-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Dana Loesch/ Amnesty Bill.
- Thread starter leadarrows
- Start date
I love Dana,,,,she is a St Louis native.
Awesome fighter,,,, a real pit bull with lipstick.
She is known for tellin' it like it is, no sugar, nothing held back.
Awesome fighter,,,, a real pit bull with lipstick.
She is known for tellin' it like it is, no sugar, nothing held back.
I've spent some time looking at this bill; she is dead-on in her comments. This is an outrageous piece of shit disguised as
"reform" and should be run through a garbage disposal and then sterilized!
We HAVE to get our government under control. Armed revolution is beginning to look like our best option to get
our country back.
"reform" and should be run through a garbage disposal and then sterilized!
We HAVE to get our government under control. Armed revolution is beginning to look like our best option to get
our country back.
Biggest piece of Bull shit I have ever seen comming out of DC, and in this day and age that is saying something. DS is right we have to get our government back under the peoples control. Armed revolution is what it may have to come to. I hope not.
Regards, Kirk
Regards, Kirk
leadarrows
Member
You enlist the cops and the military to our side. You can get the ones we need to lead us from the membership of the oath keepers. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Our only chance is to give them the backup they need when the time comes. If done correctly I see no reason for a single shot to be fired. It's not a war we need....it's some arrests. The military backs a police service of arrest warrants.
Who gets handed the Presidency is still a problem for me. I don't trust Boner (John Boehner) so who's next in line?
I skipped a few of the arrested of course.
Our only chance is to give them the backup they need when the time comes. If done correctly I see no reason for a single shot to be fired. It's not a war we need....it's some arrests. The military backs a police service of arrest warrants.
Who gets handed the Presidency is still a problem for me. I don't trust Boner (John Boehner) so who's next in line?
I skipped a few of the arrested of course.
Wish it were only that simple. How long before the internet is taken down, and the information used to find those in oathkeepers. My bet is they are first on the list of the Tyrants side......
There needs to be a way to comunicate. Divide and conquer works way to well. They have and will continue to have active intell on the citzens.
Regards, Kirk
Last edited:
Mr. Bill
New member
Well, I wouldn't end being an insurgent in any capacity as I did swear an oath to defend the USA a long time ago.
I would support something passive but wouldn't support anything that put people at risk. People come first. So far I haven't heard of anything that would work for me except voting.
I would support something passive but wouldn't support anything that put people at risk. People come first. So far I haven't heard of anything that would work for me except voting.
I tend to agree with you. Since voting is our only reasonable path back to a sane govenment, we need to insist on proper voting rights, and properly educated voters.
The 2012 upset was done with very clever targeted advertising to specific groups by the Democrats. They used social media and E-mails to focus specific messages to specific ethnic and political groups. Well done and well executed. The GOP needs to consider the same kind of technological approach to getting out their message.
However, until they can come together and define that message, I have little hope the GOP will prevail.
The oath I took, several times, was to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all
enemies foreign and domestic". Mr. Bill, I am presuming that is the same one you're talking about taking. Note that it
is not an oath to any person but to the document from which all our laws are supposed to arise, and which constrains (or is
supposed to constrain) the passage of laws which are contrary to that basic document. The oath also mandates that those
taking that oath are bound to follow the orders of the President and such others as are placed above them, but the
the order in which these responsibilities are listed is not arbitrary; supporting and defending the Constitution is the
foremost duty any service member has.
If we can make the necessary changes through the ballot box I will be a happy camper, but I have lost most of my faith in
the efficacy of that process; there are far too many people who vote with an eye only to what they can personally get from
the sale of their vote. The last election cycle proved that too many gave no thought whatsoever to the needs of their
country, or even their friends and neighbors. Under these circumstances, action through the electoral process may not
be possible.
