Do You Affirm?

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
npwebb's picture
npwebb
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 25 2009
Posts: 111
Do You Affirm?

Do You Affirm?

Dr. Martenson (and Forum Leadership),

In reference to your Happy Birthday Crash Course post, I would like to express my gratitude for one year of what most certainly has been a labor of love for you.  We have all been enriched as a result of your hard work and analysis and as such owe you a debt of gratitude.

As you have expressed a desire to “move forward” and have tasked yourself with the goal of taking practical action, you have right said that for every door you open two more are closed.

I respectfully and sincerely ask, “Do you affirm the individual rights guaranteed in the United States Bill of Rights now and in the future irrespective of social, civil, economic, environmental, and energy conditions?”

Do you affirm that these rights are an expression of a universal right shared by all people by nature of their humanity? 

Will you pledge yourself to promoting and defending these individual rights in whatever community or nation you are a member of now and in the future? 

Will you pledge your Life, your Fortune, and your sacred Honor to the promotion, preservation, and defense of individual rights? 

Quote:

 Article the third [Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth [Amendment III]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth [Amendment VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth [Amendment VIII]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

I don’t want to make any assumptions so I eagerly await your response.  I will consider a non-response to be equivalent to a response in the negative.

Moderator Jason's picture
Moderator Jason
Status: Moderator (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2008
Posts: 98
Re: Do You Affirm?

Hi npwebb!

It is not for me to tell you how to interpret any person's actions.  You are free to interpret responses and non-responses in any way that you choose.  But I should warn you that Chris doesn't always have the time to read and respond to every forum post, and users should not assume that because he doesn't respond to a post he is automatically agreeing with them, or alternately that he is "responding in the negative." 

Best,
Jason, moderator

npwebb's picture
npwebb
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 25 2009
Posts: 111
Re: Do You Affirm?
Moderator Jason wrote:

Hi npwebb!

It is not for me to tell you how to interpret any person's actions.  You are free to interpret responses and non-responses in any way that you choose.  But I should warn you that Chris doesn't always have the time to read and respond to every forum post, and users should not assume that because he doesn't respond to a post he is automatically agreeing with them, or alternately that he is "responding in the negative." 

Best,
Jason, moderator

Jason,

That is understood.  Would 30, 45, or 60 days be considered a reasonable amount of time?

I'd like Chris to answer in whatever manner he feels most comfortable - whether that be a simple answer or more nuanced one.

Understanding how "sticky" of an issue the 2nd Amendment is, I would respect any decision to defer that for another time or even a non-public venue.

I'm just looking for honesty and candor. 

As member of the forum leadership, I would also appreciate and value your response as well.

Respectfully,

NPWebb

Moderator Jason's picture
Moderator Jason
Status: Moderator (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2008
Posts: 98
Re: Do You Affirm?

Hi NPWebb,

All of the time-frames you mention are reasonable.  However I imagine the issue is not so much the time for reply, as it is a question of how much of each day's forum material Chris is able to read, much less respond to.  Each day there is tons of new material on the forums, and Chris spends the great bulk of his time researching and writing new material for the site.  Each spare hour is one hour that can be devoted to making the Reports a little bit better, and my understanding is that is how most of the spare hours get spent.  My observation is that Chris responds infrequently on the forums, especially where the issue does not directly relate to economic research.

For myself, as a moderator I have no official opinion on any subject beyond my moderation duties.  Privately, I don't believe it is inappropriate to mention that I am a citizen of the United States, I believe strongly in the value of the basic rights afforded to us by our ancestors, and that, with a view to sustaining and preserving those rights for future generations, it is my responsibility as a citizen to support and defend the rule of law in our towns, cities, and states, and the provisions of both our federal and state constitutions.

Best,
Jason, moderator

 

admin's picture
admin
Status: Administrator (Offline)
Joined: May 6 2007
Posts: 346
Re: Do You Affirm?

NPWebb,

In Jason's response to your original question, I think he slightly overstated Chris' involvement in the forums. 

The bulk of Chris' time is spent writing new content, focusing on future plans, and tending to questions from Enrolled Members (whether on Martenson Insider posts, Martenson Reports, or the Enrolled Member forums).

There is not enough time in the day to read all the content generated on the site.  The public forum is meant to be an open discussion space for members of the website community.  Chris does respond on occasion, but it is extremely rare, and has become even less often as of late.  In general, users should have the expectation that Chris will not respond to public forum discussions.

