ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Why does Ted Cruz Want to Abolish (end) The IRS?

Updated on June 4, 2016

Abolish the IRS - Why?

Ted Cruz wants to abolish or get rid of the IRS - For most Conservative Politicians, paying as few, or ideally no taxes ever, seems to be a lifetime goal no matter what it costs to achieve that goal.

What is the purpose(s) of abolishing the IRS?

Mr. Boehner, Let this cat out of the bag when he said "WE ARE GOING TO REPEAL OBAMA CARE!"

Is it the fact that the IRS has a huge role in implementing 'The Affordable Care Act' (i.e. Obama Care?)

After having tried and failed 37 times, or is it 57 times? I guess the, ones who want to be President will keep on trying until one of them succeeds and that will be the one that will be the nominee, but after so many failed attempts you would think they would just give up and let it stand as a Democrat's achievement.

The #Cat is Out Of The Bag

You let the cat out of the bag
You let the cat out of the bag | Source

Abolish the IRS "NOW"

Institute a 'Flat Tax,' Why?

Abolish the IRS in lieu of a Flat Tax? How fair would a 'Flat Tax' be?

An example with a twenty percent flat tax. One man earns ten thousand a year, and would pay two thousand in tax. The two thousand dollars could mean the difference of paying rent for a roof over his head, putting food on the table or paying for medication.

Another man's income is ten million dollars and he would pay two million in tax. He could not possible miss the two million. It would not affect his life situation, or change his life style in any way.

Questions Mr. Cruz, if you abolish the IRS and institute 'YOUR' flat tax.

  • Where did you come up with the 'Flat Tax' idea, from Herman Cane's 999?
  • Who will collect your flat tax?
  • Who will get paid?
  • Who will pay your salary, or will all the flat tax go into your coffers or super PAC?
  • What about FEMA? I heard or read somewhere that you voted against Hurricane Sandy relief.
  • Who will pay the government employees? I am sure you would not want to share the flat tax. Boy, talk about making the government smaller.
  • Who will pay our Judicial system? Another Ah-ha moment, you can get rid all three of President Obama's Judicial appointees. Or can you?
  • What about Education? Oh that is right, a voucher system, Public Education: Defund Public Schools. Did you get that Idea from Rick Perry?

Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana got his way and last fall public schools got vouchers to go to private schools. Scott Walker jumped on that band wagon.

Bet the rich love that, the poor children get to go to the same schools with the rich people's children. Rich people who pay for the private schools so their children don't have to associate with the public school children, and now the poor people's children and public school children get vouchers.

How long will the vouchers last Mr. Cruz, until public schools are defunct?

And you Mr. Cruz don't have to pay 'Union Teachers' wages.

Does Mr. Cruz want to de-fund our Military?

To abolish The IRS, is equal to abolishing our Military.

Before my research for this hub, if I had been asked, "What does the IRS do with our tax monies?" I would have said: "fund our infrastructure," i.e. building roads, bridges and funding education. And I think that most people would say the same thing or maybe say they don't know.

Questions, Mr. Cruz:

  • Do you not know that the Military is funded by the IRS? It is part of the budget, You should know that, but do you?
  • What about Military Personnel?
  • What about Veterans' Benefits? This one is sure to make George W. happy, see photo below.
  • Do you, Mr. Cruz really want to shut down our defense, Department of Defense that is?
  • What about Homeland Security?
  • What about International Security
  • And NASA, you want to defund NASA? Of course NASA has been sliced thin?
  • What about the State Department?
  • Where does our Tax Monies Really go?
  • Do you know who funds the Budget?
  • If we had the Paul Ryan budget, would you still want to #Abolish the IRS?
  • Ah Ha another goody, Interest on the National Debt. (This would serve to make President Obama look bad if the interest on the National Debt was not paid.)
  • Is the 'Global War on Terror' not funded by our national budget?
  • Do you, Mr. Cruz want to be responsible for our President defaulting on funding the War on Terror?
  • And you want to abolish the IRS Mr. Cruz?

The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm


George W. Bush said he does not care about wounded veterans.  Did he ever?
George W. Bush said he does not care about wounded veterans. Did he ever? | Source

Who else is Jumping on his Band Wagon?

Libertarian-nominee for President 2012, Gary Johnson, who use to be the Republican Governor of New Mexico? And Ron Paul, another want to be President.

