What do you think?

[Hardballer]

Well, I hope you can find these shining examples of human kind. Your correct, we do need to elect honorable, ethical, freedom loving people to serve us. Right now, the only people who have a chance to get elected are millionaires and lawyers.

I don't see much chance of that changing anytime soon.

Please, and I know this is tedious, but please explain to me how you are going to get the sheeple to go along with this kind of thinking. Honorable and ethical is; generally speaking, diametrically opposed to stealing from those who have, to give to those who have not. And with good reason.

How do you get past the Libtard media lap dogs of the left. How do you do this. (A breeze blows through an empty hall and a shutter can be heard clapping in burgeoning silence.) How do you get your word out? How do you rally those who were stupid enough to be sucked in by the Obysmal in the first place and many who are still holding to their choice.

How do you do this in a land that is fundamentally different from the one you used to live in just 10 months ago. How do you unstack the cards that are against you.

These and many more questions like them need to be answered in your own mind and mine before I and many like me are convinced that the reset button can in fact be used here.

So much has been shoved down our throats that cannot be undone.

I don't know, I have not heard one "politician" who has even a ghost of an answer. Not a whisper. No immediate plans.

Hey, maybe in 50 years. . . .

You'll be around for that day won't you?

Edit:
P.S. I can tell you right now that the ballot box has not made any one accountable in some 200 plus years or we would not be where we are right now. Savy?

[Hardballer]

The ballot box is an illusion. If you want to change the way things are done, you have to take the power back from the elite few and give it to the people.

NO! You may not, under any circumstances increase your own pay. Period.

NO! You may not, under any circumstances accept a gift. Period.

NO! You may not, under any circumstances add to any bill unless it pertains to that bill directly. Period.

NO! You may not, under any circumstances make a career out of any political office. You are limited by law to a short fixed term. Period.

You get the point.

Explain to me how these ideas get voted into law. Oh, and before my grandson retires if you please.

Right.

I thought so.

Next.

[satellite66]

I agree it will not be easy. It did not happen overnight and it will not fix overnight. We just have to keep plugging. Teach your kids and don't just let the schools indoctrinate. Support the few candidates who do show integrity. Let those that don't know they are through. Work against them in your community.

[SaddleSarge]

No offense, but I'm trying danged hard to wrap my head around that we have the constitution, the best system of government, yet; no matter who is elected, they'll never be any damn good thus to be removed no matter. This is a dangerous thought process.

If that is the case, then the only recourse would be a totalitarian regime in which the constitution is forced down people's throats by those that believe in the constitution but take the vote and voice away from the people. Thus, a non-belief in the true words of the constitution and anti-constitutional.

I do believe that the 2010 election is going to be the tattle tale as to how serious the people are and will show all/tell all. But then, most of those would tell you they live in a true democracy and not a democratic republic.

[Hardballer]

Well, I'd say that, today, this day. It applies.

For the un-informed, we have a constitution that is ignored, sidestepped, twisted, warped, and nullified as seen fit by those in power today.

How did the last ten months happen?

How can this be happening with all these good guys we supposedly have watching out for us?

Like Beck says, give me 56 honorable, ethical, honest men and women and we'll make a difference. So far, he says he found one.

[dge479]

I would love to think that we could just elect new ones and clean things up. I do not know what to think though. I dont know that when I vote, it is really being countedor if the people who are in charge really are just puppets for what we get to see. So much shadowy stuff going on.

[satellite66]

What choice do we have? If we don't vote they win. If we vote without thinking they win. All we can do is do our homework and pray we picked well. If not we have to vote them out and start over. It really is not for us that we do this it is for our kids. They are the ones who will suffer if we just give up.

[Hardballer]

Vote, yes, vote!!! I am not advocating abandoning every thing. I am just trying to be realistic. I don't know the future but I have always believed it is best to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

So Vote away and hope your "politician" isn't lying to you/has the balls to stand tall.

But the real problem is that people just can't wrap their minds around changing the status quo.

