153 votes

Congressman Tells Conservative Activists That Fighting For The Constitution Is A Losing Battle, Gets Blasted

This is the best video that I have seen in a while...



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

is there anywhere I can get

is there anywhere I can get this whole discussion in it's entirety?

Absolutely - I'd love to see the whole




didn't watch until the end... good vid...

but if you want a real view of the topic, this is the best video:


People will re-elect these oath breakers.

Many will vote for a proven liar and a genocidal maniac for president.

Makes no difference, the electronic voting machines are already set to elect the pre-chosen few.

Free includes debt-free!

And Article V with Preparatory Amendment

ends that situation, VERY Constitutionally. Here is a .pdf summary.


Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

No such informed group exists,

Even Ron Paul has not been able to push his Audit the Fed Bill though the Senate. Our creditors don't want to be audited. They can provide one-stop financing for your campaign.

We can't even get together and send the incumbents packing this November.

When the people are debt free, we can set the terms of government. As long as we have creditors though the action of government our creditors call the shots.

The role of government is to borrow and spend. In 1835 each person on the Federal Census owed 1/400 of an ounce of gold for the national debt.

Today each person owes over 25 ounces of gold for their share of the national debt.

We have term limits, but it is to much effort to get informed.

Free includes debt-free!

Anyone else get...

...slightly aroused watching that video?

I think I'm in love!

Good to see people acknowledging that we are slaves.

Now, how about some serious talk of states seceding ? They are closing the loop around us and I think it is going to get ugly. AR II.

Consider yourself lucky, sir...

Once upon a time, government officials who downplayed, violated or threatened to violate the constitution were hanged high at the noose in town square. And here you are with a straight face saying that it is a losing effort to fight for the constitution. Not considering the fact that you placed your hand on a religious book and rose your other hand to swear an oath to uphold the constitution..... Yeeeeeaaaah....

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." - Thomas Paine

(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ (╯°□°)╯┻━┻ "RON PAUL 2012 DAMNIT!"

Absolutely.. can tell how much he believes in his oath

He SWORE to uphold the constitution... unreal. What is the definition of treason? As our founding fathers warned us, our enemies would be within... here is one one of them for sure.



I would give him an advice of "a plan how to go back" to the constitution - go and persuade other guys in the Congress with simmilar opinions to resign from your offices there.


!!!!!!!Those ladies are brillant!!!!!!

disappointing BUTT head

BUT BUT BUT. Lip service from this traitor is exactly why we are in this mess. Follow the Constitution BUTT HEAD, you swore an oath jackass. All excuses, nothing BUT excuses. BUTT HEAD. Thank you ladies for putting this traitor in his place.

dave anderson

he's a pretty typical

he's a pretty typical American pragmatist. Yea the constitution and the rule of law are good..until they get in the way of us doing stuff that an opinion poll says we all want.

Americans deserve a police state.


he should understand he is actually bound by the constitution by the oath he has taken and that to develop "a plan how to come back to it" is rather for him to go and finally read it.

He said "Folks, be careful

He said "Folks, be careful what you tread here, because if all you're going to do here is stand just for the constitution and nothing less, you will lose. We have to have a constitution, but a plan to get back to it."

He is right that we will lose. The vast majority of people are incapable of critical thinking and easily manipulated by their emotions. But this includes Tea Partiers and supporters of Ron Paul like myself.

What he said was taken to mean something other than what he *might* have meant. He even tries to interject with "that's not what I meant", but nobody bothered to listen to what he might have to say. They just took it, ran with it, and didn't bother to absolutely confirm their perception of his statement. So their reaction appears to me as being entirely emotional and they only use logic to justify their emotions rather than to confirm them.

That may have been his whole point, and their emotional reaction would then prove that the problem goes much further than he realized. I'm not saying that emotions are not useful, but they do need to match up with the known facts. Jesus said "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement". But again, I haven't seen the whole video. I'm just saying, let's not judge by appearance. Just going by the video clip, I believe he needs to be allowed to explain his thought more thoroughly before anyone judges him.

This point is well made, but

This point is well made, but not explained. I will do that.

