The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

Originally posted by RR98
Say what you will about the "Tea Party", but they have the strength and will to prevail, and I personally believe that they shall, because they have the strength of their convictions versus the spinelessness of their enemies.

I agree they may be powerful.

But they are being used for purposes that the individual "members" would claim to be against.

They are working against freedom; even if they don't know it.

the only real difference between the USA and third world dictatorial countries is the fact that we get to pick our oppressors. stop feeding into the madness, stop voting blue and red!!!

Oh no, China begins to criticize US Economy

"MARTIAL LAW"

(Can't you just see it? The U.N. gestapo units break into the homes of your typical Joe Redneck American, who says, "You want my gun, eh? OK here... have my LEAD too... BLAM!" As far as I'm concerned, these invaders should be treated just like any THIEF that might break into a home. After all if your a PATRIOT, you'll probably end up in one of their DEATH CAMPS anyway if they "arrest" you, according to their current agenda. The owner and potential victim in such an ATTACK would be justified in defending their home with deadly force. Maybe when the gun-grabbers start dying off right and left, then the New World Order will justify an outside invasion of American soil in order to "Restore Order" in America as part of a U.N. military action. It doesn't matter how many gun-grabbing pawns or occupying forces are killed in the process, what is important is that the Black Nobility elite get their New World Order. To hell with the 'pawns', the so-called 'elite' would say, they are merely a means to an end. If only the Communist forces involved in the U.N. operations knew that their TRUE leaders are what they despise the most: that is "Corporate Imperialists" or international bankers with fraternal roots in Bavaria who have "bought-out" these U.N. member countries as a result of long and carefully planned agendas involving massive loans to these same countries. Fully aware that these loans would be hoarded and misused by the greedy leaders of these countries and that as a result these loans could never be re-paid in full, the "Banksters" in turn demanded access to various national resources OR military forces within these debtor countries as reimbursement, and the sovereignty of these nations have slowly been assimilated into the global UN/NWO power structure. If there was one major mistake that the founding fathers made -- and no doubt it was because many of them were wealthy businessmen -- it was their failure to place in the U.S. Constitution sufficient safeguards to prevent the Electorate government from being subverted by Corporate imperialists. The problem has been with the media, and the International Banking forces which control the media. Another problem was in giving too much power to one man -- the President of the United States. History has proven that the media has a MAJOR influence on forming public opinion, if not engaging in all-out propaganda and mind control. The International Banking interests controlling the media have the power to build-up candidates of their own choosing and tear down those who they do not like. Once their hireling is in office they, incredibly, have the power to appoint their own UNELECTED Executive staff. Not only this, but they have the power to enact 'EXECUTIVE ORDERS', to sign over the ECONOMIC or MILITARY RESERVES of the nation to PRIVATE unelected organization, to create secret intelligence agencies manned by UNELECTED persons, and to VETO decisions made by Congress -- who should be the REAL governing power. Where did we go wrong? When did we cease from being a Democracy and begin sliding into the sewers of a FINANCIAL-FRATERNAL-ELITIST-MONARCHY, the kind of government that the founding fathers of the American Union detested so much? - Branton)

Specific troops dressed with flat black uniforms and unmarked units will be brought in by UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters. They will then be deployed on line and "swept" though towns, building by building, block by block, and remove [by force if necessary] the civilians from towns. Each search team will carry three lists: A Black List, a White List, and a Grey List. The names on the Black List will be removed in total from their residences and business by force, hog-tied by flex cuffs, and placed on the unmarked black helicopters for removal to some unknown, pre-programmed destination. Those on the White List [collaborators?] will be removed "for their own safety" and flown out, and those on the Grey List will also be removed for their own safety -- but the troops have been told that they should "be watched because they weren't sure which list they fit on yet." So under this type of full state of emergency, thousands of Americans [guilty of hate, environmental, financial or gun control "crimes"; or "criminal" violation of any of tens of thousands of new government regulations; or resistance to the New World Order] will be likely to be imprisoned [this is why George Bush moved in recent years to double U.S. prison capacity]. These specific troops that will remove pre-identified civilians from given areas and will confiscate firearms, "subversive elements", remove certain groups for political and/or religious reasons [targeted groups will be gun owners, certain religious groups, and other groups or organizations considered detrimental to the "peacekeeping" or "peace-restoring" missions of an occupying force, or the objectives of the current government body]; these troops will make massive use of mechanized infantry, assault units, light infantry units, MPs, and they all will be connected with the Special United Nations Task Forces. These "special units" will consist of Rhodesians, East Germans, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Estonians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Ghurkas and South Africans, brought in from countries that, of late, had professional armies which no longer exist, or have downscaled their force structure, and have provided a surplus of military troops for the opposition; and been placed under the auspices of the U.N. for "special activated operations". Such troops will be useful for such operations because they will not have families here, and they have been secreted and sequestered aboard remote NON-ACTIVE MILITARY RESERVATIONS to keep them away from the civilian population and from discovery.

(Note: Just exactly how many U.S. Military bases have been 'deactivated', I do not know for certain. I have heard from one source that there are over 200 non-active U.S. Military Bases which were "officially" closed "once the Cold War ended", and were "no longer needed". I cannot state how accurate this number is nor whether this refers to bases world-wide or just in the United States. I would suspect world wide. We should remember however that several sources claim that a large number of the U.S. military bases, whether active or inactive, possess extensive underground base counterparts. Many of the U.N. occupying forces are reportedly stationed in such underground facilities until they are called into action. In a sense, America has already been INFILTRATED and UNDERMINED, if not INVADED by U.N. - N.W.O. forces. - Branton).

They [the hidden NWO forces] also will not owe the local population any form of loyalty or concern. They have the mentality of occupation forces in a hostile environment. Their actual possible/probable opposition locations are in larger facilities such as Fort Lewis, Washington. These troops are considered mercenaries or blackshirts.

The scenario these troops will likely use is practice to insert forces by "fast-rope" in a vertical insertion into a confined area such as a downtown, suburban or industrial area where no adequate helicopter landing zones (LZs) are available.

"MARTIAL LAW" is a system of government under the direction of military authority. it is an arbitrary kind of law, proceeding directly from military power and having no immediate constitutional or legislative sanction. It is only justified by 'necessity', and supersedes all civil government.... Martial law is built on a "no settle" principle, but is arbitrary and, in truth, no law.

SUSPENSION of the writ of habeas corpus [i.e. right to trial by judge and jury and protection from illegal imprisonment] is a major element of martial law. As Justice Blackstone wrote: "In this case, the nation parts with a portion of its liberty and suspected persons may then be arrested without cause assigned."

In light of the above, when the FEMA - U.N. gestapo forces come knocking down your door without your consent and without warrant, steal your guns, your computers and personal belongings under the pretext of a 'National Emergency' -- or even attempt to 'relocate' you and your family elsewhere in opposition to your rights as laid out in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- then this will NOT be an act of the Law, BUT AN ACT OF WAR!!! You have the right to resist as laid out in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Read these documents, because they are the FOUNDATION and LIFEBLOOD of the American Republic. In the end, the last line of defense of the American Republic -- or that system of government which is laid out in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence -- will not be those who are guilty of HIGH TREASON within 'our' government who have sold America over to the New World Order. It will be THE CITIZEN'S MILITIA, which is authorized by the 2nd Amendment. And for all you military, police and government officials who have sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC... When and if a National Emergency is declared, and when you begin receiving conflicting instructions from the 'Elected' Senatorial-Congressional 'government' AND FROM the 'Unelected' Military-Industrial 'government', then it will be UP TO YOU personally to determine which instructions will serve the interests of YOUR American Republic, and which will serve the interests of THEIR New World Order...

According to Peggy Kane, the bad Reptilian races on Earth (who reportedly controlled the money system) should be defeated by "The One" and the Pleiadians recently this year. In case it's the case, then there is maybe nothing to worry about anymore.

you had your government since 1913 its failed.

Now we return to freedom.


Death to the Federal Reserve.

reply to post by TaxpayersUnleashed


The whole 1913 reference is nothing but a side distraction, a sleight of hand to distract you from the truth.

We had more rights in the fifties, sixties, and seventies than we have ever had before, and higher standards of living. Passing of the fed res act in 1913 didn't stop the progress of our liberties.

All the damage that has been done, the stripping of our rights, and the wealth the middle class and the working class has happened since the whole con of the free market was sold to the people of the U.S..

The fabrication began in the seventies when the Nixon admin, continued under Ford, created the welfare generated inner city ghettos, ramping up crime, and alienating citizens. Fooled into blaming all our problems on welfare, people have elected repubs who say one thing, and do the other, calling for a free market while fixing markets in favor of the super rich, pretending to protect U.S. sovereignty, while allowing our nation to be flooded with immigrants who care nothing for our culture or our way of life.

The TPers are just the latest scammers. Once again, ignore what they claim they will do, and watch what they actually do. They do not support funding the agencies which over see immigration, they do not want to fund the AG to go after the white collar crooks who created the mortgage crisis.

Stop being fooled by the smoke and mirrors.

reply to post by poet1b


Your assessment has some merit, but has fundamental flaws.

There were ghettos long before Nixon. I recall the Hough riots in Cleveland in 1966, under Johnson. Not his fault, of course (although some would argue otherwise), but on his watch and long before Nixon all the same. Hough was not a nice neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination, and was a ghetto for as long as I could remember until I left the area. Not sure what it's like now. I was born in that neighborhood, on Woodland Avenue, so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about. We left in the wake of the unrest, and headed to greener pastures in the Appalachians, where I did the bulk of my growing up. Poverty is poverty, but there was a world of difference in those two venues. One had a chance of clawing your way up and making a living of sorts by your own means, and the other didn't.

The fact remains that there were ghettos long before your assessment indicates. Bedford-Stuyvesant and Harlem are examples in New York that pre-date your time table, and the same can be said of any urban area in America. Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't there - some of us still alive DID see them.

As far as individual freedoms go, that erosion far pre-dates Nixon as well. I personally think it goes all the way back to the Reconstruction Era in the aftermath of the Civil War, but that's just my opinion. There were a lot of heavy-handed government and financial sector tactics being employed at least that far back. The first real assault on the second amendment occurred in 1934, which was strengthened in 1968, both events which predate Nixon. These are only examples in one area, there are others in other areas.

There has NEVER been a utopia here, and the halcyon days recalled by those who didn't live them some times turn out not to have been all that halcyon. As has been said before, "the good old days" are often a product of faulty memory, or faulty history. We have now precisely what we have always had - that which we can wrest from situations, and which we can defend from governments. It matters nary a whit whether that is a Republican government, a Democrat government, or a Tea Party government. NONE are looking out for the people. The business of government, just as the business of business, is to propagate itself at the expense of the undefended. Government, of any sort, doesn't care about you or I, it cares only about itself.

Our job is now, as always, to keep that monster contained and at bay, and it doesn't matter at all who is driving it.

reply to post by nenothtu


While there always have been ghettos, the crime rates in the seventies skyrocketed in comparison to previous decades. You would have to go back to the days before they began collecting crime statistics to find a more violent time. It was like turning the clock back on the days of alcohol prohibition. Personally, I think this was socially engineered. There is an excellent documentary I saw one time on PBS, late in the night, about how banks, controlling mortgage loan grants, control where people are allowed to buy homes and live. Starting in the forties they deliberately concentrated blacks in specific areas, around airports and sports arenas as one of the targeted areas. Before that, blacks had been very integrated in northern cities.

We had a great many more liberties and a great deal more justice before the beginning of the free market con, I know, because I lived through the era. Starting with Carter and the elimination of usury laws which restricted interest rates, and following through with Reagan and deregulation, followed by the war on drugs, our standards of living have been under steady attack. It is also under Reagan that the fed began ignoring immigration laws, creating a clear attack on the law of supply and demand in the labor market.

Reagan and Bush ignored illegal immigration, secretly supported drug cartels, all the while writing laws for drug enforcement that eliminated rules against search and seizure without a warrant.

This is when our prison population began to soar, while they were letting serious criminals like Garretto in the Dugard case. In my opinion they intentionally let out psychos like this in order to keep the public paranoid and isolated, in support of ever more restrictive laws, and more jails.

www.news10.net...

Things were better back in the sixties and seventies when it comes to liberty, and they began taking it away in the eighties.

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by inforeal

 

The "tea party" is exactly democratic. They are just a bunch of average people, mostly middle america group who see
this country headed in the wrong direction. They voted, democratically, to change that direction. What about all of the groups that support your leftist agenda. Example Media Matters, anything to do with George Soros and all of his groups that throw money, rallying the troups trying to change our country.

Why is it when you lefties don't agree with people it always comes to name bashing and whinning about being un-american. What's really bad for our country is the ignorant who blindly follow the mind mindset of Soros, Obama, Reid and Pelosi

S&P downgrades the USA. Liberals blame the Tea Party.
Americans want solutions not excuses.
80% say we are on the -wrong track - !

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

While there always have been ghettos, the crime rates in the seventies skyrocketed in comparison to previous decades. You would have to go back to the days before they began collecting crime statistics to find a more violent time.

So we are talking about crime rates now? That wasn't the original contention. it was:

We had more rights in the fifties, sixties, and seventies than we have ever had before, and higher standards of living. Passing of the fed res act in 1913 didn't stop the progress of our liberties.

All the damage that has been done, the stripping of our rights, and the wealth the middle class and the working class has happened since the whole con of the free market was sold to the people of the U.S..

Didn't notice mention of crime rates in there. Furthermore, I specified that rights have been being steadily stripped since at least 1868 ("Reconstruction" Era), which was long before the "fifties, sixties, and seventies".... unless you meant the EIGHTEEN fifties, sixties, and seventies.

Just how long do you maintain this "free market" thing has been going on?

The 1913 federal reserve Act was most certainly part and parcel of that stripping, and accelerated the stripping of "wealth" from the "middle class", which has been accelerating ever since. That really doesn't bother me so much, since I don't now, nor ever have had, much desire for "wealth". Still, it does tend to drag the nation down, and that DOES bother me somewhat.

Edit to add: There IS no "progress of our liberties". We started out with as many as we will ever have, and the name of the game is for the opposition to try to erode those, and for us to prevent that. It's not a "progression" of liberty, it's a "regression", and it has been steadily going on for a very long time now - much longer than you seem to be willing to admit.

It was like turning the clock back on the days of alcohol prohibition. Personally, I think this was socially engineered. There is an excellent documentary I saw one time on PBS, late in the night, about how banks, controlling mortgage loan grants, control where people are allowed to buy homes and live. Starting in the forties they deliberately concentrated blacks in specific areas, around airports and sports arenas as one of the targeted areas. Before that, blacks had been very integrated in northern cities.

There's no doubt that it was (and is) social engineering. Thank the Fed that the bankers had that ability (you'll no doubt note that the 1940's came AFTER 1913...).

Blacks have NEVER been "very integrated" in northern cities, I don't care WHAT PBS was told to say in the matter. That flies directly in the face of documented history.

We had a great many more liberties and a great deal more justice before the beginning of the free market con, I know, because I lived through the era. Starting with Carter and the elimination of usury laws which restricted interest rates, and following through with Reagan and deregulation, followed by the war on drugs, our standards of living have been under steady attack. It is also under Reagan that the fed began ignoring immigration laws, creating a clear attack on the law of supply and demand in the labor market.

tell that to an unReconstructed Rebel from 1878. I believe he may have a difference of opinion on the matter of whether there were more liberties and justice then or now.

You KNOW that most of those "rebels" were Democrats (the conservatives of the day) and were being raked over the coals by Republicans (the radicals of the day), right? In light of that, I wonder why you tend to treat history as if it never happened.

I remember Carter, and the double-digit inflation and the rise of the 23% APR credit card. That should have been a wake-up call that living on credit was a bad idea, but it seemed to have been lost on many. If current government debt habits are any indication, it's a lesson yet to be learned by most, and I guarantee it will be a lesson learned hard.

Reagan and Bush ignored illegal immigration, secretly supported drug cartels, all the while writing laws for drug enforcement that eliminated rules against search and seizure without a warrant.

I'd sort of like to see some evidence that Reagan was ignoring illegal immigration and "secretly supporting drug cartels", although I don't doubt either charge against either of the Bush Boys. I'm aware of Reagan's bone-headed amnesty for illegals, but that was supposed to be a one-time fix. I know nothing of this "ignoring illegal immigration" on his watch. Matter of fact, several folks were dispatched to Central and South America in an effort to assist them with making a better place to live there, which backfired horribly due to a propaganda effort led by Marxists, but that was then, and this is now.

Things were better back in the sixties and seventies when it comes to liberty, and they began taking it away in the eighties.

Things were even better in the 1830's and 1840's, and better still in the 1780's and 1790's. The point is, it's a progression that has been going on for a lot longer than you are willing to admit, probably because it would be inconvenient to try to blame it on "Republicans" or "tea partiers" which didn't even exist back then.

You are picking a random starting point so that you can blame the enemy of today, and ignoring the history of the matter.

reply to post by inforeal
obviously you are a liberal with no clue or understanding of economics, you can't get rid of debt by spending, pure and simple. The tea party reps were the only ones to understand that this agreement was a smokescreen for further spending as history bears out. In the past if more people would have stood up for sensible politics like the tea party, we wouldn't be in the mess we have today. As for blame, That rest on the general public for being such sheep following a traitor like Obama, Dems. and Rep are all equally to be blamed, an especially the news media for coveering up the truth.!

Originally posted by georgewvess
]obviously you are a liberal with no clue or understanding of economics, you can't get rid of debt by spending, pure and simple.

History repeatedly shows the same trends.

Recession + Cutting spending = Depression

Recession + Government spending = less unemployment

reply to post by nenothtu


No, we are talking about social engineering with the intent of getting the right reaction out of the public. The high crime ghettos were deliberately created to stir up white fear and hatred, racism, and the willingness of the public to create a ever increasing police state. While pretending to be generous towards blacks in the U.S., the welfare programs real aims were to isolate the communities and create high crime areas. The convinced the U.S. public to then vote away their rights to protect us from the new menace. See the first Star wars trilogy, as in movies I, II & III.

