jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (216 posts)

God-Given Rights and the Constitution

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    According to the Constitution, we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights.
    Where do rights come from, if not God?
    The Government?

    Where do rights come from according to atheists?


    Wondering.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Empathy coupled with common sense.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I have not read the word God in the American Constitution. Since Coporatism is running the show, What rights?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          For instance, homosexuality/marriage is never condoned in the Bible or any other sacred text, such as the Bhagavad Gita.
          These books are sacred texts and the only sources we have to go by to know God's will.
          How do we know what our individual rights are if we do not confer with the Bible or Gita?

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            We list life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights. We possess the ability to communicate so, we can discuss when we feel that one of these has been taken away or is being inhibited.

            Not sure why you are bringing up homosexuality. But, someone who is homosexual would explain to you that not being allowed to openly and freely express their nature would inhibit their ability to pursue happiness.

            Would their openly and freely expressing their nature inhibit your pursuit of happiness? If so, how and why?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              perhaps... in ways we must consider carefully.
              So far...
              States are loosing their sovereignty over this issue.
              State sovereignty is important for individual liberty.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                At first glance, it would appear that the states would be better able to discern what was best for its citizens. Because, there are less of them so the individual voices can be heard better.

                Unfortunately, in cases such as this it doesn't work that way. Individual states can, and do, trample the rights of the individual.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  It should be left up to vote or the majority is unfairly overruled by the minority.
                  The public good is best defined by the majority.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    #1 So if the majority tomorrow believed we should reform America as a communist state the public good would be best served by doing so?

                    #2 It is not a minority.

                    #3 The constitution lays out how the Supreme Court gets to interpret what is legal, I thought you were in favor of obeying the constitution.

                  2. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    That makes absolutely no sense; in the context of inalienable rights. You are asserting that the majority has the right to trample on the rights of the individual when the individual is not trampling on their rights. Can't agree with you on that one.

                  3. ahorseback profile image48
                    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    I like this statement a lot .   How often is public opinion actually downplayed by an agenda of  small numbers ?  And individual states should and often   do have rights over the central government !  Yet it is public opinion that should trump ,  although it can change often times rather quickly .

          2. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Empathy coupled with common sense.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Logic and reason as compared to ancient texts of dubious veracity. I'll take the logic and reason any day.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        logic and reason based on WHAT?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Like all logic based on the available facts and data which again is infinitely better than dubious old books.

    3. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      First of all, “Creator” can be a reference to anybody or anything, not necessarily “God” ~

      Secondly, the Bible is a sacred book to some and just a fairy tale not to be taken literally to others ~

      REAL, Tangible, Enforceable Laws are crafted by legislators et al pertinent parties ~ The same is true of "Rights" ~

      You can’t live your life literally by the bible if it conflicts with REAl laws otherwise, you might find yourself incarcerated or even worse ~

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        For me, Creator refers to creator of natural law and therefor originator of rights. The Creator created us and gave us our natural rights. This Creator/Designer is the invisible aspect of God.

        When plans are made they are blue prints in the mind before they manifest some how on the concrete level of the physical world. Before that, they exist on the "spiritual" level of the metaphysical world.

        Did you design or create yourself as far as you know or remember?

        1. Alternative Prime profile image86
          Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Kathryn ~

          That's fine if it's what you believe, however, it's irrelevant who our creator is or isn't in the context of real laws which govern the United States, and "Spiritual"  is in the "Mind" not the tangible universe where concrete statutes are crafted by those whom we elect or appoint ~

          I'm of the catholic faith, which means I believe GOD created us, however, I live my life according to statutory guidelines not the bible when it comes to legal aspects ~

          It's impossible to live strictly according to the bible, if you do, you are just inviting trouble ~

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            What gives each individual the right to self-guided free will? The Creator of Selves!

            One nation under God.

            In God we trust.

            Why? Because God grants us freedom.  Do MEN grant others freedom? Some men, perhaps, but not all men.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              and The Constitution guards against those who would tyrannize over us.


              so, we need to keep that in mind as we let Washingting trample on our rights
              by allowing the Fed to have more power than it was designed to have.

              In America, the gov't is for the benefit of the freedom and sovereignty of the people.
              Not the the other way around.

              The Constitution does respect the wishes of Our Creator.

            2. Alternative Prime profile image86
              Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              '"Women, Men, & Government", specifically the Federal Government, an essential component which bonds us all, grant us a civilization with real laws in which we may live without constant fear of that individual who lives strictly by biblical passages and attempts to act out "An Eye for an Eye" ~

              I and the vast majority of Americans truly like and respect our Federal Government ~ It can help us with essentials that we may not be able to perform on our own as an individual or family unit ~The Federal Government is the very foundation upon which this country now stands, and it is critical to ensure and maintain unity, order, and a sense of comfort ~

              This is one reason why many Americans would like to see states like Texas & Alaska sucede from our great union ~ They appear to be regions of this country that seem to be loaded with an abundance of individuals and or politicians who despise our government and everything it stands for, a total contempt for unity ~ Let them go, let them finally live in peace ~

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                The constitution was very well written and the main source relates more with Native American or they would of mention Yahweh.

                Too bad corporatism will never follow it although, true capitalism could.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Monopolies are illegal.

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                We would not need government at all if all men were angels… but even the men in the federal offices who we elected can be or can become bad guys if we let them. The Constitution protects us from the corruption that always occurs in government.

                I am very surprised at your naive response.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Lo

    4. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
      wba108@yahoo.composted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Excellent question, if our rights don't come from God, where else could they originate other than some human authority namely government? And if our rights originate from the government, they can be also be removed by the same.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Whose God? Yours or mine?

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
          wba108@yahoo.composted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Isn't there only one true God?

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

            I am with you, I believe that there is only one true God. But unless you can prove that catagorically, my neighbors belief in witchcraft is just as valid.

            Even if we agree on one God, is it Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Buddha, who is to say that all of these different names for God give man the same instructions from different Books, the Koran, the Book of Morman, The Hebrew Scriptures

            I am not your adversary here, but I have to allow for the fact that my personal beliefs simply cannot apply to the right of everyone to discover and recognize or fail to recognize this truth in their own way.

            This is the problem with the Conservative approach to this issue in general terms.

            1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
              wba108@yahoo.composted 16 months ago in reply to this

              This issue here is not what my or your beliefs are, its what the founders meant by inalienable rights. The Constitution says we're endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Since the country and the vast majority of the founders believed that the creator was the God of the bible, i think its safe to say that they meant that our rights were God given not a gift of the government.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Perhaps even self-given… But which self, the pretend self or the real Self?
                The Self of All Selves.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  That self is the Universe.