Ron Paul

Republicans are trying to Abolish the IRS

Eviscerate (Gut) Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

Social Security: Another pet project that will be accomplished if the IRS is abolished. Eviscerate Social Security. From its inception, conservatives have sought and fought to end Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Social Security's Trust Fund was collected separately (i.e. FICA tax). Conservatives wanted it co-mingled, so it could be used for other "THINGS," but President Clinton, during his term in office, put it in what was called a 'Lock Box' to be used for its intended purpose, to pay its benefit recipients.

Benefit Recipients are people who paid into Social Security all their/our working lives, Insurance against becoming destitute when we retire.

When George W. Bush got deposited on the deposed President's seat, he took the Social Security surplus to fund his private war in Iraq. And, I guess it never got returned to the 'Lock Box,' because I read recently that the income tax and FICA tax have been co-mingled. I guess this is to make it easier to Eviscerate, or to be used for Pork.

As my good friend 'Aunt Jimi' says: "Is this Voldemort thinking?" Abolish the IRS and get rid of all three of the social programs? And get rid of Obama Care.

Questions, Mr. Cruz

  • Do you pay into Social Security Mr. Cruz?
  • Do you have a benefit package?
  • Do you have a retirement package?
  • If you could abolish the IRS Mr. Cruz, would it cut your high dollar salary?
  • Would it cut you benefits? It would cut my Social Security. But you would not care about that would you Mr. Cruz?

Is the made-up IRS scandal used as a Stratagem: i.e. a clever ruse or scheme that is designed to deceive others or achieve a goal, (abolish 'The IRS?')

This would really be a feather in your cap. Right Mr. Cruz?

To abolish the IRS would also end all three entitlement programs or at least cripple them.

Some people have such a hatred for our Government they can't wait to become a part of it, so they can cut out benefits for people they consider unworthy.

Are you one of those people Mr.Cruz?

I think I answered my own question, "Why Does Ted Cruz Want To Abolish (end) The IRS?"

  1. Repeal The Affordable Care Act, (Obama Care)
  2. Eviscerate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
  3. Bust the Teachers Unions
  4. Hold President Obama responsible for the de-funded War on Terror.

I keep hearing the word IMPEACH Obama.

If you could impeach President Obama, added to your list above of thing to get rid of during your childish destructive tantrums, then we would have President Joe Biden as an incumbent in 2016, thereby making it more likely he would be our next President. You Might want to re-think the impeachment Idea.

Are there any Conservatives out there, who are not rich and can afford to have their Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid cut?

The War Resisters League spends a lot of time, energy and money to create this resource. Please credit when using.

Anyone out there who does not agree with Ted Cruz?

Anyone out there, other than me who does not agree with Ted Cruz?

Let me hear from you, leave a comment below.

© 2013 Shyron E Shenko

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 14 months ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you my dear friend for the comment.

      I am so glad he lost the election, I hope he loses every election he runs for from here on in.

      Blessings and hugs

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 14 months ago from Texas

      tsad,

      YES!

      You said abolish the IRS, that is the same thing.

      Your Statement: "Here is one good reason to abolish the IRS, another massive tax loophole and where there is smoke there is fire, fire that is needlessly burning up billions of your tax dollars and the IRS could care less!"

      A few examples: the federal government provides an average of thirty percent of state government revenues for things like transportation and education; most Americans will rely on government programs like Social Security and Medicare as they age; and half of the nation’s public schools receive federal aid. Without the federal government, our communities and families would not be the same.

      Each of these subcommittees has jurisdiction over funding for a different area of the federal government. In both the House and Senate there are 12 different Appropriations subcommittees with the following areas of jurisdiction:

      ◦Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration

      ◦Commerce, Justice, and Science

      ◦Defense

      ◦Energy and Water

      ◦Financial Services and General Government

      ◦Homeland Security

      ◦Interior and Environment

      ◦Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education

      ◦Legislative Branch

      ◦Military Construction and Veterans Affairs

      ◦State and Foreign Operations

      ◦Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development

      What are taxes? Taxes are payments of money to the government that provide public goods and services for the community. Some examples of public goods are parks, street lights, and roads and highways. Public services include welfare programs, sanitation, law enforcement and education.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 14 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Shyron, did I say abolish taxes?

      NO!

