Saturday April 19, 2014
Jump to content
Ha. Good question. Seeing the condition of our government today, they'd be promoting it while the ATF are fighting in one of the few good things they do.
Yeah, I know some really dedicated servicemen, and those earlier years, who are still dedicated. I am aware of at least a few substantial moves within the military to solidify the support of the constitution above all else.
Really do hope you're right. I really do.
Yes, they (The ATF) had their vests on. Not sure what they were afraid of. Maybe just 'always prepared' for when they do have a 'real' situation.
BTW, my ex-wife was the Waco PD information officer that was seen on TV every day during the Branch Davidian debacle, giving updates from the Waco PD perspective. (Blond headed, usually in a pony tail.) She was also a Federal Matron. (Not a great title, but it was the female equivalent of a Federal Marshal, since there were (At that time) no female Federal Marshals. Or, so she told me. :-)
My brother was in Saudia Arabia then, and saw the first broadcasts regarding the ATF attach on the compound. Though she and I were already divorced he jumped up in the middle of the day room at their compound, and said 'Hey, guys! Of course, no one believed him. :-)
Concerning the second law regarding credits for lose of use of your land, I was afraid that was the case. While a good stop gap measure, it doesn't address the main issue of abuse of citizens by officials who abuse their power.
Concerning HB 2448: property value devaluation:
It is a good bill, but it hints at a worse situation than it addresses.
So, if I own a few hundred acres of ranch land, and am suddenly restricted in using that land to raise cattle, to some extent, I would be relieved to know I can obtain some compensation. But, it is saying that this entity can still run roughshod over me, as long as it was willing to eat a few dollars that will eventually be charged back to them.
I presume I'd still have the right to sue in court for compensation, in addition to this tax credit? Or, would I be limited to just this credit?
Is this indicating something more than eminent domain? Or, eminent domain being used for things other than roadways, utility easements and so forth? For example, I've heard of cities using eminent domain to condemn land to allow developers to create shopping centers. That is obviously a wrong use of eminent domain. Or, do I read too much into it?
As for your desire to see a three, four or more party system, I don’t see it happening in the US. That would require corporation between parties (As in Parliamentary republics/democracies, which have proven to be weak and very unstable.) They are continually forced to replace the existing government with another, because alliances change at the drop of a hat.
Italy is a good example. One month they are conservative, the next month raging liberals. And, those lesser groups (Think independents here) are left in the shadows as the strong arms in the various alliances push the others around, once they have their support. Constant flux, and endless haranguing. It is rule by committee, which has never gotten anywhere. And, the people become disillusioned with the impotence of rule by committee, plodding along, never understanding just how many freedoms they don’t have. I think you’ve been to Italy. Are they as free and we’ve been in America? No to the idea, the system we have now is the best; but even it can be hijacked, as now.
This has been described as the grandest of experiments. A thing never tried before. It has lasted for over 2-1/4 centuries, and now it has about run its course. I had often heard it criticized as rotten; but in the same breath came the statement ‘But, it is the best we have found, so far.’ That was said long after Italy, Germany and a host of other governments adopted their Parliamentary forms of governments, similar to your multiple party vision. If such a system was so great, would not our people, of saner times, suggested a switch? As we descend from this euphoric high of freedom, to the dismal depths of the historical norm of dominance, we can now see just how fragile and precious it is.
That is why the Arizona law in this article is so important. It addresses just a tiny sliver of the massive attack against us, and the depths we see below us, as we stand on this precipice of disaster.
As our sworn protectors attack a rancher in Nevada for simply doing what he and his ancestors have done since the 1870’s (i.e. Running cattle on free range, now not so free.) we hear that militia forces from a variety of states are flocking to his protection. Let’s see how that plays out; and we’ll notice that no military will intervene, unless federalized to do the dirty work.
Interesting, eh? :-)
Additionally, we are seeing group indoctrinations of our troops (And National Guard) with the idea that the Tea Party and Christians are the real terrorists. I can give you links to that, if you’d like. That plus the DHS’s ownership of over 4,500 armored crowd control vehicles, with mini-gun mounts and stationed throughout the US, makes his Civilian Security Forces more effective than the ever decreasing military would be. I have links to that, as well.
