How do we Recover and return back to a whole country again?

[gatlingun6]

Nothing will change until all entitlements are deleted.
Nothing will change until the political parties stop using tax payers money to bribe voters.
Nothing will change until the politicians collapse all the departments not mentioned in the originating document.
Nothing will change until the states assume their rightful place.
Nothing will change until elected officials lose the power to vote for their own pay checks and benefits
Nothing will change until those recieving a pay check from the government have the right to vote for the people who vote on their pay. {The federal government is the largest employer in this nation}
Nothing will change until the people of this nation realise that they are being subverted and subjugated into sheep.
None of this will happen, so nothing will change. The federal governmnet will keep getting larger, more intrusive, more threatening and more greedy.


Jim

**************************************
Hmmmm: Are you suggesting a return to the good ole days? Give us a date, or an era we should return to? Or was there ever a time when we as nation did any of what you suggest?

What do you mean that the federal government keeps getting larger? Gosh, can we be a little more precise when we throw around terms like that? Is that in terms of Federal employees, personnel units, etc.?

But for kicks Let's go with your what we gotta do list: The Constitution lists the following entities, Post Offices, the Army, the Navy, and the Militia. Therefore all other Executive departments, commissions, agencies, administrations, etc are hereby disbanded, and abolished.

Welcome to a new and better day in the? Anarchic States of America?
I know, I know you were just joking. Me too .
Gat6

[gatlingun6]

So, if we descend upon DC en masse and stay there camped in the streets and on the lawns and sidewalks indefinitely then that makes an impact.

Ask the Bonus Army how that worked out for them.

They already had nothing left to lose and were still attacked by their own brothers-in-arms. You know, those guys who were just "following orders" and would never "fire on American citizens"?

Yeah. Those guys.

*************************
Yep, not only did Douglas MacArthur clear D.C. of the so-called Veteran's Army; but in a harbinger of things to come, he exceeded his orders by burning their meager possessions in the process.

Nevertheless Z does have a point when it comes to civil disobedience for whatever cause people deem worthy.

Gat6

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

This discussion reminds me of a joke I heard. I'm going to change it a bit to protect the innocent.

Here goes: Four men sit down to a sumptuous buffet. A private sector worker, a government worker, an unemployed individual, and a multimillionaire.

As the meal progresses it's obvious to the casual observer that the multi-millionaire has loaded up his plate with the lion's share of the buffet offering. While continuing to pile on more and more on his plate. The multimillionaire whispers to the private and government workers that they had better watch out because that unemployed guy is stealing their food. That alerts them to the guy trying to get a few scraps off the table.

While the government worker attempts to stop the unemployed guy from getting the scraps. The Multi-millionaire whispers to the private sector guy ..Psst, you had better watch out that government employee is taking 2 of the last 3 slices of bread.

While the 3 are bickering over what's left, the multi-millionaire smiles and begins to consume the 95% of the buffet he piled on his plate.

As Warren Buffet once joked when asked about class warfare in America: Yes he said, there is class warfare in America and my side is winning. Indeed over the last 40 or so years there has been a massive redistribution of wealth UPWARDS to the top 5% of Americans.

We have been indoctrinated into the proposition that what's good for the wealthiest is good for America. There would be prosperity and jobs for all. Unfortunately most of these jobs went somewhere else outside the United States.

How did this happen? The politics of distraction. As in the story, convince the have mores, the have littles, and the have next to nothings that ea other is the problem. Sprinkle social issues into this mixture and people actually aid and abet the flow of assets away from themselves. It's actually a brilliant strategy that has worked amazingly well.

The next phase is well under way,it's called consolidation. Under this phase we may well see elected officials at the local and city level replaced by a public, or PRIVATE entity. Imagine waking up one day to find that your mayor and city council have been summarily dismissed under the authority of a financial crisis provision by a corporate entity. Don't laugh, the path to such an outcome is currently buried in a piece of proposed legislation in an unnamed state.

So by all means let's continue to assail each other while the real culprits continue to load up their plates.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

The foundations of the decline of the US goes back to the Civil War, the decline of states rights.
Returning power to the states is the beginning of growth and stability. The federal government is the greatist threat to the once great couintry.

Jim

*************************
This is an odd post. The Civil War was about state rights to do what? And if it was truly about states rights, why were Southern States opposed to what newly entering states wanted to do about slavery.

It's actually easy to see the answer to that question just by reading the declarations of secession from the various states and the confederacy. They were in no way PC about what state right they wanted to preserve.

How would a return to the Articles of Confederation do anything positive for today's issues in the United States?