Too many people just don't know what is going on. They are afraid of the future. They don't even know they have other options or are afraid to exercise other options.

I spoke to an person today that told me they hoped Obama would fix every thing Bush did to us so we could all be better off.

I did not say one word.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by SaddleSarge

No offense, but I'm trying danged hard to wrap my head around that we have the constitution, the best system of government, yet; no matter who is elected, they'll never be any damn good thus to be removed no matter. This is a dangerous thought process.

If that is the case, then the only recourse would be a totalitarian regime in which the constitution is forced down people's throats by those that believe in the constitution but take the vote and voice away from the people. Thus, a non-belief in the true words of the constitution and anti-constitutional.

I do believe that the 2010 election is going to be the tattle tale as to how serious the people are and will show all/tell all. But then, most of those would tell you they live in a true democracy and not a democratic republic.

You've nailed it again Sarge. Our constitution outlines the best system of government ever instituted by man.

It isn't the government structure we are in opposition to. It is the corrupt individuals whose philosophies arent consistent with our own, who try to read into the constitution what isn't there, or change it to suit their beliefs.

You know Sarge my first post on this thread suggested that what a revolution would mean in this country is to remove by force of arms those traitors to our ideals holding office. Through your comments and the comments of others on this thread, I think I am seeing what kind of revolution it is that we really want. We don't want to fight our patriots in the military, or those sworn to enforce the law and protect us. We must first choose our battles and then fight them in a way that preserves the principles we profess to believe.

Now what do we do if decent individuals dont step up and run for office. Can you have a revolt in such a way as to not damage the institution of government yet cut out the cancer that is our present congress and presidency.

The second problem is, if you believe in a democratic republic in which the people vote for their representatives, is it not hypocracy to forcefully remove those duly elected who are presently in office.

Another point about revolution. I know how to commit acts or war. I have a fair understanding of guerilla warfare, but how can I participate in acts of violence which kills my own innocent countrymen?

For example, Timothy McVeigh had an issue with the F.B.I. about Waco. So he bombed an F.B.I. building killing hundreds of innocent men , women, and children, including the F.B.I employees. Those agents are guilty of nothing more than defending the American people against criminals. His beef should have been with Janet Reno.

But then what does that leave us...assassination? Are we forced to a cowardly act which wont change anyones mind about policies?

We must find a way to defend the principles of the constitution without destroying the very structure it has provided. And we cant resort to cowardly criminal acts.

The only way I see for us to act is first to unite. Then take each issue as it comes. They attempt to take away our arms, we ban together all over the country, millions of armed citizens out in the streets, similar to the tea parties, and defying them to take any action. And we must find the courage to stand firm against whatever they throw against us. It will take true patriots to carry this off. But we must be UNITED. If we aren't they will pick us apart person by person, and strip away our rights. One armed man standing alone to face authorities attempting to take his guns will end up in prison or dead if he's lucky. But thousands, even millions standing together will send a clear message. They can only take from us what we don't have the will to defend.

If they want to shove socialized medicine down our throats we refuse to participate. Where possible we deny them the revenue taken from our earnings. There are ways to do this. Again it will take courage. One man alone is an income tax evader, who will be fined, prosecuted, and even jailed. United with others we are the owners of our country, keeping what rightfully belongs to us.

In other words we force those in government to yield to our demands by a show of unity, not by isolated acts of violence. Then we work as best we can to get the right people in office...we work to elect OUR people, who truly represent our ideals and the principles of our founders. We are the owners of our country and we must start acting like it. We fire our employees who aren't abiding by our rules, like any other employer would. We have to believe we can do this. Complacency is our enemy and our disbelief in our ability to achieve these things is our chains.

[SaddleSarge]

Runnin',

Absolutely in that not only do we elect them, WE have the power to recall them when they don't do what those that put them in office have asked of them to do, or NOT to do. The problem truly lays with those that elect and not with those elected. Because we put them there for a 4 year term, does not mean that they have to remain there for 4 years if they're a screw up. WE have to have the fortitude to say, strike three you're otta' there!

