# The Neocon Carnival of Constitutional Confusion-MUST READ



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

This article explains the problem we face as a country. It is well worth the read. Anyone who thinks the GOP is the way to go, please read.

The Neocon Carnival of Constitutional Confusion ? LewRockwell.com


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GBHM:


> If Marc Levin and the other neocons want a president who behaves more like Lincoln, *they should all become supporters rather than critics of Barack Obama *and his "unbelievably unconstitutional" behavior.


You've convinced me I guess we'll all have to support Obama and the Democratic Party. Let's just throw in Pelosi and Harry Reid for good measure. I wonder if the author of this article was a Progressive? Hardly an un biased article. I'd love to hear him debate Mark Levin.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

This guy is at least as bad a 'fact-fudger' as the people he attacks.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

You've missed the point entirely. What can anyone expect to achieve by doing the same things every day expecting different results? 

Imagine this "two party" system. People are directed into one of two boxes depending on the options they are given. Why must we continue to accept what we are offered by the political class? We say we want liberty, but we continue to accept what we are given. If we choose to leave the boxes we're branded outcasts, idiots, morons who choose not to be identified by either. Well, I believe there is more to life outside these little boxes, and I think it is time the people put the government in the box limiting it rather than being limited as a people. 

Do you really think what we have now is what our founders envisioned? Read George Washington's farewell address and tell me if you think he is an isolationist. Read Franklin and Jefferson's notes and debates. Do you think these men would be accepted by the political class today? Why do you insist on being limited and identified by a rogue, tyrannical body of people bent on keeping you locked in a box?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> GBHM:
> 
> You've convinced me I guess we'll all have to support Obama and the Democratic Party. Let's just throw in Pelosi and Harry Reid for good measure. I wonder if the author of this article was a Progressive? Hardly an un biased article. I'd love to hear him debate Mark Levin.


I could have told you all that months ago...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBH:
We've discussed this at length in previous posts. So what exactly is the point? A third or multi party system would lead to absolute chaos. One has to choose one party or the other to vote for and of those two choose the party that best identifies with their political philosophy. Or not vote at all. As much as I have problems with the Republican Party they have at least shown the least amount of hostility towards the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". I have heard members of the Democratic Party and their pundits repeatedly claim that our "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" is outdated, hasn't kept up with the times, and needs to be changed to be more compatible with our modern society. In other words it should mean what they say it means and not how it is written. If the "Constitution" were meant to be that fluid we would technically have no "Constitution" at all. I've listened for years as Democratic lawmakers have testified before congress on the need for more oppressive gun control laws, and have been instrumental in drafting such legislation. Just recently with the revelations of Jonathan Gruber of how they had to use lies and deceit in order to enact "Obamacare" is concrete proof of how they operate. Obama after granting de facto amnesty to illegal invaders by enacting his own laws, going around congress and the senate, is further proof of the lawlessness of him and the Democratic Party. Especially when Obama in speech after speech, some 25 times claimed that he had no legal authority to do so. They are now trying to lie about this comparing it to what Reagan did granting amnesty in 1986. The difference is that Reagan signed the "Simpson/Mazzoli Act" after it passed both houses of congress. He did not make his own law and impose it on the nation. If Obama is allowed to get away with this we might as well do away with congress and the senate and establish a monarchy or dictatorship. They claim that they are for the middle class yet all of their policies end up pushing the middle class further down the economic ladder as the size of government escalates. The only people that they supposedly care about are the poor and impoverished people that are dependent on their socialist welfare policies. They are condemned to a life of poverty and the Democrats want to keep them there in order for their support. They are using these people for political gain and they are too stupid to realize it. Or maybe they are just content to live off of the public dole as they have for generations, never having anything more than food in their belly's, clothes on their backs and a warm place to shit. I am against that party and everything that they stand for. The Republicans while far from perfect is the only alternative and chance we have to put a stop to all this BS.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

It's really fun to watch party people react to those of us who really do not subscribe to either party platform. Both are just as corrupt as the other, and both are just as bad. Anyone who does not see this is only fooling themselves. It just goes to show how individualism is regarded by collectivists. 


