Counter-Revolution: An Alternative Political Choice

This 10-minute, animated segment by America's Remedy introduces an outside-the-box plan for bringing back our sovereign states, and returning the federal government to its limited role.


Watched all the way up 6 minutes or so

when the video named "god" at the top of the list of authorities.

If you can't get that simple fact right, your propaganda doesn't deserve the benefit of any further consideration.

I generally like the idea of constitutional supremacy, which is one reason the Pope crowd will lose in its battle to undermine the UNC system. "As free as practicable" is a constitutional requirement for higher education in North Carolina.

God was the foundation. It is up to the states.

Mr. Protzman,

That is not surprising considering the current moral status of the country and the propaganda that is indeed being taught on a regular basis contrary to what is actually true. You may want to visit the original state constitutions for confirmation.

In addition, if you had continued watching the above video, you would have noticed that it would be up to the re-established states to decide on what or whom would be their ultimate authority. This is up to the individual body politics (the people) to decide. And this would contribute to the competition between the states -- thus resulting in an incredible study comparing the "freedom under God" vs "freedom without God" governance mentalities.

Such a movement is not for everyone. But many have already shown their support. I am hopeful that the trend will continue.

I don't believe in god

Any system of anything that is built on a foundation I don't believe in is, by definition, irrelevant and inconsequential to me.

Any attempt to impose such a system on me, by definition, is a direct and intolerable assault.

It doesn't matter if that assault is launched by the federal government, the state government, the UN, the People's Republic of China or the Taliban ... it will be resisted at every turn and with every means necessary.

Final thought. Zealots throughout history have claimed that they are the ones who know what is "actually true" about the source of their zealotry. Your claim to know what is "actually true" about the role of deity in the founding of this nation and its states does not appear to be grounded in reality.

Constitution 1776 "I, ___ do profess faith in God the Father..."

Mr. Protzman,

I would say the same about a system which is built upon Godlessness. It is not something I believe in, and I too would (and do) fight this as well -- obviously, from this video that garnered 6 minutes of your time.

Did you take a look at those state constitutions? Here's one. I'll get more if you would care to take a look...

Constitution of Delaware; 1776: "Art. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust.....shall take the following oath or affirmation....And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: 'I, A.B, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

That is only slightly more relevant

than the junk other zealots pull out of Leviticus to justify their bigotry. Which is to say it's about 0 relevant today.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Do you have a

chapter and verse number, persondem? I'm not familiar with the references.

I'm not sure why the term zealots is so popular here, but it would appear that you could fall under the same terminology?

zeal•ot (zelet): noun; a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

When facts change I do change my mind. You have

presented nothing but outdated dogma and empty rhetoric. Have a good day sir, I am done with this thread.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

I presented...

I presented several pre-Reconstruction state constitutions which I believe to be evidence of our original foundation. They are old, true. But in light of the context -- the Constitutionality of Reconstruction -- I believed they were relevant to both this, as well as the conversation in progress. And in fact, if the re-established states proposed in this video are to be picked up, it could very well be these constitutions which would be picked up, as has been the case already in North Carolina (using the Constitution of Dec. 18th, 1776). I'm sorry you felt I was using dogma and rhetoric. If I felt the same, I certainly wouldn't have spent all that time typing them out from the original slides I have here. I thought they were worth looking at certainly. Good day to you as well.

Is it also bigotry

when someone willfully vandalizes another's property for differences in beliefs?

Pennsylvania & New Jersey, North Carolina, 1776

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776
SECT. 10...And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I do believe in God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."

Constitution of New Jersey; 1776
XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the FAITH OF ANY PROTESTANT SECT [caps added for emphasis]. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature,..."

North Carolina December 18, 1776
XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

I can quote constitutions as well

and my quote comes with a Supremacy clause that beats the crap out of your puny little state clauses.

The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

It's a good quote...

Our country was originally set up as a federation of demi-sovereign states. There is no need for such requirements on the federal level, as this was decided by the states individually. And because state-rights actually existed at the time, in fact, it would have worked against what the states desired to establish in the first place. Now, in the case that you believe this would limit the states, the question there would be, did this clause also exist prior to the Reconstruction Acts; because, as can be seen in the original video post, there are serious issues with this time period which create offices and in fact new Constitutions which are usurpations in law.

Good luck with your plan

I admire out of the box thinking to solve big problems ... and have often thought that the "states as laboratories" model has merit. That said, I'm not exactly sure what real problems you're trying to solve. More to the point, if your state-supremacy model were firmly in place in North Carolina, I'm certain I would be labeled a domestic terrorist for fighting against the institution of slavery being imposed by you and other members of the Tarheel Taliban.

(No subject)