A Constitutional Majority | Highlights Ep. 22

[@bobrobinson369]

This should be played once an hour on all media for week and then 2 times a day forever, everyone please share with friends,family and on any media available to you! God bless you Brothers and Sisters... Love,Truth & Peace Be With You Always

[@jakebredthauer5100]

Ding a ling

[@tomhayhurst5065]

Yes, we vote for who will legislate and rule, but what happens when the vehicles for education of who to vote for is skewed and not giving us the well rounded/honest information to make those educated voting decisions? Legislators should have guarded against that happening, but it now protects them. Thank you for Hillsdale to keep that gap of honest information coming to us.

[@jl6829]

I have to watch this video again, I think a few times... something just happened, I am in tears and I don't know why...?

[@jakebredthauer5100]

The servant is striving to be master.

[@SovereignStatesman]

J L because you think you're smart, and pride goeth before a fall. You can't consent to government unless you can overrule it. Your daddy must have told your mom "you consented when you married me."

[@richbattaglia5350]

I have contention with this because I know there are members of my own countrymen who abuse our system. A coworker of mine told me a story of a relative who got government money through child support of three kids from different mothers. This man was a left wing voter. My coworker told me the same guy got $1000 every week while the rest of us were working. How is it fair to workers like us who get taxed on our income while others choose not to work. It looks like slavery to me. This is why I believe those people without skin in the game do not deserve the same rights as us. I believe these folks do not deserve the right to make decisions in our nation. Yet here we are.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

Originally in America, a voter needed to be a married, property-owning, white man, no women.

[@richbattaglia5350]

@@jakebredthauer5100 what’s your point?

[@jakebredthauer5100]

@@richbattaglia5350 Voter quality affects vote quality.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Rich Battaglia: EVERYONE abuses the system, because its an OLIGARCHY in disguise. The states did NOT form a national union, just an INTERNATIONAL union where the people of each nation could overrule their government by popular vote.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

@@SovereignStatesman I think you are saying that states have the right to secede.

[@desertTRUTH]

Larry Arnn supports the argument in favor of no term limits here for Congress. Sovereign voters term limit their representatives and reasonable terms keep sovereign voters distanced from power.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Larry Arn is a neocon fool, who twists words, to claim that elected officials are the same as the people themselves when it comes to consent to government. Just look at these nodding bobble-headed punks who swallow this, like rats to the Pied Piper. They trade liberty for security, and so they lose both and deserve neither.

[@essequamvideri]

🙏🇺🇸

[@jakebredthauer5100]

According to the Christian religion, God is the sovereign. That is relevant to determining whether the civil government is behaving well or not. In the USA, the people organized into states which established the US Constitution which limits the power and authority of the US. Limiting the civil government is how we retain individual freedom.

[@daheikkinen]

You should read the Treaty of Tripoli. America was not founded on Christianity. I am a graduate of Hillsdale.

[@clarkhoefle7152]

@@daheikkinen Of the 39 representatives who signed the Constitution, can you tell me how many were Christian, as opposed to those who claimed other faiths????

[@richbattaglia5350]

@@daheikkinen yet the influences of Christianity or a higher divine being seen to be seen in every aspect of the constitution.

[@daheikkinen]

@@clarkhoefle7152 Many of them were Christians. Some were Deists. Some had very harsh things to say about Christianity, some very favorable. I highly recommend the book Nature’s God by Matthew Stewart

[@daheikkinen]

@@richbattaglia5350 They could have set up a theocracy, and peppered the Constitution with Jesus and the Ten Commandments. They deliberately didn’t.

[@CharlesLumia]

Nobody should be able to remove the rights of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Morals are immutable. If a majority of people vote to take everything away from you and then throw you in prison that doesn't make it acceptable. The majority of people shouldn't be dictating anything to anyone, just like any official in charge shouldn't be doing that.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

When people lose their moral values, they lose their right to liberty.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Charles Lumia: You'd be an idiot to think that a majority of your equals would do that, when the same could happen to them; but that a majority of your government officials WOULDN'T, when they are IMMUNE to the laws they write via wealth and power. Reality: the USA was an international union of 13 democratically sovereign nations.

