WHAT WILL YOU SACRIFICE?

Your plan does not address the very real problem of having fair and unbiased reporting.

You're kidding me, right?? We're discussing retaking control of this country and you are concerned with whether or not it will be covered fairly and in a balanced way by the DBM??

Of course it won't be covered fairly or objectively, but that's NOT the primary goal. The primary goal is to rid our government of the very people who are h&ll bent on destroying what has been the greatest nation on this earth!!

However, since you raise the issue, I have been giving consideration to a plan that MIGHT (not likely) force the DBM to see how large of an audience they are alienatingn with their lies, manipulation and outright coverup of the news. Let's ignore them for a month! No newspapers (except for the conservative ones), no national news broadcasts (buh-bye Katie, Brian and Charlie!), no magazines, no NPR or PBS. We cancel subscriptions and turn the DBM off. And, if we do this during a ratings sweep month (like November), their advertising rates will plummet so significantly that they will be unable to maintain the staffing they have today, or their circulation.

So, how is THAT for addressing the issue of fair and balanced news coverage??

Please remember that when the Soviet Union fell, the first sites liberated and occupied were the TV and radio stations. This was a wise move. So?...What’s your plan for controlling the message? ( wintertime)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So?...You plan to boycott the mainstream media. While I support that, it still isn’t a plan for getting your message out.

What plan do you have for controlling the message. If the event isn’t covered, it might just as well not have happened. Those who over threw tyranny at the fall of the Soviet Union understood this very basic but very important concept.

Actually, when the Soviet Union fell, “the first sites liberated and occupied(?) were” East Germany and the Iron Curtain countries. The media outlets were a secondary concern that, in that particular case, were happy to be free of the state control over what passed for news in those countries.

Here it is a little different. Since the state doesn’t have direct control over the media outlets, they voluntarily manipulate, cover up and distort the news. And, when whatever plan that initiates the retaking of our government breaks, the mass media will ignore, distort, lie, or cover the story up.

And, there is NO WIN when you have someone standing behind a “news broadcaster” in America pointing a gun at him/her to force him to tell the right story. Even the DBM has had to acknowledge that the Internet is the source of most people’s news today and I think that is an appropriate outlet in the near term for whatever happens. I simply don’t trust the DBM to cover a story like this honestly or objectively.

Even the DBM has had to acknowledge that the Internet is the source of most people’s news today and I think that is an appropriate outlet in the near term for whatever happens.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I could probably find the links that show that 20% of Americans are near illiterates, and the next 20% above them lack the ability to read and understand the news found on the Internet.

Honestly...Some means must be found for reaching this 40% of the population. I am at a loss on how to do that.

Every year the pro-lifers turn out **huge** crowds for their march on Washington, and every year it is ignored. Maybe they should march in New York and put those millions on the very doorsteps of the mainstream media.

“We” might not, but you as an individual will.

And yes, if “we” stay long enough they’ll clear the place out the hard way.

I respectfully disagree with one or two of your points. You say the Founders didn’t anticipate elected leaders becoming detached from the electorate because they saw man as more good than bad. Yet the entire system of checks and balances was designed around the Calvinistic presumption of a universal defect of selfishness in the human spirit, that the resulting power-lust was so pervasive and predictable it had to be checked via a divide and conquer methodology. People could not be trusted.

So I say they did see it coming, because by design these wayward and insular politicians were to be chastised through elections at relatively close intervals. Where they might have faltered was failing to fully anticipate the extent to which the electoral process could be corrupted. The first line of defense is freedom of the press and free speech, true, because free elections aren’t really free in an informational vacuum. But we are dealing with an ever-growing non-elected body, the Administrative State, immune to the feedback of the voice of the people. Add to that the failure to account for the potential for manipulation of the press, and even more insidious, the dulling and diffusing of the popular voice through statist control of the educational system, and you have to say they may have left a few exploitable weaknesses in the constitutional “Operating System.”

