I hereby comply .. cheers !
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.
Those who practice and promote aberrant behaviors (sodomy, abortion, adultery, charity by theft, extortion, and the like - all of which are inimical to civility and order) should be denied voting privileges until they repent (strictly in the sense of outward behavior, not in the sense of faith and contrition before the Creator). Aberrant behaviors are defined as those that intentionally disrupt, dishonor, and destroy civility, long life, courtesy, order, and the like.
In the past century we have greatly harmed ourselves by cheapening the vote and lowering the bar when it comes to participation in setting public policy. Only those who are able to articulate in writing and commit to practice the qualities of an informed, virtuous citizen should be granted voting privileges. They should also have incentives to make use of this privilege (for example free admittance to all national parks, reduced rates for other licenses such as hunting and fishing).
Any votes that advocate aberrant behavior ought to be declared null and void, with anyone proposing legislation to that effect also to be disqualified form office and/or voting. The same qualifications ought especially to be observed in regard to those who run for public office.
A rigorous examination should take place before one’s first vote, and a slightly less stringent examination every 4 years thereafter, just as it is for those who have driving, or flying privileges. The examination would most certainly undertake an assessment of knowledge regarding United States citizenship and history. Every citizen ought to be able to articulate the scientific truth of when life begins before they vote. It is not a philosophical or religious question, but highly pertinent to an informed, virtuous citizenry that desires peace and good order. There is a right and wrong answer, and the answer most certainly qualifies or disqualifies those who aim to participate in setting public policy.
Unless those who desire a civil society have already settled the question as to whether it is virtuous for mothers to kill their young before they are born, their efforts toward that end are in vain. It is foundational to the very concept of voting that the participants are interested in survival on the best terms possible among one another. The proponents of sodomy and abortion and the like have no such aim, but only self-interest. Hence, while co-existence may be possible for those who differ on same sex marriage, abortion, and such, it is not possible with all having the same privileges.
The vote should also be denied to those who desire benefits from the treasury without owning property, having a means of income, serving in the armed forces, being demonstrably active in assisting with charitable or community improvements, and paying taxes.
Retired and living off your private savings? No vote for you, and no taxation on your retirement income. Unable to take care of yourself for physical reasons? No vote for you and no votes on your behalf, except as those who have voting privileges are inclined to enact policies to your benefit. Unemployed, able bodied, and sitting at home? No vote for you and mandatory community service. You’ll be fed, clothed, and housed with care befitting a voting citizenry that has been tested and proven to be virtuous, law abiding, and genuinely interested in the general welfare.
Of course the primary qualification (one the purveyors of aberrant behaviors despise) is this: to be counted among the living.
We should also void by law any and all license to practice law and medicine to those who practice and promote aberrant behaviors. Authority to speak and teach aberrant behaviors must be granted in view of the 1st Amendment, but teachers and students of this kind simply ought not to be allowed to vote on matters affecting the general welfare.
I certainly do not expect wide acceptance of these standards. I expect rather to witness further the advocates of aberration receiving in their bodies the due reward for their efforts and behavior, and the people who wink at them also to suffer. Suffering on account of advocating wrong behaviors is common.
One important step toward your bold ideas is education.
Secondly, a requirement to mount the Ten Commandments near the main door of every classroom and government building. [Part of the ‘Under God Amendment’.]
I mean ‘REQUIRED’. The Ten Commandments are wildly popular BTW. I forget the poll, but it was heartening regardless.
And as for sodomites, they bit off more than they could chew with ‘gay marriage’. Now for the pendulum to swing the other way. [Ideas on that too.]
[Mark Levin's Men in Black has been very helpful.]
The Constitution needs to clarify the Commerce Clause, as a power to DE-regulate interstate trade.
And then any unconstitutional power that is actually popular, we would need to enumerate the proper way, such as dust-bowl protection, keeping current national parks, disarming felons, banning machine guns, and keeping current S.S. recipients from being abandoned [along with a gentle phase-out], etc.
“I certainly do not expect wide acceptance of these standards.”
Right, not at first. But what happens if every student in public schools is required to watch [Reagan economist] Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” series?
