The Great Purge

Hitler also loved dogs. That "quote" is probably a lie anyway.

Even if a real quote is that the best argument you can come up with the fact that even a lunatic understood the American constitution better than the D.S.s?

When was the Continental Congress? When did the first state organize as a State?

I thought so.

That is bullshiite through and through. The only reason the South rebelled was because of the Slavers fear that Lincoln's election would bring slavery to an end.

Your tariff argument is totally false and the tariff hurt farmers from the north as much as farmers from the South. Congress was controlled by the South years longer than it should have been by virtue of the Slavers getting extra representation for their slaves. Nevertheless Southern support for the tariff was consistent and only that support allowed the tariff to exist as it was.

The rest of your comment is just as much bullshiite as the above. War came because of the stupidity of the leaders of the Slavers and the ignorance of the rest of the Southern population, the peons willing to die for the aristocrats. War came because the idiot leaders of the cornfederacy split the democratic party in the election then threw a hissy fit like spoiled brats because their idiocy gave the election to an Abolitionist.

Hundreds of thousands died because of the ignorance and treachery of the Southern leaders. Traitors to a man. Hundreds of them should have been hanged after the war rather than allowed to reimpose the Reign of Terror on the freedmen.

You demonstrate no actual knowledge of history preferring to rely on cliches, slogans and the opinions of the ignorant and deluded. As regards my education, much of it came through private university study and being from the South I am well versed in the foolish and invalid arguments of the D.S.s.

Your opinion on the viability of the Most Powerful Nation in the history of the world is as irrelevent as your misinformation and falsehoods regarding its history and constitution.

My Nation's founders made no mistakes you could correct even if you were aware of them.

Most of those who whine about someone not being conservative enough don't know anything about it and cannot face the fact that maybe 5% would support what they believe.

Bush was the most conservative candidate who could have been elected and almost wasn't but that didn't stop the 1% Solution from whining and screeching every time he recognized reality and wasn't willing to be defeated for their ideological purity.

They are irrelevent and only interesting because of their barks when you kick their cage.

The Constitution clearly says it was created "By the People" not by the States. It was ratified by the People gathered in special conventions in states NOT by the States.

The States were never truly sovereign even under the Confederation. And they had fewer rights BY DESIGN under the constitution because of the states' threats to private property. States rights had almost destroyed the nation and made it necessary to enact a new constitution that would limit them even more.

States are a component of the federal system and only have sovereignty within the federal union. Like an arm without a body they are powerless and useless.

As for your class warfare rant. Perhaps you should review the class backgrounds of more candidates than the last two.

Clinton came from the middle class, Reagan from the lower class, Nixon middle class, Carter was not of the super rich, Ford was lower class, LBJ lower class. Dole, Mondale, Dukakis, Humphery, McGovern, None were rich men. Rockefeller may have been elected had he NOT been super rich. Kennedy, Roosevelt, Gore and the Bushes are anomalies not the rule.

Thus, your comment is not valid. Even those from the lowest classes can rise to the heights of power within the greatest nation in the history of the world. But they must have a history which exposes them to the public.

The delusion is in your camp not mine.

If the United States was any weaker you would be speaking German or Russian.

Most of the people in our past (except for Slavers and the rest of the Rich) had far less freedom than they do today. Only nostalgic fatasies obscure that fact.

Conservatives opposed freedom in 1776. When conservates resist needed change they are dangerous to freedom. Conservatives in 1861 resisted the expansion of freedom.

Your understanding of the meaning of freedom is as limited as your knowledge of American history. Probably because slogans are not very enlightening. And screwballs no guide to truth.

The conservative hostility to immanentizing the eschaton was just a fancy way of saying the civil rights movement was a bad thing. It's good that the slogan had bit the dust.

The Constitution set forth some broad parameters, and the institutions originally charged with enforcing and determining how it worked have been freely chosen by the American people. All in all, it has worked phenomenally over the centuries. When you consider that touchy isolationist parochialism was only barely workable in a preindustrial age America, your vision of what it should be today is the sheerest form of lunacy.

But, -- of course, -- we have no idea of what you consider this "vision" to be. - This is your lunacy.
-- Thus, your line about -- "touchy isolationist parochialism was only barely workable in a preindustrial age America", -- is sheer babblefish type bullshit, -- meaningless hype.

You and your loud students of the Constimatushun as you'd like to see it can't persuade people to elect them - so you threaten revolution and sedition in order to get your way, thereby violating the very document that you hypocritically claim to honor.

