Reminds me of Dr. Roy Casagranda. Very effective

I agree! This channel has great content.

Was it by design you think? Did some people know this and set it in motion ? Divide and conquer? And I wonder what are the dynamics of politics in this nation especially if we remove the influence of money.

@@michelsolounias1447 Leonard Leo helped establish the Federalist Society, and they're the ones that corrupted our Supreme Court. He just wasn't aware of what he was doing was screwing around with a formula.

1.) The United Colonies of New England (now styled as) THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY and its forefathers were brought into government! 2:) The Constitution comes from The Great Law of Peace. 3.) The UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY is stationed within the Moroccan Empire (Constitution, Article VI: Treatise - 1836 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Moroccan Empire; Genesis Ch 10:6-20; Public Law 97-280. “UNITED STATES CITIZENS are not and can not be Americans; slaves can not draft sovereign papers on another’s man inheritance and call himself free.” “FREE WHITE PERSON” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed.

@@elyon9329 eh?

100% correct I'm afraid. We have a corporate oligarchy serving itself and its domestic and foreign donors. Lobbyists must go. Super Pacs must go. Term limits must be re-evaluated. How can we expect politicians to accept millions from corps and countries and not be in debt to them? We all agree that human nature seems to be susceptible to bribery. We need to stop allowing it in our government. That leads to disaster. represent.us has a good plan I think.

Not just Patrick Henry. All the Anti-Federalist were critical of the Constitution lacking in protections. To see who some of them were, read the warnings of all the Anti-federalist, in form of the Anti-Federalist papers.

True. Like judging all male Britains as gentlemen.

It's not the proportion that counts so much as the power wielded by the controlling minority. In a dictatorship, for example, nearly all the power is wielded by one person, but with a literal handful of lieutenants who bask in reflected glory, each of whom controls a handful of adherents in intersecting circles of diminishing power. A democracy, on the other hand, allows many centres of power that act to keep each other in check; at least until such time as a demagogue arises who provides a path for the concentration of power. Capitalism provides a simulacrum of democracy; again until the monopolisation of wealth increasingly restricts the choices of those that have least.

Yeah that's when I decided to find something else to listen to. He said it like it was so clever 😂

If you have read the Antifederalist Papers, what were the two major arguments they were making against the Federalist?

⁠@@nfpnone8248The lack of a bill of rights and the risk of a standing army. They had just come off of a revolutionary war against a standing army so that represented significant danger to them. The anti-federalist papers were key to influencing Madison (the architect of the constitution) that the Bill of Rights were necessary when he originally opposed them as unnecessary. If you read the anti-federalist papers or at least the ones concerning a Standing Army, you will understand that the preparatory clause of the second amendment is referring to their fear of a standing army controlled by the President. While others may argue other points from the anti-federalist as the strongest, these two resulted in changes to the constitution. Those changes were the agreement to add amendments protecting individual rights to the constitution and to include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as one of those amendments. Thus, we have the Bill of Rights.

@@carlc1864 Wrong! The antifederalist main argument was against the consolidation of the States into one simple republic that acted as a centralized government where the States were subjected to a higher authority which could require the States to reinstate slavery in States that had already abolished slavery, and other similar dictates to the States. The other main concern was that they were trying to change too many things as once and should take a stepwise approach where they could test out the changes and make sure they produced the desired results before making the next change. Antifederalist is actually a misnomer, what it means is they were against those who called themselves federalist, who the Antifederalist considered closet nationalists, as they saw the federalist as wanting a confederation of the States without a Senate where the large States would have all the power over the smaller States, which actually isn’t nationalism either, because it lacks the balance that is necessary to protect minority interest and minority participation in the legislative process. The antifederalist were actually strict federalist, where they believed in the equality of the States regardless of size, population or wealth, which is a pure democracy of the States. However a confederated republic with a senate balances the legislative process and protects not only the rights of the minority, which are the rights of the large States in a democracy and the rights of the small states in a republic without a senate, which is known as “legislative checks and balances”, which requires the concurrence of the People in their Collective Capacity and the States in their Collective Capacity to assent to any measure and gives the States assembled as equals with equal suffrage, the democracy of the States as the Union, the power of concurrence over all laws and all treaties. The Bill of Rights only puts constraints on the unchecked power of the States as the Union to protect individuals from decisions which would disenfranchise or otherwise oppress them, but as amendments of addition, they in no way impact the legislative assembly or the legislative process established by the Constitution of he United States or the Articles of Confederation. A Standing army was also not a concern, as in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, the Army and Naval forces necessary to protect the States from invasion and commerce was determined by the united States, in Congress assembled, the Union, not the individual states, even the militia that was required to kept in a state of readiness and properly equipped and to have weapons in public stores, was also determined by the States collectively as the united States, in congress assembled. The only substantive amendment to the Articles of Confederation was to change the apportionment of taxes on the States to pay the debts of the Union from an assessment of the different forms of property within each State to a per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, which created equity, and coupled with the apportionment of representation by the same per capita apportionment created “No Taxation without Representation”, as all federal expenditures must be agreed to through participation of all the States which have correspondingly agreed to pay proportionally for those expenditures they created together as a union. I think you should review both the federalist and antifederalist papers, as well as the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation, because they only balanced the legislative process and made the assessment of taxes to pay the debts of Union more equitable, creating a More Perfect Union, keeping everything else the same. I suspect that you have never read the Articles of Confederation, and haven’t studied the antifederalist papers in a way that you can understand what they were advocating for, because they were trying to preserve democracy and avoid nationalism, or something worse than nationalism. I also agree with the antifederalist that an incremental approach would have been better, they could have easily added the Republican Form of Government established by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States without changing anything else, and made sure it worked properly before making the more cosmetic changes of separating the government into different departments, which only allows the Senate the ability to concentrate on other matters or recess, to be called into actual secession when their consideration is necessary.

