correction: Hart's wife died in October, his home was over-run in November 1776 - most of his 13 children were adults and were not at home - Hart died of kidney stones
The formation of the "United States" was a clear act of thievery. The "founding fathers" stole this country from the people, and then had the high-handedness to have themselves declared our patriarchs.
No, they were not your forefathers, they stole your inheritance.
@Jcolinsol You live in a free country so you can get away with saying it. But the way you chose to exercise your freedom tells me that you are a low-life.
@Jcolinsol In that case I can also categorize your criticism of the founding fathers as pointless. You won't articulate, but demands to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.
I wasn't asserting that your argument was pointless, just that the logical conclusion I should draw from your response is that you are speaking more from emotion than ration.
Now, if you wanted further explanation of my argument, I would happily provide it. But you didn't ask, instead you called me scum for some unexplained reason.
I did not call you a scum. I called you a low-life. Maybe in your mind the words are interchangeable. You see the people who founded this country left it free enough that people can feel secure even when they criticize the founders themselves, as it should be so. But that is the lowest form in which such a freedom can be expressed. I usually hold people who makes such claims in low esteem. Thus you where called a low-life. I already explained it, although not with this level of detail.
Well, here's the thing that you didn't consider, I don't consider the founding fathers to have granted me freedom. So your assessment doesn't work within my framework of thinking. You have failed to consider an alternative perspective, which means that you didn't understand my comment at all, and a better course of action would have been to ask for explanation.
@Jcolinsol The founding fathers did not grant you your freedom. That is absurd. It is not within their power to grant it to anyone who outlives them. In fact it was not even the state of things when they signed the declaration. What they did was create a mechanism by which such rights are recognized so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.
To that I say tomayto tomahto. The point remains the same, I would be freer without the apparatus that they created.
They chose a constitutional republic specifically because they feared political influence by the people. And like all constitutional republics this government has predominantly been used to protect the status quo. Rather than trying to free us from the monarchy, they sought to protect the aristocracy.
And they, and you, tell us that it's for our own good.
@Jcolinsol Yeah consider Somalia, no constitution, no working government, it is an utopia is it not? Remember the analogy of the kite-string. Don't be naive. You think it is holding you back, it is preventing you from soaring, but without the string, you will come crashing down like the kite. And oh, there is no aristocracy in the US and you know that.
I don't think that Somalia's recent history is a good proof for your argument, considering that several of the series of failed states there HAD constitutions. It could just as easily support my assertion that constitutions are irrelevant to real political power.
If you really think that there is no aristocracy in America, I don't think that you are paying attention. This country is very clearly dominated by an elite few. Even Obama is a blood relation of Dick Chaney!
@Jcolinsol I am not making an argument for power. I am making an argument for freedom. With little or no checks in place to protect people's freedom, you have rival power factions turning the country into a war zone. The constitution provides the checks. There is no aristocracy in America. Obama maybe related to Dick Cheney or the bastard child of Henry the VIII for all I care. He is in power because he worked to get there, not because who he is born to. That would be Prince Williams.
Right, you are making an argument for what I consider to be the fictional idea of how government works. I am pointing out ways that the actual system is elitist and deprives the people of freedom.
As for checks and balances, I am all for them, but observation of natural systems of social order suggests to me that the best checks and balances have nothing to do with government, and that constitutions are tools for elites to avoid having their power checked.
@Jcolinsol Elite. People smarter than me who by virtue of their intellect are in a position of virtue and privilege with my consent. I like that. I want that. I want people who won't make the mistakes that I make to take the important decisions. But you resent that. You are jealous that they are smart. You cannot stand that they can rule with consent. So you try to destroy the republic. I and many like me are the strength of the elites you detest. They have earned our respect, you our contempt.
And that attitude feeds in very nicely to the historical belief that the artistocrats were elites by virtue of their superiority. You are not advocating aristocracy, are you not?
Not only that, but now you are contradicting the whole intended purpose of a constitution: to eliminate the need for a governing class by creating simple laws applicable to everyone.
So has this secretly been your position all along, or is your political philosophy simply incoherent?
@Jcolinsol Nonsense. Everyone is superior (or inferior) to someone else in some respects. Not everyone can be Mozart or Pablo Picasso. Aristocracy is superiority based purely on birth. If birth does not gives one superiority, then by virtue of his talents, he can be superior still. That does not make anyone into an aristocrat. You are just pissed off that some people are smarter than you.
@Jcolinsol The constitution is not there to provide a simple set of rules for everyone, that at best is a bonus. It is there to equally protect the liberties of everyone. Rich man and the poor man, the industrialist and the labourer, the doctor and the lawyer, the janitor and the CEO. Because people who are not equally talented are still equally free. You are just trying to read your biases into the consitution.
I fail to see how I can be criticized for using a freedom that they, supposedly, granted me, in exactly the way they intended me to use it: to criticize them. At any rate, I don't need a constitution to give me freedom of speech, in fact I should be considerably freer with no constitution at all.
@Jcolinsol You are wrong again in too many ways. The fact that you have rights does not mean that the way you use those rights is above criticism. Only that you can use it without fear of punishment. Again they did not grant you your rights. They help protect it. The constitution is there to secure your rights. Think of it like a kite-string. To the naive person, it looks like the string is holding the kite down, preventing it from soaring away, but without it, the kite will crash.
Arguably, the whole point of the first ammendment was for the press (another usually aristocratic tool) to be able to criticize the government. What did you think they put that in their for, to protect people's right to make poop jokes?
I don't consider constitutions to be a sound system of social order because they don't enforce themselves, so ultimately power lies with those who interpret and enforce the law, invariably the aristocratic class.
@Jcolinsol You actually believe what you say! It is all trash! Those that interpret them are not aristocrats. They are the representatives of the people. They reach their position of power and privilege by virtue of what they do, not who they are born to, which is what makes an aristocrat. The same goes for press men too.
Well, this is certainly the popular mythos about representational government, but observation leads me to consider it fiction. When I say aristocracy I mean a small group of privileged elites with rule.
At present our economy is dominated by a handful of corporations, that very directly looks like a small group of privileged elites with rule.
In fact your assertion that they worked for what they have goes back to the historical belief that aristocrats were better than commoners.
@Jcolinsol So you are playing with words. Nice to have you admit it. An aristocrat is a dirty word because it puts people in positions of privilege based on birth. You transpose that dirty word into an irrelevant setting because you are simply pissed off that the same few people have consistently displayed the skill to be the people's representative. You are being deceptive. I submit to you none of their children can inherit their prestige. They will have to work at it for themselves.
Fantastic video and channel, just discovered your website too, great work. We need more videos like this out there to actually inform people, thank you. GO SOX!
