Second American Revolution Necessary?

[carpro]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...ures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx

Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
Posted 07/30/2010 06:30 PM ET

EXCERPT

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.
Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

 

[billwald]

It would be the third or fourth American Revolution. 1st, against King George. 2nd, against the Articles of Confederation. Third, Lincoln's war against the Constitution.

We have a bloodless revolution every 2 years. Americans like to complain but our national motto is, "The devil we know is preferred over the devil we don't know."

The vast majority don't want any revolutionary change. The old people control most of the money, always vote, and are doing fine. The young people don't control anything and seldom vote. The young people who voted for Obama will learn from the experience and quit voting for awhile.

The people on this list must be doing OK if they have time to argue on this list. I've wondered about people who claim to be pastors . . . retired? Or not worked hard enough? <G>

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No need. We have the ballot box.

Is the conention that there should be a revolution against the will of the voters?

 

[poncho]

Obama is doing everything right imho. If his goal is to get us ready for the NWO takeover. For George H. W. Bush it was just "coming into view" but under Obama we can almost taste it.

 

[Ruiz]

We don't need an revolution; we don't need a ballot box. We need a great awakening unto the Lord.

 

[poncho]

We don't need an revolution; we don't need a ballot box. We need a great awakening unto the Lord.

If this were to come down to a vote I wouldn't be to surprised to learn that most folks would pick the one that had the best chance of winning.

 

[Salty]

No need. We have the ballot box.

Is the conention that there should be a revolution against the will of the voters?

In theory you are correct, but many voters have no ideal who they are voting for. Often they only vote party line, or possibly they are a one issue voter.

Here in NY, many people are registered and vote for the "independent" candidate. However, they do not realize they have actually registered in the Independence Party of NY. click on for the platform. They take no stand on the "so called" social issues. From the link:
The So-Called "Social Issues"

There are a number of issues promoted by the existing parties which we in the Independence Party believe have no place as party issues. These issues are largely a matter of one's own personal ethical or moral standards, and we believe that candidates should be permitted to state their positions on these issues without the party attempting to dictate the position for the individual. Moreover, we further believe that efforts by outside groups to dictate policies for the parties on these issues have proven extremely destructive to the overall political process by diverting attention away from the deterioration of our democracy and the impending financial catastrophe facing our children.

For these reasons, the Independence Party will take no formal position on the issue of abortion, the death penalty, or school prayer.

On the whole, as well, the party takes no position on questions pertaining to one's sexual preference. However, the Independence Party stands steadfastly opposed to discrimination, prejudice and racism in their myriad of forms, and we do not believe that anyone should be discriminated against on the basis of his or her sexual preference

 

[carpro]

The awesome powers that the presidency has accumulated in recent decades has only occasionally been a problem , until a rogue president named Obama was elected, determined to work his will on America regardless of how or what he had to do. Legal or not. By any means necessary.

 

[Robert Snow]

The awesome powers that the presidency has accumulated in recent decades has only occasionally been a problem , until a rogue president named Obama was elected, determined to work his will on America regardless of how or what he had to do. Legal or not. By any means necessary.

It is truly sad to see someone who says he is a Christian be so far out of touch with reality as you seem to be.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Legal or not. By any means necessary.

What laws has he broken?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

In theory you are correct, but many voters have no ideal who they are voting for. Often they only vote party line, or possibly they are a one issue voter.

So do a few revolutionaries have the right to overthrow the expressed will of the people?

 

[Ruiz]

So do a few revolutionaries have the right to overthrow the expressed will of the people?

If they had a "right" to overthrow then shouldn't we call it something other than a "revolution"?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If they had a "right" to overthrow then shouldn't we call it something other than a "revolution"?

Apparently not. There are plenty out there who think that they have a right to revolt despite the fact that those in power are there by the will of the majority of the country. Since when did a minority have that right?

What is going to happen when the right is back in power and the left are talking about another revolution? Will that talk then be as acceptable as it is now?

Talk of revolution against legally elected officials is tantamount to treason. Those leaders are there because they were elected. They did not seize power through any kind of illegitimate means.

This growing trend among conservatives and even some Christians to take up arms against a legally elected government is worrying, and it certainly is not of God.

Of all the stuff I am hearing come out of the states this revolution stuff is by far the most disconcerting.

 

[carpro]

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

He's already given us evidence that he intends to rule by the stroke of his pen if legislative efforts fail.

We may have our first elected monarch in history, in his opinion.

And it is our fault we have allowed the presidency to accumulte such power that he can do so much harm and, seemingly, no one can stop him.

 

[sag38]

I think those who would advocate a violent over throw of the government are few and far between. They are certainly a minority on this site. I do know that here on the coast that the democrats are playing with fire by insisting on the drilling ban. The economic impact is going to be severe and far reaching. In fact, it's already happening. I don't foresee a violent coup but there may very well be a trouncing at the ballot box come November.

 

[targus]

It is truly sad to see someone who says he is a Christian be so far out of touch with reality as you seem to be.

Do you ever comment on substance?

Don't bother answering - everyone knows that the answer to that is a fat resounding NO.

 

[billwald]

>In theory you are correct, but many voters have no ideal who they are voting for

IN PRACTICE suggest a constitutional remedy.

 

[Salty]

>In theory you are correct, but many voters have no ideal who they are voting for

IN PRACTICE suggest a constitutional remedy.

In one way the requirements I would like to see would be:

HS Education
Attended a candidates forum
Pay taxes
Candidates would be listed alphabetical without party designation on the ballot.

but thats only wishful thinking. Does anybody have any good ideals?

 

[just-want-peace]

Talk of revolution against legally elected officials is tantamount to treason. Those leaders are there because they were elected. They did not seize power through any kind of illegitimate means. Bolded mine

Now this is a questionable statement, at least IMHO!

I don't foresee a violent coup but there may very well be a trouncing at the ballot box come November.

That, of course, is assuming that elections are actually held; which if they are, I repeat the above comment on the first quote.

IN PRACTICE suggest a constitutional remedy.

1 No plurality wins - run-offs until one candidate wins a majority (lets 3rd party have some valid input)
2 No election announcements until ALL polls are closed & tallied
3 Make congress liable to the same laws as the commoners, with NO retirement or special perks and limited to 5 terms (REPS) & 2 terms (SEN) or there-about.
4 Exclude lawyers from serving as "LAWMAKERS" - if ever there was a conflict of interest, this is it!!!!!
5 Require EVERY LAW to have a sunset clause, excluding such as MURDER, RAPE THEFT etc.
6 Restrict the passing of any new laws until the entire plethora of existing laws are reviewed and either repealed, modified, or validated as one that is useful.

This is a start, & probably far more would crop up as the process began ---- but I ain't holding my breath!!

 

[TCassidy]

"There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order."