Posted on 11/11/2014 8:15:13 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
The fury that will rise in coming weeks will forge an opportunity for a ‘common sense counterrevolution’.
As people fester with impotent rage, we have a golden opportunity that another group of conservatives had. Remember the New Deal? It was not as popular as reported. FDR inspired the ‘Term Limit’ amendment. Congress also passed legislation to prevent packing of the courts, but that too could probably have been a constitutional amendment as well.
For starters, we could suggest a constitutional amendment for an ‘Excoriation Hearing’ of the Obama Administration, Lois Lerner, anti-originalist ‘justices’, Jamie Gorelick, Bill Ayers, the Fred Phelps activists [God-hates-bleeps], NAMBLA, ACORN, the KKK, skinheads, US Nazis, Black Panthers, New Black Panthers, La Raza, re Conquista zealots, the ACLU, FAnnie/FReddie, the credit rating agencies that deceitfully stamped ‘AAA’ ratings on bad debt, fraudsters who funnelled tax money into corrupt schemes, the most radical Islamic fanatics of our nation, the ‘carbon credit’ fraudsters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, US flag descecrators, zealot prosecutors who agitated the maximum sentence of the Philly 5, and last but not least — SOROS and his operatives.
Part of this amendment could also involve investigations [by the states] of all the latest, most outrageous scandals.
[They felt safe and smug all this time, and now we can snag them in a bear trap.]
People will call it ‘McCarthyism’. Let them try. Only a creep would publicly defend ANY of those hideous creatures noted above. So let the Far Left kill itself and run off the cliff like lemmings in defense of NAMBLA [as just one example].
Besides, we're not talking about ‘narrow majority’ tyranny but rather a constitutional amendment would require THREE out of FOUR states to support it. If three out of four of our states are evil, then we're lost as a nation anyway [as Mark Levin says]. So what sensible person wants us to be paralyzed in fear of 3/4ths of the states?
And I believe that three out of four WILL support some manner of this idea [probably a humdrum spin-off unfortunately]. And when the overwhelming uber-majority of states support an excoriation hearing, let's see which congress critters object to the idea. And let's see which members of the Ruling Class try to hide behind congressional rules [which can be suspended with the low bar of a simple majority].
The STATES can manage this hearing collectively and judiciously, and the verdicts can be creative and ribald hazings. But make no mistake — people don't want conventional trials with all the legal baggage that goes with it. In our hearts every patriot among us yearns for subjective common sense to win the day for a change!
I for one would like a trailer park for the wealthiest of these people to live for six months [or even two months] where no trailer may be approved without mandatory seediness [including the justices who supported the Kelo ruling].
Here's an another example of what kind of creative excoriations might result:
I would also like to see Fred Phelps and his other military-funeral-trashing minions hazed by the US military. I yearn to see an M1 Abrams tank roll through their infernal church in a demolition frenzy. I would like our military to have the right to one day urinate on Fred Phelps’ grave [after his natural demise]. But that's just me — I'd support going a long way to boost their morale.
And now to address the ‘O’ word, and I don't mean President Ebola. We can avoid the mistakes of Athenian ‘ostracism’ by understanding what went wrong with them.
Excoriation will remind America and the Free World who the Boss of a republic really is and who the servants really are.
And more importantly ...
We can call for more positive constitutional amendments as well, ways to restore prosperity and patriotism like never before! [And I already outlined a BUNCH of them.]
Excoriation really isn't my idea. It dates back to ancient Athens and even before history was ever written. They are the ideas of our forefathers who used to tar and feather people. They ran people out on a rail, and they even lynched people.
Hot tar is excruciating torture which I do not recommend. But I would support a sticky syrup and feathers along with pelting these creeps with rotten vegetables.
I also do not recommend the death penalty for excoriation either — only a legal criminal trial should bring such a fate.
... But ...
I could support some yelping, feathery fool with his head partially shaved wearing goggles with his legs hobbled trying to escape people armed with springy switches.
