Cone of Silence

How many Obama voters, or McCain voters for that matter, could accurately answer the following questions?

1. Where, according to the Declaration of Independence, do our rights come from?
   
2. Which document is the supreme law of the land?
   
3. Who was the English philosopher whose writings influenced the Declaration of Independence?
   
4. What, according to the Declaration of Independence, is the duty of government regarding our rights?
   
5. Which famous political document endorsed free public education, a heavy progressive income tax, and state control of property, money, and the means of transportation, and communication?
   
6. Which document contains our Bill of Rights, and who drafted them?
   
7. Mention three of the amendments to the Constitution.
   
8. Name one document from English history that influenced the Constitution.
   
9. What are three of the purposes of the Constitution mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution?
   
10. What are the three branches of our government, and what do they do?
    
11. Which articles of the Constitution outline the powers of Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court?
    
12. Does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court power to make laws?
    
13. In which case did the Supreme Court assume the power to determine whether a law is constitutional?
    
14. Since American citizens do not vote directly for the president, who does?
    
15. Which body impeaches a president, and which body tries the impeachment?
    
16. What is one way in which the Constitution may be amended?
    
17. To whom is the title of President pro Tempore given, and where is he in the line of presidential succession?
    
18. Who is the leader of the House of Representatives, and where is he in the line of presidential succession?
    
19. Who is the President of the Senate, and when does he vote?
    
20. What is better, a free people or a regulating government?

I'm going to attempt to answer these questions off the top of my head.

1. - God.
2. - the Constitution of these United States.
3. - I'm going to go with John Locke.
4. - Stay the hell outta our way.
5. - USSR Constitution?
6. - Bill of Rights is in the Constitution and was drafted by James Madison.
7. - 17 -- direct election of legislators, 18 -- prohibition, 19 -- women's suffrage.
8. - Magna Carta?
9. - Form a more perfect union, common defence, provide for general welfare
10. - Legislative -- makes the laws. Executive -- ratifies/vetos the laws. Judicial -- interprets the laws.
11. - Articles I, II and III
12. - NO.
13. - Marbury v. Madison
14. - The ELECTORS of the Electoral College which, if I'm correct, meets some time in December to hand the keys to the kingdom to the Messiah.
15. - House impeaches, Senate tries. It is all apart of the impeachment political process (har har!).
16. - 2/3 of Congress.
17. - Hmm... Bobby Byrd is Pro-Tempore (he is the most senior member of the Dems, obviously). Elected by the Senate. I think ole' Bobby is number 4 in line of sucession.
18. - Speaker Pelosivich is Queen Bee of the House and is number 3, I believe.
19. - Richard B. Cheney (Veep) is the President of the Senate -- soon-to-be Joe Biden -- and votes in the event of a tie.
20. - A free people.

What did I miss?

Meow, I agree but not sure about No. 5. It could be the platform for the DNC. And about how the constitution is amended. Then do not 2/3 of the states have to ratify it? I know that there was one amendment proposed decades ago in which members of congress could not vote on their own own pay raises. It was finally ratified by the necessary state decades after the fact, and it was held to be valid.

I think you're right about the succession. After that, isn't it the cabinet officers in order of the creation of the post? I could check this perhaps but my ability to think is being taxed away...

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Meow, I agree but not sure about No. 5. It could be the platform for the DNC. And about how the constitution is amended. Then do not 2/3 of the states have to ratify it? I know that there was one amendment proposed decades ago in which members of congress could not vote on their own own pay raises. It was finally ratified by the necessary state decades after the fact, and it was held to be valid.

I think you're right about the succession. After that, isn't it the cabinet officers in order of the creation of the post? I could check this perhaps but my ability to think is being taxed away...

For #7 I meant Senators. For some odd reason I said legislators -- perhaps I was thinking of state legislators who use to choose the state's Senators and... and... SCREW IT! No more quizzes! No more test! All are equal, dammit! Everyone gets an A!

Meow, be sure to remember that all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.

I've made it into sampler. And it's tattooed onto Bruno's back.

I think #5 is the Nazi platform of the 1920's.

