# The Tea Party has become the Article V movement



## Votto

With the GOP recently in control and passed on repealing and replacing Obamacare, something they ran on doing, and spending like a drunken sailor, while funding things like Planned Parenthood but not the wall, what are we left with?

We are left with a one party system called the Swamp.

So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?

At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.

Both are supported by about 80% of the American people but will never be realized with the current political set up.  Congress will not vote to surrender their power in any way.  It is now up to the states to do so or it never gets done.


----------



## sparky




----------



## candycorn

There is no swamp.

There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that. 

Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.


----------



## peach174

candycorn said:


> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.



Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC


----------



## candycorn

peach174 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
Click to expand...


Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL


----------



## peach174

candycorn said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
Click to expand...


Not just him millions say so.
There are plenty of reports about them.
The progressives in both parties are corrupt.


----------



## candycorn

peach174 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just him millions say so.
> There are plenty of reports about them.
> The progressives in both parties are corrupt.
Click to expand...


The President is the most corrupt of all.


----------



## peach174

candycorn said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just him millions say so.
> There are plenty of reports about them.
> The progressives in both parties are corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The President is the most corrupt of all.
Click to expand...


First thing is they have to prove it.
So far is just assumptions and innuendos.


----------



## candycorn

peach174 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just him millions say so.
> There are plenty of reports about them.
> The progressives in both parties are corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The President is the most corrupt of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing is they have to prove it.
> So far is just assumptions and innuendos.
Click to expand...

*
Prove what?  It’s been proven; re:  Sending another $12B to the already subsidized farmers*; largest portion of pork this year; to buy votes of people suffering from a trade war he started.  

And Kansas still elected a Girl Democrat as Governor.  

Let me guess. You have no problem with the $12B giveaway….do you?

He said Mexico would be paying for the wall that many Republicans are hoping the Congress will fund.  So he lied about that too.  

Let me guess.  You have no problem with the lies…do you?

Both of what I write above are proven facts.  You know them.  We all know them.  The only thing is that you are willing to look the other way in the case of the blob…aren’t you?

A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## anotherlife

States get most of their money from federal taxes, so I don't see how the state's would do anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> With the GOP recently in control and passed on repealing and replacing Obamacare, something they ran on doing, and spending like a drunken sailor, while funding things like Planned Parenthood but not the wall, what are we left with?
> 
> We are left with a one party system called the Swamp.
> 
> So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?
> 
> At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.
> 
> Both are supported by about 80% of the American people but will never be realized with the current political set up.  Congress will not vote to surrender their power in any way.  It is now up to the states to do so or it never gets done.


Nah, the tea party has become the trump cult. Same, racist great taste at 90% less of the intellectualism.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the GOP recently in control and passed on repealing and replacing Obamacare, something they ran on doing, and spending like a drunken sailor, while funding things like Planned Parenthood but not the wall, what are we left with?
> 
> We are left with a one party system called the Swamp.
> 
> So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?
> 
> At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.
> 
> Both are supported by about 80% of the American people but will never be realized with the current political set up.  Congress will not vote to surrender their power in any way.  It is now up to the states to do so or it never gets done.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, the tea party has become the trump cult. Same, racist great taste at 90% less of the intellectualism.
Click to expand...

not all of us,,,


----------



## eagle1462010

It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.


----------



## progressive hunter

eagle1462010 said:


> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.


a lot of us knew going in that the republicans would be the biggest problem,,,I'v been kicked off every tea party forum I've found by talking about the constitution and the republican partys lack of respect for it


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of us knew going in that the republicans would be the biggest problem,,,I'v been kicked off every tea party forum I've found by talking about the constitution and the republican partys lack of respect for it
Click to expand...


Join the club.  And just to think, I used to be a Republican Party official.  The Repubs are out of touch with reality and their strategies are laughable.

They would attempt to change one part of the Constitution not realizing the damage they could do when they open that door?  As if some of their other plans don't suck as well.  For example:

Trump is willing to give Dreamers citizenship in exchange for the wall. That's another *FOUR MILLION* new citizens AFTER we've had an administration saying their parents were criminals, rapists, robbers, murderers, etc. So, we've been winning the elections, but in this last round, many solidly held Republican districts came down to numbers not much larger than the fingers on your hands.

Let us suppose that Trump could make that deal. Those Dreamers would take the ban on allowing their parents to come here to court. You already got a sample of how much tolerance Americans had when the media whined about the separation of families of the undocumented. So, when the Dreamers file suits in federal courts that bar their parents from entering the United States due to an improper entry, the United States Supreme Court *MUST, AS A MATTER OF LAW,*, allow those parents in based on challenges to the Eighth Amendment. Four million Dreamers with two parents each just put us back in the same position as before the wall had been put up.

By then, some liberal piece of scatalogical waste will be in office and the libs may control one or both Houses of Congress. Then they will beat the drums for citizenship for the parents of Dreamers. Within a generation you have *12 MILLION *new Hispanic citizens that the Trumpeteers have antagonized for what is already the better part of two decades (4 million Dreamers pluse up to 8 million parents.) And they will have the motivation to dispossess us and that motivation will be as great as the blacks hatred for us based upon the media demonizing all whites over slavery. The new generation will not have any incentive to adopt any of our values and principles.

Worse, what the Tea Party  Republicans are selling is a cheap imitation of what the founders envisioned.  It makes no sense; it's self defeating; none of them can defend their positions - not to the left and damn sure not to a constitutionalist.  And so they censor people while whining about how often the left acts to silence real discussion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> not all of us,,,


Good. I know you exist. I just can't see any of  you from here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.


I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections


this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,

I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections
> 
> 
> this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,
> 
> I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020
Click to expand...


I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.

Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????


----------



## BlackFlag

Votto said:


> With the GOP recently in control and passed on repealing and replacing Obamacare, something they ran on doing, and spending like a drunken sailor, while funding things like Planned Parenthood but not the wall, what are we left with?
> 
> We are left with a one party system called the Swamp.
> 
> So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?
> 
> At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.
> 
> Both are supported by about 80% of the American people but will never be realized with the current political set up.  Congress will not vote to surrender their power in any way.  It is now up to the states to do so or it never gets done.


The tea party was a movement of useful idiots.  They have no need of you anymore.  Now go make excuses for Trump having larger deficits than Obama and for destabilizing everything.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections
> 
> 
> this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,
> 
> I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.
> 
> Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????
Click to expand...



I never heard that,,,

constitutional limited government 
fiscal responsibility
free market

were the only things I knew about

there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers


----------



## progressive hunter

BlackFlag said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the GOP recently in control and passed on repealing and replacing Obamacare, something they ran on doing, and spending like a drunken sailor, while funding things like Planned Parenthood but not the wall, what are we left with?
> 
> We are left with a one party system called the Swamp.
> 
> So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?
> 
> At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.
> 
> Both are supported by about 80% of the American people but will never be realized with the current political set up.  Congress will not vote to surrender their power in any way.  It is now up to the states to do so or it never gets done.
> 
> 
> 
> The tea party was a movement of useful idiots.  They have no need of you anymore.  Now go make excuses for Trump having larger deficits than Obama and for destabilizing everything.
Click to expand...

your confusing us with republicans


----------



## BlackFlag

progressive hunter said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the GOP recently in control and passed on repealing and replacing Obamacare, something they ran on doing, and spending like a drunken sailor, while funding things like Planned Parenthood but not the wall, what are we left with?
> 
> We are left with a one party system called the Swamp.
> 
> So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?
> 
> At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.
> 
> Both are supported by about 80% of the American people but will never be realized with the current political set up.  Congress will not vote to surrender their power in any way.  It is now up to the states to do so or it never gets done.
> 
> 
> 
> The tea party was a movement of useful idiots.  They have no need of you anymore.  Now go make excuses for Trump having larger deficits than Obama and for destabilizing everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your confusing us with republicans
Click to expand...

No, I’m completely dismissing you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections
> 
> 
> this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,
> 
> I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.
> 
> Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that,,,
> 
> constitutional limited government
> fiscal responsibility
> free market
> 
> were the only things I knew about
> 
> there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers
Click to expand...


Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:

1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:

'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define

Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government

2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication

3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.

Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment

4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left

5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?  

I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.

When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.

Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy


----------



## xyz

Poll: "Birther" Myth Persists Among Tea Partiers, All Americans - CBS News

Tea Party Nation Goes Birther | Right Wing Watch

Tea Party Nation Pushes Birther Conspiracy, Heads to Florida ⋆ IREHR

old articles but interesting.


----------



## progressive hunter

xyz said:


> Poll: "Birther" Myth Persists Among Tea Partiers, All Americans - CBS News
> 
> Tea Party Nation Goes Birther | Right Wing Watch
> 
> Tea Party Nation Pushes Birther Conspiracy, Heads to Florida ⋆ IREHR
> 
> old articles but interesting.


none of those fit me,,,thats the republican influence

a lot of us knew we needed to beat the republicans before we could deal with the democrats,,,

and dick army was a fraud and got kicked out of the freedom works


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections
> 
> 
> this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,
> 
> I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.
> 
> Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that,,,
> 
> constitutional limited government
> fiscal responsibility
> free market
> 
> were the only things I knew about
> 
> there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:
> 
> 1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government
> 
> 2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication
> 
> 3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.
> 
> Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment
> 
> 4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left
> 
> 5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?
> 
> I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.
> 
> When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.
> 
> Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy
Click to expand...


more like he was sent packing
Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Trump to be so dependent upon the Tea Party and that he needs them as much as they let on, one wonders why this entire Tea Party forum is a ghost town.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections
> 
> 
> this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,
> 
> I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.
> 
> Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that,,,
> 
> constitutional limited government
> fiscal responsibility
> free market
> 
> were the only things I knew about
> 
> there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:
> 
> 1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government
> 
> 2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication
> 
> 3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.
> 
> Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment
> 
> 4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left
> 
> 5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?
> 
> I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.
> 
> When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.
> 
> Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more like he was sent packing
> Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group
Click to expand...


The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?

Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.

Explain to me what I'm missing.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think I've ever heard trump say the words tea party,,,so I see no connections
> 
> 
> this and other discussions about the tea party are dead because the republican party just used us for their benefit and once they got back in office it was abandoned,,,
> 
> I'm curious to see what happens if trump loses in 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.
> 
> Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that,,,
> 
> constitutional limited government
> fiscal responsibility
> free market
> 
> were the only things I knew about
> 
> there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:
> 
> 1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government
> 
> 2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication
> 
> 3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.
> 
> Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment
> 
> 4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left
> 
> 5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?
> 
> I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.
> 
> When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.
> 
> Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more like he was sent packing
> Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?
> 
> Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.
> 
> Explain to me what I'm missing.
Click to expand...



your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites

we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was more than disappointed in the Tea Party "movement" than any American alive.
> 
> Having spent decade upon decade and tens of thousands of dollars on constitutionalist causes, I could never wrap my head around the Tea Party taking up the torch for the Council on Foreign Relations and their agenda.  I wish someone could explain WTH happened????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that,,,
> 
> constitutional limited government
> fiscal responsibility
> free market
> 
> were the only things I knew about
> 
> there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:
> 
> 1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government
> 
> 2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication
> 
> 3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.
> 
> Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment
> 
> 4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left
> 
> 5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?
> 
> I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.
> 
> When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.
> 
> Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more like he was sent packing
> Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?
> 
> Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.
> 
> Explain to me what I'm missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites
> 
> we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:

Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends

Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus? 

He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate

"_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."

After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win


I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?

Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel

Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic

He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.

Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner

Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?

All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard that,,,
> 
> constitutional limited government
> fiscal responsibility
> free market
> 
> were the only things I knew about
> 
> there may be some republicans that pushed that, but no true tea partiers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:
> 
> 1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government
> 
> 2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication
> 
> 3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.
> 
> Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment
> 
> 4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left
> 
> 5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?
> 
> I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.
> 
> When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.
> 
> Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> more like he was sent packing
> Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?
> 
> Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.
> 
> Explain to me what I'm missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites
> 
> we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends
> 
> Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus?
> 
> He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate
> 
> "_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."
> 
> After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win
> 
> 
> I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel
> 
> Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic
> 
> He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.
> 
> Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
> 
> Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?
> 
> All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.
Click to expand...

tea party didnt exist back then


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe this is what you need to know about the Tea Party:
> 
> 1)  One of the early supporters / members of the Tea Party was House Majority Leader, Dick Armey.  Armey was the man who authored the globalist legislation that created the TRILLION DOLLAR plus monstrosity called the Department of Homeland (IN) Security.  Nobody seems to be able to justify its creation:
> 
> 'Homeland Security': The Trillion-Dollar Concept That No One Can Define
> 
> Armey would remain a Tea Party supporter for nearly a decade after creating that wasteful agency that drove us closer to a One World Government
> 
> 2)  It was Tea Party Republican, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so - called "_Patriot Act_."  More Americans than foreigners have been victimized by this unconstitutional disaster that allows for warrant less search and seizures, pursuing people and denying them Due Process, and even killing people without probable cause.  I can testify to its misuse and misapplication
> 
> 3)  Rep. James Sensenbrenner also introduced the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify.  That was an Orwellian idea that was more like Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids.  In the late 1990s the general public was against National ID by a margin of 87 to 13 percent with the conservatives leading the charge against it.
> 
> Also bear in mind that National ID was proposed in the midst of the Fair Tax gaining traction.  While the Fair Tax may never have gotten enacted, it did bring pressure on the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.)  National ID gave Socialist Security a reprieve since your Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "_Social Security Number_" became your de facto National ID "_unique identifier_" which gave a pretext for saving the 16th Amendment
> 
> 4)  If the Tea Party is all about a free market, it does not stand to reason that they adopted the *solutions* of the National Socialists on the immigration issue.  Instead of promoting the Rule of Law and foregoing forced citizenship, the Tea Party fell for an agenda that the Democrats had tried to introduce some years ago.  We have an opportunity to rethink the whole strategy, but the Tea Party is mesmerized by a program of insanity on this issue and unable to even have a productive discussion.  So infantile are those who buy into it, if you do not agree with their *solution*, they accuse you of being for the left
> 
> 5)  Then there is the wall worship and Donald Trump playing the part of Jesus.  You're for fiscal responsibility and a free market?  When you propose an idea, do you REALLY consider anything besides the start up costs?  What about the maintenance costs?  Better still, what about a policy's affect on Freedom and Liberty?
> 
> I'm sorry, but in reality since its inception the Tea Party has passed far more expensive laws than the Dems ever could have.  The Tea Party would demand that Americans fund the Tea Party albatrosses - which the community organizer did and then they complain about how much debt we've taken on.  AND, adding insult to injury, we've yet to have that conversation about lost liberties.
> 
> When your standard bearer is a man is for gun control: bans on so - called assault weapons, wants waiting periods, supports red flag laws, and the ban on bump stocks (unconstitutional on three grounds going beyond gun control); the same guy who nominated a *POLICE STATE *tyrant that is also anti gun and will abuse eminent domain statutes, I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
> 
> Everything is bass ackwards and upside down.
> 
> Donald Trump talks to Rupert Murdoch every week to discuss strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more like he was sent packing
> Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?
> 
> Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.
> 
> Explain to me what I'm missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites
> 
> we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends
> 
> Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus?
> 
> He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate
> 
> "_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."
> 
> After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win
> 
> 
> I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel
> 
> Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic
> 
> He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.
> 
> Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
> 
> Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?
> 
> All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tea party didnt exist back then
Click to expand...


What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)

The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.

I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:

*  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history

*  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.  

"Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?

*  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect. 

