinking beholder may either accept or reject that knowledge depending upon their analysis. I want to dictate to no one but to offer to all. I ask no one to believe anything I say, but to verify and accept on their own.

Article II of our constitution only covers the Executive department and Section 4 prescribes the methodology and reasons for removal from office, nothing else.

However, the proceedings are contained in Article I, the legislative branch. It is within Section 2, the establishment of the House, that the constitution sets the sole power for Articles of Impeachment. It is Section 3, the establishment of the Senate, that the constitution sets the sole power of trying Impeachment and establishes the penalty for being Impeached. It also establishes the chief justice to preside over the Impeachment of the President.

Article III of our constitution covers the judiciary. The only mention here is to annotate that all crimes are by jury except for Impeachment as a reminder the power of Impeachment was delegated elsewhere.

But again I am impressed that American civics are taught in parts of the world but not here. It always amazes me that the republican form of government is so well understood that one would choose a democracy and preach the merits of republicanism.

Birds of a feather, not much different from the OP except he is under the illusion that the red team is for him and would do a better job even though there are more than a century of history that shows otherwise. Just so there is no misunderstanding, the blue team is also part of that long and illustrious history, except mush more dangerous, albeit:

Wilson - sold the nation out to the banks and then WWI as their reward.

Roosevelt - New deal, firmly entrenched socialism and pressed Japan so we could be a part of WWII, another concessions to the bankers to share in the bounty of war.

Truman - Gave us the atomic age, used atomic devices to subdue a nation, then gave us the United Nations and Israel followed by the Korean War. And let's not forget that wonderous Marshall Plan, have to reward those bankers.

Johnson - Another great war monger, escalation of Vietnan but then he gave all the little slaves "Civil Rights" because god knows natural rights were being stolen right and left. And with Civil Rights, of course let's socialize medicine and give the masses Medicaid and Medicare. But don't forget the Pueblo and the attempt to start another war.

Carter - while nothing notable really happened under Carter except inept bungling, many are not aware that it was Carter and his "deregulation" wave that started the defanging of Glass - Steagall as a reward to the bankers that culminated in our current state of affairs.

Clinton - Good old Slick Willie gave us the new definition of sexual relations. But on the people front, let's not forget NAFTA and the start of the jobs exodus, well let's not stop there, industry exodus from these borders. Good jobs to Mexico, McDonald's for citizens. And let's not forget, he and Hilary tried to socialize medicine but it took someone special to pull that off.

Odumbo - Not even going to go here as his "accomplishments" are so well known.

And the Repugnantcons, I'm not even going to go there, this was bad enough, now excuse me while I go upchuck.

Would you bet your life on that? While Odumbo will push the envelope, just imagine Uncle Joe if he conceived himself the dictator. Would he "nuke" Congress because they were in his way even though he lived down the block?

Oh, they don't need an excuse, they are entitled to make any claim upon the rights and property of another. After all, they have a government with the guns to "protect" them.

Wow, you should join the BAR.

An impeachment is a formal indictment, not a reprimand, should have stopped while you were ahead. It is the House acting in a capacity like a Grand Jury and submitting a "True Bill" based on the evidence, except in this case it is deemed "Articles of Impeachment".

And the Articles of Impeachment is but a confirmation of the charges within the Articles (the indictment) that carries a special sentence if the Senate Impeaches (convicted), that of removal from office and disqualification to hold any position of honor(like honor was involved in the first place) and no other. But to go further requires a "real" grand jury and a criminal "True Bill" or unjustly, being charged with a presentment from an "Attorney" pretending to have some mystical authority.

It is so nice to know that schools outside this country teach US civics and our constitution because god knows they stopped doing that here a century and a half ago.

And of course looking in a law dictionary to see what actual words mean would just be an extreme effort when it is so much easier to pretend to understand, and "standing under" is normally what happens.

The only difference is that Jeff's dummy needs to be controlled and nobody has as yet figured out how to unwind Odumbo's dummy.

In Memoriam
Edmund Cadwalader Evans

A sound economist, one of the few who understand the nature of the state.

Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression. -- Herbert Spencer, 1850.

This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long-run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies. -- Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922.

It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men. -- Henry L. Mencken, 1926.

From the book, Our Enemy, The State Albert Jay Nook, 1935. This is not a new phenomea but it has progressed to a very wary extent over a century and a half or actually more than that. In reality, we were warned by our founders even as they established and ordained this mess.

And what is the point? Is there one at all or just rantings?

And if you are going to try and quote Jesus, you should attempt to get it right, hence the benefit of quotes.



And of course, using them out of context would lead to many a false conclusion. For example, where does it state that one can be be an adversary? It doesn't. And the claim that it's all or none is just pure lunacy, that would deem that thought would not be possible.


