We're Taking Back Our Government, and This Is What We Have To Say

reply to post by ForeverDusk


Anybody can write fancy words. Words mean absolutely nothing, it's action that matters & counts. Meanwhile back on the ranch, I'm still waiting for the revolution.

reply to post by ForeverDusk



Good Post OP....and a good beginning as well.

Instead of elaborating on it's shortcomings.

I as an optimist and would like to offer a suggestion.

In looking at the current levels of dissatisfaction with Government It really all boils down to "Accountability".

Simply put, We are all accountable in our society. In our daily jobs, paying our bills, following the laws..

Our elected officials are not.

Once elected it's feet up on the desk and playing solitaire on the computer !




So my suggestion would be, very simply put, is to include a system of accountability instituted for all elected officials in order to begin to initiate change in our elected representatives in Govt.

No revolution or armed revolt required. Simply use the Legal system for that for which it was originally intended.

All of these politicians seem to be Lawyers anyway, then legally bind then into a contract if and when elected.

Once elected They are legally bound to fulfill the wishes and desires of their constituents as defined in the contractual agreement.....within reason of course and subject to negotiation.

This way We The People could then evaluate who was for us vs who was looking out for the interests of their highest paying lobbyist...and corporate interests.

A grading system could then be implemented....those without at least a C avg are not able to be reelected into office.

Those with Failing grades are impeached before their term expires and forbidden from becoming lobbyists themselves.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE

sounds more like he doesnt like obombarman dont listen just be human how hard is it to shoot a man #in a berger or not shoot some one for harsh words

Originally posted by Zippidee
What a great concept and well written declaration. However, as you can see by the course of this thread, such an idea has no chance of becomming a movement as long as people hold on to the philosophy of "what's in it for me".

Errrm, hi, but wasn't the text quoted actually saying what the individual wanted in it for them? That's kind of give me what's in it for me, isn't it?

Feel free to ignore my comment as I'm not American, but it also states returning to the original constitution you have. Does that mean any amendments since then are removed? Interesting, I'm sure that will go down well with people who think the second amendment means differently to what it actually says and those that would plead the fifth amendment if challenged.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
reply to post by Kitilani

 

There's not really anything to "prove" here.
The proof is in the replies.
We.
We the People.
We need this.
You need this.
You cannot deny it.

This is about the last thing I need. A bunch of angry Christian extremists who are more worried about gay marriage than taking care of poor and sick children are not going to take back my America for me. My America has room for both them and my self in it. Their America sounds like a terrible place.

Angry Christian Extremists?

Where in this thread or in the OP did anyone mention Christians (let alone angry extremist ones?)

Or are you just trying to put "homegrown terrorism" into people's heads?

Originally posted by nh_ee
reply to post by ForeverDusk

 

So my suggestion would be, very simply put, is to include a system of accountability instituted for all elected officials in order to begin to initiate change in our elected representatives in Govt.

No revolution or armed revolt required. Simply use the Legal system for that for which it was originally intended.

All of these politicians seem to be Lawyers anyway, then legally bind then into a contract if and when elected.

Once elected They are legally bound to fulfill the wishes and desires of their constituents as defined in the contractual agreement.....within reason of course and subject to negotiation.

This way We The People could then evaluate who was for us vs who was looking out for the interests of their highest paying lobbyist...and corporate interests.

A grading system could then be implemented....those without at least a C avg are not able to be reelected into office.

Those with Failing grades are impeached before their term expires and forbidden from becoming lobbyists themselves.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE

edit on 5-8-2011 by nh_ee because: Vote for Ron Paul !!! He's not a Lawyer !!!! But a Medical Doctor....who is sworn to helping people...not sucking them dry.

That is too "plain and simple". Who is going determine what to contractually obligate them to? Their constituents are not all going to want the same thing, and in many cases want conflicting things. What might be a D- to you would be a B+ to someone else.

'We the people' can already evaluate someone after their elected term, and choose not to vote for them again. This would just force everyone to adhere to someone else's ideals.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Janky Red
But you don't see a problem in being a world where you have zero input into the terms
you are engaged in? It was NOT this way during the founding, yet you don't question the fundamental
insanity of being so underrepresented as a member of this US of A.

When individual rights are sacrosanct... you know how vague that is? That is you trying to hide away the
fallacy in your argument. you are building a cocoon and hiding it in there. I could say when things are better,
flowers will be respected. When people are honest, people will be treated fairly.

