0 votes

Are you a Patriot, take the quiz ?

I made this little quiz tonight for fun...
http://www.gotoquiz.com/are_you_are_american_patriot



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

100%

That was fun. Now who is monitoring it and are they going to come and take me away?

Healthnut4freedom

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6

Healthnut4freedom

The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22

85%

Razorwind Studios is an official endorser of Ron Paul, and we will live free or die! 14th alternate to MN state!
------------------------------------------------------
I messed up the questions for the number of supreme court justices, the original 13 states, and who said "Give me liberty or give me death"

85%

Razorwind Studios is an official endorser of Ron Paul, and we will live free or die! 14th alternate to MN state!
------------------------------------------------------
I messed up the questions for the number of supreme court justices, the original 13 states, and who said "Give me liberty or give me death"

85%

Razorwind Studios is an official endorser of Ron Paul, and we will live free or die! 14th alternate to MN state!
------------------------------------------------------
I messed up the questions for the number of supreme court justices, the original 13 states, and who said "Give me liberty or give me death"

Got 100%

On your quiz, now I feel much better!

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Try the citizenship test

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I only got 90%, guess I need to work on my civics.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

90%

The totally irrelevant one about the form and the date of the constitution. That one was tricky because I am listening to John Adams, the book. It does say that it was ratified in 1787 but I thought they also did it in 1776. Was that the Articles of Confederation and I am mixed up?

Healthnut4freedom

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6

Healthnut4freedom

The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22

Dates...

Declaration of Independence - 1776
Articles of Confederation - agreed to 1777; ratified 1781
Constitution - 1787
Bill of Rights - 1791

95%

Missed the one about which form is needed to apply for naturalization...

yeesh

I only got an 75% I love question 18 tho

18.Who has the right to declare war?

Congress

The president

Chief justice of the Supreme Court

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Funny I don't remember congress voting to go to war...Humm.

We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?

Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/

Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Me too- but we still know more

than the average public school educated citizen.

Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

100%

A little simple, but i enjoyed it :) If you really want to test yourself, take the online test to apply for citizenship in the US, its what people are supposed to take when they want to enter our country. It's not hard for a real patriot, but i've seen more than a few Americans who thought they knew their stuff do very poorly and were shocked by it. I'll look for the link if i can find it i'll post.

~I will never again accept the lesser of two evils.~

~I will never again accept the lesser of two evils.~

You are right on the Citizenship Quiz

I took that one also and missed more than I want to admit. :o(
But the good thing it did make me want to brush up and learn more.

This one I purposely made was easy ..I wanted some of the answers to be obvious and make people think about the debt, giving up our liberties
and that we are a republic and not a democracy.

oops, not rubbing in, really! :-D

double

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

sorry....gotta brag! ....

You are 100% American Patriot !
Great Job !! Now don't horde your knowledge and get out there and wake up the masses. Having them watch Freedom to Fascism on google video would be a good start.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

Kick a$$!! 92% Patriot!

Kick a$$!! 92% Patriot! :-)

I wish it showed you which answers you got wrong ... or maybe it does and I just completely missed it ... lol

: )~

You are 85% American Patriot !

Great Job !! Now don't horde your knowledge and get out there and wake up the masses. Having them watch Freedom to Fascism on google video would be a good start.

15% to go...

**************************************************************

83%

because I chose "I didn't know they represented me" for the question about how many times do you contact your congressman. (I still think I'm right and that I gave the patriotic answer)

And I said the Fed was in the phone book under government. (they ARE the government and should be listed thusly) =P

83% American Patriot.

Says I should google freedom to facsim which I have already seen.

I must be slipping.

We can all say what needs to be done, but who here led by example today?

Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/

Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/

nitpick

Fortune Favors the Bold

some of the questions are slightly inaccurate...

Fortune Favors the Bold

Please share which ones are inaccurate...

I know the national debt may be off as it climbs everyday...LOL

ok

Fortune Favors the Bold

the patriot act itself did not eliminate habeas corpus. Rather, it was the delegation of the authority to determine the status of enemy combatant to the executive branch which applied the definitions of the Patriot Act to US citizens with no check on the executive's power that theoretically eliminates habeas corpus. This was tested in the case of Jose Padilla.