      Why do you have to totally misstate what I said and then try to apply a falsehood to me in pure condescension which though not attractive at all seems to be the only way liberals know to make a point, in this case the non existent point that you "wish I, like many other people do not understand what our taxes are used for." A child can answer that and it has nothing to do with abolishing a corrupt agency of the government which is what the IRS is.

      You are the one who does not understand the fact that the IRS has nothing to do with "rebuilding our infrastructure, paying our military salary, schools, and so many other things that the list is really long." THEY COLLECT THE TAXES, that's all, which can be done in myriad other ways, more effectively and without enabling any administration to use a Department like the IRS for political chicanery which is what this administration does, and has been done by other administrations.

      It is the congress that appropriates the money collected by the IRS to "rebuilding our infrastructure, paying our military salary, schools, and so many other things that the list is really long." The IRS does not do any of that, and I don't know any adult, except you, who thinks the IRS does that.

      If anyone demonstrates a lack of understanding about taxes and the IRS it is clearly you and not me.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 14 months ago from North Texas

      Kinda looks like Ted Cruz got abolished. Wonder how being the 'biggest loser' will affect his next re-election effort? Sharing.

      Hope all is well there. Blessings dear friend. Take care . . .

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 17 months ago from Texas

      tsad, thanks for the comment.

      I think that you, like many other people do not understand what our taxes are used for: things like rebuilding our infrastructure, paying our military salary, schools, and so many other things that the list is really long. I really wish that you would do a little research Tax Information for Federal, State, & Local Governments.

      It is sad that the Canadian want to give America's land to his country of birth to lay the Canadian Keystone XLPipe Line across America and destroy my country's taxing system for the benefit of destroying the strength of my country's military.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 17 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Here is one good reason to abolish the IRS, another massive tax loophole and where there is smoke there is fire, fire that is needlessly burning up billions of your tax dollars and the IRS could care less!

      http://videos2view.net/tax-fraud.htm

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 22 months ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comments and compliment.

      Cruz is worse than an idiot, and he is Un-American

      It was a typo, I meant 82 not 62.

      Blessings and hugs

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 22 months ago from North Texas

      Hopefully the GOP debates have answered your title question for everyone. The answer: Cruz is an idiot. He hasn't said anything intelligent that I have heard in the debates but he can lie with the best of them. Although Fiorina's lies seem more credible, maybe because she puts more passion into them.

      What is the chaos you keep alluding to? I hope you are taking care of yourself so that you have the energy to deal with it whatever it is.

      I haven't seen your hubber score lower than 82. I haven't seen it in the 60s. Are you sure you weren't looking at somebody else's and didn't realize that's what you were doing? I do that sometimes and it's always a shock and then I realize I'm looking at someone else's profile page and calm down again.

      Blessings and hugs. Hope you get whatever it is under control soon. Take care . . .

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 23 months ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comments and for sharing.

      We did not see the debate on Thursday as advertised, we did see it on Friday. I thought that Trump got more questions than anyone else. And I thought that you had to be born in the U.S. to run for President. I heard Cruz say multiple time that Obama was not born in the U.S. so if he does not know that Hawaii is a state, that would not be a good testimony to his knowledge of our country or our history. The only thing I hear from that side of the isle is "look at her/him don't look at me!!!"

      Blessings and hugs to you also.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 23 months ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comments and sharing this.

      I have no idea if I was staying cool or not, probably not. Have to go out and cut grass today, our neighbor will get a citation for the town if her grass is not cut today.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 23 months ago from North Texas

      For some reason a lot of people are saying they like Ted Cruz and they think he won the debate the other night. My sister said the debate was televised on Fox up there. Sharing.

      Hope you are staying cool. 106 F. today, plus THI. Blessings and hugs . . .

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 23 months ago from North Texas

      Seems like a lot of people like Ted Cruz for some reason. Some people think he won the debate. My sister told me the debate was on the Fox Channel so it was televised up there. Sharing.

      Hope you are staying cool. Blessings and hugs . . .Seems like a lot of people like Ted Cruz for some reason. Some people think he won the debate. My sister told me the debate was on the Fox Channel so it was televised up there. Sharing.

      Hope you are staying cool. Blessings and hugs . . .

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 2 years ago from North Texas

      Surprised you have to ask this question. Ted Cruz is so sophomoric he probably believes he and his 1%er friends won't have to pay any taxes if there's no IRS. Of course he hasn't thought through that no taxes means no paycheck for him, but thinking doesn't seem to be one of his stronger talents.

