What are we willing to do to take our country back?

[Twana Blevins]

Everyday we are constantly bombarded with new information about what the Obama administration and those pulling his strings are doing to destroy our country. Everyday we are horrified and disgusted by the arrogance of those who gleefully and willingly participate in the destruction of our country.

We get mad, we post these articles and alerts which keep us up to date on all the new traitorous actions of the fascist/socialist who's desire is to destroy/remove our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and Sovereignty. They speak misinformation about our founding document...our foundation...to make them appear to be without value, effect, consequence, or significance and void. We now know that our government is not listening to us, nor do they intend to.

We do have some (very few) honorable men and women holding some government position who are there to serve and not be served, who are standing firm for our Constitution and Republic. They are like lone rangers because as they have stood up to fight for our country, many of us are sitting in front of our computers talking about all that is going on, but what else are we doing to help them, or to help ourselves and to fight for our children's futures? I have to add there are many people standing up and fighting for our country to, BUT they need our help.

I was watching my young niece tonight who was reading her bible preparing for her Sunday School Class tomorrow. My joy in seeing her studying her bible was overtaken with fear of what would happen to her in her adult years if she were found reading her bible. Then my mind wondered into imagining her in a burka. I imagined her being beaten by the likes of the taliban for her ankles showing, for her being beaten because it's a man's duty to beat women into submission. Of course then I thought of her children she would have and what would they endure.

I also imagined if Islam didn't dominate our country and Communism did. My niece still would not be better off. What would happen to her if she was found studying her bible or teaching her children the precepts of God. What would happen to her children? She would not have the freedom of conscious, of exercising her conscious, she and her family would not have the liberty that many have bought and paid for with their blood. Her children will be forced to attend communist or islamic government schools of indoctrination. Her sons only if it's islamic government. Her daughters will be thought to be lower than chattel. I can't live with those thoughts.

So, what can we do?
What are we willing to do to make sure this does not happen to our country, our children,
grandchildren and their children?
What are we willing to sacrifice?
Are we willing to be arrested like Allan Keyes and jailed in our fight?
Are we still consumed with our worldly comforts to get out and fight?
Are we beaten down by our government to where we cower and do nothing?

When I use the word fight, I don't mean for us to physically fight unless we are forced into a corner and that is our only last hope. I mean putting boots on the ground....putting actions to our words.

We are now constantly reacting to this government. We need to switch that...we need to get on the offensive.

I'm asking everyone here to brainstorm and offer hope and suggestions on how we need to change our tactics to achieve what we want to achieve. Please list your suggestions, even if you think they are goofy or insignificant ...still list them, they may not be and/or we could use parts of them as a start or part.

What I don't want to see or read is America is doomed and there is no hope. Please help as we are all in this together...standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder.

Twana

[Twana Blevins]

Does anyone know the number of States who have State Sovereignty Resolutions in legislation and how many have passed.

[crashaxe]

Stop supporting the federal government with tax money. This would work if everyone could get on board however were too scared, were to fat and lazy, drugged, sitting on our back side watching American idle, sports, soaps, porn, nascar or what ever media that distracts and brainwashes us.
As long as we can sit back and be entertained by some dribble that media puts out smoke our joints and drink our beer as long as they leave me alone everything is fine is the attitude that too many people have.
No; not until people get too uncomfortable will they do anything and for most what can they do but die because they are unprepared and unable to fight, so die they will.
I mean look around at the people, there all fat, lazy and waiting for a hand out. And when you try to tell them whats going on and what needs to be done they think your crazy and call you a radical like they have been brainwashed to do.
Some may even report you as a radical in hopes of gaining points.
Read your Bible, seek God, ask Him to show you! He will, as we are in the end times and things are not going to get better by man's hand, unless man turns back to God and brings him back into the picture and we all know this is not going to happen, they have forsaken God and things are not going to get better until Jesus comes for his bride on the last day, the Day of The Lord, at the end of what is called the tribulation, "for this time will be cut short or no flesh would survive".
So don't go looking to be raptured anytime soon. GET PREPARED!!!
As for me, I'm gona sit back and laugh my ass off. Burn it all I don't care!

It was not my intent here to offend anyone and I hope I haven't and If so, I'm truly sorry.
God bless you all,
Crashaxe

[DJ "El Gato" Czerniejewski]

I loathe Barry "O" and his minions and will die before I allow America to be destroyed!