Life is what happens when you busy making other plans... What about the world we live in here, today?

Have you noticed that several of us are saying the same thing to you?

Who said I don't see a problem, in fact that is THE problem, as i said, i have the right to say yes or no, and until a gun is placed to my head, I will always have 100% input into the contracts i sign.

Individual rights are vague? I think they are right on the point. I don't care what other people are "saying". What I do notice is someone asked about Dr. Pauls views and now I have been attacked not for supporting them but expressing them to someone who asked. I don't support Dr. Paul with money or my vote since he seems to think government is still a solution. I don't give a rats rear end if you want to have people tell you how to live your life, that is your choice. I refuse to ignore the gun in the room. I will make this as clear as I can to you, i do not support any political candidate, I do not vote(i haven't voted in many many years as I don't believe i have the right to force my "morals" on anyone else).
you havent really asked me any questions what you have done is attack me at every point because I don't think like you, I once did, but that time is gone.

edit on 5-8-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

Well I think it is too bad that you can see the "gun in the room" but can't be bothered to recognize the minefield all around you. You can distinguish yes and no, but what about the condition of the yes itself. Maybe you are unable to understand, maybe you think legal domination by corporations is OK. You should question that corporate contracts are so prominent, your ideas and recourse are sown up in just about business transaction you participate in. "I don't give a rats rear end if you want to have people tell you how to live your life, that is your choice. I refuse to ignore the gun in the room". You have completely ignored another violent implement, completely and totally. You don't have to accept this state, do you see, you can jump over many
pitfalls and question the whole basis of this legal domination, where you waive your extra-natural rights umpteen times a day. It might be an age old function of your brain chemistry, or mine too... You may be programmed different, IDK, but trust me, there is a mine field here, now. Try to see it,

reply to post by johncarter


I'll take that bet. Let me know the parameters.

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Originally posted by Kitilani

Healthcare is not something people pick and choose like buying tvs and cars. Everyone needs healthcare and healthcare providers have a monopoly but that is beside the point.

So you are saying when my employer offered me a choice between Blue Cross, Community Blue, Independent Health and Oxford Health Care, that I couldn't compare plans and pick what was best for me?

Why does everyone need a healthcare? Only sick people go to doctors.

Originally posted by Kitilani
The one the teabaggers install?

Historians have recently concluded a study showing that British soldiers calling the American patriots "Teabaggers" didn't work in 1776 and still isn't working in 2011.

Great job OP!

Errm, when have British soldiers been calling American 'patriots' teabaggers' in 2011? Could you show a link to where British soldiers have been saying that please? Also, the phrase 'teabagger' wouldn't have been used in 1776 as tea wasn't in teabags at the time. Kind of makes your post a little weird.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by Janky Red
But you don't see a problem in being a world where you have zero input into the terms
you are engaged in? It was NOT this way during the founding, yet you don't question the fundamental
insanity of being so underrepresented as a member of this US of A.

When individual rights are sacrosanct... you know how vague that is? That is you trying to hide away the
fallacy in your argument. you are building a cocoon and hiding it in there. I could say when things are better,
flowers will be respected. When people are honest, people will be treated fairly.

Life is what happens when you busy making other plans... What about the world we live in here, today?

Have you noticed that several of us are saying the same thing to you?

Who said I don't see a problem, in fact that is THE problem, as i said, i have the right to say yes or no, and until a gun is placed to my head, I will always have 100% input into the contracts i sign.

Individual rights are vague? I think they are right on the point. I don't care what other people are "saying". What I do notice is someone asked about Dr. Pauls views and now I have been attacked not for supporting them but expressing them to someone who asked. I don't support Dr. Paul with money or my vote since he seems to think government is still a solution. I don't give a rats rear end if you want to have people tell you how to live your life, that is your choice. I refuse to ignore the gun in the room. I will make this as clear as I can to you, i do not support any political candidate, I do not vote(i haven't voted in many many years as I don't believe i have the right to force my "morals" on anyone else).
you havent really asked me any questions what you have done is attack me at every point because I don't think like you, I once did, but that time is gone.

edit on 5-8-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-8-2011 by NuroSlam because: (no reason given)

