Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

There Are Irreconciliable Differences Between Liberty-Loving Americans and Leftists
Newsbusters ^ | 1/2/2014 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 01/02/2014 6:41:50 PM PST by markomalley

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last
To: markomalley


141 posted on 01/04/2014 2:44:19 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Why thank you kind sir. But honestly I don’t think it’s brilliant, I just see it as thinking an issue through to logical conclusion and associating relevant issues.

But I’ll take the kudos with a smile ;)

142 posted on 01/04/2014 2:48:08 PM PST by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart; Windflier

Thank you for an excellent thread, FRiends.
I see truth in both your posts/viewpoints and I think the difference has to do, again, with the different cultures in different areas of the country.

Growing up in in conservative N. Texas like Windflier, I definitely see the difference in optimism and hope vs. those conservatives who live in more leftist States. Not that anyone here would deny we have a grueling uphill battle, whether it remains political, or moves on to nulification,secession, or even more serious scenarios. But we all have an unreal uphill battle unless we get some state and local leaders brave enough to take the first step on standing up to, and nullifying the actions of, this tyrant’s regime.

Two New Executive Orders Will Change Who Can Buy Guns

Mashable ^ | January 3, 2014 | Colin Daileda

Posted on Fri Jan 03 2014 16:57:42 GMT-0600 (CST) by lbryce

The White House issued two executive actions on Friday that aim to beef up background checks for would-be gun buyers and keep the weapons away from those at risk of harming themselves or others.

The first order, proposed by the Department of Justice, more clearly defines who cannot possess a handgun under federal law due to mental health issues. It is designed to clarify the language of the current law by providing better definitions for phrases like what it means to be “committed to a mental institution.” This, in turn, will provide a more well-rounded picture of a potential buyer’s mental health for the background check to determine whether a purchase should be allowed.

The second executive action concerns privacy laws associated with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. States have complained that individual privacy protections have made it difficult for them to report relevant mental health information to their respective background check systems, which they fear could lead to guns falling into dangerous hands. The proposed change would allow states to relay “limited” tidbits of information that they feel should be included in background checks. The executive order stresses that it will not prevent everyone with mental health concerns from buying guns, and will not require buyers to report “routine mental health care.”

Too many Americans have been severely injured....

See link for more.

143 posted on 01/04/2014 10:25:22 PM PST by boxlunch (Psalm 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: boxlunch
Growing up in in conservative N. Texas like Windflier, I definitely see the difference in optimism and hope vs. those conservatives who live in more leftist States.

That thought has sort of been in the back of my mind, but I think you've got your finger on one of the reasons we often see such fatigue and demoralization among our conservative friends.

As someone who spent decades behind enemy lines in Southern California, I know what it's like to be surrounded by liberal idiocy. It can, and does, take a toll on ones outlook on things. Even when there's good news abounding, it can be hard to see beyond the concrete signs of decay right outside your door.

Great observation, my friend.

144 posted on 01/04/2014 10:34:05 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
I can name two off the top of my head. Serbia and Finland both armed both fought back both took a lot of causalities.

Finland communist mostly one or two bombing runs by the Nazi's. Serbia Nazi's and Islam.

I believe Poland should be on that list as well.

145 posted on 01/05/2014 2:00:32 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“Americans have several options. We can like sheep submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution. A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution. My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.”

That’s incredibly naive. Any attempt to restore the Constitution will result in bloodshed. Any attempt to separate the states will result in bloodshed. “The State” has grown far too powerful to fight unless a good number of the military reject “the State” and join us. (Oh yea, “the State” can read every word we type, time to go back to typewriters and pamphlets handed out under the Liberty Tree.)

I fear that there will be a mild turnover in 2014 elections and the sheep will go back to sleep.

146 posted on 01/05/2014 3:23:59 AM PST by vanilla swirl (searching for something meaningful to say)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vanilla swirl

We can also rebuild. Survive the scrapping, and rebuild. Give that a thought. It may be best to let these great minds, run fully amok- and then, fully rebuild.

147 posted on 01/05/2014 3:31:30 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ripley

“Leftists will never allow us outside of their grip.”


They have no p[ower outside of the city, in the rural and wilderness areas. When they go out there, they cannot cope.
So its easy to get away from them.

All we need to do is fence them into the cities and keep them there.

148 posted on 01/05/2014 4:28:31 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Show me one piece of evidence that the current left has an ounce of guts. Just one.