              2. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Is it their God the one that was morally hypocritical about slavery? Whose God was it, certainly not the millions of slaves in the new republic at the time? What are the premises of all the social democracies in Europe? So are these men's interpretation infallable? But, you are right about what the Founding Fathers envisioned, I just question that this is used on the right as justification for a Christian Republic.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Heaven on earth is the goal for many;
                  But it will never happen, so I wonder about that too.

                  <" I just question that this is used on the right as justification for a Christian Republic.">
                  For instance???

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    hostility toward the construction of Mosques in many of the Red States.

                    Allowing Christians to apply their conscious to discriminate against homosexuals and not serve them for no other reason except for that. This is bold defiance to equal treatment in public accomodation laws penned in the 1960's. I always have to dredge up ancient history when you deal with the Right. These laws were necessary because rightwinger interpretation of Christian scriptures required segreagation of the races at least according to the goober pea crowd. The Christian conscience can be used discriminate without limit.

                    The insistance that 'Creationism' be taught in public schools, when not a recognized scientifc theory.

                    Thats for starters...

              3. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                If God gives the rights then it is up to God to guarantee those rights; to assure that every person has them.  For without force, there are too many people that will take them away: a mere statement of those rights means nothing if they are not guaranteed.

                As this is not done, either currently or then, the people that wrote that document could never believe that God gave the rights they spoke of.  They are supplied by man, which is why they are mentioned at all.  It's a nice way of speaking, or acknowledging the belief of others and of encouraging others to agree, but that's all.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Our rights come from man,

                  Which man? each and every one of us? mankind in general?

      2. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        wba108 ~

        Laws do indeed originate from the government which is comprised primarily of elected officials and yes, they can and do get removed, amended, and rescinded from time to time by the same ~

        I support my government 100%, without it we cease to exist as a unified nation, however we desperately need a major shift toward wealth re-balance now that the republican party is obsolete, and the swift removal of certain maniacally rebellious, treasonous states like Texas & Alaska for starters ~ Jeb Bush, Rick Perry et al gleeful "Seceders" should get what they desperately desire ASAP, an immediate separation from our great nation ~

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
          wba108@yahoo.composted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Isn't the government only used to enforce the rights that are inherently ours to begin with?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Prize for the right answer: $1,000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 virtual dollars.
            Yay, wba108@yahoo.com !

    5. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      There are no God-given rights. The only rights we have are the ones we agree to and are enforced by law.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        We agree on them because they are right according to God. God makes them right or not.
        He made selves to be autonomous.
        Freedom within boundaries is the way of God, Not man.
        Man's way is getting what I what when I want it according to MY perspective of life.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          The question is where are the boundaries and who gets to determine where they are?

        2. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          It would seem it would take confidence and self-respect to conclude your sense of right and wrong comes from within, rather than to be foisted on you by another being.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            … it takes being connected to the god within you. If so, God and god naturally agree.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              I personally believe in idividuality, and individual responsibility. This includes responsibility to decide wrong and right.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                And the right to suffer consequences for wrong actions ...
                What are wrong actions?
                Those that step on the toes of others in the dance of life.
                Its best to learn how to dance. big_smile

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Good. We agree. Now why do you need a god to tell you what is obvious?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    There are a lot of clumsy dancers who never confront themselves and are in need of an instruction manual.
                    The instruction manual simply guides the unaware toward happiness on the dance floor.

    6. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      The reason they used the word creator was so that no one religion or entity could claim the right to dictate their theories or philosophies on the rest of us. It was meant to have a personal meaning and not a universal application. If applied to God individuals could lay claim to their particular slant of how it applied to the law.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        You say that with great authority, and Gandhi said to believe a man.
        And So.

        1. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          It is in keeping with the separation of church and state. Anything else is reading more into it.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            forgot what we were discussing.
            I don't feel like arguing.
            I am basically a peaceful sort.
            God is batter than Satan.
            why?
            Maybe I'll start another thread.
            See ya there.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    unalienable or inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Josak is a self-admitted socialist. I wonder if he is an idealistic socialist or a material socialist?
    The idealistic socialist wants reform for the good of the people. The materialistic socialist wants power through one party, one state. In other words, power at the top through state controlled market, religion education, internet, etc.
    ...and now the federal gov't/ Obamba is about to nationalize suburbs for the sake of integrating them as THEY see fit. This left agenda/goal has been long on the horizon. This next election will decide if nationalizing zones will takes place or not. If Hilary gets in, she'll see to it…unless the states/people fight back.

    The problem for idealistic socialists is that the material ones will be telling THEM how it is to be… whether they agree or not. yikes

    1. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      +1

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks for your link. I just used a very pertinent link, listed at the end of it, here:
        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/131454? … ost2750172

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          That is a good article and not surprising to me in the least. 
          Thank you!

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      That is #1 incorrect definitions of socialism

      #2 As I have told you repeatedly I am a socialist Obama is not, neither is Hillary, hell Bernie Sanders is maybe barely a socialist (really a social democrat) maybe one day you'll get it.

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        "The following are 22 signs that Barack Obama is transforming America into a larger version of North Korea…

        #1 Obama has appointed numerous socialists and communists to important positions in his administration.  The following are just a few examples that were highlighted in a recent article by John Perazzo…

        Obama named Van Jones, a longtime revolutionary communist who famously declared that “we [are] gonna change the whole [economic] system,” as his “green jobs czar” in 2009;

        he appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International, as his “environment czar”;

        he appointed John Holdren, who not only views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment, but strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders, as his “science czar”;

        he named Hilda Solis, a former officer of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (the socialist wing of the House of Representatives), as his labor secretary;

        and he chose Anita Dunn, a woman who has cited Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers,” to serve as White House communications director.

        #2 As Paul Roderick Gregory demonstrated in an outstanding article for Forbes, Barack Obama’s economic agenda matches the November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists almost point for point.

        #3 If a totalitarian regime is going to be successful, it needs a massive government bureaucracy to run things.  Today, the number of employees of the federal government is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the United States in 1776.

        #4 In North Korea, dissent is brutally repressed.  In the United States, we have continued to move rapidly in that direction under Barack Obama.  In a recent article entitled “Obama’s War On Whistleblowers“, author Stephen Lendman wrote the following…

        He said one thing. He did another. As president, he usurped diktat powers. He wages war on truth. He targets whistleblowers. He prioritizes surveillance powers.

        They include warrantless wiretapping, accessing personal records, monitoring financial transactions, and tracking emails, Internet and cell phone use. It’s done lawlessly to gather secret evidence for prosecutions.

