The anti-federalist papers. The Constitution was a mistake.

[Danglars]

This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced.

One excerpt from likely writer Judge Robert Yates' first letter. It's agony to admit this, but the anti-federalists were right. Entirely right. We who revere the Constitution revere it because it limits the size and scope of the federal government, but it worked only so long as men of true good will embraced its limitations. The reason we DO revere it so much is that it places limits on the power of the central, federal government, but those limits have turned out to be illusory. The Articles of Confederation did not empower a centralized federal government with the might that the Constitution gave it from the get-go. I am convinced: the Constitution was a mistake. After yesterday, after the increasing and accelerating dictatorship of the Obama "Presidency," after the daily intusiveness and control exerted by the federal government into every aspect of our lives, after so many enormities I could never number them here, how can we claim that the anti-federalists were wrong? WE can postulate all kinds of "what if?" scenarios, if we like, especially in readiness to take on foreign adversaries--which we managed to do only under the minimal "government" of the Continental Congress, so I'm not convinced, for example, that we couldn't have had the same outcome in the War of 1812 without the federal government created by the Constitution--but those are only what if's--the prison being built around us is no "what if."



http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus00.htm


The anti-federalists were the true visionaries. They saw far, far into the future, and they were right.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

They saw a danger that was real but the Federalists put in electoral safeguards: only the HoR can originate tax bills because the entire HoR stands for re-election every 2 years, as opposed to the senate where terms are 6 years and only 1/3 are vulnerable at any given time.

And what dangers the Antis foresaw in taxation they were clueless WRT national defense. I doubt we would have endured 2 world wars and the Cold War under their schemes.

[Danglars]

They saw a danger that was real but the Federalists put in electoral safeguards: only the HoR can originate tax bills because the entire HoR stands for re-election every 2 years, as opposed to the senate where terms are 6 years and only 1/3 are vulnerable at any given time.

And what dangers the Antis foresaw in taxation they were clueless WRT national defense. I doubt we would have endured 2 world wars and the Cold War under their schemes.

But we now see that the safeguard of the HoR originating taxation does nothing to protect us from what KIND of taxation we are subjected to. And in any case, they play almost literal shell games with that "limitation" now; the Senate creates "shell" bills for the House to fill up all the time.

With respect, Mr. SB, you're postulating the kind of "what if" I wrote of above regarding national defense, and my answer will be the same: it's a what if, and even without the Articles we managed to fend off the British. It's a maybe. The tyranny we're under now--and we know it will get worse before it gets better, IF it gets better--is REAL.

And we DID have the Articles in place. Just because the anti-federalists weren't so clear on national defense doesn't mean we couldn't have defended ourselves under the Articles. What we DO know is that the Constitution has, as in no guessing game, as in no maybe, as in no requirement to hypothesize is needed, brought us to the brink of true dictatorship. We're almost there.

[Danglars]

Put another way: the safeguards in the Constitution have failed.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Put another way: the safeguards in the Constitution have failed.

The SCOTUS was never meant to bless-off on our laws as if they were some college of Cardinals setting church doctrine (my apologies to my catholic friends).

Bad laws passed badly were anticipated. They were expected. They were taken for granted as a fact of life.

That's why the Constitution reads "the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances." You can't enshrine the right to petition for the redress of grievances unless you assume there will be grievances. Moreover, you don't petition the SCOTUS, you petition your representatives and your fellow citizens.

Bad law is to be remedied by good law, not executive orders and judicial decrees.

We cannot claim the Constitution is a failure when we ourselves are not bothering to live up to it.

You're not going to get a constitutional convention to dissolve the union or revert back to the AoC. Meanwhile we're passing-up the opportunity to deploy a dozen constitutional remedies because self-pity is somehow sexier.

This nation has endured much worse. I see no reason to even pretend our lives are so miserable we have no recourse except to lay down and take it. How many jihadists, communists and fascists have thrown everything they have at us only to suffer one humiliating defeat after another but we're prepared to throw in the towel because elections and consensual government are too hard.

You're better than that. Get on your feet.

[Danglars]

In the 1st article, 8th section, it is declared, "that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence, and general welfare of the United States." In the preamble, the intent of the constitution, among other things, is declared to be to provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare, and in this clause the power is in express words given to Congress "to provide for the common defence, and general welfare."

1st. To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a news-paper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll-tax, a land-tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fire places, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property: — It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books: — It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cyder, beer, etc. and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life; whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people, but what is included in one or other of three general terms. We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the United States. Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy: it opens a door to the appointment of a swarm of revenue and excise officers to pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country.