Certainly you have the right to ask any question you wish, but can I ask what your purpose is in asking the question?  Is this affirmation meant for you to decide if you wish to be a participant in the community?  Are you wanting to determine if Chris shares your values?  I'm just trying to better understand your ultimate goal.

Also I would ask if you have read the website's Site Posting Terms of Use document: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/forum-guidelines-and-rules/9545.  The reason I ask is I think there are several points in it which would be of relevance to your affirmation, and it also provides additional details on the purpose of the site.

As a general comment, I know I can safely say Chris fully believes in following the law and absolutely does not advocate breaking the law or suggesting others to do so.  I also think as US citizens, we all believe documents such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence are key parts of the framework which guides our country.

Ron

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Do You Affirm?

 

 npwebb: Are you, or have you ever been..

a). a forum troll ?

b) a self-appointed inquisitor ?

c) a waste of space ?

 I'd like a sworn oath by 9:42am tomorrow please..

 along with details of shoe size, blood type, and an md5 hash of the name of your favourite soup.

 

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Do You Affirm?
plato1965 wrote:

 

 npwebb: Are you, or have you ever been..

a). a forum troll ?

b) a self-appointed inquisitor ?

c) a waste of space ?

 I'd like a sworn oath by 9:42am tomorrow please..

 along with details of shoe size, blood type, and an md5 hash of the name of your favourite soup.

 

In keeping with the protocol modeled by the mod and admin, I'll answer for NPW.  Of course, he's had no time to discuss the matter with me, since he's a very busy fellow. 

NPW is no troll . . . In fact, he's one of the more thoughtful and sincere people I've met on this forum.  Inquisitor?  Yes . . . He tends to ask questions, when he thinks that someone's alliances or agenda are unclear.  Waste of space? . . . Absolutely not.  I've found that he doesn't waste words or space . . . Instead, he comes straight to the point, says what he has to say, and directly asks the questions that are on his mind.

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Do You Affirm?

 "and directly asks the questions that are on his mind."

 I don't think he does.. I think this topic is just another roundabout method for him to complain about his right to discuss what he likes,

where he likes... but intead of asking it directly, "why can't we discuss religion ?", he's trying to trap Chris.

 Hence the 3rd amendment ploy... *sigh*

 Maybe you're right and he isn't a troll,

 he simply can't understand the difference between public rules and private "house rules".

 see: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/after-crash/30051

 

 

Septimus's picture
Septimus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 200
Re: Do You Affirm?

npwebb:

As the person who brings this up, it seems like reasonable, to me, for you to share your view on those things you ask of Chris before he or others do likewise...

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Do You Affirm?
plato1965 wrote:

 "and directly asks the questions that are on his mind."

 I don't think he does.. I think this topic is just another roundabout method for him to complain about his right to discuss what he likes,

where he likes... but intead of asking it directly, "why can't we discuss religion ?", he's trying to trap Chris.

 Hence the 3rd amendment ploy... *sigh*

 Maybe you're right and he isn't a troll,

 he simply can't understand the difference between public rules and private "house rules".

 see: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/after-crash/30051

 

My conversations with NPW indicate that he clearly understands the difference . . . and has no desire to impose his will on CM, or anybody else.  He seems to be interested, rather in determining whether people are like-minded, or not, so that he can make wise choices. 

I would suggest that, since CM offers himself as our "information scout", it is not unreasonable to ask about the values of an individual who must, by definition, choose some information to be highlighted, over the enormous amount of data that is available in the universe, and then offer an interpretation of that data. Prominent economist Alfred Marshall, noted:

Experience in controversies such as these brings out the impossibility of learning anything from facts till they are examined and interpreted by reason; and teaches that the most reckless and treacherous of all theorists is he who professes to let facts and figures speak for themselves, who keeps in the background the part he has played, perhaps unconsciously, in selecting and grouping them, and in suggesting the argument post hoc ergo propter hoc*. 

Because spirituality is not a segregated part of a human being, but rather an integral part, and because behaviors flow from our beliefs, it is a valid question to ask about a person's beliefs, if that person is attempting to change one's behavior.  In fact, one would be negligent to follow such a leader without asking pertinent questions.  I, for one, wouldn't put my life or my soul in the hands of a person whose values I did not fully understand.  And, I am always, with everyone, on my guard against being influenced by people who hold inaccurate or immoral views of the world.  In short, I think that, if CM is asking us to follow his lead, it is not unreasonable to ask, "To what end?"

 

** Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.

 

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Do You Affirm?