There are lots of recent examples of the left's commitment to their causes.

Staging the Winsconsin statehouse protest was wrongheaded and annoying but it took guts.

OWS camping out in public spaces for months on end was foolish and a blight, but it took guts.

Getting arrested protesting outside the Sudenese embassy in WDC took guts, and there are many more examples.

So no, I don't think a 'lack of guts' is any kind of problem for the left.

149 posted on 01/05/2014 5:39:08 AM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
There are lots of recent examples of the left's commitment to their causes.

You're talking about street protests and such, which isn't so much a display of "guts" (as I put it), but more a display of passionate commitment to their pet social causes.

Our side has displayed the same level of commitment to social causes that matter to us. Note the many Tea Party rallies, and Overpasses protests in the last few years.

No, when I say "guts", I'm referring to the sort of backbone and courage it takes to fight a real war. The left in the west has shown time and time again that they don't have the stomach to face a determined foe with unflinching grit and determination.

Look at every liberal administration in the western world since 1945, and you can't find a single one that ever conducted a military campaign that was designed and executed with the sort of no-holds-barred aggression which is required to achieve real victory. Not one.

Observe how western liberal governments conduct their international diplomacy during peacetime. They ordinarily bend over backwards to appease violent dictators and murderous regimes, while turning their backs on their real allies. Their friends in the press and academia are no different, and usually play the part of spinmeisters and propagandists for the yellow bellied cowards in government.

In short, the political left can't throw a punch and mean it. If the political right ever stood on their hind legs and acted like men, the left would back right down. It's what they do when they're confronted by real anger and opposition.

And if a day should ever come when several states secede from the union, you can bet your bottom dollar that the weasels running the feral government in Washington won't have the guts to execute a military campaign to squash it through force. Not if they're convinced that the red states will fight back with everything they've got.

They're really good at killing defenseless women and children and unarmed men, but they shrink in the face of a well armed and determined enemy.

150 posted on 01/05/2014 9:18:57 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe; Eaker; Absolutely Nobama; afnamvet; AK2KX; Ancesthntr; An Old Man; APatientMan; ...
Thanks M.Kehoe for the heads up!

CWII Ping!

151 posted on 01/06/2014 6:07:12 AM PST by Jack Black ( Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Peaceful separation is the only viable option, otherwise, massive bloodshed involving millions must occur.

152 posted on 01/06/2014 6:22:20 AM PST by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“Problem is that without big changes that reign in all three branches of government, that isn’t going to happen. The two solutions I see are a constitutional convention and secession.”

The inevitable result to a constitutional convention and secession would be U.S. Civil War II.

You do understand that the Federals would start shooting if any states - or group of states - peacefully departed the Union?

This has been established by the events of 1861 to 1865, and the Feds would consider the opposition to be traitors.

Treason can be punished by death under the federal statutes.

Think well my friends before you cross the Rubicon into civil war!

153 posted on 01/06/2014 6:42:30 AM PST by Darin1948
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: greene66

The only problem with a “split” is that states - and even parts of states - will be scattered piecemeal all over the map. Where would NM fit, with AZ and TX on either side? What about the large cities in Conservative states (Austin & Houston in TX, Atlanta in GA, Miami in FL, etc.)? What do you do with RINOs?

The answer is relocating millions of people along philosophical lines. Short of that, CWII is becoming an increasingly viable solution.

154 posted on 01/06/2014 7:26:46 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Thanks for the ping.

155 posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:00 AM PST by Vor Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Darin1948

A Convention of the states could propose Amendments that would strip power from the Federal government, and return that power to the states or people where it belongs.
This would include amendments allowing STATE legislatures to impeach and remove Federal officials including representatives and Federal judges.

The following is from an email exchange between Michael Farris (Founder and President of Patrick Henry College, HSLDA, and the Convention of States project) and a state representative.

Thanks so much for your kind letter. I am happy to answer your questions.

Your first question:

1. “My greatest concern is that so few public officials seem to know the
importance of the existing U.S. Constitution, and our society is so
disconnected from the history and principles that delivered this nation to
greatness. By opening the Constitution to such an ignorant population do we
risk much more than we stand to gain?”

The short answer is that there is no realistic risk anything bad will happen as a result of a Convention of States. We will either do something good (or even very good), or we will accomplish nothing at all.