One more thing. The Founders did not institute the two-party system. That was a later innovation, and one which George Washington himself opposed as detrimental to the Republic, precisely because it could create the very kind of quasi-tribal mentality that works against effective local representation.

These Founders of ours; pretty smart people, imperfections notwithstanding. I continue to be amazed.

You say the Founders didn’t anticipate elected leaders becoming detached from the electorate because they saw man as more good than bad. Yet the entire system of checks and balances was designed around the Calvinistic presumption of a universal defect of selfishness in the human spirit, that the resulting power-lust was so pervasive and predictable it had to be checked via a divide and conquer methodology. People could not be trusted.

No, that's NOT what I said. What I said was this: "The Founding Fathers understood quite well the human psyche and the concept of “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. While I’m not sure they envisioned the types of abuses we are seeing from our government today, they understood the propensity and potential for those abuses to occur."

In a sense, then, we both agree on this point, we just have different approaches that get us to the same place. They certainly knew that it was a possibility down the road, because it existed in THEIR day and they knew it COULD exist in the future of America.

But we are dealing with an ever-growing non-elected body, the Administrative State, immune to the feedback of the voice of the people. Add to that the failure to account for the potential for manipulation of the press, and even more insidious, the dulling and diffusing of the popular voice through statist control of the educational system, and you have to say they may have left a few exploitable weaknesses in the constitutional “Operating System.”

Absolutely true!

The Founders did not institute the two-party system.

Perhaps, but they began with a two-party system. Frankly, the more I see of the two-party system, the more convinced I am that the Parliamentary system works better with multiple parties requiring a coalition of parties in order to gain a majority. The best part, IMO, is that a Parliamentary government can be dissolved by the people with a "No Confidence" vote when things reach a point such as we have today in America!!

These Founders of ours; pretty smart people, imperfections notwithstanding. I continue to be amazed.

I absolutely agree!! We are incredibly blessed that, at that time in the history of the world, God gave America the best minds available to design and implement the framework of a government that capitalizes on the very best things about individuals. It is a crime, IMO, that they had to hand control of that government over to those with lesser ability who have engineered the mess that we have today!!

I could probably find the links that show that 20% of Americans are near illiterates, and the next 20% above them lack the ability to read and understand the news found on the Internet.

It's actually far worse than that. In 1998, the Dallas Business Journal published an article citing ~45% of the population were illiterate and, of THAT number, ~45% were FUNCTIONALLY illiterate - meaning that they can read, but they are unable to comprehend or follow written instructions. And, as we know, things have NOT improved since 1998.

Would absolutely LOVE to have a no confidence voting power. Great idea. Adverse polling data is the closest thing we’ve got to that, and it is nowhere near enough to prevent a determined political hijacker from flying us into the ground on purpose. We need that guy out of the cockpit NOW!

I would prefer to see states secede in a trickle, then a flood until the United States of America consists of Washington, D.C, Massachusetts, California, New York City, Michegan, Minnesota, Austin and Houston, Texas and a few other pockets around the country.

State secession would be a lovely thing to see. The wife and I often think about where in Texas we'd like to live. My concern with it is that it requires the involvement of too many people in too short a time - getting dozens of state legislatures convinced and voting in the affirmative beforeliberty is extinguished doesn't strike me as likely (though not impossible).

I've often toyed with the idea of individual secession. Lord knows the feds have excelled at creating sets of laws for certain classes of Americans - black, gay, whatever - so why not a "minority" of patriots? We certainly are oppressed and seemingly, we are a minority. Put us on a flat tax, exempt us from onerous regulation (light bulbs etc), let us buy our own healthcare and worship as we see fit. It would be rather like the Brits handle Muslims and Sharia - separate but equal(?). Create a class that's the envy of the others then roll the "patriot" laws out to the others and create "Americans" - and we would have essentially come full circle and ended the scourge of socialism.

A man can dream, right?

A man can dream, right?

Good dreams . . . . . and something to consider.

The military has guns and ammo, so do we. Now the question becomes, will the military actually fire on Americans?

