I'm curious to see how this situation is resolved.

All I know is that if 150 armed Muslim men took over a fed building there would be a MOAB dropped on it within the hour.

I'm curious to see how this situation is resolved.

All I know is that if 150 armed Muslim men took over a fed building there would be a MOAB dropped on it within the hour.

I don't believe this government considers Muslim's or Islam to be related to any armed problem . Not now or in the future
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm curious to see how this situation is resolved.

All I know is that if 150 armed Muslim men took over a fed building there would be a MOAB dropped on it within the hour.

And if it wasn't people would be calling the govern. weak on terrorists.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In comparison to a mid size Black Lives Matter protest this doesn't appear to be news worthy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Something stinks there..... Father and son being told to report back to prison because their sentence was too short???? Due process would seem to come into play one would think.
I need more info to formulate opinion on armed militia occupying a government property. But my initial thought is that it should not have gotten this far.

I see a David Koresh type situation in the making here. They even brought children with them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two different situations, and one is piggybacking on the other for effect. They are claiming Constitutional rights, but I haven't read where they get their argument for that. They have mobilized from all around the region, but are going about it all wrong, IMO...... If they want to play stoopid with their guns, they are just asking for a visit from a Blackhawk gunship

While I think a gunship is unlikely, don't forget the tear gas followed by flare gun trick.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And if it wasn't people would be calling the govern. weak on terrorists.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think the stated goal of these whackos in Oregon is to kill as many innocent people as they can.

They are creating a very combustible situation.

It also seems troubling that an judge would retroactively decide that a sentence was too light and order someone back to jail after they had been released. But this isn't the answer.

In comparison to a mid size Black Lives Matter protest this doesn't appear to be news worthy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would think the Oregon militia is better armed than a typical Black Lives Matter protest, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Krazies on both sides, that's for sure.

It also seems troubling that an judge would retroactively decide that a sentence was too light and order someone back to jail after they had been released. But this isn't the answer.

maybe he saw a video like Goodell did in Ray Rices case :hidin:

Yes. The issue about the judge is very troubling.
Im on the fence on this one because there are times when the government needs to be held accountable when something goes wrong but I am not so sure this is the way to go about it.
The people calling these guys Ya'll Qaeda crack me up though!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. The issue about the judge is very troubling.
Im on the fence on this one because there are times when the government needs to be held accountable when something goes wrong but I am not so sure this is the way to go about it.
The people calling these guys Ya'll Qaeda crack me up though!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"there are times when the government needs to be held accountable when something goes wrong "

Correct, and those times are called "elections".

Protest is fine. Not armed protests where you are warning the feds not to try and enforce the law. That's begging for trouble.

"Ya'll Qaeda "

Funny, agreed. But WAY off the mark. No comparison.

Here's the backstory of this whole mess:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/#more-110497

Seems like a big mess with no easy way out.

Vic

ya gotta LOVE his Hat
Like Sherriff Longmire Man
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/hat.png

Here's the backstory of this whole mess:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/#more-110497

Seems like a big mess with no easy way out.

Vic
Also might want to read this...


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wtf-is-happening-in-the-oregon-militia-standoff-explained-20160103
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also might want to read this...


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wtf-is-happening-in-the-oregon-militia-standoff-explained-20160103
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Already read it. The Hammonds really want no part of this. The Bundys are pretty much organizing it. The Hammonds are getting screwed in more ways than one. Follow some of the links in the rolling stone piece.

Vic

Seems Hiding behind the Constitution is Becoming the new Norm For the Right

its become the new Get out of Jail free card.. Make up an interpretation and tell your friends and post it on the Internet and Bam its the Truth

[QUOTE=wdmso;1090007]

Seems Hiding behind the Constitution is Becoming the new Norm For the Right

/QUOTE]

think about that...

The Case for Civil Disobedience in Oregon
By David French — January 4, 2016

Watching the news yesterday, a person could be forgiven for thinking that a small group of Americans had literally lost their minds. Militias are marching through Oregon on behalf of convicted arsonists? A small band of armed men has taken over a federal building? The story practically writes itself.

Or does it? Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary.

Ignore for a moment the #OregonUnderAttack hashtag — a rallying cry for leftists accusing the protesters of terrorism — and the liberal media’s self-satisfied cackling. Read the court documents in the case that triggered the protest, and the accounts of sympathetic ranchers. What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.

The story as told by the protesters begins not with the federal criminal case against Steven and Dwight Hammond but many years earlier, with the creation and expansion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a tract of federal land set aside by President Theodore Roosevelt as “a preserve and breeding-ground for native birds.” The federal government has since expanded the preserve in part by buying adjacent private land.

Protesters allege that when private landowners refused to sell, the federal government got aggressive, diverting water during the 1980s into the “rising Malheur lakes.” Eventually, the lakes flooded “homes, corrals, barns, and graze-land.” Ranchers who were “broke and destroyed” then “begged” the government to buy their “useless ranches.”

By the 1990s, the Hammonds were among the few private landowners who remained adjacent to the Refuge. The protesters allege that the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, a beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two “arsons” that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.

While “arsons” might sound suspicious to urban ears, anyone familiar with land management in the West (and to a lesser degree, in the rural South and Midwest) knows that land must sometime be burned to stop the spread of invasive species and prevent or fight destructive wildfires. Indeed, the federal government frequently starts its own fires, and protesters allege (with video evidence) that these “burns” often spread to private land, killing and injuring cattle and damaging private property. Needless to say, no federal officers are ever prosecuted.

The prosecution of the Hammonds revolved mainly around two burns, one in 2001 and another in 2006. The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value.

The other burn was trifling. Here’s how the Ninth Circuit described it:

In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.

In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”

RELATED: Public Land Colonialism: Of Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management

At trial, the jury found the Hammonds guilty of maliciously setting fire to public property worth less than $1,000, acquitted them of other charges, and deadlocked on the government’s conspiracy claims. While the jury continued to deliberate, the Hammonds and the prosecution reached a plea agreement in which the Hammonds agreed to waive their appeal rights and accept the jury’s verdict. It was their understanding that the plea agreement would end the case.

