IS SCOTT WALKER  A TRUE TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE? 

So is he?   The main stream media seems to hate him ?  so that is a good start for me. The NRA and Gun Owners of America both like him.  He slapped down the unions .. another good issue?

He may be the best chance we have in 2016

Thoughts ?

Views: 831

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

He is beyond hope our best hope, as he is a former Eagle Scout and proven winner even in the solidly Democrat Milwaukee County when he cleaned up that mess. He has been vetted, investigated, harassed and lied about by the Democrats so many times and they come up sacking air! The only mud they try to throw is he doesn't have a college degree- only 3 years at Marquette, but neither does Bill Gates. Look where these Harvard and Yale people have gotten us- I say we get behind Scott Walker for a no October surprise candidate.

If all of the High School Drop-outs inventions were not allowed to exest then we would not have RADIO,AIROPLAINS, TELEVISION , Tessler Coil ,Blood Bank , Batteries and cars. The high brows that flount their sheep skins are a bunch of people that has always beleived in statis quo and keeping their heel on the head of what thay think is the underlings . Thay walk around with their head held up so far that you can see all the way up their noses to their tiney little pea brain. In the past the people that were educated in the south was the most predugest pepol in the south.

Hillary is the "smartest woman on Earth"!

She is so SMART that she thinks WE believe that she used ONE DEVICE for convenience! She is so stupid she did not know that one device can have more than one email account!  Ha!! Ha!!

It is NOT the PAPER degree that makes one smart, it is what one does with the knowledge. Hillary is like all the other lawyers that went to law school to learn how to successfully BREAK laws!! Only problem : they think they are smarter than anyone else!! THAT is their down fall!!

Even worse than that, she actually thinks we believe her !

You mean "Hillary rotten clintonian?" 

Excellent point.

Wink give this some thought. I would like to have everyone on this site give their opinions and reasons for or against  Rand Paul  for president. What his father and I do believe he thinks the same, is essentially getting rid of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and taking back the monetary system to the constitutional responsibility assigned to the congress. Right now he is trying to get an audit of the Federal Reserve. That has passed in the house and has been held up in the Senate. There is a great plan worked out by top economists and I believe .Milton Friedman was one of them, to transition from the current corrupt system to one that will essentially restore our freedoms and put a stop to the insane annual interest on the debt of which it is currently about, $500,000,000,000. Yes, almost 1/2 a TRILLION DOLLARS and predicted to be $ 800,000,000,000 by 2018 as reported on Fox Business This morning. Plus we crossed the 18 Trillion mark on the debt.  The planned Congressional bill follows.

http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/amacolorpamphlet...

The only rational reason to have a Convention of the States, is if the Constitution itself were fundamentally flawed, which isn't the case.  Sure there are some things which should be removed, such as the 17th Amendment, to restore balance to the State powers. However overall the problem is not the Constitution itself, but rather the fact that it is no longer adhered to.

The hazard of a Convention is that there are those who want to alter that Constitution against us, every bit as much as those who want to alter it in our favor, To grasp this, one only has to read Progressive web sites, or the book by retiredJustice Stevens "Six Amendments",

The most disturbing thing about Stevens' "Six Amendments" is that most today  believes the Bill of RIghts can be amended by Article V, as if our rights were grants from the Constitution itself, when those Rights enumerated therein are only a "listing of particulars" that exist outside the Constitution, and not grants thereby. 

Yet in what criticism there was of Stevens book, no one pointed this critical fact out, because Americans are ignorant as to the Constitution, and far too ignorant to now have any convention of the States  result in anything positive.

In so far as those 10th Amendment State powers, people today actually believe the States are within their authority to deny us our rights.  This was no more clear than in the 2012 Republican promaries with Romney's defense of Massachusetts Romney Care as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" where individual's rights consisted of being able to flee to any one one the other states, refugees in their own country. Yet not a one of the other candidates recognized what a corruption this was to the 10th Amendment, not even Michelle Bachmann, the Tea Party candidate.

The greatest threat to our freedoms is American's current ignorance itself  The truth is that there is nothing to check or limit any alterations once a Convention of the States gets underway, making it an extremely hazardous  endeavor.

The Bush's are in this agenda up to their eyebrows. I have been telling people I know who still think the Bush's are patriotic because of their false flag wars, flag lapel pins and other things such as appearances at military bases and other BS events to try to cleanse their public image.

Oren,

I've read your amendments, at least as far as the first four or five, and then honestly could not read any further.

Given your intro to the importance of the amendments being ordered first, I expected to see something impressive right at the start.  Unfortunately what I saw was only your own narrow view of the meaning of the words, which nowhere recognizes the counter claim of the other side that their meaning is reasonable given the original intent. 

Unfortunately, as shown by a historic survey of court decisions, the arguments have been made that the interpretations are in agreement with the original intent.  

The result is that  even that first amendment will undoubtedly be interpreted to do nothing validate the status quo.

What disturbs me, and why I had to stop reading, is that despite so many Americans having their lives threatened, property taken, jobs denied them, and freedoms curtailed, and been incarcerated by the federal governments gross overreach of authority to apply laws in the federal states, and to claim lands in those States, despite no constitutional authority to do so, yet nowhere is this major problem addressed.

It was not so long ago that Americans in Bunkerville Nevada  had federal authorities pointing firearms at them, to enforce confiscation of private property the federal government had no authority to take, being on federal lands the federal government had no authority to claim.   People have actually been brutally murdered by the federal government in similar situations in this country, but this is ignored.  

If Congress and the federal government were kept out of other  non-enumerated interests, there would be no need to demand a balanced budget as they'd have no place to spend our money, and there would be no need to invalidate Amendments which, while they have no business being in the Constitution, really are not the problem at all. 

As example, the 14th Amendment did not itself create anchor babies, and the "jurisdiction" of citizenship is not reasonably jurisdiction of law, but rather jurisdiction of allegiance, which is why Ambassadors did not have to be excluded by direct reference.  Jurisdiction of law has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship.

It seems to me, that rather than trying to rewrite the Constitution, and the associated hazard of what may be overlooked in the process being implicitly validated, that the best course of action is to demand that the constitution's actual terms and limitations be adhered to. 

However given the fact that these terms have already been  emphatically rejected, repeatedly, even at force of arms, and are not just inadvertently being overlooked, I honestly see no real recourse by any recognized peaceful process.

Wink,

Where specifically is this "2nd corporate constitution" of which  you speak, and so that I might physically compare it to the recognized Constitution drafted in 1787 and subsequently amended?

Also at what point did this 'corporate' or incorporation occur? I have examined claims that this claimed federal corporation was created by the Organic Act of 1871, but that incorporation only applied to the municipal government of D.C. and not to the federal government.  

While I fully recognize that that our government is directed now by entirely unelected foreign interests, one of which is the result of the private Federal Reserve having control over our monetary system,   I believe this to be considerably different than actually operating by an undisclosed "2nd corporate constitution", whose very existence I question.

Oren Long,

You should constrain your response to what I actually indicate, not strawmen you fabricate. I nowhere assume any sort of magical mystery forces controlling the Convention, but rather what the Constitution itself explicitly indicates.    

It is a Convention of the States, but under the Control of the Federal government, as established by that Constitution itself, and has been recognized the Courts.  Attorney Edwin Vieira points out that since Article V delegates to CONGRESS the sole power to call the convention, Congress is within its constitutional authority to organize the Convention anyway it wants, and to appoint whomsoever it wishes as delegates, and to recognize whatever final amendments it chooses,and resolve any discrepancies any way it deems appropriate, entirely free from any outside intervention, not by even the Courts..  It becomes essentially a blank check to be used by the Congress.

Whereas you assume that somehow, by some undisclosed terms, that Convention will be maintained to a narrow interest, despite the fact that no such constraints exist.

Your "second" reference amounts to a statement of fact, and nowhere amounts to any sort of counter argument.

