PDA

View Full Version : Proper role of government..



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-08-2012, 02:14 AM
What is the proper role of government?
Is it to tax the rich to give to the poor, to care for us from cradle to grave?
I think not...I think government's primary role is to provide security for the nation and give by so doing a safe environment for it's citizens to prosper and advance as individuals that can raise thier families in peace while enjoying the fruits of thier labor!
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those rights? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them.

Thomas Paine, in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:
"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another... It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man."

Thomas Jefferson questioned:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"

Government is the unification of citizens to insure the rights of individual citizens not to insure the authority of the collective over the individual citizen! This is the difference from the founding philosophy to the current liberal/progressive force that our government has now become!

Laws are to maintain society and that is to give security to the individual to pursue life without having to be on constant guard against evil. That is the fundamental reason for government. It is not to give a cradle to grave life in exchange for the sacrifice of individual Liberty!

Our Constitution must be restored to its proper place in our lives. It must be taught in schools in order for our children to understand Liberty and it's value and costs. The fact that it is under constant and brutal attacks by the left/lib/dem cadre of progressive "idiots" should wake up even the deepest sleepers! For once its abandoned or destroyed we are lost IMHO! -Tyr

red state
08-08-2012, 09:16 PM
Tyr,

The founding fathers NEVER meant for us to be a welfare state and it is clear to me that States are now like little nations who are members of the UN. They cater to the master and it seems that our States are doing the same. The only problem is the RED STATES who are not completely sold out YET. The UNION is not working the way it was intended and I'm getting to the point that I'd rather see RED STATES do their own thing before we all go down together. If you hanging from a cliff and both are going to fall (both WILL fall) and you can save yourself by cutting the rope...you may have to cut the rope.

I'm all for holding on for a brother but the more I see of blue states the more foreign they seem. I actually see blue states as an enemy because from within these blue states are those who STRIVE to dictate my religion, how I raise my children and with how I am to defend my family (if I'm allowed to defend them at all). The disease is spreading and I heard that a gal in Mississippi is raising can and determined to ban "assault weapons". Close the border you say....I'm about ready to close our State lines. Keep your filth out of my State...I like it the way it is right now thank you very much. You fix your problems before trying to ram your filth down our throats.

Am I a rebel? I must be if I refuse to cave in to the whims and will of those who would force me to live as one who occupied a plot of land and required to work for the Lord who owned that land with promises of entitlements and/or protection. Am I a rebel...YES! Just as those who broke free from King George! We may very well have to start this thing all over again! Boys, keep you powder dry, your axes sharp and your knives handy.

Tyr, I'd rather look over my shoulder for common thieves and vile murderers than look over my shoulder in fear of my gov. A gov. that is going to 'allowed' what I say, do or think and whether I'm 'allowed' to own something at any given moment or with what I'm to defend myself with...if I'm allowed to defend myself at all. You've posted for years and have met many folks. You've read the posts from some of these liberals who would gladly see the same thing happen to you as what this scum wrote about the six year old boy who so adequately voiced his opinion about reasons that NONE of us should (or should have) voted for B.O. Granted, few are civil and even open minded but most are vile little liberals from all over the world. Regardless of where they originate, they all share the same mindset. Over the years, you've read posts of those who label themselves conservatives but when you get down to it...they're really not conservative at all and would give you up in a second. All of them consider us a threat to their "image" or to their "agenda". Many of them consider us to be vigilantes, racist, ignorant rednecks, doomsayers and an obstacle that prevents progress, equality and harmony.


3828

aboutime
08-08-2012, 09:34 PM
I agree. The constitution should be taught to our children in schools of every kind. Bu the problem seems to be. That would be impossible to do since...as has been demonstrated in many ways over the last few decades. That teaching the constitution...like Obama claims to have done, and by teachers who are not nearly educated enough to do so...is next to an impossibility as well.

The Democrat, Liberal, Progressive side of the political aisle, and belief theories...which includes thousands of UNDEREDUCATED teachers who are charged to brainwash our children with their Liberal lies about the Unknown Constitution, is, and should be a crime against nature.

When Democrats like Obama and friends are permitted, without anyone to block their distortion of our Constitution. Our children, and a large percentage of our population that is basically EDUCATIONALLY challenged will always accept the distortions of people like Obama. Merely because they HONESTLY do not know any better, nor are they informed enough to use their own minds to reason, and seek common sense solutions.
Instead. They just follow like those SHEEP everyone likes to call those who HAVE NO MINDS of their own to use, without the help of FALSE PROPHETS like Obama.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-08-2012, 10:37 PM
Can we all agree that government is but a necessary evil? One we must endure to live in a free society and for the advancement of mankind. Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: "WE THE PEOPLE... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51)

CSM
08-09-2012, 06:58 AM
... What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government....