But, these are all trick questions, the real answers:
1. Barrack Hussein Obama
2. Barrack Hussein Obama
3. Barrack Hussein Obama
4. Barrack Hussein Obama
5. Barrack Hussein Obama
6. Barrack Hussein Obama
7. Barrack Hussein Obama
8. Barrack Hussein Obama
9. Barrack Hussein Obama
10. Barrack Hussein Obama
11. Barrack Hussein Obama
12. Barrack Hussein Obama
13. Barrack Hussein Obama
14. Barrack Hussein Obama
15. Barrack Hussein Obama
16. Barrack Hussein Obama
17. Barrack Hussein Obama
18. Barrack Hussein Obama
19. Barrack Hussein Obama
20. Barrack Hussein Obama

shit. would have got 100 but said 3/4 of the congress and 3/4 state legislatures on #16. I'm sure The One would score 100%. Except he'd probably miss the last one.

#5

Woodrow Wilson's Bedtime Stories.

I'm almost certain #5 is from the Communist Manifesto, though the "political document" part makes me want to second guess since I think that would refer to some sort nation's Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.

I'm a Progressive and a proud Obama voter who voted for Obama early and often. I also know that because I didn't vote for McCain, I'm not stupid; that in fact I am savvy and well informed on all the important issues. Therefore, I know what the answers to these questions should be:

1. The Government
2. http://www.change.gov
3. Guy Fawkes
4. To give us the ones that are good for us and take away the ones that are bad, because that's only fair.<br>5. http://www.barackobama.com
6. I found it on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, it's the one YOU write!
7. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
8. Neville Chamberlain's 1938 Munich Agreement
9. My right to an abortion at anytime, for any reason, at taxpayers' expense; right to remain silent, right to universal health care.
10. Social Security, Medicare and Welfare. They work for me so I don't have to.
11. None of them. It's We The People who have the power.
12. During the Bush Administration when he made them make that law giving him the presidency, yes.
13. Whenever people vote to elect someone/pass something that pisses off the Left.
14. The MSM
15. Mikael Rudolph and Jodin Morey
16. Scissors and scotch tape
17. John McCain, because the MSM kept saying he had a real hot tempore.
18. Since you say "he" it can't be Nancy Pelosi, so I'll take a wild guess and say Hillary Clinton.
19. Barack Obama is President of all of us and everything. He votes when he's present.
20. Ha! Thought you could trip me up on a trick question, didn't you? Well, I'm smart. I'm savvy. I'm informed. I make history. That's right--I'm an Obama voter! And the answer is that people can only be free under a regulating government.

I can't answer those questions at this moment, because I have yet to receive my government issued cheat sheet.

Premier Betty wrote:I can't answer those questions at this moment, because I have yet to receive my government issued cheat sheet.

Hahahaha. . .

(off)

For being a 19 year-old conservative who paid attention in government class, this is one of those moments where it pays to listen. I wonder how many of the liberals in my class would score above a 5.

Not answering questions till I get my free gas and mortgage paid.


Commissarka Pinkie

18. Since you say "he" it can't be Nancy Pelosi, so I'll take a wild guess and say Hillary Clinton.

My favorite

Pinkie with her Golden Shovel wrote:3. Guy Fawkes

Very nice, Commissarka, very nice.

If the new Guy Fawkes manages to blow up the new Tower with the jewels, may Bruno have some?

[*]

1. [HIGHLIGHT=#ffff00]Does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court power to make laws?[/HIGHLIGHT]

My fellow Cubists,

[*]The answer to this question should be a resounding NO.

But, wasn't this one amended to provide for the prisoners at Gitmo? The Court (not so supreme) certainly acts as if they are the only ones that are allowed to determine habeus corpus, especially when the defendant is not a US citizen to start with.

The Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to make laws but the left, to get its agenda through, has relied on the critocracy. But these days they're winning at the polls, making their goose step constitutional.

