# Tyranny and the Rule of Law



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

*Tyranny and the Rule of Law*
Plato and Aristotle both developed important ideas about government and politics. Two of the many political subjects that these men wrote about were tyranny and the rule of law. Tyranny occurs when absolute power is granted to a ruler. In a tyrannical government, the ruler becomes corrupt and uses his power to further his own interests instead of working for the common good.


The rule of law is the principle that no one is exempt from the law, even those who are in a position of power. The rule of law can serve as a safeguard against tyranny, because just laws ensure that rulers do not become corrupt.
* CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Bill of Rights in Action, FALL 2010 (Volume 26, No. 1)

*I found this to be an interesting, yet almost naive statement given the current climate of politics in our country, particularly the statement; "because just laws ensure that rulers do not become corrupt."

What happens when that ruler ignores those laws, as we have seen so many times with Obama and his appointees? With our own Congress? At what point do we as a collective, declare that we have had enough and will stand no more? The right of revolution is the right or duty, variously stated throughout history, of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution.

The right of revolution is considered a collective right, not an individual right. Knowing this, this administration has gone to great lengths to divide the people on constitutional, religious, economic, even racial issues. I fear that we will lack a collective majority to "Alter or Abolish this form of Government." What is worse yet; they know it.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Time for Americans to enforce their rights and stop the tyranny in America. This will not be done with the vote or through compromise, as there is no vote nor compromise on Freedom.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

The Guvment has a LOT of (not presently enacted) laws for when the SHFT, of which the NDAA is the main culprit

So far the NDAA isn't in effect much so I am waiting for something similar to that to be enacted. Until then we still live in a realatively free place.

Unless you live on the east or west coast in which case you are already under siege.

Besides taxing the shit out of me, the govment is not really suppressing me atm.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Montana Rancher said:


> Besides taxing the shit out of me, the govment is not really suppressing me atm.


Taxing the shit out of us is the worst form of suppression they can do to us, Sir. Those hours that we work just to pay our taxes are slavery. It is tantamount to taking hours from our lives - I.E. murder. (Sorry, too much time lately arguing with Lance out here.) :-D


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

America voted Obama into the White House twice, so more than half the American people must like him.
Same here in Britain, the sheeple vote clowns into office so the sheeple are to blame when they mess up.
Anybody seen the hilarious comedy film "Idiocracy" where everybody in a future world is nuts?
We're almost there now..
_"A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends upon the character of the user"- Theodore Roosevelt_


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

If people think they aren't free, are living in a tyrannical state, and life is horrid I suggest taking 6 months to live some where else and see if it's any better some where else. I Personnally am annoyed at my govt, I think it's inherently evil, but if you believe in rule of law how can you ignore the will of the majority? Simply because the majority takes a stupid path to which I disagree gives me no right to revolution. My concerns start with journalism or lack there of. If a free press doesn't inform we are at great risk. Today our alert status should be high, but I'm very much a free man.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> America voted Obama into the White House twice, so more than half the American people must like him.
> Same here in Britain, the sheeple vote clowns into office so the sheeple are to blame when they mess up.
> Anybody seen the hilarious comedy film "Idiocracy" where everybody in a future world is nuts?
> We're almost there now..
> _"A vote is like a rifle, its usefulness depends upon the character of the user"- Theodore Roosevelt_


Is it they liked Obama or detested the alternative?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Ripon said:


> If people think they aren't free, are living in a tyrannical state, and life is horrid I suggest taking 6 months to live some where else and see if it's any better some where else. I Personnally am annoyed at my govt, I think it's inherently evil, but if you believe in rule of law how can you ignore the will of the majority? Simply because the majority takes a stupid path to which I disagree gives me no right to revolution. My concerns start with journalism or lack there of. If a free press doesn't inform we are at great risk. Today our alert status should be high, but I'm very much a free man.


Rule of law is not rule of the majority. It is rule of _law_. Law is based on the laws of nature and nature's God. Any statute that contradicts this is not a law, as it contradicts the very root of our law. Whether tyranny is the result of one man's lawless edicts or the result of a majority swaying to the influences of the plutocracy that control the government, education, media and entertainment, the result is the same. The only difference is that, with the latter, the citizenry take part in the system and feel a connection with those who are working diligently to enslave them.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Ripon said:


> ...My concerns start with journalism or lack there of. If a free press doesn't inform we are at great risk...