I am not so sure that it's a hypothetical question at all. Some would argue that the Bill of Rights enumerates those rights belonging to the individual in which government must not interfere. Then of course there is the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing as well and "certain inalienable rights". In my opinion, the Founding Fathers were quite clear on the rights of the individual which "the Creator" granted to every human being.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-09-2012, 10:43 AM
I am not so sure that it's a hypothetical question at all. Some would argue that the Bill of Rights enumerates those rights belonging to the individual in which government must not interfere. Then of course there is the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing as well and "certain inalienable rights". In my opinion, the Founding Fathers were quite clear on the rights of the individual which "the Creator" granted to every human being.

I agree that it is more real than hypothetical. The point being is when government starts attacking that which it was created to advance and protect then it becomes the responsibility of its citizens to institute serious change by any means possible! This what our government fears and why they are hellbent on taking away gun rights/ownership. Individual rights were never meant to be so greatly trampled by the very entity created to protect those rights. Yet government sees that to gain EVER MORE POWER that is exactly what it MUST DO! We now have hadour formerly protective dog go mad and attack it's master. Quite possible that it shall have to be put down in order for the master to survive(how to do that!). We shall see on that and this coming election will likely be the deciding factor IMHO.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-09-2012, 10:54 AM
Tyr, I'd rather look over my shoulder for common thieves and vile murderers than look over my shoulder in fear of my gov. A gov. that is going to 'allowed' what I say, do or think and whether I'm 'allowed' to own something at any given moment or with what I'm to defend myself with...if I'm allowed to defend myself at all. You've posted for years and have met many folks. You've read the posts from some of these liberals who would gladly see the same thing happen to you as what this scum wrote about the six year old boy who so adequately voiced his opinion about reasons that NONE of us should (or should have) voted for B.O. Granted, few are civil and even open minded but most are vile little liberals from all over the world. Regardless of where they originate, they all share the same mindset. Over the years, you've read posts of those who label themselves conservatives but when you get down to it...they're really not conservative at all and would give you up in a second. All of them consider us a threat to their "image" or to their "agenda". Many of them consider us to be vigilantes, racist, ignorant rednecks, doomsayers and an obstacle that prevents progress, equality and harmony.


3828

I agree , we have far too many "socalled" conservatives that have adopted the PC appeasor type mentality. They do a great disservice to the cause IMHO. BETTER HOT OR COLD THAN LUKEWARM!
Rest assured my friend that I have a firm grasp on how many would dearly love for all true patriots to be destroyed by any means possible!
We have arrived at a crossroads of sorts and which path we take will decide if our Republic stands or falls! I truly believe that and will do my small bit to see that we take the right path.-Tyr

fj1200
08-09-2012, 01:14 PM
What is the proper role of government?


The founding fathers NEVER meant for us to be a welfare state...


I agree.


Can we all agree...


I agree...


I agree...

I'm glad that there is so much agreement on the role of government. Who will be refusing their Social Security checks and Medicare benefits?

Little-Acorn
08-09-2012, 01:22 PM
I'm glad that there is so much agreement on the role of government. Who will be refusing their Social Security checks and Medicare benefits?

This is a common dodge, asking people who have had money forcibly taken away from them all their lives, if they will object to getting some of it back.

People who ask this question, never seem to get around to asking, "If you have the option of not PAYING INTO Social Security or Medicare, and not getting any back later, who will be refusing to participate in them?"

For some reason they forget to ask that one.

Or maybe they aren't forgetting, but are running away from that question with all the speed their rubbery legs can muster. ;)

fj1200
08-09-2012, 01:26 PM
This is a common dodge, asking people who have had money forcibly taken away from them all their lives, if they will object to getting some of it back.

People who ask this question, never seem to get around to asking, "If you have the option of not PAYING INTO Social Security or Medicare, and not getting any back later, who will be refusing to participate in them?"

Do you have the power of your convictions? Your second question; Not really an option is it?

Little-Acorn
08-09-2012, 01:33 PM
Do you have the power of your convictions?
Mmm hmm.



This is a common dodge, asking people who have had money forcibly taken away from them all their lives, if they will object to getting some of it back.

