Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Conservatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (28377)	4/15/2014 6:29:50 PM
From: goldworldnet	1 Recommendation Recommended By unclewest Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 124641

Revolution is ridiculous. Debt however, will probably spell the end of a lot of unwanted government. * * *

To: DMaA who wrote (28377)	4/15/2014 9:11:03 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 124641

I am advocating that the Government recognize the limits imposed by, and comply with the clear intent of the Constitution. The oaths I have sworn require that I defend the CONSTITUTION... and I will do that. There is a REASON we swear those oaths to defend THE CONSTITUTION... and not "the President" or "the government" ? The military has no proper role in defining the outcomes in our partisan political conflicts. That is one reason that effort made militarizing the government agencies does present a clear risk to the Constitution... because they are not being similarly restricted from participation in applying military force... even with that choice being based on the DIRECTION provided by a particular political faction. Think... Lois Lerner as President or Secretary of Defense... minus en.wikipedia.org ? The lines between proper effort in "enforcement of the law"... and "military action intended to impose a political result" become important to recognize ? It was not a flippant question I posted yesterday.. "Who put Harry Reid in Charge" ? Why exactly, is a U.S. Senator working at putting himself into position to be involved in directing "law enforcement decisions" in a specific instance ? Hmmm ? A parallel issue emerges in concern that a militarized government will act in its OWN interest (however that is defined) instead of in the interest of the sovereign... which, in this country, under our Constitution... is the people (and not some of the people) and their Constitution. The lines of authority run that way, too... the people (whose inviolable edicts are first expressed in)... the Constitution... and then, the range of (divided powers among) governments that are charged with carrying out our will. The wrongful militarization of the civil government... and the employment of military force against anyone inside the borders for political purposes... conducted outside of the limits that apply to the military itself... is clearly one of the more obvious motivating factors in play today... clearly a factor in Nevada ? That conflict we do see occurring now... in the way it is... is a CHOICE that is being made by someone in government ? I have seen little discussion of or consideration being given that as a CHOICE being made by anyone other than Judge Napolitano ? Obviously, there are boundary issues... as the Constitution requires there will be. And, you see that here as inherently being true in the conflict that has been created... even as there are police officers aligned on BOTH sides of the issue who are facing off against each other in Nevada ? However, the soldiers being directed to fight, or to "enforce the law" as a euphemism for a government directly military action... don't determine when, where, why and how they will be used to apply military force ? The responsibility... lies further up the chain of command... ? And, the boundary issues need to be resolved properly... to determine a proper result... So, the conflicts between local, state and federal authorities... must be PROPERLY recognized ? We've seen the events at Waco spiral out of control... we've seen the same thing in other instances... the point of which is SOMEONE wanted for that confrontation to occur... in the way that it did... even when there was not any compelling reason that it SHOULD. Is there a legitimate and compelling FEDERAL interest... in applying FEDERAL military force... to force a Nevada rancher to comply with a (perhaps fraudulently obtained) court order ? The obvious answer is NO. If the goal being addressed were legitimate (first) in seeking "compliance" (second) for the reasons stated... then the correct answer is that the governments choice of PROCESS is WHOLLY IMPROPER... wildly inappropriate. There is no compelling national interest at stake in the unpaid grazing fees... that requires direct Federal agency involvement in a forced resolution, much less a military response. That makes the issue... more about the choice to apply military force... than it is about grazing fees. Parallel oaths to "protect" the President... are still not in conflict with the requirement to "defend" the Constitution ? I accept both as necessary. The reasons are worth discussing. As are the range of the relevant issues in relation to what that oath does actually require ? Does an oath to "defend" the Constitution... require inaction until the function of the Constitution has been completely destroyed... and, then... what ? You can't delve too deeply into the questions without asking questions of interpretation. So, the question of politics DOES come into play... and, as it does, there will be a point where politics conflict with logic... and, then, there will be "issues"... So, is "what the Constitution says"... a fungible element that can be redefined by politicians... to allocate to themselves the power to "make it say what they prefer it to mean"... when that is something it clearly does not say and does not intend ? I note... 99% of the problem (that appears clearly enough that it IS being fomented right now by someone exercising government power... doing that as if it were a proper purpose of government policy) would evaporate overnight if the government were capable of speaking honestly while addressing the public's GROWING concern... simply by acknowledging that the Constitution imposes limits on the government. If Obama gave a speech in which he addressed what those limits are... and what they require of him ? Pfffftttt. A military response to the unpaid grazing fees... is not appropriate. Anyone who fails to see that ??? So, why is no one in government SAYING ANYTHING about that ? However... you probably won't see that happen ? Obama will not admit the government has limits? People inside the government will not admit they should not apply military force to enforce parking tickets ? Hmmm. What should happen, given EVERYONE in office has taken oaths requiring they will support and defend the Constitution... were one political party to declare itself as opposed to the Constitution ? My guess is... the public will not think it a good idea to enable the authors of Obamacare in rewiring a toaster... much less the foundations of our system. So, I am fulfilling my obligations to support and defend the Constitution, now, by speaking against those who would subvert it, undermine it, or push it aside... lie about what they intend... or boldly lie about what it says... as well as by speaking against those who advocate more nuanced error in understanding what the Constitution says and what it requires. Again, there is NOT any valid argument I've seen made about the legitimacy of military force being applied to address unpaid grazing fees... but there is an argument about the illegitimacy revealed in the application of force intended to limit our rights under the First Amendment ? None of that inherently places me in conflict with the ranchers in Nevada... or with the BLM's employees... both of whom will gladly tell you they are standing up for the Constitution... each against the other ? The agents appear more confused about that than the ranchers are, if thinking they can't possibly be on the wrong side of the issue because: "if the government says it, it must be right". The link I posted yesterday... of the interview with the BLM agent proves that. However... while both side posture as being the defenders of the Constitution... they can't both be right about what the Constitution requires... can they ? The answer to that is... YES. The conflict that exists... is not being generated by the ranchers or by the agents on the ground ? The answer some will provide... that government agents holding a court order in their hands is a VALID PROOF of what the Constitution requires, and of what action must ensue in result... is fatuous. Beyond that, I am also sharing my opinion of events, in what I believe can, will and should happen if the government does not accept that the Constitution remains in force and applies limits to what they can do. And I am discussing what I CAN see occurring... in fact... that appears relevant in that context. I'm not advocating violence at all... rather than deploring the use of it... which does not make me blind in a way that prevents me from recognizing that violence is being used... when I can see it happening ? Even the fact this conversation (broadly) that IS happening today... can be occurring... is a proof that there are problems developing that aren't being addressed... many of which have their origins in a failure to CARE about fundamental legitimacy. That is an INORDINATELY dangerous path to CHOOSE to follow. History is not a blank slate...