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@jakebredthauer5100 You've got that backwards. When they trade liberty for security, they lose both and deserve neither. That's why the states never formed a national union, and the voters IN each state had final authority over their government.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

@@SovereignStatesman Not backwards.

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@jakebredthauer5100 Yes it is.

[@richardkramer1094]

However, the “will of the majority” is limited by the inherent natural unalienable rights of the individual, so the majority cannot adopt an edict that is contrary to the inherent natural unalienable rights of the individual. If individual Liberty is the cause and the goal, wherein your Liberty is bound in that you cannot harm another in their Life, Liberty and Property, then what does that tell us about this series? Where and when will that be covered by these “academics” at @Hillsdale College?

[@SovereignStatesman]

Uh-huh. And WHO DECIDES "the inherent natural unalienable rights of the individual"? Because if it's not the majority, then it's an oligarchy, no matter how you twist it. They LAYERS and LAYERS of BULLSHIT this moron piles on, will not change that ONE SIMPLE SOLITARY FACT, that there can only be ONE final authority.

[@richardkramer1094]

@@SovereignStatesman Hmmm….inherent natural unalienable rights are self evident in nature and endowed by the God of Nature…not the majority of men. If the majority of men decide what your inherent natural unalienable rights are then that is an oligarchy!

[@patrickhenry7416]

@@richardkramer1094 yup. Bingo

[@robertdubois2917]

We're only excluded when we remain silent. We control the legislative branch with our votes, and our voices demanding they obey Our will and not theirs.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

The election was stolen.

[@SovereignStatesman]

@Robert Dubois: No, we're excluded when the majority can't REFUSE our government-- and I don't mean by some obscure PROCESS. I mean NO MEANS NO. We do NOT control the legislative branch with our votes, those officials do whatever they want once elected; and our voices only REFLECT our empty votes. You really have been HAD.

[@capricioushorse]

The consent of the governed? It seems like the acquiescence of the governed. How can the governed rescind their consent when it becomes obvious that government is not acting in the best interests of the governed?

[@SovereignStatesman]

According to Col Sanders, here, they can VOTE, and this creates a mystical magical "constitutional majority- -" which is Orwell-speak for OLIGARCHY. Lincoln was fond of this double-talk; which is why he said the states were NEVER individually sovereign. However Lincoln also jailed anyone who dissented, for "treason."

[@maureenoconnor5683]

I Could Listen To This Man!" All-Day!" CONCENT!" SHOULD-NEVER-EVER-BE-EXPECTED!!!!!!": RESPECT-SHOULD-NEVER-EVER-BE-EXPECTED!!!!!!" EITHER-GENDER'S!!!!!!"!!!!!!" EQUALITIES!"!"!"!"!"!"-RESPECT!!!!!!": BOTH-GENDER'S!!!!!!!!!!":!!!!!!!!!": ALL WORKPLATFORM'S!!!!!!!!!!": !"AT-ALL-LEVIL'S!!!!!!!!!!":!!!!!!!!!!": WE-ALL-NEED-EACH-OTHER!"!"!"!" TEAM-WORK!"!"!"!" ZERO-HIS-JOB!"-HER-JOB!"-EXPECTATION'S!!!!!!!!!!": PROGRAMING'S!!!!!!": INSIDE!"-OR-OUTSIDE!"FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!": TRUSTING'S!!!!!!!!!": BOTH-WAY'S!!!!!!!!!": PERFECTION!"!"!"!"-MULTICULTURALISEM!"!"!"!" PERFECTIONALISEM!!!!!!!!!!": WORLD-WIDE!!!!!!!!!!" WE'RE ALL-ONLY-HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!": SAME!" HURT!" SAME EMOTIONAL-PAIN!"!"!"!" NO TIT!"-FOR!"-TAT!" INTENT-EMOTIONAL-GAME'S!"!"!"!" FREEDOM TO WALKE!"!"!"!" AMICKABLY!"!"!"!" INDEPENDANTALY!"!"!"!"!"!" WITHOUT ANY B/S-TRAPPINGS!"!"!"!"!"!"-EXPECTATION'S!"!"!"!"!"!" ABUSES!"!"!"!"!"!" MALE!"-OR-FEMAL!" STATUSES!"!" ACCEPTANCES!"!" FREEDOM TOO MOVE FORWARD AMICKABLY!"!"!"!" HAPPY-PEOPLE!"HAPPY-CHILDREN!"!"!"!" INDEPENDANTLY!"!"!"!": ONLY-WAY-OUR-WORLD-SHOULD-GO!"!"!"!"...........................................!":