People who ask this question, never seem to get around to asking, "If you have the option of not PAYING INTO Social Security or Medicare, and not getting any back later, who will be refusing to participate in them?"

For some reason they forget to ask that one.

Or maybe they aren't forgetting, but are running away from that question with all the speed their rubbery legs can muster.
Your second question; Not really an option is it?
That sound you all just heard was fj2000 running away at full speed, as predicted. :D

Can I call 'em, or what?

.

fj1200
08-09-2012, 01:42 PM
Can I call 'em, or what?

Not really. You seldom take conversations past two or three posts especially when you build yourself an out. We have many big talking constitutionalists here but does the rubber meet the road? I'm sure many here would opt out but would they also consign themselves to poverty if they did not manage their assets properly in retirement? Your question was silly and a strawman.

fj1200
08-09-2012, 01:43 PM
Mmm hmm.

BTW, am I to understand that your convictions are empty?

fj1200
08-09-2012, 05:29 PM
... or what?

:crickets:

revelarts
08-09-2012, 06:06 PM
Proper role,
Protect persons / capture criminals, protect property rights, standardize justice or act as a neutral 3rd party. Organize militia of people for defense from outside threats.
An FDA that only ensured that what a person/co said was in something was actually in it would be good to.

That's a minimum, much over that i think is more trouble than it's worth

Voted4Reagan
08-09-2012, 06:32 PM
Proper Role of Government....

Do the Will of the People...

Not the Will of partisan Hacks

Kathianne
08-09-2012, 07:02 PM
Proper Role of Government....

Do the Will of the People...

Not the Will of partisan Hacks

The 'Will of the People' could bring problems, thus the safeguards such as electoral college.

Simple rule: The least level of government, only when necessary.

Examples:

Declaring War: Federal
Making Treaties: Federal
Securing Borders: Federal
National Defense: Federal
Currency: Federal
FAA: Federal
FBI: Federal
Interstate Commerce: Federal
SEC: Federal
Highway System: If building interstate, Federal. Once built, states maintain and pay for

That in my opinion comes pretty close to examples of where I think the federal government has jurisdiction.

States:
Intrastate Commerce
Intrastate roads-crossing municipal lines
Intrastate infrastucture
Intrastate policing and other civil services
Civil Law
Voting and Election rules
School Standards Minimums and Certification

Municipalities and Counties:
Schools standards in line with state requirements
Property taxes
Traffic
Intramunicipal roads and other services

Obviously not all inclusive and I'm certainly biased coming from a major metro suburban area. Our water is from Lake Michigan, a county away. My county pays millions for the water, my town pays it's share of the millions. While my 'street' is within one city, major thoroughfares are not.

Very different than rural areas, where the municipalities roads may be 10 or 15, but most routes are across tens of municipalities and several counties.

It's a complicated set of 'rural', 'suburban', near city suburban, and urban.

The sociologist in me wants to go on and on, but I'll see if anyone else is interested.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-09-2012, 08:08 PM
The government, under the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, has the duty to safeguard an individuals rights by whatever means necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights of citizens, and any others that the states award should be backed up by the full faith of the State in protecting those rights by whatever means necessary and exist to make sure that they are protected. That is one of the many luxuries in living in one of the most free societies, in the United States, and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with other's happiness and the enjoying of their rights as well.
Much of the answer given to this question of government's role will be dependent on which type of thinker is asking it. History has taught us that bad things are usually not far off when government does not take an active role in ensuring and protecting rights for individuals. When government goes silent in this capacity, some of the worst crimes are perpetrated. You can find much in historical record of what happens when individual rights are not acknowledged by a social or political order and what happens as a result.
Why endure the task of maintaining a government at all if the original purpose has been denied or so greatly changed!??-Tyr

Little-Acorn
08-09-2012, 08:21 PM
BTW, am I to understand that your convictions are empty?

As little fj disappears into the distance, leaving more honest questions far behind, his voice is fading as he hurls the last of the diversions over his shoulder.....

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-09-2012, 08:24 PM
As little fj disappears into the distance, leaving more honest questions far behind, his voice is fading as he hurls the last of the diversions over his shoulder.....

