Words of Wisdom for 2012

A number of eye-opening events took place in 2011 in America and around the world. It makes no sense to list all of these events in this thread because all of us on ATS have been on top of these issues as they unfolded. Most recently, in America, we’ve seen economic decline, OWS, NDAA and SOPA just to name a few.



Many Americans are entering 2012 with a strong sense of skepticism and an even stronger sense that we are on the edge of a precipice. Some wise men throughout American history knew the threats to democracy because they were students of history…

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

In many respects we’ve already allowed this to happen. America is a fascist state with a small percentage of our population controlling the majority. Our elected officials have failed to represent us. They have chosen instead to pursue a path for their own personal gain. But it doesn't have to be this way…

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. - Abraham Lincoln

With the 2012 elections fast approaching, our current form of democracy really has only one chance left to work before the people reach a boiling point. OWS and the Tea Party must drive the results of the next election cycle in a positive way. We must put aside our VAST differences of opinion about the way we should govern within our democratic system. We must make the positive changes our country needs before we discuss the things that divide us. Is that possible?? We need to revive our sense of patriotism…

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. - Teddy Roosevelt

We have enemies within our government who are doing the bidding for the banking cartels and power elites around the world. This has been going on forever, and they are creeping closer and closer to complete control over our lives. During the midst of a civil war, Lincoln recognized there was a bigger threat to our country than our differences.

I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one on my rear is my greatest foe. - Abraham Lincoln

2011 showed us all that Americans have awakened from their slumber. People are well aware that America is at a crossroads. The only question left to be answered is which path will we take as a country?


Will we do nothing and allow the crony capitalists to continue with their world domination or will we rise up and take our country back? Will we force our politicians to adhere to the constitution or will we continue to allow our freedoms to be stolen?

The country is ours to lose. We can chose the path to restoring our democracy or we can stay the course and watch our futures go down the drain. The most important words of wisdom to remember this year are these…

Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people. – Thomas Jefferson

2012 will either be the year of change or the beginning of the end IMO…
What say you??

Dear seabag,

I have to agree with your thought that OWS and the Tea Party combined could make a sufficient force to stop the decline of the country. I wish it would happen. I don't see the mechanics of their union, however. Both groups take a narrow view of the problem and, unfortunately, demand that their vision is the one that everyone must unite behind.

Attack business? Attack government? Despite their statements, neither side actually wants to do both. Is there an individual or group that could coordinate those efforts? Well, right now, I'm starting to worry more about my family and friends' survival than the country's.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I have to agree with your thought that OWS and the Tea Party combined could make a sufficient force to stop the decline of the country. I wish it would happen. I don't see the mechanics of their union, however. Both groups take a narrow view of the problem and, unfortunately, demand that their vision is the one that everyone must unite behind.

Hey Charles!

I think the two movements comprise an overwhelming majority of the country. Whether they will both push to achieve the goal of reviving our constitution is another story.

If the coming election is a big joke like many here on ATS believe it will be then we’re in for a bumpy road. The country may not recover…

Attack business? Attack government? Despite their statements, neither side actually wants to do both. Is there an individual or group that could coordinate those efforts? Well, right now, I'm starting to worry more about my family and friends' survival than the country's.

We agree that the problem lies in the relationship between government and business. TTP and OWS do seem to be attacking different sides of the same coin. I hope Americans can see past this and fix the problem before it’s too late.

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear seabag,

I have to agree with your thought that OWS and the Tea Party combined could make a sufficient force to stop the decline of the country. I wish it would happen. I don't see the mechanics of their union, however. Both groups take a narrow view of the problem and, unfortunately, demand that their vision is the one that everyone must unite behind.

Attack business? Attack government? Despite their statements, neither side actually wants to do both. Is there an individual or group that could coordinate those efforts? Well, right now, I'm starting to worry more about my family and friends' survival than the country's.

With respect,
Charles1952

I don't think it's a desirable thing to unite the two - there would be too much infighting in a union of them to get anything accomplished. That does not, however, preclude cooperation and coordination between the two, while allowing them to keep their own separate identities intact.

Cooperation is the order of the day if survival is the desired end result.

As Seabag said:

With the 2012 elections fast approaching, our current form of democracy really has only one chance left to work before the people reach a boiling point. OWS and the Tea Party must drive the results of the next election cycle in a positive way. We must put aside our VAST differences of opinion about the way we should govern within our democratic system. We must make the positive changes our country needs before we discuss the things that divide us. Is that possible??