@@carlc1864 For some reason KZfaq erases my comments, I guess they don’t agree with what I’m saying. Your understanding of the arguments of the antifederalist are inaccurate. In fact antifederalist is a misnomer, because it only means they were against those who called themselves federalist, because they were strict federalist and believed in a democracy of the States as equals with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union, and were against consolidation of the States into a centralized government, nationalism, which would rule over the States forcing the States to reinstate slavery in States that had already abolished slavery, and other similar dictates which disenfranchised the States. The other concern was that they were making too many changes at the same time, and wanted a more incremental approach, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the Antifederalist arguments, as they are only amendments of addition to put constraints on the collective power of the States as the Union, and do not in any way change the legislative assembly or the legislative process, which is what the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation establish. To constitute means to form or assemble, and the only thing formed and assembled by the Constitution of the United States, and the Articles of Confederation, is congress as a legislative assembly of the States governed by legislative processes to make the collective decisions of the States as the Union. A standing army was also not a concern, as the army and navy that was necessary to protect the States from invasion and to protect commerce was established in both documents as collective decisions of the States as the Union assembled in Congress. To be blunt, you are hunting in the wrong field! The Antifederalist were against nationalism and were concerned with an all or nothing approach to making changes. And I actually agree with them on both counts!

​@@nfpnone8248 I suppose you wanted your 2 major arguments validated and that is where I disagree. Yes, they made those arguments along with many others and while they may have intended the argument to vote against the constitution as their major argument. That is not how it evolved. The reasons that I used strongest to describe the ones I brought up is because they were the most successful and resulted in a change. That change was to prepare and seek the approval of the amendments immediately after approval. Unalienable rights were first brought up in Antifederalist Paper #4 and rights and Bill of Rights appeared in multiple Antifederalist papers from that point until they concluded with Antifederalist #84 "On The Lack of a BIll Of Rights". So yes, the Bill of Rights was core to their argument throughout the Antifederalist papers. Regarding a Standing Army, I suggest you read Antifederalist paper # 24 Objections To a Standing Army (Part I) and #25 Objections to a Standing Army (Part II) and top that off with #29 Objections to National Control of the Militia. Of course, objections to the standing army were also brought up in several other Antifederalist papers as a reoccurring objection. So, my Dog does hunt and managed to point out the most successful arguments of the Antifederalist Papers. Particularly those that were later adopted to amend the constitution. Source for numbering and titles above came from www.theconstitutionalistsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf

That is a gem of a statement. I copied it, thank you. Can't wait to lay that down in my next disagreement.

youtube?

I recommend browsing our Playlists. He's led series on the Major Battles of World War II, Vietnam, presidents of the 20th century, and more. Thank you for watching.

Yes, and the unfinished sentences: more than half.

Walter Williams

No president for life, and no king or queen, or someone that is in office that are communist or a sort like collective socialist ,

I heard it fine, but I did have the same problem a few days ago w a different video.

Sounded fine on my end.

He's offputting point blank.

This dude is engaging, knowledgeable, funny, and thoughtful. If that’s a poor teacher, then what does a good one look like?