Up until the 1980ties, we still had requirements for a warrant order before search and seizure was allowed. That is the main elimination of all of our rights. In the same decade we saw the large rise of incarceration rights, there is no stronger way of eliminating your rights than by getting as many people as possible convicted of felonies.

Elimination of our rights under Reagan and the first Bush occurred at a far greater level than in any time in our nations history.

Honestly, you need to consider how much changed from the late sixties until now.

tell that to an unReconstructed Rebel from 1878.

Yeah, well there has been a great deal of history revision going on ever since the civil war.

A great deal of what is going on today has a lot to do with what happened during the civil war, and changes in alliances.

While a great many northern whites had no desire to get to know blacks any better, and certainly had no desire for them to live next door, they still saw the institution of slavery as evil. However their biggest concern over slavery was the way that large plantations were able to dominate local communities.

The plantation owners had the wealth, their brothers/uncles/cousins were the local judge, DA, sheriff, and even if the local smaller farmers elected a mayor of their choosing, the plantation owners dominated. In order to keep their slaves in line, most plantation owners had their own small army to order after their affairs. It was barely more than a feudal system. This is the ugly truth about the old south that the losers have somehow succeeded in erasing from history.

Don't kid yourself about how much better things were back then.

East coast bankers worked their own special brand of feudalism. The pioneers who kept going west were the ones who maintained and established their freedoms. This would be known now days as the rednecks and the hillbillies. Across the Appalachians and north, small scale farmers succeeded in far greater levels of freedom. Even then they had to deal with various forms of religions looking to control their lives.

Out west, individuals wound up fighting against the large ranchers. Look into the story of Billy the Kid.

Do your own research, the 50ties, 60ties, and 70ties were the best decades in the U.S. so far, where we enjoyed our highest standards of living, and our greatest freedoms. The mid 90ties was a taste of what things should be like.

What have they done over the last 30 years?

They drove small farmers out of the ag business, and dismantled the northern midwest manufacturing centers and shipped it all over seas. They screwed over their old enemies in the slimiest of ways.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

No, we are talking about social engineering with the intent of getting the right reaction out of the public.

Is there some other reason for social engineering? I thought it was a given, and that was understood.

The high crime ghettos were deliberately created to stir up white fear and hatred, racism, and the willingness of the public to create a ever increasing police state. While pretending to be generous towards blacks in the U.S., the welfare programs real aims were to isolate the communities and create high crime areas. The convinced the U.S. public to then vote away their rights to protect us from the new menace.

Perhaps, but in any event they still far pre-date Nixon, and far pre-date the "50's 60's and 70's".

See the first Star wars trilogy, as in movies I, II & III.

Star Wars as a lesson in real-world history? Seriously?

Up until the 1980ties, we still had requirements for a warrant order before search and seizure was allowed. That is the main elimination of all of our rights.

We still have that requirement, in general cases, although it was severely damaged by the Patriot Act under Bush. It was not damaged at all during the 80's.

In the same decade we saw the large rise of incarceration rights, there is no stronger way of eliminating your rights than by getting as many people as possible convicted of felonies.

Not sure what you mean by "incarceration rights" here, but felons have "lost" some of their rights since at least the GCA of 1934, and probably before that, although I'm less sure of the earlier dates. For what it's worth, I've always been against "losing" rights due to a felony conviction. I'm of the opinion that once you've done your time, it's over, and anything further amounts to a life sentence. If you can't trust a man to function in society as a full member, you ought not to turn him back loose into that society as a half-member.

Elimination of our rights under Reagan and the first Bush occurred at a far greater level than in any time in our nations history.

Seeing it like that only gives half or the picture, and only having half of the picture goes a long way in explaining why you hold some of the views that you do, which views I find as odd. I suppose the others are to be forgiven for the rights they abrogated, but for some odd reason not Reagan or the Bushes? Why haven't any of them restored any of the rights that Reagan and Bush are alleged to have eliminated?

Honestly, you need to consider how much changed from the late sixties until now.

Oh, believe me, I have, more than once. I've also considered how much changed from the 30's to the 60's, and from 1900 to the 30's, and so on and so forth. I've considered in detail what my folks told me of how much had changed - and not for the better - in their lifetimes. No sir, there has never been a "golden age", much less as recent as the 60's or 70's. The gold has been steadily turning to lead for at least the last 3 generations, and I'm willing to bet since long before even that.

I recall a late night conversation with my dad in 1976, the "Bicentennial Year", where we came to the conclusion that if the US continued on the course it had been on since at least 1932, it would not survive to see a tricentennial. Sadly, that prediction has come true with astonishing rapidity, and this is no longer the country it was even as recently as that.

