0 votes

TwilightZONE: A neoCON, 'AGAINST' TSA PornScanners/GropeDown, a Dem, FOR IT!

Topsy-Turvy world, spinning, spinning, spinning...

CNN AC360, Nov. 19, 2010. Rep.John Mica(R-FL) vs. Rep.Sheila Jackson Lee(D-TX): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71BQYoD7VB4

On CNN Anderson Cooper 360, Rep.John Mica (R-FL) the sneaky bastard, whom CO-SPONSORED (click on the Co-Sponsor BLUE hyperlink to verify, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3150) the TSA creation bill, "HR.3150: Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001," somehow conveniently forgot to disclose to the world that he TOO is benefiting off of the airline security industrial complex: http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2624

all one has to do is LOOK at his legislative records; he CLEARLY wanted to BAILOUT the airline industry: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3347

has flip-flopped, and is now "AGAINST" the TSA, as a CORPORATIST privatization of airline security will ABSOLUTELY BENEFIT Mica!

Ironic, but not really, John Mica is also prominently featured in an ANTI-TSA abuse documentary, 'Please Remove Your Shoes' (http://pleaseremoveyourshoesmovie.com).

Crazily, it is the DEMS who are now CONTINUALLY advocating FOR this TSA TYRANNY!

Of course, they WOULD, as the TSA Act was THEIR creation, too; the Senate version was authored by Sen. Ernest Hollings(D-SC): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-1447

I declare this day, Sheila Jackson Lee is the DEVIL!

** UPDATE: CONgress EXEMPTS ITSELF from ALL TSA security measures!

Maybe this news will finally piss off the 'peons.'

"No Security Pat-Downs for Boehner"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why is this ironic?

Democrats have ALWAYS been for draconian government.

This myth that Democrat are for "civil liberties" has always been BS. It's never been true. It's just a lie they propagate to further their agenda.

I think the myth stems from the Civil Rights Act in the 60s. However....
The Democrats didn't even pass the Civil Rights act on their own. The Democrats filibustered it in the Senate, even though they had a big majority of Democrats. If the Republicans hadn't crossed over the line and voted for it, it would have never passed, because the Democrats couldn't get cloture in their own majority Senate.

Dems have never been for liberties.
It's always been a lie.

"ironic" in the PERCEIVED paradigm sense, of a supposed

distinction between the two.

thus, the "Ironic, but not really," part.

In the very REALITY-based community? of course, none of this should be surprising, or come as a shock to ANYONE here. at least I hope not.

The False Left / Right Paradigm Is Interchangeable...

"We The People" vs "Them, The GovernLess"

Regarding Palin: I believe we are watching in real time the rise of the third party, which will be controlled by the powers that be from its' inception.

Next Scam: "Cash For Cash"


yup, TWO wings of the SAME bird

Ordo ab Chao, as those bastards would say.

neoCON = neoLiB


as you know, they're all just puppets of the NWO.Wall St.-funded Mil.Ind.Complex.

NO 'change' whatsoever, indeed.

Yea then you got

that chick who debated Paul on CNN Anderson Cooper.

Oh and I am catching wind of democrats standing up for the FED. I thought they were against fascism and cartels? They think its some sort of conspiracy the republicans are cooking up to make sure that Obama doesn't get elected. But anyone who talks about the details of jekyll island is a right-wing nut.

Funny part about it is most of the FED protesters that have been around Minneapolis for a while are flaming liberals. I wonder where they are at now? Will they go the way of the lefty anti-war movement?

I know it's trendy to FAIL UPWARDS in the District of Criminals,

but I still cannot fathom WHY anyone would listen to that crazy delusional biaatch.

Francis Townsend is a frakking LAWYER for Christ's sakes! THAT qualifies her to be a "homeland sekurity expert?"

Um, yeah, when you need to sue Bridgestone for faulty tire tread design, sure, why not. MOST lawyers are all empty vessels chasing someone else's dough, anyway. But, 'sekurity,' a lawyer? Really?

There is one interesting tid bit, though. She was the coordinator under the "Fuhrer Directive," aka. PD51: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Townsend#George_W._Bush...