Resurrection wrote:
"Folks, be careful what you tread here, because if all you're going to do here is stand just for the constitution and nothing less, you will lose. We have to have a constitution, but a plan to get back to it."

The only way to defend the constitution is with Article V at this point.

The people cannot do that unless they are the "masters of the congress and the courts" as Lincoln described us.

People can do critical thinking, but they have no information and have been intentionally divided by media corporations. Free speech is abridged.

We become the masters by knowing and agreeing upon constitutional intent, required for Article V. With free speech abridged, we have a serious challenge.

We may have to educate our soldiers on how to defend the constitution from a domestic enemy just to get free speech back so we can be the masters.


Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Except if the people of the

Except if the people of the nation are easily manipulated through emotion, no matter what method you use things could very easily lead to violence. To be clear, I'm not saying that the manipulation would be conscious and purposeful. It just seems to me to be a fallen state of mind. In any case, this could explain his "be careful what you tread" caution.

Hell, we've gotten ourselves into how many unnecessary wars over false arguments based on nothing but an emotion covered by a thin veneer of reason? Those reasons are based on logical fallacies, which are false arguments a.k.a. assumptions taken as fact without irrefutable evidence. Politicians often tell one group of people whatever they want to hear, and then tell other people something else entirely, and the majority of them seem to just choose whatever doesn't harm their preconceived notions of said politician. Logical fallacies are an easy way to separate oneself from reality.

I think we vastly overestimate our nations current ability to think critically in all instances. I'm the type of person who will calmly, rationally, and publicly stand up for reason when I see someone in the wrong. I've been threatened by overt violence on occasion, and probably implied violence on the rest. If the guy in this video is cautioning us about that, then I'm with him. When this guy said "We have to have a constitution, but a plan to get back to it" it is possible that the plan he was referring to was one that would focus on educating the public. I'd be with him on that. If his plan is to vote against his conscious in order to possibly gain influence, then I would *not* be with him. Which plan is he referring to, or is he referring to an unnamed plan? I don't know, but I need to see the rest of the video. Possibly more since the panel didn't give him a chance to explain what he *necessarily* meant.

Yes, emotional reasoning

is very often employed and now the public thinks such reasoning is normal and okay.

Here is what is interesting.

Human beings defining constitutional intent in ways that makes them the "masters of congress and the courts" is also emotional reasoning. The very best emotions however.

Constitutional intent is natural law. Natural law is our instinct. Emotions are instinctual.

Since we do not have free speech, we do not know the kind of communication that evokes positive speech which is also emotional. Positive speech that is emotional creates unity.

That is why free speech is abridged, so we do not use it to create unity and oppose the infiltrations of government.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I don't much understand

how one defends the US Constitution with the Art. V which is about the Amendment procedure. Would you like to somehow defend the constitution by changing it?
I would rather defend it with Art. VI 2nd and 3rd clause - which is about the supreme law of the land and binding US Congress, State legislators and both federal and state judges by it.
To me "a plan to get back" to the constitution looks rather trivial - go, read it, understand what is written there, assert it is the supreme law of the land still in the legal power which is binding to all federal and state legislators and judges under oaths as well as the US President and demand the people breaking the oaths to be removed from the office and/or do it next election.
I would also think the right to free speech is still there and the pathetic attempts to abridge it cannot much stop you to exercise the right in the internet 2.0 media age.
I would think the rights should be asserted otherwise they practically don't exist.


tumetuestumefai... wrote:
"how one defends the US Constitution with the Art. V which is about the Amendment procedure. Would you like to somehow defend the constitution by changing it?

We are faced with a dilema of unconstitutional, unlawful government. Art. V1 depends on lawful government.

The offical convening of Article V does as well. Currently the congress is violating their oath, US criminal law and the constitution by no calling a convention. In 1911, 31 of 46 states had applied for a convention. Congress failed. A man namde BIll Walker sued congress in 200 7 and learned a little more.


Based on that, man named John Guise made a criminal complaint to the Attorney General who turned it over to the criminal division for preosecution.


Clearly, what I know is an infiltration of government does not want an Article V convention. There is a reason.