[Twana Blevins]

This is what we have to deal with or prevent to if possible:

[Warrior 1%]

this is the way most American's live. led by the gov.Brain dead. to lazy to think for them self

[SuperSparky]

Here's how you break the back of the Federal government's grasps for power. It's very simple, and I'll explain myself at the end.

* First, support efforts to get your State to declare its sovereignty guaranteed by the US Constitution.

* Second, support efforts by your State to exercise its rights to govern its own commerce and to refuse to participate in Federal rules, laws, and regulations that limit the State's sovereignty and ability of its citizens to have "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

* Third support your States enforcement of ALL rights gauranteed not only by the US Constitution, but also your State's Constitution.

* Encourage your local and State Legislatures to excercise their rights as the fourth "checks and balances" of the Federal Government.

Texas and Montana have already flexed their sovereignty muscles and have created laws stating that guns manufactured within their State and that remain in their State do not fall under any Federal law or regulation, as guaranteed by the US Constitution. Only Congress can regular INTERSTATE commerce and even then is only supposed to encourage it, not limit it.

Now the explanation, and it's VERY VERY important to understand. All of the authority the Federal government has exercised since the Wilson Administration, all balances on one very very poor Supreme Court decision about a farmer and his own private garden. To understand how weak the decision was, even liberal law experts say it was the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court and was obviously designed to serve a politically pressured agenda (FDR threatened to "grow" the Supreme Court until he had enough judges that would vote his way anyway).

With these new laws, the Federal Government, if it wants to keep it's power MUST bring to court these new States laws. This will force the Supreme Court to re-examine this old decision, and anyone with half a brain knows it will be reversed. The Court, in order to not reverse the ruling, would essentially have to do the Clinton equivalent of redefining "is". This will be a case the whole country would be watching, and certainly State Governments with their fingers on the "secede button".

Not if, but when this poor excuse for a ruling is overturned, everything the Federal Government has enacted against the States and commerce since the Wilson Administration (FDR, Carter, etc.) will be immediately null and void and declared Unconstitutional. This includes bailouts, seizing banks, seizing corporations, everything. This is the most brilliant tactic to fight the progressives ever devised. It is essentially fighting using their own weapons and calling their bluff. For them it's a no-win situation.

For example, here are some things that would suddenly have problems remaining:

* The EPA's authority over local commerce and land. It would disappear. Only products shipped between states (or made from materials outside the State) would be under the EPA.

* Energy! Any resources inside State boundaries, if not shipped outside the State cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. This means Alaska could drill at Anwar. The Federal government could NOT say no, they could only tax it.

* Guns, no more regulations on locally made firearms. As long as the firearm remained in the State the Feds can't touch it.

* Federal social programs ... most would have to go. That's a State issue.

There's so much more. This can literally reset our nation back to where it was before the Wilson Administration. No more Federal Union protection. No more Federal minimum wage etc.

This is the so-called "Nuclear Option" the Tea Party movement has been looking for, and there is nothing the Feds can do to stop it. Support your State politicians that support State sovereignty and State Laws that limit federal laws. The Liberals will fight tooth and nail to make it look bad and will outright lie about its legality.

I know it's hard, but doggon it, those folks in your State legislatures have a magnificent weapon to fight Obama's road to fascist socialism. As long as the Constitution has teeth, this will work. There's no way the Feds can avoid this, the the Supreme Court is perfect right now for this.

More states need to "grow a pair" and do this. Get them to do it!

Think of this: I used to live in California. Basically LA and San Francisco out-vote the rest of the entire state. Seriously, the rest of the State is very Conservative and hard working. There are hundreds of thousands of farmers and pickers in central California out of a job because some hippie environmental group SAID there was this tiny minnow that MIGHT get hurt if it went through the aquaduct pumps that send water to this part of the State. What did the Feds do? They ordered the Pumps be turned off after 40 years of operation. All for some stupid fish! Keep in mind much of the USA's veggies and produce come from California. Just wait for your grocery prices to skyrocket over a tiny fish a couple people claimed is endangered and claimed it was there. If you think California was in trouble before, they are losing their largest industry, farming. All for a tiny tiny fish.

This wouldn't be an issue anymore if the Feds were once again limited in authority as the Constitution intended. Believe me, not even the hippies in charge in California would be able to keep the water off then.