When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> more like he was sent packing
> Dick Armey resigns from Tea Party group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?
> 
> Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.
> 
> Explain to me what I'm missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites
> 
> we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends
> 
> Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus?
> 
> He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate
> 
> "_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."
> 
> After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win
> 
> 
> I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel
> 
> Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic
> 
> He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.
> 
> Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
> 
> Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?
> 
> All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tea party didnt exist back then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)
> 
> The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.
> 
> I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:
> 
> *  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history
> 
> *  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.
> 
> "Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?
> 
> *  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect.
> 
> When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?
Click to expand...

no they didnt


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is the Tea Party has over-seen the largest, most expansive, and repressive laws ever passed in American history.  Armey stayed on nearly a full decade after creating that flustercuck.    Virtually all of it has benefited off the very people that conservatives were saying were the bad guys until just after 9 / 11.  So, now, evil is good?
> 
> Adding insult to injury, the pretext used to justify building this massive sized government was, in reality, an attack on the free market system.
> 
> Explain to me what I'm missing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites
> 
> we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends
> 
> Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus?
> 
> He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate
> 
> "_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."
> 
> After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win
> 
> 
> I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel
> 
> Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic
> 
> He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.
> 
> Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
> 
> Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?
> 
> All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tea party didnt exist back then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)
> 
> The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.
> 
> I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:
> 
> *  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history
> 
> *  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.
> 
> "Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?
> 
> *  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect.
> 
> When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no they didnt
Click to expand...


No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> your confusing tea party with conservative republicans who have always been big government progressives,,,most of them just dont realize it because they are greedy hypocrites
> 
> we true TPers  were and are few and far between in the movement we belive and support the 3 core principles I posted earlier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends
> 
> Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus?
> 
> He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate
> 
> "_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."
> 
> After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win
> 
> 
> I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel
> 
> Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic
> 
> He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.
> 
> Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
> 
> Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?
> 
> All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tea party didnt exist back then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)
> 
> The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.
> 
> I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:
> 
> *  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history
> 
> *  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.
> 
> "Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?
> 
> *  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect.
> 
> When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no they didnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.
Click to expand...

pretty much all of it


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Dick Armey was a Tea Party Republican for a decade *after* all that money was spent on the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who introduced both the so - called "_Patriot Act"_ and the National ID / REAL ID Act has been a Tea Party Republican in the early to mid 2000s became the poster boy for the Tea Party in 2009.  He's still cozy with the Tea Party at one level while playing both sides of the fence:
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner for Congress  Check out his Tea Party friends
> 
> Why won’t Wisconsin’s Republican Congressmen join the Tea Party Caucus?
> 
> He wouldn't make it official because of the political climate
> 
> "_Along the way, the Menomonee Falls congressman helped build a coalition that crossed partisan and right-left lines, ranging from tea party conservatives to civil liberties Democrats_."
> 
> After carefully building coalition, Sensenbrenner savors win
> 
> 
> I want you to remember that Sensenbrenner is an attorney.  So, having as much experience as he did, did he lie about his own legislation?
> 
> Jim Sensenbrenner's Horseshit Claims of Innocence | emptywheel
> 
> Admit It, Rep. Sensenbrenner: You Were Wrong About the Patriot Act - The Atlantic
> 
> He knew at the time; I knew and wasted a lot of time writing him about it; now YOU know.  Today he touts his liberal record without a mention of anything related to the Tea Party - and especially the faux pas he made on the immigration issue.
> 
> Biography - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner
> 
> Can you tell me of some effective political leaders, others than those mentioned, who made some significant difference like Sensenbrenner did?  Do you notice that at every level of government, the Tea Party has ONE WORLDERS behind them?
> 
> All of those Tea Party politicians are slicker than a greased pig.  They get to pass liberal legislation, then get thanked by the Tea Party for denouncing their own work.
> 
> 
> 
> tea party didnt exist back then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)
> 
> The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.
> 
> I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:
> 
> *  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history
> 
> *  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.
> 
> "Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?
> 
> *  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect.
> 
> When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no they didnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty much all of it
Click to expand...


According to one of my referenced links, the media acknowledges that liberals and Tea Party backed James Sensenbrenner.  So, you are telling me it is not true?

Maybe we're talking about different groups.  I get regular e mails from a Jenny Beth Martin - teapartypatriots.org  and that group is backing the U.S. Congressman in my district, Jody Hice:

Tea Party Patriots | Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Supports Rep. Jody Hice and the House Freedom Caucus

Hice *IS* a supporter of the phony Republican known as Donald Trump.  Ask him.  

If you're saying that I could denounce the idiotic wall idea and all the peripheral issues surrounding it and be welcome in the Tea Party, I'd join it today.  You can have border security without a silly wall and we don't need for people to become citizens in order to engage in free enterprise.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> tea party didnt exist back then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)
> 
> The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.
> 
> I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:
> 
> *  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history
> 
> *  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.
> 
> "Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?
> 
> *  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect.
> 
> When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no they didnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty much all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to one of my referenced links, the media acknowledges that liberals and Tea Party backed James Sensenbrenner.  So, you are telling me it is not true?
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different groups.  I get regular e mails from a Jenny Beth Martin - teapartypatriots.org  and that group is backing the U.S. Congressman in my district, Jody Hice:
> 
> Tea Party Patriots | Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Supports Rep. Jody Hice and the House Freedom Caucus
> 
> Hice *IS* a supporter of the phony Republican known as Donald Trump.  Ask him.
> 
> If you're saying that I could denounce the idiotic wall idea and all the peripheral issues surrounding it and be welcome in the Tea Party, I'd join it today.  You can have border security without a silly wall and we don't need for people to become citizens in order to engage in free enterprise.
Click to expand...



jenny beths a fraud,,,

the TP is not a group but a movement so there is no roll call or member list, and as we see it was co opted by back stabbing lying republicans
so just because some endorsed liars does not mean we all did


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm driving at is that the Tea Party accepted the membership of people who are loyal to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR.)  The CFR, from my earliest years, was the arch nemesis of the conservatives.  For example, Pat Robertson (the tv preacher) wrote a book called _The New World Order_ wherein he exposed their agenda.  My initiation into the world of conservative values began with Gary Allen's book  _None Dare Call it Conspiracy_ which had sold close to 5 million copies by the time I got introduced to conservatism (early to mid 1970s.)
> 
> The average candidate that the Tea Party relies on for support are those wholly committed to the NEW WORLD ORDER.  I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but let's talk issues.
> 
> I get several e mails per day from Tea Party groups who obsess over the nutty wall idea.  Do you guys even know who, in modern times, began that crackpot idea?  Let me give you a clue.  It was a Democrat running for president.  The two leading contenders for the Republican nod *denounced *the idea.  So, let me see:
> 
> *  The claim is that you believe in smaller government, but the politicians that support the Tea Party have over-seen the largest increases in spending in American history
> 
> *  You *cannot *advocate for the wall idea and then claim to be for free enterprise.  The current view of the Tea Party people that contact me is that you build a wall around America, penalize employers for hiring foreign workers, and demand people only come through a mythical "_legal_" process and obey "our" (sic)  immigration laws.
> 
> "Our" (sic) immigration laws are the product of *liberals*.  Those laws are well over half a century old and do not anticipate the changes in how our country utilizes labor.  Forcing people to become citizens in order to participate in the free market supports the free market... how again???  Penalizing employers for hiring foreign workers is a direct assault on the employer's property Rights.  The Tea Party wants to fine employers thousands of dollars and face felony charges for hiring a guy that commits a civil misdemeanor with a maximum $250 fine.  At what level does that make sense to you?
> 
> *  The Tea Party, much like the RINOs and others envisions this government where we all carry a National ID Card and are subject to E Verify; a country where we no longer believe in the presumption of innocence; a country with 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance and a place where Due Process is no longer in effect.
> 
> When are you guys going to wake up and make your way back home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no they didnt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty much all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to one of my referenced links, the media acknowledges that liberals and Tea Party backed James Sensenbrenner.  So, you are telling me it is not true?
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different groups.  I get regular e mails from a Jenny Beth Martin - teapartypatriots.org  and that group is backing the U.S. Congressman in my district, Jody Hice:
> 
> Tea Party Patriots | Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Supports Rep. Jody Hice and the House Freedom Caucus
> 
> Hice *IS* a supporter of the phony Republican known as Donald Trump.  Ask him.
> 
> If you're saying that I could denounce the idiotic wall idea and all the peripheral issues surrounding it and be welcome in the Tea Party, I'd join it today.  You can have border security without a silly wall and we don't need for people to become citizens in order to engage in free enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> jenny beths a fraud,,,
> 
> the TP is not a group but a movement so there is no roll call or member list, and as we see it was co opted by back stabbing lying republicans
> so just because some endorsed liars does not mean we all did
Click to expand...