      Filed a DMCA and one of the websites has taken my article down, but 5 still have it up, so it's looking like I have to file a separate DMCA for each website that has stolen it.

      Hope you've had a good day and that John is feeling better. Just being at home instead of in a hospital can often lift one's spirits which in turn make a person feel better.

      Blessings and hugs for you both. I really hope all is going to be well . . .

      sharing again

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Suzanne, I appreciate you, I have missed you, hope your hand is better.

      Blessings and Hugs always

    • justmesuzanne profile image

      justmesuzanne 2 years ago from Texas

      Ted Cruz wants to do anything that will destroy democracy and pour our tax dollars into corporate pockets. The man is a fascist. If you keep that in mind, it's easy to understand the motivation behind everything he does and says. Voted up and interesting.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for your comment, share, and pin.

      Ted Cruz is just in politics for his own benefit ONLY. He does not care about this country.

      I am hoping that all is well with you.

      May God bless you my friend.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 2 years ago from North Texas

      Ted Cruz really doesn't care about the IRS. He's making noises about abolishing it because that sort of talk is popular with people who hate paying their share of taxes. Moochers will vote for Cruz because he's saying what they want to hear, but if they really think he'll follow through and cut his own wages by getting rid of taxes, they probably aren't qualified to vote in the first place.

      Sharing this on HP. Pinned to AH. Hope your week has gone well and that you have seen some hope with that developer situation.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      Aunt Jimi, I am always happy when you stop by and leave a comment. You are so cool I wish everyone could reason the way you do.

      Bless you my friend.

      Shyron

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 3 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Ted Cruz is an idiot. He would make a good running mate for Rick Perry -- if he were an American. Imagine what it would be like to watch 2 Barney Fife's try to find their way out of the same paper bag at the same time. Compared to these to yahoos, Barney was highly intelligent. Have you heard that Perry is actually trying to blame a fictional hurricane onto Obama? Yup. I didn't read the entire story and probably should have, but I understand an ABC News program shut Perry down for not being able to complete a thought and especially for not being able to stay on message. The last straw was the mythical hurricane.

      Just thought I'd stop by and mention it. Hope all is well with you and that you are staying in where it's cool.

      Sharing.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      Sally TX, it is so nice to meet you. You are right about mr. cruz he does not even belong in our politics, in any position.

      Thank you Sally, I really appreciate you and your comment.

    • SallyTX profile image

      Sally Branche 3 years ago from Only In Texas!

      Ted Cruz is a raging narcissist and an embarrassment to the state of Texas. Everything he does is motivated by his desire to draw attention to himself and bamboozle people into worshiping him. He is not an American, and he is not a Texan. He is just a flim-flam man.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      I don't know why Cruz is even in our politics except the he wants to PUSH/RAMROD the Keystone XL pipeline through our country to benefit his.

      Cruz came into our country not to live here but to show us what he thinks our country should be and also what he can get out of it for his own country.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 3 years ago from North Texas

      There will always have to be a part of our government that collects the money needed to run this country, so even if Cruz abolishes the IRS all that will happen is that they will give it a new name so he can say he abolished the IRS when in fact it is simply a rose by another name.

      Why does a Canadian want to abolish our IRS anyway? How does he expect to get paid? Despite the wishes of many Texans, Texas isn't a country anymore. It's a state, and Cruz is technically a foreigner who gets a federal paycheck. Maybe, since he's only been in office for a few months he hasn't figured that out yet?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      Yes I know what these people are doing (Lobbying), selling out our Country to the highest bidder. How do we stop them?

      Thank you Au fait, for your Votes up, pinning and sharing.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 3 years ago from North Texas

      Normally I would say it doesn't make sense for any politician to destroy the IRS since that's where their paycheck comes from, but in fact a politician's paycheck from the government is probably the smallest benefit they get once elected. The payoffs from big business are the real benefits and they make the 172,000 a year salary seem like peanuts.

      Voted up, UI, pinned to my 'Politics' board, and sharing.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Brandi (CraftytotheCore). I appreciate you reading and commenting.

      I feel that the Tea Party just wants to do what is oposite whatever the Democrats want to do. But Republicans have always wanted to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Post Office and to privatize these programs to feed their greed.

      If my husband had not been on Medicare when he had his accident, we would be homeless or he would be gone and I would be homeless.

