Is America coming apart?

[bytor2112]

Flying home from London, where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World, one arrives in the middle of a far more acrimonious national debate right here in the United States.

At issue: Should Barack Obama be allowed to address tens of millions of American children, inside their classrooms, during school hours?

Conservative talk-show hosts saw a White House scheme to turn public schools

into indoctrination centers where the socialist ideology of Obama would be spoon-fed to captive audiences of children forced to listen to Big Brother -- and then do assignments on his sermon.

Interesting column by Pat Buchanan

.

[Maxel]

I think America will be ripped apart. Those who want what is right in governments ("freemen") on one side, and those wanting a 'king' to rule over them ("king-men") on the other side.

I think this is inevitable. It makes me weep for my country.

[Gatorman]

I think America will be ripped apart. Those who want what is right in governments ("freemen") on one side, and those wanting a 'king' to rule over them ("king-men") on the other side.

I think this is inevitable. It makes me weep for my country.

For those of us who believe such things, our country and constitution will hang as if by a thread...

[jadams_4040]

Interesting column by Pat Buchanan

.

In texas they wouldnt let the president of the united states give encouraging talk to kids, but today they bused the kids to texas stadium to listen to george w bush speak to them and the kids had no choice in the matter. SSoooooo; what is your point? an "ex" pres can indoctornate our kids but a current president we should teach our kids not to respect? give me a break, lets get real.

[Maxel]

jadams-

That wasn't the point of the article. At. All.

[bytor2112]

In texas they wouldnt let the president of the united states give encouraging talk to kids, but today they bused the kids to texas stadium to listen to george w bush speak to them and the kids had no choice in the matter. SSoooooo; what is your point? an "ex" pres can indoctornate our kids but a current president we should teach our kids not to respect? give me a break, lets get real.

I am fairly certain the upcoming event is a field trip and parents have to grant permission. So, as usual you are WRONG. I wasn't opposed to the President addressing kids personally, but, I respect the right of parents to opt out if they choose....don't you?

The hoopla over the President speaking to school kids had little to do with the actual talk and more to do with the Dept. of Education suggestions that kids read books about the President, tell how he will inspire them and write a letter to the President about how they can help HIM.

The idea was ill thought out and President Obama agreed that it was in bad taste and changed it. That being said Jadams, were you equally appalled at the Democrat majority in congress holding hearings regarding President George H. W. Bush's address to students?????

Sidenote: I found they speech to be innocuous and other than the exaggerations about President Obama and Mrs. Obama's humble beginnings of not having much, (Michelle dad earned $42k per year and they lived in a modest brick home, President Obama's mom was a PHD and his Grandmother was a bank Vice-President) I thought the message was fine.

Edited September 11, 2009 by bytor2112

[talisyn]

I think America will be ripped apart. Those who want what is right in governments ("freemen") on one side, and those wanting a 'king' to rule over them ("king-men") on the other side.

I think this is inevitable. It makes me weep for my country.

I agree, but I think your idea of what kingmen are and my idea of what kingmen are is a bit different

I was reading along Mr. Buchanan's column and was thinking 'gee, he isn't like I remember him' and got to this

"E pluribus unum" – out of many, one - was the national motto the men of '76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?

I wanted to see if he had any ideas on how to improve unity when I inadvertantly clicked in this link, right in the middle Superstore.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!

Maybe I'm just tired, maybe I need to go to sleep and reread, but right now the irony is killing me

Yes I know Mr. Buchanan doesn't own the website. That's what makes it so funny.

[bytor2112]

I wanted to see if he had any ideas on how to improve unity when I inadvertantly clicked in this link, right in the middle Superstore.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive!

Maybe I'm just tired, maybe I need to go to sleep and reread, but right now the irony is killing me

Yes I know Mr. Buchanan doesn't own the website. That's what makes it so funny.

You gotta love American ingenuity and capitalism though!!!

[talisyn]

I knew it would happen. When I read about the speech I could picture Rush and Co. falling over themselves laughing when it occurred. What I want now is a bumpersticker that says 'No he didn't!'. It would start a flame war that would be even better than John and Kate!

[Misshalfway]

I think America will be ripped apart. Those who want what is right in governments ("freemen") on one side, and those wanting a 'king' to rule over them ("king-men") on the other side.

I think this is inevitable. It makes me weep for my country.

Wow. This really made me think. The BofM is so cool!

[Traveler]

It has been my observation since Nixon that the country is being ripped apart. It would seem that more are becoming aware of it.

