Sovereign Citizens As our Founding Father's intended!

Hello Paschen

I can agree that the Founding Fathers would have written some aspect of the constitution better, but the overwhelming general them would have remained the same, Sovereignty of the Citizens and the existance of inalienable rights of the individual. I think they did a pretty good job, in allowing the constitution to survive more than 200 yars.

I am against one "One World Government" in part for your arguement, that more than one, not wrong answer/solution to a question/problem can exist.  With many Governments and Countries, multiple "not wrong" answers/solutions can be tried. And the obviously superior answer.solution will emerge and can be adopted by the other countries if the difference in outsome, merits the cost of changeing.

Thank you for your comments.

Repsectfully,

Don Mashak

The Cynical Patriot

Hello Babel Fish

Sometimes we don't realize that people do not share our perspective.  To wit, I erred in not clarifying that I meant the "people" as individuals were the sovereigns in terms of power, not that they should recieve the same pomp and circumstances as kings and queens.  Mia Culpa.

I am sorry you feel that the Founding Father's were just Merchants.

No, they were men of principle. Many, like Washington, were already made men.  They would have lived lives of relative ease and respect if they remained loyal to the British Crown. They risked their families and fortunes on principle. However, they placed their concerns for their fellow man and differentiation of right from wrong over their own personal comfort.  It would have been far easier to "go along, to get along." Not only did they forego a more easy and certain future, they risked personal death and subject their loved ones to treatment as "Spoils of War" should they have lost. So i must disagree that they were just merchants motivated by greed.

Part of the problem with America now is that too many people are willing to "go along, to get along".  Instead of standing up to injustice, they go along to get along to be rewarded the security and certainty that appeasement brings.   Ben Franklin said, "They who would trade liberty for security, soon have niether and deserve none"  To my fellow American Sovereign Citizens I say, "What say you?" Will you go along to get along until you have no liberty left?  Will you go along to get along until all hope of success in holding our politicians accountable and no hope of restoring our liberties?

Next, I will agree that at times in her history, America was built on greed when the citizenry was unwilling or unable to resist the power of the greedy elites.  It was not foreseeable to the Founding Father's that the Public Media would sell out to Corporate and Government Greed and Propaganda.  In there defense, Thomas Jefferson pondered the likelihood that revolution would break out every 20 years or so, to correct the excesses of the powers to be, when such correction was not possible within the framework of the constitution. 

But i think the internet has leveled the playing feild in the battle for the minds of America.  The common man is organizing to hold the poliiticians accountable and to end "government by the highest bidder".

In closing, I refuse to yeild to your proposition that elitist greed will continue to run America into perpetuity.  I am not prepared to abandon all hope to despair just yet.

Thank you for your comments.

Respectfully,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

The problem with carte-blanche cynicism as reflected in this commment is, as usual, the baby gets tossed out with the bath water.

To ignore the profoundly humanistic gist of the American's attempt at democracy is to be blind to one of the most important developments/experiments in human history, or at least in the history of humans trying to govern themselves with some measure of justice and communal commitment, and it says more about the mindset of the post modern cynic than that of men like Jefferson, Franklin, et al. And dismissing them as mere 'merchants' is to completely underestimate the profound radicalism of what they proposed when speaking of concepts like citizen sovereignty, and miss entirely what they meant by 'pursuing happiness' ...