Posts by 


log in
1) Message boards : Politics : The state of the global economy (Message 1757537)
Posted 19 days ago by 

Well no, anybody paying attention sees clearly that he's a tyrannical dictator.

Says the poster who claimed there are no toll roads in Texas and the US has the best economy in the world even though UNESCO stated that the US ranks second highest among all measured countries, with 23.1 per cent of children living in poverty, just under Romania's 25.6 per cent.
Guy why don't you get data not just voice paranoid opinions?


1) Why don't you show me someplace you can't go because of a toll road and

2) Try living *anywhere* outside the U.S. and then tell me you're staying because it's better.
2) Message boards : Politics : The state of the global economy (Message 1757529)
Posted 19 days ago by 
Well no one in their right mind actually thinks Obama was actually left wing.


Well no, anybody paying attention sees clearly that he's a tyrannical dictator.
3) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1756643)
Posted 23 days ago by 
It's kind of difficult to compare political parties when the terms are continuously changing.

For example, if you look at the wiki page for List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom, last modified yesterday, it lists the "Liberal Democrats" party as "center".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom

So, that might change tomorrow because someone like me noticed it.

Here in the U.S., many of us view the name "Liberal Democrat Party of the U.K." as meaning Lenin's "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party," or Kim Jong-un's "Workers' Party of Korea," or Pol Pot's "Communist Party of Kampuchea."

You either want more government, or you want less government.

For the sake of simplicity here in these forums, I suggest we all adopt the terms "Freedom Party" (those who want less government) and "Slave Party" (those who want more government.)
4) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1756640)
Posted 23 days ago by 
Ya, it's pretty creepy using kids for political reasons.

[sarcasm]It's much less creepy using school children and their music teachers for political reasons.[/sarcasm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA
5) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1756232)
Posted 24 days ago by 
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the planet.

The U.S's poor is the envy of the world. We take care of our poor better than any place else on the planet. Why do you think people are flooding across our borders?

Yes, I believe there should be laws to stop excessive pollution. But when the EPA says what we EXHALE is destroying the planet, they've gone too far.

I can drive where ever I want without paying a toll. You can too. I don't know what you're talking about. Education costs are sky rocketing because (like our health care system) the government has stepped in and thrown the supply/demand curves out of whack. You want cheaper/better education? See my first statement.

I care about people. But you know what? Now that I think about it, there are *some* people I do not care about anymore. I don't care about people who are capable of producing *something* yet demand free stuff without even having to try to earn it. I've talked about vagabonds in a previous post and how to deal with them. What I've said about them in the past stands.

So let me ask you this: is a 62% labor participation rate along with uncontrolled federal borrowing and spending which is mathematically leading us to a currency reset which will widen the gap between the rich and the poor, strengthen our ruling class while gutting the middle class more caring, compassionate, or unselfish?
6) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1756148)
Posted 25 days ago by 
Wiggo, I don't know why you think I want to act in a way that is detrimental to others. I don't know why you think I don't care about others.

I know some liberals who are pretty mean people--callous, insensitive, always angry, refuse to admit the truth, respond with "sighs" when presented with undeniable truth, and insulting. Always looking to bate me into looking like a bad person. The conservatives I know are just tired, angry and scared. (see my tired, angry, scared post a few posts back.) Maybe it has something to do with your upbringing and culture. I guess the ideas the U.S. was founded on remains as foreign today as it did to the "red coats," King George and many colonialists a couple hundred years ago.

I have claimed to be a Jeffersonian Liberal (at least once in here) since the republican party merged with the democratic party.

Individual freedom does not, and has never meant the freedom to restrict other's freedoms. It has meant free from government oppression and tryanny more than anything else since our founding. We were founded on the idea of a free people, not a free government. We are one nation, with 50 states. (see my "many, but one, one, but many" post a few posts back.)

I espouse individual freedom, and have used the term liberty. I've never espoused the idea of unlimited liberty. I looked into starting up a business a few years ago. The local, state and federal laws look to be infinite. I have not started this business because I fear I will be penalized for not following all the rules, for which there is no finite list. Try reading this:

http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco26.htm

"Freedom usually means to be free from something, whereas Liberty usually means to be free to do something, although both refer to the quality or state of being free. Jefferson's use of the terms almost always reflected those meanings."

"Both reason and experience tell us that the notion of freedom or liberty without limitations is nonsensical, whether we are speaking of government, of life, or of anything else in this world. No rights are absolute and without restraint. And the writings of Thomas Jefferson certainly confirm that judgment."