:beer: :salute: :beer:---Tyr

aboutime
08-09-2012, 08:52 PM
The government, under the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, has the duty to safeguard an individuals rights by whatever means necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights of citizens, and any others that the states award should be backed up by the full faith of the State in protecting those rights by whatever means necessary and exist to make sure that they are protected. That is one of the many luxuries in living in one of the most free societies, in the United States, and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with other's happiness and the enjoying of their rights as well.
Much of the answer given to this question of government's role will be dependent on which type of thinker is asking it. History has taught us that bad things are usually not far off when government does not take an active role in ensuring and protecting rights for individuals. When government goes silent in this capacity, some of the worst crimes are perpetrated. You can find much in historical record of what happens when individual rights are not acknowledged by a social or political order and what happens as a result.
Why endure the task of maintaining a government at all if the original purpose has been denied or so greatly changed!??-Tyr



I think...RIGHT NOW, would be the most appropriate time to let Mister Obama, Mister Holder, Mister Reid, and the Wicked Witch of San Fran know....That Constitution exists, and millions of Americans are going to make those people mentioned above...FULLY AWARE of that document, when November arrives.
Funny thing is. It will probably be THE FIRST TIME any of those listed above. Ever heard of that Document...other than to Ignore it.

Kathianne
08-09-2012, 08:59 PM
The government, under the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, has the duty to safeguard an individuals rights by whatever means necessary. The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights of citizens, and any others that the states award should be backed up by the full faith of the State in protecting those rights by whatever means necessary and exist to make sure that they are protected. That is one of the many luxuries in living in one of the most free societies, in the United States, and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with other's happiness and the enjoying of their rights as well.
Much of the answer given to this question of government's role will be dependent on which type of thinker is asking it. History has taught us that bad things are usually not far off when government does not take an active role in ensuring and protecting rights for individuals. When government goes silent in this capacity, some of the worst crimes are perpetrated. You can find much in historical record of what happens when individual rights are not acknowledged by a social or political order and what happens as a result.
Why endure the task of maintaining a government at all if the original purpose has been denied or so greatly changed!??-Tyr

However, by the Constitution we are a federation, not just a republic. At each level the republic is replicated.

fj1200
08-09-2012, 09:40 PM
As little fj disappears into the distance, leaving more honest questions far behind, his voice is fading as he hurls the last of the diversions over his shoulder.....

How typical of you to leave open questions and run away. Two honest posts is about all that you have in you.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-09-2012, 09:49 PM
However, by the Constitution we are a federation, not just a republic. At each level the republic is replicated.

The replication was to insure the primary basis that it is the individual's rights that must be protected before all others. If individual freedom is severely curtailed then collective freedom shall be curtailed as well. As you well know a pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule, the majority being the "mob". Each person's rights and freedoms being the primary focus rules out mob rule. A JUST SYSTEM OF LAWS WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS ITS PRIMARY FOCUS PROTECTS THE GROUP BY DEFAULT WITH RELATIVELY MINOR ADJUSTMENTS. What we've had is a move away from individual rights in the name of group rights, this allows for the desired distortion which aids in taking power from the citizens by piecemeal legislation and Executive order etc.--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-11-2012, 12:24 PM
Things The Government Should Not Do

A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provided for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far, but no farther?" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives? We shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that "... though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people." (P.P.N.S., p.345) We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350)

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities - all with the other fellow's money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad to say that we are now at the height of the plunder stage! Trillions owed and many hundreds of billions simply "disappeared' with very little interest and/or almost no outcry about the plundering. Yes, let's just pretend that it is all business as usual in the new progressive mantra of borrowing trillions to spend. As if that is not an globalist/liberal/socialist agenda that has a specific goal in mind!-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-12-2012, 05:06 PM
Governement Cannot Create Wealth

Students of history know that no governement in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:

Quote:
"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.' We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.' In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."

The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world's products and possessions in the short span of 160 years. The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man himself." The last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book - which I commend to all - reads:

"No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours." (Charles Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)


The Basic Error Of Marxism

According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.


The Real Cause Of American Prosperity

Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:

Quote:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
Quote:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-17-2012, 12:22 AM
The Republic is already gone. Obama has seen to that! A full 75% of all federal government actions, policies, agencies and programs are unconstitutional, we take over private business to reward political supporters and unions, and we have a fawning attitude towards anybody that speaks gentle lies and pretends to share our dreams of a prosperous future for our children.. Our taxes are beyond the dreams of Alladin's treasure, we have over 200 pages of law/regulations added to the book every single day of the year and we have one of the most controlled and locked down markets in the “free” world. We thrive on fear, thrills , cake and gladiator games while our education level as a whole is miserably poor compared to how educated we were when education was not a liberal ran indoctrination program.. Most people are amoral and most political leaders are pragmatists.