Commissarka Pinkie wrote:I'm a Progressive and a proud Obama voter who voted for Obama early and often. I also know that because I didn't vote for McCain, I'm not stupid; that in fact I am savvy and well informed on all the important issues. Therefore, I know what the answers to these questions should be:

1. The Government...

Commissar Theocritus wrote:The Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to make laws but the left, to get its agenda through, has relied on the critocracy. But these days they're winning at the polls, making their goose step constitutional.

(off)

There's a reason the Constitution wanted to prohibit the Court from making laws, and unfortunately, there are liberals both in and out of the court who see otherwise. This is unconstitutional, both in the Courts practice, and what the liberals are trying to do to the Constitution. It saddens me to see something so historically significant be trampled by a few couple of radicals.

[off]As I've said ad nauseam, they're trying for a secular redemption, where "all is for the state, nothing outside the state"--Mussolini. The state takes everything and disposes of everything and therefore no one is permitted to fail, or contrariwise, to be human. Welcome to the Progressive World of Next Tuesday.

Got shovel™?

Commissar Theocritus wrote:

Pinkie with her Golden Shovel wrote:3. Guy Fawkes

Very nice, Commissarka, very nice.

If the new Guy Fawkes manages to blow up the new Tower with the jewels, may Bruno have some?

Why thank you, Theocritus--and whatever I don't want, Bruno can have.

I like to think of Guy Fawkes as a British Bill Ayers--like Ayers, Fawkes too was unrepentant, and most certainly didn't do enough.

Our dear golden-shovel-wielding Pinkie wrote:I like to think of Guy Fawkes as a British Bill Ayers--like Ayers, Fawkes too was unrepentant, and most certainly didn't do enough.

The British Guy Faukes Day is a celebration of a terrorist having been stopped. What will our Bill Ayers day be?

Although the Queen's real birthday is April 21, her birthday is officially celebrated on the 3rd Saturday of June each year. I propose that we celebrate Bill Ayers' birthday every year on September 11.

I thought we celebrated Osama bin Laden's birthday on September 11th. Than we can celebrate Ayer's birthday on (1993 WTC bombing, I don't know the day).

Why not celebrate both birthdays on 9/11? And Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's? And Alger Hiss's?

There's room enough.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Why not celebrate both birthdays on 9/11? And Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's? And Alger Hiss's?

There's room enough.

I suppose we could also slip in Timothy McVay somewhere in there too.

Would we celebrate Zarcowi's death on that day too?

Timothy McVay is beginning to look better and better to me.... at least goal wise. What you want to bet we don't see another uprising of home grown terrorism and separatist groups in the next 4 years?

What you want to bet we don't see another uprising of home grown terrorism and separatist groups in the next 4 years?

I don't know, Pupovich. I'd be willing to bet we see at least one a year so the Ministry of Propaganda can tell us all how the right-wing fundamentalists are trying to erode Obama's "mandate."

Stalin wrote:I don't know, Pupovich. I'd be willing to bet we see at least one a year so the Ministry of Propaganda can tell us all how the right-wing fundamentalists are trying to erode Obama's "mandate."

Of course, Stalin, of course. Because this election was not an election but the selection of his O'liness, whose touch can heal and who will lift us up to other plains.

Witnesseth:

<img alt="ObamaNFIG.gif" src="https://www.jessicaswell.com/ObamaNFIB. ... maNFIG.gif" width="" height="" class="mt-image-center">

To us a child is born...

I know I keep wondering.... what can I do to incite a new American Revolution, or at least Secession.

A really bad fart.

Pupovich, I've wondered about it. Recall the Carter years--a lot of Texans were hot to get out.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Pupovich, I've wondered about it. Recall the Carter years--a lot of Texans were hot to get out.

I live about 5 miles north of our perennial Secede Texas republican candidate, Larry Kilgore.

<br>

Be wary if your representative is the beneficiary of a "new respect" or is said to have "grown in office." That means he's turned bright pink.

There is no real problem with the original Constitution, we simply need to find a way to get back to it through revolution if need be, or secession bringing it with us. Seems people have forgotten that it was the states that formed a federal govt to provide for the common defense, and settle disagreements between states over such matters as rivers, cross border trade, provide mail service, mint money, and represent us as one voice in treaties with other countries. This is the only legitimate power the govt should have. Since BOTH sides lost in the War of Northern Aggression however, the Fed began to take on the role of the Creator, and the states became the mere instruments and subdivisions of the Fed.