To elaborate:  NPW and I are currently engaged in an off-site conversation about religion.  He has been asking me some very pointed questions about my faith.  I am not offended by this, as I do the same thing, if someone has asked me to trust the information that they offer on their website.  Additionally, I am not intimidated by this, as I have tested the foundations of my faith rigorously, and I feel confident that they can hold up under the hot lights of inquisition.  NPW does not demand of me that I change my belief, or that I change my blog.  He is simply trying to determine what I believe, and I support his right to do so, as I am offering information that has the potential to change individuals' beliefs and behaviors.  I don't expect him to trust me without being able to plumb my depths, as it were.

 

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Do You Affirm?

 

 "I think that, if CM is asking us to follow his lead, it is not unreasonable to ask, "To what end?" "

  I'm not looking for a guru, or a leader, or an authority figure...

  Just information...

  ... and for me, Chris's blog, and this forum are good sources. Some chaff, a fair amount of wheat..

 

 

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Do You Affirm?

npwebb,

I couldn't pass up this opportunity to ask you and others if you accept "Section 8 - Powers of Congress" and more specifically, the following:

  • To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  • To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

If you accept this then the Federal Reserve must be fired and the control and issuance of our money must be returned to Congress.  The second bullet above sets the table to prosecute the Fed. 

Many of the people, bought the notion that they were better off having a private banking cartel run their economy and issue their currency. Sadly, many still think this even today when you hear people say that government can't be trusted to issue currency. This is the result of indoctrination, people have been taught that government will cause inflation by issuing too much money.

There is evidence to the contrary. For example, prior to the the Federal Reserve act of 1913, the U.S. had virtually no national debt and the people did not pay income tax. The IRS is the collection arm of the Federal Reserve, the banks have the power to collect their interest.  Both income tax and a national debt came as a direct result of the un-constitutional Federal Reserve act and income tax of 1913.

Do you "affirm" the following defined under "Section 8 - Powers of Congress":

  • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

My interpretation is that we must leave Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan unless Congress formally declares war.  There is no place for "nation building" by destruction under the constitution and undeclared wars against "muslim terrorists."  The second bullet would require the dismantling of a long term standing army.

I'm on board with following the constitution as that is the difference between democracy under an imperial president and law abiding republic. 

Larry

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Do You Affirm?
plato1965 wrote:

 

 "I think that, if CM is asking us to follow his lead, it is not unreasonable to ask, "To what end?" "

  I'm not looking for a guru, or a leader, or an authority figure...

  Just information...

  ... and for me, Chris's blog, and this forum are good sources. Some chaff, a fair amount of wheat..

 

That may or may not be true for you, Plato.  It certainly doesn't explain your unquestioning stance.  Additionally, CM frequently makes very specific recommendations for action, as well as a fair number of interpretive statements.  He does not restrict himself to "just the facts, ma'am."

 

DrKrbyLuv -- It seems to me that there is far more purpose in requesting more self-revelatory information from CM than from NPW, as CM is actively lobbying for certain actions from large numbers of people.  He has repeatedly stated that he wants to have a broad influence, worldwide.  It is an accepted standard that when someone offers themself for a leadership role with impact on national policies, laws, and programs, certain information about their background and beliefs is expected to be revealed.  This has been a tradition in our nation, since its inception. 

Thus far, I haven't seen NPW post any exhortations for large numbers of people to follow his lead.  CM certainly has.  He has made it clear, on numerous occasions, that he envisions himself as a leader.  In any event, there are many here who have expressed, overtly and by implication,  that they view him as more than a simple information scout.  I submit the possibility that although some may ask few incisive questions of their leaders, there are others who are not so quick to follow.

Redirecting attention from the question asked of CM, and the subject of thread, may work for some, but it isn't distracting me.

 

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: Do You Affirm?

Sorry, folks, but I don't have time to field every assertion that the Martenson belief system and agenda should remain covert.   I'll just wait to see if any response is ever forthcoming, and failing that, I'll rely on my own conclusions. 

 

TheRemnant's picture
TheRemnant
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 29 2009
Posts: 141
Re: Do You Affirm?

How about a different tact:

  • I wish no power* over you.
  • I wish that you have no power over me.
  • Where I have power over you, I shall seek to renounce it.
  • Where you have power over me, I shall pray that you renounce it, and so long as it be extant, I shall condemn it.
  • Where there are those who would try to give me power over you, I shall denounce them and condemn them.
  • Where there are those who would try to give you power over me, I shall laugh at them and condemn them.
  • Where you would use force to sustain any putative power relationship over me, I shall condemn you and resist you, and call to my brethren in our struggle against you.
  • Where a tyrant, a majority, a plurality, or a minority presume to grant you power over me, or over anyone else, I shall condemn it, resist it, renounce it and denounce it.
  • Where there are those who are subjugated beneath the boot heel of power, by “democratic” means or otherwise, I shall support their resistance, their condemnation, their denunciation and their renunciation.
  • I shall make no compromise with evil.