I believe that we’re currently dead as a Republic. What we are now and what we are becoming God only knows.
Very likely that we have this one chance to reverse the insanity or else we shall fall as surely as water is wet!
Do we pullback from Executive orders, appointed czars and end runs around Congress or do we beg for more of the same corruption , misery and treason!?? November folks, November will be the time of salvation or doom. We are very near a great crossroads and its our choice to stand with the Republic as it was founded or go with the socialist riftraft that seek to destroy our culture and nation?
I know which course I'll take and it puts our current dictator out the door with a swift kick to his sorry ass on the way out. --Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-17-2012, 10:49 AM
^^^^^^^ Post too much cold, hard , naked truth here and it's almost always ignored. So typical of how the nation reacts as well and the major reason that our Republic is facing this crisis now . Agree or disagree but such indifference is like a cancer IMHO..
FAILURE TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THE THREAT HAS NEVER BEEN A WINNING METHOD RATHER JUST A LAZY AND SOMETIMES A COWARDLY ONE IMHO....A method greatly promoted by this nation's enemies...-Tyr

fj1200
08-17-2012, 11:05 AM
Post too much cold, hard , naked truth...

Is that what you call it?


The Republic is already gone. Obama has seen to that!

Seems like opinion to me considering that BO has barely been president and much of what you whine about predates him by decades. Not to say, of course, that's he's not a blithering fool.

tailfins
08-17-2012, 12:10 PM
It depends on how fallen the society is. When landlords commonly think a security deposit is a "lease administration fee", rentals need to be tightly regulated. When car repair shops commonly run up a four figure bill on a car needing no repairs, car repairs need to be tightly regulated. A society that mostly is unethical doesn't deserve freedom. Pre-Castro Cuba had nearly degraded to a "modern" Sodom and Gomorrah in the 1950s. I at least entertain the idea that it deserved Castro. Maybe they have learned their lesson in 50+ years. Our country is defined how each of us live our everyday lives. The politics reflect the society, not the other way around. Socialism, Communism or even Stalinism is appropriate for a nation that completely loses its sense of right and wrong.

fj1200
08-17-2012, 12:52 PM
It depends on how fallen the society is. When landlords commonly think a security deposit is a "lease administration fee", rentals need to be tightly regulated. When car repair shops commonly run up a four figure bill on a car needing no repairs, car repairs need to be tightly regulated. A society that mostly is unethical doesn't deserve freedom. Pre-Castro Cuba had nearly degraded to a "modern" Sodom and Gomorrah in the 1950s. I at least entertain the idea that it deserved Castro. Maybe they have learned their lesson in 50+ years. Our country is defined how each of us live our everyday lives. The politics reflect the society, not the other way around. Socialism, Communism or even Stalinism is appropriate for a nation that completely loses its sense of right and wrong.

I'd argue that regulations do not effectively address the issues and are counterproductive. We need a government that enforces contracts and encourages transparency. The difference between right and wrong is when one side is able to force its will against the other and a governmental system that is based on that, writ large, is not a solution to the inherent problems.

Abbey
08-17-2012, 01:24 PM
Do you have the power of your convictions? Your second question; Not really an option is it?

Actually, I think his second question is the better question. If we are forced to pay into these programs, the choice to forgo really isn't ours to make. What is the point of asking whether we will refuse to accept the money we've paid in? It's ours, and we deserve to get it back.

A better question might be, would LA be willing to refuse handouts if he falls on hard times? Such as welfare. Or unemployment benefits, if he hasn't paid into those already, too.

fj1200
08-17-2012, 01:40 PM
Actually, I think his second question is the better question. If we are forced to pay into these programs, the choice to forgo really isn't ours to make. What is the point of asking whether we will refuse to accept the money we've paid in? It's ours, and we deserve to get it back.

A better question might be, would LA be willing to refuse handouts if he falls on hard times? Such as welfare. Or unemployment benefits, if he hasn't paid into those already, too.

It's a fine question but it's also the difference between what is and what is not. At this point we do NOT have the option of opting out of SS/Medicare and covering ourselves but we will, IMO, come to a point where those programs will be curtailed and my question gets to the heart of whether any strict Constitutionalists will scream, "I want mine," even as they rail against the program. You can easily forgo those programs, I believe Romney has already opted out of Medicare. I heard Neal Boortz discussing the subject of whether to take SS when he gets to that point; not taking it as he would have the option to do or taking it and donating to charity because he can accomplish more good with those dollars than leaving it in government hands.

