Some of Romneys endorsers leave a lot to desired if you happen to be an unaffiliated conservative. Bush the Elder is New World Order emeritus. His endorsement should scare the hell out of every member of the Tea party along with scaring the rest of us: Going after Hussein on foreign policy is right on the money; however, Romney better pick his targets with care, and he better clarify where he stands on global government. Bush would not endorse anybody who opposes handing Americas sovereignty to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community). Husseins position on Americas sovereignty must top the list of Romneys targets in any foreign policy campaign strategy. This next excerpt is a direct attack on Americas sovereignty as much as it is a threat to national security: Mitt Romney prepares to challenge Obama on foreign policy By Scott Wilson, Published: March 29 http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...reign-policy/2012/03/29/gIQASu1xjS_story.html If Romney is serious about challenging Hussein on foreign policy he can start by asking one simple question Who is going to collect the global minimum tax? Big Mouth Biden does not tell us. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/30/biden_we_want_to_create_a_global_minimum_tax.html This question might be silly to some, but how the hell is Romney going to distinguish himself from another global government advocate? What is he going to say in debates if he gets the nomination: I want less global government than does Hussein. The question then becomes How much less? NOTE: Romney coming out in favor of Ron Pauls HR 1146 would dispel a lot of doubts about Romneys commitment to Americas sovereignty. A Bush too many Jeb Bush also endorsed Romney. Yeah, thats a good one. Another Bush! Did anybody ever hear Jeb Bush say where he stands on global government and Americas membership in the United Nations? And who could possibly predict that these guys would endorse a Northeast liberal Wall Street investment banker from Massachusetts?: Top Republican super PAC donors backing Romney By JACK GILLUM, STEPHEN BRAUN Associated Press updated 3/20/2012 9:54:06 PM ET http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46800228/ns/politics/t/top-republican-super-pac-donors-backing-romney/ Karl Rove? Give me a break. Bush the Youngers eight years turned into the worst disaster conservatism ever suffered under a Republican president. Running mate Romney says he is not yet looking at running mates: Romney looking to fall campaign, but not yet to VP choice by John Gizzi Posted 03/29/2012 ET Updated 03/29/2012 ET http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50544 I wager that when Romney does start looking he wont be looking at Tea party Republicans. Finally, establishment Republicans appear to be devoting all of their time and resources trying to convince Tea party conservatives that Romney is not Hussein. The day he says he denounces the New World Order is the day Ill reevaluate the difference between him and Hussein. Establishment Republicans relying on Anybody But Obama aint enough. The thing Romney fails to realize is that any decent candidate can beat Hussein, while he, Romney, is on the verge of blowing it.
What you need to do is to begin a diatribe on obama by picking at all of his scabs until we see those open sores. Lay off Romney our eventual nominee. Come up for some fresh air. And just because those one-world globalists supported Romney is no reason to believe that Romney would govern or adopt the same policies as them.
Last December, when there was still a chance Sarah Palin would seek the nomination, I suggested John Bolton for her running mate. After Sarah decided not to run, I put my hopes on Michele Bachmann; again suggesting John Bolton for vice president. If Mitt Romney is serious about changing the course Husseins foreign policy is on he can do no better than John Bolton as a running mate. Watch the video if youre not familiar with Bolton. Move the cursor to 4:32 to hear what Bolton says about Husseins recent open mic plea to the Russians. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...to-sabotage-israeli-attack/?playlist_id=86925
What a completely absurd post. Every word of it ridiculous. P.S. Palin is an idiot. Michelle Bachmann is a lunatic.
Palin/Bolton??? That's just about the stupidest thing I ever heard. There's a reason Palin didn't run, and it's not because she wouldn't want it.
Click on the link to see messages in this thread that were posted on Forum 4 Politics: http://www.forum4politics.com/elections-campaigns/241757-new-world-order-emeritus.html Quote #17 permalink Now consider the Constitution DOES have systems for change, To Jackson33: Theres not a chance the current power structure will go to the Constitution to bring about change. Circumventing the Constitution is the way it is done. Quote #17 permalink as it was known the society itself would change in many ways, the population, demographics and so on. To Jackson33: You are hinting at A living, breathing, Constitution. That is the very political philosophy liberals cite to justify circumventing the Constitution.