Another idea:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3222955/posts?page=19#19
Rather than take away a toy, offer the child another one.
So I strategize accordingly, not because the ‘childish’ element of voters deserve it, but because our VETERANS deserve us to be effective.
They've sacrificed too much for the ideals of freedom to sink into the muck of progressivism.
I hereby comply .. cheers !
Thank you, God bless you, and happy Veterans Day!
The financial elites of the world are behind communism - they love it, they invented it.
You’re battling the UK/American/European financial establishment.
They are the power behind both Western governments AND what used to be called the eastern bloc.
Communism was just a good way for the financial elites to have police states of economic slavery which then were economically locked in place while the UK/US could really rise to power (the 20th century).
The elites have always done business with these slave states. Since there used to be legal import/export controls, only the elites could bypass the controls and trade with the slaves states. It was a monopolist’s dream come true.
In the US/UK, they simply are working towards solidifying their monopolies. Look at the UK, that’s where we’re headed. Everything that is “state controlled” is really a monopoly of elite investors.
Ditto, FRiend.
I certainly don’t want to forget you! God bless you, please ask to be part of this once-a-day-at-most ping.
This bold plan is simple: 3/4 of the states call for a mega-hearing empowered to CLEAN THINGS UP with enumerated investigations. And then let’s see what congress critters hide behind congressional rules.
Simple question: who do you trust more? A simple majority of congress or 3/4 of the states?
And Happy Veterans Day!
They don’t aways get their way on schedule. As one example, it took a long time to get Hillary-Care [aka Obama-care]. And if they do become all-powerful, we might as well make our stand now before modern ‘education’ rots future brains.
Most of their power comes from the federal judiciary, but when the judiciary is subject to excoriation hearings, a lot of wonderful things are possible.
But even if the excoriation idea fails, these ideas are a hydra with heads that keep doubling. For example, tainting court rulings and justices.
Are you sick of:
— Judges cramming ‘gay’ ‘marriage’ down our throats?
— The ‘supreme’ Court blessing of Obama-care?
— Remember Kelo?
— Gun-grabbing judges who oppose the death sentence due to ‘health risk’?
— Judges opposed to voter-ID?
— Judges who infringe religious freedom?
And we can do something about it!
This is another bold idea — a constitutional amendment that names names, taints court opinions, kicks them to the curb, and establishes their legacy. No congressional rules will get in the way when the People realize that we can actually put them in their place.
So we can begin an online impeachment hearing — right here and right now. And if you think we’re outnumbered, think again. We can easily win an uber-majority of states to be DECISIVE about banning gay marriage. And in the process, we can taint federal judges.
I’ll get the ‘ball rolling’ with clear examples of various outrages, coming up ....
Let's start with ‘Justices’ Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer and the Kelo Ruling.
[Justice Kennedy's constitutional interpretation is so unpredictable that not everyone personally cares either way if his name is added. By all means, feel free to suggest throwing him in the list too if you like.]
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].
Now for ‘Justice’ Elena Kagan and her first court opinion. It's unbelievable. Elena Kagan joined in dissenting against a lethal injection for a convicted murderer because it would be a ‘health risk’ for the murderer. Her dissent was in lockstep with the worst ‘justices’ of the supreme Court.
Kagan is overfond of foreign law while her disregard of the Constitution was clearly demonstrated in Harvard. She is opposed to the right to free speech, opposed to other constitutional rights, was fanatical about keeping partial birth abortion legal, and is even opposed to our right to amend the U.S. Constitution — not without supreme Court approval, which might be the most outrageous thing a supreme Court justice has said since Dred Scott. Talk about being a tyrant-in-robes.
So it is reasonable that Kagan too should be tainted and removed in disgrace. And any senator who voted for her confirmation ought to be ashamed of himself.
Roberts was part of the Obama-care ruling. That's just one example. The man is a loose cannon that crushes the Constitution left-and-right.
Recap:
So far that would taint ‘Justices’ Roberts, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
But we're just getting started.
Just how popular would many federal ‘justices’ be when we bring up the following outrages?
