Cutting government down to size!
After the Democratic Party got wounded, but not killed, in the Nov. 2,
2010 midterm election, the liberal media keeps asking Republicans how
they expect they will be running things any better, beginning next
year. Amazingly, most Republicans talk about "creating jobs" as being
the number one issue Congress must address. *** I've got news for the
media and for the blockheads in government: Government involvement
does NOT create jobs; only government DISINVOLVEMENT will create jobs!
For too long, the majority of Americans seem to accept that government
must pull-the-strings of every aspect of American business and
societal interaction. The American Free Enterprise System isn't a
form of government. It's the GOVERNMENTLESS-well-functioning of an
entire economy! A very minimum of laws, and zero bureaucracies, are
required to have a well-functioning free enterprise system!
There is "bold" talk by some Republicans about having a 10% reduction
in the work force of the Federal Government. Wow! 10% won't even
return government to pre-Obama size. If I were our country's
Benevolent Dictator for a year, I would immediately inform every
agency or bureaucracy of government— except those responsible for
maintaining infrastructure—to trim the work force by 50% within 60
days; inform our military to bring home all overseas troops ASAP,
except, say, 10% needed as a defensive perimeter of the USA; Inform
all able-bodied citizens getting payments of any kind from government,
that those payments will stop within 90 days. Additionally, I would
strike down every law, except the Civil Rights Act and similar
fairness-to-all legislation, that has been passed since the prosperous
1950s; ban political parties; close down the un American US Senate;
close any news medium, also giving comments or assessments of the
news; ban the media from having access to the US Capital; order the
arrest, trial and hanging of all persons who have ever orchestrated
changing the USA into a socialist/communist nation. Also, I would
outlaw having lawyers be employees or board members of any business
other than a law firm; criminalize fraudulent business practices;
empower law abiding citizens over those employed by government; stop
public financed education at age 16; lower the minimum work age to 13;
give amnesty to 90% or more of those imprisoned for non-violent
crimes; send back 100% of illegal aliens; make it a capital crime of
treason for any public figure to tout socialism, or to foment group-
against-group dissension; close the IRS and install a 15% value-added
tax (excluding food, medicines and medical expenses) to cover all
government functions—local, state, and federal. And, very
importantly, I would inform China, and all others who have loaned the
USA money, that only the principal will be repaid, and at a speed that
is not detrimental to having the US economy recover.
After reading the above, many of you will be saying, "Damn!" And most
will be surprised to learn that making the above "tough-love"
corrections to our government won't make millions of people less well-
off. Instead, the vast majority of Americans will start being better
off within 90 days, due to the INCREASE in the prosperity of the
entire country!
While I was penning and polishing my New Constitution of the United
States of America, I had to keep asking myself how what I was writing
would be FAIR to the vast majority of Americans. *** Most Americans
will be better off by having the USA, again, become the greatest and
most prosperous industrial nation in the world! When that happens—as
will immediately be fostered by the ratification of my New Constitution
—there will be a 75% reduction in the number of Americans needing
government handouts for any purpose. A prosperous economy will,
again, enable most citizens to be self-sufficient. Those who, in
spite of everything, remain less fortunate, will discover that the
lucky HAVES will be more charitable once they aren't treated like
scum, simply because they know how to be successful. I would propose
that the successful pair up with, and mentor, the unsuccessful on
becoming self-sufficient. "Give people FISH, and they remain
dependent. But teach them HOW to fish, and they become self-
sufficient!"
While the likes of Glenn Beck advocate stockpiling a year's worth of
food to combat the expected rise in food prices, I advocate making the
needed STRUCTURAL changes in our government(s) so that the USA economy
functions as FAIRLY as possible. This post itemizes maybe 10% of the
ways that my New Constitution STRENGTHENS the original document. I'm
certain the Founding Fathers would say "Amen!" to what I have done in
our nation's behalf, because I asked myself how they would feel at
every juncture!
I invite those of you who are interested to read my just-published,
socioeconomic genre book: 'The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through
Prosperity', which is available at Amazon and B & N. If you like what
have to I say, I hope you will leave a reader comment for others to
see.
All across this great land, we must unite as INDIVIDUALS, because:
"United we stand; divided we fall!" May we all unite to SAVE the USA!