Can you be more specific and enumerate anything on what is and what is not selfishness, and how much compassion I am to have for others to satisfy yourself that I'm not a bad person?

betreger, our federal government hasn't been cooperating for several decades. The cooperation was defined by our constitution, and the federal government is now ignoring most of it. Can you be more specific on what "cooperative society" means to you?

ya, I didn't think so...
7) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1756072)
Posted 25 days ago by 
Well no worries. Texas will just forge a birth certificate for Ted Cruz if it becomes an issue like Hawaii did for Obama.
8) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1756000)
Posted 25 days ago by 
I'm trying to tell you how to live your lives? Facts that don't fit tin foil hat theory? Baseless claims, otherwise you'd be backing them up with examples.

I'm espousing individual freedom and you're all supporting reinstating a monarchy/dictator and I'm living in the dark ages? I don't belong in the 21st century? Ancient example? What is this? Opposite day? Hamilton, Madison, and Jay interpretations? You do know the timing and the purpose of the federalist papers, don't you? How about listing some examples of conflicting statements from them?

You were going to ask me about the "natural born" laws? But you decided not to after you googled it and found it was going to be opposite the point you were trying to make?

...an ex post facto law has been introduced to cover up the mistake.


Nobody sees something inherently wrong with this?

1) We rejected from King George III because we didn't like ex post facto laws (18th century and before).

2) Ex post facto laws are also used by dictators to quench potential coups.

I'm confused here. Who's not living in the 21st century again?

How about all of you adding some substance or some coherence to your posts?

(or maybe just go ahead and admit that you are learning something from me...)
9) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1755833)
Posted 26 days ago by 
It is not Bush's fault. It is not Reagan's fault. Obama is just advancing the seizure and centralization of power which began in the early part of the 20th century.

It began with Progressives like Woodrow Wilson, who openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of "reforms" the Progressive movement wanted, and urged judges to "interpret" the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power. The left complains amending the Constitution is too hard, so they have been depending on the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution in a leftward direction. This pretense of "interpreting" the Constitution is dishonest.

Part of the solution is to get back to what we all originally agreed to in the late 18th century.

We are one, but many. We are many, but one.

The many can do whatever they want, as long as it's not specifically reserved for the one.

The one is limited, but strong enough to preserve our borders.

The many compete among each other, with the built in check that if some do something stupid, those who disagree are FREE to move to another. We are one, with borders, but many without borders.

With competition, there are winners and losers. The winners show the way, and the *temporary* losers learn, adjust, adapt and improve. The ultimate result is the sum of the many is greater than the one.

And people wonder how the U.S. rose to its stature in the world in such a short time… It’s not a mystery. It’s not luck. It’s not right or left wing. It’s not imperialism. It’s not because of great leaders. It’s not because we are mean and evil. It’s because of free people doing the things which they see best to improve their lives and their children’s lives.

"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." Thomas Jefferson
10) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1755333)
Posted 28 days ago by 
Dumb is not learning from history.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/02/05/how-dictators-come-to-power-in-a-democracy/

Some excerpts:

Dictatorships are often unexpected. They have arisen among prosperous, educated and cultured people who seemed safe from a dictatorship – in Europe, Asia and South America.

Consider Germany. (Go ahead, call Godwin's law...)

During the late 19th century, it was widely considered to have the best educational system in the world.

Germans were especially distinguished for their achievements in science:
-Karl Benz/gasoline-powered automobile
-Rudolf Diesel/compression-ignition engine
-Heinrich Hertz/proved the existence of electromagnetic waves
-Wilhelm Conrad Rőntgen/x-rays
-Friedrich August Kekulé/developed theory of chemical structure
-Paul Ehrlich/medical treatment for syphilis and, of course,
-theoretical physicist Albert Einstein.

It’s no wonder so many American scholars went to German universities for their degrees during the 19th century.

After World War I, German university enrollment soared because the government provided free education. Of course, free education from the government comes with certain strings attached in what will be taught.

Why, then, did the highly educated Germans embrace a lunatic like Adolf Hitler? The short answer is that bad policies caused economic, military and political crises – chow time for tyrants.

Hitler’s main talent seemed to be as a speech maker.

Then came the inflation crisis.

Almost 90 percent of German government spending went for a big bureaucracy, social programs, money-losing nationalized businesses and other subsidies — a portfolio of obligations uncomfortably familiar to us.