I'm glad that you could clear that up.  Wouldn't it be easier if you had an organization with one unified voice?


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no they didnt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pretty much all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to one of my referenced links, the media acknowledges that liberals and Tea Party backed James Sensenbrenner.  So, you are telling me it is not true?
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different groups.  I get regular e mails from a Jenny Beth Martin - teapartypatriots.org  and that group is backing the U.S. Congressman in my district, Jody Hice:
> 
> Tea Party Patriots | Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Supports Rep. Jody Hice and the House Freedom Caucus
> 
> Hice *IS* a supporter of the phony Republican known as Donald Trump.  Ask him.
> 
> If you're saying that I could denounce the idiotic wall idea and all the peripheral issues surrounding it and be welcome in the Tea Party, I'd join it today.  You can have border security without a silly wall and we don't need for people to become citizens in order to engage in free enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> jenny beths a fraud,,,
> 
> the TP is not a group but a movement so there is no roll call or member list, and as we see it was co opted by back stabbing lying republicans
> so just because some endorsed liars does not mean we all did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you could clear that up.  Wouldn't it be easier if you had an organization with one unified voice?
Click to expand...



would be nice,,,just to many democrats and republicans to do that,,

they would all have to be killed first

and that unifying voice would be the constitution


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't what?  If I know what you disagree with, maybe we can discuss it.  Here to get your side.
> 
> 
> 
> pretty much all of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to one of my referenced links, the media acknowledges that liberals and Tea Party backed James Sensenbrenner.  So, you are telling me it is not true?
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different groups.  I get regular e mails from a Jenny Beth Martin - teapartypatriots.org  and that group is backing the U.S. Congressman in my district, Jody Hice:
> 
> Tea Party Patriots | Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Supports Rep. Jody Hice and the House Freedom Caucus
> 
> Hice *IS* a supporter of the phony Republican known as Donald Trump.  Ask him.
> 
> If you're saying that I could denounce the idiotic wall idea and all the peripheral issues surrounding it and be welcome in the Tea Party, I'd join it today.  You can have border security without a silly wall and we don't need for people to become citizens in order to engage in free enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> jenny beths a fraud,,,
> 
> the TP is not a group but a movement so there is no roll call or member list, and as we see it was co opted by back stabbing lying republicans
> so just because some endorsed liars does not mean we all did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you could clear that up.  Wouldn't it be easier if you had an organization with one unified voice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> would be nice,,,just to many democrats and republicans to do that,,
> 
> they would all have to be killed first
> 
> and that unifying voice would be the constitution
Click to expand...


We say we want to be guided by the Constitution, but it's almost impossible to return back to that document without an internal war in the United States.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> pretty much all of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to one of my referenced links, the media acknowledges that liberals and Tea Party backed James Sensenbrenner.  So, you are telling me it is not true?
> 
> Maybe we're talking about different groups.  I get regular e mails from a Jenny Beth Martin - teapartypatriots.org  and that group is backing the U.S. Congressman in my district, Jody Hice:
> 
> Tea Party Patriots | Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund Supports Rep. Jody Hice and the House Freedom Caucus
> 
> Hice *IS* a supporter of the phony Republican known as Donald Trump.  Ask him.
> 
> If you're saying that I could denounce the idiotic wall idea and all the peripheral issues surrounding it and be welcome in the Tea Party, I'd join it today.  You can have border security without a silly wall and we don't need for people to become citizens in order to engage in free enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> jenny beths a fraud,,,
> 
> the TP is not a group but a movement so there is no roll call or member list, and as we see it was co opted by back stabbing lying republicans
> so just because some endorsed liars does not mean we all did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you could clear that up.  Wouldn't it be easier if you had an organization with one unified voice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> would be nice,,,just to many democrats and republicans to do that,,
> 
> they would all have to be killed first
> 
> and that unifying voice would be the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We say we want to be guided by the Constitution, but it's almost impossible to return back to that document without an internal war in the United States.
Click to expand...

or by the voters getting their morals back,,the same people that are needed for that war are the ones voting them into office, so I dont see them attacking their meal ticket


----------



## Votto

peach174 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no swamp.
> 
> There will be no Article V convention.  Once the hood is open on the Constitution anything can happen to the entire document.  Nobody wants to risk that.
> 
> Good to see the TEA party going the way of the USFL. Trump killed them both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just him millions say so.
> There are plenty of reports about them.
> The progressives in both parties are corrupt.
Click to expand...


Not so, candycorn thinks the Dims will save us.


----------



## peach174

candycorn said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just him millions say so.
> There are plenty of reports about them.
> The progressives in both parties are corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The President is the most corrupt of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing is they have to prove it.
> So far is just assumptions and innuendos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Prove what?  It’s been proven; re:  Sending another $12B to the already subsidized farmers*; largest portion of pork this year; to buy votes of people suffering from a trade war he started.
> 
> And Kansas still elected a Girl Democrat as Governor.
> 
> Let me guess. You have no problem with the $12B giveaway….do you?
> 
> He said Mexico would be paying for the wall that many Republicans are hoping the Congress will fund.  So he lied about that too.
> 
> Let me guess.  You have no problem with the lies…do you?
> 
> Both of what I write above are proven facts.  You know them.  We all know them.  The only thing is that you are willing to look the other way in the case of the blob…aren’t you?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...




candycorn said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is corruption in D.C. and they are in both parties.
> Frosty Wooldridge -- Ten most corrupt politicians in Washington DC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if Frosty Wooldridge says so.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not just him millions say so.
> There are plenty of reports about them.
> The progressives in both parties are corrupt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The President is the most corrupt of all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First thing is they have to prove it.
> So far is just assumptions and innuendos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Prove what?  It’s been proven; re:  Sending another $12B to the already subsidized farmers*; largest portion of pork this year; to buy votes of people suffering from a trade war he started.
> 
> And Kansas still elected a Girl Democrat as Governor.
> 
> Let me guess. You have no problem with the $12B giveaway….do you?
> 
> He said Mexico would be paying for the wall that many Republicans are hoping the Congress will fund.  So he lied about that too.
> 
> Let me guess.  You have no problem with the lies…do you?
> 
> Both of what I write above are proven facts.  You know them.  We all know them.  The only thing is that you are willing to look the other way in the case of the blob…aren’t you?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...


No


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

Votto said:


> So what to do?  The Article V movement is the only way to reign in the power of the out of control Federal government.  Getting 2/3 of the states may seem unattainable, and well may be, but what else is there other than watching the Republic circle the drain?
> 
> At the bare minimum, states need to impose a balanced budget amendment on the US Congress with term limits on that same Congress.
> .



The tea party created by the Koch bros is being mislead.  Or, the original party people bailed out and you are repeating buzz promoted by Astro turfers.

ALEC and COS are colluding to mislead the people .  Mark levin exposes the scam as he contradicts himself, December 2014 at a conference sponsored by ALEC. Levin was invited by COS.  See the video.

The threat of hijacking to Article V - ALEC

There is only one way to go into Article 5 that is safe.

The very first Amendments must be preparatory Amendment, to change the environment the people must work in.

The people have a retained right to prepare because;

Article 5 stipulates that all Amendments must have constitutional intent. but, the people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.  Congress, the court, state legislation can only interpret.  Lately that has not been working well.

The people must be involved in every state and it is likely congress will never call a convention at 2/3 IF the people are involved.  The people will have to see their state legislations, 38 of them, holding their own conventions proposing amendments to the other states.  

The time has come.

Congress are waiting for ALEC to move wherein corporations can optimize profits at the expense of unalienable, retained rights.  If this isn’t true, why does the REINS act exist?


----------



## whoisit

eagle1462010 said:


> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.




Impossible also because America no longer consist of majority Americans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

whoisit said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible also because America no longer consist of majority Americans.
Click to expand...

^^

White supremacist sighting...lock up the farm animals and the PBR....


----------



## whoisit

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> whoisit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible also because America no longer consist of majority Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> 
> White supremacist sighting...lock up the farm animals and the PBR....
Click to expand...



Liberal Supremacist lib Nazis your true colors are showing more everyday. So shut up hater.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

whoisit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whoisit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible also because America no longer consist of majority Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> 
> White supremacist sighting...lock up the farm animals and the PBR....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal Supremacist lib Nazis your true colors are showing more everyday. So shut up hater.
Click to expand...

