James O’Keefe ‘Hannity’ Interview
by PubliusTonight on “Hannity,” James O’Keefe gave his first public interview since his arrest in New Orleans:
“The People’s Office”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
36 Comments
I've got a funny feeling that they're answering the phones at Ms Landrieu's office now.
And I'll bet they're not very happy about it either. Mission accomplished James, good work.
Notice how we got only few straggler trolls today/tonight and how dejected they all sounded?
If there was a poll running on the case being dropped or not I'd have to vote it will be dropped.. The US Attorney stepping down, there right to a phone call being denied for 28 hours will be the undueing of any hope the Acorn folks had of seeing him going to trial..
Article 03 – Passionate mankind will have struggles (Ultimately Leads to War)
“In the souls of its citizens will be found the likeness of the state which if they be unjust and tyrannical, then will it reflect their vice, but if
they be lovers of righteousness, confident in their liberties, so will it be clean in justice, bold in freedom.”
Carving in the entrance hall of the Oregon State Capital
As we have discussed in the previous two articles the importance of the concept of “Freewill” and the fact
that governments should implement laws and regulations that support and maximize the amount of “Freewill”
an individual can express (Chapter 1, Article 01), as well as the government should implement political
structures that limit the temptation for an individual to treat their position of power as their own property with
the intention of using their power to bring advantages to their own selves or their own factions (Chapter 1,
Article 02), we now turn to the general natural understanding that mankind will have struggles to maintain
their existence throughout their lifetime and those struggles lead to conflict. Since we inherently are a
species that at times are content with conflict and at times we search for a “fight” to satisfy the warrior that
resides deep inside all of us, resulting in the need for an individual to exist which provides them motivation to
“fight” to survive. Whether that fight is a noble cause such as a doctor solving deadly diseases, or an
executive engulfed in a competitive business market, or a sports fan choosing their favorite team based on
their birthplace and experiences, or a mother staying up late to help convince their child that studying for a
test tomorrow is an important effort, all of us find causes to relate and reasons to “drive” us to want to wake
up and go into the world with purpose. With this natural desire to “win” or have purpose combined with the
desire to maximize our own freewill along with the alluring possibility of political power or market based
power that can be controlled to meet our needs and our faction’s needs, we can find the truest and rawest
form of what we can call “conflict”.
But what is conflict? The following is a point of view describing conflict from the perspective of the founding
fathers; “…when two or more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's
goal-seeking capability…”1 which, if not properly addressed, will lead to the subversion of one party or the
next or will result in an expression of violence that may be passive or aggressive in nature. This leads to one
party or the other being on the receiving end of an oppressive act. This oppressive act ultimately will result in
the party suffering at some level since they are not free to pursue their goals. From a constitutional
perspective we originally concerned ourselves with the mechanics of justice in the face of conflict and never
sought to explicitly touch upon the type of conflict we as the founding fathers thought to be most applicable in
our efforts to create a better union. The idea that we had to clearly define what was conflict and how it can
be managed within a society was “a given” from our perspective since our republic assumed that ultimately
societal resolution of conflict, or civil justice, was to be the states responsibility.
None the less, it is now critical to define “Conflict” as we understood as founding fathers for the purposes of
creating a governance model that minimizes suffering within the different groups that make up a population
within the boundaries of a state within the nation, which is a republic. Specifically, we need to define that the
premise of conflict between groups is not something that needs to be legislated out of existence, but it is
something that is inevitable and must be properly addressed to ensure the widest freedom for all with the
least amount of suffering by those involved in the conflict. Where, from the founding father’s perspective, this
process of addressing conflict to ensure freedom and minimize suffering is the essence of “Justice”. This
brings us to our first principle of conflict and its resulting Justice, “The process by which conflict is resolved
such that freedom is preserved for society while the natural laws of mankind are upheld, is called Justice.
Where Justice is NOT acting upon the subjective perceptions of mankind’s desire to ensure an element of
fairness occurs for those whom would be governed.” The best test used for this principle is the adage, “Justice has been served.” One can look no further than to local judicial decisions to determine if Justice has
been served, or not, within the context of enforcing freedom.
Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
So if mankind is prone to “conflict” what are the needs that drive conflict? There are many things that can be
defined as conflict within a society, but the most important aspect of this discussion should remain in the
understanding that humans have needs that range from avoiding hunger and the cold, to developing friends
and family and to eventually developing self actualization.2 From this hierarchy, which has been known to be
called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we have witnessed over time that when the human condition is starved
of opportunities to satisfy these needs through whatever events push these circumstances, conflict will exist
between groups and individuals that are competing to meet their needs. It can also be observed that there is
an opportunity for conflict to decrease as the conflict rises up the pyramid of needs as defined by Maslow’s
Hierarchy of needs theory. Which brings us to the second principle of “Conflict and Justice”, “Types of
conflict can be broken into five different categories, physiological, safety, belonging, esteem, selfactualization
where the probability of conflict between groups and individuals decreases as the type of
conflict moves from the lowest need [physiological] to the highest need [self-actualization].”
Since we now can view conflict within the context of human needs, as a general understanding, it would
make sense that all humans would engage in a mutually agreeable efforts to trade without conflict. But, as a
generality, this is almost never the case for all events. For example, there will always be someone who does
not hold up their end of a contract, or someone that steals from a company or from a store. So evidently, the
nature of mankind is to behave with some relevant moderation such that one can trade for their needs
without conflict becoming an important factor, but this rule is broken regularly. From the founding fathers
perspective, the defining attribute for understanding the true nature of conflict is within the previous
discussion on mankind’s struggles with Passion. This struggle with the passion’s of men have guaranteed a
mechanism that forces mankind to always live with the truth that these passions of mankind will force people
to make erroneous decisions that negatively impact others. Such as the individual that is driven by greed
such that they make decisions that impacts their friends or family’s needs in a negative fashion. The
individual that is consumed by gluttony will force others and their family to endure larger than normal grocery
bills as another example. This leads us to the third principle of “Conflict and Justice”, “Passions of mankind
will put an individual or group on a disproportionate collision course with other groups or individuals in their
pursuit of their needs where no easy trading option exists; where the events of this conflict will lead to
passive violence or direct violence, resulting in one party losing to the ‘stronger’ group or individual, which
may have the most resources to continue the violence, so that the losing group is put into a position to have
their freedoms and liberties negatively compromised.”
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
— Justice Louis D. Brandeis dissenting, Olmstead v. United States
If this principle is true at the civil level, how is it possible that a nation can confront the passions of mankind
that threaten to cause war? The question of national defense was the primary concern of the Founding
Fathers in the formation of the nation during the writing of the constitution. We can reference you to the first
set of Federalist Papers #2, #3, #4 and #5 on the subject of “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and
Influence”, where we outlined the need to ban the colonies together to share the responsibility of defending
the rights of all citizens from outside forces that might look to destroy or overpower existing governance to rule those citizens within the colony’s boundaries. We outlined the need for a strong military to defend the
colony’s interest against direct aggressive actions from other nations. Where we did not focus, was on how
the passions of mankind might bring a nation to the brink of war, since we focused on the “defense” of
aggression from the outside forces. As this is a new world and the United States of America now faces the
real possibility of being the aggressor, we should warn those that govern the United States of America
should be guarded against making decisions to go to war in defense of mankind’s passions. Whether it is for
economic stability that is real or driven by greed, or a focus on the fear that terrorists will attack the nation
that is driven by an honest defense or a motivation driven by national anger, there are passions that can
grow larger than an individual to bring a nation to engage in war like activities. These passions at a national
level can unleash oppressive behaviors onto other nations, violating the first set of principles we have
outlined in defense of “Freewill”. So we come to the fourth principle of “Conflict and Justice”, “The
government should be organized in such a manner to ensure that conflicts between nations have a clear
path of negotiations as a primary line of defense. With the governing body focusing on a right mindedness
decision to go to war in ‘defense’ of the nation with an assurance to minimizing the desire to fan the passions
of mankind such that war would be an inevitable choice.”