".....it should be clear that racism is a problem that begins with a denial of individualism. A racist believes that some group trait always trumps all individual traits. This is the first error, and it stems from a desire to simplify the reality of group heterogeneity (people really are different) for the sake of convenience and quick thinking....."

"Government-backed racism is designed to shore up government power. The idea is to steer popular opinion that should be directed against one's own government toward some evil foreign enemy. This is the essence of the propaganda that has accompanied every U.S. war effort - and probably every war effort by every government. Racism thrives on dehumanizing people, encouraging people to believe that the object of their hatred is not deserving of human rights. It is even more despicable when governments do these things even as they claim to be protecting the rest of us against racism at home.

I really don't know what is worse; the false claims of racism or the harboring of prejudice; the actual sponsorship of racism by the government itself in wartime or the support of "affirmative action" and "quotas" in the name of ending racism. All these actions are contrary to the individual*ism that a free society should uphold without compromise." Ron Paul

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity." Ron Paul


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> I could have told you all that months ago...


I hope you didn't take that seriously?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBH:
> We've discussed this at length in previous posts. So what exactly is the point? A third or multi party system would lead to absolute chaos. One has to choose one party or the other to vote for and of those two choose the party that best identifies with their political philosophy. Or not vote at all. As much as I have problems with the Republican Party they have at least shown the least amount of hostility towards the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". I have heard members of the Democratic Party and their pundits repeatedly claim that our "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights" is outdated, hasn't kept up with the times, and needs to be changed to be more compatible with our modern society. In other words it should mean what they say it means and not how it is written. If the "Constitution" were meant to be that fluid we would technically have no "Constitution" at all. I've listened for years as Democratic lawmakers have testified before congress on the need for more oppressive gun control laws, and have been instrumental in drafting such legislation. Just recently with the revelations of Jonathan Gruber of how they had to use lies and deceit in order to enact "Obamacare" is concrete proof of how they operate. Obama after granting de facto amnesty to illegal invaders by enacting his own laws, going around congress and the senate, is further proof of the lawlessness of him and the Democratic Party. Especially when Obama in speech after speech, some 25 times claimed that he had no legal authority to do so. They are now trying to lie about this comparing it to what Reagan did granting amnesty in 1986. The difference is that Reagan signed the "Simpson/Mazzoli Act" after it passed both houses of congress. He did not make his own law and impose it on the nation. If Obama is allowed to get away with this we might as well do away with congress and the senate and establish a monarchy or dictatorship. They claim that they are for the middle class yet all of their policies end up pushing the middle class further down the economic ladder as the size of government escalates. The only people that they supposedly care about are the poor and impoverished people that are dependent on their socialist welfare policies. They are condemned to a life of poverty and the Democrats want to keep them there in order for their support. They are using these people for political gain and they are too stupid to realize it. Or maybe they are just content to live off of the public dole as they have for generations, never having anything more than food in their belly's, clothes on their backs and a warm place to shit. I am against that party and everything that they stand for. The Republicans while far from perfect is the only alternative and chance we have to put a stop to all this BS.


What you don't seem to understand is that the Republican party does not want to stop all this BS anymore than the Democratic party does. That is b/c both are part of the same political class being controlled by powers beyond the political parties. What do I want to do? Go back to the system that existed prior to the Lincoln administration where each state governed itself independently of a tyrannical central government. Read the founders debates and arguments to learn more about what they envisioned, and then redirect your train of thought along those lines instead of inherently accepting what a corrupt political class (Democrats and Republicans) force you to choose between.

In the end, under this system, it really does not matter what you choose b/c both choices are controlled by one system. I recommend taking a step back and taking an objective look at this big picture and thinking outside your box. Nothing is more important to freedom than individual liberty. And nothing is more threatening to a central government than individual liberty. That is a concept that is all but erased from the hearts and minds of the people today. You don't have to take what they give you.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

The two party system is deeply flawed, no argument there. If you think that a third party is going to triumph over the libbies and the conservatives you only need to check a little history to know that it's a fairy tale. Even if that worked the rats from both sides would just change their allegiance so we'd be back to the status quo. A revolution isn't likely. I clicked my mouse on the author, Thomas DiLorenzo, it showed credits to all of his articles, editorials, etc. I know I shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but check out the list and then tell me you want to back up his point of view.
Goldwing


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> I hope you didn't take that seriously?


No, I know you were kidding, but there is a good point to be made there. I think breaking the mold of limited thinking is required to actually change what is wrong in America.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

goldwing said:


> The two party system is deeply flawed, no argument there. If you think that a third party is going to triumph over the libbies and the conservatives you only need to check a little history to know that it's a fairy tale. Even if that worked the rats from both sides would just change their allegiance so we'd be back to the status quo. A revolution isn't likely. I clicked my mouse on the author, Thomas DiLorenzo, it showed credits to all of his articles, editorials, etc. I know I shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but check out the list and then tell me you want to back up his point of view.
> Goldwing


I don't necessarily think a third party is the way to go. That would be just as flawed, divisive and corrupt as the other two. DiLorenzo is a credible individual to study. His point of view is based on true liberty rather than collectivism. It was totally foreign to me at first, but when you take the time to study the whole subject objectively, you may come to a different conclusion.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

BTW, these are the same type discussions our founders had to forge a new and better world. I think the problem is that not enough of the right people have these debates to move forward with anything, rather choosing to accept what the wrong people shovel us. I'm tired of taking it. Something has to change, and it all starts in the mind.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I don't necessarily think a third party is the way to go. That would be just as flawed, divisive and corrupt as the other two. DiLorenzo is a credible individual to study. His point of view is based on true liberty rather than collectivism. It was totally foreign to me at first, but when you take the time to study the whole subject objectively, you may come to a different conclusion.


Well said.
Goldwing


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Goldwing, it took me several years to actually start to change my mind about politics and world view. For much of my life I would have been classified as the classic neocon, but I finally had to come to the conclusion that something was amiss. Then I began to look at things from an entirely objective point of view as if I was starting all over. That is really what we all need to do. Take a fresh new look at all this. And that is all in the world that I'm asking and hoping for.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> It's really fun to watch party people react to those of us who really do not subscribe to either party platform. Both are just as corrupt as the other, and both are just as bad. Anyone who does not see this is only fooling themselves. It just goes to show how individualism is regarded by collectivists.


So, what's the answer? Not vote? If you choose to vote you have to pick one party over the other that's just the way it is. If you do not vote or work to improve the party you support you have no reason to complain. You must have some political beliefs otherwise voicing your opinion is irrelevant. You quote Ron Paul, am I to assume you support him? Ron Paul is a Republican. I like Ron Paul but the fact remains that we do have foreign enemies that are out to destroy our way of life and people. What are we as a nation supposed to do about them? Should we have stopped Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan or waited until they arrived at our shores or developed nuclear weapons? Should we allow foreign nations to train and harbor terrorist organizations so they can fly jet liners into our cities taking down buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians as they go about their daily lives? I'm curious what would President GCBHM do in these situations?


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

In SailDesigns post about what are you? I said I was Archie Bunker. I was only half kidding. Like the illustrious Popeye said "IYAMWOTIYAM"
Goldwing


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> What you don't seem to understand is that the Republican party does not want to stop all this BS anymore than the Democratic party does.


I fully understand that and agree with you. I gave you valid reasons why I could never support the Democratic Party. But we are still a two party system, that is not going to change. It's up to whoever votes in the primaries to change the parties by throwing out the old guard if they are so dissatisfied with that party's direction. There are many in the Republican Party that make me want to puke, when given the opportunity I vote against them in the primary such as I did with McCain. Unfortunately, I lost as did others but at least I voted against him giving the party the message that I was not satisfied with him or the party's support of him. If enough people did this the political parties would indeed change. It also requires a full and thorough knowledge of who you are voting for which involves spending some degree of time doing. Which most voters are just too God damn lazy to do. So we end up getting stuck with what we have. It's our own damn fault for the way things are. It is us as voters who end up making the final decision.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> So, what's the answer? Not vote? If you choose to vote you have to pick one party over the other that's just the way it is. If you do not vote or work to improve the party you support you have no reason to complain. You must have some political beliefs otherwise voicing your opinion is irrelevant. You quote Ron Paul, am I to assume you support him? Ron Paul is a Republican. I like Ron Paul but the fact remains that we do have foreign enemies that are out to destroy our way of life and people. What are we as a nation supposed to do about them? Should we have stopped Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan or waited until they arrived at our shores or developed nuclear weapons? Should we allow foreign nations to train and harbor terrorist organizations so they can fly jet liners into our cities taking down buildings killing thousands of innocent civilians as they go about their daily lives? I'm curious what would President GCBHM do in these situations?