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus05.htm



Does this all sound familiar? "Lives in jeopardy"--"healthcare." "Confiscation"--the death tax (Kelo was foisted on us through the 5th amendment/eminent domain). Rights taken away--the right to buy what we want, as long as it is a legal product. The right to NOT buy what we DON'T want to buy.

"Swarm of revenue and excise officers"--is it 16,000 or 18,000 new IRS agents? Be that as it may, there it is. As if we weren't swarmed before Obamacare.



"pray [sic] upon the honest and industrious part of the community, eat up their substance, and riot on the spoils of the country"--Look at California. Look at the other states to which liberal Californians are now swarming. They are locusts, annihilating wealth everywhere.

[Bad Dog]

The SCOTUS was never meant to bless-off on our laws as if they were some college of Cardinals setting church doctrine (my apologies to my catholic friends).

Bad laws passed badly were anticipated. They were expected. They were taken for granted as a fact of life.

That's why the Constitution reads "the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances." You can't enshrine the right to petition for the redress of grievances unless you assume there will be grievances. Moreover, you don't petition the SCOTUS, you petition your representatives and your fellow citizens.

Bad law is to be remedied by good law, not executive orders and judicial decrees.

We cannot claim the Constitution is a failure when we ourselves are not bothering to live up to it.

You're not going to get a constitutional convention to dissolve the union or revert back to the AoC. Meanwhile we're passing-up the opportunity to deploy a dozen constitutional remedies because self-pity is somehow sexier.

This nation has endured much worse. I see no reason to even pretend our lives are so miserable we have no recourse except to lay down and take it. How many jihadists, communists and fascists have thrown everything they have at us only to suffer one humiliating defeat after another but we're prepared to throw in the towel because elections and consensual government are too hard.

You're better than that. Get on your feet.

Damn!! Hi5   I like the way you think.  Ever consider running for office?

[Danglars]

The SCOTUS was never meant to bless-off on our laws as if they were some college of Cardinals setting church doctrine (my apologies to my catholic friends).

Bad laws passed badly were anticipated. They were expected. They were taken for granted as a fact of life.

That's why the Constitution reads "the right of the people to petition for the redress of grievances." You can't enshrine the right to petition for the redress of grievances unless you assume there will be grievances. Moreover, you don't petition the SCOTUS, you petition your representatives and your fellow citizens.

Bad law is to be remedied by good law, not executive orders and judicial decrees.

We cannot claim the Constitution is a failure when we ourselves are not bothering to live up to it.

You're not going to get a constitutional convention to dissolve the union or revert back to the AoC. Meanwhile we're passing-up the opportunity to deploy a dozen constitutional remedies because self-pity is somehow sexier.

This nation has endured much worse. I see no reason to even pretend our lives are so miserable we have no recourse except to lay down and take it. How many jihadists, communists and fascists have thrown everything they have at us only to suffer one humiliating defeat after another but we're prepared to throw in the towel because elections and consensual government are too hard.

You're better than that. Get on your feet.

Mr. SB, I never said anything about calling for a new Constitutional Convention. But the federal government we have is so far from what we had even 30 years ago, never mind 200 years ago, that I do think it may be irredeemable. I'm on my feet--the implication that I'm on my back is unfair. But I'll call it like I see it. It is NOT our fault that bad men, and a flawed document, allowed this country to morph into something close to, and becoming, a dictatorship. The flaws are inherent in the founding document itself. I appreciate the sentiment of the clause "...you're better than that" as it was intended, in the complimentary way you meant it; but the implication of the statement is that somehow my pointing out simple reality makes me less than "better," and that honor I must decline. I'm not "better" than admitting when the American experiment--through the Constitution especially--has failed. It HAS failed.

What right to petition? It's gone, Mr. SB. We have a runaway ruling class lording it over us without check.

[Bad Dog]

Mr. SB, I never said anything about calling for a new Constitutional Convention. But the federal government we have is so far from what we had even 30 years ago, never mind 200 years ago, that I do think it may be irredeemable. I'm on my feet--the implication that I'm on my back is unfair. But I'll call it like I see it. It is NOT our fault that bad men, and a flawed document, allowed this country to morph into something close to, and becoming, a dictatorship. The flaws are inherent in the founding document itself. I appreciate the sentiment of the clause "...you're better than that" as it was intended, in the complimentary way you meant it; but the implication of the statement is that somehow my pointing out simple reality makes me less than "better," and that honor I must decline. I'm not "better" than admitting when the American experiment--through the Constitution especially--has failed. It HAS failed.

What right to petition? It's gone, Mr. SB. We have a runaway ruling class lording it over us without check.