The phrase New World Order scares people (it's fear mongering propaganda) and when people are in fear they want to get rid of that fear and are going to vote on a candidate they 'trust'. This system is misusing human nature, fear, to reach their goal, empire. If people want to get rid of this New World Order (empire building is what really is going on) they should not give their power to the people who run the system (an establishment of so called elites, banksters and other rulers/dominators)
To Xanadu: I am a bit confused by your reply. The people who want to establish a New World Order use the term glowingly; so it is not a scare tactic to elitists. Please note the vast difference between elite and elitist. The second part of your reply is right on the money.
http://www.forum4politics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1061139396 It's that circumventing that is classified a "Living Breathing" document or that the Constitution can be changed by judicial or legislative fiat, the Constitution then being irrelevant. What I'm suggesting is simply using the amendment process for change, which was used before the "Progressive" movements of the early 20th Century. As for getting back to that method, it's not that complicated. Your advocating for "power structure" change (new party) and I'm suggesting using the same parties to bring on that change. I'm sure if the 61 members of the "Tea Party" caucus can pick up another 40 or so in November, at least a majority in the Senate, anything is possible. Remember Amendments are not dependent on an Executive Signature.
To jackson33: I have no quarrel with amending the Constitution so long as a change limits government. However, repealing the XVI and XVII Amendments MUST come before any prototype amendments are considered. Also, in some areas enforcing the original Bill of Rights would accomplish as much as would a new amendment. Especially this: Using tax dollars to implement one group’s morality is nothing more than government establishing a religion and forcing everyone to pay for it. Look closely and you’ll see that funding political causes with tax dollars is no different than funding the morality of a priesthood running a traditional religion. Enforcing the First Amendment would stop that. In closing, considering the type of person in Congress and state legislatures —— amending the Constitution should not be rushed into because a substantial number of people in the government are the beneficiaries of the XVI and XVII Amendments. Those people will fight tooth and nail to insert their sick brand of social justice into any proposed amendment. Hell, they’ve managed to spread their disease by infecting existing amendments. Their amendments never worked for the people, yet only one was ever repealed. Bottom line: Those amendments adopted after the original Bill of Rights became a Government Bill of Rights. Proof: The government only violates, abuses, and ignores the first ten amendments. Here’s a great piece that might interest you: Bad Amendments of the 20th Century Daniel Wiseman Wednesday, April 11, 2012 At the dawn of the 20th Century, the U.S. Constitution had been unchanged for more than 40 years since the amendments of 1865-1870 that prohibited slavery. But then the country panicked. Fearful of the shift from an agrarian to industrialized society and the movement of people from the country to the city, the United States 100 years ago experienced a crisis of confidence that led to something called progressivism. Progressivism was the belief that the government could and should mandate something called the public good as opposed to traditional values of limited government and individual responsibility. One of the ways that this manifested itself was the creation of the Federal Reserve System in which the federal government would retain some quasi-ownership of the nation’s banks, and would retain the right to intervene into economic affairs as a matter of public policy, but really political influence. All these things began under Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president who ushered in Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and finally Barack Hussein Obama, and the long national nightmare of progressive (socialistic) politics. Let the history lesson begin: Amendment 16 - Income Taxes, Feb. 2, 1913. This gave Congress the authority to collect taxes on income. There are several historians who question whether this amendment was actually legally adopted. But that’s another story. Fundamentally, it is not the business of the federal government or anybody else what an individual earns. This was passed, of course, as a “tax on the rich,” which eventually ensnared everyone. The only fair way to collect taxes is by tariffs on goods or on consumption with sales taxes. It’s perverse that the federal government has the authority to tax personal income. People are more engaged in government on the state and local level. One of the main points of the American Revolution was self-government as close to locally as possible. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and let the federal government continue to sell bonds to raise revenues for wars and not much else. Amendment 17 - Direct Elections of Senators, April 8, 1913. The mother of all bad amendments to the Constitution! Right up there with the 18th Amendment, Prohibition, which was at least repealed by the 21st Amendment. The whole point of the Senate in the Constitution was to cool the overheated passions of the House of Representatives, who had to face voters every two years. The House is the People’s Chamber; The Senate was supposed to be the Guardian of the Republic, insulated by appointment by the State Legislatures. Granted the Legislatures should probably limit the senators’ service to two terms, but that would probably happen if the 17th Amendment were repealed. As we have now, senators, have to raise millions of dollars for political campaigns. Many of these seats are uncontested, once the incumbent gets ensconsed in power and serves for a term or two. So let’s repeal it and get back closer to the original Republic and experience freedom from progressive, democratic tyranny. Amendment 18 - Prohibition of the Sale of Intoxicating Liqours. January 16, 1919. Helped usher in excessive drinking in America and organized crime. 