What we have is a decent setup to catch the Wheels in a crossfire, which is only possible if two criteria are met - the fire must come from two different angles if it is to cross (i.e. the Tea Party and OWS approach the problems from different directions), and enough cooperation must be established to allow for coordination of the assaults.

What we must do is identify points of congruence, common cause between the two, and allow them to go after that common problem in their own way, each coordinated with the other such that the individual efforts are cumulative and concentrated. The problem is not confined to a single side of the political aisle, despite what partisan hacks would have you believe. It was present under Bush I, through Clinton, through Bush II, and now through Obama, and will continue accelerating through the next change of the guard if we are not vigilant enough and serious enough to stop it NOW. It's not a "left-right", "democrat-republican" thing. BOTH sides have us bent over and are tugging our hair.

As another wise man observed:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.“- Thomas Jefferson

Regardless of what you believe, we will see in the coming year whether either OWS or the Tea Party are truly "dead". I personally believe that neither is, but OWS is primed for action right now, and resting up, gathering steam for the coming onslaught. the Tea Party is in disarray, trying to get a handle on just what is happening regarding OWS, and being further scrambled by partisan hacks seeking to enhance and promote the differences in an effort to divide. They KNOW that if we ever all get on the same page, it's game over for the Big Wigs.

The hacking is going on in both camps as well, trying to widen the gap rather than heal the wound. If it isn't stemmed, the coming year will see the two opposed to each other, with no net effect at all on the common foe.

Just as Seabag said, we have to find the common ground and fix the common problems. If we don't the differences and bickering will destroy the country from within. Once the common issues are addressed and repaired, THEN we can get back to haggling over differences.

If we DON'T those differences won't mean a damned thing in the end.

reply to post by nenothtu


Dear nenothtu,

A very nice post indeed. Thanks for it.

My thought in finding a common goal for the two groups is to look at their statements of principles. It seems that the one place they can both aim at is bloated, corrupt, government. I know OWS thinks it's caused by Corporations and, I suppose, the Tea Party thinks it's caused by Socialists, but from my limited experience, that is the goal which would unite the two groups and bring along a vast number of previously uncommitted citizens.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The "bloat" is one of the points of contention. Tea Party types want to shrink the government, and OWS types are calling for programs that will bloat it even further. That's one of the issues to be haggled over by the partisans after the repairs are started, not going in. It will create friction that is counterproductive to include it in the coming party.

Instead, try to separate "bloat" and "corruption", and concentrate on going after the corruption. Ignore the bloat for the moment. Once the corruption is dealt with, it will be more likely that we have lawmakers more responsive to the people to address the issues of bloat, and where it can be trimmed or enhanced as the People require.

Focus on the corruption. That's one thing we can all agree upon, and each side approach it from their own perspective. The key is to all get on the same page, and DO something other than trying to cut each other's throats.

We can always get back to ambushing one another over contentious issues once the house is clean again.

OWS approaches it from the "donor" side, and the Tea Party approaches it from the "recipient" side, but it's the same thing - just differing viewpoints. Make use of those differing viewpoints so that the bad guys never know which way to turn other than to turn clean.

reply to post by nenothtu

Dear nenothtu,

You are absolutely correct. I stand ashamed at my foolishness. Bloat is out. Let's go get the corruption.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by seabag


With respect, sir, I offer this post.

I am a conservative. A proud Tea Party member. I say this not to make a point but to illustrate my background. I enjoy watching, mapping trends. It's actually part of what I do for the Army. While I see trends that are disturbing, alarming in nature, I am trying really hard to separate the hyperbole from the actual facts and trends that exist.

Is our republic in danger?
Yes.
Our republic is always, and will always be in danger. The very nature of our Constituton is designed so that it will always be in danger. Freedom, self-determination is always at risk and subject to interpretation. That is the very nature of freedom. It is not a static event meant to exist with no involvement other than its inception.

Freedom is an on-going process that needs to be protected and nurtured constantly.

Now the hyperbole. As much as I abhore Obamas draconian policies, I would be remiss if I didn't urge restraint.
He won't take our guns.
He can't take our freedoms. (they are god-given)
He can sign any law he wants, but the Constitution trumps anything he might try to put into place.

Until the time that Obama or anyone else trying taking an edit pen to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I would caution restraint and clear thinking.
If/When that time is at hand, and the Constitution is in danger, then the call to arms can and will be raised.

Beez

reply to post by beezzer

Dear Beezzer,

Would you care to put one of my fears to rest? I'm not too worried about a regulatory assault on the Constitution, those can easily be reversed through the election process. What I am worried about is the signing of a treaty. My understanding is that those are equal to the Constitution, require only a compliant Senate, and can be done quickly, with little discussion.

