10 Steps to Save America!

[JohnBirchSociety]

I have no political affiliation. I don't support the idea of political parties. In the area of civil government I'm am a strict Constitutionalist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here are ten steps that will save America from tyranny, AND reverse the tyranny we already endure:

(In no particular order)

1) Return to the Gold / Silver standard of money, real money.

2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

3) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

4) Pay off all existing social services obligations. Create no further obligations.

5) Strictly enforce immigration laws.

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

7) Absolutely no Federal involvement in Public Schooling.

8) Absolutely no foreign alliances. Zero Foreign Aid.

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO, IMF, World-Bank, World-Court, etc.).

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

If we did these things, we would return to the path of greatness from which we have slipped. Of course, the changes would take time, probably at least 50 years.

Liberty is worth it.

[a-train]

I would change Number 6. Rather than preventing the tyranny of the majority through such a rule, I would let the freedom of speech overcome the faulty notion of subsistance through welfarism. I believe it is working. I believe people want to believe that they can be self sufficient. And, not only is the notion good sounding, it is true.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

I would change Number 6. Rather than preventing the tyranny of the majority through such a rule, I would let the freedom of speech overcome the faulty notion of subsistance through welfarism. I believe it is working. I believe people want to believe that they can be self sufficient. And, not only is the notion good sounding, it is true.

-a-train

If those who receive direct government assistance can simply vote for more of the same, we are doomed.

We have to stop this nonsense. The inmates ought not run the prison.

There would be no tyranny of the majority on this. It would facilitate the ending of unconstitutional redistribution of wealth.

Thanks for your comment. I do appreciate them.

[NeuroTypical]

Sounds like a good plan. Getting there might be a bit rough.

1) Return to the Gold / Silver standard of money, real money.

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO, IMF, World-Bank, World-Court, etc.).

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

Short term impacts:

- Severe economic impacts probably involving the eventual death by starvation of one out of every seven people in the US. Because there ain't enough gold to support our current economic system that allows so many people to live in cities and work in service industries.

- Global turmoil at least rivaling, often exceeding, the problems this would create on our soil.

If we did these things, we would return to the path of greatness from which we have slipped. Of course, the changes would take time, probably at least 50 years.

Liberty is worth it.

I'm not so sure. Yeah, the people standing at the end of your 50 year purging of innocent life and good times would enjoy your utopian view of liberty and greatness. Unless someone took a bullet to you in the interim because they had other plans. You rob people of the ability to live, and deprive them of the right to vote, what in the name of Pete do you think would happen?

Useless idealism at it's finest.

LM

Edited October 10, 2008 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Moksha]

I remember that Bo Gritz character wanted us to default on the national debt. Would you also want the same?

[JohnBirchSociety]

Sounds like a good plan. Getting there might be a bit rough.

Short term impacts:

- Severe economic impacts probably involving the eventual death by starvation of one out of every seven people in the US. Because there ain't enough gold to support our current economic system that allows so many people to live in cities and work in service industries.

- Global turmoil at least rivaling, often exceeding, the problems this would create on our soil.

I'm not so sure. Yeah, the people standing at the end of your 50 year purging of innocent life and good times would enjoy your utopian view of liberty and greatness. Unless someone took a bullet to you in the interim because they had other plans. You rob people of the ability to live, and deprive them of the right to vote, what in the name of Pete do you think would happen?

Useless idealism at it's finest.

LM

Nonsense, complete nonsense about there not being enough Gold / Silver. Furthermore, it would not be an immediate transition. That would be insanity.

We are in global turmoil. We cannot police the world. In trying, we have weakened our position to the point that we may not even be able to defend ourselves from any serious attack.

The transition would take time. It would be painful. Many people who were ignorantly foolish would be hurt.

If we do nothing. If we proceed down the path we are on, we will experience suffering that is unequaled in all of human history. And it will then be too late.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I remember that Bo Gritz character wanted us to default on the national debt. Would you also want the same?

Not at all. n/t

[a-train]

Short term impacts:

- Severe economic impacts probably involving the eventual death by starvation of one out of every seven people in the US. Because there ain't enough gold to support our current economic system that allows so many people to live in cities and work in service industries.

- Global turmoil at least rivaling, often exceeding, the problems this would create on our soil.

I'm not so sure. Yeah, the people standing at the end of your 50 year purging of innocent life and good times would enjoy your utopian view of liberty and greatness. Unless someone took a bullet to you in the interim because they had other plans. You rob people of the ability to live, and deprive them of the right to vote, what in the name of Pete do you think would happen?

Useless idealism at it's finest.

LM

<----fear mongering.