Oh no, the wittle nat-see is mad. Then again, you nat-sees are always mad.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

whoisit said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible also because America no longer consist of majority Americans.
Click to expand...


Hmm, not sure that "majority Americans" is a complete term.  But I think I know what you mean.

Fortunately, the part of the constitution which serves the people relies on natural law and that is consistently recognized by human beings.  The important part is understanding.  If they understand the natural law and how it sees them, they will join the majority.

There are these two definitions of the most prime constitutional intent, natural law that should be acceptable to any sincere American.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
For the present, Americans only need to share the above definitions and create a majority in their state.  Then things can really happen across the states using this legal process which PREPARES for Article 5.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

eagle1462010 said:


> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.



This is why American state Citizens must use their retained right to prepare for Article 5 and assure all Amendments have constitutional intent exactly as Article 5 states.

The 9th Amendment states in indirect terms that the people can define constitutional rights and intent.  That is an exclusive right which is why the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution


----------



## Picaro

The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?

And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.

Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.


----------



## sparky

~S~


----------



## peach174

Picaro said:


> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.



It's the activists judges who think that they can make the laws that needs correction. This was stared in the 1970's with the social Dem's of the party.
As for President Lincoln on the suspension habeas corpus, it was because there was violence and
Mob attacks of Confederate sympathizers.
Lincoln had to travel in disguise.
Lincoln had the right under Article I Section 9 to do what he did.


----------



## Picaro

peach174 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the activists judges who think that they can make the laws that needs correction. This was stared in the 1970's with the social Dem's of the party.
> As for President Lincoln on the suspension habeas corpus, it was because there was violence and
> Mob attacks of Confederate sympathizers.
> Lincoln had to travel in disguise.
> Lincoln had the right under Article I Section 9 to do what he did.
Click to expand...


Actually, everything Lincoln did was illegal and unconstitutional; he ran a military dictatorship complete with a private army controlling the ballot boxes in several border states, but you and the Article V fantasists have a much bigger problem, as pointed out in these two links. Yes, it Wikipedia, but it is a good long 'starting point' for why it can't succeed.

List of state applications for an Article V Convention - Wikipedia

List of rescissions of Article V Convention applications - Wikipedia

...not  to mention you zero support in *any* state house, and your own corporate elites don't support you or even consider you humans to begin with, they like the Red Chinese and assorted colonies like Viet Nam over you Deplorables and your inane beliefs in your 'rights'. You have a better chance of just gutting the whole thing and starting over with another Constitutional Convention, and you will need Christians to do it. The later means you will never get it done or go anywhere, since sociopaths and psychopaths will dominate your 'Convention' and reduce it to a farce.


----------



## Picaro

peach174 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the activists judges who think that they can make the laws that needs correction. This was stared in the 1970's with the social Dem's of the party.
Click to expand...


Actually that started right after the Civil War, with Republicans gradually dominating the Courts via corporations like railroads taking control of state houses and by extension the U.S. Senate, and getting themselves such wonderful laws making corporations 'persons' and then from there distorting the 5th Amendment no end via activist judges. It was called 'The Gilded Age', the Libertarians' dream decades, and they ended for good reasons.


----------



## Picaro

whoisit said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be HYJACKED by the establishment ........just as they HYJACKED the Tea Party movement............they supported the movement and moved into it...........They were never really a part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible also because America no longer consist of majority Americans.
Click to expand...


Yes, pretty much. That's why Founders like Jefferson preferred deportation as a method of getting rid of radicals and traitors. It is a necessary tool needed again.


----------



## peach174

Picaro said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the activists judges who think that they can make the laws that needs correction. This was stared in the 1970's with the social Dem's of the party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that started right after the Civil War, with Republicans gradually dominating the Courts via corporations like railroads taking control of state houses and by extension the U.S. Senate, and getting themselves such wonderful laws making corporations 'persons' and then from there distorting the 5th Amendment no end via activist judges. It was called 'The Gilded Age', the Libertarians' dream decades, and they ended for good reasons.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the last 30 years where judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

Picaro said:


> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.



The joke came from a fraud, so its not funny (act of 1871).  History is too misrepresented to use from the perspective of the average citizen.  If this was not true you could explain exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, 'The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court."  But you can't, it is not taught in schools.

Natural law is your instincts. 

Seeing as your post is so deficient and erroneous, the rest is not worth commenting on.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Picaro said:


> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.



If I could have hit the button ten times for that post I would have.  The ONLY reason I have God given,* unalienable*, natural, absolute, irreversible, and inherent Rights is due to the simple fact I was born with them and choose not to allow the government to take them.  

When enough of those who feel the same way stand shoulder to shoulder will we able to enforce that gift promised to us... when we do OUR part.


----------



## Picaro

ChristopherABrown' said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The joke came from a fraud, so its not funny (act of 1871).  History is too misrepresented to use from the perspective of the average citizen.  If this was not true you could explain exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, 'The people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court."  But you can't, it is not taught in schools.
> 
> Natural law is your instincts.
> 
> Seeing as your post is so deficient and erroneous, the rest is not worth commenting on.
Click to expand...


I'm aware it's over your head. Most ideologues prefer fantasies for a reason, but those of us who can discuss those issues don't have to include you in the conversations.


----------



## emilynghiem

Picaro said:


> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.



Dear Picaro
I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.

I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.

The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.

Can we focus there and find common language
that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.

I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
during war, when citizens were declared and treated
as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.

The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
do not wait for due process to start treating other people
and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
more like political warfare and not following laws of
due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.

Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.

That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
"natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.

This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
"right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.

Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
exist or apply to all people?

Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
want, need and believe in.

Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?

Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
hold in check.

Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?

It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.

But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.

Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
our human nature by CONSCIENCE.

The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.

It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.

Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.

Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
The problem is WE DO have this authority.
So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
and tell them what to do.

If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.


----------



## Votto

emilynghiem said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
Click to expand...


The issue at hand is not rocket science.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.

The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.

I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.

This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.


----------



## emilynghiem

Votto said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
Click to expand...


Dear Votto
In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
authorities and influence without check, but special interest
corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.

Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
(whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.

We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."

In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.

As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
invites more and more abuse for short term gain.

I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Joe Walsh is out there right now, trying to turn the Teabaggers against Trump, using their own platform.

I believe his success rate is somewhere near zero.


----------



## emilynghiem

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Joe Walsh is out there right now, trying to turn the Teabaggers against Trump, using their own platform.
> 
> I believe his success rate is somewhere near zero.



His goal apparently is to use the lack of an opposing GOP candidate 
to rally as much media attention for himself to push his radio show that was cut.

If he had a good idea for resolving whatever issues he is targeting,
he could use that to push for real strategic solutions.

Instead he is just trying to play the same game as Cortez, Beto, etc.
and just say whatever he thinks is going to cause a stir in the media
and troll for shares by other people, trying to ride on the publicity.

Beto and Cortez could also use their notoriety to push for real
solutions instead of things that aren't going to fly through
Govt based on Constitutional limits, as Buttigieg pointed out
with how his colleagues are pushing for universal medicare in ways
that are not supportable by the public expected to pay for that.

They need REAL solutions that will speak for themselves.

Cortez and Beto are more effective at playing the game for
political publicity than Joe Walsh is.  Too bad, because their
ability to speak in public and through media would be great
for promoting real solutions that empower people to participate
directly and democratically, instead of just mouthing off in the media


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

emilynghiem said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Walsh is out there right now, trying to turn the Teabaggers against Trump, using their own platform.
> 
> I believe his success rate is somewhere near zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His goal apparently is to use the lack of an opposing GOP candidate
> to rally as much media attention for himself to push his radio show that was cut.
> 
> If he had a good idea for resolving whatever issues he is targeting,
> he could use that to push for real strategic solutions.
> 
> Instead he is just trying to play the same game as Cortez, Beto, etc.
> and just say whatever he thinks is going to cause a stir in the media
> and troll for shares by other people, trying to ride on the publicity.
> 
> Beto and Cortez could also use their notoriety to push for real
> solutions instead of things that aren't going to fly through
> Govt based on Constitutional limits, as Buttigieg pointed out
> with how his colleagues are pushing for universal medicare in ways
> that are not supportable by the public expected to pay for that.
> 
> They need REAL solutions that will speak for themselves.
> 
> Cortez and Beto are more effective at playing the game for
> political publicity than Joe Walsh is.  Too bad, because their
> ability to speak in public and through media would be great
> for promoting real solutions that empower people to participate
> directly and democratically, instead of just mouthing off in the media
Click to expand...