At sentencing, the trial court refused to apply the mandatory-minimum sentence, holding that five years in prison would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses” and that the Hammonds’ fires “could not have been conduct intended [to be covered] under” the Anti-terrorism act:

When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. . . . It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.

Thus, he found that the mandatory-minimum sentence would — under the facts of this case — violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” He sentenced Steven Hammond to two concurrent prison terms of twelve months and one day and Dwight Hammond to one prison term of three months. The Hammonds served their sentences without incident or controversy.

The federal government, however, was not content to let the matter rest. Despite the absence of any meaningful damage to federal land, the U.S. Attorney appealed the trial judge’s sentencing decision, demanding that the Hammonds return to prison to serve a full five-year sentence.

The case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled against the Hammonds, rejecting their argument that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by filing an appeal and dismissing the trial court’s Eighth Amendment concerns. The Hammonds were ordered back to prison. At the same time, they were struggling to pay a $400,000 civil settlement with the federal government, the terms of which gave the government right of first refusal to purchase their property if they couldn’t scrape together the money.

There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. By no stretch of the imagination were the Hammonds terrorists, yet they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism statute. The government could have let the case end once the men had served their sentences, yet it pressed for more jail time. And the whole time, it held in its back pocket potential rights to the family’s property. To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.

If that’s the case, civil disobedience is a valuable course of action. By occupying a vacant federal building, protesters can bring national attention to an injustice that would otherwise go unnoticed and unremedied. Moreover, they can bring attention once again to the federal government’s more systemic persecution of private landowners.

RELATED: The Case for a Little Sedition

With vast segments of the American West in government hands, private landowners often find themselves at the mercy of the federal government — a government that often seems to delight in expanding its power and holdings at the expense of ranchers and farmers, one in the habit of placing turtles before people. Ranchers and farmers fighting the federal government are a tiny minority up against the world’s most powerful body. “David versus Goliath” simply doesn’t do the conflict justice.

While civil disobedience is justified, violence is not. So far, no one has been hurt, the “occupation” is occurring in a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders. It would be absurd for the federal government to treat the protesters like it treated the men and women at Waco or Ruby Ridge, and it would be absurd for the protesters to shoot police officers who are ordered to reasonably and properly enforce the law. The occupation is far less intrusive and disruptive than the Occupy Movement’s dirty and violent seizure of urban public parks, and authorities permitted that to go on for weeks. Now is the time for calm, not escalation.

RELATED: The Problem with Cliven Bundy

I sympathize with the ranchers’ fury, and I’m moved by the Hammonds’ plight. According to multiple accounts, they are good American citizens. Even the prosecutor noted that they “have done wonderful things for their community.” The district court noted that the character letters submitted on the Hammonds’ behalf were “tremendous” and that “these are people who have been a salt in their community.” Yet now they’re off to prison once again — not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves.

They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.

A few thoughts from a liberal sand mechanic...

1. The mandatory sentence at the 'core' of this issuehere seems excessive, but then again this seems to more about the Bundy's than the Hammonds

2. I 100% support their right to have a peaceful protest, although this seems like an odd place for the bundy's to take their stand

3. I heard a talking head discuss this re: the Wisconsin state house "occupation", however the optics of the situation are different when the occupiers are openly packing.

3. If they fire a shot at the LEO's doing their job, then all bets or off and I won't feel sorry for the occupiers.

Scott. The first fire was to destroy evidence of a poaching incident. What would your reaction be if a land owner next to sachuest point shot a few deer on the point and then burned a huge area to destroy the evidence ?
My guess is you would be shocked and demand legal action.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scott. The first fire was to destroy evidence of a poaching incident. What would your reaction be if a land owner next to sachuest point shot a few deer on the point and then burned a huge area to destroy the evidence ?
My guess is you would be shocked and demand legal action.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there was legal action

The government alleged that the first was ignited to cover up evidence of poaching and placed a teenager in danger. The Hammonds claimed that they started it to clear an invasive species, as is their legal right. Whatever its intent, the fire spread from the Hammonds’ property and ultimately ignited 139 acres of public land. But the trial judge found that the teenager’s testimony was tainted by age and bias and that the fire had merely damaged “juniper trees and sagebrush” — damage that “might” total $100 in value.

In 2010 — almost nine years after the 2001 burn — the government filed a 19-count indictment against the Hammonds that included charges under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which mandates a five-year prison term for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States.”

A few thoughts from a liberal sand mechanic...

1. The mandatory sentence at the 'core' of this issuehere seems excessive, but then again this seems to more about the B"undy's than the Hammonds

2. I 100% support their right to have a peaceful protest, although this seems like an odd place for the bundy's to take their stand

3. I heard a talking head discuss this re: the Wisconsin state house "occupation", however the optics of the situation are different when the occupiers are openly packing.

3. If they fire a shot at the LEO's doing their job, then all bets or off and I won't feel sorry for the occupiers.

agree with all of that....I'd remind you that the Occupy protesters took over Zuccotti pary for two months and disrupted many lives and businesses and became a place where crime was common all supported by the president, pelosi and many others....

so far these guys have taken over an empty building, have hurt no one nor disrupted any lives that I'm aware of

however the optics of the situation are different when the occupiers are openly packing.
If they didn't have guns they'd just be liberals looking for a government handout. The fact that they're armed means they're defenders of the Constitution.

If they didn't have guns they'd just be liberals looking for a government handout. The fact that they're armed means they're defenders of the Constitution.

We all know that liberals are outstanding citizens when they dissent.
When somebody from a conservative viewpoint does it , they are wacko and dangerous .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they didn't have guns they'd just be liberals looking for a government handout. The fact that they're armed means they're defenders of the Constitution.

That is one of the most logical post I have seen from you. Very refreshing to see you finally get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they didn't have guns they'd just be liberals looking for a government handout. The fact that they're armed means they're defenders of the Constitution.