As the congressman says, "if all you stand of is the constitution, you will lose." What need to happen is an Article V that has constitutional intent.

That, most often, comes only from the people. How constitutional intent is defined is by the people through free speech. Since free speech is abridged, to be constitutional, the abridging must end. When it ends, THEN the people will have the truth. With that, they will see how far America is from being constitutional and how it got there. At that point the people can define Constitutional intent and use it to test all politiicans and properly impeach all who refuse it or do not know it.

Accordingly, defense of the constitution is by first ending the abridgment of free speech, then ending unlimited corporate campaign finance and secure the vote. I have .pdf that can be downloaded which sumarizes how preparation for Article V creates an environment where the people can demand that government act with constitutional intent, and the people know, at that point, what constitutional intent is.


IF that method is used without success, then the soldiers, who are of the people, must purify their command and assure that it is a lawful military authority by first assuring that the civil government is fully constitutional. Citizens can work in their civil courts with soldiers defending the constitution with the law of the land.

Only a constitutional civil government can bestow lawfulness upon our military.


Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I am so proud of these women

The congressman is a traitor. He is part of the problem.

Deo Vindice.

I'm skeptical of these women....

I divide 90% of the population into those who honestly declare their contempt for the Constitution, and those who claim to care for it, but don't.

On other forums, many claim to support the Constitution, but when you try to pin them down, they're pretty weak. Like you ask why they support aid for Israel and they find some treaty line in the Constitution, or claim our current wars were declared by congress, or whatever. Seems the Constitution is like the Bible - you can find a word somewhere to justify your actions.

Just for fun I handed out a survey at a tea party rally a few years ago, and found most weren't even for eliminating the Dept of Education. No excuse for that.

The problem with the Constitution is it lacks an introduction that explains clearly the intent of it all - to limit government. It should explain that in any argument over constitutionality, the deciding factor should be whether government will grow or shrink.

It should also include a voter study guide to know it's intent, just as you get at the DMV for your driver's license. And candidates also should have to pass the test.

It is less important to understand the details of the Constitution, than its intent. People need to understand why government needs to be restrained, and what happens if it isn't. Explain all the tricks it uses to take advantage of us.

Of course "It" is us. We created it and let it grow.

djinwa wrote: "The problem

djinwa wrote:
"The problem with the Constitution is it lacks an introduction that explains clearly the intent of it all - to limit government."

It's introduction providing it's premise in principle is found in the Declaration of Independence.
But I agree, there should be a clear statement at the beginning.
Yes, governments had been oppressive, so it's intent was that it should serve in a limited capacity always controlled by principles of the republic or democratic majority.

The states can enforce the Constitution, and the people are the masters of the congress and the courts as Lincoln said, but the people are faced with an inability to efffectively communicate. Free speech is abridged.

Observe, we are trying here, but your point is only addressed by one poster and the forum will be filled with more issues that are not empowering to our enforcement through our states or how to get the job done.

djinwa wrote:
"It is less important to understand the details of the Constitution, than its intent."

Well said! In fact, only by defining and agreeing upon its intent can we be the masters of the congress and the courts.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