An entirely different meaning

Sir, the key is to gain knowledge and to infuse that knowledge in a process called critical thinking. Within that aspect, you are required to research in order to gain the information needed to gain that knowledge. Quotes are but paths that lead to the assimilation of that knowledge into thoughts and allows others to either follow or dispute.

But then, you disclaim all that. There is a definition for not wanting to go outside one's self to seek knowledge:

Solipsism

From the Latin adjective solus: "alone" and the Latin pronoun ipse: "self".

The ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known.

A perception they are god. Solipsist are mentally ill.

I prefer to progressively build a knowledge base by listening to many different percepts and then to use my intelligence to weigh and infuse that information into concise knowledge. I have no intent to proclaim to be god but to use that which was given me to move forward.

So to answer your question, I would state myself that is capable of thinking, otherwise it is just dictating. Myself that is searching for knowledge so as not to remain ignorant by ignoring it.

Really, did you come up with that on your own? My thoughts are pretty much expressed there as Mark is my teacher but then some of us are capable of learning and others are not:

Teachability

An individuals teachability, or their ability to learn by way of being taught by someone else, is extremely dependent upon the open-mindedness or close-mindedness of the individual being taught. Low teachability derives from arrogance and rigid skepticism, but also from naivet� and gullibility. High teachability derives from a balance between healthy skepticism and an open-minded willingness to learn and change.

Go to the beginning of the lecture and you will find this. And yes I do take great notes, especially after studying that lecture many many many times. Of course I have listened to many others by him but this is the root of knowledge but then that may be a little hard for you to understand.

And by the way, do you have anything at all to add? I know that you do not have the ability to dispute any of the facts as you never do. And I know from your statement that you know little about Mark Passio so let me share a direct quote from him:



But then if you knew anything of Mark's work, he does not like copyrights and extends to all to use freely. But the real attribute is having the intelligence to be able to use what is learned in life, but then some will never learn anything outside that wonderous indoctrination.

So rant your little heart out, I could care less. It just lends to my objective anyway.

Wow, I'm impressed by the use of goggle to pull up an excerpt but still no understanding of the actual concept. Yes, it is part of the teaching of Mark Passio but from an almost 9 hour lecture in New Haven, Ct. on October 19, 2013 in conjunction with Richard Grove of Tragedyy and Hope magazine / [url}http://www.tragedyandhope.com. Of course there is no need to even ask if you have taken benefit from the lecture, of course not.

I am a very devout pupil of both Richard Grove and Mark Passio and like to live up to my commitment of learning and promoting the natural law, but then we have been here before and nothing has changed. With nothing to add, there is no option but to ignore knowledge.

What opposed to what? Not to worry, they know when there time is, and exactly what to say and do, it will already be rehearsed and choreographed long before then.

Sure, go right ahead.

Any excuse, all based on perception while totally ignoring any semblance of truth. Grand Juries aren't instructed, especially these color of law grand juries. The DA presents the Grand Jury with a "bill of indictment". From that they question any and all witnesses and make a determination of either "True Bill", the evidence proved the bill or "No Bill", the evidence did not prove the bill.

And of course, let's just ignore the fact that all the evidence was released which in and of itself is highly unusual. But what they did agree upon is that Brown should have been indited if he were alive. But of course that little truth is inconvenient to your perception of truth.

And we drop another level of depravity. This nation lets the guilty go free but persecute the innocent, an indication of the level of depravity this country has stooped. A nation where an innocent homeless person is gunned down right on video and all the nation has to say is ahhh.

To a level where a pure thug is promoted as mom and apple pie and everyone is up in arms. To a level where all the fellow thugs see as an opportunity to take and damage the property of another because...

And if your child is a thug, they deserve to be gunned down post haste before they can damage the innocent, that's accountability.

All perception, where is the truth? Actually, how do the two even coincide?

The first went to trial but due to the ineptitude of the LAPD could not be found criminally guilty, justice was served. Then came the civil case and again justice was served. No perception, no what one wants to be true, only what was proven or not proven.

The second was but a travesty of public opinion based on race. Here you have a thug (documented by grand jury) that is held up as a hero by the unwashed masses that now want to ruin a man's life for actually doing his duty. If Wilson is guilty of anything, it would be dereliction of duty for having to use 10 or 11 shots. It should have only been three, two to the heart and one to the head to wrap it up. He wasted seven bullets.

Now looking at some of the other videos about Wilson, he like all police officers have some mistaken idea they have some authority. But in this case, with this individual, he was correctly behaving as a peace officer and restored the peace in the only manner allowed by a young thug.

Now everyone is shouting civil suite except the man that should be shouting it, Wilson, he is the injured party and has every right to claim justice.