'We students' of the constitution shouldn't have to persuade 'your' people to honor its principles. - It is a very clearly written document, with easily understood basics.

'We' don't want your votes, we want you to let us live, and let live, under the constitutional rule of law.

Your claim that revolution is 'threatened' if you socialists persist in destroying our republic, -- is quite true. It would be wise to understand it is a promise, not a threat.

Conservatives are NOT in power. They have some powers, but can't guide the Senate.

It is a very clearly written document, with easily understood basics.

Nothing in it about isolationism.

Yes, he is a good conservative - maybe not as vocal and rabid as I am - and he is a pretty good golfer. I have marked the site and will get him to read it. It will be next week, however, we must go babysit granddarlings as daughter-in-law will be in the hospital for a week. I will let you know.

Yes, he is a good conservative - maybe not as vocal and rabid as I am - and he is a pretty good golfer. I have marked the site and will get him to read it. It will be next week, however, as we must go babysit granddarlings as daughter-in-law will be in the hospital for a week. I will let you know.

As for your class warfare rant. Perhaps you should review the class backgrounds of more candidates than the last two.

Well, I don't know if you misinterpreted my statement or I just wasn't plain. Of course, in the first place, I don't deal in 'class' warfare as I consider class to be matter of behavior and character - not money or social position.

I did not say that all politicians were rich - I am saying that elections are bought by rich people therefore, politicians are owned by rich men and unless you are rich - you do not matter.

Now President Bush is decidedly a wealthy man and so is Gore - but I think probably there are quite a few men in this country, and without, that have more money and more influence. It's not the candidates that have the money. When I said they had more money - I meant they had such huge war chests, they had family influence, and they had influence bought by their rich backers. As I said, perhaps you thought I meant they were using their own money to get elected - on the contrary - the fact they did not use their own money, makes them even more 'owned' and makes your voice, vote, or wants even more immaterial.

Now as to the constitution - the federal government literally has it's powers stated - period. The other powers are left to the states. The states are the people - not the federal government. The federal government actually has no constituents - or should not have. Now I realize I am old - but I don't think I am older than the constitution and unless it has been changed lately - it still reads that way to me.

The fact that 'states rights' was used in an improper way should not negate the people's right of self-government. If that were true, we would have rewritten and taken away every power of the federal government.. They are a constant threat to our property rights and most other rights we have when used improperly by people in power. The argument that because something was used in an improper way - it should be stricken from constitution, makes no sense. We wouldn't even have the few vestiges of the constitution we have left. Every, and I mean every part of the constitution has been misused many, many times - that doesn't mean we should just burn it and all 'make it up as we go along.' It seems,however, we can just ignore those things we don't like about the constitution or use any wrongdoing as an excuse to destroy it.

States rights or the people's right of self-government should not be taken away - but of course, it had to be to concentrate all the power in Washington and to make it virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to have any influence. Oh, yes, you can belong to the NRA or you can belong to AARP. By and large, those are single issue groups. But if you are concerned with the overall direction of the government you are, as the young people say SOL (So Out of Luck).

The only ordinary people in this country that can actually affect an election are the independents - they are the voters with the real power. If enough would vote their convictions a couple of times - maybe the polticians would wake up and pay attention.

We have always had political parties - but people were not 'married' to them. That is why the term 'yellow dog democrat' was such an insult. It literally meant you would vote for anything or anyone with the democratic name. It meant there were many people in this country that preferred one party or the other, but would vote with their conscience and for the best man. Now we have 'yellow dog democrats' and 'yellow dog republicans'. We come a long way (the wrong way) to get to this sad state of affairs.

There is still a chance to recover them politically:

I have to admit I have absolute zero interest in golf, so I couldn't force myself to read your linked article without falling asleep. Can you tell me how it relates to political recovery of rights?

And if we are willing to wait another ten years, the US will probably collapse and fragment into a number of smaller republics.

It's my understanding the US is already a collection of smaller republics called states (Article 4, US Const.).

The unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security and the other welfare programs will go parabolic beginning in 2012. By 2015, the political and economic pressures will be beyond bearable and insurmountable. I suspect that this could happen sooner if we experience a depression within the next year or two.

There's another article on the forum dealing with illegal aliens and SS number theft that brings up some interesting questions related to the future solvancy of the systems you mention.

It may be that more of our rights will be destroyed in the anything-goes effort to save the socialist systems linked to SS. Every politician believes that if SS crashes on his watch, his political career is over. If this speculation is true, you probably had best keep your bore swabbed and by more ammunition.