The conversation was actually occasioned by my dad handing me one of the newly minted "bicentennial quarters" and telling me I ought to hang on to it, since, if the country kept on the course it has taken since he was a kid, there would likely never be another issue of such. That's how I recall the specific year of the conversation.

Yeah, well there has been a great deal of history revision going on ever since the civil war.

A great deal of what is going on today has a lot to do with what happened during the civil war, and changes in alliances.

While a great many northern whites had no desire to get to know blacks any better, and certainly had no desire for them to live next door, they still saw the institution of slavery as evil. However their biggest concern over slavery was the way that large plantations were able to dominate local communities.

The plantation owners had the wealth, their brothers/uncles/cousins were the local judge, DA, sheriff, and even if the local smaller farmers elected a mayor of their choosing, the plantation owners dominated. In order to keep their slaves in line, most plantation owners had their own small army to order after their affairs. It was barely more than a feudal system. This is the ugly truth about the old south that the losers have somehow succeeded in erasing from history.

Don't kid yourself about how much better things were back then.

East coast bankers worked their own special brand of feudalism. The pioneers who kept going west were the ones who maintained and established their freedoms. This would be known now days as the rednecks and the hillbillies. Across the Appalachians and north, small scale farmers succeeded in far greater levels of freedom. Even then they had to deal with various forms of religions looking to control their lives.

Let's not drag this any further afield than necessary with the Civil War history, I only brought it up to demonstrate that things have not always been as rosy as you contend. It would be fairly fascinating to sit and chat about it sometime over a beer or six, and compare the primary documents we have to support our respective views of the situation of the times, but somehow I don't see that ever happening.

Out west, individuals wound up fighting against the large ranchers. Look into the story of Billy the Kid.

I believe he made his bones in the Lincoln County Wars, but I could be mistaken about that. The main point would be that battling corporations and "money men" is nothing new, and didn't take a hiatus during the 50's, 60's, 70's or 90's.

Do your own research, the 50ties, 60ties, and 70ties were the best decades in the U.S. so far, where we enjoyed our highest standards of living, and our greatest freedoms. The mid 90ties was a taste of what things should be like.

I suppose that would depend on your individual views of "best" and "what things should be like". I personally was very unhappy with the prohibition in effect from 1994-2004, and the attendant violence done to the Bill of Rights under Clinton. From that you may surmise that what I think "things should be like" differs in some respects from what you think they should be like.

Of course, I come from that cantankerous stock you refer to as hillbillies and rednecks, so that may explain it. We have a different view on the proper place of government, ingrained over several generations of just what you describe as "recent" problems.

What have they done over the last 30 years?

They drove small farmers out of the ag business, and dismantled the northern midwest manufacturing centers and shipped it all over seas. They screwed over their old enemies in the slimiest of ways.

Indeed. No arguments, although I wouldn't limit it to the last 30 years. One should ask one's self why Clinton and Obama have done NOTHING to reverse those trends...

BTW, the 70's were a very rough time for northeastern Ohio, and the industrial centers located there - primarily steel and rubber. By 1979, Cleveland and Akron had lost nearly 2/3rds of their populations, which were in full flight from the economic hardships of the Golden Age of the 70's.

I recall the Cuyahoga River catching fire and BURNING for 3 days in the Golden Age of the 60's.

In the 90's, the economy of central appalachia went through a very rough time, nearly a total collapse, from which it has not yet fully recovered. Now, the entire country is encountering the same sort of difficulty, and oddly enough under the same sort of "leadership". Go figure.

No one alive now has ever lived in a "Golden Age". It has always been turning steadily to lead.

reply to post by nenothtu


The battle to prevent elites from controlling the masses has been going on since Sumeria.

However, this latest round began mostly under Nixon. While it is difficult to prove, it makes a lot of sense that those who opposed welfare, worked towards the systems destruction by letting it run out of hand.

www.fordschool.umich.edu...

. The income maintenance system continued to expand between the late 1960s and the mid 1970s as
new programs were introduced, benefit levels were increased, and eligibility requirements were
liberalized. The number of AFDC recipients increased from about 6 million to 11 million and
the number of food stamp recipients, from about 1 million to 19 million over this period. As
higher cash and in-kind benefits became available to a larger percentage of poor people, the
work disincentives and high budgetary costs of welfare programs were increasingly challenged.
The public and policy makers (but not most social researchers) came to view increased welfare
recipiency as evidence that the programs were subsidizing dependency and encouraging idleness
(Anderson 1978; Murray 1984).

Rumsfeld and his prodigy Dick Cheney were very much involved from the Nixon days.

Not an ideal link, but the basic facts are correct.

www.tomdispatch.com...