        In his book “Necessary Secrets,” Gabriel Schoenfeld said he “presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history – even more so than Nixon.”

        Rhetorically he supports civil liberties and transparency. “Such acts of courage and patriotism….should be encouraged rather than stifled,” he said.
        At the same time, he betrayed the public trust. He targets free expression and dissent. He pursues police state prosecutions and intimidation.

        He claims Justice Department immunity from illegal spying suits. He exceeds the worst of all previous administrations.

        His national security state targets activists, political dissidents, anti-war protestors, Muslims, Latino immigrants, lawyers who defend them, whistleblowers, and investigative journalists.

        Law Professor Jack Balkin expressed alarm, saying:
        “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimation of a national surveillance state.” Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush.

        #5 Under Obama, the United States has been developing “Big Brother” surveillance technologies that dictators of the past never even dreamed were possible. 

        For example, a very highly sophisticated surveillance grid known as “Trapwire” is being installed in major cities and at “high value targets” all over the country.  Sadly, the mainstream media has not covered this at all, and most Americans still do not even realize that it exists.

        #6 Under Obama, unmanned aerial vehicles are not just used for war anymore.  Police departments are now starting to deploy surveillance drones in the skies over their cities all over the nation.  In fact, this is something that the federal government is greatly encouraging.

        #7 It was the Obama administration that came up with the “See Something, Say Something” campaign.  Now the federal government has even created an iPhone app that is designed to encourage all of us to take photos of “suspicious activity” and report our neighbors to the authorities.

        #8 It was the Obama administration that first instituted “enhanced pat-downs” by TSA thugs at our airports.  As a result, countless numbers of men, women and children have had horrific experiences that they will remember for the rest of their lives.  You can read some of their horror stories right here.

        #9 The U.S. military now has the authority to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial.  The Obama administration has no problem with this horrible abuse of power.

        #10 A key Obama ally in the U.S House of Representatives, Congressman José Serrano of New York, has introduced a measure that would repeal the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so that Barack Obama can continue to run for additional terms as president after his second term ends.

        #11 The “cult of personality” that has built up around Barack Obama is getting quite ridiculous.  Shortly after he won the recent election, actor Jamie Foxx referred to Barack Obama as “our Lord and Savior Barack Obama” during a television broadcast of the 2012 Soul Train Awards in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Such “leader worship” would fit in very well in North Korea.

        #12 Since Obama won in November, there has been an increasing number of incidences in which Obama has been referred to in religious terms.  For example, a recent Newsweek article referred to Barack Obama’s second term as “The Second Coming“.

        #13 A painting by artist Michael D’Antuono that is now on display at Boston’s Bunker Hill Community College Art Gallery recently made headlines all over the United States.  In the painting, Barack Obama is wearing a crown of thorns on his head and his arms are stretched out as if he was being crucified.  In the background of the painting is the presidential seal…
        Obama As Jesus

        #14 Relentless praise from the mainstream media played a huge role in each of Obama’s election victories.  The mainstream media is supposed to be objective, but there have been reports of members of the media “swooning” in his presence, and most mainstream news broadcasts leave little doubt that Obama is the “good guy” and anyone opposed to him is the “bad guy”.

        #15 The Obama organization has tirelessly gathered data on potential voters.  At this point, the amount of information that the Obama campaign has compiled on the American people is absolutely frightening…

        If you voted this election season, President Obama almost certainly has a file on you. His vast campaign database includes information on voters’ magazine subscriptions, car registrations, housing values and hunting licenses, along with scores estimating how likely they were to cast ballots for his reelection.

        #16 The Communist Party USA is cheering on Barack Obama’s efforts to disarm the American people.  According to one of their official publications, “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

        #17 Under Obama, the federal government is intruding in our personal lives like never before.  The following example is from a recent RT article…
        Smokers, beware: tobacco penalties under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act could subject millions of smokers to fees costing thousands of dollars, making healthcare more expensive for them than Americans with other unhealthy habits.

        The Affordable Care Act, which critics have also called “Obamacare”, could subject smokers to premiums that are 50 percent higher than usual, starting next Jan 1. Health insurers will be allowed to charge smokers penalties that overweight Americans or those with other health conditions would not be subjected to.

        A 60-year-old smoker could pay penalties as high as $5,100, in addition to the premiums, the Associated Press reports. A 55-year-old smoker’s penalty could reach $4,250. The older a smoker is, the higher the penalty will be.

        #18 Just as in North Korea, our lives are being increasingly micromanaged by a government that is packed with control freaks.  At this point they even are telling us what kind of light bulbs we are allowed to buy.

        #19 Federal agencies have become increasingly brutal under Obama.  For example, if you milk your cow and sell some of that milk to your neighbor next door, you could end up having your home raided by federal agents.

        #20 Obama has gone to great lengths to demonize his opposition.  Since he has been president, numerous government papers, studies and reports have been released that identify groups of people that are opposed to Obama as “potential terrorists”.  Some of the groups targeted as “potential terrorists” include those that “revere individual liberty”, “conspiracy theorists”, “returning veterans”, anti-abortion activists, those that visit “extremist websites”, those that are “fiercely nationalistic”, those that “believe in the right to bear arms”, anyone that is opposed to illegal immigration, anyone that is anti-UN, and anyone that is “suspicious of centralized federal authority”.  For much more on this, please see this article.

        #21 Obama’s abuse of power is not just limited to the United States.  The truth is that he has increasingly been acting like some type of imperial ruler that gets to tell everyone else in the world what they are supposed to do.  For example, according to a recent WND article Obama has actually promised to give eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinians even though Israel has already said that they will agree to no such thing…

        Now that he has secured his second term, President Barack Obama has already secretly pledged to the Palestinians he will press Israel into a new round of so-called land-for-peace negotiations, a top Palestinian Authority negotiator told WND.

        The negotiator said top members of the Obama administration told the Palestinians the U.S. president will renew talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state in the so-called 1967 borders – meaning in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and, notably, eastern Jerusalem.

        #22 Many Obama supporters are becoming enamored with the idea that we should either start ignoring the Constitution or that we should get rid of it entirely.  For example, Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman recently appeared on CBS and said the following to the American people…

        “I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not.”

        Hey, if we got rid of the pesky Constitution, we could have a dictatorship just like North Korea does!

        Barack Obama could be our king, our lord and our savior for decades!
        Of course I am being sarcastic, but this is the kind of dangerous thinking that leads to tyranny.

        Let us learn the hard lessons that history has tried to teach us.  We don’t want to go down the same path that North Korea, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and communist China have traveled.