Well, I am somewhat of an infant in the new endeavor. Although Ron Paul is a Republican, he has been labeled an outcast and a kook by most b/c he dares to think outside the prescribed ideology. He actually ran for President as an independent. He has worked for years to change the minds of the people, and it is just now starting to take hold. It is growing, and I believe the people are starting to wield their might to some degree, but we can't rest.

What would President Me do? Well, for starters, I would withdraw from the UN and NATO. Both are useless organizations which are just as corrupt and anti-American as any. I would bring our standing army home and secure our borders. I would keep the Navy forward deployed to protect the sea lines of communication, and develop a system of national defense rather than international imperialism. President Eisenhower warned us to beware the Military Industrial Complex b/c it will lead and keep us in a perpetual state of war so that big business can prosper. By the way, the money and corruption is in banking, which war feeds into. Another subject for another day. Our foreign policy would be to conduct trade with those countries that want to conduct trade legally, which would be where we raised revenue rather than by a national tax.

I would make it known that if you do cross us, we will find you and kill you, but as long as you mind your own business, we will leave you alone. I really don't care about what other countries do within their own borders. It is up to those people to defend their own ways and ideals, somewhat like Israel does. What we call "interests" are for business only. We do not get involved in every humanitarian crisis. Ever wonder why? I would encourage people who want to make a difference in the world to go and do so, but the business of the American government is to tend to what is best for America, not the rest of the world. Again, please read Washington's farewell address. This one document served to completely redefine the way I think about this.

Back home, I would work to establish term limits for every elected office, and I would start to decentralize federal government. I would repeal the 17th Amendment and define the 14th, and put the power of governing domestic policy back in the hands of the States. There would be no more career politicians in elected office. The elected official has become the most lucrative career in the world, and that has to change! No elected official would receive a salary. Instead, they would be compensated on a per diem basis. When congress is in session, they would be put up in local hotels, and expenses reimbursed just like when I travelled as a drilling reservist. The elected official would live in the community they represent, work a job or own their own business from which their retirement and health benefits would stem. NOT what they have given themselves now. I would work to put the power back in the hands of the people, and limit the scope of government influence. Of course, this is just the 35K foot view, but perhaps you get the idea.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Goldwing, it took me several years to actually start to change my mind about politics and world view. For much of my life I would have been classified as the classic neocon, but I finally had to come to the conclusion that something was amiss. Then I began to look at things from an entirely objective point of view as if I was starting all over. That is really what we all need to do. Take a fresh new look at all this. And that is all in the world that I'm asking and hoping for.


I don't and will never support the Democratic party or the liberal agenda. But! I have come to realize that the GOP is just as corrupt, just as pro-government, just as bad as the Democratic party. We need to keep the foot on the gas of liberty, and keep working to get the American people thinking in this vein rather than the status quo. I don't proclaim to have all the answers, but what I do know is that in most long journeys, most of what comes in the form of knowledge comes to those who are actually doing rather than just talking.

I used to use this analogy when teaching youth about being a doer rather than a hearer only. When Bruce Wayne got the call, he didn't just talk about what he needed to do. He began a process of transforming into Batman. He didn't get all the neat tools and cool gadgets until he started moving toward the problem though. You have to actually go and do to make a real difference, but before you do, you'd better have a foundation on which you can build b/c without a sure foundation you will surely fall. Make sense?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> I'm curious what would President GCBHM do in these situations?