[@aehjr1]

You might not be aware, but even if you are using a spell-check in your browser, many spell-check software ignores words in upper case as potential acronyms. You might check to see if there are options in your settings which could spell-check words in upper case.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Maureen O'Connor: then you'd be a FOOL all day. Consent requires RIGHT TO REFUSE. And DIRECTLY, not through a bureaucracy. That's "common law marriage," where the woman consents to sex by marrying the man.

[@tysonb.7773]

What about jurors? The people are jurors..

[@Cahoo.U]

Contact a CONSERVATIVE SENATOR about Enacting the Constitutional Law of LOCKE America 🙏🏿🇺🇸💜

[@merlinwizard1000]

24th

[@alifqadrmuhammad4542]

As one of the Founding Fathers stated; "The Majority does not have a Mandate over The Minority."

[@jakebredthauer5100]

Republic, not a democracy.

[@SovereignStatesman]

"One of the founding fathers said" LOL Yeah, great attribution. Of COURSE the majority had a mandate.

[@alifqadrmuhammad4542]

@@SovereignStatesman Key phraseology: "HAD a mandate." As in PAST TENSE. The "secret" ONLY 3% of the Colonists wanted independence fom Great Britain; The Beast out of The Sea, so that means and meant that 97% were satisfied with being Britischen Subjects as opposed to being free unsubjegated citizens of their own willful direction. Some people prefer to be slaves than free Human Beings. This somewhat reveals the truth of the statement; "NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES'" has its foundation as well as why CIVICS was removed fom classrooms NATIONWIDE and why there exists the UFT and other teachers' unions. The Communists have taken over the once great Union. The immediate former statement shows how and why people clamour over DJT even though he is put there by "The Establishment" to satiate the angst and anger of some of the people. These are extremely crafty and deceitful people; their goal is to subjugate all to maintain CONTROL. These are people with an inordinate God complex.

[@alifqadrmuhammad4542]

As Soleiman and his Vatter Dawud proclaimed, "Yee are ALL GODS, Children of the Most High God. This refers to everyone, especifically those of Righteous proclivity and leaning.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

@@SovereignStatesman the founders did not give us a democracy. If you want an atheistic government you may be a communist. Have you ever heard of rule of law?

[@evilchristianconservative3419]

Unfortunately, it is the nature of conservatism not to be demonstrative and belligerent. WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT!

[@SovereignStatesman]

Pure Orwellian double-talk.

[@alifqadrmuhammad4542]

As one of the Founding Fathers stated; "The Majority does not have a mandate over The Minority." Equal representation.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

Republic, not a democracy.

[@SovereignStatesman]

Yeah, and of course the government can do no wrong, because they're ELECTED and have a CONSTITUTION! And if you just wave that magical Constitution, it will STOP those federal bullets, tanks and bayonets DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS!

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@jakebredthauer5100 Aka OLIGARCHY. But that's okay, you say, because it's a MAGICAL oligarchy with a WRITTEN RULES! Aka a THEOCRACY.

[@jakebredthauer5100]

@@SovereignStatesman To the extent that the oligarchy has usurped the Constitution, we have a rule by men instead of a rule by God. God is the recognized Sovereign according to American jurisprudence. The Declaration was one of the four founding documents. Of course it is written. Should it not be written? The more free we are, the more free we are to obey God. I believe that was the writer's intent. Familiarize yourself with the concepts of defacto and dejur or dejure. My Latin spelling skill is weak. Each may be two words.

[@SovereignStatesman]

@@jakebredthauer5100 no, it's an international democracy not an imperial theocracy. The sovereign is the VOTERS of each state.