# Where Is Trump On The Constitution?



## Flanders (Apr 28, 2016)

​ 
*This is the sweetest music this side of heaven:*

“My opponent in this race, Donald Trump–like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders–looks to government as the solution to every problem,” Cruz said. “Carly knows from decades in the business world … where jobs come from, and she respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”​ 
Cruz Taps Fiorina as Running Mate, Cheers Her Respect For Constitution
       BY: Morgan Chalfant   
       April 27, 2016 4:46 pm

Cruz Taps Fiorina as Running Mate, Cheers Her Respect For Constitution​
*Everybody who has not been vacationing in outer-space since the LBJ years knows that Democrats have been working tirelessly to abolish every individual Right in the Bill Of Rights. Big government authority is the only part of the U. S. Constitution Socialists support. Examples: The XVI and XVII Amendments are not individual Rights. Those two amendments did more than anything else to transform the Constitution into a Bill of Rights for government bureaucrats.

I have one question for Donald Trump before it is too late. What is your plan for making this country great without first making the Constitution great again? 

Ted Cruz defended the Constitution against his own party. So I would like to know if President Donald Trump has enough knowledge to do the same. 

To date, Trump talked about the country, while he never gave any indication that he understands how the Constitution made the American people great. If I am reading Trump correctly he thinks he can make the country great again without any help from the U.S. Constitution.*


----------



## CityBoy (Apr 28, 2016)

Flanders said:


> ​
> *This is the sweetest music this side of heaven:*
> 
> “My opponent in this race, Donald Trump–like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders–looks to government as the solution to every problem,” Cruz said. “Carly knows from decades in the business world … where jobs come from, and she respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”​
> ...


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

Flanders said:


> ​
> *This is the sweetest music this side of heaven:*
> 
> “My opponent in this race, Donald Trump–like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders–looks to government as the solution to every problem,” Cruz said. “Carly knows from decades in the business world … where jobs come from, and she respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”​
> ...


Cruz is an internationalist and a liar, just like Hillary.

You need to judge a man by his deeds, not his word.

You may have a point about Trump, but Cruz is on the pay roll of the globalists, he doesn't give a shit about the Constitution.


----------



## Flanders (Apr 28, 2016)

*To CityBoy: Did you want to add something?*


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

*How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA*
How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA
*A new cybersecurity elite moves between government and private practice, taking state secrets with them. *

"Some members of this unique class are household names. Most cable-news viewers, for example, are familiar with Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden, two of the top national-security officials in the Bush administration. In 2009, they left their positions at the Justice Department and the NSA, respectively, and created the Chertoff Group, one of Washington’s largest consulting firms, with a major emphasis on security."

<snip>

"So what does the existence of such a class mean? First off, it deepens inequality. We all know that corporations can buy access to lawmakers through hefty political donations. Now they have access to some of the state’s most closely held secrets. According to a declassified document obtained in April by _The New York Times_, Hayden and Alexander were “read into” Stellar Wind, the warrantless-surveillance program started after 9/11. They are bound by law not to divulge those secrets. But their knowledge based on those secrets is of unfathomable value to the corporations they advise on cybersecurity and acquisitions strategies. That knowledge isn’t shared with the public, but it is available to the companies that can afford it. 

Second, it places participatory democracy at risk. The vast majority of Americans are excluded from the consequential discussions that take place at the cyber-intelligence elite’s secret meetings. While hashing over controversial programs such as domestic spying, offensive cyberintelligence operations, or FBI terrorist-entrapment programs, the state and corporate leaders at INSA—as well as other places where the new class meets—operate on a completely different plane from the rest of us. Meanwhile, the black hole of secrecy keeps the new hybrid class and its organizations immune from any meaningful oversight by either the executive branch or Congress."