We don't need you - but you are desperate for our financial and organizational support, which your boys have completely tossed away. Buh-bye, now - don't let the door hit you on the way out.

But if Bush gets in trouble over the economy, you will certainly need our votes for Republicans:

"Buh-bye, now - don't let the door hit you on the way out."

"Nothing in it about isolationism"

Indirectly there were provisions against the possiblity of excessive foreign influence in our affairs, and against foreign entanglements that could lead to our being pulled into wars not involving the defense of our own nation:

1. Only those citizens born in the United States can become President. The Secretary of State was originally third in line for the Presidency, so the official involved in foreign relations was also to be born in the United States.

2. The requirement for the legislative branch to declare war.

3. The Senate, originally chosen by State Legislatures, was the body responsible for ratifying treaties.

4. The creation of State militias, under Congressional regulation, as opposed to a large standing army.

With Clinton obtaining campaign funds from China, and Jimmy Carter soliciting campaign help from the Soviet Union and China in 1980, I would think a little dose of what you would call "isolationism" would be refreshing.

Richard Maybury describes an area of the world as Chaostan. In his background for Chaostan there are two basic fundamental principles that make it possible for people to get along peaceably with other people and for countries to get along peaceably with other countries: The two laws that make civilization possible are, (1) do all you have agreed to do and (2) do not encroach on other persons or their property. He considers these as the precepts for civilization itself. http://www.webcom.com/beacon/chaostansummary.html

You may recognize these as the rule of law and the golden rule. The Constitution embodies the rule of law. It is not about dictating behavior or policing/curbing the actions of others. It is a contract. And a major part of the thrusts of the Constitution are the "thou shall and the thou shall nots". And these define the limits of power of the majority and the rights of individuals or the minority. Where many of the problems have arisen during our history is where the desires of the majority have infringed on the rights of minorities or individuals. Because it is so easy for the majority to change the law within the Constitution, the majority thinks it should be able to change the Constitution just as easily. What made this nation possible and what adequately protected our freedoms for so long was the difficulty in changing the Constitution itself. As long as majorities respected and honored the Constitution, things generally worked pretty well. But overtime, thanks to public education (an oxymoron), the arrogance and flagrant disregard for the rights of others such as you seem to demonstrate, and the lust for power inherent in all politicians or the corruption of power itself, the majority has progressively and relentlessly decided to ignore the Constitution itself. After all the majority controlled the excutive and legislative branches who in turn got to choose the judicial branch. And besides, what is the minority or the individual going to do about it-declare war on majority?

You may recognize several other old (paleo) precepts: "The majority is almost always wrong, and on the rare occassions when the majority is right, it is for the wrong reasons." And, "What made this country great is the freedom of the individual, aka individual freedoms." Americans weren't born better and smarter than the rest of the world. But they were born freer. And those freedoms were like magnets sucking in the talent, the creativity and the entrepenuers of the rest of the world. The genius of the melting pot is not the masses it attracted, but rather the world's most talented that freedom attracted.

What made America great and in turn powerful is freedom. Freedom attracted masses of humanity and the most talented of humanity. The masses guided by the geniuses were an unstoppable team. But when the masses decided to take advantage of the wealth creators, the tide began to change. Woodrow Wilson and company spawned the Federal Reserve that unconstitutionally debased our money. And it has been downhill ever since.

Where are we today? A few of us that still remember the formula and how to implement it are telling the masses what we need to do to get out of this mess. And the majority, feeling the security of numbers but lacking the critical brain power to know without the comfort of the opinions of others is determined to ingore reality preferring to wish for the dictated outcome of their choice. Like Alice, they "wish" and therefore it is so. And beside what are the minorities/individuals going to do about it. Where else can they go and still have as much right or success? And the sad reality of things is that there are several hundred countries in the world and there are only a handful that approach the US in terms of freedom and quality of life. This is an almost perfect analogy of how bad the majority actually is. Well the creative/freedomloving/individuals do have some other options. New Zealand is approaching the US in terms of freedom. And NZ is moving in the right direction while the US is headed in the wrong. John Dale Davidson wrote book called the "Sovereign Individual". It is wonderful concept. When you have wealth and intellect, it is possible to adopt a life style that approaches that of a sovereign individual. As long as a time and country suit your needs, taste or purpose, fine. When they don't move on and take your toys with you. You can even live in multiple places simultaneously for selected purposes.