[Traveler]

I have no political affiliation. I don't support the idea of political parties. In the area of civil government I'm am a strict Constitutionalist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here are ten steps that will save America from tyranny, AND reverse the tyranny we already endure:

(In no particular order)

1) Return to the Gold / Silver standard of money, real money.

2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

3) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

4) Pay off all existing social services obligations. Create no further obligations.

5) Strictly enforce immigration laws.

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

7) Absolutely no Federal involvement in Public Schooling.

8) Absolutely no foreign alliances. Zero Foreign Aid.

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO, IMF, World-Bank, World-Court, etc.).

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

If we did these things, we would return to the path of greatness from which we have slipped. Of course, the changes would take time, probably at least 50 years.

Liberty is worth it.

1) Return to the Gold / Silver standard of money, real money.

Who said Gold/Silver was real money or the only viable universal thing of value? (there must be a scripture somewhere)

2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

I do not like paying income taxes but I believe this was ratified by legal process – if appealed I would assume it would have to be by the same process. I would also rather have visible income taxes rather than hidden corporate taxes.

3) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

The only possible reason you would say this is because you did not live during the era when Senators were appointed. The appointed process failed badly and fostered corruption. At least this way we can enjoy the best Senators money can buy.

4) Pay off all existing social services obligations. Create no further obligations.

Great idea? – especially we do not want any services for our wounded veterans and if there is ever a disaster we do not want to spend a dime helping any US citizens.

5) Strictly enforce immigration laws.

I can agree somewhat to this but who can we trust to enforce these laws – I do not trust Phil Gordon the Mayor or Phoenix. It does not matter what the law is if elected officials do not enforce it.

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

Is that right? If your house is on fire and you call the fire department you just gave up your right to vote? Or if you happen to visit a national park or obtain a passport there goes your right to vote? I would change this to if you do not pay taxes you cannot vote. Woops J.B’ers do not believe in paying taxes (see #2).

7) Absolutely no Federal involvement in Public Schooling.

Let’s bring back segregation while we are at it. No GI reimbursement for education and no tax relief for educational contributions – no government funded research. And why only public schooling?

8) Absolutely no foreign alliances. Zero Foreign Aid.

No protection for any US citizens visiting any country? No extradition for criminals that find a way to get out of the USA? No trade agreements? And I really do not need this terminal I am looking at – so I assume you don’t need yours ether. Are you crazy?

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO, IMF, World-Bank, World-Court, etc.).

Who determines what is anti-US; the president? Or a political science professor at the University of Colorado? I do not trust ether.

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

Great idea, if we are going to ever engage in a thermal nuclear war we want to make sure that all the action takes place on American soil so our citizens have the best view and benefit of it.

I thought liberty was the ability of any society to decide how they deal with the problems that face them - I do not believe there is liberty when a society is told in advance this is what is and there is no way to change it. If people are dumb enough to change good governing concepts to less intelligent governing concepts - I think liberty includes being able to choose stupid things. I like the idea that if we think there is a better idea that the law does not prevent anyone from pursuing it.

The Traveler

Edited October 10, 2008 by Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

1) Return to the Gold / Silver standard of money, real money.

Who said Gold/Silver was real money or the only viable universal thing of value? (there must be a scripture somewhere)

2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

I do not like paying income taxes but I believe this was ratified by legal process – if appealed I would assume it would have to be by the same process. I would also rather have visible income taxes rather than hidden corporate taxes.

3) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

The only possible reason you would say this is because you did not live during the era when Senators were appointed. The appointed process failed badly and fostered corruption. At least this way we can enjoy the best Senators money can buy.

4) Pay off all existing social services obligations. Create no further obligations.

Great idea? – especially we do not want any services for our wounded veterans and if there is ever a disaster we do not want to spend a dime helping any US citizens.

5) Strictly enforce immigration laws.

I can agree somewhat to this but who can we trust to enforce these laws – I do not trust Phil Gordon the Mayor or Phoenix. It does not matter what the law is if elected officials do not enforce it.

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

Is that right? If your house is on fire and you call the fire department you just gave up your right to vote? Or if you happen to visit a national park or obtain a passport there goes your right to vote? I would change this to if you do not pay taxes you cannot vote. Woops J.B’ers do not believe in paying taxes (see #2).

7) Absolutely no Federal involvement in Public Schooling.

Let’s bring back segregation while we are at it. No GI reimbursement for education and no tax relief for educational contributions – no government funded research. And why only public schooling?

8) Absolutely no foreign alliances. Zero Foreign Aid.