Organization of Cruz for President--Staff, Advisors and Supporters
Chairman  Chad Sweet

Co-founder of the Chertoff Group.  Chief of staff (Nov. 2006-Jan. 2009), deputy chief of staff (June-Nov. 2006) and special assistant to the Secretary (March-June 2006) at the Department of Homeland Security.  Vice president at Goldman Sachs, 1996-2006, including four years in Asia.  Investment banking analyst at Morgan Stanley, 1994-96.  Directorate of operations at the Central Intelligence Agency, 1991-93.  B.A. in political science, international relations, East Asian Studies from Columbia University in the City of New York, 1991.



Clearly Cruz is toxic to American Democracy for anyone that knows what is going on.


----------



## Flanders (Apr 28, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Clearly Cruz is toxic to American Democracy for anyone that knows what is going on.


*To Mister Beale: I certainly hope so. 

See this thread:*

Another Soldier For democracy Chimes In


----------



## Flanders (Apr 28, 2016)

Flanders said:


> If I am reading Trump correctly he thinks he can make the country great again without any help from the U.S. Constitution.


*Listen closely to what Trump says whenever he dives into the deep end of the pool: *

​
Trump: Screw The Constitution, I'll Allow Churches Into Politics And Let Them Stay Tax-Exempt​
*Trump obviously believes that allowing priests into government as well as enriching them further is a winning strategy. He clearly thinks Christian clerics will make America great again. Whether or not he believes it, Trump advocates passing organized religion’s tax exemption onto the backs of everybody. Clearly, he lacks an understanding of the First-Amendment-cum-the-separation-of-church-and-state.   

More importantly, does Trump really believe he can let churches keep their tax exempt status and stop coerced charity everywhere else? or is he simply laying down a smokescreen in order to leave such a flagrant violation of the First Amendment in place?*

Charity is either voluntary or involuntary. Parasites believe in coerced charity. That exact belief system is the foundation for every organized religion. So if the First Amendment is enforced it follows that coerced charity is unconstitutional. It is as simple as that.

*XXXXX*​ 
   The SCOTUS should rule in such a way that says involuntary charity is unconstitutional, while voluntary is settled law. My point. If the First Amendment continues to protect freedom-loving Americans from the evils of theocracy, it must also protect them from coerced charity.

Unconnected To Common Decency​
*And if Trump is serious about defeating ISIS with Christmas decorations he needs a crash course in the average American’s revulsion for theocracy of every stripe.*

Ever since 9-11-2001 I’ve been saying that Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialists would lose access to the public purse because it is a religion, while the war against Islam could be fought as a political movement.

Tweaking Trump​
*Perhaps Trump is convinced he can talk Americans into fighting for Christianity because the Chicago sewer rat forced Americans NOT to fight their enemies. If Trump does believes that he better come up with a plan to defeat another religion that is infinitely more dangerous than Islam —— Socialism/Communism. He can start with this:*

Frankly, the way things are stacking up it looks like worldwide Socialism is taking the best of it. Socialists cannot be unhappy about Christians and Muslims killing each other. Us poor schmucks in the middle who do not want to see any religion win, including Socialism/Communism, are getting all the worst of it.

*XXXXX*​ 
 p.s.  As I’ve said many times, I have no objection to killing priesthoods who want to kill me, but it makes no sense for a free people to surrender their freedoms by replacing one religion with another, and that includes Socialism-cum-global-government. 

Muslims Made Occupation Obsolete​


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

Flanders said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly Cruz is toxic to American Democracy for anyone that knows what is going on.
> ...



If you don't understand the difference between _direct_ Democracy, and _representative_ Democracy, I can't help you. 

My post was concerned with fascism and the Deep State.  That is what Cruz is a part of.  Apparently you are too partisan to educate yourself about these things.


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> > If I am reading Trump correctly he thinks he can make the country great again without any help from the U.S. Constitution.
> ...


Real Churches DO NOT seek 501c3 status.  

Major denominations are in Caesar's Grip.  The only way to be eligible for the first Amendment protections is to not incorporate.  If that is the case, then yes, Churches can do anything they like.  They can preach, run for office, do anything they like, and remain tax exempt.

