probably true.

I do not have those skills, but I see stopping the flow of money to the fed, and to a lessor extent the states as real controllable possibility.

Here in California we have now handed over our children. But, that was ok because not everybody had children. Now, similar laws are being proposed for adults...comply or lose your right to have a job. I thought they'd tie compliance to the right to travel but I guessed wrong - it will be tied to your right to work and provide for your family.

Don't need 40%. All you need is a small cadre of dedicated individuals that have the ability to perform a surgical strike on the money flow. All that military hardware means nothing if the military isn't going to get paid and there is no stolen wealth to feed the machine.

Agreed, Abaco. Except, living in the East, I see the beast here plainly. Perhaps East and West beasts are male and female of the same evil species and their spawn will devour what's left of any freedom remaining.

I like the "diversification" feature: I am a white male who works for a living. That should make me eligible for the White House - for the sake of diversity!

If the Republican's don't crush the Dems on this, they suck...wait, they already suck, maybe just a little less left.

If you like your neighborhood, you can keep your neighborhood...oh...wait...

Doesn't this remind you of the last scene in 1984?

Yes you are correct about the current culture. No amendments should be proposed at this time.

Amendments are the last step after educating the populace to the reason why we need the ones proposed in the Society Project. If the people and the State buy in then and only then are the amendments proposed to correct and cement the better system.

The solution has to work for Liberals and Conservatives alike, but it is a topic for night terrors to think of many of the intelligent and well-intentioned liberals I know re-writing the Constitution. They would turn the US into an explicitly socialist country because they want to take care of everybody.

So the result of pleasing liberals by leveling the playing field with respect to race and gender (as well as religion) and by making the gov butt out of people's private lives is something that we have in common with them. Encoding in stone the right of the gov to absorb 90% of everyone's income and mandate urban mini-homes to provide uniform 'little boxes' is where I fear it would go.

This makes me prefer the current flawed document to a re-write...because you are correct: Liberals will have as much a right to write it their way as we do to write it ours. In a Better World, where our culture were not so dominantly socialistic, a re-write would be an excellent solution.

Jan

The solution has to appeal to Liberals too. The real problem will be the entrenched power of the Political Parties. Political Parties are not compatible with the original Constitution. They will not want to be eliminated. But we must. Or make them irrelevant through new technology putting the power back in the hands of the voters.

I tend to agree. I also tend to plan for the worst (no turning back) and hope for the best, but I do not really believe the best will occur at this point.

I became convinced of that when Obama got a second term. As a nation we voted for free rides and government control.

Well it worked 200 years ago and it was a bunch of nobodies against the largest military force in the world. I do agree it unlikely to happen that way as the vast majority end differently.

When I say force, I do not limit it to a military action. As a very unlikely example, if you could get say 40% of all commerce in the US to refuse to pay taxes of any kind the outcome would be interesting to say the least. It would be a type of strike by people and business. Its to many people to toss in Jail and to widespread to ignore. The loss in revenue would cause the government to collapse financially very quickly and if the 40% were well prepared to take advantage of that collapse they would have the power to make broad and sweeping changed, perhaps to much power.

Point is there are other ways to fight back. Most of them require enough people behind it to tip the balance. If we simply wait the catalyst for such an event will occur on its own, but if people with sound rational approach to fiscal and social polices are not ready to take advantage of that opportunity it will still just make things worse.

Given the total lack of oversight by SCOTUS on the unconstitutional bills passed over the last several decades, I'd say no, there's apparently no limit to what Washington thinks it can do and get away with.

So the real question is: Had enough yet? Revolution anyone? Because the people in power will never willingly relinquish it and be bound by the Constitution...never.

If wiggys is correct about how this will work, it will resolve itself because people are more portable than buildings. The resolution will not be without significant cost to the affluent neighborhoods, but this is what I would see happening if the plan wiggys describes is implemented and then 'everything is left alone':

The low rent towers will be built in good neighborhoods. Crime will increase; property values will go down. The people who own adjacent properties will sell their homes as soon as their foresight and wisdom dictates. They will move to some neighborhood somewhere there is not a low income intrusion.

Either the place they move to will have protection against forcible low income building projects or it will not: if the former, then new 'good neighborhoods will form'; if the latter, repeat the sequence.

Jan

I have absolutely no doubt that we will be in a socialist/totalitarian system within a few years. As I've said here several times - living here in California I can see the beast rearing its ugly head as it claws it's way into the daylight...only to head east soon and cover the land in a swath of misery.

So how are they going to control the communities??

They would have to deny someone the right to live there in order to give that house to someone else. result - Government endorsed discrimination.

So if it's a real expensive house how can they afford it? Government grant? How is that fair to the people that had to actually work hard to earn the money, all of the money, themselves to live in the neighboring houses?

Then what about taxes, and maintenance cost. Expensive houses usually have other equally high cost things associated with them. Will the government pay those to? Thus forcing some people to have to earn it while giving it for free to others.

Now…how's that equality???

excellent, up until "The only other thing left is force. If someone were to fight it in any other way they will fail because we are a democracy and public sentiment is not with us."
We are GOVERNed, by Force, per the edicts of a mindless majority.

A "revolution" against the Rulers who control everything and who "own" all the big bombs, guns, warships, fighters, and now drones would be an exercise in futility. Throughout history, revolutions have not ended government by force, but merely replaced bad rulers for other rulers.

We might either DISSOLVE this government, but far more likely is the coming Great Global Collapse. At that time governments-all will be out of business, and at last real people will make their own choices, at least until too many people (progressive types) attempt to form yet another set of Rulership, because Collectivism can survive and exist only without a tool for Forcing everyone!

If the federal govt. begins to be an entity which needs to force the people, then it has no more legitimacy and it is the duty of the people to rise and revolt against it.

But not where I want to be. AmericanGreatness did not say that suicide was not 'a choice', but that it's 'not much of a choice'.

Jan

I looked at the linked site (at work - so just scanned it) and I gather that you are a proponent of a series of Constitutional Amendments to rectify what is wrong with the gov. I am too...but this site has made me aware how difficult it would be to screen out the liberals from the process. Liberals are currently more numerous, better entrenched in the educational system, and better organized than Conservatives and Libertarians are pretty chaotic.

So I theoretically agree with you, but I cannot connect the dots to 'get there'.

Jan

up in smoke from weed and then down the tubes.

I would not call it committed, I would call it desperation. Committed would be to work towards success, not an exit from hell on earth. That is the cowards way out. Working towards the removal of hell on earth is committed.

I prefer not to fight a battle I have not a chance of winning. If I am ever going to sign a document that puts a noose around my neck should I fail there must be a chance to win.

I see a chance to win, and I would jump off my ship, sink it so I have no way turn back and go forward to win and change it. I do not see that route as an option right now, but I am looking for it.

Until the USSC does their job and reign in the Federal powers to those strictly authorized in the Constitution... no... or the voters vote better.