        There is an absolutely amazing National Geographic documentary that shows what life is like inside North Korea.  You can view it on YouTube right here.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxLBywKrTf4

        We don’t want our children and our grandchildren to someday live in a nation like that.

        Freedom and liberty are precious things.  They are very hard to win, and they are very easy to lose.

        Let us not be the generation that loses everything that our forefathers worked so hard to build."

        http://mrconservative.com/2013/02/5276- … socialist/

        Obama is a socialist. His supports deny it because if it sticks that Obama is a socialist he would never be reelected nor would he have ever been in office as president.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Quite a litany here if Obama is the so called anti=Christ, how did he get reelected? And it wasn't just by a squeaker.

          This is really 'far out' stuff the Rightwinger likes to promote

        2. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Seriously? North Korea? I would think you would choose something (anything) that might let people take your fears seriously. North Korea is too much of a stretch.

          Obama has easily been one of the most disappointing presidents this century when you look at promises vs. actions but what you have decided to be the end game is incredibly far fetched.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    What is the real program?
    Protecting and holding true the Constitution according to its reliance on natural law.
    Namely, the natural right of freedom for the individual.
    If a social democracy or some such form of government could guarantee this freedom I would say "Fine."

    but--------->                        IT CAN'T!


    We have a democratic republic and this is what we must preserve:
    United STATES.

    With the Fed working for the people.
    Not the other way around.

    Or Else. yikes

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    …unless you like working for the benefit of the Federal Government.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    <" Constant marketing, corporations doing everything they can to make people want what they have. Whether they need it or not. We've all bought into it and help drive it. We have to have the newest phones. We have to have every innovation which appears on the market. Some of us can afford it. Some of us can't. Not being able to afford it doesn't negate the effectiveness of the advertising.">

    You are saying we have no brains.
    Thank you so much, as well.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    ~ wouldn't you agree capitalism (within boundaries) is a good thing and advertising is a natural result of capitalism? (Its just part of life not being hypnotized by advertising.)
    ~ what is your compassionate solution or alternative, if not some form of socialism?
    A better question: what makes you a conservative? If you are a (compassionate) conservative I am glad. And yes, the republican party has become sadly corrupt.
    I am not for Jeb Bush.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      I do think free enterprise is a must in a society that doesn't want to stagnate. And, advertising would be a natural by product. However, the individual working toward building a successful business and the large corporation manipulating the system are two totally different animals.  Capitalism, as it is practiced today, is not our friend no matter what the man behind the curtain claims.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Who is the great OZ in your mind?
        Could it not be OBAMA himself and all those he cooperates with?
        and who are THEY?

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          It always amazes me how Obama is demonized. He's a politician. They are all crooked in my mind. How much money do you think Cheney's cronies made off of the war? How much did Cheney make? Bush lobbied for the billions in bail out money not Obama.

          I have serious problems with Obama. I never voted for him. But, I don't think the republican party has done any better. The politicians are puppets for the corporations. And, even those who aren't (can you say Donald Trump) are worse because they are the corporations.

          1. rhamson profile image75
            rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            +1000000000000000

    2. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      An alternative to the current system would be, first and foremost, to create a separation of corporation and state. But, that isn't going to happen. The big corporations own our government.

      I think we need to get rid of the stock market, or revamp it considerably. As it stands, it is just a giant ponzi scheme which allows some to live off of the investments of others and it drives large corporations to make amoral decisions in order to increase profits. Money is not everything yet we have allowed our society to evolve to a point where almost everyone thinks it is. I noticed Jeb Bush said we needed to work longer hours. I'd like him to explain how that is possible when our country has allowed large corporations to cut full time workers (so they don't have to cover benefits such as medical) in favor of hiring part time workers. I hear Amazon here in our area hires willy nilly, only to lay everyone off after 89 days so they don't have to cover benefits. It's shameful. But, it is all in the race for that all important dollar.

      I own a company. We work people sometimes when there is not work; because they depend on us for their paychecks so that they can pay their bills. I think companies have a responsibility to those who work for them and I hold corporations to the same standard I hold myself. I don't get paid sometimes. My credit is in a shambles. But, that is the price you pay to dream. No one else should have to suffer for my dream. I don't see any evidence of CEO's ever missing a paycheck or a meal.

      I suppose that makes me a socialist?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        No, a compassionate conservative and a capitalist.
        And we need as many as we can get ... like you.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        If it makes you a socialist so be it "Live to Learn", the masses are trending toward a more "Fair & Reasonable" way to do business in America and this is one feasible avenue ~

        Capitolism is a complete failure, an experiment which did not meet expectations, not even close ~ A few got filthy rich while the masses merely strive to survive ~

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          So what is the prime alternative, Alternative Prime??

    3. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Agree with much of what you said, except real capitalism for the people has been taking over by Corporatism.

      I accept the fact things have keept going down since the late hippy days. Like all my prediction from 30 years ago that have come true. There will be a great
      American Dollar crush. Japon will be first to go down, then America, then the western world. A  reset button must reset the World over again, like in the 60's, 70's and early 80s. Mark my words:-)

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        And, that reset doesn't have to be a bad thing.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          That will be more up to individuals forsight of how they handle the problems ahead. Too bad for most for the suffering to come until we crush.

          My designs for teaching green self relient  living shall do alright for some healing.

  8. Castlepaloma profile image22
    Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago

    Bill gates gets caught not the Rothschilds

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Ha ha ha!  why is that do you suppose?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        What are we not working off of right now - Gates product, 28th riches ever, 
        Where banksters like Rothschilds are 2nd riches ever and richest today.

        Where dose 95% 0f the money come from?

    2. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Gates is being service like a capitalist. Rothchilds are banksters ruling the World. Sweden dose a better job keeping them at bay and the people are happier for it.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Yay Sweden ! How do they keep them at bay???

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    What is the 'conservative approach?'
    ...approach to what?

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      It would be nice if you reply to my comments directly, when you don't, you appear insincere, evasive and disengenious. Irritating, akin to the 'dead fish' handshake.

      Are you asking a question of me?

      The conservative approach is the idea that we all have to adhere to precepts of one religion or another. They want teach religion in public schools, put religious artifacts on public property. They want us all to acknowledge a Judeo-Christian foundation for the founding of the country and implies that secular law should subordinate itself to it. "The Moral Majority", The Christian Right", seemed more interested in indoctrinating people rather than to acknowledge the right of the people to believe or not believe as they wish, and not their tax dollars promoting one religion or another.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    BTW: God is God and is the same God in all religions. Other religions call God different names.
    For instance, Jehova and Allah are different names for the same force.
    I call this force Mighty Triple O.