I'm done with you.  I have no idea where you get your idea.  You are either a shill of the Deep State or you watch too much TV.



*501c3 issues*
Church and State - and the IRS
501c3 issues
And these are the facts, according to Barbara Ketay, as to what a 501c3 church corporation is by lawful state definition: 


The creator of a corporation is the State.
The State is the sole authority and sovereign head over the corporation.
The corporation is subject to the laws of the State which limits its powers.
The corporation has no constitutionally protected rights.
The corporation is an artificial person.
The corporation submits to a State Charter declaring it is a creature of the State.
The corporation is created for the benefit of the public.
The corporation is a State franchise.
The corporation is a privilege granted by the State. 
Just to make it clear Barbara Ketay, makes the issue disturbingly personal:


·The creator of your church is the State. 

·The State is the sole authority and sovereign head over your church. 

·Your church is subject to the laws of the State which limits its powers.

·Your church has no constitutionally protected rights. 

·Your church is an artificial person. 

·Your church submits to a State Charter declaring it is a creature of the State. 

·Your church is created for the benefit of the public, not the membership.

·Your church is a State franchise (i.e. an agent of the state).

·Your church is a privilege granted by the State, (which privilege can be taken away by an act of the State, at any time).

501c3 Church Incorporate and Start a Church


----------



## Flanders (Apr 28, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> I'm done with you.


*To MisterBeale: Make it permanent. Put me in your filter.*


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

Flanders said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > I'm done with you.
> ...


Well, done for now.  


I'll watch your B.S. and make sure you are not propagandizing unsuspecting millennials.

I don't put anyone on a filter.  Only socialists, commies, monarchists, and idiots do that.


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

BTW, you might be interested in this;

*The Perestroika Deception*
Articles: The Perestroika Deception

_The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep.  So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record...The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction.  They will leap at another chance to be friends.
 - Dimitri Manuilski, Prof. at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow, 1930[1]_

The second facet of the "perestroika deception" has been to engineer a "peaceful transition to socialism" in the US by way of a manufactured economic crisis.  Soviet manuals from the seventies outline this dimension in some detail.  In 1974, Alexander Sobolev of the Moscow Institute of Marxism-Leninism developed the means by which a "peaceful revolutionary process" could take place.  To do this, Sobolev stressed the need for a "nationwide political crisis" to be followed by "effective measures to neutralize wavering social strata."  It was Lenin himself that said, "A revolution is simply impossible without an overall national crisis."

The aim was to co-opt well-meaning Democrats in Congress into advancing a "peaceful transition to socialism" in the wake of US economic collapse.  Why the Democrats?  

Do not underestimate the knowledge of a political scientist good sir.


----------



## CityBoy (Apr 28, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...




Gee  wiz I never knew that..........Being so well informed about those details never mentioned in MSM can you direct me to some sites that provide the real scoop on things?


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

CityBoy said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Flanders said:
> ...


Sure.






_Cruz undoubtedly would agree with Kissinger on trade. He says in the below video that he is for "fast tracking" trade agreements and supports Obama doing same. Apparently Cruz cares little about American jobs, and even less about American sovereignty.
_






Everything you need to know is in the following article.  Well, not everything.  But enough to not vote for him. 

 It is also my belief, as I posted from post #5, Cruz is a member of the *Deep State*, just like Hillary Clinton is.  
This can be discerned by his connections, i.e. Goldman Sachs, Chertoff Group, etc.   This is mostly due to what his wife and friends are up to.  You judge a man by the company he keeps.  First it is about getting powerful, then it is about getting rich.

If you are not familiar with that term, or need more clarification, just ask.


*Ted Cruz, Henry Kissinger & the Globalists*
Ted Cruz, Henry Kissinger & the Globalists - Freedom Outpost

(Just an aside, now he says he is against the TPP, but not because it is against America's interests, he says he is against it for some other litigious reason. (The export/important bank.  It's too complicated to get into here.  But look into it if you are curious.)  The point is, he is a disingenuous globalist.)