Besides, it's not yours, SCOTUS says so.

Kathianne said she could get SNAP but doesn't; that, to me, is a position of conviction.

Kathianne
08-17-2012, 01:48 PM
It's a fine question but it's also the difference between what is and what is not. At this point we do NOT have the option of opting out of SS/Medicare and covering ourselves but we will, IMO, come to a point where those programs will be curtailed and my question gets to the heart of whether any strict Constitutionalists will scream, "I want mine," even as they rail against the program. You can easily forgo those programs, I believe Romney has already opted out of Medicare. I heard Neal Boortz discussing the subject of whether to take SS when he gets to that point; not taking it as he would have the option to do or taking it and donating to charity because he can accomplish more good with those dollars than leaving it in government hands.

Besides, it's not yours, SCOTUS says so.

Kathianne said she could get SNAP but doesn't; that, to me, is a position of conviction.

However, if I had to take benefits, I would. Not only have I paid into those benefits, but so has everyone. What I do think this woman and the Church and others prove is that if there wasn't SNAP, those most in need would get it. If SNAP didn't exist and I needed help, I've plenty of family and friends. I do not have to worry about being homeless or hungry. Just depressed. ;)

fj1200
08-17-2012, 02:30 PM
However, if I had to take benefits, I would. Not only have I paid into those benefits, but so has everyone.

And I think a safety net can be a necessary function of government, at the state level hopefully, but I think the notion of "paid into" is a misnomer that causes one to expect that they have a right to benefits. It's the difference between arguing a safety net as a proper role of government and government creating a virtual retirement program.

Kathianne
08-17-2012, 02:44 PM
And I think a safety net can be a necessary function of government, at the state level hopefully, but I think the notion of "paid into" is a misnomer that causes one to expect that they have a right to benefits. It's the difference between arguing a safety net as a proper role of government and government creating a virtual retirement program.

I agree. On the 'paid into that,' I mean because a program there. Personally I agree that there should be a safety net, but with clear limits.

I have some conundrum here though; I don't like the government telling folks what to eat, sleep, drive, wear, etc. I will say honestly that I've believed that making choices is how one learns to manage things. Through mistakes, learning happens. That doesn't seem to be working with SNAP though. My 'part-time' job has soured me on folks either needing the benefits or they have terrible diets. Yesterday another $25 sale of candy, chips, pop-at Walgreens. $1.83 for a pop! I mean if your going to drink empty calories, get a good price on it!

I do think the programs should be state or local. There should be limits on who gets and how it's used.

tailfins
08-17-2012, 05:11 PM
Tyr,

The founding fathers NEVER meant for us to be a welfare state and it is clear to me that States are now like little nations who are members of the UN. They cater to the master and it seems that our States are doing the same. The only problem is the RED STATES who are not completely sold out YET. The UNION is not working the way it was intended and I'm getting to the point that I'd rather see RED STATES do their own thing before we all go down together. If you hanging from a cliff and both are going to fall (both WILL fall) and you can save yourself by cutting the rope...you may have to cut the rope.

I'm all for holding on for a brother but the more I see of blue states the more foreign they seem. I actually see blue states as an enemy because from within these blue states are those who STRIVE to dictate my religion, how I raise my children and with how I am to defend my family (if I'm allowed to defend them at all). The disease is spreading and I heard that a gal in Mississippi is raising can and determined to ban "assault weapons". Close the border you say....I'm about ready to close our State lines. Keep your filth out of my State...I like it the way it is right now thank you very much. You fix your problems before trying to ram your filth down our throats.

Am I a rebel? I must be if I refuse to cave in to the whims and will of those who would force me to live as one who occupied a plot of land and required to work for the Lord who owned that land with promises of entitlements and/or protection. Am I a rebel...YES! Just as those who broke free from King George! We may very well have to start this thing all over again! Boys, keep you powder dry, your axes sharp and your knives handy.

Tyr, I'd rather look over my shoulder for common thieves and vile murderers than look over my shoulder in fear of my gov. A gov. that is going to 'allowed' what I say, do or think and whether I'm 'allowed' to own something at any given moment or with what I'm to defend myself with...if I'm allowed to defend myself at all. You've posted for years and have met many folks. You've read the posts from some of these liberals who would gladly see the same thing happen to you as what this scum wrote about the six year old boy who so adequately voiced his opinion about reasons that NONE of us should (or should have) voted for B.O. Granted, few are civil and even open minded but most are vile little liberals from all over the world. Regardless of where they originate, they all share the same mindset. Over the years, you've read posts of those who label themselves conservatives but when you get down to it...they're really not conservative at all and would give you up in a second. All of them consider us a threat to their "image" or to their "agenda". Many of them consider us to be vigilantes, racist, ignorant rednecks, doomsayers and an obstacle that prevents progress, equality and harmony.