All that to say that while many military will have hearts towards our people, and our traditions, he will have the tacit approval of the leadership of the military; and the active willingness of those various ‘civilian’ forces to do his dirty work. I agree that large portions of the military would be geared to support the people, even as the Russian military supported their citizens in 1991. But, the jury is still out on whether this indoctrination they’ve been subjected to would inhibit the military enough to allow those Civilian Security Forces time to take down know insurgents. At best, it would be iffy as to whether or not our military would be able to protect us.
And, I think I had previously related to you that I stood on a hill in 1993, watching the Branch Davidian compound (And the 80 plus American Citizens inside) burn to ashes. Arial surveillance video shows the Army, FBI and ATF firing into the compound at various times. Firing on their own citizens, who maybe demented, were simply defending their way of life, as they saw it. On a couple of occasions, during that struggle, I was within 1/2 mile of their compound, and while I detested what they stood for, I was impressed with how their flag flew in defiance to brutality.
So, forgive me if I fail to have the same confidence in our people sworn to serve us and protect us as you do. It all comes down to which of us they decide to serve and protect, from the rest of us. Along that line, I am haunted by scenes of German soldiers holding their two fingers of their right hand in the air as they (En masse) swore allegiance to Der Fuehrer. There was never any record of any who refused, was there? I suspect there were some, but if they had survived, wouldn’t they have come forth so many years later to say ‘I resisted’? What happened? I suspect some were murdered, and the rest put their two fingers in the air. (1 part to follow)
Above you indicated that while you doubted the congress would try to stall, you said that if they did "I suspect that if it did work we'd see a second revolution." I think that in the next two or three years that assessment might be right. (See the last paragraph, below) But, after that, our people are already so cowed that there would not be enough to create the critical mass necessary for rebellion to take place.
You would wind up with pockets of resistance that could be easily isolated, surrounded and eliminated.
Along that line, you indicated that should the amendments be achieved that Obama would not decide to take matters into his own hands. You indicate that our military would not allow him to do that. Do you remember his comments on July 2nd 2008 when he said we needed a "Civilian National Security Force, just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded..."? Well, he's pretty far along to that goal now. There are over 200,000 DHS employees, according to Janet Napolitano, last year. And, most of them are armed.
I heard Mark Levin, today (Apr. 9th, 2014) , lamenting the fact that there are over 25,000 armed employees of the EPA, OSHA, FDA, Dept. of Education and etc. That doesn't consider armed CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, and etc. And, consider the fact that OSHA just made an armed raid to a company to obtain what amounts to safety records. Armed? Good grief.
I was in an office about a few years ago, and we were raided by the ATF—all of whom were armed, and looking for porn on one of the office computers. They confiscated several computers, having found what they were looking for on just one of them. They were very intimidating and proved to me the total lack of appreciation for the average citizen. They treated each of us, as if each was the offender. And, while I was certainly for stopping that activity, the overbearing actions and attitudes of those officers towards our employees were disgusting. Armed to catch a pervert who looked at porn??? Come on.
I told them I was going home, since I was prevented from working. Had I hesitated, they would have forced me to stay there, all day—with the others, until they were finished; but I booked out of there before they could formulate the decision to hold me, even without cause. (2 more parts to follow.)
I'm glad you brought that up. I’m sure you know about the push to have a State's Convention to make Constitutional changes to the Constitution. (As opposed to unconstitutional changes that occur all the time.) There has been a growing approval; and several of the states have already ratified their inclusion in the petition to Congress for that convention to take place.
On one of my rare intrusions here, I posted in an article on that subject, a few weeks ago, about my doubt that such a convention will ever be called. Not for lack of interest on my part (Or the part of the American people at large), but because the congress (Who is obligated by the Constitution to do the calling of that Convention—as a response to a proper request from the required number of states) will refuse to do so.
Can you honestly see Boehner, Reid or Obama (Indirectly) allowing such a call going to the floor for a vote? They have too much to lose, and possibly too big a chance of facing prison to allow that. You can’t expect the SC to force it, either, IMHO, because most would be stripped from their benches, and maybe imprisoned.
They know that if such a convention took place, their collective gooses would be cooked. I see it as, not a definite forget it vote; but rather, a long drawn out process with political backdoor manipulation to prevent such a move, through inaction. With all the bureaucratic hemming and hawing they are capable of, they would drag it out for many months, if not years.
Now, I really hope and pray that I’m wrong in that, and that a State’s Convention could be called, properly, to change the Constitution, to return us to the republic we once were.
Do you perceive the change you and I both hope for, by the normal simple amendment process alone? Or, do you propose the State’s Convention method now being pushed? Do you think I’m all wet about the roadblocks to such a set of laws being created/changed?