    Hindu gods, such as Vishnu or Shiva are not God, but they represent different aspects of God.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
      Castlepalomaposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I thought your  God was jealious, would it not be mixing up all the Gods some kind of spiritual fornication

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I don't know how true that is ...

      We only know of God instructions through the Bible and the equivalent in other religious faith. When dealing just with the Bible, there are dozens of different interpretations of what it says regarding everything. When people tell me that the only difference between all these religions and sects is merely that people just call this one God by a different name, I have to wonder about this line of thinking. So, for you you are telling me the difference is so more significant than Bleu and Blue?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        I am telling you the absolute truth whether others want to acknowledge it or not.
        God is God and there is only one truth in the world:
        God loves us and wants us to come back home to bliss. All religions teach the same thing. All religions start around the base of the same mountain and climb to its top. This mountain has only one top.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          How do you know? I may acknowledge that personally, but it is still a matter of opinion that you cannot prove objectively.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            It is something only each person can know from the source of their own soul. The more of us who are in touch with the inner knowingness of the truth, the better.
            For instance, all children have an instinctive love and trust of God. Loving/respecting our creator is a very easy reality for them to accept. why? because they are close to their souls.
            Now children who are taught there is no God. Those are very sad children, indeed.
            - without God, there is no magic or purpose to life except an empty quest to fulfill illusionary goals and blind materialistic ambitions.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

              What comes from the source of my soul may be different than what comes from the source of your soul. Only EACH PERSON is in a position to know what will apply to them.


              Every person must have the opportunity to come to this understanding on their own. You can't dictate, proselytise or force people to believe or adhere to anything.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                No. Egos differ, not souls.

  11. prashant17july profile image42
    prashant17julyposted 16 months ago

    The rights are provided by the our system which are made by ourselves.
    remember rights are -
    of the people ,for the people and by the people.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    For instance, the Ten Commandments are actually ten ways toward happiness.
    What religion does not include these precepts in its climb toward peace, happiness, and bliss?

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      What about the Crusades, human slavery, Jihad, people have used the interpretation of scriptures in myriad of ways, why is yours any better?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Because God 's reality is founded on love.
        It is founded on the actuality of our eventual reuniting with God in Spirit through self-effort...
        and not in IMAGINATION!

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          All this while you call 'Obamba" a socialist, bring in ideas of majorities denying me the right to vote or marry who I wish, It is clear from many of your positions over several threads that the GOD you speak of may very well not be the one I understand and recognize. You say all Constitutional rights eminate from God,  but for me, not the Rightwinged God so many of you put on a pedestal.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    If we agree with the lie, that life is not magical and miraculous and directed by a loving, intelligent source/force beyond our present comprehension, then we agree to die.
    But, we cannot.
    There is no death of spirt.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Scriptures refer only to the resurrection as the way the dead can again live. There is nothing there that talks about an 'afterlife' or a form of continued life beyond physical death of the body.  Jesus died, he had to resurrected by Jehovah to live again, if we went into so spirit realm, what was the significance of His sacrifice.  So we disagree upon interpretation already.

      All this is better spoken of in another thread, I guess I just digress.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        No it is okay.   It is a good direction. 
        There is only one truth and one way.
        To see the facets is good. to see the facets as reflecting the same light is accurate and appropriate.
        Tell me what truths and ways toward human happiness does Obama promote?
        I am curious to know your perspective. I will give you mine.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          You're baiting me. Tell me how Obama is different as a man and President than any that came before him?

          Can you prove that there is only one truth and one way?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Self-sovereignty is our main God-given right.
            Is Obama helping or hindering self-sovereignty?

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

              We live in a nation of 300 millions, your right to sovereignty ends where my rights begin.

              All realists in Government and private life recognizes this.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Without the gift of free-will to guide by our individual selves there is no point to human life.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    There is no right winged God. Only God.

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Prove that Obama loves God...follows/promotes ways toward happiness.

    There is only one thing:
    TRUTH.
    What truths does he promote????

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      What are you looking for, a theocracy. Obama says that he follows the Christian faith and that is good enough for me. Perhaps you should prove how he does not love God?

      Obama is a politician, what truths do ANY politician promote? He has a job to do in a secular nation and for the most part, I am satisfied with the way he is doing it.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Truth and reality are in God's realm.

      2. Alternative Prime profile image86
        Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Credence2 ~

        Let’s not forget, there was and is much truth within President Obama’s Campaign Promises ~

        He and his very competent administration have successfully executed a brilliant plan to bring the majority of Americans more comfort, peace of mind, and the essential tools to pursue a “Real Life“, not merely a “Survival” like the lazy, spoon fed, not so bright Jeb Bush republicans’ would force upon this nation ~

        Now it’s time for Bernie Sanders or Hilary to build upon this great shift in Wealth & Power ~ Americans deserve a “Life” ~

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Without GOP obstructionism, I sure that he would have done even better. Even though he has disappointed me at times, I basically trust the man's instincts.

          If we think that Romney and the GOP were really out to enhance the lives of the average American, then I have beach front property in Colorado to sell.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image86
            Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Agreed Credence2 ~ However my sentiment might be slighly more positive  & enthusiastic ~ Top 5 Presidents in our history is my view ~

            Even with the constant, ridiculously insane republican obstructionism, he still managed to achieve great things for our American Majority & Nation as a Whole ~

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Majority of the nation equals the people represented through senators and elected officials.
              If he goes against Congress, he goes against the people.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Kathryn ~

                You can play semantics until Jeb Bush finds a brain, which will be a very very long wait, however, the "American Majority" is comprised primarily of the Workings Class, Senior Citizens, Minorities, Income Challenged, and Students ~

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  I am not for Jeb Bush.
                  I am not for Hilary Clinton. They are the globalist picks.
                  They will get their Jeb Bush Pick.
                  ...so gear up for that eventuality. sad

                  But, we can try for a truly decent democrat or republican who respects the people and the Constitution.
                  Don't vote for the aristocracy I say!

              2. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                And who does the President represent?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  ...anybody he wants to if he is foolhardy enough to act with lawless ambition.
                  Under lawful ambition, the people.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    There are seperation of powers as the foundation of the Constitution, the document to which you constantly refer. So, you don't like it? I did not like Ronald Reagans illegal gun running for the Contras in Nicaragua back in the 80's. I never hear you folks complain about that.

                    Regardless of what you think, I think that the President is right on point....