President Lyndon Johnson's four year-old Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the heralded antipoverty program with its grassroots "Community Action" and its Legal Services for the poor, had become a potential success story -- and thus anathema for powerful Democrats as well as Republicans.
...
So it was that a slight, already balding 28 year-old Republican Congressional intern, Richard Bruce Cheney, soon steered to the new OEO Director a 12-page memo setting out how to run the agency in a way that would kill what they all deplored.
...
OEO began the Rumsfeld myths. "He saved it," Carlucci would blithely tell oblivious post-9/11 reporters hardly apt to check the actual fate of the agency. Carlucci would spin an image of an ever-energetic Rumsfeld taking up the cause of the needy, streamlining and fortifying the laggard agency despite the funeral that had been ordered.

Hopefully this makes you stop and think.

I think Star Wars, the latest first three, is a bit of a clever allegory to what is going on in these times, although the characters do not line up. Rather than in your face bad guys verses good guys, it is all about backdoor political manipulation. There is the trade federation dealing with the dark lord behind the scenes.

Um, it was in the 80ties that probable cause laws completely eliminated the need for a warrant. They began invading peoples property, on the claim that they believed there was pot growing there, and confiscating people's property without a warrant or a conviction. You should look into this as well. Yes, it was under Reagan and the first Bush that, in the so called war on drugs, our rights were stripped away. Never mind that Reagan and Bush were funding and supporting the Central American drug cartels. You should look into those fact, I remember watching it all go down, as coc aine flooded communities everywhere.

You keep looking to the distant past, when most of the things that have been done to eliminate our liberties occurred in the last 30 years.

Yeah, 1976 was not that great of times, middle class wages had began a decline that lasted until 1995, and crime rates were skyrocketing.

I wouldn't call the 1960ties the golden age, but we had a lot more freedoms then, up until the 80ties, than we have now. I know, because I lived through those times, and watched as those who preached free markets opened the doors for white collar crime, and at the same time, clamped down on the rights of the individual. Ignore the smoke and mirrors, and pay attention to what is really going on.

As for the civil war, all you have to do is look at the reasons the southern states gave for secession. West Virginia split off from the Virginia, and Kentucky sided with the Union. I suspect we would enjoy a few beers talking about it. One of my greats helped with the original survey of the Ohio River Valley, so, yep, that be my stock too.

I agree, Clinton made his fair share of mistakes, but he is the best president we have had for a long time. Reagan took us in the wrong direction, and lead us down this path towards insane levels of debt, rampant white collar crime, and uncontrolled immigration. The latest attempt of the dark side to reassert itself mainly got under way, under Reagan.

I am not looking for no golden age, but I think we could be doing a whole lot better.

And the TPers aren't looking to make things better.

Originally posted by Anunaki10
Oh no, China begins to criticize US Economy

Yeah, what a political and economic mess

Originally posted by poet1b
Um, it was in the 80ties that probable cause laws completely eliminated the need for a warrant. They began invading peoples property, on the claim that they believed there was pot growing there, and confiscating people's property without a warrant or a conviction. You should look into this as well. Yes, it was under Reagan and the first Bush that, in the so called war on drugs, our rights were stripped away. Never mind that Reagan and Bush were funding and supporting the Central American drug cartels. You should look into those fact, I remember watching it all go down, as coc aine flooded communities everywhere.

The "War on Drugs" is a great example of this entire issue.

Corporations profiting from "the government" being used against "the masses".

reply to post by poet1b


I suppose I should probably bow out of this discussion. A synthesis will likely never be reached, and so neither will any sort of consensus. My experiences and yours have led us to nearly opposed conclusions in the matter. For example, you insist on laying the inception at the feet of Nixon, where I would, if pushed into finding a modern "starting point", have to lay it at the feet of Johnson and his "War on Poverty". Believe it or not, there are still a few die-hard hold outs back home waiting for that war to start, 47 years after the announcement. Most of the rest have long since come to realize that you can starve to death waiting on government "assistance", and so must do for yourself.

In reality, you are correct, it goes back to before the days of Gilgamesh and Enkidu in the seminal Sumerian city of Uruk. Incidentally, that story provides an excellent illustration, probably the first of it's kind in history, on the dangers of allowing religion and politics to mix. 3500 years later, the christian Jesus also gave warning on that danger with the phrase "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and unto God that which is his", and still, 2000 years after that and 5500 years after Gilgamesh, we have as a species not learned the lesson of the dangers of that explosive mixture. Religion is a fine thing for a man to have, but it has no place in politics.

But I digress.