[Twana Blevins]

Your words reminded me of this article I read at Wallbuilders.com

A Tale of Two Constitutions
David Barton - 02/2005

(First published in the October 2004 issue of The American Legion magazine)

The subject of constitutional interpretation may seem like a topic best fitted for an ivory-tower debate, but it actually has a very real and dramatic impact on daily life (as will be demonstrated shortly). In recent years, two competing viewpoints have emerged.

Probably the first exposure most citizens had to the two views came during the 2000 presidential debates. When asked what type of judges should be placed on the bench, candidate Bush responded: “I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government . . . and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. . . . I don't believe in liberal, activist judges; I believe in strict constructionists.” 1 Candidate Gore countered, “The Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows.” 2 Gore later stated, “I believe the Constitution is a living and breathing document. . . . We have interpreted our founding charter over the years, and found deeper meanings in it in light of the subsequent experience in American life.” 3 So, the two choices are . . . follow original intent, or construct a living constitution.

Proponents of a living constitution believe that we should not be bound by what dead white guys wrote two centuries ago when slavery was legal, women could not vote, and horses were the fastest means of transportation. Instead, we should live under a constitution that is alive and vibrant, reflecting today's values and beliefs.

Such rhetoric makes a living constitution sound appealing, but it is actually a complete misportrayal of the difference between the two philosophies. In reality, both accommodate an evolving society; in fact, under the strict construction (or originalist) viewpoint, Article V of the Constitution requires that the Constitution be a living document. The real difference between the two approaches is not whether the Constitution should evolve, but rather how those changes should occur - and who should make them.

Under the living constitution approach, history and precedent are largely irrelevant; instead, unelected judges create policy to reflect modern needs through the constitution they themselves write. As explained by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes:

"We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is." 4

Ironically, under this modern approach, judicial policy-makers are regularly out of step with modern society. For example, although 80 percent of the nation currently opposes flag desecration, living constitution judges have ruled that the people are wrong on this issue and that the flag cannot be protected. Similarly, 90 percent of citizens in the federal Ninth Circuit supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, but their living constitution judges pronounced them wrong.

Equally striking is the number of recent occasions in which living constitution judges have overturned statewide votes wherein the People clearly expressed their will (e.g., striking down votes in New York and Washington that banned physician-assisted suicides; in Arkansas and Washington that enacted term limits; in Missouri that rejected a tax increase; etc.).

Each of these popular votes would be valid under original intent because in that approach, the People — not unelected judges — determine their policies and values. And whenever the People want a change, they do not rely on a judge to make it; instead, they update their Constitution to reflect their views — as they have done on over two-dozen occasions. Samuel Adams pointed out the strength of this approach:

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. And the federal Constitution — according to the mode prescribed therein [Article V] - has already undergone such amendments in several parts of it as from experience has been judged necessary." 5 (emphasis added)

This unique American guiding principle made its appearance in the Declaration of Independence as “the consent of the governed.” The State constitutions penned after the Declaration reiterated this precept — as, for example, in Massachusetts in 1780:

" All power residing originally in the people and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government vested with authority — whether Legislative, Executive, or Judicial — are their substitutes and agents and are at all times accountable to them." 6

The same axiom was then established in the Constitution through the three-word phrase that begins its text: “We The People.”

Today's living document proponents decry this approach as majoritarianism - the so-called “tyranny of the majority.” Perhaps, but what is the alternative? Minoritarism? That a small group should be able to annul the will of the People and enforce its own desires upon the masses? Such an option is unacceptable under original intent. As explained by George Washington:

"The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail." 7

Thomas Jefferson agreed:

"The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived." 8

Does this original principle therefore mean that minorities are to be disregarded or trodden upon? Of course not. As Jefferson further explained:

"Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable — the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect." 9

While the minority is not to prevail, with its constitutional guarantee of “free speech,” it does have the “equal right” to attempt to persuade the majority to its point of view. The minority does have equal rights, but equal right is not the same as equal power; the minority is never the equivalent of the majority and should never exercise control over it.

Living constitution judges, however, view the majority as inherently wicked and depraved — always seeking deliberately to violate the rights of the minority with only judges standing between the minority and total annihilation. Therefore, under this anti-majoritarian view, the greater the public support for a position, the more likely a living constitution judge is to strike it down.