        2. rhamson profile image75
          rhamsonposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          "Americans deserve a “Life” ~'

          I don't know if I would term it a life but at the very least I would term it that Americans deserve the right to self rule. With the oligarchy we now have running things there is little room for a "life" that many of us choose. Whether it be the East Coast Rat race or the Tax Crazy States in the West it is not ours to run. Politicians come and go but the greed is here to stay as apathy within the voter continues.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image86
            Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            rhamson ~

            Americans deserve a "Life" ~ Working 5, 6, or even 7 days a week leaves the average individual and or family with a "Non-Life", a mere existence ~

            This is unacceptable from this point forward ~

            His/Her Praise of God and the embrace of religion can produce a positive experience if you maintain perspective, however, it has indeed caused much tension and dare I say, insanity, especially within the now obsolete GOP ~

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Government is to protect us by preventing the loss of our Natural God-Given rights.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      There are many that question the precepts of 17th and 18th century philosophy that promotes this idea. But there are plenty that take issue with that idea. What are these God given rights? Your rightwing companions very purpose for existence is to deny these rights to some while granted them to others?

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Good intentions on behalf of the left will pave the way to loss of our autonomy …
    through sheer ignorance.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      And your side is better? Good intentions on behalf of the right will pave the way to nothing less than slavery of the people. And you can bet that they are working on it.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        It is a justified fear. We really are on the same page. We need to mistrust all in gov't. You cannot trust your instincts. There is a better gauge than that.
        There is a plan in the works to force integration in neighborhoods. Do you agree with that?
        We are now fined for not having health care insurance.
        Do you agree with that?
        Are you on board with Iran having nuclear capability?
        What about his attitude of ignoring Congress?
        "The president faces a tough sell to the American people. While polls show large majorities support giving immigrants the chance to apply for legal status, voters also oppose the president acting unilaterally. A CNN poll released Wednesday showed just 38 percent of Americans approved of Obama acting on his own. A near-majority, 48 percent, opposed action on immigration."
        http://thehill.com/news/administration/ … immigrants

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          ok specific questions that can be answered

          1. No, I don't believe that people should be forced to integrate their communities, but they are not free to deliberately segregate against others in accordance with Fair Housing Laws.

          2. I support the ACA and its provisions There is no free lunch, we all going to pay to have these services one way or another, just as sure as you need oxygen to survive.

          3. Israel is the one bristling with nuclear capability. I support the President's plan in concert with 5-6 other nations to get Iran to the table using carrots and sticks. Frankly, I don't care, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan have nuclear capability. Am I suppose to hinder them all? I am more worried about Pakistan than I am Iran. The GOP is most likely the obstruction, aren't they always? They are involved in their usual dregdging up of bogey men as an excuse to continue rattling sabers in a region as just as soon see take care of its own affairs.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          If congress took the issue seriously, the President would not be justified in using his Executive authority in this case.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Dosent matter. Check papers, 64-77 of the Federalist Papers.

        3. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          The President did not break the law and there are enough supporters of his approach make it acceptable. The President does not lead by plebiscite.

  18. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Good intentions on behalf of the left will pave the way to loss of our autonomy …
    through sheer ignorance.
    I do acknowledge, they (the left) mean well. Well, some do. Some are out to destroy this country … why, I don't know.


    Government is to protect our self-sovereignty through laws designed to promote justice for ALL.

  19. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Prime, you have only words. No substance.

    1. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure what you mean ~ President Obama's record speaks for itself ~

  20. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    We are after the truth in this thread. I do not wish to promote left against right.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      That is like trying to cross the river without the bridge. You are taking a side whether you want to admit it or not.

    2. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      I can't find a more truthful comment than my previous entry ~

      Credence2 expressed his opinion that all politicians were disigenuous, I merely cleared things up a bit by emphasizing President Obama's accomplishments as compared to his campaign promises ~ His record is pretty spectacular ~

      If the truth is what you seek Kathryn, ya gotta love my words smile

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

        AP, it is true that some politicians are more disengenuous than others, and I am not referring to Obama.

  21. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    "A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of government, which is happiness of the people; secondly a knowledge of the means by which that object can be attained."
    Federalist Paper 62
    It goes on to state:
    "The federal constitution ... provides for the last in a mode which increases the first."

  22. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Here is a general truth to ponder:
    Federalist No 63 states:
    Liberty (of the people) may be endangered by the abuses of liberty (by individuals in the gov't) as well as the abuses of power (by individuals in the gov't); that there are numerous instances of the former (abuses of liberty) as well as of the latter (abuses of power); and that the former (abuses of liberty) rather than the latter (abuses of power) is apparently most to be apprehended by the Untied States.

    Q. What is an example of an abuse of liberty undertaken by individuals in the government?
    A."Lawless ambition."

    Q. What checks the lawless ambition of a few?
    A. A succession of newly elected representatives.

  23. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    But Obama has a dangerous pattern of not respecting the majority. He also has a dangerous agenda of enabling the poor. Do you agree with forced integration of communities?

    Reagan had deep respect for the rights of the people and looked out for their self-soverighty. He knew the strengths of individuals and the source of their power.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Not respecting the majority, what majority? It was the majority that elected him, you know.

      You talk about all this Christian concepts, but despise the poor. Why shouldn't the poor be enabled?

      I answered that question in an earlier post on this thread regarding integration of communities.

      One man's art is another's pornography, Reagan had deep respect for the rights of affluent white folks, but as for the rest of us???

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        I do not despise the poor. Jesus, himself, said you will always have the poor. It is a condition no one one can change except themselves and their own volition.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          But does that mean putting policies in place that make them less likely to be able to change their condition? Within our economic system the poor should be allowed every opportunity to change their condition, so if they have the volition there is a road map to changing their status.

  24. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    The government is not designed to provide for the citizens welfare.  It is designed to protect us from outer threats and insure our rigths through the laws of justice.
    Promoting the general Welfare in The Constitution equals creating conditions of security and well being. Not handing out $s.

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    issuing executive orders that ignore congress ignores the majority.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      You need a stiff refesher in Constitutional Law, the President is one of the 3 branches of the Government that does not require Congressional approval for every action he takes within the purview of that authority

  26. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    "Reagan had deep respect for the rights of affluent white folks, but as for the rest of us???"
    This an exceedingly fallacious myth.
    It is easily disproved.
    Going to Long Beach. BFN

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      fallcious myth, not at all

      Have a pleasant day!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        "There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder."
        Ronald Reagan
        http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho … 9MF56Ms.99

        From President Reagan's speech at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia:
        "Rising prices were making it harder for your parents to buy essentials like food and clothing, and unemployment was rising; there were no jobs for seniors in high school and college to graduate into. It was as if opportunity had just dried up, and people weren't feeling the old hope Americans had always felt. And that was terrible because hope was always the fuel that kept America going and kept our society together.
        Just a few years later everything's changed. You and your parents are finally getting a breather from inflation. And if you graduate and go out into the work force in June, there will be jobs waiting for you. Hope has returned, and America's working again.
        Now, you know how all this came about, how we cut tax rates and trimmed Federal spending and got interest rates down. But what's really important is what inspired us to do these things. What's really important is the philosophy that guided us. The whole thing could be boiled down to a few words -- freedom, freedom, and more freedom. It's a philosophy that isn't limited to guiding government policy. It's a philosophy you can live by; in fact, I hope you do."