I truly do not think that our way of thinking is in the minority as witnessed by this current congress’s actions and responses, mild as of yet, but nonetheless a voice for the omnipotent to take heed of, lest they fall victim of themselves, only to blame it on the vast right winged conspiracy. Please!

For those that have never seen.....be it human or animal, there is an innate, primitive function that occurs to the being when it is in it's final death throws; a sometimes violent attempt to hang on to life.

I believe that in a much milder and comparable form, we are beginning to see that as those that would hold ‘us’ prisoner are losing the battle with the most enterprising, independent, God fearing and free men that the world has ever seen. We have been lulled into complacency by having it very good for quite some time. We need it rough for the appreciation to return.

The giant is just now BARELY beginning to stir. We are all different. Some wake at the slightest motion, others need a good shaking. We are just barely feeling the feather under our nose but it feels like a good shaking. It will take more for others, but they will eventually awaken. And, there will be always those who fight waking up or who will sleep through the earthquake. I cannot worry myself with those for they are lost.

We may have to endure some bad to get back to the good. Not unlike any other facet of life itself on her daily basis.

[Hardballer]

Will anyone please point out when any of this recall stuff has actually happened. Now would certainly be a good time for it. And then please describe how this will be done with some 6 to 700 individuals.

[Southern Boy]

How about all poloticians come equiped with 24 hr. tracking device, and microphone. {maybe shocking device as well} Allow every american internet acess to info. No closed door nothing, and every vote,decision,stand on all issues saved on web site. That would at least give us the info to know exactly how they govern. Then noone can regester anyone, you get regestration apps with your W-2 at the end of each year. Vote illegaly, get 10 years in prison busting rocks for the highway dept. Nevermind, We all seen the obummer history and voting record on the newschannels, and he was still elected.

[TAB]

After reading this thread, I find I have some comments on various suggestions. So, here goes:

Abolishing the Constitution and starting over? And do what? The best thing to replace it with is itself.

Update the 2nd Amendment to make the individual right it protects unquestionable by idiots who refuse to learn English grammar and construction.

Make the Constitution ironclad and not interpretable? The Constitution is very vague and nonspecific. It was purposely left to be interpreted. It is the shortest constitution in existence in the world and has been since its adoption. It is changeable, and specifies the method of change: Amendment. The problem is that special interests found amendment too difficult and discovered a way around it through judicial activism. To prevent this, we need an amendment requiring any new Constitutional interpretation by the courts to be confirmed by popular vote in the next national election. Until then, and afterwards if not confirmed, the interpretation would be applicable only on the case decided.

Congressional compensation: In the manner above, all changes increasing Congressional compensation must be approved by popular vote in the next national election before becoming effective. No currently serving member of congress would be eligible for the increase.

Term Limits: 2 terms for house, 1 for Senate and Vice President.

Change the popular election of Senators and restore the representation of state governments to Congress. One senator from each state to be elected by the legislature, one by popular vote.

Yes, any amendment to legislation must be pertinent to the stated purpose of the legislation. If not, give the President a line item veto.

Require a balanced budget. And, require all govt. expenditures to be on budget. You might be surprised how much money the govt. spends that is nowhere in the budget. And, no borrowing from specified reserves to finance other expenses (such as is done with Social Security).

Instead of having presidential candidates vetted by congress, have them vetted by the Supreme Court or a commission supervised by the Court. Supreme Court is non-elective and theoretically non-political. Congress and president have to work too closely together to have one vetting the other.

Supreme Court appointments to be approved by both houses.

Rather than require candidates to be educated in constitutional principals before running for office, require voters to be educated before voting. Or both. A constitutional literacy test is unconstitutional? Not if the amended Constitution requires it.

The House and Senate make their own rules as to how they operate. The single most effective charge would be for a 3rd party to control both houses, abolish the current rules which created the committee system and require each and every bill to be read and debated in full session open to the public. Yes, I know congress would not be able to get anywhere near as much done. This is a good thing.