"In May 2007, she was appointed 'National Continuity Coordinator' under the auspices of NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51 and assigned responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies."

Francis Townsend was THE Coordinator for the Continuity Of Govt, aka. "COG" NWO-FEMA Police State!

THAT is one dangerous social engineer.

THAT alone should DIS-qualify her from holding ANY public office in a Constitutional Republic!

WHY would ir surprise amyone

WHY would ir surprise anyone that the DEMS are fans of the tsa? The Dems want to take freedom away just as much or more then any neocon..

yup, ALL neoGOONS were actually Trotsky-ite LIBERALS anyway.

so absolutely, NONE of this should come as a surprise.

frankly, we should ALL start calling any RINO, or your everyday mainline GOP goon, whom pathetically attempts to pass him/herself off as a "conservative," for what they really are: a LIBERAL.

And, say it BACK to them in the tone that they always intended: DIRTY.

By its very definition, ANYONE who wants to intervene in lives of others via the GUN, or a BRIBE, is a liberal/progressive.

ALL Interventionists are liberals, in the strictest definitional sense, whether they are militant ones, or the welfare kind.

Thus, all those militant-junkie, socialist nannie LOSER douchebags like HUCKster, McNUTT, WRONGney, PHAILin, GANGrinch, and every single one of those zionist AIPAC PNAC neoCON monkeys, are ALL "liberals," by their own definition. PERIOD.

Next time any of us encounter their shills, we should 'kindly' remind them the blatant obviousness of the irony of their astro-turf "Conservative" street-cred.

besides, it's high time someone reminded them well meaning Arizonans, there's nothing "conservative" about marrying a mistress, as McCain's current wife is just that: the proverbial "other" woman.

You are right of course but?

Please do not label us all as Polygamists!Some of us are not hard core republicans.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

I happen to quite enjoy polygamists!

more to fondle. Yeah! .o)
but also, more stories to keep track of .o(


wah, wah.

the TSA goons complain about bad morale:

"TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking"


I should be more grown up about it, but these individuals made personal, voluntary decision to work for the tyrannical agency; it is obvious that their work did not disturb them strongly enough, otherwise they would have been too busy quitting to be bitching about a job they didn't like.

as grown adults, whom made that fateful decision on their own, there is no room for bitchy-whining. I pity da fools.

Um, NOPE, I actually do not.


most of these people supporters of the UnAmerican Patriot Act?

Mica, YES,

Jackson Lee voted NO: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-398

also no on reauthorization:

But, that's her ONLY saving grace, as the woman is utterly corrupt and clueless, like the rest in CONgress, about the Constitution.

good work

Thanks BleuCream013.

Keep up the good work.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

SteveMT is right,

I definitely need an editor.

damn, had no idea how long the entry below would end up.o)



LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

New Topic: Libertarian vs. Progressive

Looking for some opinion here. Before I found Ron Paul I had been a lifelong 'democrat'. Although I continuously find myself cheering for Dr. Paul and talking him up (I think he's wonderful), I have a couple of nagging questions about caring for the poor, health care, etc. One of the comments I got on this other site suggested that past history has shown us that the needs of the poor, sick, elderly, etc. are far greater than the ability of charity alone to handle. Another was that under a libertarian system the lack of regulation of (especially) corporations would inevitably lead again to gross level monopolies and criminality just as now.

Can we talk a little about how Dr. Paul views these issues, and how a truly free market would resolve them? I'm a novitiate here, would like some thoughts from all you smart people!

Nothing comes to those who wait.


For answers to these types of questions, the best source is Thomas Woods. He is a highly entertaining historian who has a million speeches on youtube and several books covering the side of American history not taught in high school. I will look and see if I can find a good video on poverty and i will link to it later.

Two of his books, "The politically incorrect guide to american history" and "33 questions about american history you're not supposed to ask" are great for these subjects and very easy to read.

Here's a good one:


6 parts, the rest are linked on the side of the video.