And there is a third option. Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" written fifty years ago still outlines a workable plan. Every one of these options is being implemented on a daily basis by America's best and brightest. As you look around for the signs of decay in the life and struggles of Americans living paycheck to paycheck with soaring levels of debt, ask yourselves how and why this happening. Jobs are fleeing the country and flooding to China of all places. Why would anyone want to do business with communists and crooks? Which would you rather employ a chinese communist or a main stream American? In truth, it not cheaper labor that drives our jobs off shore. That is only part of the problem. People are relocating their businesses because if you can't be as free here, if you have to deal with over powering rules and regulations, dictatorial unions and on and on of the myriad forms of harassment for folks trying to build a business and make a buck. If you are forced to endure all this BS, you reach a point where you recognize that even the chinese communists are not much worse than what you are dealing with here in America, and at least over there the labor is cheap and it is dependable and generally undemanding. In effect, you can make a bigger buck without any more headaches. With more bucks, you can become a sovereign individual that much sooner.

As for patriotic loyalty? The best and brightest have realized long before the masses that they have targets painted on their wallets and brains. When you are abused and targeted, your patriotic loyalty turns to loathing quicker than you realize. You may think you are in the same boat. But the truth is no two of us are in the same boat unless we have made the same decisions. And for those who are independent fiancially and intellectually, every man can be an island if he chooses.

If you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", you should. It is come to a theater near you sometime in the next decade, if not sooner.

If Bush gets in trouble over the economy, the fringe whackos a) won't help him anyway, b) have desires that would only exacerbate a bad situation and c) The tiny number of fringeoids would not put him over the top even if every one of them voted GOP. They're demographically irrelevant.

If you haven't read "Atlas Shrugged", you should. It is come to a theater near you sometime in the next decade, if not sooner.

I read it and liked it.

Of course, once I left my teens, I matured and saw it for the puerile, feebly reasoned, poorly written, wordy and utopian piece of dreck it was.

The constitution exists to create a "more perfect Union" not to preserve states rights. States exist within the context of federalism not as separate entities. They never did. Union preceeded statehood. "More perfect Union" is a phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution. However, the Preamble is like the "Mission Statement" of the Constitution, while all of the Articles and Amendments to it are the "policies and procedures" that are to be followed in order to implement that mission statement. The NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS make it clear that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People: Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. If all that mattered in the enaction of the Constitution were the statements in the Preamble, why not just get rid of the entire document EXCEPT for the Preamble? I thought the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because "somone" was jealous of our freedom and success? What do you think makes all that freedom and success possible if not the guarantees written into the Constitution? What are our men fighting to defend and protect if not those basic rights? A shocking post later on in this thread, by Black Elk, which I will address in turn, basically tells us it is just "too bad" that some of our Constitutional rights have been abrogated. There are other things going on that are more important. Our rights will just have to wait. I guess my father went through the hell of Anzio for something that is just not so important after all. I am glad he is not alive to see this sentiment, that God given rights are something Americans must all queue up to receive, when our MASTERS don't have "more important" issues to address. Guess the Terrorists won the war after all. They were jealous of our rights, and now we don't have them, or they are optional notions, quaint DINOsaurs of an age gone by.

The constitution exists to create a "more perfect Union" not to preserve states rights. States exist within the context of federalism not as separate entities. They never did. Union preceeded statehood. "More perfect Union" is a phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution. However, the Preamble is like the "Mission Statement" of the Constitution, while all of the Articles and Amendments to it are the "policies and procedures" that are to be followed in order to implement that mission statement. The NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS make it clear that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the People:

Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

If all that mattered in the enaction of the Constitution were the statements in the Preamble, why not just get rid of the entire document EXCEPT for the Preamble? I thought the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because "somone" was jealous of our freedom and success? What do you think makes all that freedom and success possible if not the guarantees written into the Constitution? What are our men fighting to defend and protect if not those basic rights? A shocking post later on in this thread, by Black Elk, which I will address in turn, basically tells us it is just "too bad" that some of our Constitutional rights have been abrogated. There are other things going on that are more important. Our rights will just have to wait.

I guess my father went through the hell of Anzio for something that is just not so important after all. I am glad he is not alive to see this sentiment, that God given rights are something Americans must all queue up to receive, when our MASTERS don't have "more important" issues to address. Guess the Terrorists won the war after all. They were jealous of our rights, and now we don't have them, or they are optional notions, quaint DINOsaurs of an age gone by.