Respectfully submitted,
— John A. Armistead — Patriot
AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics.
>
On Nov 4, 6:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> There is little value in "winning" in the wasteful game of politics.
>
> At my own local polling place, which happens to be the main Black
> voting place in my small town, the turnout on 11/02/10 was very high
> among Blacks. It is probable that those Blacks punched the "straight
> Democratic party" button. Each individual, regardless of race, has
> the right to choose for whom they will vote. But for Blacks, the
> issue wasn't about doing what is best for the USA—which I must add,
> ultimately, is what is best for each individual—but about voting, with
> unity, for the Black race against the World. As in fighting a war,
> there is seen to be strength in banding together, without question, to
> try to gain advantage for one's group.
>
> Though Democrats suffered big losses, the biases which caused the
> obvious unity of the leftist Democrats, most of whom still "support"
> Obama, are alive and well. Like a socialist CANCER, the disease has
> been slowed, but not stopped, from mortally wounding the USA.
> Democrats see themselves as only loosing at the half, in a game which
> still has one half to go. As long as… "their candidate", Barack
> Obama, says he needs more time, Democrats have no problem waiting two
> more years.
>
> Rush Limbaugh was most eloquent on his radio show, yesterday, in
> describing the country-destroying effects of liberal objectives. He
> asked: "Where in the Constitution does it say that those who are
> successful must be controlled by the unsuccessful?" What Limbaugh
> should have said was: "The USA Constitution was, first and foremost,
> about having the maximum of individual Liberties and the Freedom of
> Self-determination. That means that people get to succeed or fail by
> their own efforts and nobody else's. The ultimate loss of freedom is
> to allow the successful to be robbed by the unsuccessful simply
> because the numbers of the unsuccessful are so high, and are getting
> higher. As long as it is a crime to steal, in any wise, then it is a
> crime for a group like the Democratic Party to orchestrate the
> unconstitutional theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars from
> American families over the lives of those now living, or not yet
> born. The Democratic Party is organized crime, plain and simple! The
> leadership of that party is clearly guilty of plotting to destroy the
> USA, and that is high TREASON!" Limbaugh should be making statements,
> not asking questions about the criminality so rampant in America.
>
> The usual post-election talk is about who will assume "leadership"
> positions during the coming term. Here is what my New Constitution
> says:
>
> "The House shall judge its members on the appropriateness of their
> districts' boundaries and population thereof, and shall enumerate and
> fairly adjudge members' qualifications without discrimination due to
> sex, race, creed, nor political ideology. The House makes the rules
> for its proceedings, punishes disorderly members, and with the assent
> of 60% can expel a member for a violation. *** But no rule shall be
> made that concentrates power in any individual(s) beyond his or her
> one vote. 55% attendance is a quorum. Those present may compel
> absent members to attend, or penalize non attendance. Written, audio
> and video record shall be made of all House proceedings. Master
> records shall not be destroyed, and copies shall be made readily
> available to any Citizen for a nominal fee."
>
> In a fair and democratic (not the party) Congress, there shall be no
> leaders with more power than any other member. In effect, the
> "speaker" is chosen as a parliamentarian who is changed frequently,
> and gets to preside over proceedings without having any power beyond
> his or her one vote. All of the former "rules" allowing the winning
> political party to have more power in committees or elsewhere are
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
>
> It is amazing that a liberal state like Nevada gets to elect a Senator
> like Harry Reid who has betrayed his country by favoring socialism.
> In the single day that it will take to ratify my New Constitution, the
> US Senate will be no more! Its members aren't determined by
> principles of a Republic nor a Democracy. So, they are an
> unconstitutional oligarchy, which is mainly responsible for the
> economic and social decline of the USA. SC's Senator Jim DeMint said
> that the Republican Party is dead unless it emphasizes the ideals of
> the 'Tea Party'. He's right. And the Democratic Party is already…
> dead.
>
> Barack Obama, the anti-Christ, expects the Republican-controlled House
> to work with him. If he weren't guilty of the highest, most
> TREASONOUS crimes against the USA, his "veto power" would have to be
> reckoned with. Rather, that man is never more than minutes away from
> being arrested, tried and hanged for the economic damage that his
> socialist-communist objectives have done to this country. Instead of
> having Republicans discussing how best to negate 'Obama Care', that
> unconstitutional law will immediately be struck down, upon the
> ratification of my New Constitution, for not having gotten 55% or more
> of the vote. And if any other of his Laws got less than 60% of the
> vote, such will be subject to the one day, up-or-down vote of the
> House, alone.