Are we protected against that kind of assault?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by beezzer

 

Dear Beezzer,

Would you care to put one of my fears to rest? I'm not too worried about a regulatory assault on the Constitution, those can easily be reversed through the election process. What I am worried about is the signing of a treaty. My understanding is that those are equal to the Constitution, require only a compliant Senate, and can be done quickly, with little discussion.

Are we protected against that kind of assault?

With respect,
Charles1952

I'm no expert. The only thing I can offer is that any treaty that contradicts any aspect of the Constitution would be invalid.
It'd be interesting to find any treaty that contradicts the fundamentals illustrated in our Constitution.
Do you have a specific one in mind?

reply to post by beezzer

Dear beezzer,

Please forgive my laziness in not looking up the treaties that I have in mind. My information is very spotty.

I have heard a little about a small arms treaty that has been discussed in the UN, and I know there is work ongoing to prevent the defamation of religion. The fear, of course, is an attack on the Second and First Amendments, respectively.

With respect,
Charles1952

What i personally see is that foreplay is over, and now its time to get it on
the government and their conspirators have stepped over the line of no return and nothings going to stop it short of their unconditional surrender to "WE THE PEOPLE"

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by beezzer

 

Dear beezzer,

Please forgive my laziness in not looking up the treaties that I have in mind. My information is very spotty.

I have heard a little about a small arms treaty that has been discussed in the UN, and I know there is work ongoing to prevent the defamation of religion. The fear, of course, is an attack on the Second and First Amendments, respectively.

With respect,
Charles1952

The one thing that I find amusing (and yes I am familiar with that treaty and Hillary Clintons involvement) is what we allow the government to do in out stead.

The US government can sign any treaty they desire.

But here's the kicker.

The Constitution is not for government but for us. Each and every one of us. The Constituton grants ME (an individual) the rights (specifically 1st and 2nd) to do a I see fit.

For the Geneva Small Arms Treaty to have an actual impact on American citizens, aspects within the Constitution would have to be changed and ammended.

Again, I'm no expert, but that is my take on it.

cheers

reply to post by nenothtu


I’m not proposing TTP and OWS join forces…I just think they should work together on the issues of waste and corruption so we can get over this hurdle. Like you said, they can “get back to haggling over their differences” once we have control over our government again and lock up the criminals who have high-jacked it.

Here is my question to you (and everyone else)…

What political (or non-political) figure in America can bridge this gap? I haven’t seen anyone even propose doing so let alone step up and take the reins of the true 99%.

reply to post by beezzer

I am a conservative. A proud Tea Party member. I say this not to make a point but to illustrate my background. I enjoy watching, mapping trends. It's actually part of what I do for the Army. While I see trends that are disturbing, alarming in nature, I am trying really hard to separate the hyperbole from the actual facts and trends that exist.

Is our republic in danger?
Yes.
Our republic is always, and will always be in danger. The very nature of our Constituton is designed so that it will always be in danger. Freedom, self-determination is always at risk and subject to interpretation. That is the very nature of freedom. It is not a static event meant to exist with no involvement other than its inception.

Freedom is an on-going process that needs to be protected and nurtured constantly.

Hey Beez

I’ve read hundreds of your posts and never knew you were in the Army…
For Marines, it just comes out…we can’t control ourselves!

So you’re suggesting that the trends, although alarming, don’t indicate anything out of the ordinary? Obama has created a bigger national debt in 3 years than Bush created in 8, real unemployment is over 10% on his watch, he has devalued our currency through constantly printing money, he nationalized health care, he robbed social security funds, he signed NDAA, he’s asking for another trillion this week, etc, etc. Seems a bit over the top to me! Just saying…

Now the hyperbole. As much as I abhore Obamas draconian policies, I would be remiss if I didn't urge restraint.
He won't take our guns.
He can't take our freedoms. (they are god-given)
He can sign any law he wants, but the Constitution trumps anything he might try to put into place.

Until the time that Obama or anyone else trying taking an edit pen to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I would caution restraint and clear thinking.
If/When that time is at hand, and the Constitution is in danger, then the call to arms can and will be raised

I hope you’re right…and I’m not advocating anything other than activism and voting. I think we should follow the words of our past Presidents who understood the dangers we would face as a constitutional democracy. We need to exercise our constitutional rights and protect our government and country from overbearing private interests before its too late.

