Robin Hood Run Amok

Banking institutions, paper money, and paper speculation are capable of undermining the nation's stability and could be a danger in time of war. The Constitution does not empower the Congress to establish a National Bank. Rather than trust the nation's currency to private hands, the circulating medium should be restored to the nation itself to whom it belongs. Thomas Jefferson.

Everyone here is basically discussing the bane of Socialism – QUIT IT! – go after the root cause. If Socialism continues to grow in America you will start seeing discussions like this on just about everything in our lives. This is new to America and we are not used to “regulators” making detailed decisions about our daily life issues but believe me there are plenty of people out there that want to do exactly that. This is just the start and when Socialism builds enough momentum, life we know as free Americans will end. History paints a bleak picture of what has come before and, although our fate has not been written, we must take note since double-digit inflation, which may mark the start of our next major “crisis”, is coming right at us.

Consider facts that “the Russian Revolution in 1917 was triggered by a combination of economic breakdown, war weariness, and discontent with the autocratic system of government, and it first brought a coalition of liberals and moderate socialists to power, but their failed policies led to seizure of power by the Communist Bolsheviks (Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP)) on October 25, which is now known by the Russians as the October Revolution.”

Does any of that sound familiar? Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia

Our 13th Amendment – Says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

For our discussion “involuntary servitude” is key. I believe the more Socialistic we become as a nation the more we become enslaved and the deeper into servitude we are placed. Our top earners (those who will be expected to pay 90% of their incomes in taxes) will easily tell you that they will be head deep in involuntary servitude. I don’t think Socialism expected to clash with this amendment but it is going to since it is one of the most powerful freedom from oppression elements in our Constitution. The real task we must performed is to clearly define when Socialism causes damage to our American way of life as defined by the Constitution. This must be done in a way that shows it to be a clear and present danger to all. I recently heard it said on the news that the word Socialism was the new “N” word. Looks like they already don’t want us talking about it. Anyone out there have a better name for it? Maybe Robin-Hood?

Everyone here is basically discussing the bane of Socialism – QUIT IT! – go after the root cause. If Socialism continues to grow in America you will start seeing discussions like this on just about everything in our lives. This is new to America and we are not used to “regulators” making detailed decisions about our daily life issues but believe me there are plenty of people out there that want to do exactly that. This is just the start and when Socialism builds enough momentum, life we know as free Americans will end. History paints a bleak picture of what has come before and, although our fate has not been written, we must take note since double-digit inflation, which may mark the start of our next major “crisis”, is coming right at us.

Consider facts that “the Russian Revolution in 1917 was triggered by a combination of economic breakdown, war weariness, and discontent with the autocratic system of government, and it first brought a coalition of liberals and moderate socialists to power, but their failed policies led to seizure of power by the Communist Bolsheviks (Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP)) on October 25, which is now known by the Russians as the October Revolution.”

Does any of that sound familiar? Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia

Our 13th Amendment – Says:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

For our discussion “involuntary servitude” is key. I believe the more Socialistic we become as a nation the more we become enslaved and the deeper into servitude we are placed. Our top earners (those who will be expected to pay 90% of their incomes in taxes) will easily tell you that they will be head deep in involuntary servitude. I don’t think Socialism expected to clash with this amendment but it is going to since it is one of the most powerful freedom from oppression elements in our Constitution. The real task we must performed is to clearly define when Socialism causes damage to our American way of life as defined by the Constitution. This must be done in a way that shows it to be a clear and present danger to all. I recently heard it said on the news that the word Socialism was the new “N” word. Looks like they already don’t want us talking about it. Anyone out there have a better name for it? Maybe Robin-Hood?

"Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical."

Forcing anyone to do anything that they are passionately opposed to is evil and tyrannical. This is the beauty of 50 sovereign states- abortion people can go to one state, anti-abortion people to another...etc. Any other solution requires the marginalization of one side of a debate.

"We need our States defending and protecting their rights and by extension our own rights. That is their most basic job."

Monorprise, you're absolutely right. And some of them are starting to get the message. when more and more people begin focusing all their political energy on state governments, rather than wasting their time begging federal politicians to stop violating our rights, then we might see a big upswing in states resisting dc.

Well, I wouldn't take it quite that far, Larry, but almost. Senator Coburn is a standup guy. He's mistaken about the character of McCain, in my opinion, but that's a whole 'nother matter.

The only guy in congress that I trust.. The rest aren't worth the powder to blow them to.....

Health-care regulation and even standardization is clearly the right of the individual or their states if the said state's constitution allows it.
The Federal Constitution say nothing of the matter just as it says nothing of abortion or even murder for that matter, it is therefore by definition well beyond the federal governments legitimate powers to regulate or fund.

States and individuals should fight and refuses to follow this as is necessary for the defense of their rights. We need our States telling the federal government it is stepping on their and their peoples political turf and thus robbing them of their rights and demand they back off or else.

We need our States defending and protecting their rights and by extension our own rights. That is their most basic job.

I think Ron Paul really hit the nail on the head with this:

"If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas."

all the reason to do what Terry is suggesting - keep all these difficult issues close to home.

As I've stated many, many times before, "you cannot not legislate morality, someone's morality." It's simply impossible. Dr. Paul hits on an important point here, but he seems to miss it at the same time. Almost all, if not actually all, legislation is ultimately based on someone's morality, to include things as seemingly (to some) morally innocuous as speed limit laws, seatbelt laws, and etc. So, here's the deal: It isn't a matter of whether we can or cannot "legislate morality." It is a matter of whose morality we're going to legislate.

In a society dominated by liberalism (or "progressivism" -- how ever you choose to denominate it) "liberal morality" will obviously undergird the majority of legislation proposed, and/or, enacted. Now, in anticipation of the typical "it isn't a liberal or a conservative issue" answer, let me simply state - but it is! Worldview is everything, my friends. And given that we're moral beings, we cannot help but see almost every single issue from a moral perspective; a moral perspective generally governed by our worldview, biblical or otherwise. Dr. Paul acknowledges this in the article above.

And herein lies the very reason that it so vitally important to reestablish Balanced Constitutional Government wherein there is a wide distribution of the powers of government amongst the various branches and spheres of same. ...