Oregon is an open carry state......I've yet to hear them march around calling for dead cops....like we heard from some other "peaceful protesters"

Vanilla ISIS

I am mixed on the basis or the appropriateness for the Standoff - I would need to see more and just haven't had the time but I LOVE the dichotomy how it compares to the Occupy movements and BLM.

150 lightly armed people Domestic Terrorists protesting peacefully at a "federal building" (really, a rarely occupied shack) versus 10,000 people protesting peacefully with the appropriate peaceful deployment of Molotov cocktails, and artisinal hymns like "Pigs in a Blanket, eat em like Bacon"

[QUOTE=wdmso;1090007]

Seems Hiding behind the Constitution is Becoming the new Norm For the Right

/QUOTE]

think about that...

It does seems strange that he would say that, especially after serving 22 years in the infantry where he would have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Seems that he would, as a member of the armed forces, defend the right's constitutional protections rather than accusing it of "hiding" behind them.

But I think what he actually means, by "hiding," is the misuse of the Constitution. He said "its become the new Get out of Jail free card. Make up an interpretation and tell your friends and post it on the Internet and Bam its the Truth."

The irony of that view is that conservatives insisting on the original interpretation of the Constitution is a new norm. Maybe he's right. Making the original interpretation a "new" one actually is an attempt to correct the current "norm" built up over years which has confiscated most of the People's rights and powers under the Constitution and transferred them over to the Federal Government. The current progressive norm holds that the Federal Government truly does have the right and power, through its own destructive interpretations of the Constitution, to redefine the bill of rights, as well as the rest of the Constitution, so can say what the People can actually do within those rights. It actually gives itself the power and right to be the owner and giver of those rights as it defines them, rather than they being, under the original "norm," unalienable.

wdmso, apparently, adheres to the progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution, so would view "conservatives" original view as worthy of jail time. And, therefor, seeing the original view as a phony attempt to create a "get out of jail free card."

Interesting...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/05/oregon-standoff-has-roots-mormon-fanaticism/QLgIkrNZipFjtbn4AyUZFJ/story.html

I hope they brought lots of magical underpants
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And generators, Feds just cut power.

[QUOTE=scottw;1090018]

It does seems strange that he would say that, especially after serving 22 years in the infantry where he would have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Seems that he would, as a member of the armed forces, defend the right's constitutional protections rather than accusing it of "hiding" behind them.

But I think what he actually means, by "hiding," is the misuse of the Constitution. He said "its become the new Get out of Jail free card. Make up an interpretation and tell your friends and post it on the Internet and Bam its the Truth."

The irony of that view is that conservatives insisting on the original interpretation of the Constitution is a new norm. Maybe he's right. Making the original interpretation a "new" one actually is an attempt to correct the current "norm" built up over years which has confiscated most of the People's rights and powers under the Constitution and transferred them over to the Federal Government. The current progressive norm holds that the Federal Government truly does have the right and power, through its own destructive interpretations of the Constitution, to redefine the bill of rights, as well as the rest of the Constitution, so can say what the People can actually do within those rights. It actually gives itself the power and right to be the owner and giver of those rights as it defines them, rather than they being, under the original "norm," unalienable.

wdmso, apparently, adheres to the progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution, so would view "conservatives" original view as worthy of jail time. And, therefor, seeing the original view as a phony attempt to create a "get out of jail free card."


I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.. we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern, its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box


I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way

you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country?

just for the record, I didn't write anything in that post... I suspect Detbuch will have fun replying to it

fascinating isn't it...I don't think anyone has been threatened or injured to date and I don't believe religion has been brought up by the protesters as a motivation yet some are quick to characterize these folks as religious fanatics and domestic terrorists...while the same people... after Major Hassan screamed alou akbar and shot, killed and maimed a considerable number of innocents and was subsequently found to have ties to a radical cleric, claimed there was no religious component, he simply had emotional issues and it was just a case of workplace violence

I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.. we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern, its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box


I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way

you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country?
Woa, is this what reason looks like?

just for the record, I didn't write anything in that post... I suspect Detbuch will have fun replying to it

No, it won't be fun. This constant reiterating what the Constitution was meant to be and what it has become is getting wearisome. Especially so when what I say is so misconstrued and made opaque by the mental blinders that so many have on the subject.

I understand the frame of mind through which wdmso reconstructs part of what I said and avoids the rest and most important part of it. I understand it very well. Most of the people I have known and lived with, have set ways of filtering information to fit what they already "know."

Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the rational (I would say reasonable, but don't want to upset Spence who also usually fails to grasp or avoids what we would consider reasonable, but rather sees through the same filter as wdmso) . . . having seen how he did not grasp or avoided what you rationally replied in your dialogue with him by filtering it through his preset frame of mind, I can see the "reason," as Spence would describe it, behind his reply to me.

I doubt that wdmso will be swayed by my reply, but I will give it a half-hearted try. He says:

"I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.."

Apparently, he believes that those past 50 years are the valid ones. Anything dating backward beyond those 50 years just ain't no good. And, I suppose, if he were to live another 50 years, the Constitution within that expanded time would also be seen by him as the one that counts.

His "time machine" comparison I don't quite get. The Constitution has not been buried with the intent that at some future date it would be opened and read, not to be considered an actual structure of government, but a relic for the amusement of some future generation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has been on open display all those years and millions, maybe billions, of copies have been placed in text books, pamphlets, brochures, on internet sites, with the purpose, I'm guessing, that it be read, understood, and abided by. The same, actual one of over two hundred years ago is the one to which oaths of office are sworn to defend.

But if the "time machine" comparison is baffling, the notion that it is not to be taken literally ("like some read the Bible") is astounding. I understand that much of the Bible is considered metaphorical. But law? . . . understanding law as metaphor? . . . not taking law literally? What is the metaphor in laws against murder, or crossing against a red light, or not running a stop sign? What is law if it is not to be taken literally? A fairy tale?