The Traveler

[Maxel]

I agree, but I think your idea of what kingmen are and my idea of what kingmen are is a bit different

Possibly. I was using the Book of Mormon terms to bring the comparison home for more people. To explain further:

The modern day "freemen" are those who want to keep the government as close to the Constituional ideal set by the Founders. This type of government allows for the people to live their lives most unubstructed by wasteful or tyrannical government. However, it also requires more out of every citizen- being free comes at a high price (both for the soldiers who fight and die to keep us free, and the citizens who have to live wholly by their own abilities).

The modern day "king-men" are those who want the government's role to be expanded so it plays more and more of a parental role (the type of government embraced by 'progressive' ideology). They prefer the government's role to be larger for a variety of reasons, but the ultimate result is a loss of many of the freedoms Americans have enjoyed for hundreds of years. The problem with expanding government is that the people need to be taxed more to maintain it, and those at the top are more susceptible to corruption because they have more power. This leads to tyranny; the kind of tyranny we continually see in corrupt monarchies (there's a reason King Mosiah said that corrupt kings cause their people to do much wickedness).

Another big difference is that, as the government grows, the ability to switch leaders lessens. For instance, if the government's role continues to expand over the rest of Obama's administration as we've seen it grow in the first 6 months of it, we won't be able to hand it over to just anyone. Handing it over to a "freeman" would result in the gutting of the entire system- something those currently in power would not ever allow. Therefore, an expanding government eventually removes the possibility of the "peaceful revolution" that forms the basis of term limits.

This is how I see the situation, anyway.

[bhcs]

Possibly. I was using the Book of Mormon terms to bring the comparison home for more people. To explain further:

The modern day "freemen" are those who want to keep the government as close to the Constituional ideal set by the Founders. This type of government allows for the people to live their lives most unubstructed by wasteful or tyrannical government. However, it also requires more out of every citizen- being free comes at a high price (both for the soldiers who fight and die to keep us free, and the citizens who have to live wholly by their own abilities).

....

I agree with what you have said. But I think the problem we face is more complicated than the freemen vs. kingmen scenario.

To take another Book of Mormon example, read Alma 10 & 11 (espcecially 11). Amulek contends with Zeezrom and his lawyer cronies. The lawyers could only earn money if they were employed and therefore they made sure they were constantly employed.

Now, it was for the sole purpose to get again, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir up the people against Alma and Amulek. (Alma 11:20)

Think about the vast number of people who make a lot of money through lobbying, consulting, reporting, advising, advocating, and, yes, litigating their way through our political system. They have jobs because we are a nation divided. They get gain because we are stirred up to contend one with another.

I don't see our current political situation as freemen vs. kingmen scenario, or even a Good vs. Evil scenario. There is no 'Good' side to choose, no way for a 'freeman' to stand up for his beliefs. Both sides of our political spectrum need each other and the ensuing conflict in order to maintain their own relevance. Both need people to be worked up and angry about single issues and not principles, it's easier to manage.

Since the '60s we have had what are called the Culture Wars. In actuality, we have had an explosion of contention. Another BOM scripture:

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. (3 Ne. 11:29)

Which is why I don't have great hope or belief in political movements or idealogy. Individually, we still must fight the good fight. As a nation, or groups, we are left only with false choices. We either have reached, or are quickly reaching the point prophesied about here:

And the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound. D&C 45:27

So, yes. America is coming apart. The whole world is coming apart. We are tearing it and ourselves to shreds.

[annewandering]

Don't need a link to anyone to see that the country is falling apart. When good people are pulling at the same rope but on opposite ends how can it be otherwise?

[Maxel]

Bhcs:

I heartily agree that the problem is more complex than the simple "freemen vs. king-men" scenario I set up earlier. I also agree that both "sides" of the modern political spectrum survive on contention and controversy. However, I think the "sides" (if we're talking about Democrats vs. Republicans) are largely an illusion. Both sides hold progressive ideologies (I like how Glenn Beck puts it- the Dems are Progressives and the Repubs are Progrssive Lites) and have largely abandoned the ideal small-yet-effectual-government principles that are embodied in the Constitution. Both sides have benefited from the bloating and corruption of the political machine; both sides are "king-men" at heart.

Interestingly enough, somewhere (I don't feel like looking for it- I believe it's in the latter part of Alma) in the BofM Mormon makes the observation that those wanting a king were motivated by their own greed: the king-men wanted a king who promised them positions of power and influence. Also, the wicked lawyers of Ammonihah (the same ones who incited the people to contention) were studying how to overthrow the liberties of the Nephites. I think the two- a lust for power/money and a desire for bigger government- are connected.

I think the currents of the "king-men" philosophy is rampant in Washington, but it's under the surface: we can see it manifesting itelf in the multitudes of "emergencies" that "require" government intervention (since Obma was elected, we've had nothing but a string of crises that require the government to save us from disaster). As time wears on and the denial in the mainstream media grows, the "king-men" will grow more daring. It will be an interesting battle- people like Beck and other conservative or independent news sources- make it more difficult for he government. However, if the majority of Americans are sufficiently hardened in their hearts, the "king-men" will eventually get their way.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Maxel

[talisyn]

I agree with what you have said. But I think the problem we face is more complicated than the freemen vs. kingmen scenario.

To take another Book of Mormon example, read Alma 10 & 11 (espcecially 11). Amulek contends with Zeezrom and his lawyer cronies. The lawyers could only earn money if they were employed and therefore they made sure they were constantly employed.

Now, it was for the sole purpose to get again, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir up the people against Alma and Amulek. (Alma 11:20)

Think about the vast number of people who make a lot of money through lobbying, consulting, reporting, advising, advocating, and, yes, litigating their way through our political system. They have jobs because we are a nation divided. They get gain because we are stirred up to contend one with another.

I don't see our current political situation as freemen vs. kingmen scenario, or even a Good vs. Evil scenario. There is no 'Good' side to choose, no way for a 'freeman' to stand up for his beliefs. Both sides of our political spectrum need each other and the ensuing conflict in order to maintain their own relevance. Both need people to be worked up and angry about single issues and not principles, it's easier to manage.

Since the '60s we have had what are called the Culture Wars. In actuality, we have had an explosion of contention. Another BOM scripture:

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. (3 Ne. 11:29)

Which is why I don't have great hope or belief in political movements or idealogy. Individually, we still must fight the good fight. As a nation, or groups, we are left only with false choices. We either have reached, or are quickly reaching the point prophesied about here:

And the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound. D&C 45:27

So, yes. America is coming apart. The whole world is coming apart. We are tearing it and ourselves to shreds.

This is how I see it too. I also think things started going downhill when corporations were counted as partial people for tax purposes, kind've like back when slaves were fractions of people for census reasons, except slaves were whole people and companies are not. Once corporations got on even close to an equal footing as individual sentient beings it opened the door to all sorts of nifty little loopholes.

Disclaimer: I love businesses. I even love capitalism. I love going to a store and buying sparkly shiny things.

[talisyn]

Bytebear:

I heartily agree that the problem is more complex than the simple "freemen vs. king-men" scenario I set up earlier. I also agree that both "sides" of the modern political spectrum survive on contention and controversy. However, I think the "sides" (if we're talking about Democrats vs. Republicans) are largely an illusion. Both sides hold progressive ideologies (I like how Glenn Beck puts it- the Dems are Progressives and the Repubs are Progrssive Lites) and have largely abandoned the ideal small-yet-effectual-government principles that are embodied in the Constitution. Both sides have benefited from the bloating and corruption of the political machine; both sides are "king-men" at heart.

Interestingly enough, somewhere (I don't feel like looking for it- I believe it's in the latter part of Alma) in the BofM Mormon makes the observation that those wanting a king were motivated by their own greed: the king-men wanted a king who promised them positions of power and influence. Also, the wicked lawyers of Ammonihah (the same ones who incited the people to contention) were studying how to overthrow the liberties of the Nephites. I think the two- a lust for power/money and a desire for bigger government- are connected.

I think the currents of the "king-men" philosophy is rampant in Washington, but it's under the surface: we can see it manifesting itelf in the multitudes of "emergencies" that "require" government intervention (since Obma was elected, we've had nothing but a string of crises that require the government to save us from disaster). As time wears on and the denial in the mainstream media grows, the "king-men" will grow more daring. It will be an interesting battle- people like Beck and other conservative or independent news sources- make it more difficult for he government. However, if the majority of Americans are sufficiently hardened in their hearts, the "king-men" will eventually get their way.

Three words: The Patriot Act.

[Maxel]

That's a good example of the "king-men" philosophy as exercised by the Republicans, talisyn.

[ADoyle90815]

I've heard that Pat Buchannan is extremely anti-LDS.

[bytor2112]

I've heard that Pat Buchannan is extremely anti-LDS.

His sister is a member of the church.....Bey Buchanan.

[Barter_Town]

I wasn't opposed to the President addressing kids personally, but, I respect the right of parents to opt out if they choose....don't you?

If it's over something as innocuous as this, then, no.. I can't really respect anyone who would bar their kids from hearing from the democratically-elected leader of our country.