Well, here you can find a list of legislation sponsored or cosponsored by Cortez:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Does that not fit the bill?


----------



## Votto

emilynghiem said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
Click to expand...


Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.

As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off? 

Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.

Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Votto said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.


----------



## emilynghiem

Porter Rockwell said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
Click to expand...

Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto

There is already an entỉre organization, including
website and media campaign about calling for
an A5 convention. COSAction

NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.

How could we guarantee that won't happen?

Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
and where they cannot agree they will let separate
groups decide different policies locally (such as
through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)

2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.

3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.

BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
for how the Democratic process should work instead of
leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.

A.
I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
 nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.

B.
I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
This is to document and advise Govt leaders
B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.    

Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

emilynghiem said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
Click to expand...



In retrospect, I did have someone approach me with this idea some years ago and I agree with most of the points you made.

The problem I face is that I know what laws need to be changed and some things that need to be done, but there is NO organization in America where those discussions can take place.  

Having to over-come the hurdles you mention, you've probably saved me from a lot of wasted time.  Anything that would bring about a Constitutional Convention would put any remaining Rights we have at risk and we cannot trust that to an uneducated populace.  

If you were looking to change someone's mind, then your post was not in vain.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## Votto

emilynghiem said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier. I know other people
> who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.
> 
> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.
> 
> Can we focus there and find common language
> that DOESN'T depend on the areas that have been hijacked
> and distorted outside Constitutional laws and limits.
> 
> I read your post/points that especially with Lincoln,
> the Constitutional laws and limits were overridden.
> When Lincoln ordered presses to be burned down
> and journalists hung, these were acts of war, not
> civilian peace time. So the same rules did not apply
> during war, when citizens were declared and treated
> as treasonous foreign enemies WITHOUT due process.
> In wartime, enemy combatants are not given the same
> due process as with civilians under civil and criminal laws.
> 
> The problem today is similar, where people and leaders
> do not wait for due process to start treating other people
> and groups "as enemies" and disparage their rights. They
> are declared wrong and judged without "due process."
> Then actions are taken politically to further overstep those
> people's rights, justified for political expedience. So this is
> more like political warfare and not following laws of
> due process and democratic procedures. Just people abusing
> party and media to act as "judge jury and executioner" with no
> limits or separation of powers. This reaction is caused by
> THOSE people fearing rights and laws have been abridged,
> or are threatened with oppression. So it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Picaro I don't see how else we can break this cycle of
> abuse and oppression EXCEPT we agree to adhere to
> UNIVERSAL principles and process of democratic negotiations.
> 
> That's why I urge everyone to respect basic principles of
> "natural laws" that define the democratic process between people.
> 
> This is naturally occurring by way of our human nature
> as individuals who NATURALLY use our "free speech" and
> "right to petition/object" to try to address and resolve obstructions
> to our right to peace/security, freedom/free choice and justice.
> 
> Picaro what part of these "natural laws" do you NOT BELIEVE
> exist or apply to all people?
> 
> Aren't these common/universal principles people already follow
> by our nature: freedom of speech or of the press, right to assemble
> and to petition for redress of grievances, right of defense to protect
> ourselves from being deprived of life, liberty, property or exercise of
> our beliefs and free choice/will as indivduals to pursue what we
> want, need and believe in.
> 
> Why isn't it clear that the purpose and process in the Constitution,
> especially the Bill of Rights, is to spell out and define this process
> so this can be PROTECTED for individuals?
> 
> Even if violations occur, as you point out they have gotten way out of hand,
> we still APPLY the same Constitutional/democratic process to
> REDRESS THOSE GRIEVANCES and protect our individual and public interest
> from abuse and oppression by collective influences which these laws
> hold in check.
> 
> Are you saying that because it's so far out of control there's no way to check the abuses?
> 
> It's because we are divided that's why we aren't effective in stopping abuses.
> 
> But by UNITING in agreement on these principles, that's what puts the abuses back in check.
> 
> Picaro all the people making up the collective corporate interests and abusers of power
> are STILL "individuals" GOVERNED by the same natural laws and principles built into
> our human nature by CONSCIENCE.
> 
> The way the CONSCIENCE responds is to unified agreements, invoking public
> authority of laws, then everyone is compelled to follow where we all AGREE.
> 
> It is ESSENTIAL we come to points and principles of AGREEMENT.
> 
> Like parents running a household, and  have to STAND IN AGREEMENT
> or the kids run wild and take advantage of them bickering to get away with whatever.
> Or like a group of firefighters having to fight a blaze, and must work as a concerted TEAM.
> If they all give up or can't work together, SURE, the blaze spirals out of control.
> 
> Picaro it's not that we the people don't have the power to stop the abuses.
> The problem is WE DO have this authority.
> So if we DON'T unify and invoke it, then nothing gets done.
> Govt is really waiting on us, we the people to get our
> act together, resolve issues to put together a game plan,
> and tell them what to do.
> 
> If we don't, that's where Govt runs amok, like kids with
> a credit card and car keys. We have to take back responsibility
> instead of leaving the keys and card on the counter for anyone to run off with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement.  First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through.  And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is.  Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.

The goal is for states to reclaim their power again.  We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era.  America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump.  The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now.  Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended.  Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.

Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely.  In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover.  Nothing else will do.


----------



## Votto

Porter Rockwell said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In retrospect, I did have someone approach me with this idea some years ago and I agree with most of the points you made.
> 
> The problem I face is that I know what laws need to be changed and some things that need to be done, but there is NO organization in America where those discussions can take place.
> 
> Having to over-come the hurdles you mention, you've probably saved me from a lot of wasted time.  Anything that would bring about a Constitutional Convention would put any remaining Rights we have at risk and we cannot trust that to an uneducated populace.
> 
> If you were looking to change someone's mind, then your post was not in vain.  Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...


You are correct, most voters are ignorant and easily manipulated via the press and education system, etc.  However, the beautiful thing about the Article V movement is, only educated voters will pursue it.

Here is an example of how intelligent voters are.


People are now just voting for an empty suit party member, nothing more.

In addition, most people who vote only show up during a Presidential race and only are concerned with voting for the President.  Why?  It's because power has been centralized to the President and we have been conditioned to look to only one man for our "collective salvation".

That is the bad news, the good news is that the Article V amendment relies only on state legislators being elected.  I would say that 99.9% of the populace has no idea who they even are and have left that box blank as a result.

But it is the same as it was during the Revolution.  Most Americans did not support the war and not involved in the war.  Those that want freedom must work within the minority and do their best to secure liberty once again.


----------



## Picaro

emilynghiem said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution became a joke a long time ago, finally put to rest by the election of Abraham Lincoln. Why do people think it's still actually a legal reality? It's all determined by politically appointed 'Judges', has been for a long time. Americans like corruption, they in fact insist on it, and you think 'Article V' means something to these voters?
> 
> And 'Natural Law'??? lol that meme never had a chance; it's as fictional as Popeye. 'Social Darwinism' is the ideology one tries to avoid by rambling on about 'Natural Law'.
> 
> Your only chance is to fall back on that minority of Christians; the traditionalists are your only hope, not your fellow sociopaths. Start with culture first; get that back, then worry about regaining a genuine legal system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Picaro
> I'd like to understand IN DEPTH where your thinking is coming from,
> so we can learn to communicate past this barrier.
Click to expand...


If I did that kind of work, I would just guest post on a blog somewhere;  few people here are actually serious about anything, just here to peddle their pet crackpot theories, and a waste of time to try and engage in serious discussions. This thread is an example, for instance the belief that the 5th A. causes the problem of corporate power. It doesn't, it's the radical abuses of the 14th that is the major source of 'corporate personhood' and the even worse abuse of 'judicial review' cases from 1864 up to the early 1900's.