Your "third" reference indicates that all the 44 Applications (the original three plus the current 41) are identical in their request, somehow limits that subject matter of the Convention to those requests, when it does not do so, and no authority by the States exists to restrain the subject matter.

Beyond that, the Constitution itself already provides strict limitations on the " size, scope, power, reach, and jurisdiction of the Federal Government" which are already entirely ignored and violated.  Any attempt to recreate the original limits and enumerated powers inherently involves invalidating the original limits already in the Constitution, and thereby suggests that those original limits on government might be changed by populist appeal, which is a very foolhardy and injudicious underlying corruption of philosophy.

In your "fourth" grins and giggles, you yourself indicate the gutting of the Bill of Rights, inherently referencing that Bill of Rights as if it actually does itself provide us those Rights, which is exactly my point!  Apparently you've not ever read Hamilton's Federalist #84 which describes the extreme hazard of such a Bill of Rights, and recognized how Hamilton accurately presaged the corruption of Rights by government by this means over our history!  Your own words are case in point why no Convention should be done. 

Our rights do not come from the Constitution.

As far as the States themselves having to ratify those amendments, while this is indeed true, those States themselves already disregard those Rights, and the Constitution, and are no more immune to the current ignorance than the federal government itself!!! One only has to look at the existence of RomneyCare and Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy", or the fact that the States somehow imagine that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to them, to grasp the threat from the States themselves.

In point of fact, to understand the hazard of amending the Constitution, one only has to go through the list of those existing amendments one by one to recognize the consistency of the ignorance and corruption resulting therefrom. with very few exceptions.  Yet somehow you imagine the current effort and amendments would be immune to this ignorance, despite a lack of immunity already being profoundly in evidence -- talk about "magical mysterious forces!"

It's not as if a Convention of the States would be like some original Constitutional Convention, in which the  authors would be driven by any sort of common philosophy and overriding desire to protect individual liberty, but rather there would now be a whole range of competing agendas, and necessary backroom negotiating, with the result squelching individual liberty, and without the existence of ANY overriding wizened philosophy!

As to the "fifth" point, while it may only take 13 States to gut an Amendment, the problem is that the enlightened philosophy to write the amendments, and to then adjudge the amendments afterwards for ratification, does not exist in this country today.   If you doubt this fact, you only need to search for discussions of Stevens "Six Amendments" (even considering their content) and recognize that none of the reviews recognize how hazardous they are, much less indicate that NO amendment, regardless of who it is authored by,  has any authority to alter those unalienable rights that the Constitution does not itself provide, not one of them!

Sixth, NO, the Constitution itself is not flawed, but only men themselves are, which is why the Constitution is constructed on the philosophy of limiting men and government's control of our lives.  The problem with the Constitution's application is the result of a system based on legal precedent, which validates itself, and now has advanced to chronic systemic corruption institutionalized within ever-expanding bureaucracy, none of which will be remedied by a Convention of the States!

Seventh,  your claim that those who want to do away with a Convention of the States are wanting a system of Social Justice is just a reprehensible and dishonest red herring having nothing to do with any fact.

Contrary to contemporary belief, this nation's founders never believed the States, or the people themselves, to be bastions of wisdom and restraint, and in fact believed quite the opposite. The only reason the Constitution is framed the way it is, limiting the federal government, is because constituting that federal government was the task at hand, and nothing else. 

The States and the People are to be feared, and were then, which is why we are not any sort of Democracy, and why the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution is even now being so deliberately abused in order for some States to impose their will on the rest, and thereby alter country and Constitution by the back door.  

It's abundantly clear from your argument that you blithely believe in some benefice coming from such a Convention, the only "magical foce" being claimed here, despite the fact that no such assurances exist, no restraints exist, and the enlightenment of those desiring this Convention is nowhere in evidence!  This is not just a chance of a bad outcome, but the assurance of a horrific train wreck when this nation can least afford it.

As indicated by Vieira and others, "Prudent Fear of the Unknown is no Fallacy"

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve KelleyPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

C o r o n a V i r u s

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service