14 years of stupidity. Eventually we will see decriminalization of some drugs in the United States, which only makes sense. Repealed by Amendment 21 in 1933. Amendment 21 - Repeal of Prohibition, December 5, 1933. The end of a 14-year disaster. Amendment 23 - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia, March 29, 1961. Pushed through by Democrat Congress and President Kennedy. Repeat after me: “The District of Columbia is not a state.” It has a local government. The people who live in Washington D.C. in the Virginia part should vote for federal offices in Virginia, and those who live in Maryland let them vote in Maryland. Repeal Amendment 23. It will never happen because anyone who tries will be branded a racist. Amendment 26 - Eighteen-Year-Old Vote, July 1, 1971. One of the bad ideas that came out of the 1970s, the decade that produced the designated hitter in Major League Baseball. How many 18-year-olds really have it together? Why should they be allowed to vote when almost all 18-year-olds are still dependent on someone else for support? I say let them become adults first, get some skin in the game, and let them vote at 21. What happens now? We have something called “The Youth Vote,” as if youths should vote. So because there is a youth vote, the Democrats pander to them with the promised plum of more student loans and grants. Hooray! More young people graduating with debt that they can’t pay back! Let’s remember why this amendment to the Constitution was passed: The thought was that if people were old enough to be drafted into the military and serve in Vietnam, then they should be old enough to vote. Well, young males still have to register for the Selective Service, but the army is now all-volunteer, so presumably they are old enough to determine if they can support the policy of the United States of America, which they are sworn to serve. Let’s get this right: Repeal Amendment 18, so people can vote at 21 and lower the drinking age to 18. And that’s a brief look at how a “government of laws, and not men,” became a progressive democracy committed to “social justice and the so-called national good.” http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45903
Flanders; The unique premise of the US Constitution is the built in system for checks and balances TO THE POWER of each branch of the Federal, for the protection of the States over the Federal. When States are mentioned, the meaning was toward the individuals (person's) of each State, which without would make the Constitution a program to control... http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am16 http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html IMO, repeal is not necessary or is it permissible for any viable US Federal Government to compete in a World Economy. That is tariffs or isolationism are no longer considered productive. BUT; A "Balanced Budget Amendment", with teeth, would service and will likely pass in the next Congress, ratification maybe....serving the same purpose. I'll blow your mind with this, but give it some thought; If Individual Income Taxes were "altered" to "indirect taxes", collected by the Federal from the States and based primarily on State GDP, which equals US GDP, at say a total of no more than 18%, what savings could be achieved? YES, the 17th A, would have to be repealed and there have been many movements to do just that, which I wouldn't fight, but do not see as a cause for progressive ideology advancement. State Legislatures are voted in by their constituents and generally reflect them anyway. I don't have the time to properly address your grievance, but I'm thinking your problem is with "Passed Legislation", opposed to actual Amendments. To Amend the Constitution, a majority of 2/3rds both Congressional Chambers must pass, then 3/4ths the State Legislatures must Ratify for one to become law, the President does not need to agree or sign the bill. If ratified it BECOMES part of the Constitution and the Executive Branch must administer/protect and the Courts are ordered to uphold. I can't imagine a better system for change or one that could better reflect the sentiments of a majority, but this does not mean everyone will be pleased, including myself.....
To jackson33: Your talking points advocates big government. I believe the opposite. So I am not going around and around on the XVI Amendment. Incidentally: Nor am I am going to debate the obvious. Of course, the Constitution included the Amendment process. No one disputes the existence of: The problem is liberals ignoring Article V when it suits them, or abusing it when they want something. I must admit I was surprised that you somehow managed to connect isolation to the tax on income. I never heard that one before. And you did it without invoking Smoot-Hawley! Last word on that subject: Those of us who are lucky enough to live here should be encouraging and promoting the very best attributes of national sovereignty not inventing reasons to give it away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=player_detailpage
Flanders, both parties are ignoring the process, both worried about the next election, not willing to wait out the time it takes. Dem's or Progressives, build on previous decisions (incremental progress) through legislative action. Briefly, I think we're in more agreement then not. The main difference is IMO, your approach to change is no longer practical and I believe under the right leadership, things can be reversed, to what extent corrected, I'm not sure about. As for isolationism, that was in reference to "Federal Revenues" which was the main source, long ago. Not wanting to go further on this issue, please note "Child Labor" and "Women's Equal Rights" amendments were never ratified, but you would never know it from State and Federal Court Rulings!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unratified_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