Spare the rod and spoil the tyrant.
D.C. Republicans will ridicule this idea. Fine. We don't need them, and please don't retaliate. This is simply too bold for them to handle. Let them pummel us with words while we spread the idea online and by phone, and set our sites on key state governors and legislators.
Bold ideas are just as important as common sense. We need people to jump from their seats and cheer. They need to feel like real citizens again with votes that matter. This will be distasteful for many traditionalists, but until you tap into the live wire of outrage, you will never achieve anything meaningful.
Now we can unleash these ideas during this time of turmoil and impotent rage.
There's a difference between us and the Left — we deliberate bold changes with greater care. But if there was ever a time to think bold thoughts, it's NOW.
Please consider this common sense counterrevolution.
Posts coming up will be to review:
1. Athenian Ostracism, the Diamond in the Rough.
2. Why Impeachment is a Broken System.
3. Why I am ‘the messenger’ of these ideas.
The Framers purposely avoided the temptation to draft a code of laws. High crimes mean today what it meant in 1787.
Does that mean I can’t use it anymore?
That is my understanding. It’s like copying an article.
Thanks.
It’s a very cool picture. Given that it was the Santa Monica Mountains, it’s probably hard sandstone, so they’d probably cut it up with a backhoe. I’m amazed it held together upon impact.
Here’s an idea I had: an alternate 2nd Amendment.
A large number of armed men willing to protect it being necessary to the survival of this Constitution, neither the executive, the legislative, or the judicial branch of the United States government, nor any branch of any government of any of the several states, nor of any city, town, county, parish, territory, district, or any other body, or any unelected employee of any of these bodies, shall pass any law, issue any edict, or take any action of any kind that has, whether as an intended or an unintended consequence, any restriction on, interference with, or effect of any kind on the manufacture, import, sale, transfer, possession, or bearing on one’s person of any firearm of any description, or the ammunition, components, spare parts, or any other appurtenances thereto. Congress shall pass legislation mandating criminal penalties for violations of these provisions, and those penalties shall include but shall not be limited to loss of citizenship. This law shall apply to all persons occupying any position in any government at any level.
The term “firearm” means any weapon now in existence, any new technology that may render any of these obsolete, and any technology that in turn renders these new weapons obsolete, and thus forward in perpetuity.
Glad you like it.
“High crimes” might be interpreted more correctly than ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. But it’s apparently not a “high crime” to obstruct justice to the point that senators weep when reading about it [Clinton impeachment], nor is rading 800 FBI files for black mail a ‘high crime’.
Yes, DC should push forward anyway. But we need a contingency plan for removal as well.
I agree with the idea of strengthening the 2nd amendment short of machine guns, armed felons, etc. And states will insist on certain restrictions regardless of what we recommend.
But people will definitely plant the following flags that states will bow to:
— Removing ‘F’ from the ATF. [If not something more strident.
— No tax on guns.
— No excessive fees for gun registration.
— Safeguards to prevent federal registration database.
— No tax on ammo.
BUT — we also need states to have the power to taint and remove anti-constitution justices, such as a number of ‘surpreme’ court justices:
Sotomayor joined with ‘Justices’ Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg when they dissented against gun rights in McDonald v Chicago. The Bill of Rights clearly states: “shall not be infringed”. The Founders’ intention is indisputable [regarding gun rights].
We can remove ‘for a well trained militia’ from the 2nd amendment and leave it more clear: “The right to bear arms shall not be federally infringed, shall not be taxed, and shall not result in any fees to gun owners by any government, and states will be strictly limited to how they regulate firearms according to the following manual xxx written by xxx.”
The manual would include:
“... machine guns, armed felons, etc. ...”
[States will hash that out regardless of what we suggest.]
“The Framers purposely avoided the temptation to draft a code of laws. High crimes mean today what it meant in 1787.” — Jacquerie
o o o o
Judicious response, but not a solution.