Amen, Brother Pup. I just don't see a sane path out of the mess caused by continual disregarding the real words printed on the paper of the constitution.

<br>

(off)
Well, as further partisan as the states/counties get, it's only a matter of time in my book before one side give into itself and splits from the Union. Which ever side does it first, than we will become two separate countries, the U.S.A. or the Conservative States of America, and the U.S.S.A.

In the end, will the U.S.S.A rejoin? I don't know, I won't live that long. You may be thinking, "He's already calling one side the victor?" Well, history has already shown us the ultimate results of socialism.

Komissar Blogunov wrote: (By seceding) In so doing, they simultaneously demonstratedtheir instinct for capitulation of all things American, and theirrejection of all things Christian. Why do some imagine common groundexists between us and them, and we can reach out to them in abipartisan manner?

I'd stab at the notion they believe there is common ground of differences between us and them because if they want power, they have to show they are not part of the "majority" they "think different" despite the fact democrats have had the same playbook for some 30 years. As we both know, there is no such thing as a moderate liberal in the mainstream democrat party, everyone either believes what Obama, Michael Moore, or der Shlick Meister have to say, and follow it with no thought to it.

As my brother put it, "(democrat party policies) It makes sense when you don't think about it."

As we both know as well, due to their arrogance, they won't show bipartisanship by supporting a Republican idea/bill. Why does our party cave into these clowns though? I'd go with two notions, either they truly don't have a spine and don't want to lose voters, yet I'd bet Republican and even some indecisive voters would vote for the guy with a spine. Number two is, the democrats are so mainstream and controlling of what we see (TV), hear (radio, save talk-radio), taste (Those tofu turkeys don't cook themselves most days) smell (Non-fragrance air fresheners are the way to go!) and feel (Careful of those pointy sides!), if would look bad if Republicans voted against the people, because as a float in my town 4th of July political parade (it was mostly "vote for me" people driving by and shaking hands)

"When you vote democrat, everyone wins."

Secession for us would be a colossal undertaking, and I'm not there -yet, but I am very interested in supporting a genuinely conservativemovement which probably rules out the Republican Party until theydiscover some backbone.

I agree, the big problem though is people keep electing wimps and RINO's to Congress, and this gets us no where. Minnesota is only electing the lesser of two evils as I type (Did you know in every recount in Minnesota, the democrats have never lost?) I wouldn't rule out the Republican party just yet. I agree though, they are weak, but we as voters, we can fix this.

Cradle to Grave Marxist wrote: Amen, Brother Pup. I just don't see a sane path out of the mess caused by continual disregarding the real words printed on the paper of the constitution.

I see but one....though extremely unlikely, and that would be a military coupd'etat. I really would love to see this...I trust the military far more than I do the current occupants of the capital city. I would love to see the military take over running the nations affairs for say 5 years. In my dreams, during this time a whole new congress would be gradually elected, but this time under new rules. The only pay would be the minimal to cover personal expenses. I want people who want to go to Washington because they care about the needs of the people back home, and who are willing to sacrafice to work for the people for a period of time, limited by law, and return home. A time to replace the carreer appointments in the various departments, in particular the State Department. Oh for the dream! It would require the actions of some true patriots, patriots that have tired of seeing this country decaying, and patriots that go in to do a job, and then to give the power back to the Congress etc once it has been cleansed.

Marshal Pupovich wrote:
I see but one....though extremely unlikely, and that would be a military coupd'etat. I really would love to see this...I trust the military far more than I do the current occupants of the capital city. I would love to see the military take over running the nations affairs for say 5 years. In my dreams, during this time a whole new congress would be gradually elected, but this time under new rules. The only pay would be the minimal to cover personal expenses. I want people who want to go to Washington because they care about the needs of the people back home, and who are willing to sacrafice to work for the people for a period of time, limited by law, and return home. A time to replace the carreer appointments in the various departments, in particular the State Department. Oh for the dream! It would require the actions of some true patriots, patriots that have tired of seeing this country decaying, and patriots that go in to do a job, and then to give the power back to the Congress etc once it has been cleansed.

Not a sane path, in my book.

Problem isn't their current pay, but rather the extra benefits of power and graft. And the current Libs are the most caring bunch that represent the "needs" of their voting constituents. Term limits could be a viable answer, but could be subject to revision for the worse, ie NYC Mayor Bloomberg.

Bureaucrats are not appointed for life, it just seems that way. To remove politics from "low level" government jobs, the civil service system was put into place a long time ago. That used to be an even bigger cesspool of corruption back when the elected politicians and their "high level" appointees could dole out jobs to nearly every Dick and Harry that paid. Now the lower levels of civil service are subjected to hiring and firing rules, but most Federal labor rules were made by--you guessed it-- those same caring Libs.

I think that the problems go deeper than your solutions could address. How can we address the apparently unbalanced power and bias of the National Media? And even more chilling: what about citizens that are either too stupid to vote intelligently or are bought by the political system--either Lib or Conservative. Finally, how can the arbiter of these problems insulate itself from the corrupting effects of the very power that will have to yielded?

Actually, I believe we need to get back even closer to the way it was done at the start. Senators were elected from the state legislaturesm which of course is elected from the smaller districts. Truthfully, I am more inclined to "drafting" representatives from a group of willing citizens. There are good people out there, but we will rarely if ever find them in the congress for they do not have the power, the money, or the blind ambition to go through the circus that is a modern campaign. Yes, I feel we must clean out the current one... after all, we have some in there that have been in for 40 years and more. "But the people back home elected them to represent them." True, and that would be fine if only their votes affected their home district alone.

The best answer is probably secession.... let's face it, there are 2 America's.... we just need to agree to become 2 countries, and decide on the division of the geopgraphy. We can still trade with each other etc.

I don't worry as much about the power of the national media as it is weakening. As for the stupidity of the citizenry? That is largely the result of the actions of our Fed, and with time, can be corrected.

All I know is I basically trust our military to carry out the functions that the Fed was originally meant to provide.

Comrade Elliott wrote:despite the fact democrats have had the same playbook for some 30 years

Not sure. In my lifetime the Democrats went from big government and higher taxes to enormous all-intrusive heaven-on-earth-by-diktat government.

The problem is that once people see that they can vote themselves benefits from OPM character will be corrupted. How many people do you know who wouldn't steal from you but would in a jury give a large award to an obviously fraudulent insurance claim? Make no mistake--insurance companies are rat bastards but are not an endless pool of wealth.

The virtue of the limited-liability company is the ability to diffuse responsibility. The diffusion of responsibility is also the problem with government, which is when you look at it a form of insurance. From chaos at its best. In an ideal world, which won't happen, and shouldn't happen, every decision would have an immediate economic cost to the person who makes it. Instead of having a buffet of citizenship, a cafeteria of citizenship where every decision has a result.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:

Comrade Elliott wrote:despite the fact democrats have had the same playbook for some 30 years

Not sure. In my lifetime the Democrats went from big government and higher taxes to enormous all-intrusive heaven-on-earth-by-diktat government.

The problem is that once people see that they can vote themselves benefits from OPM character will be corrupted. How many people do you know who wouldn't steal from you but would in a jury give a large award to an obviously fraudulent insurance claim? Make no mistake--insurance companies are rat bastards but are not an endless pool of wealth.

The virtue of the limited-liability company is the ability to diffuse responsibility. The diffusion of responsibility is also the problem with government, which is when you look at it a form of insurance. From chaos at its best. In an ideal world, which won't happen, and shouldn't happen, every decision would have an immediate economic cost to the person who makes it. Instead of having a buffet of citizenship, a cafeteria of citizenship where every decision has a result.

(off)

Good sircomrade, always there to lend a smart comment to us (as in a wise comment, not a wise-ass comment)

As we have said before, the biggest problem with our democratic system is when one candidate promises handouts to everyone, or even a big portion of the population.

I don't know the government is a form of insurance, yet. However, people have/are looking at it as one, and here lays a horrible mentality for our democracy.