No protection for any citizens visiting any country? No extradition for criminals that find a way to get out of the USA? No trade agreements? And I really do not need this terminal I am looking at – so I assume you don’t need yours ether. Are you crazy?

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO, IMF, World-Bank, World-Court, etc.).

Who determines what is anti-US; the president? Or a political science professor at the University of Colorado? I do not trust ether.

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

Great idea, if we are going to ever engage in a thermal nuclear war we want to make sure that all the action takes place on American soil so our citizens have the best view and benefit of it.

I thought liberty was the ability of any society to decide how they deal with the problems that face them - I do not believe there is liberty when a society is told in advance this is what is and there is no way to change it. If people are dumb enough to change good governing concepts to less intelligent governing concepts - I think liberty includes being able to choose stupid things. I like the idea that if we think there is a better idea that the law does not prevent anyone from pursuing it.

The Traveler

1) The Founding Father said so.

2) Graduated Income tax is a tenet of Marxist Communism. Also, there is a good case to be made that the 16th Amendment was NOT properly ratified. For reference work on this read "The Law That Never Was".

3) The primary reason I'm against the 17th Amendment is that the Founders did not establish our government in this manner. Futhermore, it moves us towards Democracy, which is a completely foreign idea to our Constitutional Republic.

4) By Social Services I mean things such as Social Security, MediCaid. Things where funds / services are directly disbursed to citizens. I don't mean things of a "general welfare" scope, like roads or local police / fire. Also, Veteran's would be exempted from this prohibition. Thanks for bringing up stuff to clarify on this point. I can see how it was poorly written.

5) Obviously any level of reasonable government depends upon at least a moderately honest elected representation. If the representatives won't follow their oath of office, we're out of luck, regardless of what "laws" we have.

6) See #4. Again, only for those who had received direct government assistance. I'm not talking about the "general welfare" that we all get. Those who receive direct assistance should not be able to vote to get more of it.

7) Again, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I mainly am speaking of Federal Funding of Public Education. I agree that it is a National issue to not have segregation and within the proper scope and function of the Federal Government to intervene where such things occur. I would not rescind the GI Bill.

8) If American's wish to visit other lands they can do so at their own risk. If we have persons who have committed crimes in foreign lands we can address requests for extradition on a case by case basis. We don't need trade agreements, we need free trade. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., have worked to the demise of the American worker / industry.

9) Uh, Anti-US is pretty simple. Action taken against the interest of the United States are "anti-US". The UN has so clearly been against the interests of the United States that it is absurd to remain a member. As Elder Ezra Taft Benson once said, "Let us have no further blind devotion to the Communist dominated United Nations". The UN was founded by Communists, for Communists, and is run today by Communists.

10) Sadly, I don't think either your position, or mine will avoid a coming Nuclear strike on America. Absent that event, I believe we ought to bring our troops home and stay alert here. Let all nations know that an attack on American soil would be foolishness.

Thanks again for your comments!

[Traveler]

1) The Founding Father said so.

2) Graduated Income tax is a tenet of Marxist Communism. Also, there is a good case to be made that the 16th Amendment was NOT properly ratified. For reference work on this read "The Law That Never Was".

3) The primary reason I'm against the 17th Amendment is that the Founders did not establish our government in this manner. Futhermore, it moves us towards Democracy, which is a completely foreign idea to our Constitutional Republic.

4) By Social Services I mean things such as Social Security, MediCaid. Things where funds / services are directly disbursed to citizens. I don't mean things of a "general welfare" scope, like roads or local police / fire. Also, Veteran's would be exempted from this prohibition. Thanks for bringing up stuff to clarify on this point. I can see how it was poorly written.

5) Obviously any level of reasonable government depends upon at least a moderately honest elected representation. If the representatives won't follow their oath of office, we're out of luck, regardless of what "laws" we have.

6) See #4. Again, only for those who had received direct government assistance. I'm not talking about the "general welfare" that we all get. Those who receive direct assistance should not be able to vote to get more of it.

7) Again, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I mainly am speaking of Federal Funding of Public Education. I agree that it is a National issue to not have segregation and within the proper scope and function of the Federal Government to intervene where such things occur. I would not rescind the GI Bill.

8) If American's wish to visit other lands they can do so at their own risk. If we have persons who have committed crimes in foreign lands we can address requests for extradition on a case by case basis. We don't need trade agreements, we need free trade. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., have worked to the demise of the American worker / industry.

9) Uh, Anti-US is pretty simple. Action taken against the interest of the United States are "anti-US". The UN has so clearly been against the interests of the United States that it is absurd to remain a member. As Elder Ezra Taft Benson once said, "Let us have no further blind devotion to the Communist dominated United Nations". The UN was founded by Communists, for Communists, and is run today by Communists.

10) Sadly, I don't think either your position, or mine will avoid a coming Nuclear strike on America. Absent that event, I believe we ought to bring our troops home and stay alert here. Let all nations know that an attack on American soil would be foolishness.

Thanks again for your comments!

1) The founding fathers also said okay to slavery and the attempts at genocide and driving the Native Americans form their ancestral land and means of supporting themselves. However, they were wise enough to realize that they may not have all the needed answers moving forward so they envisioned and provided for an Amendment process. It almost appears that you really do not agree completely with our founding Fathers – I am surprised you tried this argument.

2) No government can exist without taxes and the power to collect them. So you feel that in order to vote (be a 1st class citizen) it should be required that everyone pay a flat non graduated fee of say $100,000 per year? Since I could afford to buy my citizenship it may sound appealing but I completely reject such thinking. Can you think of any fair tax method that is not graduated? Even the property tax proposed by Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) required more tax from those that owned more property. I am not sure you have clearly thought this through.

3) How do secret political deals behind closed doors bring us closer to democracy? The 17 amendment requires the vote of the people. This looks like a clear case of democracy winning out to me.

4) I think a free people can decide what services and requirements a government must provide. Are you against free public education? I think if people want to pass laws that say that every community must supply clean drinkable water – or police protection or whatever – I believe they have the right to do so. I do not believe they have the right to say some segment of the population can be denied the services necessary to exist in our society.

5) Immigration laws have been in place since our government was established. The problem is not with illegal immigrants coming into our country – the problem is with citizens that assist them. We need new laws to punish citizens that assist illegal immigration that include public officials that do not enforce the law.

6) I have free health care and I can afford to pay for my health care. Why should someone that needs care (including emergency) be denied and left to die because they cannot pay right now? The problem with health care is not paying for the poor. The problem is the continuing sky rocketing cost of malpractice that must be paid by competent health care providers. The government must address this problem.

7) There are many ways the Federal Government funds public education. You need to understand these methods. I do not care where the funds come from but I believe every community should have complete control over subject matter and methods of teaching. It may shock you but I think religion should be taught in public and private schools as a requirement. I think anyone that would teach history without religion is nuts and does not understands one of the most important elements necessary in understanding history.

8) Your prejudice against other countries is completely uncalled for. Our country could not have obtained freedom without help from other countries. I do not think you understand what other countries provide. I cannot believe that you do not want to have any kind of an agreement with Mexico or Canada as to where the border is. I would like to know where you think we should get rubber from? Without rubber our economy would fail and if a small country that provides us with rubber was overrun by our enemies that we should not help them. I for one do not want to live in the dark ages.

9) I am very confused with your ideas here. For example – the UN. You are very animate that we not concern ourselves with anything that goes on beyond our borders. What anti US policy does the UN foster that takes place exclusively within the borders of the USA? This appears to me to be a double standard in your thinking.

10) I do not believe that a thermal nuclear war is eminent or unavoidable. I do believe that if your concept of refusal to do anything to avoid it until it reaches our territory was indeed adopted that a thermal nuclear war would be both eminent and unavoidable.

BTW – thank you to all that allow me to express my opinion and that read and consider these things. I like the concept of an open forum where thought can be expressed. I have learned in the past that when I have expressed my thoughts that many time I have learned from those that oppose my thinking that I do not always agree with my own thinking when I think deeply about what I have been thinking.

The Traveler

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I have no political affiliation. I don't support the idea of political parties. In the area of civil government I'm am a strict Constitutionalist. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's what they all say!

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

Yes, to quell uprisings of American citizens caused by the other nine steps!

HEP

[Hemidakota]

QUESTION: A friend recently told me that members of the Church should resist paying income taxes because the federal income tax is unconstitutional. What can you tell me about this?

Robert F. Bohn, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Jan. 1976, 68–69

ANSWER: Robert F. Bohn, instructor of family economics and home management, Brigham Young University Since the original United States Constitution does not authorize the federal government to levy direct taxes (i.e., income taxes), a few extremists have refused to pay their federal income taxes, citing the Church’s belief in the inspired source of the Constitution as justification. (D&C 101:80.) To understand why the Church lends no support to those refusing to pay their taxes, let us first review the origins of taxation in America.

In the early beginnings of the United States, when the colonies were under the governmental control of Great Britain, the colonists protested the British taxation without representation as an infringement upon their liberties. Accordingly, the writers of the Constitution prohibited direct taxes by the federal government. Therefore, federal taxes during George Washington’s administration were imposed primarily on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auction, bonds, and various legal documents. During the early history of the United States, the federal tax revenues were mainly obtained from customs and excise taxes.