>
> Obama can be arrested, tried and hanged for flagrant violations of the
> present Constitution. Once that "figurehead" is out of the way, more
> of his core supporters should be willing to consider what Condoleezza
> Rice said on Bill O'Reilly's show: "I favor individuals over groups!"
> That simple sentence is the core principle of my New Constitution! By
> fairly empowering all law-abiding individuals, there will be no need
> for lobbyists, nor for group leaders or wasted group efforts! My New
> Constitution will, as well, punish businesses that aren't fair.
> Suddenly, the playing field is leveled, and all Americans will get
> equal opportunities to achieve success under our renewed free-
> enterprise, capitalist system. And such will need little or no
> tweaking by Government.
>
> Suppose Blacks are asked: "Which would you prefer, going to a GOLD
> RUSH and working very hard for a one-in-twenty chance of super
> success; or standing on a street corner waiting for the next survival-
> level check from government to arrive?" All block-voting Blacks are
> choosing to have state-controlled mediocrity. So, there will be only
> WHITES panning for the gold, and only WHITES getting rich. But that
> is how Blacks all across this country are choosing for things to be…
> If economic success was a game of basketball, Blacks would want to be
> spotted 20 points before entering the court. Because everyone knows,
> Blacks can't compete in the real world.
>
> For the many Blacks and others whom I hope are offended by the last
> sentence, I invite you to read my just published book: 'The Shortest
> Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity', which is available at Amazon
> and B & N.
>
> We must unite as INDIVIDUALS, because: "United we stand; divided we
> fall!" May we all unite to SAVE the USA!
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics.
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 5:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The USA is a nation of criminals and victims of crime.
>
> > Questions:
>
> > 1.) Is stealing in excess of 100 dollars a felony?
> > 2.) Is it a felony to knowing receive stolen property for personal
> > use?
> > 3.) Is it a felony to aid and abet those who commit felonies?
> > 4.) Are known felons allowed to vote to lower the penalties for
> > committing felonies or for benefiting, personally, from felonies?
> > 5.) Is the blatant or incremental overthrowing of our US
> > Representative Republic—which is the government type dictated by the
> > US Constitution—treason?
> > 6.) Are those in public office immune from prosecution for their
> > crimes?
> > 7.) Do average citizens in their own homes have the right to shoot
> > and kill those who are forcing entry into their homes for the purpose
> > of stealing from, and possibly harming, the citizens?
> > 8.) Is organized crime a higher and more serious crime than simple
> > theft?
> > 9.) Are any citizens of the USA bound by any laws which do not have
> > the approval of the majority of the citizens?
> > 10.) Is it a felony to blackmail public officials to benefit an
> > individual or group?
> > 11.) Is it a crime to use deadly force to protect the USA from being
> > overthrown by radicals?
> > 12.) Do those who are employed by government owe their loyalty to
> > government, or to the people of the USA who pay their salaries?
> > 13.) Is any felony excused, simply, because such is very common?
> > 14.) Are those in government, who all SWORE to uphold and to protect
> > the US Constitution, guilty of treason for trying to over-throw the
> > Constitution or not adhere to its precepts?
> > 15.) Should power in the USA be in the hands of the people, or in the
> > hands of the political party that happens to be in the majority?
> > 16.) Is preserving our failed system of government more important
> > than making government be deferential to the people?
> > 17.) Should the media be allowed to influence the outcome of
> > elections, while benefiting from the political ad money that results
> > from having most elections be cliffhangers?
> > 18.) Is it right to allow those with seniority in government to have
> > more power?
> > 19.) Is it right to favor those in public office whose main job for
> > most of their lives has been to be a career politician?
> > 20.) If a carefully-crafted New Constitution can return the power to
> > the people, and do so fairly, should such a constitution be
> > considered?
>
> > There are clear right answers to each of the above questions.
> > "Taxation without representation is TYRANNY!" Such is also
> > unconstitutional, criminal and treasonous!
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