…the people don't want war… That is understood. But… it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
— Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 from Nuremberg Diary, by G. M. Gilbert.
So if war is possible through the passion’s of mankind, is it not reasonable that war could be avoided by
enforcing control over man’s passion’s? We have to remember that Justice is a result of natural laws, and
that mankind is challenged to not only create the process by which conflict is resolved, the judicial system,
but to enact laws that most closely represent the natural laws that exist. This concept is relevant to the
concerns of conflicts that are civil in nature but are potentially not relevant to those items that are national in
nature with respect to how a nation deals with other nations within the context of conflict. The Constitution is
very clear in this respect that it is the responsibility for the Executive Branch to protect the people of the
United States of America. Within this context, we assumed the position of control to declare war was the full
responsibility of the Congress, with the Executive Branch, specifically the President, with responsibility for
leading the troops to a successful campaign. Ultimately, we must then focus on two approaches to this kind
of conflict, the first, the direct and deliberate proof that the United States of America was attacked, such as
the day of peril harbor or the day of September 11th, 2001. These direct attacks are clear proof of an external
entity in pursuit of the goal to harm and kill American Citizens. It is the duty of the Congress and the
President to fully implement the might of the United States to extinguish the threat. The second approach is
the situation where the United States of America utilizes it’s might without a clear provocation. Within this
limited space we cannot treat this subject to its fullest extent where others have dedicated their life to
debating this subject. But what we can surmise from our previous two principles is this, that the ultimate goal
of a national defense is to support the principles of “Freewill” while enforcing through force if necessary a
check on the natural tendency of mankind to capture and grow their own power over other men and woman.
Such that, for this second issue, we must protect against the use of force to advance the political and
financial goals that can be held by some individuals. Thus, we come to our fifth principle of “Conflict and
Justice”, “The government must be prepared to utilize force, in a reasonable manner, to protect the citizens
of its nation against other nations if a direct threat is presented to the people. This power of force must be
checked by a governing body of people that can ensure that the passion’s of mankind are not fanned to
engage in war like activities for those who hold power where their factions benefit from the war like activities.
Additionally, treating war like activities, which come from outside the boundaries of the nation, as equal to
internal policing efforts must be seen as a governmental dereliction of duty.”
Now that we understand the premise of the Constitution, that we built several hundred years ago, to defend
the nation against external forces, had within it the mechanisms to allow the citizenry to monitor and manage
those whom would govern themselves to make the prudent choices on their behave at the international level
on matters of war and negotiations with external nations and entities. We should then turn to the internal
question that we addressed within the Federalist Papers, “How should justice be levied within the boundaries
of the United States of America?” This question was of critical importance for each of the states since they wanted to manage their own affairs internally. The general understanding so many years ago was first
applied to the concept of who would have the ability to hand out justice. Or in short, how do you define a
system that would result in a fair result between two parties such that hostilities would be reduced or
eliminated. This is where we turned to the concept that it was the responsibility of the citizenry to live their
own lives as they saw fit and to provide the mechanism for two parties to come to a government entity to
have their conflict arbitrated. We also believed at Justice in of itself had its basis in natural law. The following
are quotes that support this concept of Justice as taken from Wikpedia:
“For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g, John Locke), it involves the system of consequences which naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.3 John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. There is considerable debate about whether his conception of natural law was more akin to that of Aquinas (filtered through Richard Hooker) or Hobbes' radical reinterpretation, though the effect of Locke's understanding is usually phrased in terms of a revision of Hobbes upon Hobbesean contractualist grounds. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.”4
Where we now come to the sixth principle of “Conflict and Justice”, “Justice is properly preserved within a
state or nation when the life, the liberty and the property of an individual is protected. While if these things
are not protected by the state, natural law would reveal itself by the efforts of individuals actively seeking to
overthrow the government or behaving in ways counter intuitive to the intended restrictive law’s purpose.”
Thus, it is fair to say that if Justice is not being served to quell and tame the passions of mankind through a
fair and consistent judicial system, conflicts and potential strife will be exasperated, as there is no other
outlet for the people, specifically for those citizenry whom DO NOT harbor excessive desires driven by
unreasoned and irrational passions.
As we understood as the founding fathers, the intentions of those whom govern as elected by the people
would reflect the moral character of the people. If the people are lead to act on passions of mankind then
they will elect those whom would leverage those passions of the people to their own advantage to gain and
remain in power (Principles of Chapter 2). Where the people will find over time that their freedoms and
liberties will be slowly restricted and taken away thus would impact their ability to express their own freewill
(Principles of Chapter 1). Therefore, through this understanding it is imperative that we ask the question,
“How can Government organize to ensure Justice is applied uniformly?” To answer this question we will look
at the following discussion in the Federalist Paper #78 on the Judicial Branch of the United States of
America:
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community. 5
So what does the Olmstead v. United States case have to do with a Non-Wiretapping case ??? BTW Olmstead v. United States case was later overturned Katz v. United States..
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress. 6
Principles of Conflict and Justice
#1 – Justice is the result of Natural Laws
The process by which conflict is resolved such that freedom is preserved for society while the natural laws of
mankind are upheld, is called Justice. Where Justice is NOT acting upon the subjective perceptions of
mankind’s desire to ensure an element of fairness occurs for those whom would be governed.
#2 – Conflicts are a result of Individual Needs
Types of conflict can be broken into five different categories, physiological, safety, belonging, esteem, selfactualization where the probability of conflict between groups and individuals decreases as the type of
conflict moves from the lowest need [physiological] to the highest need [self-actualization].
#3 – Government without Justice Leads to Limits on Freedom and Liberty
Passions of mankind will put an individual or group on a disproportionate collision course with other groups
or individuals in their pursuit of their needs where no easy trading option exists; where the events of this
conflict will lead to passive violence or direct violence, resulting in one party losing to the ‘stronger’ group or
individual, which has the most resources to continue the violence, so that the losing group is put into a
position to have their freedoms and liberties negatively compromised.
#4 – Governments defend their Citizenry to Ensure Liberty
The government should be organized in such a manner to ensure that conflicts between nations have a clear
path of negotiations as a primary line of defense. With the governing body focusing on a right mindedness
decision to go to war in ‘defense’ of the nation with an assurance to minimizing the desire to fan the passions
of mankind such that war would be an inevitable choice.
#5 – The Utilization of Force is the only deterrent against External Force as a Last Resort
The government must be prepared to utilize force, in a reasonable manner, to protect the citizens of its
nation against other nations if a direct threat is presented to the people. This power of force must be checked
by a governing body of people that can ensure that the passion’s of mankind are not fanned to engage in
war like activities for those who hold power where their factions benefit from the war like activities.
Additionally, treating war like activities, which come from outside the boundaries of the nation, as equal to
internal policing efforts must be seen as a dereliction of duty by the government.
#6 – The Violation of the Natural Laws of Justice Result in Passive or Active Descent
Justice is properly preserved within a state or nation when the life, the liberty and the property of an
individual is protected. While if these things are not protected by the state, natural law would reveal itself by
the efforts of individuals actively seeking to overthrow the government or behaving in ways counter intuitive
to the intended restrictive law’s purpose.
#7 – The Nation’s Character will determine the Cycle of Violence relative to the Effective Justice
As a Nation descends into a confused lawless landscape with little to no effective Justice, so will the
population be put into compromised positions, such that, those that are elected into office will have a more
prone character to enflame the passions of the masses in support of war like activities which would inflict
harm onto individuals, groups and other nations.
#8 – The Nation’s Character can be independent to the Delivery of Justice to Preserve Liberty
As a Nation upholds the love for righteousness in Justice and solidifies their confidence in their liberties to
preserve an individual’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, through the possession of property, will
the Nation keep a clean and uniform delivery of justice, which in the end will ensure Freedom. Where this
path is only achievable if the Justices themselves are beholden to the preservation of these facts of Justice,
and they resist the whims of those whom would govern the citizenry.