Well, yes, if wdmso understands law as progressives do, it is sort of a fairy tale. Or, maybe it's more like a poem, or literary work, or even more like a Bible, which can be re-interpreted by every new critic. Given new insights over time, many of which contradict each other (but that is the nature of metaphorical interpretation). Of course, progressives don't want common folks doing the interpreting. That would be mayhem. And would give the wrong people undeserved power. That is to be left up to the "experts." The brilliant ones like Pelosi, Reid, McCain, and Bush, and Kerry, and Bernie, and especially progressive judges steeped in the metaphorical interpretation of the Constitution as a secular bible of sorts which must be constantly reformed and reshaped with ever new interpretations which give the new parade of high priests of government a god-like power to tell the people how they must live in order to enter an earthly paradise.

But one wonders, if the Constitution is not to be taken literally, why should it be taken at all. And if it is constantly changing and reinterpreted, what, exactly are folks swearing to support and defend?

"we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern,"

You mean those high priests of government who know better how to run our lives than we do? Who govern in favor of some and against others? Who have no stable, unchanging code of government by which they must abide, but can control and prosecute by the changing tides of their personal whims and interpretations (so long as its within the past 50 years ). But wait, even within that time span the "laws" have changed many times, each time giving the Federal Government more control over the rest of us. The constant flow of new "interpretations" grow almost weekly. Which "Constitution" was it, again, that you swore to support and defend?

"its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box"

I get the strong impression they are speaking for themselves and those who agree with them. And I don't get the impression that they are demanding change, but rather, trying to maintain some stable, predictable system of law. And it seems to me that it is the Federal Government which is constantly demanding change with the barrel of a gun and hiding behind a meaningless so-called "Constitution" which it has re-interpreted so many times in so many ways that it is not the same document that was written, but a fictitious one which is diametrically opposed to the original. One which is constantly molded into a metaphorical bible which the high priests of government hide behind in order to rule us with ever expanding power.

"use the ballot box"

Filter this through the blind trust you have in elected officials, but have you not seen how many times in the recent past what proposals the People of various states have voted for have been overruled?

"I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way"

OK, you disagree with them. And they disagree with you.

"you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Will you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy when it is the Federal Government?

"unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks"

It's the Constitution, not the sky, that is falling. And it is not because the POTUS speaks. It's because he and the whole progressive movement acts in ways that destroy it. It has nothing to do with Chicken little. And it is not just a theory, it is a fact.

"or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country? "

I don't know. That "great" thing is a campaign schtick by someone who doesn't talk much about the Constitution. Someone who might actually be as much a tyrant as Democrats are. Don't know for sure. But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.

But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.

This

BTW - the reasoning the Oregon folks are using, I don't know if I agree with or not, the fact that the family being sent back to jail after serving their prior sentence (this cannot be right??) is asking them not to do this in their favor. But I do get a kick out of this:

right...ignore them and they will get cold and hungry and go home, the left completely ignores the injustice of a judge arbitrarily ordering to extend a sentence sending Americans to back jail....and for what?...what happened to "no justice no peace"?

the leftist protesters make it hard to ignore them and there are many more examples than those two....the left finds endless excuses to defend and sympathize with their actions....


I still find the concept of "hiding behind the Constitution" as a pejorative and interesting one...at this point the Constitution is more like a bunker

No, it won't be fun. This constant reiterating what the Constitution was meant to be and what it has become is getting wearisome. Especially so when what I say is so misconstrued and made opaque by the mental blinders that so many have on the subject.

I understand the frame of mind through which wdmso reconstructs part of what I said and avoids the rest and most important part of it. I understand it very well. Most of the people I have known and lived with, have set ways of filtering information to fit what they already "know."

Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the rational (I would say reasonable, but don't want to upset Spence who also usually fails to grasp or avoids what we would consider reasonable, but rather sees through the same filter as wdmso) . . . having seen how he did not grasp or avoided what you rationally replied in your dialogue with him by filtering it through his preset frame of mind, I can see the "reason," as Spence would describe it, behind his reply to me.

I doubt that wdmso will be swayed by my reply, but I will give it a half-hearted try. He says:

"I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.."

Apparently, he believes that those past 50 years are the valid ones. Anything dating backward beyond those 50 years just ain't no good. And, I suppose, if he were to live another 50 years, the Constitution within that expanded time would also be seen by him as the one that counts.

His "time machine" comparison I don't quite get. The Constitution has not been buried with the intent that at some future date it would be opened and read, not to be considered an actual structure of government, but a relic for the amusement of some future generation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has been on open display all those years and millions, maybe billions, of copies have been placed in text books, pamphlets, brochures, on internet sites, with the purpose, I'm guessing, that it be read, understood, and abided by. The same, actual one of over two hundred years ago is the one to which oaths of office are sworn to defend.

But if the "time machine" comparison is baffling, the notion that it is not to be taken literally ("like some read the Bible") is astounding. I understand that much of the Bible is considered metaphorical. But law? . . . understanding law as metaphor? . . . not taking law literally? What is the metaphor in laws against murder, or crossing against a red light, or not running a stop sign? What is law if it is not to be taken literally? A fairy tale?

Well, yes, if wdmso understands law as progressives do, it is sort of a fairy tale. Or, maybe it's more like a poem, or literary work, or even more like a Bible, which can be re-interpreted by every new critic. Given new insights over time, many of which contradict each other (but that is the nature of metaphorical interpretation). Of course, progressives don't want common folks doing the interpreting. That would be mayhem. And would give the wrong people undeserved power. That is to be left up to the "experts." The brilliant ones like Pelosi, Reid, McCain, and Bush, and Kerry, and Bernie, and especially progressive judges steeped in the metaphorical interpretation of the Constitution as a secular bible of sorts which must be constantly reformed and reshaped with ever new interpretations which give the new parade of high priests of government a god-like power to tell the people how they must live in order to enter an earthly paradise.

But one wonders, if the Constitution is not to be taken literally, why should it be taken at all. And if it is constantly changing and reinterpreted, what, exactly are folks swearing to support and defend?