What's your plan?  Do you have one?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What right to petition? It's gone, Mr. SB. We have a runaway ruling class lording it over us without check.

They say that as DU a lot.

You're better than that.

You know, it's against military law to surrender your troops while they still possess the means to resist.

We've no time for chest beating lamentations. Get on your feet.

[Danglars]

I know what I'm seeing. I'm seeing nearly all the dire predictions of the anti-federalaists either already come, or coming, to pass. Their argument was with the Constitution, not the people, because they saw how those in power could easily, in time, rule without having to take into account any petition by the people.

I believe in his second letter Judge Yates describes his fear that, once elected, those who are elected can abolish elections. How often have we seen that in other countries where the traditions of liberty were too new, or were never really embraced philosophically by the people, or where simply having control of the machinery of power was all that was required for the new "officeholders" to take power permanently? How far are we from that outcome, do you think, Mr. SB, and will it be our fault then for not passing new laws that will never be enforced, or for not petitioning those selfsame autocrats, who would only laugh at us? Do you think we're immune to that? I don't. Maybe once I thought so, but not now. We teeter on the brink of pure dictatorship.

Please do not misunderstand me. Maybe you're used to hearing this from the nutty followers of Ron Paul. I'm not one of those cultists. I'm saying it because I see it happening, and I will NOT deny empirical reality.

[Bad Dog]

I know what I'm seeing. I'm seeing nearly all the dire predictions of the anti-federalaists either already come, or coming, to pass. Their argument was with the Constitution, not the people, because they saw how those in power could easily, in time, rule without having to take into account any petition by the people.

I believe in his second letter Judge Yates describes his fear that, once elected, those who are elected can abolish elections. How often have we seen that in other countries where the traditions of liberty were too new, or were never really embraced philosophically by the people, or where simply having control of the machinery of power was all that was required for the new "officeholders" to take power permanently? How far are we from that outcome, do you think, Mr. SB, and will it be our fault then for not passing new laws that will never be enforced, or for not petitioning those selfsame autocrats, who would only laugh at us? Do you think we're immune to that? I don't. Maybe once I thought so, but not now. We teeter on the brink of pure dictatorship.

Please do not misunderstand me. Maybe you're used to hearing this from the nutty followers of Ron Paul. I'm not one of those cultists. I'm saying it because I see it happening, and I will NOT deny empirical reality.

WHAT...IS...YOUR...F******...PLAN?

[Danglars]

What's your plan?  Do you have one?

No. I don't have one. The only hope at all that I see for us is open rebellion, and that's a slim one.

Perhaps it's time for an "American Spring."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No. I don't have one. The only hope at all that I see for us is open rebellion, and that's a slim one.

Surely, you have a better idea than killing Americans on the bhalf of al Qaeda, Russia and the Chinese. And since I'm sworn to kill rebels and I enjoy my job you might want to consider voting to turn congress and the WH over to the GOP as a first recourse.

[Danglars]

WHAT...IS...YOUR...F******...PLAN?

BD, have mercy. I didn't claim to have a plan and I only just saw your post asking that question just as I was posting what you just quoted. I was observing that the anti-federalists have been proven to be right. I hadn't moved on to "stage B"--a plan. But, to be blunt, it may be that a massive convergence on Washington of those of us who know our "leaders" are out of control is all that can save us. I mean that we must forcibly demand that they return to originalism by force of numbers, first ejecting the creatures who have done this to us. And I don't mean a million-man march, or a 10 million-man march, I mean a 100 million.

Yes, this way may lie anarchy. But all I see now is a not-so-slow-slide for us into genuine totalitarianism.

Sorry to be such a downer. But I cannot deceive myself.

[Danglars]

They say that as DU a lot.

You're better than that.

You know, it's against military law to surrender your troops while they still possess the means to resist.

We've no time for chest beating lamentations. Get on your feet.

They may say it, and in this one respect they are correct. How is pointing out observable reality, and that the anti-federalists were right (at least in my opinion), lamentation?

I don't think you're going to like this Mr. SB, but if you think my excursion into prophecies borne out constitutes (ha ha) "lamentation" and "chest beating," I must make it clear that I believe you're willingly denying reality, and for that I must repeat to you your own words: You're better than that.

[Danglars]

Surely, you have a better idea than killing Americans on the bhalf of al Qaeda, Russia and the Chinese. And since I'm sworn to kill rebels and I enjoy my job you might want to consider voting to turn congress and the WH over to the GOP as a first recourse.