IMO, some will. They will follow the orders they are given and, if ordered to shoot, they will shoot. But, what will they shoot? Guns? You betcha.

I agree. Some will. And the others - the one's who won't will be moved to non-confronting units. But, our odds increase for success the more Obama's army sees us as Americans and not as 'the other'. In Iran - at one point - the ruling thugs had to bring in outsiders to shoot at and arrest young student protesters. Too many were known to the regular police and army - and they wouldn't shoot the kids. That's a lesson for us.

We have to create that mindset. The Tea Parties have been a wonderful psychological safeguard for us. Our side has been demonized - effectively. The radical elite left can't work their lies easily when Tea Party members are everyday Americans wearing light pastels and carrying homemade signs. Even the brain washed press has been able to see Tea Party members are their friends, neighbors, and family. It would be hard to shoot into a Tea Party.

And that's where the psychological units on our side need to focus... Elite radical liberals are working to present us as "the other". Kind of what Hitler did to the Jews before extermination camps were set up. Liberal elite groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center are behind much of this type of propaganda - they work to create the appearance conservatives are "sub-humans - the other - not worthy of civil protections... That's wrong of them. If we don't counter this, we're going to lose no matter what...

Statements of "this far and no further" must be written. If radical liberal elites start killing people on our side - Rush, Hannity, Supreme Court conservatives, FOX News people - that's a "crossed the line" act. If radical liberal elites start opening re-education or death camps - that's also a 'crossed the line' act. All our positions need to be acceptable to the vast majority of citizens. It won't work otherwise. Forewarned citizens are a safeguard. Waiting until groups are being loaded on trains won't work. Citizens will justify it just like they did in Germany.

Our fellow citizens need to be on board BEFORE something happens. Psych-teams can work out details.

Now's the time to clarify values. I have mine - but strength comes in numbers. Here's what I will NOT fight about... If there's a duly elected group - liberals - and they make laws I hate - that's their right. When we're in office, we'll make laws they hate - and expect them to follow those laws. It's a free country. Election winners get to call the shots. It's how the system works. I like that - I believe in our system of government. If we don't like what liberals are doing (legally) then we can work harder and VOTE THEM OUT. That's how a free culture - rule of law - country works it.

So let me know, where's 'your line' - what's your plan... details for the future - not history...

a pet theory of mine is correct, that a major part of the entrapment of the American people is a deliberate fostering of the illusion of isolation and futility among people like ourselves. The left is pure genius when it comes to getting the self-fulfilling prophecy to work in their favor. They create an army of imaginary bogey-men and we all run scared. Defeatism is a force amplifier for the left, and we, by choosing to believe the illusion of futility, empower their use of it.The military has guns and ammo, so do we. Now the question becomes, will the military actually fire on Americans?

I think you're right. The psychological war between the left and right is being won by the left. Here's my response to Dusty... He felt our army might shoot at Americans...

IMO, some will. They will follow the orders they are given and, if ordered to shoot, they will shoot. But, what will they shoot? Guns? You betcha.

I agree. Some will. And the others - the one's who won't will be moved to non-confronting units. But, our odds increase for success the more Obama's army sees us as Americans and not as 'the other'. In Iran - at one point - the ruling thugs had to bring in outsiders to shoot at and arrest young student protesters. Too many were known to the regular police and army - and they wouldn't shoot the kids. That's a lesson for us.

We have to create that mindset. The Tea Parties have been a wonderful psychological safeguard for us. Our side has been demonized - effectively. The radical elite left can't work their lies easily when Tea Party members are everyday Americans wearing light pastels and carrying homemade signs. Even the brain washed press has been able to see Tea Party members are their friends, neighbors, and family. It would be hard to shoot into a Tea Party.

And that's where the psychological units on our side need to focus... Elite radical liberals are working to present us as "the other". Kind of what Hitler did to the Jews before extermination camps were set up. Liberal elite groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center are behind much of this type of propaganda - they work to create the appearance conservatives are "sub-humans - the other - not worthy of civil protections... That's wrong of them. If we don't counter this, we're going to lose no matter what...