----------



## CityBoy (Apr 28, 2016)

Could u please tell me w3hat this all has to do with the Constitution....
That I'll talk about....

But stuff above I have no interest in the subject you posted about... as in been there done that


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 28, 2016)

CityBoy said:


> Could u please tell me w3hat this all has to do with the Constitution....
> That I'll talk about....
> 
> But stuff above I have no interest in the subject you posted about... as in been there done that


Basically, what it has to do with, is the subversion of national law to a supranational law.

If you ask any person living in the EU, how do you feel about laws in the EU being supreme to your national laws, other than the UK, (in the UK, British law is still supreme in most areas,) a lot of citizens are unhappy about EU economic laws being supreme.

Elites are trying to make a NAU here.  In order to do this, they first need to weaken federalism here in the US.  That would mean significantly weakening State law, making the Constitution subservient to a new international order.

The NAU.

Cruz is more than amiably to this.  You know this, Flanders knows this, I know this.  It means ditching the Constitution when it is in the interest of global and intentional corporate elites.  Should the Congress and the Constitution be the last word on trade?  Or should the NAU be the last word on trade?

How long to you think the dollar will be viable?  When it collapses, which politicians will try to re-float it and fix the American economy, and which politicians will look for the destroyed system as an excuse to internationalize the monetary system?  Actions speak louder than words.

Can You Handle the Truth? Ted & Heidi Cruz and the North American Union


----------



## Flanders (Apr 29, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Flanders knows this,


*To MisterBeale: Flanders knows this:*


Flanders said:


> Cruz Taps Fiorina as Running Mate, Cheers Her Respect For Constitution





Flanders said:


> Ted Cruz defended the Constitution against his own party.





MisterBeale said:


> I know this.


*To MisterBeale: Talking points is the only thing you know.*


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 29, 2016)

Flanders said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Flanders knows this,
> ...


The Constitution hasn't been in effect since September of 2001, THAT's what makes Cruz's rhetoric SO disingenuous.

COG was implemented days after September 11, 2001 and has not ended since.  

It has been renewed every year hence, with the knowledge of the legislative branch, making the actions of congress, and the power of the Constitution, naught but window dressing.

Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks


----------



## CityBoy (Apr 29, 2016)

MisterBeale said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> > Flanders said:
> ...


----------



## regent (Apr 29, 2016)

I understand Trump is busy at this time writing the new Constitution. He has complained it takes a long time with his little delicate hands.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 30, 2016)

The op wants America to be a third world shit hole that doesn't lead in shit. Period. This is the problem with being 240 years out of date.


----------



## Flanders (May 1, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The op wants America to be a third world shit hole that doesn't lead in shit. Period. This is the problem with being 240 years out of date.


*To Matthew: Third World shit holes were shit holes centuries before Columbus landed. They remained shit holes throughout centuries of colonization by advanced European nations. They will remain shit holes regardless of colonization in the name of democracy.

NOTE: Slaughtering shit hole inhabitants is the only way the New World Order can eliminate Third World shit holes —— which is exactly what population controls is designed to do.

Our government’s only “global” responsibility is to improving the standard of living Americans enjoy. You and your kind preach a sick moral responsibility at the same time you bring in millions of pieces of shit from the shit holes without improving their homelands one iota.

Incidentally, spiritual leaders like that filthy sack of shit in the White House brought this country closer to becoming a shit hole in seven years, while it took centuries for primitive shit hole governments to do the same thing.*


----------



## mak5 (May 3, 2016)

He doesn't know it and he doesn't care.


----------



## MisterBeale (May 3, 2016)

mak5 said:


> He doesn't know it and he doesn't care.


He's probably as familiar with it as he is the Bible.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 3, 2016)

Both Trumpery and CrazyCruz have demonstrated their disdain for the US Constitution. 

Trumpery has said he would gut the first and fifth amendments.

Reading CrazyCruz's voting record will give you the chills. He is in favor of sharia law and of stealing people's paychecks. 

They're different sides of the same fascist coin.