Today’s reality: The Constitution is already ‘codified’ by supporters of centralized government.
And this is the congress that will keep President Ebola in check?
Boehner Promises Amnesty Like Election Never Happened (Tells Obama “Do What You Gotta Do”)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3226909/posts
[ ... now the senate ... ]
Mitch McConnell unanimously reelected Senate Republican leader
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3226558/posts
. . . . .
That’s why I am calling for a three-part plan:
1. Support Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.
2. Support impeachment and congressional purse string tightening.
3. Refuse to wait-and-hope for EITHER — call for states to excoriate and neuter DC.
And the the current ‘supreme’ Court already looks at us as ‘bitter clingers’. For example:
Supreme Court lifts hold on gay marriage in Kansas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3226402/posts
That’s judicial activism — there is no traditional definition of ‘gay marriage’ let alone any natural law that supports it. The federal courts have NO enumerated power to legislate new definitions and modern legal codes. But despite that, most of them actually BELIEVE they are accurately interpreting the ‘breathing document’ as they call it due to the rat-maze of progressive court precedent and modern ‘education’.
[I’ll next explain why ‘higher’ education has trouble digesting bold conservative change.]
People stayed on the ‘straight-and-narrow’ back then.
When those moral and ‘small federal power’ underpinnings were corrupted, Marxist professors enjoyed a century of indoctrination opportunities. This includes cult-like alienation from traditional values, such as murder of the unborn, fornication, divorce-on-demand, normalizing perversion, being ‘citizens of the world’, being ‘too wise to restrict one’s political view to the Founding Fathers’, etc. These are wedges against our forefathers’ clear understanding of the US success story that began to rot after President Taft [when Teddy R. drove a wedge between conservatives].
As strange as it sounds, college education gets in the way of pondering solutions because it is deeply flawed. We now need creativity to unite with ‘small government’ scholars.
. . . . .
Empathizing with our Best Legal Minds
Today's only ‘legal creativity’ is tyranny by activist-judges. It is so deeply ingrained that the heroic side of our legal culture has been conditioned to despise ‘creative’ law. This means that they will be deeply uncomfortable with rapid change. That is also why they cling so desperately to ‘court precedent’. So do not be surprised if they are resistant.
Law reform is exciting to most people, but it's terrifying to most ‘small government’ scholars. We must remember that conforming to precedent is how they were educated. [Education reform is something else we will work on.]
They devoted their lives to this career and often hate the outcomes of bad precedent, convinced that they had no real choice. Their world was forged by leftists and they have trouble imagining it any other way. We should be patient with them.
. . . . .
Legal scholars and state legislators alike could study a few anti-central-power manuals much more easily than the breathing, vague spasms of modern mainstream ‘constitutional’ law. In fact, such manuals would be easier to WRITE than to study modern interpretation.
. . . . .
We need to move forward with a BOLD contingency plan that puts the entire federal government on a short leash in anticipation of congressional and judicial dereliction of duty.
Every time that contingency plan moves forward — pressure will grow, and congress might get feebly ‘decisive’ for a change.
But a band aid has a better chance of curing gangrene than Bone-head or tea party enemy McConnell have of curing our nation's ills.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the people are armed as necessary to throw off tyranny—which is to say, as necessary to fight a modern army.
The prohibition against private ownership of fully automatic weapons is a gross breach of our God-given right to defend our lives and liberty.
Further, given that criminals obtain these weapons virtually without let or hindrance, these laws are useless even to public safety in peacetime.
Don’t forget what the Founding Fathers saw, when they looked at the Europe of their day: where the people are not armed, the people are afraid; where they are, the government is afraid.
Bookmark
Add me to the list. I tend to be a pessimist, but I would love to hear what people have to say.
Welcome aboard! I tend to help pessimists. I used to be a cynical leftist myself.
Been working on an ‘Under God’ amendment. Texas should be an inspiration on the history educaiton front.
FRegards ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.