Tuesday, October 13, 2015

PATCON VIII Constitutional Roundtable: John Ainsworth: "I was greatly disappointed"

As was I, but you can be assured if another is held at Dixieland, it will be under strict debating rules. I apologize to you and the audience, Sir.


  1. There was much to be learned by all three guest speakers. I guess when people are empassioned by their knowledge and understanding then they will tend to defend their beliefs.

  2. After watching this video and the first 40 minutes (so far) or so of the actual PATCON debate I've come to a conclusion. I'm a fair judge of people and attitudes and it appears to me that the discord in the debate was not actually about what was being said. As best I can understand the argument, all three speakers were basically in agreement but the two ladies seemed to start from the position that did not agree with Mr. Ainsworth and were not going to hear him out on his points. I fully believe if the ladies
    had heard Mr. Ainsworth out to the end of his argument that all three would have been
    in agreement. Based on body language alone it appears to me that the two ladies, primarily Ms. Hall started the discussion with the intent that it was going to be her way or the highway. Just my observation.

    I don't know any of these folks and I'm not taking sides. It just appeared to me that the two ladies had no intent to allow Mr. Ainsworth to make his point. Somehow I think this argument did not start at that table on that day. CH

    1. Thank you. I agree with your observations and I was appalled. If they would like to do it again at Dixieland, it will have to be under my debating society rules. 5/10 minutes for each to declare their positions and then 5/10 minutes each for rebuttal. If they would like to go around more, that would be fine, but those listening will need to attend to their manners and studiously listen to the others without a hint of agreement or disagreement, body language/expressions. Just sign that statement in blood and we're good to go. :)

    2. To follow on with the analogy they kept going back to let me give you my
      version of the argument. The ladies kept saying that even though your car
      has been stolen it is still your car and you had to get it back. Mr. Ainsworth was trying to make the point that the car has been stripped and crushed and
      the thieves have used the title and vin number plate to create another, somewhat similar car that does not run properly and will never be "your car"
      no matter what the title or the law says. In order to remedy the situation the new, bogus car must be destroyed and an exact duplicate of the original created. Even then there is no easy way to reverse the actions
      of the bogus "car" since it was created. The miles driven over the roads,
      the fuel burned, the wrecks it has caused and the laws it has broken can
      not be undone.

      In short, nullification in it's pure form can not be achieved. All we could hope to do is fix the problem and go forward from here. Or that is my
      take on it. I'd like to hear Mr. Ainsworths opinion but the two ladies, unlike
      he, were not gracious enough to allow him to make his point. Or at least not before I got disgusted and cut it off. I guess I probably missed the worst of the episode. CH

    3. I'm sorry and it was beyond the pale.

  3. Excellent information for those of us not at the Patcon. John is well informed and I do wish half of the Supreme Court were occupied by such citizens. There is no requirement they must be lawyers.

    1. There is no requirement they must be lawyers.

      I guess that slipped my mind. Thanks.

  4. Regretfully we could not attend Patcon this time but hope to in the spring. So while we did not witness the free for all, the gentleman's points are interesting food for thought.

    I do agree that the sovereign states were destroyed in 1865 though unlawful violence, the subjugation that followed, leaving us with what amounts to Federal provinces, but find it uncertain as to how the 14th Amendment (even though I don't think it was ever actually ratified) somehow can be construed to allow the Courts to invent "rights" such as abortion, homosexual marriage etc. and on the other side abolish or limit free speech, religious liberties, property rights etc.. Certainly the claim of the amendment includes the right of the Federal government to oversee, to put it kindly, the states but nothing in it presents itself as having voided the rest of the Constitution. It reads that it only allows the Federal government to make sure the laws are applied equally and does not deny rights already in existence at the time.

    In closing I look forward to more discussion and articles on the subject and hope this gracious man will view Ms. Hall as an x-wife and ignore the parts that are objectionable or in the entirely as necessary.

  5. I recommend reading the booklet "REMOVED" on the America's Remedy website. It's a quick read on Fourteenth Amendment original intent, modern effects, and challenges to its creation. http://www.americasremedy.com/king