> I know other people who also see the Constitution as arbitrary, diluted and lost to political forces,
> and not having authority to compel anyone to enforce these laws.



The ;middle class' has lost any ability to govern itself; it demographics is largely made up of dope addled loons who glorify mindless self-indulgence over everything else, and that includes both the sniveling, spoiled  Burb Brat Left Whiners and their fellow travelers on the 'Social Darwinist Right whiners. neither wing producing anything but sociopaths and assorted deviants who all agree on destroying the country via various schemes, all revolving around personal whims and selfishness. They just use different rhetoric, is all; it isn't only the left's propaganda hacks who use the *Gramsci For Dummies* tactics laid out by Alinsky.



> I see that approach similar to not relying on math, because it's been hijacked by elitists
> who use it for a bunch of theorizing with no practical application or meaning.
> But that's just ONE LEVEL of math.
> 
> The BASIC MATH applies to all transactions we do.
> I want to focus on where NATURAL LAWS are universal
> to people and DO govern and predict our democratic process.



You seem to think it the Amendments that are the problem, so you're not as interested in 'a common language' as you think you are. And again, these natural laws' don't exist, except in academic circle jerks. Mostly they come from a list of morals derived from ancient Greek philosophies through the Judaeo- Christian paradigms and that centuries long social revolution, Thomas Of Aquina, and co., to the Protestant revolutions, through the early evangelicals of the First and Second Great Awakenings. A sort of 'Great Third Great Awakening' took place in the late 1800's early 1900s as well, but it was weak, too weak to do anything but slow down the general trends.

See, your first problems that need to be resolved are rolling back social revolutions; without those, on amount of bullshit talk is going to be effective. This cite says it best:

*.... the overlap between the Senate's rise within the governmental structure and the parallel ascent of corporations within the U.S. economy was unmistakable. The two fed on each other from the late 1860's to the early 1900's when corporations - indeed, wealth itself - began to be curbed. A half century earlier, during the post-Civil War decade, businessmen had been extorted by more simplistic forms of government corruption - New York's Tweed Ring, the Whiskey Ring, the Customhouse Ring, and suchlike. This produced the half-reformism wryly summarized by New York's Horatio Seymour: *

"Our People want men in office who will not steal, but who will not interfere with those in private enterprise who do."

pages 238-239, Wealth and Democracy---- by Kevin Phillips, Broadway Books, New York 2002            


And therein lies the differences in the 'basic math you see and what 'basic math' reality forces on even defining the necessary issues correctly. American government does actually represent American values; that's what nobody wants to admit, and why all the bloviating and high minded 'language' just hides corrupt beliefs itself. That's what ideologists are for, after all, to hide bullshit behind some self-endowed moral authority or other.


----------



## emilynghiem

Votto said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue at hand is not rocket science.
> 
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> 
> At the dawn of the Revolution the Framers enacted the Articles of Confederation, however, it did not make the Federal government powerful enough.  Washington eloquently states the problem, which was, "No money".  They then enacted the US Constitution which empowered the federal government enough to have a cohesive United States.  This worked just fine until the dawn of the Progressive era, which probably started around the time of Lincoln.  More and more power was diverted to the federal level while at the turn of the 20th century SCOTUS struck down a federal income tax as unconstitutional.  No problem, the Progressives in power simply added it to the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century, along with creating their own private bank which hoisted the grave stone over the notion of a limited government to rule the Republic.  State rights then vanished as the Executive branch within the Federal government became the most powerful branch in that government.  You may even call it the 4rth branch of government as Congress has ceded over many of its powers such as the Executive branch now has an army of regulators that simply enact regulations that are equivalent to laws, only, no one votes on them and not one votes for them.  Them simply rule outside the sphere of democracy.  Then you have the President continually enacting Executive Orders that contradict federal laws on the books with impunity.
> 
> The Republic is now dead with a small group of individuals running the country.  In fact, for the President to now run education, health care, national defense, the economy, etc., etc., you need the army of bureaucrats to help him now that the states have given their power to the President for such things.  Problem is, it's still not enough to run the world as they also meddle in the affairs of countries around the world as well.
> 
> I think that this is the message of the movie "The Lord of the Rings".  Put that ring on of unchecked power and it changes you no matter how "pure" you may be before putting on that ring.  Man was never meant to have such power and time and again we see why as they abuse it.
> 
> This was the idea of Federalism.  Divide power among the states as the Federal government plays referee.  This was the plan all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement.  First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through.  And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is.  Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.
> 
> The goal is for states to reclaim their power again.  We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era.  America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump.  The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now.  Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended.  Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.
> 
> Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely.  In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover.  Nothing else will do.
Click to expand...


Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
why not acknowledge that problem up front?
And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
fix the problems with Government that  HAVEN'T been following the
Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.

Of course there is.

It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money 
you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
But if you lose, you lose  all what you had and that means
being left with nothing.

However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you 
have nothing to lose.  How do we set up an agreed process
where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.


----------



## Votto

emilynghiem said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Votto
> In addition to corrupt abuse of govt, for which the Bill of Rights was
> supposed to defend individual rights and protections against,
> today we have not only CORPORATIONS acting as collective
> authorities and influence without check, but special interest
> corporate organizations through PARTY and MEDIA running unchecked.
> 
> Thus we need to have agreements among citizens with
> both Govt AND corporate organizations and leaders
> (whether Govt or nongovernmental, business or nonprofit,
> religious, political, secular, or educational), where we agree
> to both uphold basic Constitutional protections, checks
> and balances, and/or have a process for brining grievances
> or conflicts to be resolved BEFORE they become violations
> and lawsuits through govt at taxpayer expense.
> 
> We cannot afford to let abuses happen "until someone
> sues, or laws change, or elections throw someone out of office."
> 
> In the meantime, damages are done at public and private expense.
> 
> As long as we continue to tolerate that happening, people will keep
> taking advantage politically to act without impunity, and wait until
> court or legislatures act "after the fact" to try to correct it. So this
> invites more and more abuse for short term gain.
> 
> I am writing letters to Governors and Party leaders about
> setting up a Constitutional Council especially in states that
> are dominated by one party, so there is check by citizens of
> other parties not represented in government equally. If TX
> and CA can set up a model to check against abuses by
> fielding complaints directly from citizens, we can save
> time trouble and resources by resolving conflicts BEFORE
> govt makes decisions, or continues to enforce wasteful abusive policies
> without consent of taxpayers who have a right to correction and restitution
> for such abuses since its our taxmoney abused to pay for ongoing losses damages and debts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement.  First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through.  And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is.  Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.
> 
> The goal is for states to reclaim their power again.  We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era.  America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump.  The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now.  Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended.  Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.
> 
> Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely.  In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover.  Nothing else will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
> instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
> why not acknowledge that problem up front?
> And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
> is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
> parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
> fix the problems with Government that  HAVEN'T been following the
> Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
> the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
> checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
> in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
> is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
> then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
> real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
> you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
> But if you lose, you lose  all what you had and that means
> being left with nothing.
> 
> However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
> you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
> have nothing to lose.  How do we set up an agreed process
> where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
> should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
> STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I personally think they should begin with two amendments, which are term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment.

Why?  Because over 80% of Americans favor these when polled.  Keep it simple and popular, otherwise, the whole thing will probably fall on its face.

That should absolve all fear about it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Votto said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement.  First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through.  And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is.  Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.
> 
> The goal is for states to reclaim their power again.  We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era.  America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump.  The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now.  Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended.  Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.
> 
> Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely.  In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover.  Nothing else will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
> instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
> why not acknowledge that problem up front?
> And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
> is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
> parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
> fix the problems with Government that  HAVEN'T been following the
> Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
> the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
> checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
> in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
> is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
> then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
> real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
> you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
> But if you lose, you lose  all what you had and that means
> being left with nothing.
> 
> However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
> you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
> have nothing to lose.  How do we set up an agreed process
> where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
> should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
> STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally think they should begin with two amendments, which are term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment.
> 
> Why?  Because over 80% of Americans favor these when polled.  Keep it simple and popular, otherwise, the whole thing will probably fall on its face.
> 
> That should absolve all fear about it.
Click to expand...