    • CraftytotheCore profile image

      CraftytotheCore 3 years ago

      Such an interesting article. I had not heard of this before. I know in my town, for example, there is a bankruptcy issue for one of the local parts of the town. So, the town has decided to levy all of the taxpayers. But they want to do it this way, with a flat tax. I don't think it's fair. They are going to do it based on the value of a house. Well it just so happens that I live in a poverty-stricken town. I would pay a lot more than most people. Yet, we are struggling too. It really is a difficult concept. Especially in this economy.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Aunt Jimi and I have been friends for a long, long time and I know that she studied the Constitution. I have read some of it but not a lot and I really believed that quote was in there somewhere. It has nothing to do with being credible.

      Thank you Mr. Cell for coming back.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you and God Bless you Aunt Jimi. I agree with everything you have written here.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Well, Shyron, I think it was an honest mistake that most likely an awful lot of people make. I've viewed some of the sites that list them and they do indeed call them "Constitutional Quotes." I think it would be better if they called them Quotes about the Constitution.

      I should have thought about it myself, but there is just so much going on all the time that I often don't know if I'm coming or going. I studied the Constitution in school for at least 3 semesters, so if I would have thought about it for even a whole minute I would have known the quote was questionable as to being in the Constitution.

      The quote by Marshall wasn't even made until 1821, which was a few years later than the Constitution was written. ;)

      I do still think the Constitution is a living thing, which is what the Founding Fathers intended, it just isn't subject to change on a whim. As Mr. Cell rightly pointed out, easy change would create chaos. If it were possible to change the Constitution so easily, every time one Party or the other had the advantage, it would be changed again and again until the poor thing was wore out from backing and forthing.

      There is a reason why the Founding Fathers made it difficult (though not impossible) to change the Constitution through the amendment process, and that is because they felt it to be essential that people give any changes serious deliberate thought before making any changes.

      A lot of countries don't have a written Constitution, which makes their constitutions (when they have one) subject to whoever is interpreting it and how powerful that interpreter happens to be. Ours is written down in a hard copy for the very purpose of making it more stable, and as a result our country is also more stable. I think one of the reasons our country still remains so well respected after all these years since our Constitution was written, is the stability that document has given us.

      I do disagree with Mr. Cell on his statement that it is not the Constitution that must adapt to us, but rather we the people who must adapt to the Constitution. Anything that is made by man, including our Constitution, is made to benefit us, and when it doesn't do that anymore, it needs to be changed so that it does.

      No, of course we don't want to change the Constitution for every little whim that comes along that displeases somebody. We need to think carefully as previously stated before making any permanent changes, but once it is determined that some part of the Constitution is no longer relevant or fair in a particular area, then change needs to be carefully and methodically thought through and made, as has already happened 27 times.

      Greed is what is ruining our country. Greed, selfishness, and mean spiritedness. That is the reason I said we need to start behaving like the Christians we claim to be.

      I don't think our technology and population has made the biggest change. I think it is that more and more of us realize, as previously stated, that no man is an island. When one person is not able to develop themselves to their ultimate potential or as close as possible to that end, we all lose. We are all less well off.

      When anyone in our country is allowed to be hungry or sick we should all be ashamed. Jesus said when you help the poor you are helping Me. Jesus did NOT say "when you are being critical of the poor and judging them not worthy, you are helping Me." Indeed, had he addressed the issue from that perspective, He might well have said, "When you are being critical and judging the poor for their worthiness, you ARE judging ME. Do you want to be the guy that judges God?

      While y'all are busy helping the deserving poor and ignoring the unworthy poor, I'll just be sitting up on a cloud watching the proceedings from as far away as I can. When God does anything He seems to like to do it in a BIG way. I don't want to be too close when He lets you know what He thinks of your "worthy and deserving" scale.

      God has made it clear that nothing any one of us has (owns if you prefer) belongs to us and that we have not EARNED anything. Everything we have is a gift from Him. Everything we have is a gift from Him out of love and kindness on His part, not because we have EARNED it. He expects us to use our gifts wisely and to share.

      If you want to receive forgiveness and mercy from God then you must first give it to everyone else. If you want generosity from God, then you must first be generous to others. God is not the only 'person' who gives 'things' to people, but He is the only 'person' who has the authority to forgive and be merciful when we get to the Pearly Gates. So people who believe having a lot of money and things makes a person better and more beloved of God are going to be in for some surprises.