Statements of "this far and no further" must be written. If radical liberal elites start killing people on our side - Rush, Hannity, Supreme Court conservatives, FOX News people - that's a "crossed the line" act. If radical liberal elites start opening re-education or death camps - that's also a 'crossed the line' act. All our positions need to be acceptable to the vast majority of citizens. It won't work otherwise. Forewarned citizens are a safeguard. Waiting until groups are being loaded on trains won't work. Citizens will justify it just like they did in Germany.

Our fellow citizens need to be on board BEFORE something happens. Psych-teams can work out details.

Now's the time to clarify values. I have mine - but strength comes in numbers. Here's what I will NOT fight about... If there's a duly elected group - liberals - and they make laws I hate - that's their right. When we're in office, we'll make laws they hate - and expect them to follow those laws. It's a free country. Election winners get to call the shots. It's how the system works. I like that - I believe in our system of government. If we don't like what liberals are doing (legally) then we can work harder and VOTE THEM OUT. That's how a free culture - rule of law - country works it.

So let me know, where's 'your line' - what's your plan... details for the future - not history...

First of all there has to be a new method of communication where all the defending interested parties can use. It must not have the capability to be eavesdropped on or deciphered by others.

Ice - this was in response to Dusty's concern the Army might shoot at us...

Would love your comments too...

Our odds increase for success the more Obama's army sees us as Americans and not as 'the other'. In Iran - at one point - the ruling thugs had to bring in outsiders to shoot at and arrest young student protesters. Too many were known to the regular police and army - and they wouldn't shoot the kids. That's a lesson for us.

We have to create that mindset. The Tea Parties have been a wonderful psychological safeguard for us. Our side has been demonized - effectively. The radical elite left can't work their lies easily when Tea Party members are everyday Americans wearing light pastels and carrying homemade signs. Even the brain washed press has been able to see Tea Party members are their friends, neighbors, and family. It would be hard to shoot into a Tea Party.

And that's where the psychological units on our side need to focus... Elite radical liberals are working to present us as "the other". Kind of what Hitler did to the Jews before extermination camps were set up. Liberal elite groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center are behind much of this type of propaganda - they work to create the appearance conservatives are "sub-humans - the other - not worthy of civil protections... That's wrong of them. If we don't counter this, we're going to lose no matter what...

Statements of "this far and no further" must be written. If radical liberal elites start killing people on our side - Rush, Hannity, Supreme Court conservatives, FOX News people - that's a "crossed the line" act. If radical liberal elites start opening re-education or death camps - that's also a 'crossed the line' act. All our positions need to be acceptable to the vast majority of citizens. It won't work otherwise. Forewarned citizens are a safeguard. Waiting until groups are being loaded on trains won't work. Citizens will justify it just like they did in Germany.

Our fellow citizens need to be on board BEFORE something happens. Psych-teams can work out details.

Now's the time to clarify values. I have mine - but strength comes in numbers. Here's what I will NOT fight about... If there's a duly elected group - liberals - and they make laws I hate - that's their right. When we're in office, we'll make laws they hate - and expect them to follow those laws. It's a free country. Election winners get to call the shots. It's how the system works. I like that - I believe in our system of government. If we don't like what liberals are doing (legally) then we can work harder and VOTE THEM OUT. That's how a free culture - rule of law - country works it.

So let me know, where's 'your line' - what's your plan... details for the future - not history...

I hope I've made my point. This is not 1940, and the Bad Guys are not stupid enough to do anything as obvious as putting people in camps. That's a idiotic Red Dawn fantasy. Instead, they'll just intimidate you into obedience, or threaten your kids, or take away your means of earning a living. And anyone who gives them enough trouble will simply Go Away.

You pretty much nailed it.

I think Jesus said it best.

For I say unto you,
That unto every one which hath
shall be given;
and from him that hath not,
even that he hath
shall be taken away from him.

But those mine enemies,
which would not
that I should reign over them,

bring hither,
and slay them before me.

