Joe Meglen

Joe Meglen 1 month, 4 weeks ago on Sam Jones: Facts about URA elusive

Eric,

Borrowing a phrase from Mark H.: you are absolutely correct. It is obvious that the cause of the 2008 financial/economic collapse is not understood, and is now ancient history for most.

0

Joe Meglen 3 months ago on Dave Peregoy: Historical atrocities

The Military Industrial Complex has become so colossal that it is now woven into the economic fabric of the country. The War Industry; including defense contractors, TBTF banks, NASA and Big Oil consumes the lion’s share of the federal budget. This massive war machine, along with the bureaucracy it spawns, needs constant wars to survive and thrive. The “War on Terror” provides a "convenient" opportunity for perpetual war. War is profitable.

0

Joe Meglen 4 months ago on Joe Meglen: Lincoln’s birthday

The facts cited in the article depart considerably from the Gospel of the Establishment Court Historians. For those with an interest, the sources listed below substantiating these facts and uncomfortable truths are but a few of dozens available on the subject:

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War – a scholarly work meticulously researched and documented by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. This is a must read book for every American.

The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789—1989. An Analysis Of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession by James Ostrowski

Forced Into Glory by Lerone Bennett Jr. Johnson Publishing Company, 2000 ISBN 0-87485-085-1

Merchant of Terror General Sherman and Total War January 1, 1973 by John B. Walters.

War Crimes Against Southern Civilians – April 30, 2007 by Walter Brian Cisco - Pelican, Gretna, Louisiana, 2007

Williams, Walter. “Abraham Lincoln”, creators.com.http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/abraham-lincoln.html

0

Joe Meglen 5 months, 3 weeks ago on Colby Townsend: Deciding to shop local

Lower the sales tax rate and locals will buy locally. This is better for the merchants and local residents alike. Doing so will result in increased sales that are less seasonal. According to the Laffer Curve this is likely to produce equal or greater tax revenue to the City. If not, eliminate non essential City departments. There are several to choose from.

0

Joe Meglen 7 months ago on District Attorney’s Office investigation into irregular transactions ongoing

Brita,

GREAT WORK on discovering the "Irregular Transactions" at the Treasurer's office. The timing of the article in the PILOT is excellent. Too bad it wasn't published a week earlier.

I want to be the first to congratulate you on your win November 4th.

0

Joe Meglen 7 months ago on David Ihde: 27 amendments

David,

A great letter backed by facts. Mr. Farquhar “may” think twice before posting another letter (rant) supported only by his world view and belief system.

0

Joe Meglen 7 months, 1 week ago on Brodie Farquhar: History check

Chris,

I am traveling with limited access to the Internet. This is posted on both threads to make sure you see it. In respose to your questions for me:

Again, voting regulations were not established by the Constitution. This was left up to the states. If you are asking for my opinion, then there is an argument to only allow property owners, and/or those that earn an income, to vote in order to prevent confiscation of property via mob rule democracy. Of course this ship sailed years ago.

The amendment process is obviously constitutional for this is codified in the Constitution. There is a difference between unalienable rights and “legal” rights.

The Bill Of Rights is a list of Natural Rights which free people are born with. These rights are unalienable. They are not subject to being repealed by constitutional amendment. The whole point of the Constitution is to acknowledge these individual rights and establish a strictly limited federal government that has the primary purpose of protecting individual liberty. Government lacks the jurisdiction to remove these rights via legislation or constitutional amendment. Unalienable rights existed before the Constitution and they will exist long after the Constitution is gone.

You are mistaken when you state that of the 33 Amendments:”you are required as a citizen to respect each and every one of them.” You are suggesting that citizens submit and obey no matter how unjust the Amendment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the states, and ultimately the people, to understand the actual meaning of the Constitution. This is not complicated when it is interpreted as written which was the Founder’s original intent. Statists would have you think otherwise. The federal government is the employee of the states. Unconstitutional laws may be nullified via the 10th Amendment. Constitutional amendments that a breach the original intent can be ignored and preferably repealed. Two possible candidates would be the 16th and 17th Amendments for these are in conflict with the intent of the Constitution. This is all part of the checks and balances. Of course holding the leviathan in check requires informed moral citizens that elect principled representatives that honor their oath of office.

0

Joe Meglen 7 months, 1 week ago on Joe Meglen: Is Constitution relevant?

Chris,

I am traveling with limited access to the Internet. If you are still following this thread, in response to your questions:

Again, voting regulations were not established by the Constitution. This was left up to the states. If you are asking for my opinion, then there is an argument to only allow property owners, and/or those that earn an income, to vote in order to prevent confiscation of property via mob rule democracy. Of course this ship sailed years ago.

The amendment process is obviously constitutional for this is codified in the Constitution. There is a difference between unalienable rights and “legal” rights.

The Bill Of Rights is a list of Natural Rights which free people are born with. These rights are unalienable. They are not subject to being repealed by constitutional amendment. The whole point of the Constitution is to acknowledge these individual rights and establish a strictly limited federal government that has the primary purpose of protecting individual liberty. Government lacks the jurisdiction to remove these rights via legislation or constitutional amendment. Unalienable rights existed before the Constitution and they will exist long after the Constitution is gone.

You are mistaken when you state that of the 33 Amendments:”you are required as a citizen to respect each and every one of them.” You are suggesting that citizens submit and obey no matter how unjust the Amendment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the states, and ultimately the people, to understand the actual meaning of the Constitution. This is not complicated when it is interpreted as written which was the Founder’s original intent. Statists would have you think otherwise. The federal government is the employee of the states. Unconstitutional laws may be nullified via the 10th Amendment. Constitutional amendments that a breach the original intent can be ignored and preferably repealed. Two possible candidates would be the 16th and 17th Amendments for these are in conflict with the intent of the Constitution. This is all part of the checks and balances. Of course holding the leviathan in check requires informed moral citizens that elect principled representatives that honor their oath of office.

0

Joe Meglen 7 months, 1 week ago on Brodie Farquhar: History check

Travel makes this post less than timely but still appropriate.

Mr. Farquhar, Your letter starts with, and is, an ad hominem attack. You lost any credibility you "may" have had after your first sentence.

0

Prev