The Push to Revolution

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
reply to post by dooper

 

Ya San Francisco to be exact... those people deserve each other.

This is a large part of what made the Russian say that the US would
break into several parts permanently.

I do not know this will happen, but I see why he would think that.

We have laws they do not enforce when it suits them, and laws that
most ppl do not want that they enforce to the point that we are the
most incarcerated country on earth.

We have known tax cheats running the treasury.

We have ppl run companies into the ground and get bailed out, and
get bonuses, and then told that is bad so they QUADRUPLE the bonuses
next year.

To me it looks like they WANT us to string up the carpet baggers.

The absurdities keep getting more absurd.

Part of me is thinking they are trying to coax a response so they
can call anyone like them a domestic terrorist.

Calling prior military likely extremists was " A Bridge too far " in my books.

I hope that when the straw does break the camels back that it is the
right time with the right momentum to see it fix the country not
trigger a crack down and fill up the 6 or more giant FEMA camps
they are building via HR 645.

HR 645

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.

Originally posted by LAUGHING-CAT
we are being taxed into bankruptcy, traded down the river, run over by special interst groups, lied to about every thing that matters, and yet, the progressives say not to worry.
I'm flabbergasted, and prepared.
DON'T TREAD ON ME

I totally agree with you, and the missing 9 trillion the fed can't seen
to find is just the neon sign saying they really are that bold of thieves.

We have been warned about corrupt central banks for near a century,
and here we are yet again and it is just one piece of the whole puzzle
that is killing America just like they killed JFK.

reply to post by dooper

That is precisely why in our original Constitution, the governing was designed to be conducted by the individual States.

The only reason for the Federal Government was for the purpose of coordination.

Coordination in determining a common currency, coordination in providing a common defense, and coordination in providing for the common welfare of the States.

You're right. In its original derivation, the Federal Government was for the coordination of certain matters for a much smaller America...but America grew, and along with it the Federal Government...and as time progressed, society became more complex and there were certain aspects that were left un-coordinated between the States, and the Federal Government took on the role of homogenizing the laws, so to speak, to make sure that there were not social and political inequities between states that would run the risk of destabilizing the Union as a whole..."coordination in providing for the common welfare of the States" as you have, very well, put it.

So, I'll take a step back here, I will assume that you are right...lets revert back to the base of the Constitution, the revolution has happened, its over, somehow we've come out the other side of it intact as a nation(which I honestly do not think would happen)...States have regained their sovereignty and are back in the business of governing...

What happens when New Englanders, Midwesterners, Southwesterners, Southerners or West Coasters want something different? The Constitution isn't good enough for them, they want further protections, or different laws, heck, lets say for instance that they want to create Social Democracy system of governance, European Styled Nationalized Healthcare, a Christian Democracy, a Christian Theocracy(there was a political movement down in South Carolina or Alabama, I believe, for something of this nature)....Hell, maybe they, that majority, want a Parliament and a Prime Minister. So, what happens then? Can they do it, can they have it? Not according to the Constitution.

I know this is taking the whole conversation into a completely different conversation...but, when the states start wanting completely divergent ways of life, of governance, when their interpretations of the Constitution, of law, start diverging....what happens then?

Is that okay?

Not to sound like a total # but, I believe that if a state wants to be part of the Union, then I'm pretty sure it would have to agree to the terms of the Constitution.

And to me, if you can't agree with the basic rights of such a document, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Obviously if there is something in the document you disagree with it is only because you don't believe in fairness and equality for all people. Which by that point it more than likely is a power game, trying to use your sway to influence the most people.

That is where federal government should step in, especially if the state wants to be part of the union but not accept the Constitution. It DOES have to be agreed upon by all but in my estimate, I'm not going to hold it against them. If it is what most of the people want in the state then go ahead, leave.

I'll say my peace, then leave the thread because I don't care to argue with anyone.

I'm probably not the average "gun nut". I did spend 6 years out of my life protesting GWB after I woke up. (9/11) I was living in a large city at the time, and fairly unhappy with my life and surroundings. I felt the revolution starting to brew years ago, not just now. Oh, I own guns, I believe in rights to bear arms, constitutional rights, and I'm ....not a republican. I also support the tea parties because I'm fairly conservative when it comes to government bail outs. I find many of the insults throughout this thread ridiculous, and the stereo typing.

I don't live in some fantasy world thinking my guns are going to stop military tanks from rolling down my road, or busting down my door either.

I also suffer no delusions that I'm of a large majority of people who want a revolution. There's still way too many lazy people in this country who are comfortable to sit back and let the government run their lives, so that they can continue plugging their ears with their ipods, living on their game systems, and watching dancing with the stars each week. When NY's top news is what happened on Celebrity Apprentice, you know you're in a culture that only cares about entertainment. It's a sickness. I'd say the vast majority of Americans would prefer to live in their own fantasy land where it's comfortable, and they don't have to think they one day they might have to get their hands dirty fighting to keep the most basic of their rights.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Asherah]

reply to post by Nicademus


Sorry Nicademus but I don't agree with point #1 in your list. It's the one about never having made over 100k per year. I can think of numerous jobs that make that kind of money and yet the people doing them are not 'corporate type' but honest blue collar workers.

1) Non union welders work hard in the pressure vessel industry and make 80-120k per year.
2) Underwater welders and inspectors for offshore platforms. I would say half of what these people make is 'hazard pay'.
3) Confined space inspectors, who do a hazardous job and spend upwards of 6-10k per year just to maintain licenses and endorsements.
4) etc

I think a fairer number would be 200k, that way you exclude lawyers, bankers and 'commodity traders', but you don't exclude middle class Americans just because they do a difficult job and get a premium for it.

New thoughs
1) I think that anyone on welfare (assuming it stays around) should be barred from voting. If you are a drain on the sytem and don't contribute to the system, you shouldn't have a say in how the system is run.

2) I would leave the constitutuon the way it is but handle changes through a new Ammendment. Include in the ammendment the salary limit, who can run for office, who can vote (see my point #1), term limits and anything else we need to fix the Republic.

3) If you want to run for office there should be a full background check and anyone with Fraud or unpaid taxes should be barred from running for office. Also the background check should be public info and include a resume of everyone you worked for. People who got to read that a certain canidate worked as a lobyist for company x, or that someone has been charged 10 times as a wife beater or has 8 DWI convictions would be less likely to vote for that canidate.

reply to post by exile1981


Good stuff right there. Star for you!





SGTChas . . . can you please make a thread regarding the USA in Biblical Prophecy?

reply to post by exile1981


New thoughs

1) I think that anyone on welfare (assuming it stays around) should be barred from voting. If you are a drain on the sytem and don't contribute to the system, you shouldn't have a say in how the system is run.

2) I would leave the constitutuon the way it is but handle changes through a new Ammendment. Include in the ammendment the salary limit, who can run for office, who can vote (see my point #1), term limits and anything else we need to fix the Republic.

…wow…I mean, wow…really?

Well, I think that you’re setting up a case for the violation of the 15th Amendment…

Hey, while we’re at it, lets apply your idea of not allowing anyone on welfare to vote to not only individuals, but entire regions of the nation…since the majority of Federal tax dollars are collected from the wealthy, business/industrial states and redistributed to the poorer, rural areas…oops, well…I guess that they are a “drain on the system” and shouldn’t have a say in how the system is run…

…but why stop there…I mean, lets have an educational requirement too…perhaps people who can’t even spell the words “system” or “Constitution” or “candidate” or “Amendment” have no place voting in our electoral system either…if you can’t even spell, it implies that your literacy rate is low, and if your literacy rate is low, how can the individual make an informed decision?

But enough of this silly hyperbole…

Wow, man…wow…

Point 3 of yours is rather moot, though…because that information tends to get into the public’s view anyway…though I’m not entirely in disagreement with the point…

reply to post by madhatr137



I see your point about it being unconstitutional, even though the 15th says nothing about being on wlefare. But think about this . . .


The same argument is used now.

If you do not vote, you have no right to complain. Correct?

So if you do not put into the system, why should you have a right to dtermine its direction.

[edit on 13/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

Originally posted by TheLoony
I got screwed by one of those cameras in Phoenix last year. $178 for going, SUPPOSEDLY, 13 miles over the limit.

Where was my right to confront my accuser? How do I know they weren't lying about my whereabouts? The ticket came more than a month after the supposed crime and there was no way for me to know if on that day I was actually there or not.

Being as I'm poor, I couldn't get a lawyer and try to fight it. Probably would have been a waste of time and money since the whole system has been taken over.

autowrench: You only have rights is you yourself assert those rights. And, to successfully fight a traffic ticket, do not hire a lawyer, he/she is an officer of the court, for God's sake, and not on your side at all. My city tried this traffic cam thing a few years ago, and being this is a Common Law State, a few people went to court to fight this thing, and all won, as the traffic cam could not testify, was not properly installed or calibrated by a technician, as is prescribed. How I beat mine was the FCC license at the police station was expired! I just took a photo and introduced it is court. Case dismissed.

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux


Add me to the list of interested lurkers, too.

Remember '76

Originally posted by SGTChas

This Republic Shall Stand!

S&F.

Really beautifully written.

reply to post by LAUGHING-CAT


autowrench: Hear, Hear! Great post, and your thoughts are mine, exactly. TPTB cannot win a war of attrition, or last in any kind of guerilla warfare, and they know it. Can you remember a few years ago a guy on the run fled into the mountains in N.C.? I don't think the cops ever found him, that is just one example. A well trained group could last for months in an area, they would have the support of the local population, and the military would have to depend on supply lines, which could be harassed and cut off. Some of us learned a thing or two from Charlie, don't you know. A good mechanic can build most anything.

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by madhatr137

 

I see your point about it being unconstitutional, even though the 15th says nothing about being on wlefare. But think about this . . .

The same argument is used now.

If you do not vote, you have no right to complain. Correct?

So if you do not put into the system, why should you have a right to dtermine its direction.

[edit on 13/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

“If you do not vote, you have no right to complain” is a very different argument than “If you are on welfare, you have no right to vote.” First of all, the “right to complain” is not a literal right, but a figurative one, whereas the “right to vote” is a literal, constitutional right of every law-abiding citizen…the proposition of limiting this right based on an economic status is, quite frankly, and I use this word quite often when pontificating against the “Constitutionalist agenda,” regressive. It goes against decades of civil rights legislation…

To enact such rules would create a stratification of second class citizens that would be without political recourse.

So, we would have a system where people with money have political rights, people without money do not…ultimately, the people with the most money would have the most political power,…and this would quickly create a state where those without economic or political means power would be taken advantage of…and welcome the return of slavery.

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

In addition, according to the Voting Rights Act, states cannot impose "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure…”…granted, the original intent of the act was geared toward race…but subsequent renewals have expanded its attention to protect against other forms of voter discrimination, and rightly so.

reply to post by madhatr137


I can agree with that . . .


God stuff mad

After reading the last few post, I was struck by the inability of some to grasp the reality of the critical nature of this national appointment with destiny. As if a continuance with things as they are was indeed possible if all malcontents and political firebrands would just be quiet; regardless of the daily new examples of the leaders of this governments intent to create a centralized top down command capitalism highbred that is an exact model of the one the progressive ideologist of NAZI Germany created. It’s as if we ‘see no evil’, hear no evil’ and ‘ignore all evil’ the evil will go away. Perhaps a new ‘Ostridge Political Movement’ is evolving?

However upon consideration, it is not that some respondents to this thread do not know that there is radical changes being made to the very fabric of this nation, completely corrupting what was left of its Constitutional moorings; no, they relish leaving the confines of strict constitutionalism as being ‘regressive’ believing those who call for a return to such as being crazed ideologist. Such see the spreading of poverty and misery from the bottom up as ‘equity’. They believe that government has all the answers we need; they are called ‘statist’.

Their heroes, such as Rousseau believe:

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754

They are dangerous to the patriotic movement to defend the purity of the Constitution, for their goal is not liberty and individual freedom, but for ‘social justice’. A cause that in its statist implementation brings only widely spread misery and the equality of mediocrity; equal outcome insures only equal stagnation

Originally posted by nenothtu
Edit: Don't get me wrong. It would be a bad, bad, business to fire across a public highway (most likely a 'vacant' one) or to destroy govt property, but folks will do funny things when their buttons are pushed.