The reason I say this arises from the following chain of reasoning:

1. Washington, DC, is utterly broken.

2. Washington, DC, will never voluntarily relinquish power.

3. If we allow Washington, DC, to continue on its current course of big government, it will utterly destroy American liberty. Debt is the most tangible method of destruction. But big government complete with spying on the American public, the improper use of executive orders, over-regulation, etc., etc., will most certainly destroy American liberty relatively soon.

4. We must save liberty before it is too late.

5. Trying to elect more conservatives to Washington, DC, as a method of fixing this problem hasn’t worked. Even when we have had our best leaders there, they have been unable or unwilling to make the kind of structural changes necessary to save American liberty. Even Ronald Reagan could not deliver on his promise to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.

6. The Founders gave us Article V for the very purpose of creating structural changes when the federal government abuses its power.

7. Even the anti-federalists of that generation who had opposed the adoption of the Constitution were not afraid to use Article V. The Virginia General Assembly, which was controlled by the anti-federalists, voted to apply for an Article V Convention, which they called a Convention of States, in the very first session of Congress under the Constitution. They wanted the Bill of Rights and other amendments suggested in the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution.

8. The argument that we would be “opening up” the Constitution in a Convention of States under Article V is not correct. This argument is normally premised on an inaccurate understanding of the Constitutional Convention itself. People claim that the delegates were sent there merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, but once the subject was “opened up” they rewrote the Constitution. (As an aside, those who contend that the Constitution was illegally adopted usually call themselves “constitutionalists.” It is utterly inconsistent to claim to be a constitutionalist and to believe it was illegal from the get-go. It is like saying that George Washington was a great hero but he was also a British spy.) This argument is based on a misrepresentation of history, as I explain here. The 1787 Covention was not a “runaway,” and, therefore, there is no reason to fear it will “happen again.”

9. Every state legislature in the union, other than Hawaii, has at one time or another applied for a Convention of States. There have been over 400 such applications, yet we have never had a convention. Why not? Because there is a “unified subject rule.” The applications must aggregate to 2/3rds of the states (currently 34 states) and MUST BE called for the same purpose. We have never had 2/3rds of the states apply for the same purpose. The purpose the states outline in their applications is limiting and controlling for all stages of the process. We know as a historical fact that it controls the CALLING of the convention, and we know from the litigation I did that it is unconstitutional to change the process midstream. Thus, the subject matter limitation imposed by the states in their applications is binding at all stages of the process.

10. State legislatures control this process from beginning to end. Governors are irrelevant. Congress can only name the time and place. State legislatures name the delegates and give them their instructions.

11. All voting at a Convention of States is done on the basis of one state, one vote. Thus, it requires 26 states to approve anything as a “proposed constitutional amendment.” The convention has no more power than Congress. It can only propose amendments.

12. Thirty-eight states must ratify any proposed amendment.

13. The idea that anything crazy could make it through that process is simply untenable. We will either get good amendments or we will get nothing. If the Convention were appointed in some other manner, then there would be a lot more to worry about. But the people who must approve the work product—state legislatures—are the ones who name the delegates. They are also the ones who give the convention its subject matter.

14. At this point in our history, our country’s most conservative institutions are our state legislatures. We must act soon while conservatives still control this process. Otherwise big cities, big government, and big media will use their influence over Washington, DC, to ruin this nation and destroy our liberty.

I promise you, my other answers will be much shorter.

Your second question:

2. Would the legislatures’ efforts be more effectively directed toward holding
office holders accountable to their oaths before changing the document that
is the subject of the oath? For example, can the states effect impeachment
of those key authorities who have been so derelict in their duties?

State legislatures currently have no power to impeach federal officials from their states. This is not a viable option.

This would, however, be a proper amendment to suggest at the Convention of States we are proposing. I like the idea of giving the state governments the power to impeach Congressmen and Senators from their states.

One of the amendments I had previously contemplated has a similar impact. The federal courts regularly refuse to rule on constitutional issues they want to avoid by calling them “political questions” or by claiming that no one has standing to sue to challenge these matters. (For example, legal challenges to a President taking us to war without a declaration of war is avoided by the political question/standing method). One of my ideas for an amendment would be to automatically grant state legislators standing to challenge any action of the federal government as violating its constitutional limitations.

We need better enforcement mechanisms, and we can get them through a Convention of States.

Your third question:

3. If we could and would first enforce the Constitution, then I expect we would
see stronger support for amending it. But if we cannot enforce it, why go to
the trouble and risk of attempting to amend it? Is it simply for the
publicity/educational value? Obviously the discussion has caused a deep
divide amongst conservatives who support the Constitution. This divide could
end up costing us key seats on Election Day, as half of the conservatives
may feel disenfranchised if this is pursued.

