Go RICK PERRY!

[Full Quiver]

The only reason there was ever a Civil War or the War between the States is because the Federal Govt. denied the states their right to secede from the Union. Had the Feds left the South alone then they would have peacefully separated and either prospered or failed but oh no the Feds had the same problem then as they do now. They get to pick winners and losers. When banks fail, let them fail; Don't decide who does what and when.

I was at 2 Tea Parties and never heard a one person speak of taking up arms, going out and buying guns, etc. What I do know as a fact though is that since Obama got elected and even was the actual nominee gun sales have went through the roof and many people are becoming first time owners. It amazes me that people will have, own, and use guns for so many purposes including sinful and destructive but it is so far out of their mind to defend the Constitution with one.

When we let the Constitution be trampled on over and over then we have taken part in the destruction of our nation. Obama and Bill Clinton are not even in the same room. Clinton had a fairly conservative Congress to deal with and together they did a pretty good job at governing. I'd take those days back immediately if I could. Obama is FAR left of Clinton. Clinton may have had left leaning influences around him but he had some sense and Congress to real in those thoughts. Obama has done so much in his first days in office. I see both the forest and the trees my friends.

[dolfan]

We have a right and duty, should we decide, to resist with violent means. IF it comes to that.

This stands in stark contrast to the Christians within the Roman Empire before Constantine, doesn't it? From where, in your mind, does the sense of duty to resist the state by violent means derive? Do you see this as a part of the Christian mandate? Does it arise straight from the Cross itself? Or is it a worldly right that stands irrespective of your possession by Christ? Were it to come to violent revolt, would Christ go before you to thwart the provision of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to the poor by the Federal Government, or would you be on your own in that? How valiant to spill blood so that the church, instead of the government, can provide for the poor--or at least speak platitudes to that effect.

It is in absolute contrast. I've been making the point here for some time that the church is the only place, the only institution, capable of providing any structural implementation and realization of the aspirations of Christ for us. I've tried to express that in terms of showing how the civil government is completely incapable --- and, inherently so, no matter how constituted --- of meaningfully addressing the needs of humanity. It may provide extremely effective order, but it is meaningless when the order produces the society that rejects God as our does. Now, beneath that is another sinister feature: the rejection of freedom.

None of us is so free that we are morally able to injure our neighbor; in the church, none of is so free that we want to ignore our neighbor. That is a completely different viewpoint of our duties when compared to, say, John Locke or even Ayn Rand whom you've expressed disdain for.

Ahhhhrrrg.. Look.... I'll come back to this. I'm at the store and I've got something yelling, literally, for my attention. I'll get back to this. But, no, this is not some ruse at being clever that I've attempted. It is an admitted duality, though, that is (in my view) one that cannot be escaped and one that demands conflicting strategies and actions. I'll tell you where I come down on that when I continue. Sorry.

[one love]

I was at 2 Tea Parties and never heard a one person speak of taking up arms, going out and buying guns, etc

.

I was not speaking negative things about the tea parties just some of the signs and also things I have heard people generally say. Whether it is around me, online, talk radio etc. It seems that many here also feel the need to separate from the union, I will never understand that. I think this is the greatest nation in the world, Most nations would never understand our complaints. We have it good.

Clinton had a fairly conservative Congress to deal with and together they did a pretty good job at governing.

There it is!!! How did we gain that congress? Because clinton pushed to many liberal agendas to fast and 2 years into his administration we won the house. The same thing can happen again! That is what I am looking for.

I just think people are feeling defeated and do not know how to handle it. I do not believe this is the end of America, Unless there was a revolt, that would be.
We will rebound and the conservative party (whether republican or a new party) will wake up and pick up where Reagan left off, that is all we need.

I will leave it here, I feel the point is being missed. I am just trying to think rational and not scream that all is lost, this is the end, we must leave the U.S.
We must revolt.
Obama has not defeated conservatism folks, It has been 5 months! They were over republicans and did a very good job running a campaign and won. We need this for congress. If we get congress and senate back in 2 years things will not be that easy for Obama.

But I do not wish him to fail in all things, I want the economy to do better. Democrats are Americans, some are Christians and good people, they are not your enemy! We just differ in political views. I assure you that there are obama supporters in your churches, are you going to take your guns to them J/K DO NOT TAKE THAT SERIOUS...

Well again I am done with this topic, I have enjoyed it.

[dolfan]

Well, let me pick up.