The German government subsidized municipalities, much as U.S. states are begging the federal government for bailouts now.

Germany had a troubled government-run pension system like our Social Security.

The German government provided health insurance for millions of people.

There were German government programs for 1.5 million disabled veterans.

The government lavished subsidies on the arts.

There were government-run theaters and opera houses.

Government-owned railroads lost money.

The German government even operated factories producing margarine and sausages, which lost money.

People employed in the private sector were enraged when unionized government employees – who carried out the government’s disastrous economic policies — succeeded in having their salaries pre-paid, so they could convert the currency into goods before the currency depreciated further.

The crisis came as a succession of misguided policies which created obstacles to enterprise and brought on a Great Depression.

Hitler took over a large welfare state.

Lessons for us today:

-Bad economic policies and foreign policies can cause crises that have dangerous political consequences.

-Politicians commonly demand arbitrary power to deal with a national emergency and restore order, even though underlying problems are commonly caused by bad government policies.

-In hard times, many people are often willing to go along with and support terrible things that would be unthinkable in good times.

-Those who dismiss the possibility of a dictatorial regime in America need to consider possible developments that could make our circumstances worse and politically more volatile than they are now – like runaway government spending, soaring taxes, more wars, inflation and economic collapse.

-Aspiring dictators sometimes give away their intentions by their evident desire to destroy opponents.

-There’s no reliable way to prevent bad or incompetent people from gaining power.

-A political system with a separation of powers and checks & balances – like the U.S. Constitution – does make it more difficult for one branch of government to dominate the others.


-Ultimately, liberty can be protected only if people care enough to fight for it, because everywhere governments push for more power, and they never give it up willingly.

And if you take away the people's means to fight for liberty, it no longer matters if the people care enough to fight for liberty.
11) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1755206)
Posted 29 days ago by 
It's pretty obvious to me which one of these twits dragged the conversation immediately down into the gutter. A quick search of zuker twits immediately shows his level of command of the english language. What a foul mouthed, sour, bitter, hateful person. And people who curse so much are demonstrating their lack of vocabulary because they are frustrated they cannot fully explain what they are trying to communicate. If he were able to gain the vocabulary necessary to fully explain what he currently tries to espouse, he would learn that he's being an idiot. And that program "modern family" is nothing but gutter humor--I can't watch it because it's so stupid. And I could probably make the case that watching it actually makes you more stupid. Another prime example which is pushing me to disconnect from cable TV.

You can almost immediatetly spot the goose-stepping march of a tyrant follower (liberal) in conversations because they are the first ones to do one of the following:

-First to use gutter language
-Call free speech "hate" speech
-Attempt to portray conservatives as callous or uncaring; bait them into making insensitive remarks; falsely describe them as angry
-Calling others "extremist" or "racist"
-Believe that conservatives will fail, and they refuse to accept when they succeed

Zuker is an idiot.

The concrete example you just provided shows zuker as the junior high level insulter who is dividing people.

If there is blood spilled at a Trump rally, I would be willing to bet that it will be because of a liberal temper tantrum.

Even some democrats are starting to see some light: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-08/new-poll-shows-donald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton
12) Message boards : Politics : Another Mass Shooting in the U.S.A. (Message 1754981)
Posted 9 Jan 2016 by 
A tool? Pencils and spoons?

Can you say something that makes sense?

The first step to another disastrous genocidal maniac is to take away the means of the people to protect against another genocidal maniac.

How about reading something that makes sense from the *governor* of Texas?

http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/Restoring_The_Rule_Of_Law_01082016.pdf

Proposed constitutional amendments:

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State. (Note: We are 50 states, not one state.)

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (A broke nation is a failed nation.)

III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law. (That's always been unconstitutional.)

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law. (That's also always been unconstitutional.)

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. (This would send a strong message to the SCOTUS that they are *not* the final say in supporting a dictator on his way to fundamentally changing our governing system.)

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. (No more 5/4 decisions which fundamentally change this nation because of a currently stacked court.)

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. (Re-affirms the 10th amendment in this day and age.)

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. (The ruling class is *not* above the law.)

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. (Again, the ruling class is *not* above the law.)


We agreed to a limited federal power. They are out of control. Because they are out of control, we are failing as a nation. How else would you propose to get some order back to our federal government?


Another one: http://www.conventionofstates.com/ (I've spoken with more than my mouth on this one, I've spoken with my wallet.)