The beginning is slow to start, so you can skip the first 5 minutes or so if you don't care, but over the whole hour he talks about how markets create prosperity, why the most market-oriented nations have the most well-off poor people and the highest general prosperity, and why redistribution programs won't solve the problems.

did I mention I love you guys?

what a great find.)

This question

can't be answered in a single forum post of a reasonable size, but i hope you keep reading, because there are good answers to these inquiries. The problem is that the answers are somewhat complex and impossible to fit into TV-friendly soundbite-length statements.

On health care and housing costs, for example, the actions of the government have massively driven up the costs of health care, housing, education, and other basic needs of people. All health care legislation always benefits the politically-connected insurance giants, and the problem is the over-dependence on insurance, rather than paying directly for medical services and competing on prices. The result is that basic medical care has become so expensive that it is basically impossible to afford it without going through a third-party insurance company first. Whereas, people in the past traditionally were able to pay doctors using reasonable sums of cash.

The most important thing is to always look at the unseen consequences of legislation.

If you include entitlements, the government sucks many trillions of dollars out of the hands of the productive people in the country every year. Imagine if all of that wealth remained with the people, the churches, the charities, the communities, etc. There would be so many more opportunities for charitable giving because all of that wealth wouldn't be squandered.

It will never be possible to protect every single person from disease or homelessness. That is a utopian pipe dream that needs to be discarded. But, if the government wasn't manipulating the prices of everything, and people actually got to keep their earnings, you'd be surprised at how much more we could do to help the needy with our money.

Always remember that the government has been directing money to "fight poverty" for many decades now, but the disparity of wealth between the poor and rich is increasing. Clearly these efforts have not been successful. Technological advancements have done far more to raise the average person's living standards than any poverty-fighting programs.

The administration of these programs tends to waste a lot of money, so that only a small fraction of the money that the government budgets actually ends up going to the poor or the sick. Never believe the claims of politicians that they are going to reduce "waste" or make programs "more efficient". This is an impossible task and a promise that can only be broken.

There is a lot to be said about those topics, and i encourage you to keep reading, because the answers will shock you.

As to your question about monopolies, that requires a very long explanation. I can link to some articles/books/videos if you'd like. For now, it is crucial to point out that historically, monopolies have fared only when they are taking advantage of privileges/grants given to them by governments. And yes, this includes the infamous "robber barons" of the old oil industry, the railroad industry, etc. The version of that story taught in high school is so absurdly wrong its appalling.

Some good comments below. I

Some good comments below. I actually want to add something that I believe is a big deal. With government theft and then redistribution....people don't have to be nice to their neighbor anymore. I will say again...people don't have to be nice to their neighbor anymore.

In past history, you developed close relationships in your communities...got involved...helped your neighbors because what goes around comes around. It fostered good behavior.

Government Welfare destroys this sense of community as people don't "need" to depend on each other. Of course, many people still do this because they are good hearted people. I do believe that government programs and intervention to "save the poor", "save those in distress", and "save those in a catastrophe" gets in the way of normal and good human interaction and fosters bad behavior.

Today, you can a be a complete a-hole to your neighbors, be selfish as can be, and just be a downright hermit prick...and something goes wrong for you? Who cares? You don't need your family, friends, neighbors, or community that you have been a complete jackass to...the gooberment has programs to help you and will take the others groups money to help you.

I truly believe that this is a part to the breakdown (not fully inclusive of course) to family and community. People just don't have to be civil or giving with Government (thug) safety nets.

Just a little philosophical food for thought.

Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!


"Government Welfare destroys this sense of community as people don't "need" to depend on each other."

a very astute observation, my friend.

THAT is PRECISELY the intended vision of the NWO social engineers; in the very REAL social/anthropological and praxeological sense, that is absolutely the INTENDED outcome: it DESTROYS human kinship.

though, I must say

the proper REALITY should really be characterized as:

We the People, the FREE HUMANITY vs. the NWO-Ruling Class and their sycophantic turd nerds.

well said.

Like the nerd turd part, LOL.

Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.


always like them

poo poo rhymes.

plus it's only fitting.o)

I'll take a quick shot at this

In a purely libertarian system there would, of course, be no corporations at all. Corporations, it must be remembered, are children of government. They are created by government edict and are protected by government. In arguments against monopolies, it is never mentioned that there has never been a monopoly that was not created by government. Here in San Diego, Cox has a monopoly on cable service, just because the city mandates it. But even the most powerful business, such as Wall Mart and Microsoft, have competitors; they are not monopolies, merely successful businesses. Of course, no society can eliminate crime completely, but in a libertarian society at least it (ideally, of course), would not be built right into the system of government as it is now. If it against the law for a person to do it, then it should be against the law for the government to do it, too.

Which brings us to the charity issue. Leaving aside the assumption (for that's just what it is; as assumption) that the needs of charity would somehow not be met without government intervention, the first question would be: "How well are those needs met WITH government intervention?" But in any case, pointing the guns of government at one person or group of people in order to benefit another person or group of people is not charity. It is theft. Charity, by its very definition, is VOLUNTARY. No matter what sorts of altruistic noise is made by government officials; no matter how noble their cause, if that cause cannot be furthered without bringing the power of government to bear, then it is not a worthy cause. The sad fact of life is that if you are not capable of feeding yourself and you can find no person in the world that cares enough about you to feed you, then you die. Government officials, taking note of this sad state of affairs, shout "This is unjust! We will steal money from those who have it in order to feed you!" Note that these same government officials, if they so desire, can dip into their own pockets instead to feed or take care of those who need it rather than pointing the guns of government toward others for their cause. Note that it is always much more efficient to use force against others to attain your altruistic goals, but once you do that, they are no longer altruistic. In a libertarian society, folks get to, for the most part, decide for themselves what to do with their lives and by extension, their money.

GREAT primer, Freeman!

the NUMBER ONE misunderstanding when discussing these issues, is the proper Cause vs. Effect relationship.

Unless one really questions the CORE philosophical basis of where one is coming from, and how one is intending on solving these problems, NONE of this matters.

And, to properly do that, understanding the reality of just SOME of the following issues, is a MUST.

1. What exactly SHOULD the Role of Govt be?

THAT MUST be answered first.

Dr. Ron Paul, @GoogleTalks:

Dr. Ron Paul on the PROPER Role of Govt, CSPAN interview during 1988 Pres.Campaign:

Dr. Ron Paul 1988 Campaign Speech:

Dr. Ron Paul on the REAL Power Structure in USA:

Why 1988 videos? Because Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul has had PRINCIPLED CONSISTENCY, borne of intense personal and intellectual reflection:
"Dr. Consistency: Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Views" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOp1MmYOkms

"Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the TRUTH" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

From a traditionally "progressive" perspective, PBS' Bill Moyers Journal maybe more easily palatable primer into Dr. Paul's views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2r29HcH5nA

IF you value your own life, the fruits of your labor, and how EVERY SINGLE form of govt throughout history has THREATENED that reality, the following is a MUST viewing:

"Philosophy of Liberty" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

2. Understand the current PRIVATE Federal Reserve FIAT monetary system.

From its Jekyll Island, GA origins, founded as a PRIVATE Banking Cartel: http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve...

The FACT that its very origins used to be relegated to, and RIDICULED as "conspiracy theorist talk," now ARROGANTLY coming out in the open, alone speaks VOLUMES: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/fed-at-jekyll-i...

From the Horse's own mouth; the Federal Reserve, Atlanta Branch's OFFICIAL WEBSITE PROUDLY, PUBLICLY announcing it: http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferences/10jekyll_index.cfm

For those who find the name to be overly ridiculous? Oh yes, Virginia, it's a REAL place, a name only fitting for Bankster CRIMINALS: http://blog.jekyllisland.com/tag/coastal-georgia/

How the very fact that it is a PRIVATE CARTEL influences EVERY SINGLE decision made by govt, under the current corporatist sys.

WHY it is that under such construct a Welfare system CANNOT EXIST without its necessary opposite, the WARFARE system.