It was not until the tremendous financial pressures caused by the Civil War (1861) that the Congress adopted the first of a series of revenue laws—among them, our first income tax. Due to the continued rise of our public debt during the war between the North and South, President Lincoln signed into law in July 1862 the most sweeping revenue-producing measure in the nation’s history to that time. The new law provided for progressive taxation, for levies on incomes, and for tax withholding. In addition to a variety of new taxes, the law also provided for the beginning of a permanent tax collecting agency—the forerunner of the present Internal Revenue Service.

The constitutional right of the federal government to levy direct taxes on the people was challenged many times in our nation’s history, and the courts ruled that direct taxes were unconstitutional. A classic example was in the 1890s when Congress passed a tariff law providing for a small income tax. It was challenged in our federal courts and was twice brought before the Supreme Court. The second time, in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, essentially saying that any income tax was direct and therefore unconstitutional; consequently, the Income Tax Division in the office of Internal Revenue was dissolved.

When William H. Taft became President in 1909, a new era was beginning and the United States needed more financial resources. Huge numbers of people were moving to the cities. As a result of the need for revenue and continuing clamor for tax reform, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was proposed to give Congress the power to tax the people directly. This amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress in 1909, but it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states until February, 1913. The 16th Amendment provides that:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

It is because of the 16th Amendment that the United States Internal Revenue Service has the constitutional right to collect federal income taxes. While many dozens of court cases have challenged the 16th Amendment, all have failed.

A fundamental and divine principle of the Constitution is that the federal government of the United States will be governed by and for the people it serves. Accordingly, an integral part of the inspired document’s ingenuity lies within its specific procedure to amend itself as the country expands and becomes more complex. When an amendment is properly ratified, it “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution.” (U.S. Constitution, Article 5.)

Until the people of the United States repeal the 16th Amendment, the levying of federal income taxes is lawful and constitutional. Thus, Latter-day: Saints are committed to the payment of their legal share of the taxes as confirmed by the 12th Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” [A of F 1:12]

Because of the history just reviewed, some extremists refuse to pay their income taxes and eventually are placed in jail for their actions. Nevertheless, the Church authorities lend no support to these extremists, as was indicated by President Harold B. Lee at the October 1972 general conference when he instructed:

“Now there is another danger that confronts us. There seem to be those among us who are as wolves among the flock, trying to lead some who are weak and unwary among Church members, according to reports that have reached us, who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities.” (Ensign, January 1973, p. 106.)

In the April 1973 Priesthood Bulletin the Church reaffirmed its position against those “who claim Church membership … making it appear as though their opposition to Federal tax laws is Church sponsored” by referring to President Lee’s aforementioned conference admonition and concluded with the following instructions to Church leaders:

“We ask priesthood leaders to be on guard against such persons. They are not to be invited to speak in priesthood or sacrament meetings, firesides, or other Church meetings in attempting to spread their propaganda. Priesthood leaders should also teach the necessity of abiding the law according to the revelations.

“The Lord has said:

“ ‘Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“ ‘Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.’ ” (D&C 58:21–22.)

[Hemidakota]

For those those who do not know what is the 17th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XVII [1913]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

[deseretgov]

1) Return to the Gold / Silver standard of money, real money.

I disagree. The gold/silver standard was just another tool of the big bankers to opress the people. The US needs to go back to the system Abraham Lincoln established to fund the civil war. He just printed greenbacks and set their value. Unfortunatly it was a temporary measure and when he tried to make it permanent he was assasinated.

2) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

Agree.

3) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Agree.

4) Pay off all existing social services obligations. Create no further obligations.

Not sure if I agree or disagree. I think citizens should have the right to certain things free of charge. And I definatly don't think the government should force people to have to use the "free" market.

5) Strictly enforce immigration laws.

Agree. Although walk-in immigration such as with Ellis Island should be brought back. Although many more of these facilities should be built and be sanitary.

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

I never really thought about this but it's an interesting idea. Not sure if I agree or disagree.

7) Absolutely no Federal involvement in Public Schooling.

Agree. There should be no indoctrination either. Teacher should be one of the highest paying jobs in the nations. And Public schools should only be controlled on the local level.

8) Absolutely no foreign alliances. Zero Foreign Aid.

Mmmm. Not sure about this.

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO, IMF, World-Bank, World-Court, etc.).

Agree. Although I don't see a problem in having alliances with other nations.

10) Large increase in the size and sophistication of our military. Facilitate this by bringing all troops home from foreign soil.

Maybe. If by this you mean stop being the world police then I agree.