3828


For someone who wants to responsible for himself, you sure worry about who wins elections. Even Limbaugh says his success is not determined by who wins elections. I'll take Cambridge, Mass. (where coincidentally due to popular demand Cuban government TV is available on cable) over Mississippi any day of the week. There are good "Red" states and crappy "Red" states just as there are "Blue". Sure, conservative policies tend to produce prosperity and liberal policies tend to be a drag, but they are not an end all and be all. There are just too many moving parts to that calculation. If you are an educated person, Massachusetts is currently the best place in the nation to weather the recession.

If you can stomach paying $3,000 for a small apartment, Williston, ND is also an employee's labor market. Politics is a much smaller factor than you realize. I may consider Dallas-Fort Worth in the future depending on how severe the typical problems of traffic congestion and housing shortages are. Currently Texas is not a good environment because the hype has caused too many refugees from the recession to move there, overpowering the job market. The Texas unemployment rate is almost two percentage points higher than New Hampshire which is part of the Boston labor market.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-18-2012, 06:30 PM
THOMAS JEFFERSON
At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America " and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia ’s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation’s size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello .
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence.
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive
the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson's brilliance can not be questioned by any honorable intelligent person. His life and accomplishments speak clearly to us especially in regards to the government's role and the danger government represents to our lives and freedoms! I have no doubt that if Jefferson were alive to judge today his opinion of obama and obama's treason would be that a day in court is due him and if found guilty he should receive the strongest sentence allowed by law..-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-27-2012, 10:43 PM
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/good-bad-state/

The Good State and the Bad State, Progressivism, Part III
What Constitution?
Posted July 14, 2010
Most Americans pay homage to the U.S. Constitution. Public officials swear to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic,” and the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote the book on pork barrel spending, carried a copy of the document with him at all times.

Almost everyone in authority claims to revere the Constitution. However, few people of them believe they should be bound by the limitations that define the document.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws imposed at all governmental levels that attempted to regulate business hours and employee pay. Today, the U.S. secretary of labor dictates much labor policy
-------------------------------

Progressives won the day because they gained control of the institutions that serve as “gatekeepers” in civil society, and they also won because intervention begets more intervention. For example, the Federal Reserve System, a favorite of Progressives, helped create the Great Depression and the New Deal, which, in effect, overthrew what was left of the constitutional order.

Today, the United States is what I call a “Progressive Democracy,” bearing little resemblance to the republic that existed 200 years ago. However, no matter how “advanced” government may claim to be, it still is government and needs to be controlled.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any government powerful enough to give you all you need (cradle to grave care) is powerful enough and quite likely to take all you have at some point in time!
Not only is our government too damn big it has also went down a dark and scary path that lends itself easily to powermadness. Such madness will march towards dictatorial power if not reversed. The beast ALWAYS aspire to have absolute control over its victims!--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-01-2012, 12:09 AM
A liberal state of mind just in time to displace us as the strong guardsman in this evil and violent 'ole world!
The progressive (liberal fantasy)philosophy, an economic failure, is also a massive blight on our souls. For it chains man to his fellow man and impoverishes all of society by taking away man’s individualism, his sense of responsibility and his self-worth. The progressive (liberal)state dehumanizes and demoralizes man, leaving him a pathetic and miserable lttle slave. There is no compassion in such a system. There is no morality in such a system. All that there is man ruling over his fellow man, throwing miserly government benefits at various mindless voting groups unable to see through such a scheme after so many years of socialistic ideological subversion. Yet we are blessed that our founders gave us a great and valuable weapon, the vote, which come this November we can as defenders of our culture, lives and nation use to great advantage by kicking out the vermin that has infected and tortured us so greatly since 2008.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2012, 09:46 PM
a liberal state of mind just in time to displace us as the strong guardsman in this evil and violent 'ole world!
The progressive (liberal fantasy)philosophy, an economic failure, is also a massive blight on our souls. For it chains man to his fellow man and impoverishes all of society by taking away man’s individualism, his sense of responsibility and his self-worth. The progressive (liberal)state dehumanizes and demoralizes man, leaving him a pathetic and miserable lttle slave. There is no compassion in such a system. There is no morality in such a system. All that there is man ruling over his fellow man, throwing miserly government benefits at various mindless voting groups unable to see through such a scheme after so many years of socialistic ideological subversion. Yet we are blessed that our founders gave us a great and valuable weapon, the vote, which come this november we can as defenders of our culture, lives and nation use to great advantage by kicking out the vermin that has infected and tortured us so greatly since 2008.-tyr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^^^^ the vote = our weapon against obama!!!! Use it or lose the nation..--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-15-2012, 10:42 PM
http://www.sentryjournal.com/2011/01/29/unalienable-rights-does-government-exist-to-protect-rights-or-to-grant-them/