"we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern,"

You mean those high priests of government who know better how to run our lives than we do? Who govern in favor of some and against others? Who have no stable, unchanging code of government by which they must abide, but can control and prosecute by the changing tides of their personal whims and interpretations (so long as its within the past 50 years ). But wait, even within that time span the "laws" have changed many times, each time giving the Federal Government more control over the rest of us. The constant flow of new "interpretations" grow almost weekly. Which "Constitution" was it, again, that you swore to support and defend?

"its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box"

I get the strong impression they are speaking for themselves and those who agree with them. And I don't get the impression that they are demanding change, but rather, trying to maintain some stable, predictable system of law. And it seems to me that it is the Federal Government which is constantly demanding change with the barrel of a gun and hiding behind a meaningless so-called "Constitution" which it has re-interpreted so many times in so many ways that it is not the same document that was written, but a fictitious one which is diametrically opposed to the original. One which is constantly molded into a metaphorical bible which the high priests of government hide behind in order to rule us with ever expanding power.

"use the ballot box"

Filter this through the blind trust you have in elected officials, but have you not seen how many times in the recent past what proposals the People of various states have voted for have been overruled?

"I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way"

OK, you disagree with them. And they disagree with you.

"you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Will you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy when it is the Federal Government?

"unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks"

It's the Constitution, not the sky, that is falling. And it is not because the POTUS speaks. It's because he and the whole progressive movement acts in ways that destroy it. It has nothing to do with Chicken little. And it is not just a theory, it is a fact.

"or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country? "

I don't know. That "great" thing is a campaign schtick by someone who doesn't talk much about the Constitution. Someone who might actually be as much a tyrant as Democrats are. Don't know for sure. But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.

Lets just agree to disagree ! but i find that doubtful with your opening statement " Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the(your) rational" Because ideas and thoughts contrary to yours are Wrong end of story .. because you think the sky is falling and have facts OK sure you do, and its Democrats are to blame ok .

I do not think the sky is falling I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward . The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land .. Its just the way I see it ..

I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward . ..

that would explain the two geriatric lunatic democrat presidential candidates who appear trapped in the 1960's

that would explain the two geriatric lunatic democrat presidential candidates who appear trapped in the 1960's

Remember when (RINO) John McCain ran they said he was too old and out of touch yet both of their candidates will be as old and older than McCain was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

) . The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land ..

So according to you, the President (or Congress) gets to decide what the constitution means, in light of the times we live in?

That should scare the sh*t out of you.

If we want to change the Constitution, there is a mechanism to do that. That's why we have amendments.

According to your logic, a president can do away with free speech in light of the times? So if we have a black Presidnet, you'r eok with him making it a crime to say the n-word?

The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute, and not subject to the interpretation of whoever happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Otherwise thos efreedoms aren't guaranteed (as intended when America was founded) but rather they are something for POTUS to give and take away as he sees fit.

No, thanks.

So according to you, the President (or Congress) gets to decide what the constitution means, in light of the times we live in?

That should scare the sh*t out of you.

If we want to change the Constitution, there is a mechanism to do that. That's why we have amendments.

According to your logic, a president can do away with free speech in light of the times? So if we have a black Presidnet, you'r eok with him making it a crime to say the n-word?

The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute, and not subject to the interpretation of whoever happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Otherwise thos efreedoms aren't guaranteed (as intended when America was founded) but rather they are something for POTUS to give and take away as he sees fit.

No, thanks.

Here! Here!

Lets just agree to disagree ! but i find that doubtful with your opening statement " Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the(your) rational" Because ideas and thoughts contrary to yours are Wrong end of story

Why would you agree to disagree if you didn't think the thoughts and ideas with whom you were disagreeing with are Wrong?

.. because you think the sky is falling and have facts OK sure you do, and its Democrats are to blame ok .

I specifically said that the sky was not falling. I said that the Constitution was what was "falling." And that does not mean that I think the US as a political entity will no longer exist if the Constitution is defunct. It means that the structure of its government will be different--a structure which totally contradicts the Constitution and reverses the relationship of the People to government. Which, by the way, is one of the rational discussions you seem to want to avoid. It would be interesting if you did engage in that discussion. You are bright enough to, maybe, convince me to see things differently and agree rather than disagree. And, yes, the Progressive's are to blame. Of course, they don't think of it as blame, but see it as a credit.

I do not think the sky is falling I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward .

Well, actually time machines do look forward to the future which is why they are meant to be opened then. But that's neither here nor there. Just a slightly loose use of metaphor.

Constitutionalists do not "only" look back in time. But as far as they do, understanding history is a fundamental key to living well in the present. There's that overused and often misunderstood idea that "those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." And looking forward does require some firm footing in the present, which is a result of the past. I suppose that's why you're less extreme about your version of which direction the Democrats look--the Conservatives, you say, ONLY look back in time, but Democrats TEND to look forward.

And the Constitution as was originally written was done so in full awareness of history and time and the future. That is why it was written to specifically delineate where political power lay and where it was limited. But NOT specifically burden enumerated powers with massive codification of law. Its intent and structure was to assure that ultimate power would not lay in the hands of some ruling class, but in the hands of the people. And that, even there, majorities of the people could not trample, by their common opinion, the basic or "unalienable" rights of the minorities.

The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land .. Its just the way I see it ..

Do you see it that way because you thought it up on your own? Or are you accepting a progressive mantra because it sounds good, makes "sense," seems rational or reasonable?

Think again about a country being a living breathing thing. Can a country live and breathe on its own? Is it an actual organic being? Or is it a concept, an agreed to or forced union of actual, real, organic beings who do the living and breathing. And do they do so in unison? If a country were an actual living and breathing thing comprised of a multitude of separately living and breathing parts which breathed at different rates and lived in different ways (that diversity mantra so favored by progressives) it would be a very sick and dysfunctional thing. It would crumble and die a natural death.

That is why a country needs a rule of law which applies equally to all. And a free country (a free state as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) requires that those who minister the law do not do so as dictators, but as servants who stay within the bounds the People have prescribed for them. And the country, as such, must only evolve in the manner as the People make it so. And if all the People can evolve freely, than the People must account for that by abiding by a common precept, a rule of law which prescribes and permits that diverse evolution.

If the country evolves, not by the free actions and interactions of the People, but by edicts of a ruling class which go beyond the restrictions which guarantee a free State, then evolution is by edict, by fiat, by dictation which evolves the State from freedom to despotism.

And in the same manner, the Constitution is not living and breathing. It is a concept, an idea, a structure for a free State. It is a basic foundation for such a State. And when that structure in ways that transfer the rights and powers reserved for the People to the State, the State is less and less a free one. And, as transfers of power and rights occur, it becomes more and more a dictatorship.

There is built into the Constitution, a means to look to the future for change, there is an amendment process. It is intentionally difficult to amend, but that is a safeguard not a hindrance.

You could engage in that discussion, which I think would be instructive, especially if all of us did. Or you can just see it the way you do.

Jim, playing devils advocate here and I haven't read all the posts so I may be taking something out of context.

If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?

Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not? However, you can't go to them and say "We're thinking of passing this law, is it legal?"

Jim, playing devils advocate here and I haven't read all the posts so I may be taking something out of context.

If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?

Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not? However, you can't go to them and say "We're thinking of passing this law, is it legal?"

A very fair, thoughtful post (no sarcasm, I mean it).

"If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?"

They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.

"Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not?"

Yes.

But the POTUS shouldn't do something that's blatantly unconstitutional, such as forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs to further one party's agenda.

I would imagine that all Presidents have done things that some folks feel are unconstitutional. Sometimes it's a judgement call, it's not always obvious. Maybe it's rarely obvious.

But it's terrifying to me, that anyone would suggest that we just pretend it says something other than what it says, depending on the times. If we evolve over time, and we want to change the constitution to reflect that, we can amend it - it's not carved in stone. But if a POTUS or Congress can't get the support for an amendment, I don't want them ignoring the parts of the Constitution they don't happen to like. I feel Obama does this regularly. But I admit it's hard for me to be objective because I cannot stand anything about him.

Happy New Year Paul!

They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.I agree but I'm still trying to figure out the whole executive action/order thing. I'm prob. 99% against the Pres. having the right to impose something by executive action and it seems like it is one of those things when your guy is Pres, you like it and when the other guy is Pres. you don't like it.

"Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not?"

Yes.

But the POTUS shouldn't do something that's blatantly unconstitutional, such as forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs to further one party's agenda.

I would imagine that all Presidents have done things that some folks feel are unconstitutional. Sometimes it's a judgement call, it's not always obvious. Maybe it's rarely obvious.



I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!

Do you see it that way because you thought it up on your own? Or are you accepting a progressive mantra because it sounds good, makes "sense," seems rational or reasonable?

Think again about a country being a living breathing thing. Can a country live and breathe on its own? Is it an actual organic being? Or is it a concept, an agreed to or forced union of actual, real, organic beings who do the living and breathing. And do they do so in unison? If a country were an actual living and breathing thing comprised of a multitude of separately living and breathing parts which breathed at different rates and lived in different ways (that diversity mantra so favored by progressives) it would be a very sick and dysfunctional thing. It would crumble and die a natural death.

That is why a country needs a rule of law which applies equally to all. And a free country (a free state as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) requires that those who minister the law do not do so as dictators, but as servants who stay within the bounds the People have prescribed for them. And the country, as such, must only evolve in the manner as the People make it so. And if all the People can evolve freely, than the People must account for that by abiding by a common precept, a rule of law which prescribes and permits that diverse evolution.

If the country evolves, not by the free actions and interactions of the People, but by edicts of a ruling class which go beyond the restrictions which guarantee a free State, then evolution is by edict, by fiat, by dictation which evolves the State from freedom to despotism.

And in the same manner, the Constitution is not living and breathing. It is a concept, an idea, a structure for a free State. It is a basic foundation for such a State. And when that structure in ways that transfer the rights and powers reserved for the People to the State, the State is less and less a free one. And, as transfers of power and rights occur, it becomes more and more a dictatorship.

There is built into the Constitution, a means to look to the future for change, there is an amendment process. It is intentionally difficult to amend, but that is a safeguard not a hindrance.

You could engage in that discussion, which I think would be instructive, especially if all of us did. Or you can just see it the way you do.

I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'd say it lasted just about until the ink was dry.

I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It may not be perfect to all but it is perfect for all . Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony

Perfect harmony as a creation of human endeavor is probably impossible. On the other hand, it occurs whenever someone says it does. It is either an unattainable agreement on everything by everybody, or suppositionally existing by personal opinion. Your asking a trick question which can be answered either always, never, or sometimes. Pick the answer that suits you. In any regard, the question is irrelevant if you desire what we in America call freedom. Or what we used to call it.

The political beauty of our constitutional structure is partly that it does not strive to reach or ensure a social or political perfect harmony. Rather, it assumes that such a thing would be possible only by a tyrannically enforced absolute equality. Only an absolute dictatorship could even approach such a "harmony." Actually, it has been posited that the best form of government IS benevolent dictatorship. That is, intentionally to some degree and inadvertently to a great degree, the trajectory of our progressive Administrative State form of government. It is that suppositional perfect harmony of freedom and political powers which exists because the ruling class says it does.

And the other part of our constitutional structure which completes its political beauty is that it strives, rather than a perfect, a more perfect harmony ensured by guarantying individual equality before the law, rather than trying to coerce an impossible absolute equality in which everyone loses individuality and becomes an indistinguishable drone in the societal hive.

Perhaps, examples of actually, rather than suppositionally, lasting societies in perfect harmony between government and citizen would be bee hives or ant colonies. Human's are purported to have evolved beyond the monotony of insect perfection which makes advances, betterment, undesirable, if not impossible. We do have examples of human attempts at such societies. Promised utopias which only tend to revert humankind back to more insect like existence. Evolution, in that circumstance ends, even human evolution, which then reverts to devolution. And the evolved human mind and spirit either rejects such stultifying utopias, or ultimately accepts the comforting, predictable, form of slavery.

was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has been happening incrementally, getting some traction in the latter 18 hundreds. Picking up pace from there. Booming in the FDR administration. Then incrementally wavering but almost always proceeding in "taking effect" until the latter 20th century when the pace picked up again. And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised.