* Replace "power" with "privilege" if that better suits your understanding.

Do you affirm?

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Re: Do You Affirm?

 

DrKrbyLuv, you ask:

I couldn't pass up this opportunity to ask you and others if you accept........etc.

Yes I do. I affirm all the components of the constitution, individually and collectively, in their original intent. I also, therefore agree with what I perceive your point to be, in that much of what is done by our government is unconstitutional, not only the concerns you point out (the Fed etc) but many others. I also see great merit in the question posed by npwebb, especially in light of this excellent post by cloudfire:

DrKrbyLuv -- It seems to me that there is far more purpose in requesting more self-revelatory information from CM than from NPW, as CM is actively lobbying for certain actions from large numbers of people.  He has repeatedly stated that he wants to have a broad influence, worldwide.  It is an accepted standard that when someone offers themself for a leadership role with impact on national policies, laws, and programs, certain information about their background and beliefs is expected to be revealed.  This has been a tradition in our nation, since its inception. 

Thus far, I haven't seen NPW post any exhortations for large numbers of people to follow his lead.  CM certainly has.  He has made it clear, on numerous occasions, that he envisions himself as a leader.  In any event, there are many here who have expressed, overtly and by implication,  that they view him as more than a simple information scout. 

I presume all Americans to be patriots that are loyal to the constitution. But in light of what you yourself have pointed out, that a great many would subvert it for their own purposes, I think npwebb's question is a fair one. I hope Dr. M answers it.

TheRemnant's picture
TheRemnant
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 29 2009
Posts: 141
Re: Do You Affirm?
TheRemnant wrote:

How about a different tact:

  • I wish no power* over you.
  • I wish that you have no power over me.
  • Where I have power over you, I shall seek to renounce it.
  • Where you have power over me, I shall pray that you renounce it, and so long as it be extant, I shall condemn it.
  • Where there are those who would try to give me power over you, I shall denounce them and condemn them.
  • Where there are those who would try to give you power over me, I shall laugh at them and condemn them.
  • Where you would use force to sustain any putative power relationship over me, I shall condemn you and resist you, and call to my brethren in our struggle against you.
  • Where a tyrant, a majority, a plurality, or a minority presume to grant you power over me, or over anyone else, I shall condemn it, resist it, renounce it and denounce it.
  • Where there are those who are subjugated beneath the boot heel of power, by “democratic” means or otherwise, I shall support their resistance, their condemnation, their denunciation and their renunciation.
  • I shall make no compromise with evil.

* Replace "power" with "privilege" if that better suits your understanding.

Do you affirm?

The Constitution didn't prevent the degeneration of government into it's current state.  Do you affirm the above declaration.  Anyone find moral fault with it?

The fallacy is that a government always includes taxation power and a violence monopoly. A government must have a violence monopoly; otherwise, people would refuse to pay taxes. With a violence monopoly and a taxation/economic monopoly, then the evil power of the State will grow over time. Even if State employees are initially all saints, eventually someone evil will work their way into a position of authority and the descent begins.

Even if it were possible to return to a sharply limited government, it would rapidly degenerate into the current mess again. I know this may offend many in this forum and I really don't mean to do that, but the Constitution is failed and discredited, no matter the intent of the illusory paperwork.

As Bush said circa 2005, "The Consitution is nothing but a god-damned piece of paper!"  So are Federal Reserve Loyalty points....but don't tell government that. Wink

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Do You Affirm?

"Individual rights" to my way of thinking is very much an American phenomenon..... I see "Human Rights" as different to "Individual rights", and more important to boot. Human rights are collective rights, the rights to health, education and freedom of religion.

Exactly what "Individual rights" do you have to have? Once people emphasise such rights, it seems to me responsibilities go out the window! So as merely one example, the "Individual right" to drive a [huge] car anywhere you bloody well like is an imposition on ME, because you are affecting my climate....  and frankly, climate deniers are in my opinion simply clutching at straws and adopting a set of beliefs that will allow them to continue affecting my climate.

So, do I have the "Individual right" (the right to impose MY beliefs on you) of telling you to stop driving your SUV everywhere?