Yet American history has proven that the best protector of minority rights is not the courts but rather the People. For example, former slaves received their constitutional rights not from the courts but by the majority consent of non-slaves; women were similarly accorded the constitutional right to vote not by the courts but by the majority approval of men; the constitutional rights accorded to the poor by the abolition of the poll tax came at the majority approval of those who were not poor; and the constitutional right allowing eighteen-year-olds to vote was given by the majority approval of voters not eighteen-years-old. Additionally, all of the constitutional protections for individuals and minorities established in the original Bill of Rights (e.g., speech, religion, petition, assembly, bearing of arms, etc.) were also enacted by majority consent. In other words, all minority rights in the Constitution have in all cases been established by majority consent.

In fact, the courts have a very poor record of protecting minority rights. Although living constitution proponents love to point to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended segregation as proof that the courts protects minority rights, they conveniently forget to tell the rest of the story. In 1875, Congress — by majority vote — banned racial segregation, but in 1882, the unelected Supreme Court struck down that anti-segregation law; in 1896, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its pro-segregation position; but in 1954, the Court finally reversed itself and struck down segregation - eighty years after “We The People” had abolished segregation.

It is not surprising that judges are fallible, for as Jefferson pointed out:

"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have — with others — the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . And their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible — as the other functionaries are — to the elective control." 10

Certainly, the majority will sometimes err, but as Jefferson observed, “its errors are honest, solitary, and short-lived” and can be remedied by “elective control.” However, the errors created by judicial decisions are more severe and long-lasting.

While living document enthusiasts disparage strict constructionists as being narrow or restrictive, Justice Antonin Scalia counters:

"Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary, my [originalist] Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy: pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility." 11

Scalia points out that it is just the opposite with living constitution judges:

"They want the whole country to do it their way, from coast to coast. They want to drive one issue after another off the stage of political debate." 12

In short, then, the living constitution approach empowers an unaccountable elite to make decisions on behalf of the People; original intent empowers the People themselves.

[For more information on this topic please see David Barton's book Restraining Judicial Activism or his audio presentation Restraining Judicial Activism on cassette.]

Endnotes
1. Commission on Presidential Debates, "2000 Debate Transcript" (at http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html). (Return)
2. Commission on Presidential Debates, "2000 Debate Transcript" (at http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html). (Return)
3. PBS.org, "Online News Hour: Al Gore" (at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/candidates/gore_3-14c.html). (Return)
4. Charles Evans Hughes, The Autobiographical Notes of Charles Evans Hughes, David J. Danelski and Joseph S. Tulchin, editors (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 144, speech at Elmira on May 3, 1907. (Return)
5. Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904), Vol. IV, p. 388, to the Legislature of Massachusetts on January 19, 1796. (Return)
6. A Constitution or Frame of Government Agreed Upon by the Delegates of the People of the State of Massachusetts-Bay (Boston: Benjamin Edes & Sons, 1780), p. 9, Massachusetts, 1780, Part I, Article V. (Return)
7. James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 164, from the "Sixth Annual Address" of November 19, 1794. (Return)
8. Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), Vol. XVI, p. 179, "Response to the Citizens of Albermarle," February 12, 1790. (Return)
9. James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 322, from Jefferson's First Inaugural on March 11, 1801. (Return)
10. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 277, to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820. (Return)
11. About, "Scalia on the Constitution" (at http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm). (Return)
12. About, "Scalia on the Constitution" (at http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm). (Return)

[Cigarette]

I just read an article yesterday declaring that CA will be totally bankrupt by July! Is it any wonder since they lose their farming industry without water and oh yes - let's not forget the restrictions on tobacco (of which CA is the worst) thereby eliminating huge revenues in their coffers. Good going CA.

[Katy]

We need SOMEONE with enough status to get media attention, who is willing to go on air LIVE and ask about Obama's birth status and qualifications. Maybe Sarah Palin, or Oliver North, Sean Hannity Glenn Beck, Huckabee, Rick Perry??????
This is the only way to get the Supreme Court to pay attention.
We also need to have a Grand Jury conviction by all 50 states.

[Claire Pope]

Rick Perry is going to be at the Bilderberg meeting in Greece so I doubt he would do it.
His name appears on the list


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_bilerberberg_attendees

[Warrior 1%]

What ever it takes

[SuperSparky]

The second option is a "last resort", and that is for the States to demand a "Constitutional Convention". This is something the Feds cannot control, influence, nor attend. It's a States affair, and like the second amendment, is a provision put in by the founding fathers should the Federal government become tyrannical. Before you worry, no, a Constitutional Convention does NOT reset the Constitution as it is. Even things at a Constitutional Convention must be ratified by 2/3rds majority in each State before it becomes an amendment. the difference here is that Congress is NOT part of the process like normal amendments. This is effectively going over their heads. The sound of one hundred Senator's sphincter's puckering would be sweet vengeance.