Thank you for your thoughtful response! After reading it I agree with pretty much everything you said especially withdrawing from the UN and NATO. I guess the point that I'm trying to get across is that those of us who do give a shit have to vote. Being a two party system it has to be either one party or the other. I will stick with the party that for the most part believes in "Constitutional Law" and the principles that this country was founded on. At this point in time that happens to be the Republican Party in spite of all it's flaws and there are many.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

When the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared, it's going to be painfully apparent that politics and politicians are not the answer.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> *You've missed the point entirely*. What can anyone expect to achieve by doing the same things every day expecting different results?
> 
> Imagine this "two party" system. People are directed into one of two boxes depending on the options they are given. Why must we continue to accept what we are offered by the political class? We say we want liberty, but we continue to accept what we are given. If we choose to leave the boxes we're branded outcasts, idiots, morons who choose not to be identified by either. Well, I believe there is more to life outside these little boxes, and I think it is time the people put the government in the box limiting it rather than being limited as a people.
> 
> Do you really think what we have now is what our founders envisioned? Read George Washington's farewell address and tell me if you think he is an isolationist. Read Franklin and Jefferson's notes and debates. Do you think these men would be accepted by the political class today? Why do you insist on being limited and identified by a rogue, tyrannical body of people bent on keeping you locked in a box?


The guy is a bullshitter; why would I accept any of his "points"?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> I hope you didn't take that seriously?


Desertguy, the smiley-face at the end *usually* signifies I'm joking. I would have told you to vote for Obama, but I knew it was pointless. *I* did, but that's me - you are free to vote the way you choose, as are we all.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Thank you for your thoughtful response! After reading it I agree with pretty much everything you said especially withdrawing from the UN and NATO. I guess the point that I'm trying to get across is that those of us who do give a shit have to vote. Being a two party system it has to be either one party or the other. I will stick with the party that for the most part believes in "Constitutional Law" and the principles that this country was founded on. At this point in time that happens to be the Republican Party in spite of all it's flaws and there are many.


What you're missing is that the two-party system is not graven in stone. It just happens to be the way it is at the moment. This can change at any time if a party with enough popularity to attract people comes along. I'm still waiting, and I'm hopeful because there are lots of folks who don't like either of the established parties, but have no-one else to opt for. When such a best exists, I will look at it closely, and probably go for it (rampant Communists and idiots like Perot excepted) Please note no smiley-face here.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

After reading many of these comments it is apparent that most of us myself included are indeed fed up with both parties and with good reason. It would be great if we could eliminate them and then vote for the person who best represents our political philosophy. This way they would not be beholden to that party and it's hierarchy. Unfortunately, I do not see this as being feasibly possible because of the amount of money it takes to run for higher office. This would mean that individuals would have to pay for and run their own campaigns or accept public funding which could be a major problem when you have thousands of people running for any given political office demanding to be publicly funded. This would only leave people such as Bloomberg, other billionaires or private entities with deep pockets as the only possibilities. They will be the only ones who can afford to buy airtime, advertise and saturate the media with their campaigns. This is not to say that they do not already have a major influence in our political system. However with political parties individuals still have more of a chance to work their way up the political ladder into higher office. People such as Mia Love, Joni Ernst and Tom Cotton are but a few examples. Without the backing of a major political party they would get nowhere.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
I knew you were joking, you've read enough of my posts to know otherwise.


> What you're missing is that the two-party system is not graven in stone. It just happens to be the way it is at the moment.


Of course not nor am I suggesting that it should be. Hitler upon taking office abolished all political parties except for one. However a two party system is really the best system to have because we will not have a situation where 34% of the people decide the policies of 66% if the 66% were split 33/33 or worse yet if there were 10 political parties you could end up with 11% deciding the political fate of 89%. But having other political parties does have a benefit as it provides a voice for those who are disenchanted by both major parties, forcing them to compete for that vote. It also provides the possibility as you say for one of those parties to gain popularity, putting one or the other out of business. Hopefully the Democrats. (I knew you'd like that comment).


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The biggest problem is the apathy of the American people. When people get involved and stay involved things do change, but when they go back to spending more time paying attention to pro sports, American Idol, and evening soap operas than what is going on with elected officials then they go back to their games of who gives the most money. Don't blame the system but the people who won't get involved in the system.


----------



## phudd (Nov 19, 2014)

We do not have a two party system. We have a very thinly veiled illusion of a two party system.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

From the UK press.

Ukip's Rochester win shows voters no longer trust the main parties - Telegraph


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

hillman said:


> The guy is a bullshitter; why would I accept any of his "points"?


You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but why would I accept yours?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Good discussion guys! It's all about keeping it working and talking things through. I think at the end of the day, we're all on the same side. We may have few differences, but it seems we're at least in the same book, if not on the same page.


----------