My duty derives from the recognitions evident to the Founders and stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The long train of abuses and usurpations of Americans by our government evinces a design to reduce usnder absolute despotism.

The Declaration continues,

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

My contention is that, as an American, my duty is to resist and to point out and to even support revolution by violent means against the Federal Government. The very body of thought that gave rise to the nation demands it. Our government is one of tyranny. It is not Obama's fault; he is merely accelerating what has been happening for a long time. But, he's as much to blame for bringing this to a head as anyone can be.

Equally culpable are the conservatives, who fed the beast that now devours them in whole, by supporting the growth of government and casting the American battle for freedom as church-going, law-abiding, pro-life, tax-paying, hard-working people versus unbelieving, lawbreaking, abortionists who not only want to pay taxes, but want more of their own money because too many people (who, incidentally, won't or can't work) want some of what they've got. Seems like a rational divide, but it isn't.

The real divide is freedom of life and property and conscience versus anything that tends to subject that freedom to other goals. Church pulpits, political talk show hosts and word of mouth has done little or nothing to educate people about the tyrannic nature of government, trying for too long to promote good citizenship within a system immovably bent on their undoing. I know because I bought into that, too. But, I know now that the ballot box and good citizenship are the means for the complacent to be robbed by the vigilant.

I don't square this with Christians under Roman rule prior to Constantine. It is, in my view, apples and oranges. Note how that Paul said that God gave government the power of the sword, and how that the Declaration justifies and calls for the duty to use that power when people meet with the kind of tyranny that they witnessed. If government is by the people, and we contend that any legitimate government is and would be, then it is that same people who must by right and duty govern itself against tyranny with the use of arms to dispel the currently constituted tyrants in power.

It is not so that the church might fulfill its mission that I would find reason to resist government in this way. The church will or won't based on its own priorities and understanding and behavior. Changing government won't change the church. Changing government may only provide me with the liberty that I possess by being a human being and that government has, by its own wrongdoing, deprived me, you and all of us. If change were truly possible, at the core of power under the Constitution, by peaceful means, we'd all be gravely sinful in pursuing any other means. All other means have been exhausted by either effort or by being made futile by the tyrants in control now, or both.

My point about the church has always and only been that it has the only means and power to do what government pretends it wants to do but resorts to the power of its own force to pretend to implement. And, on that point, let me elaborate that the government we serve is one of violence. Lawbreakers, even those whose violations are not serious, are routinely restrained and submitted to the ghastly conditions of imprisonment and removal from their families and, with that, removal of their basic rights to vote and participate in the very "democracy" they may be theoretically obligated to support and suffer. No, sir, I don't buy into that at all. Not at all.

And, where I'm inconsistent with my faith in Christ and the supremacy of the church, I'll chalk it up to my own incomplete knowledge and hope for the best. I never claimed to have all the answers. I only know that we're under the thumb of government, oppressed, robbed and told by the "nanny state" that it knows better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we know for ourselves, that it knows what freedoms and liberties we are best suited to enjoy. If that's worth serving to anyone, please feel free. I'm not.

[Full Quiver]

Like I have said I don't think anyone is really saying lets secede but as Rick Perry correctly pointed out there is always that option. I'm sure peeps like Obama and Pelosi don't realize that. In fact they probably think the War between the States was about racism and slavery which was just a spin to make the South look bad for generations to come. What will be their spin this time? Anti-abortionists, homophobes, warmongers, etc.?

[one love]

OK, forgive me for saying I would not post on this But this was some very good writing.

From Dolfans post:

My duty derives from the recognitions evident to the Founders and stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Agreed

My contention is that, as an American, my duty is to resist and to point out and to even support revolution by violent means against the Federal Government.

This is what I dont see as being necessary at this point. I also dont believe it would work but rather destroy us. But your point is good. If we then lose rights that will anger America to the point of no return this may happen and I feel it would be to our destruction. The world would love nothing more then to see us in a civil war.
I do believe Obama is going to bring things forth that will Anger the AMerican people greatly. I think we will win the house and senate in 2 years, this will hopefully start a great movement back in the other direction.... I wish Reagan were alive!
We may not be far from what happened to Russia. Many years ago people screamed for the Glory of Roam to return. I hope we do not get to the point of destruction and then think back when we were once a great nation. I am reminded in Revelations how they marveled that the great whore/beast did fall so fast (not saying this is America at all, but it made me think of America)

The very body of thought that gave rise to the nation demands it. Our government is one of tyranny. It is not Obama's fault; he is merely accelerating what has been happening for a long time. But, he's as much to blame for bringing this to a head as anyone can be.