Should we have to do this. Here are my suggestions for amendments to the Constitution:

* All Federal Senators and Representatives are State employees and their Salaries are governed by their State. They cannot set their own pay. All gifts are illegal and considered bribes. As they are State employees, term limits are determined by their States. Term lengths remain the same for Representatives and Senators. They MUST attend and vote for every measure. Like any other job, no attendance without excuse means termination.

* Fix the Electoral College. Make it two votes per State, regardless of population. This will make all States equally important for Presidential elections. Remember, this is a Republic and the Federal government is supposed to represent the STATES not the population as a whole. The President is not a Prime Minister. He is executive over the Federal government. This prevents States like Ohio, Florida, California and Texas making all of the decisions for President.

* You might not like this, but extend the President's maximum time to be ten years (two and a half terms), and the first term is only two years. The next two are four years. This minimizes the damage an Obama can do in the future, but also gives a good President the time to get things done.

* Abolish the IRS. Make the tax code a Constitution level system that if it requires change, also requires an amendment to do it. Make it either a fixed sales tax, OR a fixed income tax. EVERYONE pays the same percentage regardless of income level. That's fair. That will also make you appreciate your income more.

* Abolish ALL Federal social programs and specify they are only for individual States to do, IF they choose to. This includes Social Security, Medicare, etc. The States can do it better and much more efficiently given the opportunity.

* Make government employee unions illegal. Why? They effectively take away the people's right to vote. Government employees work for the people. The people have a right to decide aspects and perks for their employees. If the government employees have a problem or request, then put it on the ballot. No more closed room sleaze-bag deals with politicians.

* Specify with plain and bold words that what is not written or specified in the Constitution, the Federal Government has no authority nor jurisdiction over, ever. Specify a punishment for violating this.

* Religion is recognized by the government and it cannot be infringed. Nevertheless, there is never to be a State religion, nor a religion held in higher esteem or influence over the other, which includes the religion of "Geia" or most commonly known as "Environmentalism." Religion can be rejected, even members deported, if it says non-believers or apostates must die.

* Specify in the Constitution that mankind has unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, which cannot be infringed. All men and women are created equal, with none having more rights than the other, regardless of race, creed, and even sexual orientation.

* Marriage is to be identified as a religious ordinance and not governmentally controlled. Those wishing legal protection must have their own States determine the terms of "partnership contracts". Only those entering into contractual agreements have claims to property when the agreement is broken. (in other words, bring meaning back to marriage again)

* The first amendment must be strengthened. The Federal government cannot regulate nor dictate the content of programming over the air, on the Internet, on wire, or any other form of broadcast. (This is to prevent things like the "fairness doctrine" etc.) The Feds can only regulate the allocation of the limited number of frequencies available for broadcast, and only do so by lottery and desired coverage. No more PBS or NPR. Let them earn their own dollars.

* Strengthen the second amendment.

* Give the President line item veto authority.

* Make it treason for a President to sell top secret technology to a nation without congressional consent. Make it treason for the President or a member of congress to give aid and comfort to an active enemy Congress has previously declared war upon.

* Declare that no treaty, international court, nor international law will supersede the Constitution nor our nation's sovereignty at any time. Any such treaties must be treated as Constitutional amendments and go through the same process for full ratification. In other words, neither Congress nor the President have the authority to sign away our sovereignty.

* Declare English as the official national language. All immigrants must learn English. Make available English school vouchers to assist. This would be much cheaper than printing seventeen different documents in seventeen different languages. All must assimilate and accept our culture yet be allowed to retain their social identity. No special considerations will be made for differing cultures and religions. (Drivers licenses require a FACE, women are not property, Sharia law is for the Middle East, not here, etc.)

* No more "Fed" it's back to the "Gold Standard". Our currency must be backed up by capital, be it gold, platinum, silver, etc. It must have REAL value. You work with the money collected by the fixed tax. No more deficits. If the government doesn't have the money, then it can't spend it, nor print more unless there is capital to back it up. The government can issue bonds.