Gun control is not about saving lives. It's about controlling people.
13) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1754955)
Posted 8 Jan 2016 by 
I ask again: where's the line between legitimate fears and paranoid delusions?


...is like asking where the line is between insanity and genius.
14) Message boards : Politics : Another Mass Shooting in the U.S.A. (Message 1754914)
Posted 8 Jan 2016 by 
It's often pointed out how different the contemporary world is compared to the times of our founding.

In those days tyranny was "send[ing] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance," "cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World," and calling "together Legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant," and other such complaints.

Even with the example of the French Revolution before them, our founders could hardly have imagined the problems of current times.

But they certainly understood the problem.

Our founders understood the guys with the guns make the rules.

After all, more than two thousand years earlier, in 416 B.C., the Athenians (who functionally made citizens carrying weapons illegal because they believed weapons would kill law and order) gave the population of Melos an ultimatum: Join them or die. Melos thought Sparta would help them. They didn't. Melos refused and Athens destroyed them... exempting only those deemed suitable for sale as slaves. The lesson Thucydides drew from this incident remains persuasive today: "The strong do what they will, the weak endure what they must."

The Founders of American democracy saw the persistence of this Thucydidean reality. They realized what could happen if only the government had weapons and considered it "the most dangerous of all monopolies."

Part of the exceptionalism of the U.S.A. is "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

So, Winterknight, I commend you on your acknowledgment of one of the pillars of American society is that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God define some Unalienable Rights. But I would hold that allowing only the ruling class to own and carry guns would once again demonstrate an unnecessary atrocity, and after many, many examples throughout world history, if we disarmed our citizens, we would demonstrate once again that we still fail to learn from history.

I will remind anyone reading this, once again, of Einstein's definition of insanity.
15) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1754616)
Posted 7 Jan 2016 by 
We have been trampled on by the rest of the world for far too long.

The Bible teaches that Christian giving should be done in accordance with our means. Paul is quite clear on this: "For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have" (2 Corinthians 8:12). Put another way Paul is saying that you should give in proportion to what God has given you. He said it this way in 1 Corinthians 16:2, "each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper." This means at least two things: (1) since we are all supposed to give proportionately, those who have more money are expected to give more [we who are particularly blessed materially must remember this], and (2) the Lord never asks us to give what we do not have, or contribute beyond our means.

We are going to surpass $20T in national debt (based on what we keep track of... if you include everything, we've promised to pay over $200T). We have given until it hurts. But we didn't stop there. We have given to the point of bankruptcy. We are broke. We have contributed beyond our means. And the world does not see this. They just keep asking for more. And when we try to pull back some of our spending, the temper tantrums begin.

Our foreign policy has been a disaster for years. It's time to put someone in the white house who does not hate the U.S. It's time for a seasoned, proven deal maker who can start putting our interest back where they belong--on us.

We have two choices from what I see. 1) We can keep doing what we're doing and be part of the global financial melt-down and let someone else come out on top based on their sheer size, or 2) we can start focusing on ourselves and not be part of the global financial melt-down. Either way, there are going to be some other leaders out there who threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction. We may not be able to prevent WWIII, but we sure as hell can make sure we come out on top afterwards.

The democrats keep saying they are going to fix things. They never do. They only make things worse. Isn't hillary demonstrating the definition of Einstein's definition of insanity? The democrats keep doing what does not work. It's time to try something different.
16) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1754539)
Posted 7 Jan 2016 by 
There are right ways to do things and there are wrong ways to do things.

Trump would be right, Clinton would be wrong.
17) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1754440)
Posted 6 Jan 2016 by 
For you reasonable folks who have finally realized how much the democrats have been fooling you for several years, here's a web site that shows you how to switch to something that finally makes sense.

They have given me permission to site them.

http://www.diamondandsilkinc.com/how-to-switch/

Be sure to check out some of Diamond and Silk's VLOG videos.
18) Message boards : Politics : Executive "OverReach" or a President being a President (Message 1754155)
Posted 5 Jan 2016 by 
From anyone with any amount of literacy and/or historical perspective, it is without any reasonable doubt an *over reach*.

It appears that many don’t care about the 2nd amendment. What flabbergasts me is that 80 or 90% of these people say they don’t trust the government, but many of these same people trust the government with their liberty.