As these Principles of Conflict and Justice helped guide us, the Founding Fathers, through our time of
change and conflict, these too will help our efforts to bring the United States of America back into alignment
with true intent of the Founding Fathers, to create a great nation where mankind could live with liberty and
freedom such that they would spend their time on this planet with the hopes of pursuing the achievement of
happiness. Thus, as the next articles appear, if you are not able to accept these principles as written here on
Conflict and Justice, you will most likely not agree to the remaining principles the next articles will define.
Principles of Political Power (From Article 02)
#1 – Hold on Political Power is Relative
Any rational individual that finds themselves in a position of power will more freely relinquish their powers if
they are expected to do so; where given the opportunity, if one exists, as well as if encouraged by their
factions to remain, they will justify the need to remain in power.
#2 – Relative Political Power is based on Length of Time
The longer a position of power is held by an individual the more will the holder perceive it as “property” and
thus will their desire to continue to hold the power will remain and the further “justification” will permeate in
their minds that they are the “rightful” owners of the position of power they hold.
#3 – Political Power directly impacts Freewill
Those who have political power will by definition have power over the subsistence, or the means of
providing, of those they govern. And in the general course of human nature, a power over an individual's
subsistence amounts to a power over their ability to express their freewill.8
#4 – Political Power, unchecked, will lead to Tyranny
Any power that can be abused will be abused and will always expand to fill the limits of the resistance to the
abuse. If the people being abused don't resist the abuses of those that govern them, there will be no one to
resist the abuses they will inflict once they are governing, such that tyranny, in the end, must prevail.9
#5 – Governance Can be Crafted to Guarantee Tyrants do not Evolve
For a government to ensure that all of the individuals in which they govern are not lead to suffer through
unfair and unjust laws defining the line of separation of right and wrong which could bring an advantage to
those whom govern, the government must be constructed on a foundation around what they can do on the
behalf of the people as well as clear rules around what they CANNOT do to those they govern, with the
correct mechanisms in place to ensure and guarantee that men/women that do obtain a position of power
and decide to wield their power with abandon are quickly removed.
Principles of Freewill (From Article 01)
#1 – Mankind’s is born with the natural gift of Freewill
We are born with freewill; some religions refer to this as a “God Given” right.
#2 – Freewill cannot be taken
Freewill cannot be taken by anyone. It can be suppressed but in the end we make that choice to suppress.
#3 – Freewill cannot be given
Freewill cannot be given. We can abdicate it for some time, but doing so allows one to adopt a master.
#4 – Effective governance must utilize Freewill to be successful
Laws that govern mankind must take freewill into account if human suffering is to be minimized.
Seems Publius just wrote a law text book! Yes, the United States Government is currently abusive with its power and uses every means possible to intimidate and destroy anyone with whom it disagrees!
Keep exposing the liars, cheats, and scoundrels James. Government is a 'target rich' environment.
Wow, quite a "juicy" story. I think when all is said and done this could be larger than ACORN. Mr. O'Keefe, you are on the fast track to a pullitzer. Or maybe you will be able to replace Geraldo on Fox:)
Jams dodged some questions for sure on this and was clear his answer was one advised by legal counsel. The bigger issue is being ignored once again which is WHY he did it. People were/are complaining about the Senators phone lines being tied up so where are they now to speak up on it? Where are the reporters to go into her district and ask folks if they tried to get through? Why hasn't anyone contacted the phone company to get their side of the story, surely there is someone there who would 'share' some info!?
He was correct about his 'disguise', and we have all seen the expos'es by the MSM where they have their investigator in some get up with multiple hidden cameras running. So he has not done anything wrong by dressing up, but b/c he is not tied with MSM they deny him the title of investigative journalist. Who dictates who is and isn't an investigative journalist?
lets take the focus off of James 'til he can get this issue resolved and in the meantime kick things up and start asking questions about what made James and his colleagues do this in the first place. Go after Landrieu the MSM etc. What they are doing is typical radical tactics to redirect the issue. They are full steam on going after James redirecting everyone off of the original question… why he did it! The more we talk about James the more the real issue gets buried, its a game to them and people are falling for it!