A libertarian (as opposed to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liber ... rtarian</a> view is that a government's only purpose is to ensure civil order and enforce contracts. Well, that's my view. I would go a bit further and include limited welfare on the Wisconsin model, and I would, and this may strike some as heretical, also go for some business regulation. I work in real estate and cannot tell you how lenders screw people who simply don't know better. But it's gone too far.

I'm also for foreign intervention on a limited basis. The question, "Do you have any rights if you see your neighbor building a cannon and aiming at your house?" is a valid one.

And perhaps intervention on other bases too. Churchill said that WWII would go down as the most unnecessary war in history because people wouldn't listen to him to stop Hitler before Hitler got so powerful.

Of course this all requires a strength of character that seems utterly lacking in most of today's politicians. Tom DeLay was forced from office by the DA of Travis County (Austin), Texas, a notorious loony leftie, indicting him on a charge of violating a law <i>that did not exist</i>. But it served to remove him.

Zell Miller, a Democrat, is an honest man. But look at the ones we lost: Alan Simpson, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey...

I basically support the Libertarian view in most things, except for their almost isolationist view on foreign affairs. The US should have learned the lesson from both World Wars, when we basically had our head in the sand trying to stay out of foreign wars and allowing our military to shrink so that it was basically only to defend our shores with the idea the oceans would protect us. As we found out, not only were we unable to ignore the events overseas, we were completely unprepared for entering the fray. Reagan had it right when he said:

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong -- Ronald Reagan

I think that I am working on developing my own personal philosophy of introvert-anarchy--screw the rest of you.




Oh, and the death of Congress was in 1911 when the number of representatives was frozen at 435, forcing each congressman to represent increasingly larger populations--fewer individual / personal connections.

[off]Possibly so, C2GM, possibly so. But then I'm a great supporter of Federalism. Isn't there something in that old tattered rag called the Constitution, if Che hasn't shredded it yet, reserving to the states rights not listed in the Constitution. I like small units of government where I have a chance of bitching at someone and getting myself heard.

Pupovich, you're right about the isolationism. The world needs America as a policeman. Did you know that Her Majesty's Navy is ordered <i>not</i> to arrest pirates? Because they might claim political asylum in Britain, and thus they're let go to keep pirating. While Britain is forcibly repatriating young gay Iranian men, to their certain death.

They give social security--welfare--to mullahs who preach hatred and destruction of Britain, turn pirates loose, and send utterly harmless people to be murdered.

There will not always be an England.

Good Day to you Commissar Theocritis,


I caught some of Glenn Beck's show yesterday. He's a bit whacked and preachy sometimes, but he makes some great points. He had the governor of Idaho, Butch Otter on and they were talking about the Constitution's 10th Ammendment. Did you know that there are only 28 words?

[HIGHLIGHT=#ffff00]"Those powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor denied to the States by it, are reserve to the States respectfully, or to the People."[/HIGHLIGHT]

I would respectfully submit that the People should have the majority of power. So why have we had so few legislators brought up on corruption charges? The public can poll at 84% against Gov Blago, yet it is ridiculously hard for the state to get him out of office. And this is not a isolated or unusual case.

I used to participate in forums (Numbers USA, etc) but nothing ever happens in the state capital or Washington. They just pretend that they don't hear what the public says, then proceed to do whatever they want. We are told to speak up, but no one is listening. It makes one very sceptical that there might be an honest representative out there, and that there may be no way but anarchy and civil disobedience. Our system of government comes with safe guards to assure that no one branch has too much power. What happens when one party can effectively control all three branches? I guess we will find out in a very short time (January 20, 2009) May God help us all.

done ranting for now,

Che' Gourmet

Marshal Pupovich wrote:I basically support the Libertarian view in most things, except for their almost isolationist view on foreign affairs. The US should have learned the lesson from both World Wars, when we basically had our head in the sand trying to stay out of foreign wars and allowing our military to shrink so that it was basically only to defend our shores with the idea the oceans would protect us. As we found out, not only were we unable to ignore the events overseas, we were completely unprepared for entering the fray. Reagan had it right when he said:

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong -- Ronald Reagan

That just sums up what why we should be in Iraq, and just why America must be involved in foriegn affairs. It's not like we are some obscure country, like Lithuania or Nicaraqua, without the internal wars though. We are America, the greatest country in the world, the most powerful country, now, I'm not saying we need to be involved in everything in the world, but we definitly need to keep our forces strong, because the world can reach us now.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:[off]Possibly so, C2GM, possibly so. But then I'm a great supporter of Federalism. Isn't there something in that old tattered rag called the Constitution, if Che hasn't shredded it yet, reserving to the states rights not listed in the Constitution. I like small units of government where I have a chance of bitching at someone and getting myself heard.

Pupovich, you're right about the isolationism. The world needs America as a policeman. Did you know that Her Majesty's Navy is ordered <i>not</i> to arrest pirates? Because they might claim political asylum in Britain, and thus they're let go to keep pirating. While Britain is forcibly repatriating young gay Iranian men, to their certain death.

They give social security--welfare--to mullahs who preach hatred and destruction of Britain, turn pirates loose, and send utterly harmless people to be murdered.

There will not always be an England.

Or America if we follow the left's ideas.

While as you may have noticed, I tend to feel that the USAA....excuse me, the former USA, has reached the tipping point and is perhaps beyond saving, I do have another suggestion that I feel would perhaps put us on the right path, which means of course, there is not a chance it would ever happen, But wouldn't it be nice if a law was passed mandating that Congress must reduce the number of laws, the size of the Federal registry if you will, for 3 years, followed then by one year when new laws and regulations can be passed to be evaluated.

But that is the problem, it is all about power, and that is all our "representatives" seek. While some may talk the talk about simplifying the tax code for example, they really do not for then they would be unable to hide their rules and regulations that allow them to cajole, put down, or build up one group or another.

It is hard for me to have any more hope, for after Obama, while some things will perhaps be able to be corrected, there are some things he will do that will change this country forever, and not for the good.

I see but one....though extremely unlikely, and that would be a military coupd'etat. I really would love to see this...I trust the military far more than I do the current occupants of the capital city. I would love to see the military take over running the nations affairs for say 5 years.

Be careful what you wish for, Pup. Historically (and I speak professionally here), military governments are bad news. Military government is by its very nature authoritarian; that's the way the military operates, with orders descending from above and obedience demanded from below. What's worse, once they are in place something always seems to come up that convinces them that they need to stay in power beyond, for example, your five year timeframe above. I have nothing but respect for the military and have spent some time working intimately with military education. One thing that experience taught me is that while I respect and admire the folks in uniform, I would have been very unhappy to be in uniform.

It is for that very reason I believe that is the best answer. You are correct in your reading of history and military government. However, this is where I think "American exceptionalism" will kick in. I know there are bad people in every organization, but all in all, I believe our military is basically in the hands of honorable patriots that if they were given such a job to restore this country to the goals it was intended, they would do so and step down.

Actually, I still think secession is the most sensible answer. There are 2 Americas, and I think we should recognize this.

Marshal Pupovich wrote:It is for that very reason I believe that is the best answer. You are correct in your reading of history and military government. However, this is where I think "American exceptionalism" will kick in. I know there are bad people in every organization, but all in all, I believe our military is basically in the hands of honorable patriots that if they were given such a job to restore this country to the goals it was intended, they would do so and step down.

Actually, I still think secession is the most sensible answer. There are 2 Americas, and I think we should recognize this.

Canada's on it's way to separation as we know. It will be a time, but the movement for the central states to split from Quebec grows stronger and stronger each year.

Now for America itself, as I've said before, America will split, and either the liberals will perish and rejoin, or they will perish and we will take the land back.

I can't help but wonder why more people don't see the advantages, or at least the sense behind such a split. Let's face it, there is almost a perfect split in America these days.

Yes, 1/2 of the population is conservative, and 1/2 are liberals, so we have an even split of population. Though the states aren't as evenly split, if everyone moved to an appropriate state, we'd all be happy.