Mike

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Do You Affirm?
Damnthematrix wrote:

So, do I have the "Individual right" (the right to impose MY beliefs on you) of telling you to stop driving your SUV everywhere?

SUV's are so "1990's" here in America. These days we all drive Hummers !!

As far as affirmations...this comes to mind...

(Sorry to pollute your thread npwebb)

Arthur Vibert's picture
Arthur Vibert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2008
Posts: 116
Re: Do You Affirm?

So I'm confused. npweb asks the question, and Cloudfire fields all the questions and comments in reply. Can npweb not speak for him or her self?

Personally, I find the whole thing obnoxious. Chris has been perfectly clear that what he is presenting is his opinion and his point of view, based on his research and observations. He assumes we are all critical thinkers and will not blindly follow his lead. He expects us to listen to what he says and see if it jibes with our own experience. If it does, great, and if not, move along. The rest of this is just silliness, in my view.

Arthur

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Do You Affirm?

Dr CM's leadership is in a cross-discilpline area which has apparently been neglected, namely the "3 E's."  I think any sort of political affermation no matter how well intentioned would only make more difficult the task of getting everyone to understand this work.  And it reminds me of McCarthyism which derails the positive discussions about it.  So I am seconding Arthur Vibert.

Dr. KBL's comments are more interesting because they make me wonder how we got where we are when things were so great?  There were fewer people, there was a gold standard, and, most of the time, no income tax.  However, there was also crushing poverty and inflation.  The tariffs imposed by the US government raised prices on goods which hurt the poor the most.  This is why paradoxically the Populist movement of the late 1890's supported a graduated income tax and ending the gold standard.  But the point is not to defend the graduated income tax, ending the gold standard, or the Fed but that there is no going back to the good old days of tariffs.

 

Ken C's picture
Ken C
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 13 2009
Posts: 753
Re: Do You Affirm?

too bad I had to read all of this to fiqure out that it was not worth reading.

 

 

joemanc's picture
joemanc
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 16 2008
Posts: 834
Re: Do You Affirm?
Quote:

too bad I had to read all of this to fiqure out that it was not worth reading.

lol  +++++1

at least you gave me a laugh!

Arthur Vibert's picture
Arthur Vibert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 16 2008
Posts: 116
Re: Do You Affirm?

Ha! Good one, kenc.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3159
Re: Do You Affirm?

kenc

Me too.

npwebb's picture
npwebb
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 25 2009
Posts: 111
Re: Do You Affirm?

60 + days.

 

npwebb wrote:

Do You Affirm?

Dr. Martenson (and Forum Leadership),

In reference to your Happy Birthday Crash Course post, I would like to express my gratitude for one year of what most certainly has been a labor of love for you.  We have all been enriched as a result of your hard work and analysis and as such owe you a debt of gratitude.

As you have expressed a desire to “move forward” and have tasked yourself with the goal of taking practical action, you have right said that for every door you open two more are closed.

I respectfully and sincerely ask, “Do you affirm the individual rights guaranteed in the United States Bill of Rights now and in the future irrespective of social, civil, economic, environmental, and energy conditions?”

Do you affirm that these rights are an expression of a universal right shared by all people by nature of their humanity? 

Will you pledge yourself to promoting and defending these individual rights in whatever community or nation you are a member of now and in the future? 

Will you pledge your Life, your Fortune, and your sacred Honor to the promotion, preservation, and defense of individual rights? 

Quote:

 Article the third [Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth [Amendment III]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth [Amendment VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth [Amendment VIII]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

I don’t want to make any assumptions so I eagerly await your response.  I will consider a non-response to be equivalent to a response in the negative.

npwebb wrote:
Moderator Jason wrote:

Hi npwebb!

It is not for me to tell you how to interpret any person's actions.  You are free to interpret responses and non-responses in any way that you choose.  But I should warn you that Chris doesn't always have the time to read and respond to every forum post, and users should not assume that because he doesn't respond to a post he is automatically agreeing with them, or alternately that he is "responding in the negative." 

Best,
Jason, moderator

Jason,

That is understood.  Would 30, 45, or 60 days be considered a reasonable amount of time?

I'd like Chris to answer in whatever manner he feels most comfortable - whether that be a simple answer or more nuanced one.

Understanding how "sticky" of an issue the 2nd Amendment is, I would respect any decision to defer that for another time or even a non-public venue.

I'm just looking for honesty and candor. 

As member of the forum leadership, I would also appreciate and value your response as well.

Respectfully,

NPWebb

 

Comment viewing options

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