Yes, the tyrant Napoleon said- _"I fear four hostile newspapers more than I fear a thousand bayonets"_
Lenin too wanted them silenced and said- _"He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism"_
Needless to say Lenin had no beef with papers that spouted nonstop commie propaganda, _"A lie told often enough becomes the truth"_ he boasted.

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) has around 15,000 members plus gosh knows how many more sympathisers, that's the equivalent of about two commie army divisions on American soil, and many of their members are in key positions within the government, town halls, schools, colleges, films and the media etc where they can subversively spread their poison.
Heck even your next door neighbour might be a closet commie traitor, or perhaps one is teaching your kids at your local school!

*THE ENEMY WITHIN THE GATES*
_"An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. 
But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. 
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city" 
-Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC-43 BC) _


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

retired guard said:


> Is it they liked Obama or detested the alternative?


Mitt Romney seemed a bit too squeaky-clean and lightweight with his dazzling white teeth and manicured tailor's dummy appearance, so Obama won, but to give him credit he did bust Bin Laden's ass on his watch so maybe that's why the voters rewarded him with a second term.
Personally I wish Sarah Palin would come back because she'd make a great Pres, here she is aboard USS Stennis in 2009-

_Sarah- "Will you launch an airstrike against a moose herd on the Alaskan coastline?"
Captain- "On what grounds ma'am?"
Sarah- "They could be commie mooses that have swum across the Bering Strait from Russia"_


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Ripon said:


> If people think they aren't free, are living in a tyrannical state, and life is horrid I suggest taking 6 months to live some where else and see if it's any better some where else. I Personnally am annoyed at my govt, I think it's inherently evil, but if you believe in rule of law how can you ignore the will of the majority? Simply because the majority takes a stupid path to which I disagree gives me no right to revolution. My concerns start with journalism or lack there of. If a free press doesn't inform we are at great risk. Today our alert status should be high, but I'm very much a free man.


I think we would find living somewhere else, depending on where that was, not as good as here. But that's kind of like taking a woman who gets beaten once a day and putting her in a house where she gets beaten twice a day and say "See. And you thought it was bad here. Now come on back." It's a non-argument. Realistically, she shouldn't be getting beaten at all.

If you honestly believe that your government is inherently evil, you should be far more than just annoyed. Hearing my neighbors music from across the street two houses down at 1:00 in the morning, as though I were sitting in his living room, is annoying. When the "majority" take a path that is "destructive to these ends; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", then absolutely, there is a right to revolt, but as I stated, in the philosophy of the right to revolution, it is a collective right, not an individual right.

Are you honestly saying that because "most of the people are doing it, then I guess it's okay?" If you look at the polls, the "majority" that elected Obama are no longer the majority. Which just goes to show how mindless the "majority" of the American public can be. They lack critical thinking skills. And trust me, I spent three and half years working as the head of security at a high school; And it ain't gettin' no better in the critical thinking arena. Think for yourself. Is there much of anything going on right now that you honestly believe is "Okay?"

You're "Trapped in California". Just last night in L.A. they had Trayvon Protester's raid a Wal-Mart. In their mind, justice was perverted and said "it's okay to wipe this place clean because it's justice for Trayvon." What did that Wal-Mart 2500 miles away have anything to do with it? But because "many" thought it was okay, was it really? What did it accomplish other than confirm what we all know? It's not about justice.0 It's about justifying stealing and committing crime against an innocent victim. Which is exactly what our government does.

And no, we are not free. We are given the illusion of being free until our government decides to pull the plug. Redundant and over used, but true; Hurricane Katrina. Your freedom will disappear as quickly as that if they so choose. That's not freedom. Freedom is being able to make my own choices, not have someone tell me what I will or will not do and stand over my shoulder while I do it. Freedom is the un-equivocal protection of my individual rights under the Constitution.

Freedom is being able to take a photograph without the FBI and DHS showing up on my doorstep wanting to know why. 
Freedom is being to freely move about without being surveilled. 
Freedom is not having a mass of Army Special Forces helicopters conducting un-announced training operations in the middle of the night over/in a small city 60 miles from my home. Freedom is not having a DHS Helicopter hovering above a local jurisdictions crime scene. 
Freedom is not having the IRS target political opponents of the current administration. 
Freedom is not having the DOJ seize phone records of media members because they oppose the current administration. 
Freedom is not having your private communications over the internet intercepted by the government.
Freedom is not having the government blatantly lie about a terrorist attack in Benghazi and it's failure to warn to it's own citizens.
Freedom is not supplying the Mexican Drug Cartels in an effort to curb the 2nd Amendment and have it lead to the deaths of numerous American citizens.

