“Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws.”

Yep take Al Gore for example.

No Waff, you take Algore, I've had way too much of him.

I don't think Lincoln should be quoted in the context of liberty; Lincoln was a tyrant. The Declaration of Independence - the cornerstone document of "The Land of Liberty" states that government has no right to govern without the consent of the governed; ergo the Confederate States had the right to secede. Lincoln himself proclaimed that the Civil War - which took more than 600,000 lives - was not about slavery but about preserving the Union; that if maintaining slavery was required to accomplish that end, so be it, it was preserving the Union that was important. Would we praise Putin if he waged war against the former "Republics" to force them back into the USSR? If a member nation of the U.N. elected to withdraw itself from that body would we praise that organization if its members waged war against it to force it to remain a member? Look at the columns below each of Lincoln's hands on the Lincoln Monument: those vertical columns are fasces - bundles of bound wood representing the power of State force to bind, i.e. force compliance. "Fasces" is the root of the word "fascist". Lincoln was not about liberty; Lincoln was a fascist.

I was wondering myself whether Two Faced Abe spoke those words before or after he invaded the Confederate States of America. You won't hear a disparaging word against Lincoln from our government schools, but those interested in the truth and willing to do the research will find the nicknames "Honest Abe" and "Great Emancipator" shamefully ironic. I'd recommend "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DeLorenzo as a primer.

You fail to understand the Constitution Mr. Herndon and the Soviet Union. The Constitution was written "in order to form a more perfect union" after the Articles of Confederation were found to be deficient. What is more perfect about a "union" if a member can leave it at will. Like marriage break up of a "union" is ugly. Do you feel that a county can leave a state at will or a city leave a county. In order to make a decision to leave a union one must have soverignity but when the Colonies joined the Union and became States they gave up their Soverignity. The only way States can have Soverignity back and leave the Union is if the Soverign (the Union) gets it to them, than can not take it except by force. They tried that and failed. Now the Soviet Union is a different matter. Even the words of their "union" says "Union of Soverign Socialist Republics" Each Republic was soverign and was only held into the Union by the Communist Party. When the Party failed the Soverign Republics were free to make a different arrangemnet. The Soveit Union was not held together by law but by politics and force. The US is held together by law.

"He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws." A sad truth.

Holy crap, Waffler, are you nuts? Am I to understand that you believe the sovereign states that make up the United States of America are in fact not sovereign but the 'Soviet' States of the USSR were sovereign? You've hit a new low. BTW, USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not sovereign republics. Secondly, read the Federalist Papers and there will be little doubt as to the sovereign status of the States that make up the United States of America. The 'union' is a term for the compact that unites them. Sovereignty starts with the individual and rolls up to the counties, states, and united states. Shall we rehash this tired argument again?

“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, 1968

"It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation." -- John C. Calhoun

"But as the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 32

"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " -- Thomas Jefferson

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." -- James Madison

"Each state enjoys sovereign power." -- Gouvernor Morris, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. III, p 287

"It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom, to say, that government is a compact between those who govern and those that are governed: but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be, that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist." -- Thomas Paine

Public opinion has indeed been molded and has superceded the law. Another reason why 'majority opinon rule' is tyrannical. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from arbitrary opinion. Sorry, Mr. Editor, I couldn't help myself. ;-)

Waffler, I can only conclude from what you said that you believe a man has the right to beat his wife into submission, or even kill her, in order to prevent her from divorcing him. That doesn't sound like America: Iran or Pakistan, perhaps, but not America. As for public opinion, I can only observe that Lenin and Trotsky had public opinion on their side too, and the Soviet system was nothing but a failure.

No Ken you are not to conclude any such thing. As you probably are not aware there are no fault and contested divorces.The Soviet system was a union of soverign states thus they were free to leave at will. They only thing that kept them all together was the dictatorship of the communist party. The United States of America is not a union of soverign states. The colonies joined the union and surrendered their sovereignity. They only way states can get back their soverignity (absolute authority) is if the Union gives it to them or they physically fight for it. That was tried once do you not recall. A state may asked for its soverignity back but the Feds and many citizens throughout the greater Union just might contest the request.