      I have read the Bible several times but nowhere have I seen a single word about any rental trucks idling in line at the Pearly Gates, stuffed with things valued on this planet, and or tons of money, waiting to be waved through those gates. My cloud awaits . . .

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      AJ, I never thought I would be writing this, but that was a wonderful comment! Thank you for so succinctly describing the nature of the Constitution. We do indeed live in a different world and the Constitution does have to adapt, to a degree. However, many of us believe that the country is in decline because of societal principles that presently prevail; and that it is "we the people" who need to adapt to the Constitution, not the other way around.

      In any event, there is a method in place to change it. The debate about how or if it needs to be changed is what this country is all about. It is problematic that many of us want to change it without going through the process. That behavior, right or wrong, leads to anarchy.

      Many have identified the Constitutional Convention of 1789 as the greatest assemblage of brilliant minds in the history of the world. The Founding Fathers, I believe, would have little difficulty grasping the present. They might be inclined to start another revolution in my view when they realized the freedoms our society has relinquished to the government.

      Change is inevitable, but change can be destructive. You are so right when you advocate applying Christian principles to our national discussion. I am sure that you, like I when I read it, were a little sad to realize that you needed to explain what "red words" meant in the Bible.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The people made the Constitution and the People can unmake it. It is the creature of their will and lives only by their will."

      Chief Justice wrote the decision for " Cohens v Virginia 1821" and included the above statements. I have tried to find a copy of his written decision to no avail, but that is where the statements originate. They are not a part of the Constitution.

      It is true that the only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process and that is of course a very long and tedious endeavor. Still, it has been done 27 times over the years. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights.

      The procedure for adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

      I believe the phrase 'Constitution Quotes' is being used similarly (for example) to 'train quotes,' or 'wild life quotes,' or 'higher education quotes.' The 'quotes' are statements made by important or famous people about the Constitution, but are not actually in the Constitution.

      Even so, the Constitution, if it is to survive, will have to be somewhat elastic or plastic, depending how you wish to characterize it, because it must now be applied to situations and things that the people who wrote it could never have imagined.

      However much y'all might like to go back to a time when things were simpler, it ain't gonna happen. Ours is a world so very different from when the Constitution was written that were the Founding Fathers to be brought back to life to observe it, they would not recognize it.

      I really think the biggest problem Conservatives have is accepting that our world has changed greatly, and what worked 50 years ago and seemed right 50 years ago, is largely no longer relevant to modern times.

      Not only have things changed, but people too-- at least some of us -- have changed. and realize that no man (or woman) is an island. Like it or not, it's time to accept the entire Bible, including the red words (spoken by Jesus, for those people unfamiliar) and start behaving like the Christians we claim to be.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Quote:

      "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

      Author: John Marshall Topic: Constitution Quotes

      Source: Cohens vs Virginia 1821 (Chief Justice John Marshall)

      http://www.sourcedquotes.com/John-Marshall-biograp...

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Glenda, for you comment. In answer to your question, just lucky I guess. Don't know what I did to deserve this, but that is okay. I read the hub that you mentioned, really interesting.

      mr. cell is correct, you did not mention any subject in my hub.

      I do hope that you read it. Anyway thank you for the visit.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      Well hello, Glenda! Your wrote 3 sentences and avoided touching on a single issue. Well Done!

    • profile image

      Glenda 4 years ago

      Oh-my you do attract some unsavory characters, don’t you Shyron? What did you do to deserve this? Bet they don’t dare to read 3D Revolution, can’t remember who hubbed it. These two could not get this one.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      @Shyron: Since you asked, I read your Hub.

      “Is it the fact that the IRS has a huge role in implementing the Affordable Care Act?

      Yes it is, Shyron, because the IRS has ADMITTEDLY conducted itself in a partisan manner and subsequent investigation has revealed that is was politically based and coordinated from Washington DC.

      “Who will collect your flat tax?” “Who will pay the government employees?” Who will pay our Judicial system?”

      The United States Government, Shyron. Do you think a flat tax would be going to the Republican Party?

      “What about Education?”

      What about it, indeed! I have seen no mention of “education” in any flat tax proposal. Have you? Why do you waste space ranting about education, when it is not the subject?

      “Do you not know that the Military is funded by the IRS? “I would have said ‘fund our infrastructure, etc.’”