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

@Gat6 - there is indeed a Constitutionalist party. Passing legislation that adheres to the Constitution and repealing that which does not would be a great start. Doing anything else spits on the graves of patriots throughout our history and flies in the face of everything our nation's foundation stands for...

***************************
Did you read the Constitution's party platform? Most of what they want is not in our current Constitution. If that's what you want that's fine, but that's not our Constitution, and is a far cry from what any of the Framers intended. We can't have it both ways.

I didn't see any discussion in the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers concerning Fetuses, and whether person-hood should be conferred. There's nothing in our Constitution concerning Fetuses, but it sure is in the Constitution's party document.

To me the CP is just further evidence that our current Constitution would not have a prayer if ratification was voted on today.

Gat6

[gunderwood]

@Gat6

As usual, change the subject and attack. You make a lot of claims, but provide no rationale as to why they are valid claims. You go off attacking everything in sight in order to justify you larger position which is that what Gat6 wants is right and we should ignore the supreme law of the land because it contradicts what Gat6 wants. Let's consider briefly the last major claims.

Did you read the Constitution's party platform? Most of what they want is not in our current Constitution. If that's what you want that's fine, but that's not our Constitution, and is a far cry from what any of the Framers intended. We can't have it both ways. I didn't see any discussion in the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers concerning Fetuses, and whether person-hood should be conferred. There's nothing in our Constitution concerning Fetuses, but it sure is in the Constitution's party document.

You base your entire claim around one silly observation. News flash! The Constitution is a document which defines and confers a limited amount of power to the federal government while retaining most of that power for the States and the People. Yes, it is the highest law, but it is the rule set which the law which the government is to follow. It is not all of the law (as that would be stupid...why would you need a law making branch if the Constitution were the only law allowed), nor is it specific. It defines roles, responsibilities, limitations, powers, and arbitration between powers.

The Constitution not only doesn't say something about "fetuses" it doesn't say anything about children, adults, or even you (Ctl-F for Gat6 on the Constitution could find anything). Thus, by your logic I can conclude that since Gat6, adults, and children are not listed explicitly that anyone who wants to defend their rights isn't supporting the Constitution! A casual reading makes it clear that those things should be covered under the "People," but hey, who needs logic? That is the central question concerning abortion: if the fetus is a human life (just at a different stage of development as children are to adults), than it also is part of the the "People." If it isn't than it isn't.

The silliness here is that your whole argument is based around the idea of making the Constitution out to be a type of document which it isn't. Of course the intention is to stir up trouble while hoping someone bites your bait. Clever, but all so totally wrong.

This discussion reminds me of a joke I heard. I'm going to change it a bit to protect the innocent...

From here on, I refer to that post as "the joke."

The joke accurately describes most of the political strategy of Democrats. They are always bringing up class to get votes. You know that of course, which is why you point it out...the whole point of the joke was to get people to take the bait. The only entity in this country which is capable of forcefully redistributing the wealth is the government, but that is exactly who you have empowered. You want to give the federal government extra-Constitutional powers without due process to enact your redistribution scheme. In reality we both know that whomever gives money to the politicians will be exempted from your scheme. Of course those wealth elitists want redistribution, they won't be part of it! Just all of their competitors and wealthy piers who haven't bought enough politicians.

You rage against their wealth, when what they want from the wealth is power. You gladly give them power in exchange for taking only some peoples wealth and giving it to you. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Hmmmm: Are you suggesting a return to the good ole days? Give us a date, or an era we should return to? Or was there ever a time when we as nation did any of what you suggest?

You're putting words into his mouth. The call here isn't to return to a particular date, but rather to return to a government which actually abides by the document which gave it power. There never has been, nor will there ever be a perfect human society created by men. We constantly improve and advance, but the real move which created our country was a philosophical move towards freedom. We aren't advancing freedom anymore, both parties advance government control over their fellow citizens. That's what we want to return too. Limited government, personal freedom and responsibility. Return to those ideals and principles. That's what the founders fought for, that's what we want.

I know that you know that too, so why do you always trot out that argument? We've been over this time and time again. I can literally just start cutting and pasting my previous replies because you never do more than that. Toss a grenade, have no reply, sulk for a few months, then repeat the same cr@p as before as if somehow because it is repeated on NPR <insert whatever lefty media you actually consume> it must be true!

Question: If the Constitution was put to a vote today would it be ratified? My bet is NO WAY! A pretty standard refrain is: I believe in Art X, Sec X, or Amendment X: BUT! Lots of "BUTS" always figure in Constitutional discussions.

No, it would not pass because the political philosophy of most Americans today is not one of freedom and liberty, but rather various degrees and implementation of statism. We no longer believe in the individual and their rights, rather we believe in only government. Not all, but most. E.g. our seriously considered solutions are hardly every anything more than one government control vs. another, there almost never is individual liberty choice presented in the mainstream. The 18th century political ideology just isn't ours anymore, we've replaced it for the worse IMHO.

"Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mostly forgotten."

Because it is the rule of law. We have the power to change it properly, but the framers wisely made it difficult to avoid the horrors of pure democratic systems. It's what made us a Republic, not a democracy. However, since we don't follow the document at any level, it is a valid question. Why should we follow a contract which has already been broken?

We don't. We don't follow it at all. You're presuming that we do follow it when you ask that question but we don't. That's the reason people wanting to return to that document always are proposing "radical" changes. What we have today politically is so far removed from the Constitution and the ideals as expressed in the DOI that it's practically a joke. If that is the type of government we want to have, then technically we are able to do so, but we should be brave enough to admit it and quit wrapping the latests statists, socialists, etc. idea in the Constitution. The two just don't fit. Philosophically they are at odds.

So the better question is this: Why do we pretend to follow a document which we all know practically is worthless today?

[gatlingun6]

Usually I agree with you wholly or in part but not this time depending on what you mean. When you say vote in Constitutionalists that means what? People who will observe what Constitution? Is it today's with all its Amendments, and SCOTUS decisions? Is it the Constitution party's proposal?

Ugh! Please don't make me sick. That was a bunch of way left wing nonsense that was trotted out when the Tea Party was getting started. Implying of course that the Tea Party, "Constitutionalist" or whatever wanted to go back to day one...you know, like no womens rights, enslaving blacks, etc. You and I both know that that is nothing but a load of crock. No one said those things except the left wing elite who were trying to discredit their political opponents.

***************************************
Whoa tell me how you really feel. Actually it was a sincere question that had nothing to do with slavery, women, the Tea Party or anything like that.

Your central assertion is we would not have these problems if we returned to the Constitution. Before I could address it, it was a fair to ask for clarification. I'm not interested in discrediting you, or anyone else. However, we can't have a debate if I'm discussing Apples and you're discussing cabbage.

So, do you support the Constitution's Party platform? If so the discussion goes in one direction, if not it goes in another.

If on the other hand you support Constitutionalists principles, that's simply one of many methods developed long after the Framers finished their work to evaluate Constitutional issues. If this is what you mean, you do not favor today's Constitution, or maybe you don't. It seems that this stance would require all previous SCOTUS opinions be evaluated under Constitutionalists principles. How or who would this is a mystery.

As far as I know, the Framers did not specify how Constitutional Issues would be evaluated. Hell, 2 of the principal framers disagreed on what certain provisions meant shortly after ratification.

If you want us to return to today's Constitution I'm confused. I say confused because we can't return to what we never left. That's circular reasoning.

Here's what I think you could have meant. Any number of SCOTUS opinions over the years were wrongly decided. If we reversed those decisions then we would return to what the Framers intended, or if you will to the Constitution.

Based on the rest of your post I assume that you believe every aspect of the new deal was unconstitutional. If so, this presents a theme that's very familiar in this forum, i.e. if only we returned to an earlier time, the good ole days, today would be better. Without social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid as a society we would be fine. I could go on, but I'm on the right track? I keep asking gimme a year, or an era when the good ole days existed.

Put another way you believe that the 10th Amendment trumps "necessary and proper", "implied clause", and the "elasticity clause". In which case you again can't return to something that never existed, i.e supremacy of the 10th Amendment. I'm positive you know that the supremacy argument was specifically rejected by the Congress.

This leaves us playing what if, which is the fallacy of fictional questions. How can you or I argue what would have happened in a world where it didn't happen. We can't, empirically it's impossible. Oh sure, we can engage in conjecture in which case your explanation is unassailable, but so would an opposite explanation. History teachers assign these questions all the time: What if Hitler had won WWII; what if the South had won the Civil War: What if Lincoln had survived his gunshot wound; etc. They may be fun to answer but that's it.

In the end, I don't understand this idea that America would be fine if we accepted what some group wants in terms of a Constitution that can't be ratified today. It's an equal mystery why people want to look back to a group of guys who lived in a very different time, and who couldn't conceive today's America would have the solution to anything facing us today.

The solutions to what ails us lie in the here and now, and the future, not the past.

Gat6

[zephyp]

@Gat6 -- ok, so please enlighten us...what changes would you make to the Constitution...