Excellent, Archer. It's too bad that Waffler not only doesn't adhere to the philosophy of our founders, but he tries to reinvent what they've had to say -- even when what he's spewing was never mentioned in the time and place wherein the founders lived. The ideas they purported and the words they used to him mean nothing, for whatever reason, to understanding this glorious country we have been given. He's caught up in his own "truthiness" and "wikiality", because apparently to him, truth is only what the majority claims it to be (though he's often wrong on this as well -- something with the way he always says EVERYONE thinks this, or SOCIETY thinks that).

Waffler is a hypocritical, collectivist ignoramus as he plainly demonstrates. He himself is divorced yet says that no party may leave the association it created -- even if the terms of the agreement have been violated. I'm sure his divorce was ugly. He loves his quietude and solace but would not allow it to anyone else without a fight to the death. He grants Communism sovereignty and embraces fascism (i.e. forced union). I suppose the US could not leave the UN either for the same reasons, right? He does not make the distinction between 'national' and 'federal' even when the law is displayed before him, and he justifies his position merely by the force of war -- the south lost, so the north was right. Oh what a great advocate he is of 'democracy.' According to him, we may not stand as individuals, only as members of a group, for might makes right and the individual is but a thorn in the side of 'progress.' His mind is diseased, and his heart is cold -- it is no wonder he hides in the pack waiting for the chance to kill the lone wolf who dares not surrender to the pecking order of 'the majority.' Lick the hands that feed you, Waffler, and may your chains rest lightly upon you, but you are not one of my countrymen.

Ooh ooh ooh why do I not feel chastended by obvious traitors to the Union, liberty, and intellegence. Your apparent chastening is a badge of honor to me.

"This glorious country we have been given".What point is a glorious conuntry that "we" have been givern if it can be taken away or dismembered at will anytime someone wants to dismember it. That is a bit of a tracherous way to live is it not.

Logan you ask "Why do I not come over to his side of arguments". He has a short memory to forget how he and I argued for 6 months to a year concerning his infantile prhase "The US is a republic not a democracy". At the end of that discussion he finally relented to say "America is a majority ruled society and government." The fact that it took this long to get him to be straight and honest is the reason I still do not trust his logic, honesty or motivation etcetera.That a grown person can argue that for so long and then basically admit that they were wrong is a problem for me. The entire time his problem was that he felt there is a difference betwee majority rule and democracy but has yet to explain that. Maybe things can change maybe not.

Waffler, don't be stupid. You and I both know that I never capitulated to your ideology. Do we vote? Yes. Does this make us a "Democracy"? No! Does the Congress vote? Yes. Does this in itself make us a Democracy? NO! How many times do we have to go over this? Majority vote is not even half the equation into establishing legitimate government that can secure longevity in protecting the expression of inalienable liberty. Our Constitution only originally allowed that the House of Representatives would be voted in by the people -- HARDLY a "Democracy"; the Senate was appointed by the States, the President was appointed by the electoral college, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President and voted in by the Senate. What other federal government positions are there? You're only talking about 1/4 the government ever being voted in by the "people". Interesting, no? That a Constitution established by "We the People" would consist of a government wherein the "people" would only ever be directly involved in voting in a quarter of the government representatives? HARDLY a "Democracy". Now, as I HAVE ACTUALLY STATED -- our nation has come a long way from actually being the Republic we were meant to be into becoming a Democracy, but we were not originally created as such. How can you justify that every member of the Constitutional Convention specifically deplored and hated "Democracy" and sought diligently to successfully create a system of government wherein the people would ultimately direct their government without having an established "Democracy". I don't have to reason this fact of history away, because I can accept things for how they ARE and not how I wish they were or had been. BTW, you're the one that said "Fuck Democracy" (and I don't even have to put words in your mouth, that's an exact quote). You and I both know that I've taken that out of context -- but at least I'm honest about it. Don't try and win supporters by being dishonest Waffler, if you can't win the debate by reason, logic, philosophy, ideology, or words -- don't become a liar to try to win a point. No one here is fooled. Several people here, ad nauseam, have told you how the government operates as it does without it being a "Democracy" (hell, we've been doing this for over a year now). So, that's yet another lie that we have yet to do this.