That's all for now. More later.

[45nut]

Welcome to the forum and great first post TAB!

I see absolutely no problem with any of your salient points. In fact, I like them. Keep up the good job.

(smilies moved yet again:

)

[Hardballer]

I advocate taking back our Constitution and enforcing it. Period.

Now someone can explain to me how you do that with the current set of clowns in office or any future set of clowns.

Term limits. No lobbyists. No seven hundred dollar toilet seats or 1500 dollar hammers.

Oversight by regular folks. (yes we have the technology for those who want to be involved. Generally the same folks who go out and vote.) Not an oversight committee. Total transparency. No additions to bills. Period. No Pork. No self issued raises. If a servant is only going to be there for a short specified period of time, they don't need a $174,000.00 a year salary.

But wait, it does not stop there. The total salary expenditure is $1,345,962 (most years, the "reported" figure is over 2 Million.) For Russ Feingold in 2009 so far. 54 salaried assistants to the senator. This does not count ancillary expenses like paper clips or pencils etc. Oops, does not include junkets on taxpayer tab or martini lunches etc. So in 1789 a servant was paid 6 bucks a day of service. Today it is a lot cushier. Oh. . . multiply that figure by the number 535 (House and Senate) then double it and you might get a glimmer as to how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Did I say term limits? No career politicians.

[Terry_P]

I agree that term limits are a necessity, and truthfully the $1,500 toilet seats bother me a lot less than $85,000 in the freezer although that one is peanuts as well when you look at this one:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...-in-on-crisis/

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

Yes we need a constitutional amendment for term limits.

[momo]

Hardballer,

Here's the real problem, 47 percent of the population pay no income taxes. Another 20 percent pay in less than what they get out, that's 67 percent that get more than they put in. That means the other 33 percent are footing the bill for everybody else. Do you see any incentive for the 67 percent to change the way the Feds do business, neither do I. Sooner or later the system will implode because the percentage of people paying for it is getting smaller and smaller.

[Terry_P]

Those of us that are now taking out of the "system" via Social Security and retirement have just one question: What to hell did they do with the money we put in for 40 years?

As to those that pay no taxes and are here illegally, secure the borders, round up the illegals and send them home. That will be a huge plus to the system and then we can look at able bodied that are on welfare and give them the jobs the illegals had.

[Gun Geezer]

One problem I see is the liberal interpretation of the letter of the law as opposed to the constitutional interpretation of the spirit of the law. Any school kid knows what our founding fathers had in mind when they put their signatures to the greatest document since the Bible(the constitution). Now comes modern day politicians who dissect every word, explore meanings that may not have existed in 1776 and twist it to their benefit calling it the letter of the law. Oftentimes the results bear no resemblance to what a reasonable man would construe, but there it is. Nobody did it better than William Jefferson Clinton when he said under oath, "I didn't have sex with her!" It set a benchmark that politicians have consistently tried to raise ever since to suit their own needs. I fear it's too late to go back.

[TAB]

Originally Posted by Terry_P

Those of us that are now taking out of the "system" via Social Security and retirement have just one question: What to hell did they do with the money we put in for 40 years?

As to those that pay no taxes and are here illegally, secure the borders, round up the illegals and send them home. That will be a huge plus to the system and then we can look at able bodied that are on welfare and give them the jobs the illegals had.

Terry P,

Social Security is a pay as you go deal and always has been. Current benefits are paid from current income and surplus if any goes into the SS trust fund. Income has always exceeded outlays and was expected to do so until 2016. Due to the economy, it didn't last that long. This year, there is $10billion shortfall. Next year is expected to to be $9bil. The shortfall should be paid from the trust fund but...Congress has been borrowing from the trust fund for years because govt IOUs to itself are off budget. Bottom line is that SS is now broke and must be financed from other sources.