You should be named 'black and intellectually dishonest'. If ythe constitution was an immutable document, then blacks would be slaves, women, and those who are not land owners would not have voting rights.
The fact is, contrary to your unsupported assertion, the founders were liberals by definition. They weren't looking for the status quo (to be a British colony), they were looking for change (independence). Although the personal stories are compelling they are not evidence of your claims.
@verstwo2 Well, it's obvious you haven't read any of the writings of Frederick Douglass who probably did more research into the writings of the Founders than you have on Wikipedia, and concluded the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. Whose word should we take, his or yours?
As far as your whitewashing of history, it may work in the classroom, but we aren't buying it here.
@BlackAndRight - thanks for prejudging my level of education on the subject. Classy. I [personally prefer to for my own informed opinions instead of having them spoon fed by others. Do you know what a amendment is? It is a change to the constitution. The entire bill of rights consists of amendments to the constitution. Don't take my word for it, read the original constitution.
@BlackAndRight - 'black and intellectually dishonest' isn't prejudice, as I haven't prejudged anything, and being anonymous has nothing to do with it. It's merely a tongue in cheek way of pointing out the intellectual dishonesty you displayed in the video. It's a judgment based on what I do know about you from this video, which I pointed out in my previous post, and not what I've assumed.
@BlackAndRight - No, you're not suppose to 'drop everything', but obviously you've already responded to me a few times. And my comment was not meant to be a veiled threat but rather a direct response to your comment "you bring your anonymous self here....At least we know whom we're dealing with here." do you not see that contradiction there?
You imply the constitution is not a 'living(changeable) document'. Do you stand by that assertion? And if so how do you explain amendments(changes)?
@verstwo2 While being visionaries, I don't believe they were fortune tellers and since I wasn't there, I can only speculate they genuinely believed in the good in humanity for the most part. Could they have foreseen the Klan and a particular party willing to start a war and succeed in order to keep discriminatory practices in place? Could they have foreseen a mass media or even the idea that there would be those who'd go out of their way to squelch speech?
@verstwo2: Is he supposed to quiver in fear over an anonymous troll on the internet ? You say, "you have no idea who your dealing with"... Well, the first and most obvious point is that he is dealing with someone who has yet to master the English language. (Hint, hint: It should be "You have no idea who YOU'RE dealing with." You're is the contraction for you are. Your is the possessive.)
Maybe after you've learned skills in basic English grammar you can come back to lecture Mr. Parks.
@MomOfSixBlessings - No one should 'quiver in fear' over my comments and it wasn't a lecture. It was a comment in a comment section in which I brought up legitimate points of contention over his wholly unsupported assertions. Yet you choose to focus on a trivial grammatical error, ignoring all of of my other points. I really don't need your permission to comment here and if Mr. 'black and right' want to block me for voicing a dissenting opinion then that is his prerogative.
@verstwo2. I see that your continued inability to utilize the English language properly has rendered you incapable of discerning between "can" and "may". You certainly "may" attempt to lecture Mr. Parks. But "can" you? That would be a question of capacity, which you have yet to demonstrate.
Again, there is no "legitimate point of contention" contained in the phrase "You have no idea who your (sic) dealing with"... Of course he doesn't... you're simply an anonymous poster.
@verstwo2 The constitution states that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States" or maybe you think that article 5 doesn't count. Article 5 of the constitution states very specifically how to amend it. The problem is that liberals don't seem to care about original meaning, like for the second amendment they ignore the "Shall not be infringed" part when they bring up gun control.
@zakneifien - well thanks for supporting my points. The Constitution IS an amendable document, contrary to Mr 'BlackandRight's claim that it is not a 'living document'. The 13th amendment is NOT a part of the original constitution but was added much later. I am very certain that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment only referred to Flintlock guns as revolvers were not invented for another 40 years. But of course that's only if you care about the original meaning.
@verstwo2 OK, "only referred to Flintlock guns" would be correct if it mentioned the right to keep and bare "Flintlock guns" shall not be infringed. It doesn't it says "Arms" which refers to weapons collectively. For example during Third Servile War, Spartacus and the other slaves used kitchen utensils as arms for the revolt initially. Arms are anything that is used as a weapon, from a rock to a assault rifle.
@zakneifien - So your interpretation of the constitution is that "Arms" means any and all weapons that exist and that might be invented in the future? Then that would apply to nuclear arms? Chemical weapons? Rocket launchers? For some reason that seems a highly dubious assertion to me. It seems obvious to me that the constitutional framers could not have possibly have referred to things that did not exist at the time of it's creation. Doesn't that make sense?
@verstwo2 I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. I personally cannot fathom what will come in the future; However, the law is written the way it is and Article 5 of the constitution is the way to rectify that. As it stands I cannot fathom any law being constitutional that limits a person from keeping and baring any arms. While I do think that there are many people who shouldn't own any arms, the law is the law.
@verstwo2 To the "living document" thing. That phrase is used, by liberals, to argue that it can be reinterpreted and updated by judges without actual amendment. This is where I and many conservatives take issue. To "reinterpret or update" the constitution without amending it, is unconstitutional.
Now, if you are using the phrase "living document" only as a way to describe it as a document that can be changed through the amendment process then never mind, but it can't be changed without it.
@zakneifien - Well that is a very nuanced argument that Mr.BlackandRight did not even come close to articulating. However I can't say I agree. Judges do not have the power to change the constitution, they never have and it is their job to interpret how it applies to laws and people in a present day context. And conservative judges are just as, if not more guilty of 'reinterpreting' the constitution as liberals. Take the assault weapon argument from the previous post for just one example.
It is a document that contains within itself the proper procedure for making any necessary changes. This is nothing like the term "living document" which is used to justify judicial interpretation that changes the plain meaning of the text without going through the requisite amendment process.
@nakedBison69 Don't you know how stupid you sound? There is no arguing with people like you because you either do not listen to what I am saying or are just being an idiot who thinks they are being cute or clever or funny. All this talk about Nazi propaganda and hating religious Jews - where are you getting that from - maybe your own self-hatred or insecurity? Who knows? At this point you have embarrassed yourself and made a mockery of this wonderful site so just leave already.
Thomas Jefferson , what a nice man he was - he was a slave owner and a cruel man at that . Thomas Jefferson did not free his slaves until the end of his life , you can now see his face at mount rushmore.
It's a shame they never included black people when Francis Scott Key wrote "The Star Spangled Banner" in 1814. The ending of slavery was not until 1865 in ALL states in America. It's very clear that "O'er the land of the Free was not meant for Black people if it was writen in 1814. LOL
this is an excellent piece, thanks for the upload and reminder that many have suffered for what we take for granted.
i might disagree that our founding fathers were conservatives. wouldn't it be more accurate to call them classical liberals? i know the current crop of progressives have corrupted the "L" word.
