So you want a rebellion? You can't.. The constitution says so.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


Excellent ideas, imo. You touched upon some of the items I had stated in my earlier post. Limit Terms, get rid of the pension plans and make them purchase health insurance just like everyone else in the country.

In order for this to really start, however, I think the people need to be aware of what is really going on. One of the ways this happened in our history is through "pamphlets". It's already been well proven that one person can make a difference when it comes to informing people about what is going on. With the internet it is even easier than it used to be. It never ceases to amaze me how things can quickly go "viral" via the internet. We need people in city's and town's with some sort of journalistic desire/ability to become involved and educate people on what is going on.

Personally I've often wondered what I could do. I have toyed with the idea of typing up a small pamphlet with information regarding the Fed Res and the truth about it and printing out a couple hundred of them and leaving them at truckstops as I pass through. Having no real journalistic ability though has made me nervous about doing so. I don't want to "lay out" information that people are just going to ignore.

So here it is.

First, begin to truly educate people.
Second, begin to reform local city/township government.
Third, begin to reform county government.
Forth, begin to reform state government
Fifth, begin to reform federal government.

No matter what level of government, terms should definately be limited. My question regarding terms is this. If someone serves a 2 year term in city government, after that 2 years can they move into county? Or from county to state? Or from state to federal? I can see where that would be a natural progression, however, if someone goes from city to county to state they will be "in office" for 6 years (assuming they are elected back to back). Plenty of time for corruption to set in.

Something that I think our current representatives have lost sight of is that their positions are "in service" to "the people". Not "in service" to "the corporations". They need to be reminded.

Yes the idea would be to allow for progression through the tiers of government. If we set the checks and balances right then the competition would be very difficult. You see now there would be a multitute of people at each level that will be qualified. By doing this we will eliminate the two party system and start basing the elections off of qualifications. With the coices being so abundant and campaign financing being limited, the odds of some one being corrupt getting elected are exponentialy reduced. The two party system for the most part, creates the system that can so easily be infultrated.

Yes well its time to accept the fact a war is coming, two options fight or die?

mmmm ill pick fight.


if it does kick off ill be ready. will you?

reply to post by XIZTENZ


Then, you will die.

Frankly, if it is a choice between a bunch of red-neck 'revolutionaries' or a stable system of representational government, I'll take stability first.

Or, I will likely be killed by the 'red-neck revolutionaries' in the process....because, that's how I see this playing out.

Point is, I have no intention of being a 'survivor'....living hand-to-mouth, going back into the dark ages....but, I'm fairly certain this is just a few nut-jobs talking, anyway......

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
The problem is how do we define "All" in your statement. In order to change the system there has to be a majority of the populace that agrees with the changes wanted. Currently the people as a whole are blind to the travesties that are being committed. Most people are not strong enough to stand up for what they believe. The act of restructuring the polical system is a rebellion as defined by the lack of protection for it in the constitution. There are no safeguards protecting the people who are in disgust with the corruption and greed. Ironically it protects those that are preying on the populace under the guise of doing what is best for the people.

Less than 30% of the colonials agreed with the revolution. You don't need a majority to oust an oppressive regime. The masses will largely do whatever they are told and stand by the wayside. Until one person snaps that is.

If you are seriously looking for a legal way to start a revolution, or a governing document that allows anyone to overthrow your own government, you won't find it. It didn't exist in 1776, and it does not exist today. What does exist is your moral code, your self, and your rights as a sovereign human being. When that 30% decides to throw the shackles off, the other 70% will just sit back and root from the sidelines. To think a piece of paper or parchment from any era would stand in the way of the original intent, or blockade the individuality of the last remaining patriots is nothing short of absurdity.



[edit on 11-4-2009 by aravoth]

Back when we were under the King's rule we were not allowed to rebel either.

Bottom line is that if the people are un happy, a simple piece of paper is not going to stop them from revolting.

I know this, and I assure you, the government knows this too.People will revolt if the situation grows bad enough, and no law will stop that.

A lot of us were required to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

It's not revolution, and it's not treason to displace a government clearly in violation of the Constitution, as our current Federal Government is.

Sometimes a structure gets sideways, and starts leaning, threatening to fall upon itself.

Nothing wrong with knocking it down and rebuilding, using the same foundation.

We really need to get back to the Constitution.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, so that wins...as much as I hate to say it.

But, that has not stopped our government from stomping all over it, so why shouldn't we have the same privilege?