It's Started - Talk Of Revolution.

I wonder if there is some reference as to exactly where Owebama has shown any indication of compromise. This is the man who reacted to the Republican majority in congress by calling them "my enemies."

He failed miserably in even trying to show flexibility in the great credit ceiling crisis, choosing instead to play brinksmanship to give himself a wedge issue.

Just one example of flexibility, just one example where he has granted his "enemies" even an inch.

 

....and you guys can't even settle on anyone (out of that FINE, FINE field of whackos) to beat him in 2012. Imagine that.

 

Amen, brotherman.

 

Of note the great "credit ceiling crisis" was the increasing of the debt ceiling. Congress should have balanced the budget as opposed to increasing US debt.

The current crisis is the extending of tax cuts where we don't have the revenues to pay for government expendatures. We need severe cuts in spending as well as more tax revenues. We cannot afford our current debt which represents a 1000% debt to income ratio when we address disposable income which only comes from general taxation (FICA/Payroll taxes are dedicated taxes that are unrelated to our national debt). Any debt to income ratio over 100% is too large and we're at ten times that amount.

 

When's the last time you have seen a true Marxist (not someone who you disagree with so you label him a Marxist) in power in America?

 

or maybe , just saying , a Gingrich / Perry ticket . Who knows , too early yet .

 

Barack Obama. Of course, he sold out, like all Marxists have in human history. It's to be expected.

 

Oh my God ... the Sky is Falling ... yet again.

 

I started hearing the talk since the end of second Clintons term. then Bush got elected and it all went quiet. gun totting patriots and militias were all smiles, while tens of millions of American families were losing their homes to the banks that got bailed out by that same exact government, Bush administration.
Revolution will come only when the leader will arise. you can see mob revolutions in the middle east - not our bag.

 

Then, using your timeline...would it be safe to say that the American Revolution never ended? That like the Russian revolution that was merely an extended transition, the American revolution is simply 'evolving?

 

Many cite the Civil War as being the last war of the American Revolution but we still have a long ways to go towards meeting the ideals established by the Declaration of Independence. We'll never reach the ideals but need to always strive for them. Unfortunately we're generally at odds with the politicans that have no intention of ever striving to meet those ideals.

 

Unless the needs of corporations is a central theme to the Declaration of Independence, you are right, our politicans that have no intention of ever striving to meet those ideals.

 

My signature actually contains the ideals established for America from the Declaration of Independence.

Of note though many refer to "corporations" as a dirty word but in reality they're nothing but an contractual enterprise with mulitple owners. They inherently have no Rights but the individuals that own the corporation do have inalienable Rights. The most important inalienable Right of all is the Right of Property and it is the one most violated by our government.

The entire monetary system of the United States which is controlled by a private entity (Federal Reserve Banks) today is a violation of the Right of Property and of contract law. Contract law protects the inalienable Right of Property of the Individual. The Federal Reserve is issuing "legal tender currency" which was established as being "Constitutional" as this currency was representative of the Constitutional authority of Congress to "borrow money on the credit of the United States" under Article I Section 8 Clause 1. This was determined in the Supreme Court decision in Julliard v Greenman. Federal Reserve notes are promissory notes that promise redemption in "lawful money" that are coins being minted under the authority to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" as authorized in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. The most recent major legislation related to this authority to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" was the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985.

So we have promissory notes (Federal Reserve notes) that promise redemption in "lawful money" (i.e. gold and silver coins being minted under the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985) that is the contractual obligation of the note but we cannot redeem those notes as required by both contract law and US statutory law (Title 12). The Federal Reserve is in material beach of contract and the notes it's issuing are fraudlent but the government refuses to enforce contract law. This violates the Property Rights of the American People.

If the inalienable Right of Property of the Individual is to be protected then first and foremost our government must enforce contract law but it is not doing that related to "legal tender" Federal Reserve promissory notes being issued with the backing of the US government.

 

My signature also conveys the reasons why the Constitution was created.

 

I'll include a copy of that signature for comment:

It is interesting because this is the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States and, as with all preambles, it establishes the foundation for what is to follow in the document.

We can actually go to Article I Section 8 to see how the Constitution addresses providing for the common defence and general welfare.

Here the Constitution is specific and it establishes that the Congress is to provide for the "the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" which is different than providing for the common Defence and general Welfare of the People. The Constitution is, in fact, a contract that the States entered into and the People did not. At the time of it's initial ratification and at no time since do the People have anything to do with the US Constitution. The People did not create it, did not ratify it, and cannot change it. Only the States had the power to ratify the Constitution or any subsequent amendments to it. The states also have the authority to change the Constitution outside of any Federal control under Article V.

But let is proceed. Not only does Article I Section 8 explicitly address that the "common Defence and general Welfare" it to be provided for the States, not the People, but it then goes on to specifically list (enumerate) the actual responsibilities of Congress to provide for both:

Once again this is a specific list that's included in the contract between the States and like any contract this is all that the Federal government is authorized to do. By analogy I've repeatedly used the example of an auto repair contract that we might sign with with a shop to do a brake job. It is a specific contract and that is what the shop is authorized to do. It can subcontract some of that work, such as machining the rotors to a machine shop, but all of it's actions are limited by what the contract authorizes. That repair shop is NOT allowed to rebuild the motor on the car even if the motor needs rebuilding. For the shop to rebuild the motor it would require an amendment to the contract to authorize the work.

The same is true of the US Constitution which is a contract. Every role and responsibility related to providing for the common Defence and general Welfare" is explicitly enumerated in Article I Section 8 or would require authorization by amendment.

We're back to the simply point of the government's responsibility in protecting the inalienable Rights of the Individual as established by the Declaration of Independence with the Right of Property of the Individual being the most important inalienable Right of all.

BTW State governments are the contract entity of the People and logically the States cannot delegate any authority (i.e. subcontract) any roles or responsibilities to the Federal Government in the US Constitution that the People haven't first delegated to the State.

Our very government is based upon contract law which protects the inalienable Right of Property.

 

Too bad we've chosen to use (or abuse) the second one and the last one as back doors into growing a monster government.

 

Is it really the most important? I'm not actually sure where a right to property is, in the constitution, apart from the bit about unlawful search and seizure, and that clearly provides for lawful seizure.

I think I agree with what you said otherwise in your post, to the extent that I understood it.

 

This is one of the most intelligent posts I've read in a long long time in here.
It is...quite unfortunately...true.
Obama has been dragged through the muck by all sides...and so will the next president who thinks making REAL change is good.
Those in power don't want REAL change...they want psudo-change.
They LIKE things like healthcare debates and infrastructure debates.
They also like things like war and disaster.

See people...these 1%ers that we keep talkin' about are not only wildly wealthy and powerful, but they are also extremely sharp. They know that as long as the TV is running and some disaster is on the go somewhere...the public will focus on it...and forget that these 1%ers have their hands in your wallets...are extinguishing your freedoms...are removing the hope of the American Dream.

They have the ULTIMATE distraction in the Whitehouse right now. A coloured guy is president. Gawd what a distraction! NOTHING this poor bugger does is OK with many people.

The quicker you Yankees grow up and realize this...the better we'll all be globally.

 

Many in interpreting the US Constitution refer to the Federalist Papers which were predominately authored by Madison but they forget about the anti-Federalists that represented those that opposed a dominating federal government. The Federalists initially held the position that the protection of inalienable Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution gave no authority to the federal government to violate them. It was the anti-Federalists that argued that without specific restrictions upon the power of government that there would be no containing it. Madison finally realized that the anti-Federalist were correct in their arguments and eventually supported the Bill of Rights.

The federal "creep" we've seen related to the power to regulate commerce between the states and foreign countries (Clause 2) as well as the necessary and proper clause (Clause 17) were addressed by the 10th Amendment but that amendment has often been shown to be inadequite.

There are some victories for the People and the States based upon the 10th Amendment such as the overturning of DOMA by the 2nd District Court and "Obamacare" is going to face a tough challenge based upon the 10th Amendment as well but all too often, such as in the case of federal minimum wage laws as well as Social Security/Medicare, the 10th Amendment has failed to restrict the expanding powers of the federal government.

One of the hopes I actually have is that perhaps the States will finally have enough of abuse by the Federal Government and call a Constitutional Convention where they can once again attempt to limit Federal expansionism which was the intent of the 10th Amendment. The anti-Federalists were right and even Madison eventually agreed but they just didn't go far enough in protecting either the States or the People with the 10th Amendment.

 

Don't worry about the minimum wage anymore the US Government has no say in the way Wages are determined in the US anymore the global labour market makes those decisions along with the Transnationals like Caterpillar Global inc.

Yes a 2 teir wages system with inital 50% wage cuts for US Workers.Isn't the government of a Nation susposed to defend citizens from foreign attack??????

What workers are no longer welcome to the protection of the US Government???

Has anyone told them yet???http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/cate-j04.shtml

Oh sorry thats the Canadian example part of NAFTA so same really.

For the US example I choose.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/coop-j06.shtml

Please explain why the Capitialist Government of US Impearialism offers no protection to the US citizen what workers don't count when it comes to attack from foreign Companies.????