----------



## Skylar (May 5, 2016)

Flanders said:


> ​
> *This is the sweetest music this side of heaven:*
> 
> “My opponent in this race, Donald Trump–like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders–looks to government as the solution to every problem,” Cruz said. “Carly knows from decades in the business world … where jobs come from, and she respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”​
> ...



I think a better question is; where is Trump on the constitution *today*. 

As the man waffles more than Belgium.


----------



## DGS49 (May 6, 2016)

I see nothing in this thread, posted by the originator or anyone else, that even remotely relates to Trump's views on the Constitution.

What am I missing?


----------



## Flanders (May 6, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> I see nothing in this thread, posted by the originator or anyone else, that even remotely relates to Trump's views on the Constitution.
> 
> What am I missing?


*To DGS49: My thread was posed as a question so anybody could answer to their own satisfaction. I did offer a partial analysis in the OP:*

To date, Trump talked about the country, while he never gave any indication that he understands how the Constitution made the American people great. If I am reading Trump correctly he thinks he can make the country great again without any help from the U.S. Constitution.​


----------



## Skylar (May 6, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> I see nothing in this thread, posted by the originator or anyone else, that even remotely relates to Trump's views on the Constitution.
> 
> What am I missing?



That his constitutional views are ephemeral and based largely on his mood on any given day.


----------



## I amso IR (May 6, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The op wants America to be a third world shit hole that doesn't lead in shit. Period. This is the problem with being 240 years out of date.
> ...



Flanders, you are beginning to upset me. Will you please say what you believe and feel?  As you are well aware, a ten trillion dollar annual budget for NASA is all Matthew asks for.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 7, 2016)

I want my federal government to have enough power to do the will of the people that elects them. This idea that we should have a powerless federal government is really baseless on reality.


----------



## Flanders (May 7, 2016)

I amso IR said:


> Flanders, you are beginning to upset me. Will you please say what you believe and feel? As you are well aware, a ten trillion dollar annual budget for NASA is all Matthew asks for.


*To I Amso IR: Perhaps you should say what you believe and feel? I cannot tell if you are serious!*


Matthew said:


> I want my federal government to have enough power to do the will of the people that elects them.


*To Matthew: Spoken like a confirmed parasite. The flaw in your argument becomes apparent when the parasites outnumber the producers. Sadly, every generation breeds legions of fools and parasites who believe a benign totalitarian government is possible.*

Finally, parasites feasting at the public larder had more to do with bringing down every civilization, every empire, every country, every culture, than did any other factor.  America will be no different.​ 
Pigs Will Fly Before Parasites Become Producers


----------



## I amso IR (May 7, 2016)

Flanders said:


> I amso IR said:
> 
> 
> > Flanders, you are beginning to upset me. Will you please say what you believe and feel? As you are well aware, a ten trillion dollar annual budget for NASA is all Matthew asks for.
> ...



Flanders, I was not serious at all, rather just bafooning on your seriousness. It is called taking no prisoner(s). I had hoped my 10 trillion dollar annual budget remark would help out. Actually, Matt only wants 7 or 8 billion a year. I simply hyped it a tad. Don't we wish we had a few billion to lay on space travel?  It is right around the corner in the next 50/100 years. Just think, an earth built space ship, moving at near light speed, hitting a small speck of dust! Opp's, now a big cloud of dust! Worse it will happen on the trip home.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 7, 2016)

“My opponent in this race, Donald Trump–like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders–looks to government as the solution to every problem,” Cruz said. 

Straw man fallacy – Cruz is a liar, as Trump, Clinton, and Sanders believe no such thing.

Cruz quitting the race was music the America’s ears.


----------



## I amso IR (May 7, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> I see nothing in this thread, posted by the originator or anyone else, that even remotely relates to Trump's views on the Constitution.
> 
> What am I missing?



Trumps views on the Constitution?