Do you own you own body? Apparently not, according to the left, as they take the stance that people can be “nudged (Cass Sunstein)” into doing as the state wishes. Also, is it not Mr. Sunstein that suggests that organs might be removed from living people? Do you control your body when the government wishes to determine what you can or cannot eat, or otherwise consume, or what type, amount, or frequency of health care you can receive? Again, the left seems to act as if YOU belong to them, and that all that you do is subject to government intervention and supervision. Hate crimes laws take into consideration what an individual may or may have been thinking when they committed a crime, are we then to assume that the government means to legislate our thought processes?
Beyond the basic control over one’s body, the basic property that all of us have is our labor. We contract with an employer, or a customer, in order to exchange currency, goods , and services. We own our labor, and Locke and the founders suggest that this too, is an unalienable right. However, do we own our own labor when the government takes ever increasing amounts of it? Do we own our own labor when, depending on where one works, a labor union can take from you and use it against your own best interests? For that matter, can one be forced to join a union against their will? Also, why does government turn a blind eye to the violence committed by labor unions? Do we own our own labor when the government advocates forcing you to “volunteer” that labor (The GIVE act)? For that matter, do we own our own labor when, this year, the average American worked into August to pay off their tax bills?
A common deception of the left is to not ban something that they want to “go away.” Rather, they use increasing levels of taxation or regulation to make it either impossible to exercise a right, or create so many administrative hoops that one can only exercise a right within a narrow window of government regulation. Can we use our property as we see fit, or do we have to leap through many hoops to do what we want? Can we control the heat and power consumption of our home, or will the “smart grid” do that for us? Can government take our property and hand it over to private developers? It’s happening all over. Are sustainable development regulations being translated into zoning and building codes all over the US? Yes, they determine where you can build, what you can build, and how big it can be, and a myriad of other requirements that have to be met. Is the government “nudging” us into living in certain areas, all in the name of eliminating “suburban sprawl?” In the end, are we really free to own and use property, or does the government create an environment in which we can (at least for now) own property, but can only do with it as they allow?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A brilliant commentary on the status the American citizen has now. The last 40+years has eroded our rights so greatly!! Our founders would be in shock to see that we do not even know what has been taken from us unless we are old enough to have lived those 40 or 50 years ago. Thats how they do it it, a small cut here , one there and over time the cuts add up to get te desired results, its the leftist way.. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-27-2012, 11:58 AM
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1230.htm

Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government


26. Presidential Elections


The Constitution created a strong presidency, but the fear was that it might become an office for life, or even hereditary. Jefferson's recommendation that the President be limited to two terms in office was not implemented until the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. The executive department should be subject to change by the people on short intervals, and this may require not only the replacement of the President himself, but also the subordinate office holders in the government.



"The people... are not qualified to exercise themselves the Executive department; but they are qualified to name the person who shall exercise it. With us, therefore, they choose this officer every four years." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:422, Papers 15:283

"I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1823. FE 10:264

"While the Presidential election was in suspense in Congress,... it to be my duty to be passive and silent during the present scene; that I should certainly make no terms; should never go into the office of President by capitulation, nor with my hands tied by any conditions which should hinder me from pursuing the measures which I should deem for the public good." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1806. ME 1:451

[I]The Principle of Rotation in Office

"I apprehend... that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the offices of President and Senator will end in abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, 1788. ME 7:81
"My fears of [the re-eligibility of the President] were founded on the importance of the office, on the fierce contentions it might excite among ourselves if continuable for life, and the dangers of interference, either with money or arms, by foreign nations to whom the choice of an American President might become interesting." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:118
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson warned against electing a man like obama and Andrew Jackson would have likely ran obama's sorry ass out of town on a rail..-Tyr