I just think the sentiment of Americans will dramatically change depending on the outcome of the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. The country is down (economically) right now, so any bad news on that front might be a catalyst for something bad. I surely don't want to see anything bad happen...I happen to like the country I grew up in!

reply to post by seabag


I've said it for a while now, once I realized my foolishness as seeing one as good and the other bad (you know which fell where) and as what it truly is, difference in ideology. We'll never see eye to eye on most issues but that's how it's supposed to be I guess, this doesn't mean that we devolve into stagnation and detriment like our government has. For now, I think it's a good idea if we simply stop demonizing and trying to undermine each other, see our common goals (we do have some) and get those accomplished.

reply to post by Kali74


Hey Kali!

There is no line of communication at all between the groups, so I ask you the same question that I asked nenothtu…

What political (or non-political) figure in America can bridge this gap? I haven’t seen anyone even propose doing so let alone step up and take the reins of the true 99%.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I’m not proposing TTP and OWS join forces…I just think they should work together on the issues of waste and corruption so we can get over this hurdle. Like you said, they can “get back to haggling over their differences” once we have control over our government again and lock up the criminals who have high-jacked it.

You know, these things have played out all over the world. The most successful ones have involved coalitions between differing groups on specific issues, whatever their other differences. It's not a merger or joining of forces so much as it's cooperative and coordinated effort aimed at a common goal. The major problem seems to be at the far end of the struggle, when one faction seizes the power from the rest, and starts thinning out the herd. THAT has to be watched for and guarded against, but without the cooperative effort it will never get to that stage any how, as we'll all be too busy being at each other's throats to get anything accomplished, which plays into the hands of the common foe nicely.

Here is my question to you (and everyone else)…

What political (or non-political) figure in America can bridge this gap? I haven’t seen anyone even propose doing so let alone step up and take the reins of the true 99%.

None, that I'm aware of. I'm not sure we need a political figure at this point any how. What we need is a statesman, NOT a politician. Politicians play politics, and that is what has gotten us to this impasse to begin with. They play the "right" against the "left", and everyone but them loses. There are still far too many partisan hacks in the general populace to "unify" everyone, but a unified majority IS possible, and increasing daily, if the right buttons are pushed.

In the Democratic "race", there seems to be no challengers for Obama, and he's not even approaching being a statesman. In the Republican race, there's not a statesman among the bunch. There are two Democrats running as if they were republicans (Romney, Perry) and the rest are a bunch of neocon holdouts who still have control of the party. Romney is the one that TPTB have chosen as the candidate this election cycle. I said it last year, and I still stand by that. Watch what I'm saying - it's already been decided, and all these various "primaries" are nothing more than dog and pony shows designed to give people the odd notion that they somehow had a hand in selecting Romney. Bread and circuses, and nothing more.

Look at Virginia. The only candidates they have allowed so far are Romney and Paul, and Paul hasn't a snowball's chance in hell in that race. It's designed that way. They're hedging their bets in favor of their fair-haired boy, just like they did with McCain last time. How the hell did he ever manage to wrangle the nomination? Design, that's how.

I'd personally vote for Obama before I would Romney. better the devil you know than the one who tries to hide his true nature. I'd rather see Obama burn it all down and get this show on the road to recovery than have Romney bleed it out some more.

What we need is a statesman, not any of these politicians, and that particular version of Kilroy has not poked his head over the wall yet. Statesmen look out for the good of the country, not their political and financial cronies. They play for keeps, not play politics.

There is NO politician capable of convincing OWS and TP folks to work towards the same goal. It will take a general and statesman, not a politician. Maybe Titor's "farmer from the midwest"

ETA: Upon further reflection, it would be more likely to get accomplished by liaisons between the two groups, rather than expecting a single soul to "bridge the gap". What one would have to do is find representatives of each that could sit at the same table in a restaurant and discuss issues, rather than trying to behead one another. Such representatives would necessarily have to carry some influence within their own factions in order to promote the agreed upon program and coordinate the efforts.

reply to post by nenothtu

What we need is a statesman, not any of these politicians, and that particular version of Kilroy has not poked his head over the wall yet. Statesmen look out for the good of the country, not their political and financial cronies. They play for keeps, not play politics.

There is NO politician capable of convincing OWS and TP folks to work towards the same goal. It will take a general and statesman, not a politician. Maybe Titor's "farmer from the midwest"

I think that is exactly the role that “The Donald” is trying to play. I think Trump believes he can jump in and be the “every man” and save the day. The only problem is that he’s a snake and an egotistical buffoon.

Lord help us!! Maybe he’ll get hit by a bus or something...

reply to post by seabag


Well Occupy GA's are open to anyone, I just don't know if a conservative would have the stomach or patience for direct democracy and consensus. As far as someone who can bridge the gap, I really don't know, all the major figures on both sides are generally seen by the opposite as the enemy.