It's not attack, I am talking here, also, I am in a place where debate is the name of the game. I am having a hard time figuring out if you understand what I have tried to convey. If you once thought like me NeroSlam,
please tell me, why do I think it is bad to be in a world where I have to waive my rights to do most things in a business capacity? It is pretty extreme to think that you, just being on this site required you to waive some, 1,000's of words worth of recourse without offering a single bit of input into the agreement. The conditioning you have to recognize is that America was once a place where two parties would regularly discuss terms, now your terms are consistently preset for you at the outset. If you changed once before, maybe you should add this to your demands too and continue growing. Ben Franklin argued that the mutual construction of a contract was vital to our nations system of commerce and business. I ask if you if,you discussed the term of this site, your ISP access point and even your open source browser the day you installed it, till today are all iron clad with contractual capitulations on your behalf. We both no you did not have one word in the matter, the status of your
personhood offered you vanilla or chocolate, yes or no. I say as a free man, you should have more option and regard for your status amongst these creations of the state.

reply to post by Wetpaint72


I find it really hard to believe that people keep asking the op who the "we" are in this thread. Really? TPTB are brilliant. Division IS the thing that keeps us down. Right against left, black against white and so on. If you look around and think all is right with this country... then you are not "we". The outsourcing of blame and hoarding of credit is ALL that the gov does to each other...and the supporters of each side do the exact same thing, "it's the democrats fault"...it's the tea parties fault...our idea would have worked if it wasn't for the other guys". This is a plan designed to keep US separated. Why?... because the very thing that can change our country and the world for the better is ONE voice...and THEY know it. No matter what you believe in...even YOUR side of the government is broken. Your side is broken, my side is broken...it is broken and WE need to fix it. The way I see it...the OP is trying to rally his fellow Americans, in spite of their beliefs, to admit that the system is busted by ALL the parties and current systems that are in place and wants to bring together the only "WE" that could ever make a difference...the "WE" that can put aside our tiny differences and work together to put an end to a system of governance that is no longer viable to upholding the constitution.

reply to post by vermonster

christian extremists?!

wtf are you rambling about?

Even the democratic think tank poll show the % of "Christian extremists" among the acknowledged TP members is about 1/3 just a bit more than the random population.

Their definition of "Christian extremists" = Someone who believes in the Bible. These are the little old ladies in hats working at church charities not some bomb throwing jihadist. I find it hysterical that this is the new MSM "Boogyman"

Funny how Islam jihadists are a "protected species" in the MSM but "Christian extremists" are heaped with the worst vitrol they can come up with.

I keep on thinking of the TV guy in New York who was held up as a "moderate" .... and then beheaded his wife when every someone mentions "Christian extremists"

Or how about the newest where blacks in Wisconsin outside the State fair were beating whites unconscious. Yeah that was real good example of "Christian extremists"... Maybe they were all good black southern Baptists???

Think the MSM could run with that???

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by vermonster

 

christian extremists?!

wtf are you rambling about?

Even the democratic think tank poll show the % of "Christian extremists" among the acknowledged TP members is about 1/3 just a bit more than the random population.

Their definition of "Christian extremists" = Someone who believes in the Bible.

Really? 1/3rd of the random American population are "Christian extremists?" What "democratic think tank" are you referring to here? There must be an online link to this "poll" where "Christian extremists" were defined simply as anyone who reads the Bible.

reply to post by Janky Red

I have said before, corporations would not wield the power they have if it wasn't for the violence of the state to back it. In fact, a corporation is a fictitious government created entity to shield the individual from liability. So please tell me where in that statement do I show support for corporatism?

You ask when have I had a say in contracts that I have signed? As I said, I have had ultimate say in that if I don't agree I can walk away, but I see where you are going with that, so I will tell you that I had a say in the terms and conditions of my divorce and the custody of my child. I have also negotiated the terms and conditions of previous employment, from pay to benefits and bonuses. Now to address the T&C of ATS. Granted, I have no say in that other then my yes/no, however, considering a group of people have worked to create this forum, at their expense, ask nothing but civility and basic common sense, it seems to be a fair trade. If you have such a big problem with it, why are you here?

Firefox is made available to you under the terms of the Mozilla Public License. This means you may use, copy and distribute Firefox to others. You are also welcome to modify the source code of Firefox as you want to meet your needs. The Mozilla Public License also gives you the right to distribute your modified versions.