[edit] Habeas corpus
Because Padilla was being detained without any criminal charges being formally made against him, he, through his lawyer, made a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the respondent to this petition. The government filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that:

Padilla's lawyer was not a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the petition on Padilla's behalf;
Commander Marr of the South Carolina brig, and not U.S. Secretary Rumsfeld, should have been named as the respondent to the petition; and
the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named respondent Secretary Rumsfeld who resides in Virginia.
The New York District Court disagreed with the government's arguments and dismissed its motion. However, the court further declared that President Bush had constitutional and statutory authority to designate and detain American citizens as "enemy combatants" and that Padilla was entitled to challenge his "enemy combatant" designation and detention in the course of his habeas corpus petition. Since the New York District Court had in some way disappointed all sides of this legal battle, both Padilla and the government made an interlocutory appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On December 18, 2003, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that:

Padilla's lawyer is a proper "Next Friend" to sign and file the habeas corpus petition on Padilla's behalf because she, as a member of the bar, had a professional duty to defend her client's interests. Further, she had a significant attorney-client relationship with Padilla and was far from being some zealous "intruder" or "uninvited meddler";
Secretary Rumsfeld can be named as the respondent to Padilla's habeas corpus petition, even though it is South Carolina's Commander Marr who had immediate physical custody of Padilla, because there have been past cases where national-level officials have been named as respondents to such petitions;
the New York District Court had personal jurisdiction over Secretary Rumsfeld even though Rumsfeld resides in Virginia and not New York because New York's "long arm statute" is applicable to Secretary Rumsfeld, who was responsible for Padilla's physical transfer from New York to South Carolina; and
despite the legal precedent set by Ex parte Quirin, "the President lacked inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat". The 2nd Circuit Court relied on the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), where the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that President Truman, during the Korean War years, could not use his position and power as Commander-in-Chief, created under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, to seize the nation's steel mills on the eve of a nation-wide steelworkers' strike. The extraordinary government power to curb civil rights and liberties during crisis periods, such as times of war, lies with Congress and not the President. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the President, with the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus during a period of rebellion or invasion.
Declaring without clear Congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)), President Bush cannot detain an American citizen as an "illegal enemy combatant" the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days[15]. However, the court had stayed the release order pending the government's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[edit] U.S. Supreme Court
On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal. The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28, 2004, the court dismissed the petition on technical grounds because:

It was improperly filed in federal court in New York instead of South Carolina, where Padilla was actually being detained; and
the Court held that the petition was incorrect in naming the Secretary of Defense as the respondent instead of the Commanding Officer of the naval brig who was Padilla's actual custodian for habeas corpus purposes.

The case was refiled and a decision in Padilla's favor was issued in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. On June 13, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the government's petition to have his case heard directly by the court, instead of the appeal being first heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi. Attorneys for Padilla, plus a host of civil liberties organizations, argued that the detention was illegal. They said it could lead to the military holding anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library. The Bush Administration denied the allegations.

But as the Congressional military authorization (the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) pertained only to nations, organizations or persons whom the President "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11, 2001 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons", others argue that this kind of Congressional limitation to the military power would assure an appropriately narrow range of detainees and the power to detain would last only so long as the Congressional authorization was not revoked or remained in effect by its terms. Also the Yaser Hamdi Supreme Court case (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) upon which the court relied requires a habeas corpus hearing for any alleged enemy combatant who demands one, claiming not to be such a combatant, which would also place additional judicial or perhaps military tribunal oversight over each such detention.

However, one of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 enacted on October 17, 2006, states:

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding any other law [emphasis added] (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

The Military Commission Act of 2006 does not apply by its terms to José Padilla, since he is a U.S. citizen. Other provisions of the Military Commission Act of 2006 may provide civil and criminal amnesty to those involved in his case, who might otherwise face civil right lawsuits or criminal liability for unlawfully detaining someone.

In other words, the Congressional military authorization, (not a declaration of war) is actually what modifies habeas corpus, according to the administration's logic.

The thing with the Padilla case, and this is a critical point, is that he was able to get access to a lawyer to file a writ of habeas corpus. Under the enemy combatant definition (and this is why the custodian issue is so crucial) their is no right to lawyer representation, so while in theory the right to file a writ of habeas corpus exists, there is no legally protected way to actually do it.

Picture this. You are declared an enemy combatant. You are detained. You speak to the guard.

"I demand the right to trial by jury!"
Guard: You have the right to demand that.
You: Then let me contact a court immediately
Guard: You don't have the right to do that.
You: Then let me talk to someone who does have that right.
Guard: You don't have that right either.

On another issue, the government doesn't pay interest to the Federal reserve directly. Rather, the government receives money from the federal reserve. The FED then sells a bond which it sells to raise the money. This bond collects interest. Therefore, the interest is actually being payed to the bond holders, not the FED directly. (This is actually much worse if you think about it.)

Fortune Favors the Bold

another nitpick

"We our given our rights by the Government via the Constitution" would make more sense if it said "We are (not our) given our rights by..."

--------------------------------
"the only thing that keeps the banking system from failing is general ignorance about how the banking system works."
----------------------------

It was typo and they do not allow you to edit it

after you submit the quiz..I made it at 4:00 AM...my first mistake.

Bump

Thanks Candace Bump

Great Quiz...

100%

I scored 100%

Do I get a prize? Like a constitutional republic maybe?

Wouldn't it be nice if

the majority of the people got 100%..then that might be our prize :)

I scored 100% too...

Now to encourage friends and family to see Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism"--Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15