WHY it is that your very RIGHTS are threatened under the fiat monetary system:
"A Dire Warning from Dr. Ron Paul"

WHY it is that under such system, ALL activities inevitably fall under a CORPORATIST paradigm, no matter how big from the Military Industrial Complex, to the small, or independent, for example, one believes even his/her own small online CafePress store business might be.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute's most prominent scholars on the Federal Reserve:

"Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve"

"Murray N. Rothbard - The Founding of the Federal Reserve"

For a 'deeper down the rabbit hole' REALITY about the ORIGINS of Federal Reserve and the Income Tax, please watch Aaron Russo's 'America, From Freedom to Fascism:' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpTVXitOQk

Squeamish about that coming from a libertarian/Constitutionalist/PaleoConservative/Old Right/Classical Liberal/anarcho-capitalist perspective?? Then, I would HIGHLY recommend a 'liberal's perspective' on origins of money and corporate charter system:

Douglas Rushkoff (http://rushkoff.com)

THIS is EXACTLY how a single dollar is created: Peter Joseph's "ZeitGeist, Addendum" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg

CAVEAT EMPTOR: I personally DO NOT recommend ZeitGeist author Peter Joseph's proposed solution of centrally planned, technocrat class-run PRISON SYSTEMS euphemistically called the Venus Project. IT GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN Being SHOULD be FOR.

However, the first third or so, of the documentary PRECISELY, and SIMPLY illustrates the DANGERS of the current fiat monetary system. It is simply one of the BEST primers on the subject matter.

ALL of the reasons WHY we MUST END the FED! http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193

3. ADMIT the INHERENT FAILURES of ANY Central Planning.

WHY govt "solutions," ESPECIALLY regarding social issues, are ALWAYS WRONG, and amounts to 'Tyranny of Good Intentions' http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Good-Intentions-Prosecutors-Co...

PURELY REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, HOW does one intend to solve all the social ills you've listed above using govt, when most 'liberals' intuitively understand that almost EVERYONE in CONgress (ALL EXCEPT the Pauls that is), is a Wall St.'s sycophantic WHORE in one capacity or another, yet continually mistake that only getting the "right" people will solve things. When in fact, the very nature of a collectivist combine like a govt, is precisely DESIGNED to attract such pliable, corruptible low lives in the first place?

First, one has to ADMIT the FACT that NOT a SINGLE person, or even a group of 'really smart' people can solve problems for ALL 300+ MILLION people. PERIOD.

ONLY an individual really knows, what really is BEST for him/herself and his/her loved ones.

WHEN the Fed.govt makes a mistake, it makes it for ALL 300+ Million Americans. Thus, the more complicated an issue, the more LOCAL the solution must be.

Besides, WHO THE HELL SAID respective 50 states could NOT have an individual solution that suits them, only?

I would rather live in one of dynamic 50 states all different and distinct in their character, outside the purview of what is commonly agreed upon in the Constitution, than have one ginormous monotony parading around as 50 different, distinct entities.

I would rather, we still have "THESE United States of America," than "THIS United States of America."

When you have a pie, Wash. D.C., that EVERYONE wants to gravitate to, IT BECOMES INHERENTLY CORRUPT, and always will be.

Thus, the more DE-centralized everything is, the better.

Plus, psychologically speaking, the only type of people who want jobs that "can let them" tell someone else what to do, it inevitably attracts socio-paths, psychos, control freaks, fraudsters/hustlers/charlatans, and murderers: http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/serial-k...

4. There are ONLY THREE tools available to ANY govt., IF they want to get anyone to do anything: BRIBE, SHOOT GUNS/MURDER, or SUE.

Either way you look at it, the govt's preferred method of "enforcing" their "dictates" is either a SWAT raid, or a LAWSUIT. You pick.


They are all instruments of FORCE. Those are the ONLY tools that ANY govt has at its disposal, IF they want to "enforce" what they want.

EVERYTHING that a govt seeks to do is by DEFINITION a Social Engineering.

Thus, EVEN IF one wanted to get rid of poverty, help the poor, one CANNOT do that without resorting to any of those ONLY three options that is available for govt to use.