[jim100]

The foundations of the decline of the US goes back to the Civil War, the decline of states rights.
Returning power to the states is the beginning of growth and stability. The federal government is the greatist threat to the once great couintry.

Jim

*************************
This is an odd post. The Civil War was about state rights to do what? And if it was truly about states rights, why were Southern States opposed to what newly entering states wanted to do about slavery.

It's actually easy to see the answer to that question just by reading the declarations of secession from the various states and the confederacy. They were in no way PC about what state right they wanted to preserve.

How would a return to the Articles of Confederation do anything positive for today's issues in the United States?

Gat6

It was about the States rights to withdraw their membership from the federal union. They could lawfully do this because they were each a soverign nation just like Germany,France,England ,or Russia. The federal Government was for the common defence nothing more nothing less.

Regarding your second paragraph. Right before the War their were two parties of thought about how to decide if a new state was to allow slavery or not.

1. squatter-sovereignty, meaning that whoever was on the land first could decide. Now the guess who would be first on that land? the hundreds of thousands of homeless Europeans flooding into the northern ports that would decide that that state would'nt have slavery.

2. The south said that the only way for the people to decide the issue was if and when they had become a state and consequently citizens of that state, a true populus if you will. they argued that to have such a weighty matter decided by paupers,foreigners, and free blacks, most of whom would'nt even be citizens of anything, would be the hight of irresponsibility and would lead to the north dominating everything in the new states.

Now as we all can see the southern states were not denying the new states the right to prohibit slavery or not, they simply wanted the government in Washington to give everybody the same fair chance.

[GS78]

How about we just get back to a time when we as Americans thought the communists were the bad guys instead of our OWN TROOPS? How about we get back to the time when we elected people to higher office who actually LOVED THIS COUNTRY, the United States of America, instead of the country of their "fathers" somewhere in Indo-FREAKIN -nesia ....

...the most direct path to returning to America is by ridding this country of those who hate it, no matter where they are found, even if its in the District of Columbia.

[zephyp]

How about we just get back to a time when we as Americans thought the communists were the bad guys instead of our OWN TROOPS? How about we get back to the time when we elected people to higher office who actually LOVED THIS COUNTRY, the United States of America, instead of the country of their "fathers" somewhere in Indo-FREAKIN -nesia ....

...the most direct path to returning to America is by ridding this country of those who hate it, no matter where they are found, even if its in the District of Columbia.

Yep and there be alot of em over there in high places...

[gunderwood]

The solutions to what ails us lie in the here and now, and the future, not the past.

Yes, the solutions are here and now. We are tired of the last century or so of socialist taking personal liberty and promoting government power over the people. We don't return to a date (as I already explained and you don't seem to understand), we "return" to a philosophical idea where we continually push and expand personal liberty as the founders wanted. The Constitution is one feeble attempt and it isn't perfect, but at least it was a republic rather than the current democracy which is a ship in peril and with no sail.

[zephyp]

The solutions to what ails us lie in the here and now, and the future, not the past.

Indeed and the solution today might be stick to what has worked in the past or our future wont matter. What worked in the past you ask? A population fed up with governmental controls and over reach who challenged them, fought them, and won.

Oh, and before you accuse me of advocating revolution against the government I am merely regurgitating something I learned in grade school. A long time ago in a far away place before leftists began pumping crap into the minds of our children...

A good modern day example of this are the protests in WI...oh wait, never mind - THEY LOST...

[38superfan]

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

The Tea Party has shown to be effective and it's members are having an impact on the current budget debate. We need to support tea party candidates and principles. We need to BUY AMERICAN! Nothing is worse than us sending our hard earned cash to the ChiComs. Obama and his ilk want to centralize power in the manner of the European Union.

If we can support the right candidates for the House, then we begin to hold the purse strings of the Country....It's the House, not the Senate, that will drive the decrease in spending. Let's make the House Tea Party controlled! This will give us the power to stop funding unwanted entitlements and discretionary spending....the source of our deficit.

The oaths that I have sworn to defend the Constitution and to serve my fellow Man preclude me from supporting any references (explicit or inferred) regarding armed revolt. I reject them utterly.

[allingeneral]

How do we recover and return back to a whole country again?

The answer is simple, but it requires some mental self-discipline, which is too much for some folks. It is this:

We stop voting "party ticket" and start voting in actual Constitutionalists.

Oh, and parents actually raising their children might help out, too....

There - that's better!
This is the root of the problem. The 'People' as a whole abdicated that role to the government.
Until the family unit gets it's act together, the situation will not improve. And since you can't legislate morality, the fix won't be coming from the governmental top down.