You already have term limits.  It's called an election.  We got our first Muslim into the White House with term limits.  He promised to transform America.  Are you satisfied with how screwed up he left it?

Balanced Budget Amendment - yeah.  Let's put this into perspective:

Let us say a man has $100,000 of debt.  He makes his minimum monthly payments and is balancing his budget.  But, wait, he needs a new car.  So, now he has to raise his debt ceiling AND take on another job to afford the car.  His new job allows him to pay for the car and balance his budget, but he never really* pays down *his debt.  So every time he needs something in addition to what he has, he has to find a way to get more money.  

In the context of government, they would always be raising your taxes.  It's been quite a number of years since I checked, but decades ago, the average American was spending over 55 percent of all they made on taxes.  The only real solution there is to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Reserve (which is no more "_federal_" than Federal Express) and return to constitutional taxation.

The way it's rigged - you can NEVER pay down the federal deficit.  Balancing the budget is just a way for Republicans to counter Democrats with a stalling technique that resolves nothing.


----------



## ChristopherABrown'

Votto said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the article V movement is about the only way to reduce the power of corporate America.
> 
> As of right now, the federal government runs the show, so if you were a corporate power and wanted to buy votes, how many people would you have to buy off?
> 
> Conversely, if states ran their own affairs instead of the federal government running everything, then corporations would then have to shift their attention to buying the votes of legislators in 50 state legislatures, which would essentially compound their task times 50.
> 
> Absolute success at doing so would be minimal at best, but assuming they could, the cost would be far greater for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm interested.  If anyone wants to PM me or post additional links, I'm open to the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great! Porter Rockwell and Votto
> 
> There is already an entỉre organization, including
> website and media campaign about calling for
> an A5 convention. COSAction
> 
> NOTE: the opposition I've run into from HEADS o f
> Tea Party and Constitution Groups:
> 1. Some very vocal leaders Fear and Reject ANY
> talk of such a Convention because of the lack of
> respect and guarantee by the Left that the SPIRIT
> and EXISTING BODY of laws will be kept and not thrown
> out and completely rewritten to allow anything goes, as
> liberals don't believe in limits on govt. They don't trust
> the leftwing monopoly when it comes to keeping the good
> and throwing out the bad, but fear they will HIJACK the process
> to put in more of the unchecked social programming and lose the
> whole purpose and design of the Constitution to the exact opposite
> overreaching it was meant to prevent. These far right fear the
> left will hijack the whole convention process to push their agenda
> and defeat the whole purpose by making govt an even worse mess.
> 
> How could we guarantee that won't happen?
> 
> Can we call for an agreed resolution in advance,
> recognizing the different political beliefs, up front,
> and if parties do not agree what to change or replace
> something in govt with, then the sides in conflict will
> agree to keep the Constitution as is, to only change
> it if there is a CONSENSUS on what to change it to,
> and where they cannot agree they will let separate
> groups decide different policies locally (such as
> through state, county, city or school district, party precinct,
> or neighborhood association etc.) and AGREE to separate
> tax funding and deductions to keep those decisions democratically
> chosen and funded freely, especially with conflicting political beliefs.)
> 
> 2. Others are so adamant about pushing THEIR beliefs through
> govt, they block others from participating (whether it's pro-God
> beliefs, right to life, or right to health care they want to require
> of all Govt leaders which they believe to be inherent and
> ínseparable from law and govt.) whenever this "bullying for dominance"
> starts, people fear compromise so much, they obstruct the process
> and force worse compromises pressured from political expedience.
> 
> 3. For these reasons I support a PRELIMINARY
> step BEFORE a full fledged Convention where the
> risk of a mob rewriting the Constitution isn't jumped into blindly.
> 
> BEFORE opening that door to Amendments, we should agree on ground rules
> for how the Democratic process should work instead of
> leaving it to bigger bullies and wolves to dominate the pack
> and coerce others to support one group while silencing others.
> 
> A.
> I believe it is necessary to RECOGNIZE the differences in political beliefs,
> and offer protection to prevent from overriding any one person of group's beliefs
> for another by majority monopoly. we should include a disclaimer where people
> who don't agree because of political beliefs can opt for separating taxes and terms
> of funding and deductions. So nobody is forced to fund a policy in violation of their beliefs,
> nor denied ability to invest in a policy they believe in managing through govt (just through
> voluntary supporters, not by forcing others to comply against their beliefs, free will and
> informed consent). Unless we have an agreed process up front, not to push anyone
> to compromise their beliefs, we can't communicate to find where we DO agree on reforms,
> or delineate where we can split off into separate funding so everyone can still exercise
> and enforce their beliefs without infringement on or from anyone else's beliefs.
> 
> B.
> I'd like to call for district leaders and candidates, precinct and county chairs,
> to start assembling ADVISORY "Constitutional Councils" to list and address issues of
> govt reforms, abuses, and corrections to problems of govt waste debts and damages.
> This is to document and advise Govt leaders
> B1. which issues or complaints are the priority in each dístrict
> B2. what solutions would those constituents AGREE to fund and enforce
> B3. where are there multiple solutions the parties agree to fund separately and ask for tax break deductions, or help with donations or loan/investments to develop those programs or refoms.
> 
> Once we IDENTIFY party leaders willing and able to facilitate conflict resolution
> and problem solving across different party lines, without trying to force anyone
> through govt to change or comply with beliefs, then maybe we could manage
> formal conventions without it turning into bullying wars to dominate and impose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to fear with the Article V movement.  First of all, we need 2/3 of the states to approve it, so it's not like you can put some crazy amendments in there that will sneak through.  And as it stands now, the federal government essentially ignores the Constitution and federal laws as it is.  Passing these amendments would be the first shot across the bow of the Federal government telling them that there will soon be a Constitutional crisis if they don't get their act together.
> 
> The goal is for states to reclaim their power again.  We want states to run their education system, their health care system, etc., all things the Executive Branch has taken over throughout the Progressive era.  America should not be divided every Presidential election cycle with half the country wanting to secede or have a coup attempt like we just had with Trump.  The country was not meant to have a king, and a king is what we have now.  Let conservative and liberal states run their own affairs, with the Federal government playing referred like it was originally intended.  Then step back and see which ideology works best as we compare liberal vs conservative states, verses letting the President run everything putting all our eggs in one basket, win/lose/ or draw.
> 
> Conversely, the democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, which means population heavy states like New York and California will decide who will run the show indefinitely.  In other words, the goal of the DNC to bring the country together is a one party takeover.  Nothing else will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Votto If people are afraid, that is a REAL response.
> instead of denying the fact there is distrust of parties abusing the process,
> why not acknowledge that problem up front?
> And write up an agreement, from the start, that the Constitution
> is not going to be revised without a consensus between the various
> parties, and the POINT of addressing Constitutional process is to
> fix the problems with Government that  HAVEN'T been following the
> Constitutional structures, laws and limits, and process. It's to correct
> the contested programs developed through federal govt that aren't
> checked or authorized by the Constitution, and try to get things back
> in line. If we have an agreement up front what the purpose of the process
> is, to get BACK to an agreed standard and agreement to comply with it,
> then THAT would prevent the problem that is being fear. That fear is
> real, so let's address what's causing it instead of acting like there's no real risk.
> 
> Of course there is.
> 
> It's like a game show where you are asked to bet all the money
> you have credited now "on the chance" that you could double it.
> But if you lose, you lose  all what you had and that means
> being left with nothing.
> 
> However, if we set up the process where you get to keep what
> you have, and only ADD more that reinforces that, then you
> have nothing to lose.  How do we set up an agreed process
> where we don't go backwards but correct the problems that
> should have been prevented or resolved in the first place by
> STICKING to the spirit and standards of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally think they should begin with two amendments, which are term limits for Congress and a balanced budget amendment.
> 
> Why?  Because over 80% of Americans favor these when polled.  Keep it simple and popular, otherwise, the whole thing will probably fall on its face.
> 
> That should absolve all fear about it.
Click to expand...


Those are two common sense amendments, but I have real concerns about ANY amendments being constitutional with the current batch of legislators.  And Article V requires that all amendments have constitutional intent.

Discussing amendments without determining how to make sure legislators pass no unconstitutional amendment is a primary need of the peoples.


----------