What about a Global War against Depression ??

Never seen 50% wage cuts in any recession I have experienced ,poor dead mum did in the 1929-39 depression.she had lots of horrible stories about it and pledged who sons to fight to the death if the spectre of DEPRESSION sver came back, me old Working Class mum made me promise.

So where in the Constitution is the right of the government to allow US workers wages cut by thats 50% yes 50 got it thats half do you understand 50% less then yesterday.

Ok by you ,I understand democracy is just a word not a action. 50% drop in standard of living and the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can do absolutly nothing .

 

No Obama is just a coward who caves at the first sign of trouble......There is a big different between compromising and pussing out....

 

I think he'll proceed very differently in 2012, in that he'll follow the George Bush example of running rough shot over everybody, using executive power to implement his agenda, rather than trying to be reasonable with the "party of obstruction" this time around. I think he's finally learned that the right's only agenda is to see his end, and to hell with everybody and everything else. I applaud this apparent change of strategy, and say it's about time.

 

A lot of points that basically originate based upon a fallacy. The key is what the Constitution actually states and the intent of that provision in the Constitution:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

This clause comes from Article I Section 8 and it states "regulate" and not "control" as we are a free market society based upon the inalienable Right of Property of the Individual which is the most important inalienable Right of all as most other inalienable Rights are tied to it. The US government does have the delegated role to "regulate" commerce but the intent is to facilitate commerce, not unduely restrict it. Our government has assumed the role of "controlling" commerce under this clause and that is detrimental to the economy and violates the Rights of Property of the Individual.

Many miss a singular point related to "labor" and that is the fundamental fact that the cost of labor, or wages, is directly related to the demand for the goods and services being provided. If we have a high demand for goods and services then there is an increased demand for labor and that inherently increases the cost of labor (increasing wages). Demand for goods and services is directly related to the cost of those goods and services so logically the removal of any non-value added expenses will reduce cost and increase demand. Taxation of enterprise imposes the single largest non-value added cost to goods and services which reduces demands thereby reducing the demand for labor which reduces the cost of labor.

Eliminating the taxation of enterprise has been estimated to reduce the cost of goods and services somewhere between a low of 10% to over 20% from what they would be without that taxation. This is a huge cost being imposed by government that dramatically reduces demand for the goods and services as well as the labor required to provide those goods and services. This results in lower wages. Removing these non-value added expenses greatly increases demand and would add millions of jobs while also increasing wages as the demand for labor increases. This is a simple fact of economics and it is the government which is causing the lower demand for labor which results in lower wages.

The US government through the Federal Reserve is also involved in fraudulent contracts. It issues/backs Federal Reserve notes that are promissory note that the law states are redeemable in "lawful money" which are legal tender gold and silver coins being produced by the US Mint but the government will not redeem these promissory notes as the law requires. The issuance of a promissory note, which is a contract, with no intention of honoring the contract is fraud and theft under contract law. The US monetary system is and has always been based upon lawful money that is currently established by the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 and Federal Reserve notes are promissory notes that under the law are to be redeemed on a par with gold and silver coins being produced by the US Mint.

A one dollar American Silver Eagle coin currently has the purchasing power of about $30 in Federal Reserve notes while both are legal tender in the United States. The American worker is being unlawfully denied the lawful money promised by the Federal Reserve notes under Title 12 of US statutory law. The standard of living is reduced by 96.7% today because the American worker can only purchase 1/30th of the amount of goods and services they could otherwise purchase if the contract promissory (Federal Reserve) notes fulfilled the conditions of the contract. While some can talk about workers losing 1/2 of their purchasing power they seem to ignore that we're really losing almost 97% of our purchasing power because the US government and Federal Reserve are in gross violation of Contract Law which violates the Right of Property of the American workers. If we want to be outraged then this is what we should be outraged over.

 

I am duly outrqaged swidling seems the stock in trade of the US Government for quite some time ,and then the mountain of debt explodes like a volcano ,and bang 50% wage cuts to pay for the Banks and Corporations 'F'Up,thanks for the Info i know know that the Government will sacrifice the conditions of its citizens and their living standards without giving it the slightest thought ,I suppose its the Nature of Capitialism in the USA.

No right is Inalienable ,as with everything in the Universe it is changing ,developing or dying it can not remain the same as it was .

Eg the Monarchy of Absolutism thought they had a God given Inalienable 'Right to Rule"that right was taken from them by social Revolution and new rights Democratic rights replaced the Inalienable right of rule and succession.

 

The debt exploded long ago...under the Bush administration. Why (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) now?