the primary intent of the original US Constitution framers

was wider than only limit the govt. power. We can read in its Preamble: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". When we read further then the practical intent appears as to institute the federal government, enumerate it's powers and checks&balances.
The limiting of the government power is rather the role of the US Constitution's later Amendments - especially in the Bill of Rights and in my opinion it is the 9th Amendment which is the most important one in the regard to limiting power and it is possible to document it was enacted with the intent to limit constructive enlargements of the federal government power (i.e. using judicial legislative activism) on the expenses of the people's rights. (see: http://constitution.org/9ll/schol/kurt_lash_lost_9th.pdf and the not widely known official 9th Amendment title: "Reserved rights of the States and the people" see: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt)
In my opinion the James Madison's 9th Amendment is one of the strongest rights protective statute ever enacted into law, worldwide - and it was apparently the most discussed from whole the Bill of Rights which delayed its ratification more than 2 years and it is sad that since then it is perhaps the most unheeded article in the US Constitution - for very obvious reason: it is very unfavorable to government desire for unlimited power so they notoriously pretend it has other meaning than it really has and/or try to downplay it.
What is it the "rights"?
"The rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement."
There are two types of rights:
legal rights - the rights recognized by law or judicial opinion
natural rights - the rights which are universal and unalienable even if they aren't recognized by law (some of such basic rights are nevertheless recognized and enumerated in the organic law of the USA called The Declaration of Independence)
Note that the 9th Amendment protects both this categories of people's rights without distinction.
When we go back to the preamble of the US Constitution we find there the Constitution's intent to "establish Justice".
What is the justice in general?
"Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity."
The main role or purpose of justice is the (neverending) quest to discover, promote and protect rights.
For instant example how it is related to limiting government's power: even if the federal government has a power enumerated in the US Constitution the use of such power is limited to cases where the government has the right to use it - and the government in any case has not the right to construe its right to use its power to deny or disparage the rights of the people, because such construction of government's right to use the power is prohibited by 9th Amendment - to anybody and especially to the judges which are bound by the US Constitution due to its Art. VI second clause and their oath to support it taken under the same Art. VI third clause.

Excellent post-Thanks!

Very constitutional break down of the Ninth Amendment. Much unused as you say.

I used it in an answer to an "Order to Show Cause", (jurisdictional question) in federal court. The judge immediately withdrew the OSC.

There is a huge discussion on Constitutional intent that is immediately confronted, in any case, whenever using the ninth.

Thanks again!

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I think the 9th Amendment should be used more often

for example in the Obamacare case it was never asserted or even mentioned although the question of (un)constitutionality of the individual mandate penalty is a quite typical 9th Amendment case - because the government and especially the Supreme Court is prohibited by the 9th Amendment to make legal constructions of govt. rights disparaging or denying people's rights - in this case the right to not be bound by a contract coerced by a penalty or "tax" - the govt. with SCOTUS now call it in direct contradicition to the original letter of the statute - in quest to find whatever dubious way how to uphold the statute commissioned by the Obama tax terrorist administration.
The prohibition and voidability of a coerced contract is quite a ius cogens of the contractual law - the dissenters in the SCOTUS opinion even mention it - on international law level it even can nullify such a contract (art. 51 of Vienna Convention), and the right to not be coerced into concluding a contract is a typical natural right derived from the unalienable right to liberty (here to conclude only contracts one wittingly and voluntarily wants to conclude - which again the disenters mention) which is notabene recognized by the organic law of the USA and which the penalty clearly alienates.
So I really wonder why nobody at the side of the plaintiffs, some of them maybe liking to cry "Liberty", not even tryied to use the 9th Amendment argument or why they then wonder and are disappointed (unfortunately not dis-appointed from their jobs) when the SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate penalty (while more absurdly strucking down the penalty for states for not participating in the Obamacare ponzi schemes) - when they weren't able for all that money it costed this on the side of the numerous plaintiffs (25 States) protect the peoples rights in the first place and make their case based on something solid - although arguably rarely used and very often misinterpreted.
Nemo iudex sine actore and there are no rights which aren't asserted.

Consider the opposition was going through the motions

and not really using all that it had for opposition intentionally, yes that job thing. Or a feature of a very subtle infiltration.

Wherein it all becomes a test of the dumbing down, and symbolic opportunity of aquiessence or abandonment just like you say international law see's it.

Again thanks!

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

if this was really a test

of how the dumbing down of the Americans works, it was quite a successfull test run..
Fortunately only the one unfortunate case is lost - anybody can invoke the 9th Amendment again (or more exactly for the first time), because nothing was judicated by the SCOTUS about that - i.e. in the cases where the IRS would want to enforce the penalty. The whole thing can be retried from the local courts all the way back to the federal Supreme Court. But it would need a class action because the people unable to even purchase a health insurance and likely subjected to the penalty hardly can have resources to be the successful defendants in an individual case. Well, the advice of the mayhem of the so called distributed class action of the numerous costly cases all over the country converging to the last instance would likely be the right answer to the tax terrorists - the feds in the state bankruptcy situation likely would not have sufficient allocable resources to defeat it.