Sorry but when parents' personal politics leads to censorship over the silliest of things, that's just sad. I can't respect foolishness and paranoia. Sure you might not agree with some of his policies, but he's still the leader of your country and was elected by the majority for a reason. People forcing their kids to stick their heads in the sand alongside themselves is just bad parenting, IMO.

The hoopla over the President speaking to school kids had little to do with the actual talk and more to do with the Dept. of Education suggestions that kids read books about the President, tell how he will inspire them and write a letter to the President about how they can help HIM.

But the Dept. of Education didn't do what you accuse it of doing.. you've fashioned a straw man inside your own head to attack instead of what happened in reality.

No one suggested students "read books about the president", or "talk about how he will inspire them", or to write a letter to the president. It was suggested that they write a letter to THEMSELVES about what they can do to help the president. And what is so wrong about that? You don't think awareness of involvement in civics is a good thing? Doesn't that sort of thing transcend partisan politics? But no, disgruntled conservatives made this a partisan issue and our kids are caught in the crossfire as a result. Very, very silly. The fact that some parents actually find something as harmless as that to be threatening is just, well, sad.

The idea was ill thought out and President Obama agreed that it was in bad taste and changed it. That being said Jadams, were you equally appalled at the Democrat majority in congress holding hearings regarding President George H. W. Bush's address to students?????

The difference here is that their concern was over the ***content*** of the speech AFTER the fact, and whether it was appropriate to present it to students in school. But in this case, Republicans were whining about it over their own interpretation of some wording, and BEFORE the speech had even been given!

In other words, the Democrats' concern was reasonable. The Republicans' concern was not.

Sidenote: I found they speech to be innocuous and other than the exaggerations about President Obama and Mrs. Obama's humble beginnings of not having much, (Michelle dad earned $42k per year and they lived in a modest brick home, President Obama's mom was a PHD and his Grandmother was a bank Vice-President) I thought the message was fine.

Michelle's father was a pump worker at the city water plant. Her mother was a secretary at a catalog store.

Barack's mother did have a PhD... in anthropology. Not much money to be made in anthropology.

Sounds pretty middle class to me. So.. not sure what you're getting this idea that they're "exaggerating" their humble beginnings. They have every right to say their beginnings were humble, because it's true.

It isn't like they were born into wealth and political connections like, say, Bush Sr. and Jr.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Barter_Town

[Gatorman]

Hmmm...I wonder what the 'grade' would have been if a child had written the following letter, or something similar:

What I Can Do to Help the President

1 - I can send letters to my local representatives and the President reminding them that they are bound by the Constitution. Anything they attempt to do in excess of that authority is tyranny and a crime, as well as a violation of their oath of office.

2 - I can outline my own positions on why the President's agenda is in excess of the Constitutional authority given to our Federal Government. I can attend rallies and events to help others be aware of these misdeeds being committed by our elected officials.

3 - I can write up a purchase order for the President, assigning to him the debt he is planning on assigning to me with his agenda. I can ensure that every politician is aware that we, the future generations, are watching. And, we are aware of the theft they are commiting against our future, to make their present more palatable.

Do you think the teachers, DoE, President, etc, would approve of such a student? Or, are they instead looking for the indoctrinated answers of trying to help the president pass his agenda by talking to friends and neighbors, etc. Sorry, but, the best way to help this President is to make him WELL aware of the crimes he is committing against our children.

[Barter_Town]

Hmmm...I wonder what the 'grade' would have been if a child had written the following letter, or something similar:

What I Can Do to Help the President

1 - I can send letters to my local representatives and the President reminding them that they are bound by the Constitution. Anything they attempt to do in excess of that authority is tyranny and a crime, as well as a violation of their oath of office.

2 - I can outline my own positions on why the President's agenda is in excess of the Constitutional authority given to our Federal Government. I can attend rallies and events to help others be aware of these misdeeds being committed by our elected officials.

3 - I can write up a purchase order for the President, assigning to him the debt he is planning on assigning to me with his agenda. I can ensure that every politician is aware that we, the future generations, are watching. And, we are aware of the theft they are commiting against our future, to make their present more palatable.

Do you think the teachers, DoE, President, etc, would approve of such a student? Or, are they instead looking for the indoctrinated answers of trying to help the president pass his agenda by talking to friends and neighbors, etc. Sorry, but, the best way to help this President is to make him WELL aware of the crimes he is committing against our children.

Yep. Too bad Bush is no longer in office

[Gatorman]

You won't find me defending Bush either.

[Maxel]

Barter_Town:

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use the "Laugh" feature to mock my serious posts. I'm sure others feel the same way. If you feel something is absurd, leave it alone or comment on it, please.