These were men of honor and courage. Will you of this generation betray these men and the country they sacrificed for much for to create and because of them all that you now have, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
@nakedBison69 : You've got that right! Do you know how many people could have run circles around Obama? Alan West, Herman Cain, Rev. C.L. Bryant, Lynn Swann, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, etc. Need I say more? Not one of these great men who are willing to stand against the stigma of conservatism, was considered; yet each of them would have done 10 x better; their beliefs, steadfast and strong. So we end up with (God help us), someone who has never had a chance to learn anything other than Communism.
@LisaClark49 Who's fault is it that these men werent considered? i dont get it if you like these people so much what did you do to promote them? why do you talk like they couldnt have been the runnig candidate not john mccain?
The only think that I disagree with is the notion that we disagree. Not sure how you can convince yourself of that when hearing it from one you denigrate at the opening, but... knock yourself out, man.
Exactly what name did I call you when I said you were wrong? You have a nice day. And I'm so sorry to have hurt your credibility by agreeing with your video, dude.
So explain to me why this piece has to become political? I know no one on the "left" who would disagree with this. It's time for the radical right to understand that they're not the "owners" of the Constitution. It belongs to all Americans. We disagree on "politics," but the flame of the founders lives in us all.
This thing isn't letting me write more than a few words unless I start a new post so @BlackandRight...I read what they wrote themselves. Jefferson and Franklin once only wanted to be equal to people in Britain but they changed way before July 1776. This is common knowledge. Try reading what they said themselves rather than what others have distorted their words into. And don't take 1 sound bite as proof of anything...read whole documents. They were as far left as could be seen from their world
Much of the physical history is correct but the conclusions are far from it. The core group was extremely liberal...radical actually. They wanted many great changes. It was only the hangers on, that really got in the way, mainly the southern representatives, that were not radicals. Jefferson fought most of the changes and most of the changes were forced by those hangers on who did things like extend slavery until at least 1840.
My mother was in immigrant from the Phillipines, my aunt and my hairdresser and my salon people, all immigrants and every single one of them is proud to be here and angry as heck about the thought of amenesty. My salon people are from Nam. They escaped communism and he comes here and is terrified that we wlll end up that way. How sad is it that those that have escaped a tyranical goverment may end up living in another one. When or if we fall, there will not be anywhere else.
@MistressKoloth - What are you talking about? They're non-white - they automatically have preferential treatment. The US gov't is the enemy of most whites, not your people.
@sudaev I don't consider a person's color. I consider Americans as that. Americans. Color, race, nationality means nothing to me. Hence why when this administration uses race as an issue it ticks me off. I embrae legal immegrants and those that come here illegaly are already criminals. Why? Because they are.
I cried as I heard this. I'm a Cuban immigrant, naturalized citizen. Thank God that 90 miles from Cuba we had the United States and not any other country (such as Spain!). My heart is 100% U.S.A. Hearing all these stories together gives me an even greater appreciation.
This is a wonderful story of just our courageous our founding fathers were, and how important it is for us to protect the framework of government they set up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I wonder if this fella knows or would speak so passionately of the hardships and torments of the oceans of slaves that recorded their particular tales. Wait, I am sure that he knows nothing of that little bit of US history. Probably doesnt provide good conversation fodder for the community he seeks to garner favor with...who incidentally will never extend his Black ass any. Hey dude...most white people dont like you...no matter how much you know of their lauded and claimed history. Ha, ha.
Do you know history? I'll bet you buy into white people starting slavery?Yea, try and imagine a bunch of white guys waltzing into Africa and taking people. LOL It couldn't be done now and damn well couldn't be done then with no guns.African tribes where fierce! The truth is, tribes where constantly warring against eachother(and still do)and many became slaves to the victorious tribe and would also be sold to Europeans and they brought it here. Plenty of blame to go around.
No, well, not that I'm aware of. I wasn't trying to represent your opinion, I was commenting on someone elses comment with my opinion. Not even sure what your opinion would be about my comment. I probably went off comversation a bit anyway, but that's nothing new on yotube, lol.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh's dad for revive what most of Americans don't know...guess would piss anyone at school learning what the Brit's did with Americans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
.... I live in DC and if anyone want to know how blacks act come at here and ride a bus or a train. Hollywood and the media have been selling movies for years putting at mind of the population that them are doctors, lawyers, Generals, CEOs, and know we can see one incompetent destroying this Country, I wish each one of you could walk through Olkland CA, and "live" what this people are doing there with the spanics. And you are afraid to say or call who they are???, is absolutaly incredible......
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Let me rephrase, they are related but not in the way this video infers. They are separated by 11 years with different people signing them. Somehow this video manipulates the viewer to some how relate the two as though they were the same document. This video is information about people who signed the Declaration of Independence it does not prove anything, its just a bunch of facts that prove nothing about these 'rich old white guys'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To say what they mean to me or an American would require more than 500 characters to do them justice. To put it this way they represent everything that made this nation such a great place. However, it is plan an obvious manipulation by our friend here with the help of Limbaugh Senior that makes this nation such a sad state of affairs to today.
How am I traitor, I am a Canadiancommonwealther who does not live on welfare, thankyou very much. I agree with some of Bob Park's views, most of, actually. Also, why would you call the Queen such names. The Britain the US rebelled against is dead, the queen is actually pretty neat if you do some reading. She's an auto mechanic who can take vehicles apart and put them back together. Served in the Women's auxillary and everything. I would like to hear why you believe I am a fool though.
Hi, Bob, sure glad you still have this video up. Every 4th the military vet men in my family meet, usually to camp or fish, a lot of family deaths lately we're down to me and 2 uncles from the 3 generations of past 4ths. My uncle just emailed on the "56" and I wanted to share this video. BTW, sorry to see you are still attracting so many moronic nut job's comments. This is exactally why it's extra tough for blacks to leave the "liberal plantation," as MLK called it, they get mobbed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually fool, most of the Founding Fathers were stinky with the juices of slaves they raped. Most owned slaves, and sold their own children from raping their own slaves.
So spare me the greatness of the founding father, most were rich because of the work of others, and most raped slaves regularly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The information is abundant but what point is he making? He starts the video talking about the Constitution and quickly switches to the signers of the Declaration of Independence which were two very different events. And only Rush or a relative of his would make a reference to draft card burners in a war where there was no conscription. Seems a little misleading at best.
He has good information. Which is much different from proving points. The signers of the declaration and the signers of the constitution were not all the same and the circumstances of both were different.
I thank those people who signed the Declaration of Independence and Freedom we are at peace from war. But this country and our native lands are suffering from over exploitation of one of the last natural resoures on earth.
true, I think Obama's plan to raise taxes in a recession is wrong but I hope I am wrong and he suceeds. Im not american but I have a deep respect for the United States.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow. You do realize that the "living" (amended) document is what allows you to be free and not slave, right? The first freakin sentence says "... ensure domestic Tranquility... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Now, I'm sure you know what that meant to children of the enlightenment, but what did it mean to the Slavers that agreed to ratify it? And by FRINGE you must mean Radical Abolitionist Republicans??? C'mon man.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"almost 500 words were eliminated", which ones, Black man, Black women, Black family and 494 different versions of the same? Can you answer that for me, Mr. Eliminated.
Wow, what a history lesson. Our founders truly knew persecution and tyranny and therefore wrote the Constitution to protect future Americans from the prospect of it. However, now we are staring tyranny squarely in the eyes when we look at Obama and his policies along with a complacent congress.
Thank you! I feel so much pride and respect for the men and women who gave up their own freedom and comfort so I can have mine.The same sacifice brought forth the freedom that America shared with other countries of the world. For those who don't believe it, try living in another country where freedom is surpressed or unknown.
May God remember them in His Kingdom. May we all look to our Founding Fathers as, possibly, the most courageous example of lives human beings are capable of. I wish I was in their times and was their friend.
There are so many people that need to watch this. The Liberals have, after decades of twisting the truth through the education system, have dishonored all of these great men.
I have always, and will always be proud of my country.
This is the best video I've seen in a while. Our fore fathers were true Americans, who sacrificed and suffered all they did so I can vote and live free. Thanx for this video. I needed it.
correction: Hart's wife died in October, his home was over-run in November 1776 - most of his 13 children were adults and were not at home - Hart died of kidney stones
nsdtr01 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nakedBison69 the America-hating socialists thinks that it would have been better if the United States had never been created
Like you do too the poor defenceless bunny rabbits you monster....
MrRichardKranium 9 months ago
The formation of the "United States" was a clear act of thievery. The "founding fathers" stole this country from the people, and then had the high-handedness to have themselves declared our patriarchs.
No, they were not your forefathers, they stole your inheritance.
Jcolinsol 9 months ago
@Jcolinsol You live in a free country so you can get away with saying it. But the way you chose to exercise your freedom tells me that you are a low-life.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
How is that?
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol Already answered.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Where?
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol Nah, you do not need my help to play dumb. Open a sock account and just talk with yourself.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Well, if you won't articulate your point, that leaves me to interpret your comment as pointless.
I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol In that case I can also categorize your criticism of the founding fathers as pointless. You won't articulate, but demands to hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
I wasn't asserting that your argument was pointless, just that the logical conclusion I should draw from your response is that you are speaking more from emotion than ration.
Now, if you wanted further explanation of my argument, I would happily provide it. But you didn't ask, instead you called me scum for some unexplained reason.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
I did not call you a scum. I called you a low-life. Maybe in your mind the words are interchangeable. You see the people who founded this country left it free enough that people can feel secure even when they criticize the founders themselves, as it should be so. But that is the lowest form in which such a freedom can be expressed. I usually hold people who makes such claims in low esteem. Thus you where called a low-life. I already explained it, although not with this level of detail.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Well, here's the thing that you didn't consider, I don't consider the founding fathers to have granted me freedom. So your assessment doesn't work within my framework of thinking. You have failed to consider an alternative perspective, which means that you didn't understand my comment at all, and a better course of action would have been to ask for explanation.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol The founding fathers did not grant you your freedom. That is absurd. It is not within their power to grant it to anyone who outlives them. In fact it was not even the state of things when they signed the declaration. What they did was create a mechanism by which such rights are recognized so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
To that I say tomayto tomahto. The point remains the same, I would be freer without the apparatus that they created.
They chose a constitutional republic specifically because they feared political influence by the people. And like all constitutional republics this government has predominantly been used to protect the status quo. Rather than trying to free us from the monarchy, they sought to protect the aristocracy.
And they, and you, tell us that it's for our own good.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol Yeah consider Somalia, no constitution, no working government, it is an utopia is it not? Remember the analogy of the kite-string. Don't be naive. You think it is holding you back, it is preventing you from soaring, but without the string, you will come crashing down like the kite. And oh, there is no aristocracy in the US and you know that.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
I don't think that Somalia's recent history is a good proof for your argument, considering that several of the series of failed states there HAD constitutions. It could just as easily support my assertion that constitutions are irrelevant to real political power.
If you really think that there is no aristocracy in America, I don't think that you are paying attention. This country is very clearly dominated by an elite few. Even Obama is a blood relation of Dick Chaney!
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol I am not making an argument for power. I am making an argument for freedom. With little or no checks in place to protect people's freedom, you have rival power factions turning the country into a war zone. The constitution provides the checks. There is no aristocracy in America. Obama maybe related to Dick Cheney or the bastard child of Henry the VIII for all I care. He is in power because he worked to get there, not because who he is born to. That would be Prince Williams.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Right, you are making an argument for what I consider to be the fictional idea of how government works. I am pointing out ways that the actual system is elitist and deprives the people of freedom.
As for checks and balances, I am all for them, but observation of natural systems of social order suggests to me that the best checks and balances have nothing to do with government, and that constitutions are tools for elites to avoid having their power checked.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol Elite. People smarter than me who by virtue of their intellect are in a position of virtue and privilege with my consent. I like that. I want that. I want people who won't make the mistakes that I make to take the important decisions. But you resent that. You are jealous that they are smart. You cannot stand that they can rule with consent. So you try to destroy the republic. I and many like me are the strength of the elites you detest. They have earned our respect, you our contempt.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
And that attitude feeds in very nicely to the historical belief that the artistocrats were elites by virtue of their superiority. You are not advocating aristocracy, are you not?
Not only that, but now you are contradicting the whole intended purpose of a constitution: to eliminate the need for a governing class by creating simple laws applicable to everyone.
So has this secretly been your position all along, or is your political philosophy simply incoherent?
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol Nonsense. Everyone is superior (or inferior) to someone else in some respects. Not everyone can be Mozart or Pablo Picasso. Aristocracy is superiority based purely on birth. If birth does not gives one superiority, then by virtue of his talents, he can be superior still. That does not make anyone into an aristocrat. You are just pissed off that some people are smarter than you.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol The constitution is not there to provide a simple set of rules for everyone, that at best is a bonus. It is there to equally protect the liberties of everyone. Rich man and the poor man, the industrialist and the labourer, the doctor and the lawyer, the janitor and the CEO. Because people who are not equally talented are still equally free. You are just trying to read your biases into the consitution.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Secondly
I fail to see how I can be criticized for using a freedom that they, supposedly, granted me, in exactly the way they intended me to use it: to criticize them. At any rate, I don't need a constitution to give me freedom of speech, in fact I should be considerably freer with no constitution at all.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol You are wrong again in too many ways. The fact that you have rights does not mean that the way you use those rights is above criticism. Only that you can use it without fear of punishment. Again they did not grant you your rights. They help protect it. The constitution is there to secure your rights. Think of it like a kite-string. To the naive person, it looks like the string is holding the kite down, preventing it from soaring away, but without it, the kite will crash.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Arguably, the whole point of the first ammendment was for the press (another usually aristocratic tool) to be able to criticize the government. What did you think they put that in their for, to protect people's right to make poop jokes?
I don't consider constitutions to be a sound system of social order because they don't enforce themselves, so ultimately power lies with those who interpret and enforce the law, invariably the aristocratic class.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol You actually believe what you say! It is all trash! Those that interpret them are not aristocrats. They are the representatives of the people. They reach their position of power and privilege by virtue of what they do, not who they are born to, which is what makes an aristocrat. The same goes for press men too.
82abhilash 4 months ago
@82abhilash
Well, this is certainly the popular mythos about representational government, but observation leads me to consider it fiction. When I say aristocracy I mean a small group of privileged elites with rule.
At present our economy is dominated by a handful of corporations, that very directly looks like a small group of privileged elites with rule.
In fact your assertion that they worked for what they have goes back to the historical belief that aristocrats were better than commoners.
Jcolinsol 4 months ago
@Jcolinsol So you are playing with words. Nice to have you admit it. An aristocrat is a dirty word because it puts people in positions of privilege based on birth. You transpose that dirty word into an irrelevant setting because you are simply pissed off that the same few people have consistently displayed the skill to be the people's representative. You are being deceptive. I submit to you none of their children can inherit their prestige. They will have to work at it for themselves.
82abhilash 4 months ago
I subscribed!
realhxq 10 months ago
Fantastic video and channel, just discovered your website too, great work. We need more videos like this out there to actually inform people, thank you. GO SOX!
ww1enfield 11 months ago
You should be named 'black and intellectually dishonest'. If ythe constitution was an immutable document, then blacks would be slaves, women, and those who are not land owners would not have voting rights.
The fact is, contrary to your unsupported assertion, the founders were liberals by definition. They weren't looking for the status quo (to be a British colony), they were looking for change (independence). Although the personal stories are compelling they are not evidence of your claims.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 Well, it's obvious you haven't read any of the writings of Frederick Douglass who probably did more research into the writings of the Founders than you have on Wikipedia, and concluded the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. Whose word should we take, his or yours?
As far as your whitewashing of history, it may work in the classroom, but we aren't buying it here.
BlackAndRight 1 year ago 4
@BlackAndRight - thanks for prejudging my level of education on the subject. Classy. I [personally prefer to for my own informed opinions instead of having them spoon fed by others. Do you know what a amendment is? It is a change to the constitution. The entire bill of rights consists of amendments to the constitution. Don't take my word for it, read the original constitution.
re;
-Article I, Section 2, Clause 3,
-Article I, Section 9, Clause 1,
-Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3,
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 Wow, you don't like being prejudged but you bring your anonymous self here and lead off by calling me 'black and intellectually dishonest'.
At least we know whom we're dealing with here.
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
@BlackAndRight - 'black and intellectually dishonest' isn't prejudice, as I haven't prejudged anything, and being anonymous has nothing to do with it. It's merely a tongue in cheek way of pointing out the intellectual dishonesty you displayed in the video. It's a judgment based on what I do know about you from this video, which I pointed out in my previous post, and not what I've assumed.
You have no idea who your dealing with.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 Oooooooh...
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
@BlackAndRight - You are still avoiding the legitimate points I brought up.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 So, I'm supposed to drop everything and respond to you because "You have no idea who your dealing with."
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
@BlackAndRight - No, you're not suppose to 'drop everything', but obviously you've already responded to me a few times. And my comment was not meant to be a veiled threat but rather a direct response to your comment "you bring your anonymous self here....At least we know whom we're dealing with here." do you not see that contradiction there?
You imply the constitution is not a 'living(changeable) document'. Do you stand by that assertion? And if so how do you explain amendments(changes)?
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 While being visionaries, I don't believe they were fortune tellers and since I wasn't there, I can only speculate they genuinely believed in the good in humanity for the most part. Could they have foreseen the Klan and a particular party willing to start a war and succeed in order to keep discriminatory practices in place? Could they have foreseen a mass media or even the idea that there would be those who'd go out of their way to squelch speech?
You say "changes"; I say "updates".
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
@verstwo2: Is he supposed to quiver in fear over an anonymous troll on the internet ? You say, "you have no idea who your dealing with"... Well, the first and most obvious point is that he is dealing with someone who has yet to master the English language. (Hint, hint: It should be "You have no idea who YOU'RE dealing with." You're is the contraction for you are. Your is the possessive.)
Maybe after you've learned skills in basic English grammar you can come back to lecture Mr. Parks.
MomOfSixBlessings 1 year ago
@MomOfSixBlessings - No one should 'quiver in fear' over my comments and it wasn't a lecture. It was a comment in a comment section in which I brought up legitimate points of contention over his wholly unsupported assertions. Yet you choose to focus on a trivial grammatical error, ignoring all of of my other points. I really don't need your permission to comment here and if Mr. 'black and right' want to block me for voicing a dissenting opinion then that is his prerogative.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2. I see that your continued inability to utilize the English language properly has rendered you incapable of discerning between "can" and "may". You certainly "may" attempt to lecture Mr. Parks. But "can" you? That would be a question of capacity, which you have yet to demonstrate.
Again, there is no "legitimate point of contention" contained in the phrase "You have no idea who your (sic) dealing with"... Of course he doesn't... you're simply an anonymous poster.
MomOfSixBlessings 1 year ago
@verstwo2
"the founders were liberals by definition."
Yeah, they were CLASSICAL liberals, retard.
itachi705 1 year ago
@itachi705 - So you think that Classical Liberals we're not Liberals? Wow, you really pwned me.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@itachi705 -just like YOu're a classical retard. I get it.
bnfox 1 year ago
@verstwo2 The constitution states that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States" or maybe you think that article 5 doesn't count. Article 5 of the constitution states very specifically how to amend it. The problem is that liberals don't seem to care about original meaning, like for the second amendment they ignore the "Shall not be infringed" part when they bring up gun control.
zakneifien 1 year ago
@zakneifien - well thanks for supporting my points. The Constitution IS an amendable document, contrary to Mr 'BlackandRight's claim that it is not a 'living document'. The 13th amendment is NOT a part of the original constitution but was added much later. I am very certain that the original meaning of the 2nd amendment only referred to Flintlock guns as revolvers were not invented for another 40 years. But of course that's only if you care about the original meaning.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 OK, "only referred to Flintlock guns" would be correct if it mentioned the right to keep and bare "Flintlock guns" shall not be infringed. It doesn't it says "Arms" which refers to weapons collectively. For example during Third Servile War, Spartacus and the other slaves used kitchen utensils as arms for the revolt initially. Arms are anything that is used as a weapon, from a rock to a assault rifle.
zakneifien 1 year ago
@zakneifien - So your interpretation of the constitution is that "Arms" means any and all weapons that exist and that might be invented in the future? Then that would apply to nuclear arms? Chemical weapons? Rocket launchers? For some reason that seems a highly dubious assertion to me. It seems obvious to me that the constitutional framers could not have possibly have referred to things that did not exist at the time of it's creation. Doesn't that make sense?
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2 I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. I personally cannot fathom what will come in the future; However, the law is written the way it is and Article 5 of the constitution is the way to rectify that. As it stands I cannot fathom any law being constitutional that limits a person from keeping and baring any arms. While I do think that there are many people who shouldn't own any arms, the law is the law.
zakneifien 1 year ago
@verstwo2 To the "living document" thing. That phrase is used, by liberals, to argue that it can be reinterpreted and updated by judges without actual amendment. This is where I and many conservatives take issue. To "reinterpret or update" the constitution without amending it, is unconstitutional.
Now, if you are using the phrase "living document" only as a way to describe it as a document that can be changed through the amendment process then never mind, but it can't be changed without it.
zakneifien 1 year ago
@zakneifien - Well that is a very nuanced argument that Mr.BlackandRight did not even come close to articulating. However I can't say I agree. Judges do not have the power to change the constitution, they never have and it is their job to interpret how it applies to laws and people in a present day context. And conservative judges are just as, if not more guilty of 'reinterpreting' the constitution as liberals. Take the assault weapon argument from the previous post for just one example.
verstwo2 1 year ago
@verstwo2
It is a document that contains within itself the proper procedure for making any necessary changes. This is nothing like the term "living document" which is used to justify judicial interpretation that changes the plain meaning of the text without going through the requisite amendment process.
MomOfSixBlessings 1 year ago
@nakedBison69 Don't you know how stupid you sound? There is no arguing with people like you because you either do not listen to what I am saying or are just being an idiot who thinks they are being cute or clever or funny. All this talk about Nazi propaganda and hating religious Jews - where are you getting that from - maybe your own self-hatred or insecurity? Who knows? At this point you have embarrassed yourself and made a mockery of this wonderful site so just leave already.
MrRichardKranium 1 year ago
partner for your life rockmycity.info
tahjsjjs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not hesitate BBw women for you naneedj.info
wenonacollins 1 year ago
Don't you hate how history/reality tends to have a conservative/libertarian bias?
DosuZakuKin 1 year ago 2
I've been reading the Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence... this is an excellent short version of the book :-). Great job!
Brookelorren 1 year ago
Wow. Amazing video. I never knew those men suffered so much.
matt81874 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
one of my favorite lines in your video here, Bob, was "..they were all conservatives, yet they rebelled..". interesting irony
SGTHartsock2 1 year ago
Comment removed
SGTHartsock2 1 year ago
Thomas Jefferson , what a nice man he was - he was a slave owner and a cruel man at that . Thomas Jefferson did not free his slaves until the end of his life , you can now see his face at mount rushmore.
MyMerlin1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's a shame they never included black people when Francis Scott Key wrote "The Star Spangled Banner" in 1814. The ending of slavery was not until 1865 in ALL states in America. It's very clear that "O'er the land of the Free was not meant for Black people if it was writen in 1814. LOL
MyMerlin1 1 year ago
well said Uncle Tom
allahisonlygod 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well said Uncle Tom
allahisonlygod 1 year ago
Yes.
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
Bob, was the piece here by Rush's dad ever posted online?
SGTHartsock2 1 year ago
@SGTHartsock2 go to google and type the words "rush limbaugh jr. founding fathers" The first link will take you to the text.
logalogalog 1 year ago
very cool, thanks
SGTHartsock2 1 year ago
this is an excellent piece, thanks for the upload and reminder that many have suffered for what we take for granted.
i might disagree that our founding fathers were conservatives. wouldn't it be more accurate to call them classical liberals? i know the current crop of progressives have corrupted the "L" word.
i enjoy your posts.
Ecosse57 1 year ago
These were men of honor and courage. Will you of this generation betray these men and the country they sacrificed for much for to create and because of them all that you now have, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
genehilbert 1 year ago
Excellent!
rlmelco 1 year ago
This is the stuff that needs to be in textbooks.
Brantoc 1 year ago 4
Who is the man narrating this? Whoever he is, should have been our first Black President, NOT the islamoMarxist currently occupying our White House
nakedBison69 1 year ago 3
@nakedBison69 : You've got that right! Do you know how many people could have run circles around Obama? Alan West, Herman Cain, Rev. C.L. Bryant, Lynn Swann, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, etc. Need I say more? Not one of these great men who are willing to stand against the stigma of conservatism, was considered; yet each of them would have done 10 x better; their beliefs, steadfast and strong. So we end up with (God help us), someone who has never had a chance to learn anything other than Communism.
LisaClark49 1 year ago
i agree with you 100%. Thomas Sowell for President! Clarence Thomas for President! obama for dog catcher!
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@nakedBison69 .....That is so cruel to the dogs....
CionnaithMacRitchie 1 year ago
cionnaithMacRitchie, good point...
nakedBison69 1 year ago
@LisaClark49 Who's fault is it that these men werent considered? i dont get it if you like these people so much what did you do to promote them? why do you talk like they couldnt have been the runnig candidate not john mccain?
rashadkijani 1 year ago
Bob Parks
SGTHartsock2 1 year ago
exactly. the man's name is Bob Parks. he's awesome
SGTHartsock2 1 year ago
Will do, dude.
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
The only think that I disagree with is the notion that we disagree. Not sure how you can convince yourself of that when hearing it from one you denigrate at the opening, but... knock yourself out, man.
cubfan2000 1 year ago
Since when do you say someone is "delusional" while agreeing with someone? You okay...?
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
Exactly what name did I call you when I said you were wrong? You have a nice day. And I'm so sorry to have hurt your credibility by agreeing with your video, dude.
cubfan2000 1 year ago
Namecalling. There's those true colors we all know.
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
You're delusional. Nobody on the left disagrees with anything in your video other than the claim that they disagree.
cubfan2000 1 year ago
So, it's "political" when it's not been owned and corrupted by the left that's rewritten black history, for example.
This is called free speech. If you have a problem with this, make your own video and follow the liberal template.
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
So explain to me why this piece has to become political? I know no one on the "left" who would disagree with this. It's time for the radical right to understand that they're not the "owners" of the Constitution. It belongs to all Americans. We disagree on "politics," but the flame of the founders lives in us all.
cubfan2000 1 year ago
putting "left," "owners," and "politics" in "quotes" adds absolutely "nothing" to cubfan2000's "arguments" or lack of them
nakedBison69 1 year ago
This thing isn't letting me write more than a few words unless I start a new post so @BlackandRight...I read what they wrote themselves. Jefferson and Franklin once only wanted to be equal to people in Britain but they changed way before July 1776. This is common knowledge. Try reading what they said themselves rather than what others have distorted their words into. And don't take 1 sound bite as proof of anything...read whole documents. They were as far left as could be seen from their world
carter84262 1 year ago
Much of the physical history is correct but the conclusions are far from it. The core group was extremely liberal...radical actually. They wanted many great changes. It was only the hangers on, that really got in the way, mainly the southern representatives, that were not radicals. Jefferson fought most of the changes and most of the changes were forced by those hangers on who did things like extend slavery until at least 1840.
carter84262 1 year ago
@carter84262 Whoa... thanks for correcting me there.
BTW --- Where do YOU get you're information from?
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
@BlackAndRight I read what they wrote aboutout themsel=ves
carter84262 1 year ago
right on!
xtcarnage15586 1 year ago
Wow, you guys are great!
Eterna1Soldier 2 years ago
Another great video, Thanks Bob! I'm sharing these with all my friends.... and those who need the history lesson!
cowgirlmoon 2 years ago
bob the declaration of independence was probably signed around Aug 3 or 4.......
kajes5 2 years ago
My mother was in immigrant from the Phillipines, my aunt and my hairdresser and my salon people, all immigrants and every single one of them is proud to be here and angry as heck about the thought of amenesty. My salon people are from Nam. They escaped communism and he comes here and is terrified that we wlll end up that way. How sad is it that those that have escaped a tyranical goverment may end up living in another one. When or if we fall, there will not be anywhere else.
MistressKoloth 2 years ago 13
@MistressKoloth - What are you talking about? They're non-white - they automatically have preferential treatment. The US gov't is the enemy of most whites, not your people.
sudaev 11 months ago
@sudaev I don't consider a person's color. I consider Americans as that. Americans. Color, race, nationality means nothing to me. Hence why when this administration uses race as an issue it ticks me off. I embrae legal immegrants and those that come here illegaly are already criminals. Why? Because they are.
MistressKoloth 11 months ago
I cried as I heard this. I'm a Cuban immigrant, naturalized citizen. Thank God that 90 miles from Cuba we had the United States and not any other country (such as Spain!). My heart is 100% U.S.A. Hearing all these stories together gives me an even greater appreciation.
DrMayte 2 years ago 4
Great story, thanks.
RogerOnTheRight 2 years ago 4
great video !! You sir, should be a history teacher.
MolonLabe84 2 years ago 4
This is a wonderful story of just our courageous our founding fathers were, and how important it is for us to protect the framework of government they set up.
lynnch1012 2 years ago 20
1337 words in DoI? that's Leet.
charlieclown 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wonder if this fella knows or would speak so passionately of the hardships and torments of the oceans of slaves that recorded their particular tales. Wait, I am sure that he knows nothing of that little bit of US history. Probably doesnt provide good conversation fodder for the community he seeks to garner favor with...who incidentally will never extend his Black ass any. Hey dude...most white people dont like you...no matter how much you know of their lauded and claimed history. Ha, ha.
yanikv 2 years ago
@yanikv
Do you know history? I'll bet you buy into white people starting slavery?Yea, try and imagine a bunch of white guys waltzing into Africa and taking people. LOL It couldn't be done now and damn well couldn't be done then with no guns.African tribes where fierce! The truth is, tribes where constantly warring against eachother(and still do)and many became slaves to the victorious tribe and would also be sold to Europeans and they brought it here. Plenty of blame to go around.
ricadrew 2 years ago 5
@ricadrew Did I ever say that?
BlackAndRight 1 year ago
@BlackAndRight
No, well, not that I'm aware of. I wasn't trying to represent your opinion, I was commenting on someone elses comment with my opinion. Not even sure what your opinion would be about my comment. I probably went off comversation a bit anyway, but that's nothing new on yotube, lol.
ricadrew 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ha, ha, ha...I love this uncle toms "Boston" shirt. Represent brotha.
yanikv 2 years ago
very good video.
Winterfairy777 2 years ago
That was fantastic!! Thank you!!
RemoSC49 2 years ago 3
Great video! Wouldn't it be great if this video could be shown in High school history classes. Thank you for posting.
rhurc 2 years ago 2
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh's dad for revive what most of Americans don't know...guess would piss anyone at school learning what the Brit's did with Americans.
arakuzi 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hard to believe that any black person has any proud or anything good to say about what this Country represents......
othbor 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
.... I live in DC and if anyone want to know how blacks act come at here and ride a bus or a train. Hollywood and the media have been selling movies for years putting at mind of the population that them are doctors, lawyers, Generals, CEOs, and know we can see one incompetent destroying this Country, I wish each one of you could walk through Olkland CA, and "live" what this people are doing there with the spanics. And you are afraid to say or call who they are???, is absolutaly incredible......
othbor 2 years ago
wow thanks for saying nothing at all..
rhurc 2 years ago
Excellent video Bob!
againsttheherd 2 years ago 2
Thank God for the courage these men had. We should all take up a stand for the basic liberties they strived for.
extremegymnast7 2 years ago 6
A great video -
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
ok, you brought me to tears. Thank you.
Salixj 2 years ago 2
F- the UK!
letsgoskatepool 2 years ago
MOST EXCELLENT THE WHOLE NATION NEEDS TO HEAR THIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WONDERFUL ESSAY SIR,i NEW VERY LITTLE OF THIS.
bothsidesofthecoin1 2 years ago 6
Very good, most I did not know. Thank You
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Let me rephrase, they are related but not in the way this video infers. They are separated by 11 years with different people signing them. Somehow this video manipulates the viewer to some how relate the two as though they were the same document. This video is information about people who signed the Declaration of Independence it does not prove anything, its just a bunch of facts that prove nothing about these 'rich old white guys'.
loservilleco 2 years ago
So what do these two documents mean to you?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To say what they mean to me or an American would require more than 500 characters to do them justice. To put it this way they represent everything that made this nation such a great place. However, it is plan an obvious manipulation by our friend here with the help of Limbaugh Senior that makes this nation such a sad state of affairs to today.
loservilleco 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Declaration of Independence written in 1776, Constitution written in 1787. They have nothing to do with eachother.
loservilleco 2 years ago
How am I traitor, I am a Canadiancommonwealther who does not live on welfare, thankyou very much. I agree with some of Bob Park's views, most of, actually. Also, why would you call the Queen such names. The Britain the US rebelled against is dead, the queen is actually pretty neat if you do some reading. She's an auto mechanic who can take vehicles apart and put them back together. Served in the Women's auxillary and everything. I would like to hear why you believe I am a fool though.
albertaforalbertans 2 years ago
Hi, Bob, sure glad you still have this video up. Every 4th the military vet men in my family meet, usually to camp or fish, a lot of family deaths lately we're down to me and 2 uncles from the 3 generations of past 4ths. My uncle just emailed on the "56" and I wanted to share this video. BTW, sorry to see you are still attracting so many moronic nut job's comments. This is exactally why it's extra tough for blacks to leave the "liberal plantation," as MLK called it, they get mobbed.
RatkoUSA 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some of our forefathers were Freemasons and they set us up to fail.
oscarbeenit 2 years ago
The only out of touch rich white guys I know, are the ones who are in power today.
oscarbeenit 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whites are rich conceded mother fukers that deserve to shot gunned in the face. You selfish mother fukers.
fthis12345 2 years ago
thank you. you are a patriot.
dale1966gto 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually fool, most of the Founding Fathers were stinky with the juices of slaves they raped. Most owned slaves, and sold their own children from raping their own slaves.
So spare me the greatness of the founding father, most were rich because of the work of others, and most raped slaves regularly.
BullshipDetector 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The information is abundant but what point is he making? He starts the video talking about the Constitution and quickly switches to the signers of the Declaration of Independence which were two very different events. And only Rush or a relative of his would make a reference to draft card burners in a war where there was no conscription. Seems a little misleading at best.
loservilleco 2 years ago
you have to admit he makes a few valid points.
albertaforalbertans 2 years ago
He has good information. Which is much different from proving points. The signers of the declaration and the signers of the constitution were not all the same and the circumstances of both were different.
loservilleco 2 years ago
I thank those people who signed the Declaration of Independence and Freedom we are at peace from war. But this country and our native lands are suffering from over exploitation of one of the last natural resoures on earth.
creefirstnation 2 years ago
Thank you
grandwolfe 2 years ago
interesting, this video should be taught in every school
However Rush Limbaugh is anti-American.
Anyone that hopes they Presidents plans to get our country out of a recession fails is not being Patriotic.
I didn't like Bush but i never wanted his plans to get our country out of a rescission to fail.
XrisSmiles 2 years ago
true, I think Obama's plan to raise taxes in a recession is wrong but I hope I am wrong and he suceeds. Im not american but I have a deep respect for the United States.
albertaforalbertans 2 years ago 5
Excellent presentation of little-known yet important facts about the Founding Fathers...5X5...Thx for posting...
Skytrooper82d 2 years ago
And now Obama and his supporters, wish to destroy us, and put our posterity in debt.
Bigone5555J 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow. You do realize that the "living" (amended) document is what allows you to be free and not slave, right? The first freakin sentence says "... ensure domestic Tranquility... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." Now, I'm sure you know what that meant to children of the enlightenment, but what did it mean to the Slavers that agreed to ratify it? And by FRINGE you must mean Radical Abolitionist Republicans??? C'mon man.
sd839rrwl12 2 years ago
Damn good video.
sheepdom 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"almost 500 words were eliminated", which ones, Black man, Black women, Black family and 494 different versions of the same? Can you answer that for me, Mr. Eliminated.
the07tour 2 years ago
My man
brian8793 2 years ago 3
Very nice video.
Thank you.
BreshiBaraElohim 2 years ago 2
Wow, what a history lesson. Our founders truly knew persecution and tyranny and therefore wrote the Constitution to protect future Americans from the prospect of it. However, now we are staring tyranny squarely in the eyes when we look at Obama and his policies along with a complacent congress.
Rockgenious 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Black liberation theology is the only path
spssw 2 years ago
WOW and thanks, I needed that.
ASU86PE 2 years ago
thank you for saying this stuff im a republican and have heard this many times but never from the media im glad someone put a video up
dxarmy94 3 years ago
When it comes to politics iagree with you...but sports...not so much lol
quirogai 3 years ago
Boston <3
NScherzingerforeva 3 years ago
Thanks for commitment in making this. 5/5.
l8rthen 3 years ago 2
Im a major history buff...this is so good to know. Keep up the good work. Knowledge is power.
karabellrocks 3 years ago 3
This video should be played on ALL tv stations across te country for the next seven days...I learnt alot by watching this, thank you.
jelap62 3 years ago 4
Great video..thank you very much!
buzzmaxwell 3 years ago
Thank you! I feel so much pride and respect for the men and women who gave up their own freedom and comfort so I can have mine.The same sacifice brought forth the freedom that America shared with other countries of the world. For those who don't believe it, try living in another country where freedom is surpressed or unknown.
AmericanStepchild 3 years ago 2
That's powerful. Thanks for posting this.
d0wn2zero 3 years ago
Thanks for your efforts on behalf of America.
allen841 3 years ago 2
On a side note, there are 1337 words in the declaration of independence. LOL
TheSandsOfTime60 3 years ago
all liberals see is race and nothing but race.
jp3711nc1 3 years ago 11
May God remember them in His Kingdom. May we all look to our Founding Fathers as, possibly, the most courageous example of lives human beings are capable of. I wish I was in their times and was their friend.
ProfRaphaello 3 years ago 3
There are so many people that need to watch this. The Liberals have, after decades of twisting the truth through the education system, have dishonored all of these great men.
I have always, and will always be proud of my country.
Stark1010 3 years ago 7
Thank you Bob Parks. This should be shown in schools. Mere words alone are not enough to thank the Founding Fathers.
veryprincess5 3 years ago 2
This is the best video I've seen in a while. Our fore fathers were true Americans, who sacrificed and suffered all they did so I can vote and live free. Thanx for this video. I needed it.
joe1inonly 3 years ago 2