I agree. I didn't mean to come across as gung-ho about sniping a camera, lol. It's not worth the amount of trouble you'd be in, or worth endangering lives over. But yeah, they definitely piss me off and are nothing more than revenue generators.

I have the news on in the background, and find myself chuckling, when I should have empathy.

Some UAW workers had brought their homemade posters, and in spite of them in great part delivering the vote to the current Congress and President, the looks on their faces reflected disbelief.

It appears, that these faithful soldiers, have just been bent over the top rail, and rooted good.

After all the auto bailout money, their plant is closing, the plant they had hoped to transfer is closing, because the plant that will be producing, will be in Mexico.

Viva Obama!

Every single day, more and more groups are alienated, out of work, losing everything they've worked for, and we're suppose to think the proverbial feces are not going to hit the oscillating air mover?

Just wait. It's only going to get better, and better.

By which, I mean worse and worse.

reply to post by madhatr137


I'm sorry madhatr137, I know what I suggested was very much against the current feel of the 15th Amendment... but I live in a rural community with high unemployement and a lot of people on welfare who don't want to work. There are also a lot of people who are what I call underemployed. These are the people who have jobs that pay minimum wage which isn't really a living wage and have to get assistance to make ends meet.

About 8 year ago my business wanted to expand from just designing our products into also manufacturing them. So we saved money, lined up funds from our bank and filed for a development permit (we had the land and it was zoned correctly). The local county government decided they didn't want the business here. They made a rulling after the permit was submitted and we had surveyed for the building that required county approval for all industrial properties in the Hamlet we had our office in.

The one county official who talked publicly about how our 10,000 sqft facility would change the flavor of the community also privately told he was voting it down because it would have created 12 jobs and that well paid jobs and a decrease in the number of people on hand outs would have been bad for re-ellection.

Another one told me how people with jobs didn't know their place and would get "uppity".

The vote turn out to be 4 against my application, 8 abstained and 1 vote for the application. The one vote in my favour was the only member of the county that had a business himself, everyone else ran a farm. That one member quit his position a year later over the constant conflict of interest problems other members had.

Before you think that I don't like farmers, your wrong. Those 12 farmers control 60% of the land in this county and they are the ones who hire people for next to nothing and only for a week at a time to avoid having to pay more or give benefits. Most of the farmers don't make much but there is a small group that have huge farming corporations and make very good money, but they squish any one else who tries to get make a living.

I fought them for 5 years, even after they all were re-elected and I tried the courts but as long as the kept claiming that they had done it in the best ineterest of the people, the courts would even hear it.

You and many others will think I'm a wimp for what I did next but it was the right decision. I did a John Galt. I called in every favour with my competitors (those I was friendly with, and none of them where in the same county as us) and found jobs with them for all of my employees. I then closed down my business, sold off all of my designs including the award winning one. I then went back to school and took a job. Why did I do it? Mostly because I knew that to continue the fight would be my death, my health was going from the stress.

I'm healthier, happier and I don't have to deal with corrupt politicians, I make less, I work physically harder and I'm away from home more, but my health came back.

So I believe we need a way to make it such that those who do not give into the system, can't be used by those who want to run the system to make the themselves lifers in politics. After reading your reply I understand your concern with how much of a slippery slope this can and would become. So I ask you do you know any way to fix this problem other than eiother stopping the people who want to stay on welfare for ever from voting or stopping welfare from existing would also work, but I'm not sure if it is even possible anymore.

Originally posted by dooper
After all the auto bailout money, their plant is closing, the plant they had hoped to transfer is closing, because the plant that will be producing, will be in Mexico.

Yeah, funny how the very small percentage of Americans that backed the bailouts, backed them solely for the sake of American jobs being saved. Guess the doomsday scenario they threw big cash at, is still gonna unfold...but the top execs of those companies can at least rest comfy knowing they won't have to sell any of their yachts or leer jets. Close one guys.