I would also like to add a number eleven.

11. Despel national fear of militias. Reintroduce the militia as it was intended by the founding fathers.

[Traveler]

Just thought I would add two things that should be requirements for citizenship that I think would help this country.

1. To be a citizen one must serve 2 years in the military.

2. To be a citizen one must pay taxes or if they think they are two poor they must volunteer for a minimum of 100 hours each year of government service.

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

1) The Founding Father said so.

2) Graduated Income tax is a tenet of Marxist Communism. Also, there is a good case to be made that the 16th Amendment was NOT properly ratified. For reference work on this read "The Law That Never Was".

3) The primary reason I'm against the 17th Amendment is that the Founders did not establish our government in this manner. Futhermore, it moves us towards Democracy, which is a completely foreign idea to our Constitutional Republic.

4) By Social Services I mean things such as Social Security, MediCaid. Things where funds / services are directly disbursed to citizens. I don't mean things of a "general welfare" scope, like roads or local police / fire. Also, Veteran's would be exempted from this prohibition. Thanks for bringing up stuff to clarify on this point. I can see how it was poorly written.

5) Obviously any level of reasonable government depends upon at least a moderately honest elected representation. If the representatives won't follow their oath of office, we're out of luck, regardless of what "laws" we have.

6) See #4. Again, only for those who had received direct government assistance. I'm not talking about the "general welfare" that we all get. Those who receive direct assistance should not be able to vote to get more of it.

7) Again, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I mainly am speaking of Federal Funding of Public Education. I agree that it is a National issue to not have segregation and within the proper scope and function of the Federal Government to intervene where such things occur. I would not rescind the GI Bill.

8) If American's wish to visit other lands they can do so at their own risk. If we have persons who have committed crimes in foreign lands we can address requests for extradition on a case by case basis. We don't need trade agreements, we need free trade. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., have worked to the demise of the American worker / industry.

9) Uh, Anti-US is pretty simple. Action taken against the interest of the United States are "anti-US". The UN has so clearly been against the interests of the United States that it is absurd to remain a member. As Elder Ezra Taft Benson once said, "Let us have no further blind devotion to the Communist dominated United Nations". The UN was founded by Communists, for Communists, and is run today by Communists.

10) Sadly, I don't think either your position, or mine will avoid a coming Nuclear strike on America. Absent that event, I believe we ought to bring our troops home and stay alert here. Let all nations know that an attack on American soil would be foolishness.

Thanks again for your comments!

Okay - I get what you're saying. You see the United States as falling away from the ideals that made it great. I would agree. You're frightened of the consequences of following the path you're currently on. I agree wholeheartedly with that. You seem to indicate that foreign policy of self-involvement in every part of the world and poor/corrupt domestic policies are to blame. I would agree with that. However, I do have some points to make:

1) Moving to a gold standard - Okay. No real problem here. Inflation is controlled by printing more or less money, which eliminates the scary prospect of hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is a very scary and real problem that would wipe out the wealth of those who scrimped and saved their whole life. Kudos - The only problem with it is that it doesn't have the flexibility to create consistent, long term growth of the economy and eventually leads to stagnation. However, I'm certain you realize that and would rather face stagnation than the inevitable crash the current situation involves. Recent banking issues prove a poignant agreement with what you're saying.

2) Moving from a graduated income tax to a flat tax, I presume you were thinking? Since the government needs to pay for schools, roads, hospitals and the like(Unless people want a country where the poor die at a young age, still illiterate), I assume you're talking about moving to a flat tax. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I voted Green in the last election and that's a tenet of their economic policy here in Canada. (And, actually, it's Greens economic policy that makes me want to vote them).

3) Cases could be made for and against them. Your argument seems to be that you're a staunch Constitutionalist. That point can't be argued and, honestly, I don't necessarily disagree.

4) It seems to me that removing the right to vote from anyone is undemocratic. During the Great Depression, this would mean that only the super-wealthy could vote. That invites a different tyranny than currently moving towards. If there were a cabal of powerful businessmen under your model with designs on ruling, they could arrange an artificial economic failure over a period of years that would allow them unprecedented ability to control the government. We'll call this group 'Schmadianton Schmobbers'. Does the current system invite a generational dependance on welfare? I would say so. When people only want their next paycheck because they can't imagine a better life, why work? However, I think under your policy, Democracy would suffer horrendously.

5) For a staunch Constitutionalist, I'm a little uncomfortable with this one to be honest. "Give us your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to breathe free" has been replaced by "We're full up. Go home." The US was founded on the idea that people could get there and enjoy unprecedented religious freedom. That was the ideal of its creation. If you eliminate that, you eliminate the soul of what made the US great - That all men are created equal in the sight of God. Is there a way to allow this immigration and still enjoy the unprecedented standard of living you've become accustomed to? I don't know, but believing in the ideal of the US and striving to achieve what it was meant to be isn't an easy road. And if you don't believe in the greatness of the ideals that the US was founded on, the Constitution is no longer an inspired document. It's just a document.

6) We've already discussed this, so I won't belabour the point.

7) I believe there are three things that require a socialist mindset because all men deserve them: Education(All men should have an equal chance in life), Healthcare(We are measured by how we treat the least fortunate in society - Under your system, an old man who worked his whole life and lost his fortune due to illness would run out of money, be kicked out of the hospital because he can't pay and then die on the street. And nobody from the government would lift a finger to help him because he required social assistance at the end of his life and thus has no voice in the government)

8) Really? NAFTA? Do you honestly think NAFTA resulted in the demise of the American Worker because companies have engaged in a mass exodus to Canada and Mexico? As a Canadian, I can promise you we have not gained unprecedented job creation because of NAFTA. In fact, we are required to provide the US with a certain amount of water each year -regardless of whether we run out of water ourselves- and the one area where we had a better base of production - Software lumber - was found out and immediately tariff'd so the US wouldn't suffer undue hardship. If you want to blame someone, blame cheap overseas labor that can sell things cheaper -even after a tariff-. Frankly, NAFTA is just a poorly thought out bill that -should- have opened our borders more. I'd like to see a completely open Canadian/American border, but that bill was a failure. I think we -should- eliminate it, but I think you're blaming the wrong bill.

9) I have agreed with you on most points, but... As an outsider, I have to point out an inherent hypocrisy to this: The US has made many enemies because of its meddling. Under any anti-terror law, George Bush, Sr would be required to be surrendered because he provided guns and munitions to a group that struck at civilian -and- government targets.(You would remember this as the Iran/Contra Affair). The UN was not formed by socialists, it was formed by great men. It doesn't work, I'll grant you, but it doesn't work because the nations involved are prepared to simply ignore their tenets if it irritates them too much to abide by them. Seriously - Would the US allow inspectors in to your secret weapons plants if another country said you were developing destabilizing weapons? Of course not. The UN is needed as a balancing act, but is mostly a dog and pony show. It's sad, but a truism. However, it -should- be more than that.

10) Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I agree with this wholeheartedly. If any nation threatened the US, I would be the first to try to defend you. And I have socialist leanings.

[Elphaba]

And women: Eleanor Roosevelt was part of the first US delegation to the UN, where she worked harder than anyone for basic human rights for all people.

She had a rude awakening when the Soviet Union delegation vetoed every progressive proposal. She later wrote how naive she had been, thinking all governments were concerned about its people, but discovered they weren't.

Stalin had promised cooperation, but of course, the madman could not care less about anyone's human rights.

I've always felt her deep disappointment and sadness at this was profound.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

The UN was not formed by socialists, it was formed by great men.

And women: Eleanor Roosevelt was part of the six-member, and first US, delegation to the UN. She served from 1945 to 1952.

She fought tirelessly for human rights for all people, and was completely disgusted with the Soviet Union, as it vetoed any progressive proposal. Stalin had promised cooperation with the the US and the UN, and of course, did nothing of the kind. He could not have cared less about anyone's human rights.

She later wrote how naive she was, thinking governments really wanted to give their people the best quality of life possible, within their parameters. When she discovered this was not true, her disappointment, and sadness, was profound.

Elphaba

[FunkyTown]

Touche, Elphie. I don't think anyone can argue that Eleanor Roosevelt was not a great person.

Amend my statement to 'Great men and women'.

[a-train]

On the U.N.: The trouble with supernational government is the detachment of the individual from the legislative process. Not only are the legislators too far removed from the people to know them and their circumstances well enough to produce good policy, but they are also too far removed to see that policy is implemented anyway. This indigenous characteristic to big government insures either ineffectiveness or tyranny. In either case, big government is undesirable.

The notion of federalism in the U.S. was not to regulate the states, but the federal government is to be regulated by the states. Unfortunately, too many Americans feel that their own ideas are the best for all of us and want their pet program enforced on every American through the federal government.

This tendency was known to the Framers. The constitution was designed to prevent the sweeping of policy into every realm of the nation through federal control. If we ignore the constitution and allow that, what is the point of the even having state and local government at all?

The most common issue raised by those concerned about supernational government is the loss of power of our own government. Currently, the United States hasn't seen any great deal of that, but other countries have. It is the United States that attempts to control and dictate other nations through the U.N. We make consessions there, but we want the tables tilted in our favor.

A humble non-interventionist foreign policy would not be a protectionist policy. A removal from the U.N. would not have to be a move toward isolationism. I advocate a truly free and open policy toward other nations. I do not want to remove the U.S. from the U.N. or NAFTA or CAFTA, or other "free trade agreements" and alliances because they are too free, but because they aren't free enough.

If we get government out of the way, the people will do their job much better.

-a-train

[WANDERER]

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

Great, the marginalised can become even more marginalised: pensioners, those with health issues, immigrants, the indigenous, students, single parents with young children, stay at home mums, temporarily unemployed or low income/cycling employment strugglers and the just plain poor. Somewhere in your life you will be in one or more of these categories.

Laws to make the wealthier even wealthier...hmmm....welcome to more subprime exploitation. Citizens without citizenship who have no part in democratic process. Why not just return things to when women could neither vote, own land or work...now that was succesful policy (sarcasm). How about we just deny citizenship to groups based on religious affiliation or race or level of education? Certainly would make election campaigns and political parties almost non-events. Yep, that oughta make the nation great.

[JohnBirchSociety]

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

Great, the marginalised can become even more marginalised: pensioners, those with health issues, immigrants, the indigenous, students, single parents with young children, stay at home mums, temporarily unemployed or low income/cycling employment strugglers and the just plain poor. Somewhere in your life you will be in one or more of these categories.

Laws to make the wealthier even wealthier...hmmm....welcome to more subprime exploitation. Citizens without citizenship who have no part in democratic process. Why not just return things to when women could neither vote, own land or work...now that was succesful policy (sarcasm). How about we just deny citizenship to groups based on religious affiliation or race or level of education? Certainly would make election campaigns and political parties almost non-events. Yep, that oughta make the nation great.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I do appreciate it.

I'm not denying citizenship to anyone. Voting is a privilege, not a right, in the United States (you are born with rights).

The problem that you've missed on this, is that if those who receive direct government (disbursed directly to them, not things like roads / millitary, etc.) assistance can vote for more of the same (and the record shows they do exactly that) we will go broke. Politicians pander to them.

I want to remove this ability. Those who get assistance (which is unconstitutional, by the way) ought not be able to vote for more assistance. That's the ultimate in theft. And it is flat-out wrong.

I would exempt the innocent people (mentally ill, wounded veterans, etc.) but the vast majority of able-bodied citizens that receive government assistance that is directly disbursed to them, ought not be able to vote for more of the same.

This would be a first real step in the long road ahead of us in getting rid of Socialism.

[JohnBirchSociety]

On the U.N.: The trouble with supernational government is the detachment of the individual from the legislative process. Not only are the legislators too far removed from the people to know them and their circumstances well enough to produce good policy, but they are also too far removed to see that policy is implemented anyway. This indigenous characteristic to big government insures either ineffectiveness or tyranny. In either case, big government is undesirable.

The notion of federalism in the U.S. was not to regulate the states, but the federal government is to be regulated by the states. Unfortunately, too many Americans feel that their own ideas are the best for all of us and want their pet program enforced on every American through the federal government.

This tendency was known to the Framers. The constitution was designed to prevent the sweeping of policy into every realm of the nation through federal control. If we ignore the constitution and allow that, what is the point of the even having state and local government at all?

The most common issue raised by those concerned about supernational government is the loss of power of our own government. Currently, the United States hasn't seen any great deal of that, but other countries have. It is the United States that attempts to control and dictate other nations through the U.N. We make consessions there, but we want the tables tilted in our favor.

A humble non-interventionist foreign policy would not be a protectionist policy. A removal from the U.N. would not have to be a move toward isolationism. I advocate a truly free and open policy toward other nations. I do not want to remove the U.S. from the U.N. or NAFTA or CAFTA, or other "free trade agreements" and alliances because they are too free, but because they aren't free enough.

If we get government out of the way, the people will do their job much better.

-a-train

All I can say is "yep".... n/t

[Fiannan]

6) Those who receive government assistance CANNOT vote.

Is that right? If your house is on fire and you call the fire department you just gave up your right to vote? Or if you happen to visit a national park or obtain a passport there goes your right to vote? I would change this to if you do not pay taxes you cannot vote. Woops J.B’ers do not believe in paying taxes (see #2).

Well, that would certainly cut the voter roles in the family housing sections over at BYU. Many students are on at least WIC programs and many others are on food stamps. I really don't mind this since none are planning on being "lifers" on the welfare roles but only need help now to be able to study and also maintain their families.

Besides, food stamps are merely a form of government farm subsidy.