If your vision, what you "see," is limited to the cocoon of your adult life span, you may not "see" much difference. Some for sure. But not necessarily, for you, that significant. But if you can widen the lens of your vision to include recorded American history, the change is massive. You would notice, whether you agreed with it or not, a near total inversion of original constitutional intent. Progressives absolutely agree with that inversion. They have said so--confidently at first, then more secretly, and now are beginning to lose some of the shackles of fear that Americans would disapprove of what they actually believe about the Constitution, individual freedom, and unalienable rights. But their "narrative" still has to be couched in Orwellian language where a form of slavery is said to be freedom, or with slogans from the far left similar to Nebe's saying that "freedom is the buzzword of fools." We have slowly been conditioned to accept, bit by bit, not really noticeable in generational time spans, that "too much" freedom is not a good thing. And this is reflected not only in the increased power of the President, but even worse, in the divergence of the Supreme Court's expansion of its judicial philosophy from its first applications of judicial review to the current judicial philosophies of loose rather than strict construction which have evolved to the extent that judicial interpretation need not be bound by the Constitution, but can reflect a judges personal social views.

The wholesale change in the Constitution, which you say you don't suggest, has happened. But if you "see it" from your little time span, it doesn't seem so great.

It has been happening incrementally, getting some traction in the latter 18 hundreds. Picking up pace from there. Booming in the FDR administration. Then incrementally wavering but almost always proceeding in "taking effect" until the latter 20th century when the pace picked up again. And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised.

If your vision, what you "see," is limited to the cocoon of your adult life span, you may not "see" much difference. Some for sure. But not necessarily, for you, that significant. But if you can widen the lens of your vision to include recorded American history, the change is massive. You would notice, whether you agreed with it or not, a near total inversion of original constitutional intent. Progressives absolutely agree with that inversion. They have said so--confidently at first, then more secretly, and now are beginning to lose some of the shackles of fear that Americans would disapprove of what they actually believe about the Constitution, individual freedom, and unalienable rights. But their "narrative" still has to be couched in Orwellian language where a form of slavery is said to be freedom, or with slogans from the far left similar to Nebe's saying that "freedom is the buzzword of fools." We have slowly been conditioned to accept, bit by bit, not really noticeable in generational time spans, that "too much" freedom is not a good thing. And this is reflected not only in the increased power of the President, but even worse, in the divergence of the Supreme Court's expansion of its judicial philosophy from its first applications of judicial review to the current judicial philosophies of loose rather than strict construction which have evolved to the extent that judicial interpretation need not be bound by the Constitution, but can reflect a judges personal social views.

The wholesale change in the Constitution, which you say you don't suggest, has happened. But if you "see it" from your little time span, it doesn't seem so great.




ah so now the point emerges

"And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised."


You seem to be stuck on the partisan argument it's the progressives Fault as if Republicans have never held office

Then all I can suggest go back to September 17, 1787 when it was signed to your utopia America.. Change is inevitable its 2016 But I would say I Have the same freedoms as my father had and his father had his father I cant speak beyond that
But I would say they all had the same conversation about the Constitution some time during their Lives .. with wars and race and immigration these conversations come with Change Conversation with Armed Men like in Oregon is a Hostage negotiation hiding behind the Constitutional right of protest

I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has slowly and steadily eroded from its initial writings as has the interpretations. Some of that erosion has been good, some has been bad. But the core tenets are freedom and liberty, intertwined, for the citizenry. There was a rather monumental dustup over bits of the Constitution and some interpretations significantly drifted at point.

But it has changed and people are not as free today as 50, 100, 150 170 years ago. So while their are far more people in Freedom (beyond superb) the individual freedom is comparatively reduced.

It is necessary to have the conversation.

I am biased having spent time in places where freedom and liberty is stifled.


I'd say it lasted just about until the ink was dry.

Probably, but that is a bug, not a feature.

It may not be perfect to all but it is perfect for all . Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:cheers2:

I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!

Agreed, I probbaly wouldn't be complaining as much if Bush used executive order to do something I agreed with. Human nature, I guess.

Have a great 2016 too, Paul.

ah so now the point emerges

"And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised."

The "point" has not just now emerged. If that is how you read what I said and have been saying, you entirely miss the point. The fundamental transformation that Obama promised is pointless without understanding what the prize for winning is. The "fundamental transformation" was promised and the process was started over a hundred years ago. Obama's personal version of that promise may have shades of difference from the first founders of the Progressive movement, but the ultimate goal is to discard original constitutional government and replace it with what is called an administrative State. That is not some delusion roaming in my head. It is historical fact. Its been discussed in depth by some of us on this forum. Maybe you didn't read the posts. Maybe you did and found them unconvincing. But history happens whether you believe it or not.

You seem to be stuck on the partisan argument it's the progressives Fault as if Republicans have never held office

The divide is not between Progressives and Republicans. The first Progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt, was a Republican. Many Republicans, including those who are considered the "establishment" in the party are progressively oriented. Most are not as fully so as Democrat politicians are, but enough so that they are at least quasi-Progressive.

The distinction would be between Progressivism and a constitutionally oriented Conservatism.

Then all I can suggest go back to September 17, 1787 when it was signed to your utopia America..

Those who founded this nation where under no illusion that utopia is possible. Their political philosophy was grounded in human nature and nature as a whole--including all its warts and dystopian tendencies. The Progressives, on the other hand, believe that nature, and human nature, can be molded to fit some social perfection.

Change is inevitable its 2016 But I would say I Have the same freedoms as my father had and his father had his father I cant speak beyond that

No, as JohnR said, you don't. First, understand the difference between intrinsic, fundamental (or unalienable as the founders called them) freedoms and freedom granted by government. In the first, government cannot abridge those freedoms. In the second, government allows them (and can disallow or abridge them when it has an occasion or desire to do so).