The big answer is this: Washington, DC, pretends to obey the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gives them cover. The vast majority of damage to our country has been done to us as the result of the misuse of two provisions in the Constitution—the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. You and I (and every sensible American) knows those in Washington have abused these Clauses. They can still pretend to obey the Constitution, however, because of how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted it. We have not gone so far down the road that people admit Washington disobeys the Constitution and it doesn’t matter.

If the American public believed Washington, DC, purposefully disobeys the Constitution, there would be huge political backlash.

We need proper amendments to effectively limit the power of the federal government—especially the courts. If I am a delegate to the Convention of States I will propose reconfiguring the Supreme Court after the model of the European Court of Human Rights. There are 46 nations in that court’s jurisdiction, and every nation appoints one judge. We should expand the Supreme Court to 50 justices and have the states appoint the justices for a specific term (6 or 8 years) with no right of reappointment. That one change would do more to ensure a constitutional government than anything I know of.

It is true that we are dividing conservatives today. That is sad, but it is also diminishing. The growing number of conservative leaders who are supporting a Convention of States (Mark Levin, David Barton, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and dare I add Mike Farris) is gaining momentum, and soon those opposing the Convention of States will be on the margins of our political movement.

But I cannot promise every state legislator that there will be no political price to pay for this. Right now, state legislatures control less than half of the issues they would be considering if the Constitution’s original plan was being followed. Congress has stolen the majority of your jurisdiction. We can continue to fight and scrap over a decreasing scope of state jurisdiction in conservative states like Montana, Idaho, and Mississippi, while Congressmen from Illinois, California, New York and Massachusetts make the actual decisions for the majority of issues that impact your state.

In any fight worth having there are political risks. I am walking away from the opportunity to run for Congress to lead this effort. My own district’s seat has just come open after 34 years. I would be the most likely GOP candidate to win the nomination in a seat held by a GOP member for 34 years. I am taking a risk for a position I long planned to seek. But I believe that my own election would be meaningless compared to the good I can do to help save the nation through a Convention of States.

If we want to save liberty, if we want to preserve the legitimate jurisdiction of the states (which is essential to liberty as well), then we have only one realistic alternative. The Founders gave us a Convention of States for just such a time as this. We had better use it before it is too late.

I am more than willing to talk with you at any point about any of this.


Michael Farris, JD, LLM
Convention of States Project

156 posted on 01/06/2014 10:27:15 AM PST by boxlunch (Psalm 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
First we have to seperate ourselves from the enemy within our own ranks that demands compromise...

Yes, but don't waste too much time on them. Set the sissies aside for now and focus on the leftists - always on the leftists. The lukewarm "conservatives" will follow us once we make headway. But if we waste time trying to get them in line or identify them first, we will never get anywhere, especially if half of them are leftist plants, as I suspect they are. Any time you see a "conservative" advocating compromise or some other useless passive strategy, tell them to stfu and ignore them. Always focus on fighting the Left.
157 posted on 01/06/2014 12:23:19 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Do not fear these people.

This statement I wholeheartedly agree with. These people are beneath us. All the men with the balls to go and fight and die in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and anywhere else are pretty much on our side. The ones that would fight for the Left are, at best, the pencil-pushing REMFs and at worst, the pajama boys. They may own the best hardware when we start this thing, but they don't deserve one single ounce of nervous sweat from those better men.
158 posted on 01/06/2014 12:34:15 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
They may own the best hardware when we start this thing, but they don't deserve one single ounce of nervous sweat from those better men.

It's nearly impossible to defeat a homegrown guerrilla insurgency who are fighting to preserve and protect their own home land. Invasion troops don't have the same sort of heart and passion for the fight as those who are facing extermination.

As we saw in Iraq, Vietnam, and even in the American Revolution, superior firepower, technology, troop numbers, and logistical support, don't always result in victory. In fact, they almost never do, unless they're set against similar forces.

There's just something powerful about having truth and right on your side in a fight. The majority of the American people have that. The deep left who have infiltrated and usurped our government, don't.

159 posted on 01/06/2014 1:37:07 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

That was then, this is now. You’re forgetting about drone technology.

160 posted on 01/06/2014 1:43:38 PM PST by 3boysdad (The very elect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson