I'd suggest money buys a more effective microphone, as one gets on the big newspapers and the big, high-readership sites, far more easily if you have the bucks.

It's on things like IETF discussions that money doesn't help as much, as it's hard to find people to astroturf on technical subjects, and they rapidly become well-known.

So I take it the charade of rule by law is supposed to stabilize things while the most corrupt among us increasingly centralize power and so marginalize the rest of us that we are demographically replaced by a new people?

Oh I forgot the clause in the Constitution that says yet another way it may be amended is by a majority vote of the Supreme Court!

So, now that the Supreme Court has wadded up the Constitution and tossed in on the trash heap of history -- essentially making everything a political fight at the Federal level -- when does someone in the military realize their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic basically requires them to nuke Washington DC?

If the animal products cross state lines, that is the point where the Interstate Commerce Clause kicks in -- not at the brewers who are selling inside the State to animal producers.

Very well -- so where is their authority to regulate animal feed that doesn't cross state lines?

If all it takes to avoid the expensive retooling is restricting the sale of the animal feed to within the State of origin, it seems that would provide an option a lot of these brewers would choose.

Somehow I suspect that the Feds don't _really_ care about the Constitution. Moreover, I suspect that puts me on their "watch" list.

Weed that doesn't cross state lines you mean.

OK, so tell me where in the Constitution I should look for Federal power to regulate beer that doesn't cross state lines.

Thus far my comments have been regarding a hypothetical "treasonous" government -- leaving the definition of that to the reader. However, even if the government isn't "treasonous" it may be that a substantial number of its citizens wish to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- even if the government is operating entirely within the law.

The question then becomes less about "Constitutionality" and more about exactly how many people want to depart from the existing form of government and its principles.

What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?

Is that enough for the more conscientious of the military to stand down as that 100 million citizens seek to leave what they must see as the moral equivalent to a plantation?

The intention is to convince the reader that they can't sue for the dead rat they found in their canned corn, so they won' t try.

A former employer shipped rat-enhanced corn once, and was both sued and fined for doing so. They became very thorough about warning the employees to watch out for furry critters in the plant (;-))

A little anecdote: The wife of a friend of mine, on the morning of 9/11/2001, was watching the news reports come in and the moment the attack on the Pentagon came in, she blurted out "That was the Israelis."

Your little "lesson" about not attacking the military is such common sense that even some housewives consider it incredible that any but a false flag op would do it.

History would tell us that asymmetric war isn't fought the way you portrayed in your prior comment -- hence my comment on your ignorance. It is fought precisely to garner public support.

If you had argued that hotheads, loose cannons and false flag ops are not practically soluble by freedom fighters, then I might have asked you to expand your comment.

You are obviously unqualified to answer for sandytaru. You are utterly oblivious to the history of asymmetric warfare.