The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Company CEO refuses city demands for him to remove US flag from HIS property  (Read 428 times)

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7457

I'm sure it's not really about the size of the flag.  Maybe its partly confreakism by the "demander" in the city council and partly because of an irrational hate for the American flag ("flagophobia" or "patriotismophobia or dumbassophilia or it could be a newly discovered disease the main symptom of which is an irrational desire for not only your own destruction but the destruction of everyone else who might see good in anything, dubbed by the medical community as "annihiliatophilia").

However, the "encouraging freedom" aspect is:  They're fighting back.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-carolina-files-lawsuit-rv-company-american-flag

Does that star-spangled banner yet wave? If it's over Camping World and Gander RV in Statesville, N.C., you better believe it.
In fact, it's only a question because the North Carolina city is locked in a letter-of-the-law battle with the RV company, which proudly -- and defiantly -- flies its massive 40x80-foot American flag.

snip

Logged

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64

It may be worth knowing that the Corporate U.S. Flag is derived from (or very similar to) the flag of The East India Company.

It may also be worth knowing that those in the East India Company were slave traders as "company policy."

Here may be something that may help bring the point home:

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

If that does not bring the point home, then perhaps this will:

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

How about the following?

"To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp

And this:

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
"Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union."

There is much more that may help someone caught up in Nationalism, for them to at least question the triggers that pull those strings.
Logged

jamie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1958

none of those points disprove nationalism. Of course evils were and are done. of course there are lies and propaganda and boobus americanus by the millions.

If there is no nationalism, move to pakistan,  or better yet invite pakistan and the congo and every other impoverished hellhole to move here, freely as they are now.  Soon there will only be paradise, and fusa  will be the glorious third world. 

and all that evil nationalism will be transformed to tribalism.
Logged

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6839
    • End the War on Freedom

none of those points disprove nationalism. Of course evils were and are done. of course there are lies and propaganda and boobus americanus by the millions.

The state always devolves into tyranny. Anarchism is at least recognized as potentially dangerous. The reality is that your tribe is always on its own. Plan accordingly.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

Joe Kelley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64

"none of those points disprove nationalism."

How about some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Nationalism, and then some information concerning the actions done by people to other people according to those who agree with Federalism? 

Example 1:

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

So Federalism maintains a voluntary association where Nationalists do not. Nationalists offer the non-option to leave the Nation State.

Federalism is shown to be Free Market Government Services, where Free Market Forces tend to force quality up and cost down.
Nationalism is shown to be Subsidized Slavery of everyone, where dictatorial forces tend to force quality to nothing and costs skyrocket to a point at which the only people who can afford anything of value are the psychopaths, sociopaths, and their army of sycophants, because that is the type of people who get to the top of Nationalism, also known as Corporatism, National Socialism, Communism, Socialism, Oligarchy, Arbitrary Government, Despotism, Empire, and various other euphemisms.   

Example 2:

Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the actual federation known as The United States of America:
"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head may be a single assembly, like the present congress, or the Amphictionic council; or it may consist of a legislature, with one or more branches; of an executive, and of a judiciary. To form a consolidated, or one entire government, there[163] must be no state, or local governments, but all things, persons and property, must be subject to the laws of one legislature alone; to one executive, and one judiciary. Each state government, as the government of New Jersey etc., is a consolidated, or one entire government, as it respects the counties, towns, citizens, and property within the limits of the state. The state governments are the basis, the pillar on which the federal head is placed, and the whole together, when formed on elective principles, constitutes a federal republic. A federal republic in itself supposes state or local governments to exist, as the body or props, on which the federal head rests, and that it cannot remain a moment after they cease. In erecting the federal government, and always in its councils, each state must be known as a sovereign body; but in erecting this government, I conceive, the legislature of the state, by the expressed or implied assent of the people, or the people of the state, under the direction of the government of it, may accede to the federal compact: Nor do I conceive it to be necessarily a part of a confederacy of states, that each have an equal voice in the general councils. A confederated republic being organized, each state must retain powers for managing its internal police, and all delegate to the union power to manage general concerns: The quantity of power the union must possess is one thing, the mode of exercising the powers given, is quite a different consideration; and it is the mode of exercising them, that makes one of the essential distinctions between one entire or consolidated government, and a federal republic; that is, however the government may be organized, if the laws of the union, in most important concerns, as in levying and collecting taxes, raising troops, etc. operate immediately upon the persons and property of individuals, and not on states, extend to organizing the militia, etc. the government, as to its administration, as to making and executing laws, is not federal, but consolidated."

If people running one of many Nation States, such as New Jersey, in a Federation of many competitive Nation States, and the people running that single Despotic Nation State picks the pockets of individuals, taking whatever is worth stealing from everyone, except the criminals running it of course, and their investors who get “tax breaks,” then people could vote with their feet to a less despotic Federated State such as Rhode Island. When everything has been consolidated into one Profitably Monopoly by the criminals who take-over governments, and their investors, then those who are fine with having pockets picked can tell all those who don't like it to leave the one Profitable Monopoly run by the criminal cabal. You don’t like it, terrorist, get out, while I call Homeland Security and rat you out.

This is not really news.

Example 3:

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners."

The cabal loves investors, and in order to incentivize investors who are perfectly willing to invest in the cabal, there are emoluments and other goodies. These bargains are given out to those who tow the official line, those who don't tow the official line are often found guilty of thought crimes, and either tortured or murdered.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Don't question the cabal's arbitrary power, there are many investors, and you will be first asked to leave, and that is a subtle hint concerning what may come next. There are gang rapists housed on your dime and they would like your fresh meat.

Example 4:

New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism
Published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788:
“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
“Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.”

So Federal governments afford places where slaves can run away from people running Slave States into places where the concept of liberty, equal footing, and individual sovereignty isn’t just a campaign slogan used to subsidize the slave trade within the profitable monopoly. Those investors in slavery in the slave states can tell the slaves if they don’t love it, then leave.

There are many more examples involving a money monopoly power, aggressive force (criminal force) monopoly power, land monopoly power, just-us monopoly power, and the all too familiar extortion fee monopoly power claimed as a “tax” for your protection of course. The evidence is uncontroversial, clear, unambiguous, and straight to the point.

December 7, 1787
Rhode Island Is Right!
“The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.”

Melancton Smith
June 20, 1788
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”

Logged

Who...me?

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2204

The argument is moot. ALL of the parties involved in politics are corrupt. ALL government is corrupt. ALL large corporations are corrupt. People, as a general rule, suck. In the end the vast majority are greedy and self serving. That in itself is not a bad thing as you have to be a somewhat self centered to exist. The problem is when individuals (read politicians and upper management types) actively seek to gain personal advantage at the expense of the rest of us. When they have no regard for anyone else as long as they benefit.


As far as I am concerned such activity is an aggravated assault on the people by the elite and in some cases actually treason. And should be dealt with in an appropriate way.



Logged
"If you are in a fair fight, Your tactics suck"

"The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic." - H. L. Mencken

jamie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1958

can't argue that.  My only point is when other tribes are invited in, there will be trouble and much worse.
Logged

Who...me?

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2204

Yes, a point the democrats are figuring out.
Logged
"If you are in a fair fight, Your tactics suck"

"The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic." - H. L. Mencken
Pages: [1]   Go Up