So Obama is going to change our 2nd amendment by fiat. None of what he’s proposing has anything to do with the mass murder or terrorist activity that has happened and what he’s proposing won’t stop any of this. But you have to keep in mind what he is, he’s a Marxist. He’s instituting a different government than instituted by our constitution. He’s standing on the shoulders of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt. He’s more aggressive, more blatant than even they were. He’s instituting a different government.

Several years ago, he said he had a pen and phone. When he announced this, he announced he was going to assume law making powers. When he announced this, he announced that he will no longer recognize the majority in the House of Representatives. He couldn’t have stated this more clearly. What this amounts to is a quiet, gradual, non-violent coup. This is the common parlance of a dictator. He assumes that he represents all Americans, that he’s a unifying figure, that we just need to concentrate more power in his hands, he will decide what laws are good , what laws are bad, he will use executive orders to pass laws that congress won’t enact, and he will ignore laws he doesn’t like. This is the mind set and the language that dictators have. He assumes to speak for everybody.

But when you go back to the constitution, (who they say) was written by slave owners… men with wooden teeth, they say the opposite. They say this is tyranny.

Separation of powers and the bill of rights are under attack by this president. Both were established to control the federal government, Obama and future presidents/federal officials. The separation of powers and the bill of rights were established to prevent the passions of the day or power factions from fundamentally and permanently altering our governing system. The separation of powers and the bill of rights are bigger than Obama—at least they are supposed to be.

The constitution belongs to the people, no Obama. He’s supposed to execute his duties *under* the constitution, not above the constitution. He’s violating his oath of office!

We don’t need gun control, we need Obama control. We need liberal control.

Tyranny masks itself in a democracy.

The 2nd amendment exists to protect *us* from the federal government.

So, all of a sudden, this justice department finds the legal authority to water down the 2nd amendment. They *JUST* found this authority. So why didn't he do this 5 years ago? Just like the supreme court found legal authority for abortion and same sex marriage, I guess. It must be written in invisible ink because the rest of us can't see it.

He's not trying to save us from future madman or terrorist activities. He just released 95 convicted prisoners. Two of them were convicted of weapons felonies. And Obama released them!

No border control. Sanctuary cities. Obama and the left are not for law and order. How much clearer can it be?

How many people have been murdered in this country by the "gun show loophole" as compared to the number of people who've been killed in sanctuary cities by illegal aliens? HUH? won't find that on CNN because it doesn't support this Marxist regime.

The goal isn't to stop gun killing, the goal is to impose a different form of government on us.

(some paraphrasing from Mark Levin included)

(edit: spelling)
19) Message boards : Politics : Another Mass Shooting in the U.S.A. (Message 1753706)
Posted 3 Jan 2016 by 
Hearing the word militia always give me the creeps.
Self appointed "law" enforcements using brute force that most countries consider is a crime.

Agreed. Who are these thugs accountable to?


To God of course it's in their God dam constitution int it
(Being f-ing sarcastic if you can't work it out !!)


Crime? Thugs? Using the Lords name in vain? Are you out of your Allah dam mind?

That's pretty abrasive, isn't it? Looks pretty "hate related" to me. Looks pretty "intolerant" to me. Looks pretty "insulting" to me. Looks pretty "abusive" to me.

Who was Joseph Stalin accountable to? (Killed 34 to 49 million in the name of "progress")
Who was Mao Tse Tung accountable to? (Killed at least 45 million in the name of "progress")
Who was Adolf Hitler accountable to? (Killed at least 6 million in the name of "progress")
Who was Pol Pot accountable to? (Killed at least 150,000 in the name of "progress")

(These are just off the top of my head... I could list several others...)

All of them had one thing in common: only the government had guns. And you anti-gunners support this? Well, you can in your country if that's what you want.

Edit:

bunch of hot head Cowboys with nuts so big your brain chokes for lack of blood .


Looks like more "obscene, hate-related, sexually explicit or suggestive" to me. There's no civilized discussion with liberals, is there?
20) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1753590)
Posted 3 Jan 2016 by 
Some excerpts out of Michael Savage's latest book:

We're facing something the West hasn't had to deal with since the wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. When those religious wars ended in one place, they began in another. They lasted for over one hundred years.

They kidnap and rape eight-year-old girls and say the Quran authorizes it. They're not purists. They're killers. They're Nazis in head scarfs. They aren't leading a religious revival. They're trying to take us back to a state of barbarism that has been extinct for 1,200 years.

We have a man in the White House who denies its existence. But whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not, it's going to continue until someone puts a stop to it.