What were their opinions regarding Voter ID? Arizona's ‘illegal immigration’ law? And where exactly did federal ‘justices’ find some magic definition of marriage that somehow has a greater claim to ‘natural law’ than the history of marriage throughout civilization? How many federal justices have stripped away free exercize of religion? You can bet there are a LOT!
[Just imagine the outrages we could find in the 9th ‘Circus’.]
‘Gay’ ‘Marriage’ & Transgender ‘rights’ Tainting
Any judge — federal or otherwise — who blocked gay marriage bans in states is a fanatic who should also be named in the tainting. First off, no ‘settled law’ of the US can possibly override the definition of marriage that is both ancient and recent at the same time with rock solid continuity. Secondly, a sodomous union violates free exercise of religion when a religious judge or pastor is required to preside over an arguably-infernal union. [And frankly, it's even tempting to ban attorneys who were overzealous in their support of ‘gay’ ‘marriage’ from ever being judges either.]
Most justices who support ‘gay marriage’ are progressive tyrants who want to drive a truck through the commerce clause and trample other rights as well because they don't believe in ‘originalism’. It's all part of the same ‘group-think’ that scorns our nation's foundation.
Then there are ‘transgender rights’. We're talking about compulsive ‘wardrobe confusion’, and it's being glorified as a civil right! Even women are happy to get out of women's’ clothes and wear something comfortable. A compulsion to wear improper and uncomfortable attire is not something that merits special rights.
Fanatical judges who try to legislate from the bench to enable wardrobe confusion should be tainted too. Or does America need to construct ‘transgender’ bathrooms in every public building? Isn't our economy being flushed down the toilet enough already? This is a perfect example of judicial tyranny, and over something as absurd as this.
[More coming up ....]
Long term solutions to restore judiciousness to the federal judiciary ...
First off, in education reform, we could make Levin’s “Men in Black” and Sowell’s important book ‘Intellectuals and Society’ required study for law students or even all college students. Sowell makes a compelling case that leftist intellectuals keep ignoring the wrong people and all the harm they have caused, while Levin lays out the case of judicial tyranny.
Debates can also be part of the education reform.
But not just education ....
It is precisely because veterans are willing to sacrifice their very lives in order to secure out right to self-governance that we ought to treat the voting privilege with special care, and see to it that not just anyone has the franchise. No country that expects to survive should allow uninformed, disloyal citizens into the voting booth. Let them prove themselves to be informed, loyal, and virtuous and then they can vote.
The Future of Judicial Tainting
So yes, we can taint a long list of court rulings, toss a bunch of black robed tyrants from the bench, expose their true legacy by listing them as officially ‘tainted’ [even if they are retired or deceased], and for those still in the judiciary we can give them the boot. We can also take away their pensions. Great. But then what?
We need a new, permanent procedure to taint bad opinions and remove troublemakers. But why not kill several birds with one stone? States’ rights can be defended at the same time with ‘anti-power’ authority.
States can agree on a single person to be their [term-limited] representative with the title of ‘C.hief S.tate E.xecutive’. There is no formal ‘election’ for the CSE. It is an informal process in which the majority of states must be in agreement with empowering a single individual.
The CSE is an ‘anti-power’ executive, able to veto new legislation, recommend that old legislation be repealed, mandate fair debates that judges, professors, or politicians must engage in [’fair’ as in no moderator, but a timer that allocates time fairly — also the debates are public and via web conferencing], temporarily taint any federal court rulings, and plan impeachment hearings of federal officials of the executive branch.
No court opinion is tainted permanently without simple majority approval in the US House of Representatives [via petitions rather than a vote to bypass the Speaker if necessary] or a simple majority of the states [via the majority of legislators]. The CSE has 100 days to obtain that approval or else the temporary taint is expunged.
[Note that with mandatory debate authority, the CSE can rake people over the coals if there's an outrage to spark public ire, and 100 days is a long time to rake those coals.]
A judge is tainted when three [or more] of his or her court opinions are tainted permanently by the House or majority of states, but retroactive taints [prior to this amendment's ratification] are not counted against the judge.