----------



## Stephanie (May 7, 2016)

too bad none of you worried about that with Obama. it doesn't matter anymore. Obama showed how someone can break the laws, break our constitution with EO, Memorandums, government agencies making rules without our representation of our congress,  etc and not a thing was said by the people in this country.

just start learning to say: yes masters


----------



## Flanders (May 8, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> too bad none of you worried about that with Obama.


*To Stephanie: I did. *


----------



## Stephanie (May 8, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > too bad none of you worried about that with Obama.
> ...


very good dear but we needed all the people.


----------



## Flanders (May 8, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> very good dear but we needed all the people.


*To Stephanie: Unrealistic. *


----------



## mak5 (May 8, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I want my federal government to have enough power to do the will of the people that elects them. This idea that we should have a powerless federal government is really baseless on reality.


That is the point of the Constitution.  To keep the Federal government from getting into areas that do not fall within its jurisdiction, to prevent mob rule, and to protect the rights of the states and individuals.  A government that would do "the will of the people" would ban unpopular views, prevent your ability to defend yourself, create a state religion, etc., all of the things the Founders wanted to prevent.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 14, 2016)

Flanders said:


> Flanders said:
> 
> 
> > If I am reading Trump correctly he thinks he can make the country great again without any help from the U.S. Constitution.
> ...


Dear Flanders I agree with your statements somewhat. In that I would argue that Constitutionalism, is a political belief in limited govt. And so are Democratic platforms on believing health care is a right, abortion is a choice, and same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. None of these beliefs as creeds should be treated preferentially or punished for conflicts with others, but if right to life is kept out of govt so should right to health care be voluntary and practiced by free choice.

Do you want to help coauthor a resolution declaring political beliefs as creeds? And demanding mediation and correction to laws and ruling 's that establish beliefs that are faith based.

Thanks Flander!


----------



## Flanders (Jun 14, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Flanders I agree with your statements somewhat. In that I would argue that Constitutionalism, is a political belief in limited govt. And so are Democratic platforms on believing health care is a right, abortion is a choice, and same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. None of these beliefs as creeds should be treated preferentially or punished for conflicts with others, but if right to life is kept out of govt so should right to health care be voluntary and practiced by free choice.


*To emilyngheim: Limited government was codified in the Constitution. Democrat beliefs is a political agenda that forces those beliefs on people who disagree. Worse still, Democrats use tax dollars to force everybody to fund their beliefs. *


emilynghiem said:


> Do you want to help coauthor a resolution declaring political beliefs as creeds? And demanding mediation and correction to laws and ruling 's that establish beliefs that are faith based.


*To emilyngheim: Asking me those questions is absurd in light of:*

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .​
*The only flaw in the excerpt is that the Founders could not envision the public purse paying for political causes.

Put it in perspective this way:

Islam should be legally defined as a political movement which it is, while Socialism/Communism should be defined as a religion which it is. In that way both are denied First Amendment protection. In short: Socialism violates the First Amendment because it is a religion implementing the tax collector’s morality, while Islam is NOT entitled to First Amendment protection because it is a political movement.*


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 14, 2016)

Flanders said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Flanders I agree with your statements somewhat. In that I would argue that Constitutionalism, is a political belief in limited govt. And so are Democratic platforms on believing health care is a right, abortion is a choice, and same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. None of these beliefs as creeds should be treated preferentially or punished for conflicts with others, but if right to life is kept out of govt so should right to health care be voluntary and practiced by free choice.
> ...


Okay so since the IRS allows a box to be checked for donations to political campaigns, why not set up boxes where social programs can be opted into by party. So if you agree to fund benefits welfare and health care by liberal policies you can check Democrat and manage your resources through that, if you believe in free market you check Republican. Etc.

Could we use this to separate beliefs by platform of choice?

Or should it be done by tax deduction? The parties each set up private programs for their members, you donate or invest,  then write it off?