As you see, I choose my browser based upon what I believe my rights should be as a user. It is my property, whether I have paid for it or not, and I may do with it what I wish.

Same with my OS

Debian, the producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system, have created the Debian Social Contract. The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) part of the contract, initially designed as a set of commitments that we agree to abide by, has been adopted by the free software community as the basis of the Open Source Definition.

www.debian.org...

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

www.gnu.org...

It will take all of us to stand up and do what we know we must do to end this mess. Most people won't join because they got the bonus coming in December and they got a vacation planned for next year. Forget your plans or what you think is going to happen. Its either us or them. We know what we need to do its obvious and clear, whether we can do it or not is up to us and how many choose to join us. Otherwise i fear our children's freedom is lost for good.

reply to post by Kitilani


Who said anything about christians? TROLL ALERT

reply to post by something wicked


I guess humor is not one of your strong points, eh?

We are?? Where and when did it start? How come I didn't get the memo? Or is this another 'all talk and no walk' post on a forum?

reply to post by ClintK

Really? 1/3rd of the random American population are "Christian extremists?" What "democratic think tank" are you referring to here? There must be an online link to this "poll" where "Christian extremists" were defined simply as anyone who reads the Bible.

First I defined as they did "Christian extremists" as someone who BELIEVES the bible, not who READS it.

There was more that one article BTW. To see what is actually going on you have to read all of them which is why I did not link this time (I have several other times)

37.4% of Tea Party members believe that “the Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word,” as compared to 29.7 % of Non-Tea Party members...

They also say in the poll that they did not sample evenly across the USA. To me the questions sounded biased. How do you think someone from the Tea Party is going to answer a question starting

"Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure..."

because that is the way most of the questions "Showing" Tea Party members are " Racially "Bias" started. The other questions were. (Again I feel they were carefully worded to trigger anti-large government feelings and not "racial bias" in a member of the Tea Party)

"We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country?"
and
"Our society should do whatever is necessary to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed."

The answers could just as easily show an " Anti-big government "Bias" as a " Racially "Bias" but the big vs small government question is never even discussed in the findings!

Findings from the Blair-Rockefeller poll

On the heels of the 2010 mid-term elections, the Diane D. Blair Center of Southern Politics and Society, together with the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute, conducted a comprehensive national poll of political attitudes and behaviors. The Blair-Rockefeller poll oversampled participants from the southern region of the United States, as well as oversampling African Americans and Latinos, providing unique perspectives on contemporary politics. With over 3,400 respondents from across the nation, the Blair-Rockefeller Poll provides a distinctly accurate perspective on how Americans view each other and how they evaluate contemporary public policies....

Accurate my rear, any one with the least training in statistics can see this was a survey to provide an Ad campaign ammunition (Been there done that)

Back on topic:

If we want to take back our government forget the protests and grandstanding. They do have their place but these are the concrete steps we can take.


Farm -to Consumer is side-stepping the FDA and USDA using contract law. (Cow shares) to distribute raw milk to club members.www.ftcldf.org... The Rawesome dairy fight is one of theirs THREAD

Fully Informed Jury Movement: fija.org...
Jury Nullification: What lawyers and judges won't tell you prorev.com...

RecallTheRogues: "Recall is now available to constituents in 18 states. Another 13 states have initiative procedures whereby petitioners could put recall measures on the ballot." www.recalltherogues.org...

CAMPAIGN FOR STATE-OWNED BANKS: North Dakota is the only state doing well and has a state owned bank. Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Massachusetts, Idaho and California are all proposing a similar solution to the credit crisis. www.webofdebt.com...

New Hampshire is going back to gold coins as a parallel money system.

The Supreme Court has since FDR interpreted the Constitution in a manner to further empower the federal government, states are now taking a second look at the tenth Amendment.
www.thenewamerican.com...
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...


In looking at taxes recently I found that the Federal Government returns about 50% of its dollars to the states - READ BRIBES.

With State owned banks the need for Federal Money goes away and the Federal Dollar Choke chain is removed

LAST

STATES have the right to NULLIFY a treaty, therefore a state can put the axe to the WTO and NAFTA and CAFTA and the rest of the "globalizing" treaties.

Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution


The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".....

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17....

www.sweetliberty.org...

Forget the protests and petitions go for the Achilles heel STATE LAWS!!!