'nuff said!

So let’s see. Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself. That means you’ll gladly let the neo-Maoists deprive you of your job, your home, your children, even your known whereabouts. I’m sure I’m right, because that’s what you’ll let happen to us, and as a good observer of the Golden Rule, that means you’d be just as happy if it happened to you, right?

Well, I find that kind of odd for a Catholic, because someone I know of with a funny hat paints quite a different picture than you do of our Declaration of Independence, what it means, and what it implies about your moral obligation to the rest of us:

“The United States of America was founded on the conviction that an inalienable right to life was a self-evident moral truth, fidelity to which was a primary criterion of social justice. The moral history of your country is the story of your people’s efforts to widen the circle of inclusion in society, so that all Americans might enjoy the protection of law, participate in the responsibilities of citizenship, and have the opportunity to make a contribution to the common good. Whenever a certain category of people—the unborn or the sick and old—are excluded from that protection, a deadly anarchy subverts the original understanding of justice. The credibility of the United States will depend more and more on its promotion of a genuine culture of life, and on a renewed commitment to building a world in which the weakest and most vulnerable are welcomed and protected.”
~Pope John Paul II

BTW, if we’re all, from your perspective, just a bunch of eternally doomed, time-wasting graffiti-writers who deserve no protection from the encroaching tyranny, what are you doing here? It’s not to foster unity against the destroyers of our country, that’s for sure. Catholic evangelism, then? Or are you intentionally sowing discord and despair among brethren as part of some perceived religious duty to “help the prophecy along?” Fatima, of course, the suppressed, apocalyptic version.

So let me know, where's 'your line' - what's your plan... details for the future - not history...

Fair enough. I think that, for the most part, we are on the same page. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Where we, perhaps disagree, is on the election. Assuming that we are allowed to have a fair election, I am willing to let the next Congress take its best shot. However, I am not convinced that the Republicans (if they succeed in taking control of one or both houses of Congress) will be the salvation of our Republic that so many here seem to think. The Republicans have a history . . . and, in the past 15 - 20 years, it isn't that great.

IMO, the Republicans will be more about show than substance. Smoke and mirrors, NOT concrete conservative results. They'll probably make a splashy show trying to repeal Obama's DeathCare, but I am not convinced that they have the stomach for the political fight that that will ignite. As for the rest, I think they will quietly sweep that stuff under the carpet so that it's still there, just out of sight.

So, that means that for the next year or so, our battleground will be between the people's ears - the psychological side that you defined so well while we wait to see exactly what the Republicans can/will do. I'd love to believe that I am way off base on this, but I honestly don't think so. They have a history of disappointing their base and I don't think anything has changed.

Which takes us to the next phase - what will likely be the uprising. Unfortunately, it will be while the Republicans (hopefully) control some part of the Congress so it will look as though we are rising up against THEM instead of all of the egregious acts of zero and the leftists (regardless which side of the aisle they occupy!). This is just a factor that we will have to correct over time in the history books. In the meantime, I think we have about a year to develop and "socialize" ( a term a marketing manager at a company I worked at used) our message to the American people that the Tea Partiers only want to return America to the great nation that it has been - AND a nation that includes and provides opportunities for ALL of our citizens!!

By far, the LAST thing I want is to wake up tomorrow morning with guns blazing to try to take control of the government. While my initial post on this topic may have conveyed that idea, it was an attempt to be provocative and get people thinking . . . . and talking. Most of all, I appreciate the opportunity that you and I have had to discuss and clarify our ideas and find those common areas of agreement. Nonetheless, in the final analysis, IF it comes to an armed uprising, I believe that the cause is just and that this nation, with all of its flaws and diverse opinions, is worth fighting for. We can't correct all of the ills that liberalism has instilled in the population overnight but, through that psychological "warfare" you described, we can begin the process of making people proud of America and its history again. And, that will be necessary to get the sheer numbers of people onboard that we will need.

Are we good, now?

I promise to sacrifice the nearest five socialist liberals to me when the time comes.