        "When taxes are lowered, economic growth follows. And economic growth is good for just about everyone, especially the poor. It gives them a ladder they can use to climb out of poverty. And for those who aren't poor, but who are by no means rich -- and that's most of the people in America -- economic growth gives them options they never had before. When you and your parents and friends are allowed to keep more of the fruits of your labors, a whole new world of options will open up for you." June 6, 1985

        Both quotes from:
        http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/s … 60685a.htm

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          So Ronald Reagan is not the hero you rightwingers sing the praises for? So think progress...

          To be fair, I dont want to denigrate this man completely, in just a handful of ways I liked him. But his politics and philosophy sucked IMHO

          http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ … entennial/

          1. Alternative Prime profile image86
            Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Moreover, Ronald wasn't even in control, everyone knows the fact that his wife Nancy ran the white house show for better or worse ~

            Ron was shall we say, a little "Whipped"

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Yeah, and she wrote his speeches. We all know that too, right?
              PS I heard him speak at Devonshire Downs in the Valley when I was in college. It was a great speech where he mentioned the importance of understanding our founding principles.

              Which founding principles do you value, A. Prime?

              1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Kathryn my Love,

                Yes, Nancy wore the pants in the family ~

                I'm really not interested nor concerned with "Looking Backward" at our "Founding Principles" nor am I necessarily impressed with the content therein nor am I necessarily impressed with the founders other than "GEORGE I'll kick your ass with a rag tag army using guerilla tactics WASHINGTON" ~

                The Constitution either needs to be overhauled or replaced with an updated version ~ A pertinent document to reflect our place in the universe, not just America ~

                I think this was one of the major shortcomings of the now obsolete republican party ~ Every time I see a refurbished 1950's whatever vehicle puttering down the street I immediately say, "Yup it has to be another backward republican stuck in the past with an old junker" ~ Progressive Democrats drive new cars or hybrid vehicles ~

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Feel free to refer to me as, "Kathryn, my hate." lol
                  PS I do drive an old '64 bug presently!  hahha
                  Runs great, really really good gas mileage, love it.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                    Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Why would I do that Kathryn??? ---> smile <---

                    I already expressed my respect & fondness for U ---> smile <---

                  2. Alternative Prime profile image86
                    Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Well, there U go Kathryn,,I guess I'm right on target with the "OLD CAR" republican connection ~ smile ~

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                His answer for those following along:
                                                    NONE: AS IN NOT A SINGLE ONE.
                Good to know.

            2. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Nancy was no Laura Bush, if I recall she was quite battle ax who took issue with Reagan's Chief of Staff along with other Presidential appointees.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                Absolutely Credence2 ~

                Nancy R was a crusty ole' wench who kept a very tight lasso strapped around cowboy Ronnie's sweet little jelly beans ~

                Laura B was just simple, slow to react, behind the scenes, quasi-drunken partner of George W ~

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    The executive branch has many checks for many reasons. One is the inclusion of the "entire body of people" through the elected representatives of the house. Otherwise, a "tyrannical aristocracy" and instability can result. Every president/senate must not be allowed to become unlawfully ambitious or "transform itself into an independent body" through "gradual usurpations." The Federalist 62

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      It is just like the right wing to imply that tyrannical aristocracy,  started with Obama, I wonder why that is???  Maybe, I already know. Did Bush or Clinton play the role of a dishrag and not use the Executive Powers granted the office to the fullest extent? Your hero, Ronald Reagan certainly did, and in direct defiance of Congress, where was your hew and cry then?

  28. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    < "You need a stiff refesher in Constitutional Law,">

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Thanks, so you have been working from something other than your sheer intutition....

  29. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
    Ronald Reagan

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho … vTPkKqI.99

    "What Obama said: While pushing for HIGHER taxes on the wealthy in 2012, Obama quoted Reagan's comments on taxes: "He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was 'crazy' — that's a quote — that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan."

    What Reagan said: As fact-checkers noted, Reagan was actually pushing for a plan to LOWER tax rates while getting rid of loopholes that allow some wealthy people to dramatically reduce their taxes: "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it."

    https://storify.com/DigitalFirst/obama-quotes-reagan

  30. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want."
    Barack Obama

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho … R6OHbg4.99

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

      While you nitpik quotes, I found a lot of positive ones from the President. I am not a rightwinger and will always have a progressive bent in my outlook. So we are going to have to agree to disagree.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        As a general principle, all presidents must have checks. Obama certainly needs them with that attitude of thinking he can do anything he wants.
        Wouldn't you agree? if not why not?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

          The Office of the President has never in the period of over 225 years had an occupant impeached and removed from Office by Congress. There is nothing that Obama has said or done that rises to anywhere near this level of concern, except in the thoughts of the rightwinger and I don't care what they think. Obama has at least as many checks as GW Bush, 'the Decider',  and previous Presidents, which could be interpreted in the same manner as your Obama blurb.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Some do think he should be impeached.
            I am pretty pissed off at being fined for not having health care insurance.
            Forced health care insurance mandates is an impeachable offense, if you ask me, which no one.... Will any one step up to the plate to begin impeachment proceedings? NOOOOO !!!!
            Why? cuz then BIDEN would be in. So pretty good choice of VP.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

              Then KH, you will need to impeach the Supreme Court for passing favorable rulings in regards to the Constitutionality of facets of the ACA.  TWICE

              You will need to fire the rightwingers in Congress who after 50plus times have failed to repeal it.

              We all pay Social Security taxes,  and why should I as a taxpayer subsidize people who go to emergency rooms of hospitals so you can drive your Beetle around and arrange the flowers in your hair? Your world view is unrealistic, how do you think that we got here regarding this issue in the first place?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                I paid for my own insurance before and I could afford it. Not any more thanks to ACA influences on Blue Shield.  In CA we had the best health care insurance system in the nation. The other states should have copied us and/or we should have been allowed to not take part.
                I also think all hospitals should operate like Kaiser and issue their own insurance policies.
                Every one knows ACA is the Gov't Money Tree: GMT
                Not for much longer.
                Maybe you got some buds in yer hair.