[TAB]

Originally Posted by Gun Geezer

One problem I see is the liberal interpretation of the letter of the law as opposed to the constitutional interpretation of the spirit of the law. Any school kid knows what our founding fathers had in mind when they put their signatures to the greatest document since the Bible(the constitution). Now comes modern day politicians who dissect every word, explore meanings that may not have existed in 1776 and twist it to their benefit calling it the letter of the law. Oftentimes the results bear no resemblance to what a reasonable man would construe, but there it is. Nobody did it better than William Jefferson Clinton when he said under oath, "I didn't have sex with her!" It set a benchmark that politicians have consistently tried to raise ever since to suit their own needs. I fear it's too late to go back.

Actually, the process probably started in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshal, in Marbury v Madison, found that the Supreme Court had the authority to determine the Constitutionality of a law or govt action. According the the Federalist Papers, it was intended that the President should determine constitutionality of laws before signing them and veto any that were unconstitutional. That was the primary purpose of the veto. But Marshal found something in the Constitution that wasn't there. Courts have been doing it ever since.

[Hardballer]

I don't think anyone gets what I am really saying here. I don't give a rat's. . . Well, you know, as to any of the crapola we're discussing here. To me, it is just the ideal if we set things up again.

If we vote in 2010 with a ballot, no matter how it ends up, we are just voting for the same stuff different day. It will be an utterly meaningless exercise in futility.

Unless we play hardball (read extreme) with ourselves, and the world, the US as you know it is done.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by Gun Geezer

One problem I see is the liberal interpretation of the letter of the law as opposed to the constitutional interpretation of the spirit of the law. Any school kid knows what our founding fathers had in mind when they put their signatures to the greatest document since the Bible(the constitution). Now comes modern day politicians who dissect every word, explore meanings that may not have existed in 1776 and twist it to their benefit calling it the letter of the law. Oftentimes the results bear no resemblance to what a reasonable man would construe, but there it is. Nobody did it better than William Jefferson Clinton when he said under oath, "I didn't have sex with her!" It set a benchmark that politicians have consistently tried to raise ever since to suit their own needs. I fear it's too late to go back.

I know what you are saying and agree. When dealing with liberals in the past I have found that they seem unable to debate logically, that is, their arguments are full of holes, and they refuse to acknowledge their errors when pointed out. It's as if they believe they can create their own reality. They follow this when discussing and interpreting the constitution.

That is why I believe the constitution should be amended to firm up the intent of the bill of rights, to ensure that the intentional misinterpretation of the constitution for political purposes would become impossible. For example make it clear that neither executives both federal or local, nor legislaters, nor courts may infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by any law abiding citizen.

[red14]

We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.
Thomas Jefferson

""As to those that pay no taxes and are here illegally, secure the borders, round up the illegals and send them home. That will be a huge plus to the system and then we can look at able bodied that are on welfare and give them the jobs the illegals had.""

This is where I think we should start. We have millions who are registered and do not vote. We have many millions more who don't even register. If we can mobilize those and kick out the aliens, we can start somewhere else.

They have the votes, some not even living, we need numbers. I think most of our problems stem from illegal aliens.

[TAB]

The US as we know it is done? Hmmm...The US, as I know it, changes. It always has because change is built into the Constitution. The 3 branches of govt. exist in a dynamic tension, like a triangle balanced on a pole with one branch at each apex. Never in equilibrium, one branch always a bit more powerful than the other, depending on which party controls. The two party system is not described in the Constitution, but is an almost inevitable evolution given the prevailing conditions at the time. Power swings from one to the other. keeping the triangle unbalanced. In practice, no party is ever likely to gain absolute control of all 3 branches for a significant period of time. The party that is out works harder to get back in, aided by the fact that Lincoln's rule holds: "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

The result is a system of government that itself is inefficient at consolidating power because it can't easily ignore or override the will of the people. The problem today is that too many of the people don't care to either express their will or just don't have any to express, so government is getting out of control. But we don't have a tyranny of government--the system is working as designed. We have a tyranny of apathy and our out-of-control government is just a symptom. Don't attack the symptoms, attack the cause.