Obama and his supporters are drunk on their ideology. They think they're going to create a progressive utopia by continuing their attack on all Western values. This is precisely how great civilizations of the past declined and eventually fell. They rejected the values that made them great and degenerated into narcissism and selfishness. They kept on partying until they were too weak to defend themselves. Then, the unthinkable happened. They fell.

We are supposed to be a nation where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Yet every poll shows this rogue government of sneaks and traitors seems to relish doing the opposite of the will of the people. It is a government of itself, by itself, and for itself, run by lobbyists.

It doesn't exist to promote conservative or liberal principles. It is not pro-immigration or anti-immigration. It is not capitalist or socialist. It is not religious or atheist. Those are all just means to its end.

Its end is its own preservation and growth. This is by no means a new concept. Most governments throughout history have exploited those they ruled for the benefit of those who controlled them. Before the birth of the American republic, this was the rule, not the exception.

That was what made the United States a great experiment. When the founders wrote the words "We the People," they flipped the distribution of power that had existed for thousands of years upside down. They put most of the power in the hands of the people and reserved very little for the government. The government was heavily regulated, and the people were largely free. The government was servant and the people its master.

It was no coincidence that the American people flourished under this scenario. The free society allowed them to pursue their happiness in a largely free market and realize exponential economic and cultural growth. The government served the interests of the people, not because it was good in and of itself, but because it was restrained and ruled by the people.

After over one hundred years of progressive assault, that relationship has reversed. Government has become the master and the people its servant. The people are restrained and the government is free to do anything it wants. The government is all-powerful and the people are powerless. The government is secret and the people have no privacy.

It's a watershed moment in American history, but again, it's nothing new. It's America reverting back to the bondage that has defined most of human history.

Thomas Paine wrote, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

That couldn't be truer today, when we fund not only the government itself through our taxes, but also the government employee unions which continue to make the government itself bigger and more oppressive. AFSCME, the largest trade union for public employees in the United States, gave over $65 million "to politicians, lobbyists and activist groups, according to 2014 federal reports obtained by Watchdog.org."

The good news is this disastrous presidency will finally come to an end in a little over a year. The bad news is we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire, with the Arsonist in charge of the whole country. President Hillary Clinton would be even worse than Barack Obama. She has all of the anti-American, socialist credentials Obama has, along with a strength and toughness he lacks. That means she'd be even more effective for the wrong side.

The vast majority of Americans completely oppose this emerging Sovietization. If the 2014 midterm elections were any indication, more and more Americans are waking up to the very real threat posed by this demonic progressive movement.

Unfortunately, elections may not be enough. With an imperial presidency on one side and no real opposition party on the other, there is little use in throwing out the Democrats and replacing them with progressives from another party. We gave Republicans control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives for six years in the last decade. What did we get? I'll tell you what we didn't get. We didn't get an iota of protection of our borders, language, or culture. We didn't get smaller government or freer markets. We didn't get less federal spending. We didn't get a sensible foreign policy that places the interests of the American people first. We didn't get any improvement in immigration policy or even a good-faith effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. At best, we got less rapidly progressive progressivism.

We found out this past summer, we can't count on the Supreme Court to represent us, either. It decided it could rewrite legislation in upholding obamacare, just ignoring the very intentional stipulation that subsidies for health insurance premiums be paid only to recipients who purchased their insurance from an exchange "established by the state." Thirty-six states had refused to establish such exchanges. The Court ruled the subsidies should be paid in those states anyway. Don't let the media convince you this was all over a simple legislative oversight. That's a lie. The designers of Obamacare Intentionally put that stipulation in to coerce the states into setting up the exchanges. They believed the states could be bought off with the subsidies. They were wrong. Refusing to establish exchanges was a clear rejection of Obamacare by the overwhelming majority of state governments. That was their only recourse in rejecting a terrible law that had passed Congress without a single Republican vote. So Justice Roberts was not defending democracy when he threw the rule of law and basic logic out the window in upholding the Obamacare subsidies in states that had intentionally rejected them. It was just more of the same government we get from the president and congress.

This is where we are. We have three branches of government that are not only supposed to check each other with their separate powers, but limit themselves to the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. They do neither. Instead, they join together in looting our wealth, trampling our liberty, and destroying our culture at the behests of special interests and their lobbyists.

I believe Donald Trump may be our last chance to get back on a path that saves this country.


Next 20

Copyright © 2016 University of California