There are those who describe these actions as "Top Tier Priority" of the government in protecting the country and that the Constitution is secondary. Do YOU honestly believe that this is okay? But because the majority said it was okay, I guess...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=57697


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Denton said:


> http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=57697


Very interesting reading Denton. He made some valid observations in our quirks. I agree that our healthcare is atrocious and now, further emboldened by Obamacare. Again, another issue of the government dictating what we will do. No better service, higher overall cost, loss of jobs, etc.

The article was one mans opinion, who even he himself said that those of advantage will quickly rise to the top. All this from a man who wrote "Guide To Wealth" and has traveled internationally, at the time this was written, for three years. It's easy to armchair quarterback when you've removed yourself from the game.

Our biggest problem is our inability to pursue Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as we swim through more and more government interference in regulation, de-regulation, taxes, permits, licenses, fees, this act, that act and our governments general inability to function at our expense. The repub's want to protect their wealth and the dem's want to create a nanny state full of handouts. Sequestration is doing nothing but financially ruining the american worker, while we still contribute billions of dollars overseas without haste.

All the while, during their dysfunction, not a single one of them are worried about where their next meal is coming from, hoping the car holds together a little longer until hopefully, a light appears at the end of the tunnel, or, that realistically, they'll have to work until the day they die just to keep the lights on.

In your second link, I agree, I believe our Founding Fathers would want to start over.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Do you guys ever look at the positions of those you grotesquely disagree with. Let's say for example Pelosi, obama, or any particular extreme liberal. They win an election. They are representing people from a position of having won an election. Some one asked if I believed since everyone was doing it - is it ok? No its not ok, but it is their choice. A very unpopular judge once said "if the people want to go to hell its my job to lead them there" and I disagree with him, but it's how our system works. 

Constitutionalist, libertarians, and even hard line conservatives are a minority. We don't rule, and our task should be to educate the majority not revolt against the govt.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Ripon said:


> Do you guys ever look at the positions of those you grotesquely disagree with. Let's say for example Pelosi, obama, or any particular extreme liberal. They win an election. They are representing people from a position of having won an election. Some one asked if I believed since everyone was doing it - is it ok? No its not ok, but it is their choice. A very unpopular judge once said "if the people want to go to hell its my job to lead them there" and I disagree with him, but it's how our system works.
> 
> Constitutionalist, libertarians, and even hard line conservatives are a minority. We don't rule, and our task should be to educate the majority not revolt against the govt.


Or maybe the government could leave it up to the individual to decide how they wish to live, how their money is spent and who they choose to help, support and do within their private homes. Then maybe some of us wouldn't be so willing to take it to the government with arms in hand. Just because we may not be a majority we still have rights, just like the minority black Americans or gay Americans have their rights. This is suppose to be a nation of rule by law, not rule by majority or man. The left doesn't want an education, it will not work for them if the people know the truth.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

The government doesn't protect me from anything. I protect myself. I have been in dangerous situations and my government was nowhere to be seen. The most they can do is roll in after the fact and file reports.

Our foreign policies don't protect me, they expose me to more risk. They then erode my rights while "protecting" me from dangers they themselves created, and then tax me to death to pay for the protection. Someone needs to file a RICO suit against them, but of course, they wrote the rules to make this impossible.

We live in a one party system, though this fact is hidden from most of us. It's like looking for laundry detergent and seeing Gain, Tide, Bold, and Cheer and thinking you have a choice. The reality is: they are all made by the same company. Like most big companies, US PolitiCo segments the market, then develops products tailored for each segment in order to present the illusion of choice. Truth be told, they don't much care which one you buy... they get paid either way.

The worst forms of tyranny are those hidden from the oppressed.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Typically, . . . in governments past that came up, grew great, flourished, etc, . . . they only stayed that way as long as the leaders did not succumb to the temptation of greed (or were prevented from succombing, . . . lol).

The ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Israeli, and the later Spanish, French, English, German, Japanese, and Italian govt's came, rose, and fell, . . . and we can see in almost every case it was greed by the leaders that caused it to fall. 

In many cases, the leaders attempted to stay in power by "spreading the wealth", . . . which in fact only ipoverished the working man much more, . . . and in the end formented revolt, or just allowed a general demise, or destroyed the love for the country that previously had kept it floating.

The power brokers in office today will give you the shirt off my back if it keeps them in office longer, . . . if it gets them a better, more powerful position, . . . or if it makes some increase in their personal wealth. I really do not believe any of them love this country outside the walls of the banks that hold their fortunes.

Our govt has become one of tyranny, . . . but as previously mentioned, . . . it's still a better place to live than most of the rest of the world, . . . and "Yes", . . . I have been to many other parts of the globe, . . . witnessed first hand totally deplorable living conditions. That is the reason I am here.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Typically, . . . in governments past that came up, grew great, flourished, etc, . . . they only stayed that way as long as the leaders did not succumb to the temptation of greed (or were prevented from succombing, . . . lol).

The ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Israeli, and the later Spanish, French, English, German, Japanese, and Italian govt's came, rose, and fell, . . . and we can see in almost every case it was greed by the leaders that caused it to fall. 

In many cases, the leaders attempted to stay in power by "spreading the wealth", . . . which in fact only ipoverished the working man much more, . . . and in the end formented revolt, or just allowed a general demise, or destroyed the love for the country that previously had kept it floating.

The power brokers in office today will give you the shirt off my back if it keeps them in office longer, . . . if it gets them a better, more powerful position, . . . or if it makes some increase in their personal wealth. I really do not believe any of them love this country outside the walls of the banks that hold their fortunes.

Our govt has become one of tyranny, . . . but as previously mentioned, . . . it's still a better place to live than most of the rest of the world, . . . and "Yes", . . . I have been to many other parts of the globe, . . . witnessed first hand totally deplorable living conditions. That is the reason I am here.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> Mitt Romney seemed a bit too squeaky-clean and lightweight with his dazzling white teeth and manicured tailor's dummy appearance, so Obama won, but to give him credit he did bust Bin Laden's ass on his watch so maybe that's why the voters rewarded him with a second term.
> Personally I wish Sarah Palin would come back because she'd make a great Pres, here she is aboard USS Stennis in 2009-
> 
> _Sarah- "Will you launch an airstrike against a moose herd on the Alaskan coastline?"
> ...


That's funny as all get out!!! I know it was said tongue in cheek.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

It's said that 1% of the colonial population fought in the 1st American revolution. Today that 1% would be over 3 million people and that many people devoted and channeled can do serious damage. I think we can out do them though by at least doubling our effort in honor of theirs and take back this country.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Just sayin'...


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

Inor said:


> View attachment 2244
> 
> 
> Just sayin'...


Term Limits with extreme prejudice. A new government one way or the other.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

"We are a nation of laws..." Those laws are set in the constitution to control the federal government. Just like the laws against speeding, murder, theft and assault they are not preventing the crimes. The federal government is composed of three pieces: the judiciary, the congress, and the executive branch which is led by the president. The judiciary is supposed to judge the lawfulness of the laws, The congress makes the laws and appropriates money to pay for the enactment of the laws and to run the country, the executive branch is the police that enforce the laws. The three branches were put in place as a system of checks and balances but when political parties are used to circumvent those checks and balances it becomes a monster that the people no longer control with their vote. Both of the leading parties spend more than the budget allows with no regard for where they will get that money. Both parties are guilty of over-stepping the lawful boundaries set forth in the constitution. It is time to put a different party in control. One that believes in the law of the constitution. The Libertarian party is the only one that places personal rights and freedoms above the government. It is the only party that says you can have your own thoughts about all the issues not restricted by the constitution and institute them at the state level. They are the only party that says you don't have to pay for federal involvement and wait for a minor refund for your state to act on a state issue. They say "keep the money" and use it as you wish. If you want to live in a log cabin without electricity, get your water from a well, and have a waste water composter or digester then you have the right to do so as long as your state does not have laws against it and your actions don't injure others rights.