Yes. My better idea is to remove those who are enslaving us on their behalf. You could have just as easily have conflated those who rebelled against King George with any other foreign powers who would have, and did, benefit from Britain's loss of the colonies, as doing so primarily for that purpose--would you have said Adams and Washington and Jefferson and all the others fought the good fight for France? I believe you know the difference, so please don't conflate the concept of action based upon the words "when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" with an alliance with Al Qaeda. I am saying Washington has become King George.

Of course I'll be out there for Romney. But I still see little hope.

And what about the Santanya's dictum that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? is it not worth paying attention to what the anti-federalists foretold?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If you're going to quote Santanya then you should at least accurately cite history.

The founders had no recourse. Hence, the utterance, "Taxation without representation is tyranny."

You have representation. You may not like it but you can also work to change it.

Case in point: 2010

In 2008 I knew Obama was going to be a goat-****ing SOB but I also knew the American people would soon learn of their mistake and throw him out on his ass. What I never anticipated was anything even close to the Tea Party, 9/12, etc We are stronger than even I had hoped.

Obama obviously didn't learn from the history of 2010 because he applauded the upholding of the very thing that cost Pelosi her crown and turned Ted Kennedy's seat over to the GOP.

I have the history of that as a fact to sustain my optomism. You just have self-pity and morbid fantasy.

[Bad Dog]

No. I don't have one. The only hope at all that I see for us is open rebellion, and that's a slim one.

Perhaps it's time for an "American Spring."

Since my grandkids have to suffer in your "revolution" I guess you will be on your own. The Tea Party turned over 63 Congressional seats & 680+ state offices in 2010.  In my county primaries this year, we had exactly one D running for any city county office & He's going to loose.  The revolution is happening. Get off your ass & help.

[Danglars]

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm


God, this man was a seer:

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

1st. The constitution itself strongly countenances such a mode of construction. Most of the articles in this system, which convey powers of any considerable importance, are conceived in general and indefinite terms, which are either equivocal, ambiguous, or which require long definitions to unfold the extent of their meaning. The two most important powers committed to any government, those of raising money, and of raising and keeping up troops, have already been considered, and shewn to be unlimitted by any thing but the discretion of the legislature. The clause which vests the power to pass all laws which are proper and necessary, to carry the powers given into execution, it has been shewn, leaves the legislature at liberty, to do every thing, which in their judgment is best. It is said, I know, that this clause confers no power on the legislature, which they would not have had without it — though I believe this is not the fact, yet, admitting it to be, it implies that the constitution is not to receive an explanation strictly, according to its letter; but more power is implied than is expressed. And this clause, if it is to be considered, as explanatory of the extent of the powers given, rather than giving a new power, is to be understood as declaring, that in construing any of the articles conveying power, the spirit, intent and design of the clause, should be attended to, as well as the words in their common acceptation.

This constitution gives sufficient colour for adopting an equitable construction, if we consider the great end and design it professedly has in view — these appear from its preamble to be, "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." The design of this system is here expressed, and it is proper to give such a meaning to the various parts, as will best promote the accomplishment of the end; this idea suggests itself naturally upon reading the preamble, and will countenance the court in giving the several articles such a sense, as will the most effectually promote the ends the constitution had in view — how this manner of explaining the constitution will operate in practice, shall be the subject of future enquiry.

2d. Not only will the constitution justify the courts in inclining to this mode of explaining it, but they will be interested in using this latitude of interpretation. Every body of men invested with office are tenacious of power; they feel interested, and hence it has become a kind of maxim, to hand down their offices, with all its rights and privileges, unimpared to their successors; the same principle will influence them to extend their power, and increase their rights; this of itself will operate strongly upon the courts to give such a meaning to the constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their own authority. Every extension of the power of the general legislature, as well as of the judicial powers, will increase the powers of the courts; and the dignity and importance of the judges, will be in proportion to the extent and magnitude of the powers they exercise. I add, it is highly probable the emolument of the judges will be increased, with the increase of the business they will have to transact and its importance. From these considerations the judges will be interested to extend the powers of the courts, and to construe the constitution as much as possible, in such a way as to favour it; and that they will do it, appears probable.

3d. Because they will have precedent to plead, to justify them in it. It is well known, that the courts in England, have by their own authority, extended their jurisdiction far beyond the limits set them in their original institution, and by the laws of the land.