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  I regret that your individual circumstance did not work out. I have heard mixed reviews from everyone regarding this program. The program would not have worked if individual states could opt-out. We have to think about the other 49 states, this is a federal union, you know

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, a union of states for a very good reason. What could that reason be rather than just one nation? Answer is in the Federalist Papers if you care to look it up.
                    Unless you are like A. Prime and could care less about our founding principles.
                    I have to jump on my bike and then swim.
                    BFN

                    PS Luckily…
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWA6SOz … OzHeCQ#t=0

                2. Alternative Prime profile image86
                  Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Kathryn!~

                  Don't use the old conservative trick of blaming the ACA for Insurance Company "Premium Gouging" ~

                  Do you realize how "Flushed with Cash" Insurance Companies are??

                  Just like Jeb Bush's oil companies have been gouging for months now, so goes Insurance Companies ~

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Not in California where so many insurance companies were competing against each other.
                    As soon as ACA stipulations ensued, my premiums went up.

                3. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                    Good evening, Quilligrapher.
                      I am so honored to have you check in with your ever intriguing statistics.

                    However, illegals didn't get health insurance because they generally didn't have the means to pay for it, but they were probably represented/included in these statistics.
                    Healthy people didn't get insurance because they didn't need it.
                    The youth didn't get it because they were healthy.

                    Is there a problem with a high percentage of uninsured? Hospitals had a way for the uninsured to pay their bills. (Of course, illegals would flock to our hospitals for "free" maternity care/births and such ... and that's a problem, but we could have just closed the borders tighter.)


                    Gov. Willard Mitt Romney's state is: Small. Wealthy.
                    The universal coverage was not mandatory. So why not? It was a win-win for all.

                    QUESTION: Why did the forty states have to change their individual state plans if they were working so well? Only ten states did not have good insurance plans!
                    Very curious, if you ask me.

                    Thank You for your concern for the truth.
                    Also, flattery keeps me from becoming despondent with my preoccupation of gloom and doom. Please keep it coming, all.
                    PS My “best in the nation” claim was based on the lamentations which poured forth from a local insurance man. 
                    So good catch, Mr. Q.
                    Anyway, I was quite content with my Blue Shield PPO plan. I felt like a queen with access to the best care in the world at my command and control. And no waiting months, as my brother has recently complained about.
                    - was I able to keep my plan as promised?
                    N N OOO !!!

                4. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  Good evening, Ms. Hill. You look lovely in your avatar tonight.

                  If California "had the best health care insurance system in the nation” before Obamacare, then please explain why California was ranked sixth from 2007 through 2009 for the largest number of uninsured citizens (21%) in the nation. Also, I would be interested in your explanation as to why Massachusetts, operating under Gov. Willard Mitt Romney’s version of Obamacare, ranked during that same period as the best state in the country with 5.8% uninsured. The obvious answer is simply, it seems, that California’s health care insurance system was NOT the best in the country but was among the worst six states for protecting its population. {1}   

                  “California had the greatest number of uninsured residents of any state, seven million, and the seventh largest percentage of uninsured under 65 in the country,” according to the California HealthCare Foundation. {2}

                  At least forty other states had healthcare insurance systems that were much better at protecting their residents than did California both before and after Obamacare. The only facts that support your “best in the nation” claim are, in my opinion, your charm and good looks. cool
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIB … de2010.pdf
                  {2} http://www.chcf.org/publications/2013/1 … -uninsured

                  [Edit: This post was deleted, edited, and is now reposted.]

  31. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Here is a sample of sound governmental principles which this country is based on: Talking about the importance of establishing a well-constructed senate:
    "Before such a revolution (abuses of liberty) can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?"
    The Federalist No. 63, page 388.

  32. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    I sure didn't drive that thing (my beetle) in the 80's when Reagan was president.

  33. Adams Thompson profile image74
    Adams Thompsonposted 16 months ago

    well said

  34. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago
  35. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago
  36. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago

    Dear illustrious A. Prime: (- just read your profile …  finally.)
    You wrote:
    >"~ Competition very rarely brings down prices for the long term anyway, it sounds nice but just dosen't happen ~">
    Q. Why not long term?

    <"Wall Street scam that's been going on forever and the primary beneficiaries are republicans ~">
    Q. Why/how republicans?

    It seems you have extensive background, as you wrote (and I have pasted): "well respected career as a former "Personal Finance Professional" in both a Banking and "Wall Street Brokerage" environment, i.e. Broker/Life Agent/Licensed Registered Representative/NASD Member, in which I had the distinct opportunity to serve, establish long lasting relationships with, and assist numerous influential and affluent clients of whom are domiciled primarily in Southern California…"

    Thank you so much for your efforts to educate us.

    1. Alternative Prime profile image86
      Alternative Primeposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Kathryn ~ R U being a tad sarcastic at me???? ---> smile <---

      I'm sad now ~

      Anyway, name one product, commodity, or service which has trended downward long term??? Although there are a few and not due to "Competition" per se', Good Luck with that one ~

      I've seen "Wall Street" from the inside and it's absolutely a dirty, filthy, corrupt industry that needs to either be removed from society as it sits, or regulated from here to the depths of the abyss ~

      Watch CNBC for a few moments and you'll discover every con artist talking head anchor and or guest is a republican ~Therefore, republicans benefit from the corruption more than any other demographic considering they promote and advocate ripping off the public ~

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Dear A. Prime:
        I was being respectful.  It seems you have extensive experience and are very creative in general.

        I can understand your wish to just throw out our constitution in the light of its misuse, but being a progressive in this direction is dangerous.

        Perhaps you have never been exposed to the true principles of a democratic republic. I urge you and everyone else to read the Federalist Papers to know what to base progressive ideas on. Not everything is bad. Not everything is to be undone.  We must comprehend the foundation of The Constitution and what it is based on to be able to wisely build upon it, rather than just blindly burn down all the ladders and bridges of success and greatness which this country has had. Conservatives value personal freedom and independence. This is a simple concept which Reagan and other great presidents understood well. Many progressive ideas, while apparently good, tend to inadvertently remove the possibility of personal freedom and independence. The Grand O' Party may be corrupt. But the Constitution and its founders were not.

        We need to take a look back in order to progress forward.
        I agree with progressivism as long it is in the spirit of freedom and independence for the people.

        Many things Obama says seems to go along with these Ideals. I just hope he can stick to his guns. I also wonder how much true volition any president has in this day and age.

        So, please don't be sad.

 
working