You do not have, at this time, the same freedom to speak without government punishment, as your father had. You do not have at this time, the same leeway to practice your religion (or atheism) that your father had. You do not have the same freedom to do what you wish with your property (property of all sorts, material or intellectual) as your father had. And many, many more freedoms that you don't have that your father had, and even less than generations had before your father. This doesn't mean that you, personally, are "suffering" from this diminishment of freedom. But it does mean that, if the occasion arose that you, personally, broke some new tenet the government has created regarding those freedoms, that you can be prosecuted for trespassing what is no longer the unalienable right the original Constitution guaranteed, but what is now a right only, and in-so-far, as the government allows.

To put it simply, there are, in a Progressive form of government, no unalienable rights. All rights are prescribed by government.

Does that mean your life will be miserable, or seem shackled, in that form of government. Not necessarily. The utopian aim of such government is to make your life more equitably possible. It would be foolish for such a government not to allow you latitude to live some semblance of personal ownership. But that form of government will continue to need a reason to exist. Governments which maintain a base in individual freedom are far more self-sustainable, even with inevitable change. But the more that government assumes the responsibility over your life, the greater it will have the need to overcome the inevitable natural conflicts, especially with inevitable change. It will constantly be at war with natural instincts to own ones life, and will have to constantly convince you that it is making your life sustainable due to its efforts because you are not capable of doing so yourself. So, the more it will have to cement its ownership of your life. The progressive idea is that the government ownership will always be, what it considers, benevolent. Of course, once government owns you, the new owners may not be so benevolent. When you trade Constitutionalism for Progressivism, you lose your guarantees to rights and freedoms. You are at the mercy of government which is founded on "expert" central bureaucrats, not on your own choices and abilities.

But I would say they all had the same conversation about the Constitution some time during their Lives .. with wars and race and immigration these conversations come with Change Conversation with Armed Men like in Oregon is a Hostage negotiation hiding behind the Constitutional right of protest

If rights are unalienable, the conversation would normally be about how to protect them from government abridgement. Since unalienable rights cannot be more so, the only direction a "conversation" can go is to make them less so. Conversations about how to keep nibbling at the edge of those rights, are conversations about how to make them less unalienable, and more under government supervision. That has been the irreversible trend of Progressive conversation. And, without a historical perspective, and without the understanding that rights which are given can be taken away, the inevitable future is the complete supervision of all rights by government. If that is your preference, a conversation about that is welcomed by me. If you so wish to converse.

And one does not "hide" behind constitutionally guaranteed rights if he practices them. On the contrary, he/she, is sustaining their existence. A sort of use it or lose it.

BTW - the reasoning the Oregon folks are using, I don't know if I agree with or not, the fact that the family being sent back to jail after serving their prior sentence (this cannot be right??) is asking them not to do this in their favor. But I do get a kick out of this:

Just a few good old boys never meaning no harm...

The government closed its offices in Oregon days before the armed takeover due to fears of violence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2016/01/08/the-government-closed-its-offices-in-oregon-days-before-the-armed-takeover-due-to-fears-of-violence/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_oregon-7am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The Federal government acts like a bully, they should expect resistance


http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/02/20/obama-set-to-settle-score-against-oregon-sheriff-outspoken-on-gun-control-proposal/

interesting article
I'm glad there are people who fight back against things that are not right

The Federal government acts like a bully, they should expect resistance


http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016/02/20/obama-set-to-settle-score-against-oregon-sheriff-outspoken-on-gun-control-proposal/

interesting article
I'm glad there are people who fight back against things that are not right
Pretty interesting that people will boycott Beyonce over a song yet others will incite real violence.

Pretty interesting that people will boycott Beyonce over a song yet others will incite real violence.

Yea the Black Panthers are another peace loving group
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea the Black Panthers are another peace loving group
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They were founded to combat police brutality and help the poor.

They were founded to combat police brutality and help the poor.

How's that working out ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They were founded to combat police brutality and help the poor.

.....and the KKK used to be a civic organization.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They were founded to combat police brutality and help the poor.

Spence, do you have no shame?

Are cops boycotting Beyonce because of any old song? Or because of what looked like (and inarguably was) a tribute to a group that has committed violence against cops?

Meanwhile, she does million-dollar-a-night private concerts for billionaires in the middle east, who brutalize women (including the Khadafi family). Some liberal role model. Instead of having a net worth of $300 million and having a conscience, she'd rather have a net worth of $310 million and entertain mass murderers and those who truly brutalize women. But if you asked this mental midget, she'd say that as a woman, what she fears is Marco Rubio.

And it seems to me, that one only dresses like a hooker and shakes her hiney like a Tijuana whore, because one wants to divert attention away from the fact that they cannot sing. If you can sing, just sing and pepole will listen. If you can't sing, you need another shtick. Like street walker.

They were founded to combat police brutality and help the poor.

And I guess U say the same about Bill Eyers and the Weather Underground(weathermen)

Spence the old black panther group I believe was basically about helping the poor but I also believe it was a front for some killings....the New Black Panther Group are racist and anti-Semitic organization and want to kill all jews....not nice people

.....and the KKK used to be a civic organization.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A garden group U might say......:)

And it seems to me, that one only dresses like a hooker and shakes her hiney like a Tijuana whore, because one wants to divert attention away from the fact that they cannot sing. If you can sing, just sing and pepole will listen. If you can't sing, you need another shtick. Like street walker.
If you think Beyonce can't sing you sir are an idiot or perhaps tone deaf.

If you think Beyonce can't sing you sir are an idiot or perhaps tone deaf.

I suppose her lip-synching, once it's cleansed and altered and engineered, is OK. As far as I know, I haven't heard her sing live. If she truly can sing, there's no need for all the other crap.

I see you ignored the fact that she also takes millions from Middle East despots. What a feminist role model, I'm so glad she's pals with our President.

She sings a song about how her date "Monica Lewinskie'd all over my gown." Yes, clearly I am the idiot.