[For purposes of this amendment, official concurrence with another judge's opinion is the same as having that opinion oneself.]
[We should purge the worst judges before there's any CSE and forgive the rest with a ‘clean slate’ since many of them felt they had little choice but to conform because of the culture and indoctrination of ‘court precedent’.]
Impeachment Hearings by the CSE.
The CSE may call for impeachment hearings of federal officials of the Executive Branch. No federal official is removed unless the impeachment trial or hearing results in 3/4 super-majority of states in agreement with impeachment.
The CSE chooses a chair person who presides while the Senate and House appoint three members each to act as both prosecutors and/or defendants [whichever the individual prefers]. This hearing is via live, public videoconferencing unless the CSE and US President agree on Executive Privilege for certain witness testimonies. But the CSE may declassify any portions of secret testimony.
Participating senators and House members may subpoena up to three witnesses each and possibly more if the CSE approves, and each is allotted a minimum of two 20 minute ‘question-answer’ periods with each witness.
It is the states which decide the outcomes for themselves whether the accused should be impeached [via majority vote of each state's legislators]. Regardless of any conclusions stated in the hearing, states which are interested in the hearing have two decisions to make — should the official be impeached for suspicion? And should the individual be removed for poor job performance?
[Time to get away from ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ debates.]
If a simple majority of states agree with impeachment due to suspicion, then the official is censured and the FBI may choose to monitor the censured individual without warrants at any time for the rest of his or her life and forward any potentially impeachable information to the CSE who may later opt for a new impeachment hearing even after the official no longer serves the federal government.
The FBI must make a reasonable effort, however, to make such surveillance discreet and non-disruptive so that the censured individual can at least pretend to have a normal life. Failure to do so is potentially impeachable, as is leaking even part of this surveillance without written and signed CSE approval.
If a 3/4 super-majority of states agree with impeachment, then the official is removed, censured, and tainted. Someone may be removed by this super-majority of states post-service.
[Remember President Bill Clinton's last minute pardons? Post-service impeachment would have been helpful to hold the President accountable even during his final hours.]
[Good examples of how impeachment has recently failed to function — ‘Fast and Furious’, fraud in ‘Green Jobs’ stimulus, the Gorelick Wall, Benghazi, the Black Panther Voter Intimidation Cover-up, lack of ACORN investigation, lack of voter fraud investigation, and last but not least: IRS targeting the Tea Party — zero, zip, goose-egg. All should have triggered the impeachment process with either ‘suspicion’ or ‘poor job performance’ as conclusions. Most of these are also good examples of why the Attorney General should be competitively nominated.]
Once a year the censured person is given copies of his or her surveillance two years after being monitored and is free to declassify and publicize them although if any part of it is lewd the CSE may require that the public copy's version first be tightly censored in those sections.
A CSE may also later opt to end the FBI’s warrantless surveillance authority [regarding someone censured] unless that person is censured again on a later date. If two consecutive CSEs agree that the records of that individual’s surveillance be erased, then it is.
[Besides, the Senate has done a terrible job with impeachment anyway. And 3/4 is a very high bar — high enough to amend the Constitution. No US President, for example, has ever been removed by an impeachment trial, and that requires a 2/3 super-majority in the Senate. So perhaps 3/4 is too high? That's the question.]
One idea I’ve been thinking about is letting veterans elect a ‘debate mandator’ who can invite guests to debate with politicians, professors, and judges.
The ‘Veteran Debate Mandator’ could have the power of law to FORCE people out of their ivory towers so that people could not only confront them about veterans, but also the ‘money-is-power’ theory can be extolled. The need for a robust economy that can support an expensive military.
“Mark Levin suggested repealing the 17th Amendment, but that idea doesn’t seem to be exciting enough to take off. Not to worry, there’s more than one way to skin a central-power cat. “
With the rising tide of Republican State Senates and Governors the Article 5 crowd should be pushing for that State’s Convention so long as they are focused specifically on the 17th and nothing but the 17th.
Ping me anytime. . . . . Deacon
I think this idea would have more power than what you are suggesting.
Sounds like a nuclear option a man could grow to love.
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.