Presume the Constitution could be amended by this process, to the end result you and I both would like to see. Do you think Obama would set still for it? Don’t you think he would declare martial law, and end our system of government in one stroke? Is that impossible? Didn’t Hitler shut down the German Republic, in a similar way? Didn’t Saddam Hussein walk into his own legislative house and start naming names? Weren’t those named taken out and killed? Weren’t the rest cowed to become his private den of thieves?
Why does Ancient Rome keep popping into my head when I say something like that? :-)
As I have mentioned many times before, I have foreseen a coming dark and bloody time, doomed to failure, if this doesn’t happen, as you and I hope for. I have seen this coming for years; but never did I perceive the people so mollified as today. If our citizens were as they were, even 10 years ago, this would be a piece of cake. But, now, oh my!
Say, just read the full bill, as proposed, on the House website. I wanted to pay attention to the exceptions, and was pleasantly surprised to see they were very reasonable.
Thanks for the invite. I have been hoping states would take the initiative to do this very thing.
The thought that went into this bill is obvious. It lays the loss of freedom right at the foot of the perpetrators, and holds them accountable, without wiggle room. I really like it, as you have summarized. I will read the full bill, later today. (Got a filling to have done, in about 45 minutes.)
I have been hoping for a similar bill to have the same impact on immigration, regarding ‘Safe Cities’ and ‘Cities of refuge.’ Did you hear Jeb Bush’s comments regarding ‘Acts of Love’ towards illegals? (Sorry, didn’t mean to go off the reservation too soon; but I see a tremendous parallel, in that the states should dominate these two issues in similar manner.)
Concerning this bill, how do we get around the federal courts who take it upon themselves to nullify such laws? This is step one. What is step two? Fight it out through the courts? But, in the meantime, the law is nullified for a couple or more years? Will the state be willing to defy the Fed. Court, and enforce the law, until it is perhaps struck down in the SC? I doubt it, but wow, if they just had the moxie to really do that.
Well, folks, I hope you’re right. I surely do. Although I read the King's English (Used by all educated colonists, thus those who wrote the Constitution) fairly well. The "or" is simply contrasting the two methods. The sentence starts out saying what congress can do, one the one hand, then the "or", then the contrasting method of what they can do:
"on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments"
In that second option, the comma after the word states, shows the words between the "or" and "shall" are a conditional phrase. The word "shall' without the insertion of 'the congress' or 'the states' indicates that the congress, and not the states in this complicated sentence will be the one to do the calling.
Now, I don't expect you to accept that, since you've both expressed how you see it. But, if I can see it worded differently than you, don't you think that slick politicians, bent on their own purposes of keeping the money coming into their own pockets, can do the same? Thus, leaving the interpretation to the courts, when the congress refuses? And, I suggest that the courts will come down on the side of the government, just as it did for Obamacare, regardless of the will of the people; and certainly regardless of the will of the states.
Worse yet, they can drag it out, in court, to the point that it would be moot; and by then we will already have been dominated beyond our ability to recover.
I, for one, am prepared stand in the streets, or on the rim, or make a last stand up near Apache Butte. But, I pray this convention of states will pull the fat out of the fire.
Best regards, and thanks for you different insights.
Well, reading what you supplied here, I see the statement I'd referred to, wherein it says:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments"
It says, (Dropping out those parts not relative to this particular question.) “The Congress…shall propose…or on the application of the legislatures…of the several states…shall call a convention…”
Thus, that means that it is congress that calls the convention, not the states themselves. The states must apply for congress to call that convention. They can merely apply for it. They (themselves) cannot legally convene without the congress calling the convention. Now, maybe I’m reading that incorrectly, and surely hope I am; but I don’t think so.
If I read it correctly, it would be a slight effort on the part of congress to refuse the states the right to convene; and if the states did so without that consent, it would be a small step to consider such move a treasonous act, would it not? And, I suspect our ‘friend of the people’, President Hussein … would be delighted to arrest those subverters, who attempt what could be classified as ‘insurrection’ wouldn’t you think?
Now, I’m all for the convention, and think it the last great chance we have to recreate the great nation (That has so recently passed away), without blood and carnage. I simply think the convention may never take place because of this technicality in the law; leaving either servitude or death in a gutter somewhere as the last breath of freedom.
Last login: Thursday, April 17, 2014