You are to humourless Logan to comprehend that I said that remark "F*&^ democracy" to humour you. Above you say "our nation has come a long way from ....being a Republic... into becoming a Democracy". It appears that you believe therefore that we are a democracy today but that is not how it is supposed to be or how you want it to be. You have said a lot, another guy on this site has said that the ages old word means today only the Democratic Party or only the two party system. You are all so shallow. Sounds like yu have been listening to to much Rush. Encyclopedia's run to tens of pages describing the ascent or as I am sure you would call the descent of man into democratic societies. From feudalism and serfdom, aristocracy, nobility, and monarchy into societies based on equality and mobility of all persons. The third world yearns for the type of free society practiced in the United States, where anyone can get an education etcetera. Anyway that is why I do not come over to your side. Who do you really think you are that "because you and others" have said soemthing it should be believed, just another Limbaugh trait. I don't trust you Logan not at all.

Another flub you made above Logan, in one phrase you say the "US is hardly a democracy" and almost the next sentence or breath you say "has become a democracy". And you wonder why I have difficulty understanding you. Again these are deep subjects that is why they cannot be handled by sloganeering ala Rush Limbaughs oft stated "we are a Republic not a Democracy". Rush is a danger to all thinking men and processes.

We are talking about Law, Waffler, not opinions which you apparently hold dearest. Your poor attempt to misdirect or otherwise discredit the argument that the lawful form of government of the USA is republican just goes to show that you value your opinion more than facts -- and if enough people share your opinon, then it must be right, right? As you have said before, you believe that 'the world is made up of opinion' (i.e. there is no truth, only opinion). You trust in the 'majority' but not the Law. You play it safe by sticking with the pack and kowtowing to the 'leader' which will dictate your 'share' of the hunt. You say you value diversity, but only the majority rules -- you can't have it both ways, Waffler.

Yes, of course, to freedom of speech, but the freedom to choose one's own way, no that is up to vote and the 'authorities.' Logan makes the point that today the US government operates outside of the law, outside of the boundaries of the Constitution, that it has become a 'de facto' ruling power rather than a lawful 'de jure' representative government. (if you didn't take Latin in school, you may have to look those words up.) We hear on the tube nearly everyday about 'democracy' and yes there are a great many countries that do not recognize the inalienable rights of the people -- that doesn't mean democracy is the solution.

I assert that America is great because it is NOT a democracy and because it DOES in principle defend the rights of individuals and due process. These rights are being eroded in the name of 'security' as if the rights themselves were not in fact our security. If America was a democracy, then Al Gore would have been president -- obviously most people have forgotten how presidents get elected.

Now, is there or has there ever been an attempt by anyone to circumvent the lawful government of the US? YES! How can the rights of people be undermined? How can the sovereign states become subordinate states? Does the Executive office sometimes try to overstep its bounds? Does Congress sometimes try to make laws that it is not authorized by the Constitution to make? Does the Judiciary sometimes make partisan decisions rather than observe the intents of the Framers? Yes, yes, and yes.

So how do we keep these guys in check? The mob or 'majority' can only riot in a democracy. But when the rule of law is respected and when the parties to the Constitution can equally withdraw from the compact if their fellow Americans will not observe the agreement, then and only then is there a chance for this free republic.

What if somehow the government gave away their powers to a private company? What if they simply said, 'OK, we give up, we give you the power to feed us and give us our allowance'? What if the government no longer obeyed the Constitution because it didn't have to as long as their new benefactor would pay for everything? Who could stop that? Well, my friend, it has already happened. We are mere players in a Monopoly game and in the end all the pieces go back in the box -- the banker owns it all. When the banks took over America, the phrase 'making the world safe for democracy' became popularized. Mind you, we are not a democracy even today, even while ignoring the Constitution, but as long as the people THINK they are free, that is all that matters.

So go ahead, Waffler, think you are in a democracy when you know you are not (otherwise, like I said, Al Gore would have been president). Go ahead and lie to yourself about your 'freedom' which in fact it is only 'license.' You can bow to your 'authority' that grants you 'privileges' and entertain ideas for 'population control', 'weather control,' 'social control.' You merely have become an unwitting but ever so eager drone acting in collusion with those that work tirelessly to 'rule the world,' ah yes, but in the name of democracy.