I would rather not spill any more blood in my lifetime, but that oath to the Constitution, for me at least, has no
expiration date. If I must take up arms once again and fight to preserve it, so be it. If that means I must also bleed and die ...
that is a price I agreed to pay many years ago. Should it mean taking an honor guard of Tranzis with me ... well, that is also
a price that I am willing to pay. For me, leaving this democratic republic in place for my children - and yours - is
worth the price. Even if that price is human life.
For me it is about the country, for without this Constitutionally-organized country the people that I love will
be not only at risk, they will be at the mercy of any one of several groups that are anathema to all I hold to be true and
right. What benefits us to avoid putting people at rick if doing so guarantees they will be subjected to even greater
harm?
I understand your positition DS but the simple truth of the matter is this. If we must come to arms to defend the Constitution, what wil we construct in place of the Government upon which it was founded?
An inssurection, successful or failed, only proves that the great experiment didn't work.
A bit of a Conundrum.
An inssurection, successful or failed, only proves that the great experiment didn't work.
A bit of a Conundrum.
Last edited:
You misunderstand. I don't want to replace; the idea is torestore. The Great Noble Experiment needs to be reborn, not replaced. I fear we may not be able to accomplish that via ballot; we are, after all, some 200 years beyond Jefferson's limit.
You misunderstand. I don't want to replace; the idea is to restore. The Great Noble Experiment needs to be reborn, not replaced. I fear we may not be able to accomplish that via ballot; we are, after all, some 200 years beyond Jefferson's limit.
I don't misunderstand at all. My question is simple. The original blueprint, however noble and good it was, was imperfect because it has eventually failed. Based on the concept that failure, we must remove what has evolved from the original blueprint.
Therefore restoration would simply lead us back to where we now are. What changes would you make? If we were to make changes to the Constitution you just defended with a insurrection, how then can you claim to defend it?
It is an intellectual argument but one we had best be prepared to answer.
Meanwhile the bloodless route of election seems more inline with the intent of the original design. It may not be possible at this point. As I have repeatedly warned ,,,,, WE DON'T GET BACK FROM HERE."
Truth be told, I don't believe it is anymore.
As with many things, it was people that failed; not the blueprint. The plan held together for nearly 200 years,
until we decided to try and make up for past ills by creating a system, with the best of intentions, that ended by putting
blacks into a system of slavery where the only major change was in their masters; they traded being owned by a single
person for being owned by the government. Most of them don't see it that way I know, but when you strip any peoples'
self worth and dignity - the ability to get an education, find work, support their families - and substitute a system of
handouts, you create a people wholly dependent on others. With no incentive to do for themselves they fall into a state
of moral lethargy. Not recognizing the true cause of their misery they blame those they see around them who are
leading successful lives, never realizing that the ones they presume are their friends are in reality the ones holding
them down; the new masters.
We need to turn that situation around, eliminate the ones who are the true villains in the story, begining the slow process
of once again freeing the slaves and allowing them to become proud and productive members of society. This can be done
if we take out that old blueprint and follow it once more; but doing it solely through the ballot will likely not work. We
are going to have to "put people at risk" to save us all.
Conversely, if we must make a fundamental change, we should look to the system that Heinlein described in his novel
Starship Troopers and given body in Colonel Tom Kratman's A Desert Called Peace series. It is the most sensible model
I have ever seen but is likely to be met with great resistance at first as it posits that the franchise must be earned; just
having a body temperature in the vicinity of 38C is not enough.
Or so it appears from this seat.
Last edited:
I like your answer. While Heinlein's tale is perhaps a model, I fear it to would suffer ravages from the inherent weaknesses of man.
Perhaps if the bill of rights included an amendment for "at will" employment so that Unions could not organize government workers, and it should be illegal for the Government to administer education to the population.
But in the end even these small measures will not divert the human need for comfort and safety of freewill. As Edmund Burke once noted "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of the ministers of State."
We have become like so many nations before us, where our leaders are selected and followed blindly because of allegiance to one Person. Our choices are now made for non applicable reasons having nothing to do with competency but because they are charming or likeable or say what we want to hear.
It was not the blueprint that failed but the fabricators.