+1

+2

[allingeneral]

Responsible parenting requires just that - RESPONSIBILITY. In my opinion, there are not enough people with that trait in our society any more. Everyone wants to blame everything on someone else instead of standing up and taking responsibility for their own. There are too many who want to shuffle their responsibility off to the government, thereby allowing the government to run their lives. When the government is running their lives, then they have someone to blame instead of having to worry about being responsible for themselves.

[zephyp]

Responsible parenting requires just that - RESPONSIBILITY. In my opinion, there are not enough people with that trait in our society any more. Everyone wants to blame everything on someone else instead of standing up and taking responsibility for their own. There are too many who want to shuffle their responsibility off to the government, thereby allowing the government to run their lives. When the government is running their lives, then they have someone to blame instead of having to worry about being responsible for themselves.

Well put Rick...IMHO one of the cornerstones to our recovery is a return to accepting and taking personal responsibility.

[jim100]

The oaths that I have sworn to defend the Constitution and to serve my fellow Man preclude me from supporting any references (explicit or inferred) regarding armed revolt. I reject them utterly.

Why do they? How do they preclude you from supporting a revolt against men that dont want to live peaceable with you, and who dont follow the Constitution? I believe that the oath you took has "against all enemies both foreign and domestic" in it does it not? If so than how can you reject the idea of revolt? If i remember correctly some of the founding fathers were british subjects in high places of power, even soldiers, they had an oath did they not? They were not even under such a government that we have today. Remember they were against "taxation without representation" among other things, look what we have today. Waco, Ruby ridge, 9/11, oklahoma city, unjust wars every generation, taxes that take 15%, 25%,50%, of our hard earned money. So we must ask ourselves is today worse than back then? I believe it is, or at least just as bad. If so than we must presume that if the Fathers were here than they would revolt. Now if you hold the Men that died in the Revolution in any regard than you must either support an armed revolution, if and when it happens, or you must stay out of the way.

[zephyp]

The oaths that I have sworn to defend the Constitution and to serve my fellow Man preclude me from supporting any references (explicit or inferred) regarding armed revolt. I reject them utterly.

Why do they? How do they preclude you from supporting a revolt against men that dont want to live peaceable with you, and who dont follow the Constitution? I believe that the oath you took has "against all enemies both foreign and domestic" in it does it not? If so than how can you reject the idea of revolt? If i remember correctly some of the founding fathers were british subjects in high places of power, even soldiers, they had an oath did they not? They were not even under such a government that we have today. Remember they were against "taxation without representation" among other things, look what we have today. Waco, Ruby ridge, 9/11, oklahoma city, unjust wars every generation, taxes that take 15%, 25%,50%, of our hard earned money. So we must ask ourselves is today worse than back then? I believe it is, or at least just as bad. If so than we must presume that if the Fathers were here than they would revolt. Now if you hold the Men that died in the Revolution in any regard than you must either support an armed revolution, if and when it happens, or you must stay out of the way.

I too am a man under an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...however, it is not our oath that precludes armed revolt...as a matter of fact IMO our oath supports it as it is a means of abiding by that oath...HOWEVER...the law precludes advocation of armed revolt. Now, that my friend is a quandary indeed to those of us who try to live up to that oath everyday in the face of our current predicament. And, we do (I do at least) claim to be law abiding citizens and a great many of us live that way as well. You hardly ever, if ever at all, hear or use the phrase "oath abiding."

[jim100]

I have no problem obeying the moral laws of this country, however at what point do you say enough is enough? When they say you cant have a .50BMG? Or how about not being able to get life saving alternative medicine just because the doctors wont get such a big paycheck? Or when they send you sons and daughters off to fight a war that didnt have to happen? Or when they come for your guns? Or when they say you cant worship God in your own home? Or when they come to put everybody in FEMA camps? Or when they say you cant grow your own food in your own back yard? Or when they take 10%,15%,25%, of your hard earned money? Where is the line? The line when everybody will wake up? The line the government crosses over and people say ENOUGH!!! Where is it? At what point do you say that the oath I swore is under attack? When do you act on your oath?

The government is to far gone to save IMO. Time and time again good men and women have tried,Kennedy come to mind, but have not succeeded and will never succeed until us as a people say NO MORE, ENOUGH, and stop feeding the beast.Thats what the Founding Fathers did, many died for the right to live out from under an oppressive government. I wish none of this was the truth but sadly it all is and will continue to be, unless the good Christian people in this country say no more to Ceaser.