And, since the Govt does not produce anything other than to dictate a medium of exchange, aka currency, it has to TAKE them from the productive segment of the population, and by FORCE, RE-DISTRIBUTE it to those that ARE NOT. And, that includes a someone on welfare, equally to the Military Industrial Complex.

ANY "subsidy" is wealth STOLEN from one person, and FORCEFULLY redistributed to another.

5. Understanding the difference between "Money" vs. "Currency."

What we have today, under the PRIVATE fiat monetary PONZI SCHEME called the Federal Reserve Notes, is NOT "money."

"Currency" is a medium of exchange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

"currency are money in the sense that both are acceptable as a means of exchange, but money need not necessarily be currency."

Kinda like how a square may be defined as a rectangle, but rectangle can NEVER be considered a square: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=108860

Also "legal tender" is CATEGORY in which where both "money" and "currency" fall under. But, it itself is NOT money or currency; it is a MEDIUM of payment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender


Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"

Dr. Ron Paul on LAWFUL Money vs. legal tender: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGbBocyFWdk

6. The Constitution FOR the Unites States of America is an EXPLICIT document, NOT an IMPLICIT document.

The Federal Gvt is ONLY ALLOWED TO DO 18 SPECIFIC, LIMITED, ENUMERATED acts, listed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

Thus, ANY "program" they seek to institute, OUTSIDE the purview of the 18 EXPLICITLY ENUMERATED, LIMITED roles codified in the Constitution is UNLAWFUL, and ILLEGAL.

If we do as what charlatans in BOTH parties have done for the last 100+ yrs, we might as well have NO Constitution at all; if they can decide to go beyond those enumerated powers, what's the point of having THE ONLY 'social contract' all Americans supposedly 'agree' to live under, IF nobody follows it, and move the goalpost, whenever the prevailing political majority feels like it?

Thus, IN FACT EVERYTHING the gvt does outside of those powers granted under those specifically enumerated roles, as it is not a one-on-one direct, voluntary, and MUTUALLY agreed upon contract, they're not CONTRACTS at all.

7. The Nature of, TYPE of Governments.

The very term "Federal" in Federal Gvt. originates from the Latin term "foedus," which means a contract, a covenant, a compact, or an agreement: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/federal#Etymology

So then, who is this "contract" between? The respective State Governments.

As, We the PEOPLE created State Govts., and State Govts. CREATED the Fed.Gvt, THEY ARE ALL OUR SERVANTS. NOT the other way around.

Thus in fact, IF we are to be STRICTLY Constitutional, the Federal Gvt. is SUPPOSED to be SUBSERVIENT to EACH respective State Gvt.

In fact, until the early 1900's the ONLY time that each American had any real direct contact with the Federal Gvt in any significant capacity, was via the Post Office. PERIOD.

Thus from the get go, America was DESIGNED to be a DE-CENTRALIZED group of smaller individual REPUBLICS.

In fact, there is NOT ONE mention of a "national" govt in the Constitution.


Article IV, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

So, we have FIFTY SEPARATE REPUBLICS. NOT a "democracy." And, there is a HUGE difference between a Republic, and a "democracy."

IN FACT, the Founders LOATHED the concept. Thomas Jefferson stated, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

8. The MYTH, of the "necessity" of govt actions.

THE biggest MIS-understanding that many Americans have is, without a strong central govt, there will be chaos.

Well, that's like saying people are incapable of agreeing to something, or DO ANYTHING, IF a govt does NOT mandate it.

Humans ROUTINELY spontaneously organize to do things that benefit each other all the time. It isn't as if GOVT itself is an entity animated without a human playing its role.


In closing, the above are but a mere primer. Like all things in life, unless one sees an overwhelming need to change something, or find a deep internal impetus to see things in another way, the change will be only temporary.

I hope these ideas, at the least, challenge you to see things in another way.

Welcome to the Journey, my friend.)


Quite a feat to put that all together. I'm saving it as a word doc for later perusal. Fantastic!

I swear when I started typing it,

all I saw was up to "3."

but, somehow ended up with all that.)