The court of exchequer is a remarkable instance of this. It was originally intended principally to recover the king's debts, and to order the revenues of the crown. It had a common law jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king's accomptants. We learn from Blackstone, that the proceedings in this court are grounded on a writ called quo minus, in which the plaintiff suggests, that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the damage complained of, by which he is less able to pay the king. These suits, by the statute of Rutland, are expressly directed to be confined to such matters as specially concern the king, or his ministers in the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas, it is enacted, that no common pleas be thenceforth held in the exchequer contrary to the form of the great charter: but now any person may sue in the exchequer. The surmise of being debtor to the king being matter of form, and mere words of course; and the court is open to all the nation.

When the courts will have a precedent before them of a court which extended its jurisdiction in opposition to an act of the legislature, is it not to be expected that they will extend theirs, especially when there is nothing in the constitution expressly against it? and they are authorised to construe its meaning, and are not under any controul?

This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine.

[Bad Dog]

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm


God, this man was a seer:

God this man is a whiner.

[Danglars]

Since my grandkids have to suffer in your "revolution" I guess you will be on your own. The Tea Party turned over 63 Congressional seats & 680+ state offices in 2010.  In my county primaries this year, we had exactly one D running for any city county office & He's going to loose.  The revolution is happening. Get off your ass & help.

BD, this is unfair. I tell you what is in front of your eyes and you take it as some personal invasion of your children's safety, or choose to deride it as such, perhaps because this may be a little too much truth for you--that's really what I'm sensing. I will point out that, of course, most of the participants in the American Revolution had children, leaders and soldiers.

So YOU can sit on YOUR ass come the new revolution, when or if it does, and NOT fight to free your country from totalitarianism, but I won't.

Now THAT sounds like DUmmietalk to me--ignoring reality.

But to deal with a problem, you first have to recognize it for what it IS, and you don't want to. That much is clear. I would like to point out that it is you who are beginning to insult and Mr. SB who is being slyly insulting--you are, Mr SB--with such pronounements as "your'e better than that," as if HIS view and HIS path could be the only good ones. Then, when I didn't rise to that bait, but politely explained it for what it is, my suggestion that we might have to FIGHT for our country made me an ally of Al Qaeda, Russia, and China.



Edited for typos.

[Danglars]

God this man is a whiner.

Bah. He was right. Period. 100% right.

[Bad Dog]

BD, this is unfair. I tell you what is in front of your eyes and you take it as some personal invasion of your children's safety, or choose to deride it as such, perhaps because this may be a little too much truthy for you--that's really what I sensing. I will point out that, of course, most of the participants in the American Revolution had children, leaders and soldiers.

So YOU can sit on YOUR ass come the new revolution, when or if to does, and NOT fight to free your country from totalitarianism, but I won't.

Now THAT sounds like DUmmietalk to me--ignoring reality.

But to deal with a  problem, you first have to recognize it for what it IS, and you don't want to. That much is clear. I would like to point out that it is you who are beginning to insult and Mr. SB who is being slyly insulting--you are, Mr SB--with such pronounements as "your'e better than that," as if HIS view and HIS path could be the only good ones. Then, when I didn't rise to that bait, but politely explained it for what it is, my suggestion that we might have to FIGHT for our country made me an ally of Al Qaeda, Russia, and China.

Ya convinced me scooter. Grab that flag & lead out I'll be right behind you.

[Danglars]

If you're going to quote Santanya then you should at least accurately cite history.

The founders had no recourse. Hence, the utterance, "Taxation without representation is tyranny."

You have representation. You may not like it but you can also work to change it.

Case in point: 2010

In 2008 I knew Obama was going to be a goat-****ing SOB but I also knew the American people would soon learn of their mistake and throw him out on his ass. What I never anticipated was anything even close to the Tea Party, 9/12, etc We are stronger than even I had hoped.

Obama obviously didn't learn from the history of 2010 because he applauded the upholding of the very thing that cost Pelosi her crown and turned Ted Kennedy's seat over to the GOP.

I have the history of that as a fact to sustain my optomism. You just have self-pity and morbid fantasy.

I have cited history correctly and NO, I do NOT consider what we have now to be representation. The "law" now imposed on us isn't even the one Congress passed, bad as that one is! The word "penalty" has been transmuted to "tax."

Did 2010 stop yesterday's enormity? So I have THAT portion of recent history to make sure my glasses aren't so rose-tinted that they're opaque.

You actually tried to conflate the desire to rid ourselves of the dictatorship coming out of Washington with an alliance with America's enemies. I didn't know you had such venom in you, Mr SB, and I'm disappointed. I kept it civil, but have it as you would.

As to the last, I have reality, you have delusion. I am not the one fantasizing about what our country is, right now. You are. You have not, not even once in this thread, disputed one prediction of this writer. You have merely rattled off a list of sly ad hominem attacks (did you imagine I missed them? I'm better than that.)