Another example of the differences our experiences have produced in the end result of our thinking is the insistence that somehow search warrants were nullified in the 80's under Reagan. Evidently you've seen something somewhere to support that. My experience as a police trainee, and later trainer, in the 80's leads me to believe otherwise. It was hammered into us as trainees, and e later hammered it into our charges, that lack of a warrant will throw your whole case when it gets to court. It's not something that we would have ever even considered, simply due to that. Why bother with the danger if you know you'll lose in the end without dotting your 'i's'? It would be a waste of effort. The only exceptions were in cases of imminent personal danger, which would allow a patdown (weapon search of a person), but not a building entry.

Nowadays, Bush's unpatriotic "Patriot Act", and the "National Security letters" it provides for, DO put a serious dent in the constitutional requirement for warrants, but for the life of me I can't chalk that up to Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, or Johnson. That's all on King George II. Perhaps with a bit of splashback on Obama, since he's done nothing to put it back right.

Similarly, although I'll not go into details here, I have reason to severely doubt the assertion that Reagan was somehow supporting drug cartels in Central and South America. I have NO reason to doubt that either or both of the two Bushes supported such, and it's public knowledge that Obama and his DEA and BATFE are not only supporting them, but arming them as well. I'd have to say that Carter supported domestic drug production over the cartels, to the point of trying to eliminate the competition - ref. the paraquat spraying program of the late 70's. Yay America! Buy domestic! Clinton, I'm not sure of. I have doubts that he even knew what drugs were, or what they were for, since he never inhaled.

There's no doubt that we had more freedom in the 60's than now. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that the incursions on liberty have been a steady progression that has been going on nearly forever, and did not begin with Nixon. It did not begin with Johnson, nor even with Wilson, or even Lincoln. It began long before all of those. To attempt to give it an arbitrary "modern" starting point ignores the history of the matter, and as they say, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and we are seeing that in action, right now.

It's not a "Democrat vs. Republican" thing, nor is it even a "Liberal vs, Conservative" thing. It's far more insidious than that, and that is just the public face they put on it to keep the plebes occupied with battling one another. The actual Puppet Masters are pulling the strings of both of those sides, and playing them against each other to keep them occupied and unaware of the root causes.

I think the Tea Party, whatever other faults it may have, is on the right track with the debt deal, but that again is purely subjective, based on personal experience. My experience tells me that living debt as a lifestyle will enslave you to your debtors, without fail. I personally think that is a very bad place for an entire nation to place itself, and that it can only lead to misery. My experiences of debt are what led me to eliminate every single instance of my debts in the mid-90's, and I have never looked back nor missed the debt slavery.

I think the US as a nation could do worse than to do the same, and in that I think the Tea Party is entirely on the right track in that respect. It's not an easy nor a painless thing to do, I can tell you from personal experience, but it amazingly liberating to bite the bullet and do it. It is WELL worth the effort and pain, and the longer it's put off, the deeper the debt gets, the harder the effort will be, and the worse the pain. Either way, it's going to happen, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and sooner is better - and less painful. That puts US in control of circumstances, rather than waiting and letting the involuntary occur, which puts circumstances in control of US.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I think the Tea Party, whatever other faults it may have, is on the right track with the debt deal, but that again is purely subjective, based on personal experience. My experience tells me that living debt as a lifestyle will enslave you to your debtors, without fail. I personally think that is a very bad place for an entire nation to place itself, and that it can only lead to misery.

I appreciate the tea party for one reason. It is about people getting involved with the government; which is absolutely vital.

However, comparing the u.s. deficit to a person's individual debt is rhetoric; it simply isn't equatable.

Corporations high-jacked the tea party and used the "debt ceiling" to avoid something like "the new deal" from happening.

From an economic perspective; the government should not even be thinking about reducing the debt during a "recession" or "depression". History proves this to be the worst possible move.

reply to post by Jezus


Debt is somehow NOT debt if as government does it as opposed to an individual? What is the difference? Does it not have to be paid back? Does the debtor not owe anything to the lender?

How is debt not slavery to bankers when it's a government doing the borrowing? How is living within your means not as good an idea for an entire nation as it is for an individual within that nation?

If you're right, then I'm all for it! Let's just tell the bankers to go pound salt, and reset the national debt to zero tomorrow! I'll be in my office and ready to get it started at 8:00 am. See you there.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Debt is somehow NOT debt if as government does it as opposed to an individual? What is the difference?

The difference is that it simply is not equatable. They are two completely distinct concepts.

For an individual debt is a real concrete variable.

The difference is that the U.S. Government can have a deficit but the United State's economy can still be healthy. It is a logistical issue and not necessarily a problem in and of itself.

Studying the operations of the Federal Reserve is the easiest way to comprehend this.

In fact; history repeatedly shows that during a recession, we should not even be thinking about cutting spending or deficit reduction.