Equally culpable are the conservatives, who fed the beast that now devours them in whole, by supporting the growth of government and casting the American battle for freedom as church-going, law-abiding, pro-life, tax-paying, hard-working people versus unbelieving, lawbreaking, abortionists who not only want to pay taxes, but want more of their own money because too many people (who, incidentally, won't or can't work) want some of what they've got. Seems like a rational divide, but it isn't.

agreed, that was one of my points as well. I do not write anywhere as well as many of you do:)

My point about the church has always and only been that it has the only means and power to do what government pretends it wants to do but resorts to the power of its own force to pretend to implement. And, on that point, let me elaborate that the government we serve is one of violence.

Yes it is , just try to NOT pay taxes!

If we could only get a person that would be willing to step outside the box as much as Obama is , just the other direction!



FullQuiver Wrote:

Like I have said I don't think anyone is really saying lets secede but as Rick Perry correctly pointed out there is always that option. I'm sure peeps like Obama and Pelosi don't realize that. In fact they probably think the War between the States was about racism and slavery which was just a spin to make the South look bad for generations to come. What will be their spin this time? Anti-abortionists, homophobes, warmongers, etc.?

Yes it was and a way to win a war with a great political spin behind it. My point was based on this when I mentioned the south, after the war the union still did what the south fought against, not that the south was wrong or bad. I live in the south and always have.

Va Beach, Norfolk Va.-Tennesse and Florida

[Tim Elston]

I'm still not seeing it, friends. Taxes have gone down since Obama took office. I saw it happen in my own paycheck. What the heck are you guys talking about? What has changed with Obama that hasn't been happening over the last thirty years?

Tim, I am reading The Federalist Papers by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. It is a rationale for strengthening the Federal Government, on the premise that a loose confederation of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation was not sufficient. It was an argument for a strong federal government, in which The People is sovereign through the branches of government, primarily through the legislative branch. Do you subscribe to The Federalist Papers as a reasonably authoritative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as conceived by the founders and as over against the Articles of Confederation?

The problem with our federal government, from the perspective of the Founders, is not that it is strong. It is that it is not a political system through which the people rule. Instead, it has become an aristocracy under the patronage of big money. The people are servile to the few, the rich, the powerful, the monopoly of concentrated power that owns federal government. Were you and I to fight a civil war against the federal government, you apparently would be fighting to suspend social services; I would be fighting to bring down big money. And after we had toppled the government, we would then have to turn our weapons against one another because I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE SUPER RICH DEVOURING THE POOR IN THE NAME OF CONSERVATISM!

[Full Quiver]

I saw it happen in my own paycheck.

Well I haven't Tim so taxes have not gone down in my mind.


Revolution does not have to mean war. Many nations have seen changes in govt. without war. A cleansing of the Congress in 2 years would be a great American Revolution and a shot need not be fired.

[one love]

I saw it happen in my own paycheck.

Well I haven't Tim so taxes have not gone down in my mind.


Revolution does not have to mean war. Many nations have seen changes in govt. without war. A cleansing of the Congress in 2 years would be a great American Revolution and a shot need not be fired.

That was my whole point Danny, BAM and over! Great post, it does not need to be so radical. Just imagine a 1995 congress in now, it would balance things.

[Tim Elston]

I saw it happen in my own paycheck.

Well I haven't Tim so taxes have not gone down in my mind.

You must be part of the richest 5% of American income earners, then, because an across-the-board income tax cut took effect in April. I had forgotten about it, but all of a sudden I started getting about $13.00 more every two weeks in my paycheck. It's not much, of course, but the tax cut demolishes any claim that taxes have gone up. And even when they do, according to Obama's current plan it will go up 3.5% on earnings over $250,000 for the richest 5% of Americans. Boo hoo.

Revolution does not have to mean war. Many nations have seen changes in govt. without war. A cleansing of the Congress in 2 years would be a great American Revolution and a shot need not be fired.

You could have voted for Ron Paul last year, but did you? All other candidates who ran, besides Kucinich on the left, were more of the same.

[dolfan]

I'm still not seeing it, friends. Taxes have gone down since Obama took office. I saw it happen in my own paycheck. What the heck are you guys talking about? What has changed with Obama that hasn't been happening over the last thirty years?

Tim, I am reading The Federalist Papers by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. It is a rationale for strengthening the Federal Government, on the premise that a loose confederation of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation was not sufficient. It was an argument for a strong federal government, in which The People is sovereign through the branches of government, primarily through the legislative branch. Do you subscribe to The Federalist Papers as a reasonably authoritative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as conceived by the founders and as over against the Articles of Confederation?

The problem with our federal government, from the perspective of the Founders, is not that it is strong. It is that it is not a political system through which the people rule. Instead, it has become an aristocracy under the patronage of big money. The people are servile to the few, the rich, the powerful, the monopoly of concentrated power that owns federal government. Were you and I to fight a civil war against the federal government, you apparently would be fighting to suspend social services; I would be fighting to bring down big money. And after we had toppled the government, we would then have to turn our weapons against one another because I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE SUPER RICH DEVOURING THE POOR IN THE NAME OF CONSERVATISM!

Actually, I don't think we'd be pointing at each other. What you've stated are the problems ARE the problems, in part. You and I have, I think, broadly agreed that corporations and moneyed interests wherever they are and whomever they may be have bought and paid for this government, and that this government has sold itself to these bidders, AND that this government will exercise those interests at the cost of the people's liberties and properties. I don't find any redeeming qualities in any of it. My difference with you, for the most part as I see it, is that I consider the government's position as the sole repository of the people's power --- the one and only public trust of its kind --- so unique and so prone to overextension of itself that, even with the guilt of the lobbyists and corporations and special interests (from Soros to Gore to Murdoch to Clear Channel to KBR to Moveon.org to the NRA to...... and the list goes on and on), the government and those who run it are in the only position to stop it. Instead, they create and nourish an environment that makes it the very engine of this republic.

Now, that said, it is undoable. Let me ask you: what leader in the last 75 years has, once elected, truly changed Washington and this way it operates? Fundamentally, wholly and completely. Don't say Ronald Reagan. Not true. Reagan shrank some of government, but grew other parts. Furthermore, there's simply no legacy of change even giving Reagan the benefit of the doubt. He's one office. There are 535 others that have to go, from both parties. It is impossible. It has never happened and won't.

Even one love said, "we will win" in 2 years. Who's "we"? The Republicans? Ahhhh, no, thanks. Been there, done that, and we'll be paying for it for decades before we ever could hope to begin to pay for the Obama years, which will take 100 years or so to pay off, if then. No. The party who says that the GOP may be too religious? Really? That's the problem you see? Religion? Incredible, GOP, just incredible. Government has skyrocketed and you think that religious people are the problem you face in trying to govern. You couldn't disappear quickly enough. As far as I'm concerned, the single biggest entity other than the Federal Government itself that stands between people and liberty is the Republican Party. It talks the talk and does not walk the walk. It runs right and governs left, and when it is in the minority, it grumbles and then votes for lighter versions of hard left proposals that.....grow government. I can't point to a single Republican today that I'd ever vote for for anything again.

The only theoretical democratic hope is to empty out Washington DC over three election cycles, never voting in any local, state or federal primary or general election for any person running under the banner of either of the two major parties, never having run for or served in elective office at any level, and who will sign a written pledge not to run for re-election even one time if they do not sponsor, agree and do whatever is necessary to amend the Constitution to include term limits of 6 years for Senators and 4 years for Representatives. That's it. And, it applies for a lifetime, not just consecutive years. Also, amend the Constitution to require that Congress may not be in session more than 20 weeks per year, and that every person in Congress must spend at least 220 days in his or her home state in the case of Senators, and in their home district in the case of Representatives. Cut the pay to $125,000 per year, and staff to 10 people or less, with yearly COLA raises for them all. You have to amend the Constitution to do this, not just statutes. Also, in the Constitution, outlaw any lobbyist or person that is not a Senator, Representative, no more than 3 of the 10 staffers for each, and no other person besides Federal employees serving as security and maintenance and foodservice to be allowed in the building in any place where access to any Senator or Representative is allowed. No cell phones or other wireless communication devices allowed. General public can come in, but they can't get right to those officials in the actual Senate or House. Cut off the access. Force audits of every one of them every year, and if they show any income other than their pre-election investments and capital and their spouse's income, then they're out of office automatically and a new election held within 60 days (no primaries).

This beast has to be cut off at the head. If not, there's no way out of this but the kind of revolt and violence that the Founders said is our duty to cast off tyranny. Telling me that it isn't as bad as it could be or as bad is it is somewhere else is not enough. This is supposed to be a singularly special thing, this American experiment. Now that it has become a monster, it has to end. It just has to. It's wrong, period.

[Tim Elston]

My difference with you, for the most part as I see it, is that I consider the government's position as the sole repository of the people's power --- the one and only public trust of its kind --- so unique and so prone to overextension of itself that, even with the guilt of the lobbyists and corporations and special interests (from Soros to Gore to Murdoch to Clear Channel to KBR to Moveon.org to the NRA to...... and the list goes on and on), the government and those who run it are in the only position to stop it. Instead, they create and nourish an environment that makes it the very engine of this republic.

Sorry, Tim, but I'm not following this. I think I don't see the meaning; that's why. I believe that the federal government is supposed to be the power of the people--that is, is supposed to be democratically controlled--but is actually the power of a plutocracy --that is, is monopolistically controlled. You say repeatedly that your beef is with the government imposing taxes to spend on social services. In principle I don't have a problem with a modest social security net that does not challenge the nation's solvency. What I have a problem with is the ownership of Washington by big money. We are getting soaked by the banking sysem and by the corporate monopolies that pull the strings of those who are supposed to represent our interests, but don't.

So, as I see you expressing your concerns, your aim would be to weaken the federal government, without a concern to reign in the evil monopolistic power of those in whose control our current government resides. Whereas my aim would be to strengthen the federal government as a seat of The People's sovereignty, to have the muscle needed to put down the exploitative powers that drain the value of our labor through monopolitistic, manipulative means without our even being aware of it. I hear you tipping your hat to the evil of the sellout of Washington to big money, but I don't hear you asking for a government with not only the integrity but also the power to act in the people's interests. I get the feeling that you think government itself is the problem whereas I think that government is a necessary part of any viable solution. That's what I think the Founders had in mind, or else they would not have abrogated the Articles of Confederation and pushed the Constitution.

Still, though, I like most of the constitutional reforms you mention, because they would have a corrective effect on the problem, as I see it. I would fully support a constitutional reform of that nature, but I seriously doubt that it would even rise above the din to be heard, let alone succeed, without catastrophic failure as a change motivator.

[MacUser]

I started getting about $13.00 more every two weeks in my paycheck.

That was an easy purchase. I'll send you $15.00 if you start agreeing with my posts. Tim, the real rich are running your Govt. (OR they get that way after a year in office) and they abuse your tax dollars by giving millions to staff.


Example of Poor to Rich in politics: Bennie_Thompson use to bump into my vehicles in downtown Greenwood trying to fit into small parking places. The cars he drove were junk when he was barely elected in early 1990s. His original office was a hole in the wall in an adjacent downtown building with a seal on the door.

Fast forward to today. The guy is RICH, loaded and writing off expenses and lavish travels on YOUR nickel. This is just one example:

"Thompson has been criticized for trips he made in April 2007 as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Thompson, along with eight other members of congress, took trips to Mexico City, Honduras, the Virgin Islands, and Key West, Florida aboard a $85,000,000 government-owned Boeing executive jet. The trips cost up to $130,000 just to fly. The flight members also stayed at luxury hotels, such as one Caneel Bay resort, which were also paid for by the government. The trips were said to be made to "check out matters of homeland security."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennie_Thompson


How you place your faith in these people amaze me. It's ok that they abuse your system as long as you get $13?

[Tim Elston]

How you place your faith in these people amaze me. It's ok that they abuse your system as long as you get $13?

Your lack of reading comprehension skills used to amaze me. Now I expect it from you. In this whole thread and others I have been expressing my contempt for the current sellout of Washington to big money. That's hardly trust. And my reference to the tax decrease was to point up only that there has not been a tax increase. You rarely add anything but confusion and misrepresentation to any discussion. Your treachery against the process of communication is disturbing and offensive.

[MacUser]

In this whole thread and others I have been expressing my contempt for the current sellout of Washington to big money. That's hardly trust.

*chuckle & sigh - I apologize in advance if this is to simple and direct for you my friend*

Tim .. we then agree to not trust the current liberal Administration, Congress and Senate and it's massive power grabs. You will also join me in the call for the reduction of it also from our daily lives. Right? Not just to mange it better.. but a vast reduction? Simple concepts things like.. Term limits, Flat Tax, to Balanced Budgets?