A vote for the Libertarian party is a vote for freedom and a vote to regain your rights.
If you would rather live as a sheeple and let the state hand you what you need to survive while sucking the hind tit of a pig then move to Kalifonia after the Libertarians are in power. I am sure that state will remain as socialistic as it has been for the last twenty years. Sheeple there seem to like it that way.
(no offense to the many thinking people who share my views but are stuck in that state for now)


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Not to be rude Paul because I really do like your posts. But I always roll my eyes when somebody comes along talking about this third party or that third party as being "so much better and less corrupt than the Democrats and Republicans". For me, I have been keeping a pretty close eye on the Libertarians since about '94 and the Constitution party since about '96. I have been to meetings for both parties. I agree with most (not all) of the concepts they speak so highly of. I agree both the Libertarians and Constitution party sound and act very ethical and straight up TODAY.

But I cannot help but think the only reason they are able to say the things they say is because they are not in power. Remember, I have been a citizen of Minnesota all of my life. We had Jesse Ventura as our Governor. Although I did not vote for him (I voted for the RINO), I was not unhappy when he won. I figured if his governing was half as good as his campaign rhetoric Minnesota would improve. The problem is, once he started governing, he was no different than most mid-lefty Democrats. I will not go into the details, but suffice it to say that my property taxes AND my income taxes have almost doubled, largely because of the laws he put in place. (To be fair, one of his things was to buy down local property taxes by centralizing all public school funding at the state level, paid for by income taxes. So my property taxes did initially go down while my income taxes went up. But now my property taxes are back to higher than they were before he came along and my income taxes sure as hell have not gone down.) He was a complete train wreck. And he was the poster-boy for the Ross Perot-Libertarian-Constitution movement at the time.

Personally, I think the problem is our current understanding of what the Founders meant when they spoke of "check and balances". You even mentioned it in your post. Currently, we think of checks and balances between the branches of government. I.E. The legislative, executive and judicial all being co-equals. Based on what I have read of the Federalist Papers (all of them - several times), the Anti-Federalist Papers (all of them at least once) as well as numerous other writing directly penned by the Founders and their understudies, the "checks and balances" they were speaking of were the checks and balances between the federal government, the people, and the state governments. The judiciary was only there to be an arbiter between them.

Since 1913, that system of checks and balances between the states, the federal government and the people has not existed. The states have had no seat at the table since the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators). The Founders understood that without state governments having their own specific representation within the federal government, the states would become just an extension of the federal government. I.E. They would exist just to do the bidding of the feds - witness the Obamacare exchanges. Each state is being forced to implement them, but they had no say whatsoever whether they should even exist. With the third leg of the checks and balances stool missing, the feds had the ability to start a populist movement to demand free healthcare regardless of the implementation details. - They would leave that to each state to figure out, even if it is impossible.

But here we stand... So do I support a repeal of the 17th Amendment? In concept, yes. In practical application, absolutely not - at least not now. Right now, as citizens we have 50% of the power in the federal government. If we give that up to our respective states, we will have 33% of the power instead of 50%. Do you trust your state government to be sane enough at this point to take away half of the very small voice you presently have and give it to the state? Unless I lived in Oklahoma, Alaska or Texas (maybe), not a snowballs chance in hell!

We are in a jam and I do not see a way out without some form of revolution (hopefully peaceful). But now you know why I constantly rant here (and on other sites) about supporting the Confederacy even though I have lived all my life as a Damn Yankee in occupied territory.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I don't know what effect Ventura had on your state. I have watched as several Libertarian congresspersons at the federal level have stood by their moral "higher ground" on the limits of the federal government even when it hurt their own state. There is quite a difference in the powers of the state and the powers of the federal government. I would like to get a libertarian majority in the senate and house at the federal level. On a state level it would depend on the individual state's constitution. Before instituting a Libertarian senate and house in the state of Washington I would like to see our constitution changed to give the people more defined powers or at least restrict the state's powers over it's people. We just had a court decide that the right of the people to the initiative process was meaningless against the powers granted to them by our constitution even though our constitution states that the power of the government comes from the people and the initiative is the last protection of the people over a tyrannical government.

Enforcing it through the courts is not a viable way for the people to defend themselves because the court is PART of the state government. 

I am just saying that the Libertarian party at the Federal level will bring us back to the constitutional limitations. Continuing to vote democratic or republican will only continue the way it has been and still is going. Let's stop the train before the wreck. Let's stop doing the same thing expecting a better result. Vote Libertarian at the federal level.


----------