Stop playing their game and start playing yours through http://www.savingtherepublic.com
The MSM and the left were waiting for Hannity to ask James if they examined his crotch area for any C-4.
You never know, he might have been packin.
If he (James) had asked for an attorney after only 50 minutes, he'd probably have some bruises to show for it. Unless of course he had some plastic explosives in his underwear. In that case he'd of had a free attorney on the spot.
this case will be determined by whether or not O'Keefe et al. appear in front of an activist judge, or one appointed by a Dem– hopefully that won't be the case–
Keep it up James, but just a little more duck and cover. They if they can will lock you up. I gurantee there is no one on the left who will stand and say thankyou. They wil stand to convict you. Our government for the most is a group of punk radicals who worry only about themselves. Each one staking out a chicago street corner.
Well, Holder refused to charge the 'black panthers' and THEY were clearly breaking the law…cant' wait to see how this turns out!
Or copied one! It's too early to digest all this and I'm left wondering what the main point is – other than the obvious, which could have been said in a sentence or two. Pretty sure we all are familiar with Maslow, Jung, et al
and mankinds need for meaning, pretty sure our founding fathers knew far more than the average person alive today.
I hate people who are in love with the sound of their own voice (or their mad typing skills).
That office is a space, we the people, allow Landrieu to occupy. It is NOT her space. It belongs to the public. Given her history, she should be the one answering investigators' questions, not Okeefe. I'd bet her phones are once again "unjammed" and I hope other congresspeople are being more responsive to their constituents. In my opinion, she should be charged with accepting a bribe.
Okeefe is doing the work that journalists should be doing, but are so in the tank with the progressives, they are refusing to do. Keep it up James. I wish there were more of you! Our MSM should be ashamed of themselves. They no longer are believable and are commiting journalist malpractice. Our MSM is sitting by and watching our freedoms evaporate.
So we come now to the final Principle of “Conflict and Justice”, where in this case there are two, one that
demonstrates the fall of the government to hold to these principles and the second is the recipe to immunize
a nation from this disease of broken character. Principle seven is, “As a Nation descends into a confused
lawless landscape with little to no effective Justice, so will the population be put into compromised positions,
such that, those that are elected into office will have a more prone character to enflame the passions of the
masses in support of war like activities which would inflict harm onto individuals, groups and other nations.”
Where the eighth principle is, “As a Nation upholds the love for righteousness in Justice and solidifies their
confidence in their liberties to preserve an individual’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, through
the possession of property, will the Nation keep a clean and uniform delivery of justice, which in the end will
ensure Freedom. Where this path is only achievable if the Justices themselves are beholden to the
preservation of these facts of Justice, and they resist the whims of those whom would govern the citizenry.”
Again, we the founding fathers believed that there is hope for mankind, that one can set up government in
such a way that freedom and liberty can be achieved over time and that oppression and the relentless
pursuit of an individual’s wealth of those who would govern can be stopped. And the cycle of the rise of
governments that harbor liberty resulting in freedom and the inevitable destruction of those governments
over time to the vices of those whom govern can be stopped. Thus, as a Federalist, we can pose the
following third set of principles of conflict and justice:
I appreciate what O'Keefe was trying to do here, but saying it's the "people's office" works great in a political campaign, not so much in court. You can't just go into a federal building or office and do whatever you wish. There are laws and civil decency. Let's not fall into the trap of the Alinsky method that says the ends justify the means, or we're no better than the opposition.
A politition who doesnt want to talk to people that didnt vote for them, disagree with their policies, and probably just want to yell and complain is not news. Tresspassing and attempting to tamper with a phone system ( allegedly) is illegal. By the way Im glad James Madison finally got his website up and working.
James just be careful, you know the Left
would love to stop you from doing
your work…You are one of their targets!!
Your a brave young man and have a lot
of supporters.Hoping the best for you!
This is only the beginning of Obama's democracy; next, think about Castro, Chavez, and political prisioners to see where they would like to go.
punk radicals, couldn't have said it better myself!
Great post. It is clear You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned to your advantage.
The way you write shows you have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself.
It seems to me that while While you have some personal weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.