Note Flanders some ppl make Constitutionality a political religion some do not. Same with Christians who stay out of pushing agenda thru govt. And Zionists who do combine church and state agenda. Islamist combine religion with govt, nation of Islam gets political, but many Muslims don't so their beliefs are different than the Islamic politics that impose and oppress


----------



## Flanders (Jun 14, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Okay so since the IRS allows a box to be checked for donations to political campaigns, why not set up boxes where social programs can be opted into by party. So if you agree to fund benefits welfare and health care by liberal policies you can check Democrat and manage your resources through that, if you believe in free market you check Republican. Etc.
> 
> Could we use this to separate beliefs by platform of choice?
> 
> ...


*To emilyngheim: The public purse should never be involved in anything except necessary government that benefits everybody; the judicial system, the military defending the country, etc. So here is a better idea:

Repeal the XVI Amendment. Everybody could then donate to anything they please. As a matter of fact organized religions did that before 1913 —— when America was the envy of the world. Today, organized religions get tens of millions from taxpayers in violation of the First Amendment, but nowhere near the amount the Socialist religion rakes in. 

If your suggestion is implemented the entire Democrat party agenda would evaporate overnight without coerced tax dollars because nobody with a lick of sense would voluntary give a penny to Socialism regardless of how a program is sold. 

You should work on your suggestion because the result is a consummation devoutly to be wished. *


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 14, 2016)

Flanders said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Okay so since the IRS allows a box to be checked for donations to political campaigns, why not set up boxes where social programs can be opted into by party. So if you agree to fund benefits welfare and health care by liberal policies you can check Democrat and manage your resources through that, if you believe in free market you check Republican. Etc.
> ...


Thank you Flanders you remind me of Steve Stockman when I called and asked him on air what if both parties had to pay for their own programs. He laughed and said simple, liberals would turn into conservatives overnight!
(A friend at work added all wars would end if ppl had to send their own sons and pay the costs themselves , and not rely on other ppls sons or tax dollars.)

The way it could work is to set it up as a school. Let the Democrats take on the job of fixing their own prisons, schools and health care programs, using restitution from drug and human trafficking to convert prisons and sweatshops into educational service and housing facilities as a campus.

The Republicans can be in charge of reforming the VA and setting up military hospitals and bases along the border. Then let investors and taxpayers choose where to invest, lend or donate money for tax breaks. Workers and shareholders can claim ownership as collateral on loans. Ppl with prison or trafficking recirds, or certain politicians and officials who owe restitution or penalties can pay back taxpayers by investing in the campus programs to replace welfare and turn prisons and mental health wards into teaching hospitals providing medical education and training in exchange for serving in public health.

So the Democrats who owe for constitutional violations, such as ACA that cost trilions paid to private insurance and 24 billion over the govt shutdown over the bill, can raise money or lend credit to pay back by building universal single payer for members under this party plan.

And Republicans can raise trillions to pay back any illicit war spending that we all agree is better spent helping vets who still suffer the consequences of serving overseas .

Sound like a plan?

Why not ask candidates to set up teams, plans and budgets for this conversion  to audition for office? Campuses like this would provide training for any leaders who want to serve in business, law, or govt. So Republicans can mentor Democrats in Constitutional self governance and get tax breaks while choosing where to invest loans that are secure and paid back, instead of being forced to pay for endless handouts wasting taxes.

Even the gap in time while funds are assessed collected and reimbursed to taxpayers can be managed by a credit system, holding the programs property and land as collateral valued at t he cost of the debt and the jobs it will take to repair the damage done by crime and corruption.

Taxpayers should form a union, and lobby both parties collectively to reimburse all the costs deemed unconstitutunal. Issue notes against these debts to set up jobs and schools to reform govt. back to standard, and either charge the account to wrongdoers to pay back over time plus interest and legal fees, or sell their shares to citizens and investors to own the programs and property. The govt can pay the taxpayers to rent office space where we hire them, not vice versa where they control our taxes for these social programs. Turn the tables on govt, and take back charge!


----------



## regent (Jun 16, 2016)

When they wrote the Constitution they made a much stronger government with considerably more power. It was basically a liberal document for that period based on the Age of Enlightenment.


----------