If a single ideology is ever to dominate the world, let it be that humankind have inalienable rights that no man, no 'majority,' no government officer can ever take away. Why can't that be our 'global' creed?

Sooner or later, some country is going to want to withdraw from this new world order under the banking clans -- and watch how all the rest of the slave states will treat them for the audacity. They will quote from the Book of Waffler, no doubt.

Archer, excellent !

A little different spin on law vs opinion; if 100% of the people were to opine the same public sentiment, even by way of legislation, that being contrary to the law of gravity, fiscal law, etc., the law would demonstrate its greater ability every time. The de jure USA was to be a natural law representative republic - a government of law, as is averse to a government of men with their sentiments and opinions.

In governments of men, such as a democracy (a legal positivist state), man declares himself as a god (collectivist or otherwise). When such government gods then legislate law by opinion or public sentiment, natural law or the law of nature and of natures God will demonstrate its absolute greater abilities every time. Public sentiment will always fail unless it is in harmony with natural law. He who molds opinions in a democracy or other government of men may ultimately be greater than the carnal gods that vain claim law creation but, will never be greater than the law.

For Waffler and his friends; a democratic process does not make a Democracy. Two (2) totally distinct nomenclatures, describing two (2) absolutely different things. Though a democratic process is usually used in a Democracy, a Democracy does not limit the other forms of expression where a democratic process is used. Natural law is description of the things the way they are (if an apple falls from a tree, it is described by the law of gravity; if more is borrowed than can be paid back, the fiscal law bankruptcy describes the event) For man's administrations of law, he is limited to life, liberty, and property. By way of example "Thou shalt not kill" - the law is to broad for man's purposes so he delineates the order there of through codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc - 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc. Or "Thou shalt not steal - grand theft, petty larceny, etc. In a representative republic of individual sovereigns (as was the de jure USA), the sovereign's servants can do nothing that he can not do personally. The sovereign may use democratic process to select a method of administering the law but, the law exists totally independent of the individual sovereign. At natural law, the term 'law enforcement' is an oxymoron (who can enforce gravity, etc.), only tyranny and despotism can be enforced. In a democracy, there are no individual sovereigns and the collective, as god has perceived ability to create law. Tyranny to a democracy is individual freedom. A democracy by definition is a police state with carnal god law enforcement officers.

E archer, to answer your question, Yes, Waffler is nuts.

Jay Henden, I agree with your comments on Lincoln. A great book on Lincoln is "Lincoln Uber Alles," meaning Lincoln over all. The so-called Great Emancipator" only freed the slaves in the states wanting to seceed. If you lived up North and happened to side with the South, you were headed to a long stretch in prison, thanks to Lincoln's martial law edicts. Licoln was a big government tyrant.

Waffler closely followed the admonition of his god Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Even in the face of facts, evidence, examples, and truth, Waffler likes to spin the sentiment and opinion of his collectivist gods as law.

Even if the public agrees to spending like drunken sailors (apology to sailors) with money we do not have, we will not succeed in spending our way out of debt.

The aim of emancipation was to make "all men free". I don't know if you jerk-offs realized that...what's SO sad that it took Canadians to to help free your slaves and the Southern States should be ashamed of making an issue of freedom equateing slave ownership.

Now it's guns - and guess what? You are going to lose there too...jackasses.

And Hanson ignores the fact that slaves were also held in Canada. That Ukranians were interned and used as slave labor to build Banff National park That the people who brought slavery to the Americas were the English and that they held blacks and natives in contempt. Such noble beginnings eh Hanson? You really like to look down your long ignorant nose at things and feel all smug and superior...when in fact all you do is confirm how completely, "incomplete" your education really is. Gun rights will win out in the US. No one's got the ball's to go door to door collecting them.

Waffler is the proverbial "Man in the Round house" "ever learning but never able to come to the acknowledgement of the Truth." Unawares brought in to " Spy out our Liberty." Chews upon meat to no profit." " Give place, No not for one hour. He is fed with milk and hangs to the tit of ignorance."Avoid foolish and unlearned questions, for they gender strife." " This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is Subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
Titus 3:8,9,10,11. KJB. There is a purity for those who embrace, Believe On/In with their whole heart, our types of Liberty and Freedom. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15.
When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee. Semper FI