      You can’t be serious! The military is funded by Congress. The IRS is a collection agency. The IRS has absolutely nothing to do with allocation of funds for ANY purpose, “infrastructure” or otherwise. This also applies, of course, to Defense, Homeland Security, “International Security” (whatever that means), NASA and (the) State Department.

      “Benefit t Recipients are people who paid into Social Security all their/our working lives, Insurance against becoming destitute when we retire.”

      NO KIDDING! I put $ into Social Security for more than 50 years. In addition to the subject below, those of us (including you) now have to watch while illegal immigrants and others who have paid NOTHING into Social Security receive benefits. From a fiscal standpoint, does that make sense to you?

      “When George W. Bush got deposited on the deposed President’s seat, he took the Social Security surplus to fund his private war in Iraq.” And, I guess it never got returned to the ‘Lock Box,’ etc.”

      Shyron, as anyone who has any grasp of American history knows, our wonderful government has been raiding that “lock box” virtually from the time Social Security was created. If GWB funded the Iraqi War (or anything else) from Social Security, he was only participating in that tradition. Also, be reminded that GWB received Congressional approval for the Iraqi War - Congress did the funding - which is a little procedure with which President Obama should become acquainted.

      Shyron, this Hub does not live up to your standards.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      mr. cell, this is part of the Constitution!

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitu...

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      The preamble of the Federal Constitution says: We, the people of the United States ... It was we, the people, not we, the white male citizens, nor we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed this Union....Susan B. Anthony

      This is in the Charters of Freedom, which is part of the Constitution.

      Chief Justice John Marshall, September 24,1755 wrote, "The people made the Constitution and the People can unmake it.

      Did you read my hub mr. cell?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      @Mike

      I know what assault weapons are, I don't care whether you believe that or not.

      Maybe it does not bother you how the little kids were killed at Sandy Hook. Maybe just maybe the male would not have killed so many if he had not had an assault weapon.

      Most pistols are not considered assault weapons. And, "I" know that one shot can kill just as dead.

      I don't know why you would not want background checks before you could purchase a gun.

      Do you know what a Lemon Squeezer is mike? It is a hammerless .38 and it hold 5 rounds, you don't even have to cock it, just squeeze, and I think that is to much, but it is a collector's item. Mom had one of those. She also had a 12 gauge shotgun, double barrel, yes mike, I do know that is held two shells.

      Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically eject the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. I do know mike, that they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, you have to keep pulling the trigger.

      Federal Assault Weapons Ban, expired after ten years in 2004. It banned the manufacture or importation of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defined as assault weapons. Any firearms so defined that were already possessed at the time the law took effect were grandfathered in, and could be legally owned or transferred. The law also banned the manufacture or importation of magazine that could hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, with existing magazines grandfathered in as legal.

      I know that you did not even read my hub or you would not have written such asinine remarks. My hub is not about gun control/ban/or weapons.

      Try to write remarks related to the hub content.

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      @TLC

      This has turned into a discussion about what some people would like the constitution to say and misperceptions on gun control. The constitution defines how it can be changed through amendments. They don't like that answer because they are really in the minority and don't have the support necessary to repeal or introduce a new amendment that suits them. Therefore they attempt to redefine the constitution.

      I'm not sure if you read Shyron's definition of an "assault weapon" as a firearm that is able to fire 10 rounds of ammo in "quick succession." That would include most firearms sold today, but they are not about taking anyone's guns away. I could dig further into her definition, but I do not believe she knows anything about what she is attempting to define.

      I can't even get their side to understand that a 12 year old can't buy a machinegun at Wal-Mart. This debate is absolute nonsense and they wonder why we won't compromise with them or take them seriously. They give feelings and I give numbers. They then ignore the numbers and go back to the feelings. Feelings are all of their argument.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      @Shyron: I looked (again) at your posting of the Constitution, just in case I had lost my mind. Shyron, you first posted COMMENTS on the Constitution, not excerpts from it. Look at it! You will see no words like "the people made the Constitution, the people can unmake it." If you are going to presume to take me to task on the Constitution, please at least refer to the document, not commentary on it.

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      @Shyron

      "An assault weapon: is one that fires more than 10 rounds of AMMO in rapid succession."

      Using your definition of assault weapon, such a ban would include the vast majority of firearms sold today. Essentially all semi-automatic pistols and most semi-automatic rifles would fall under that definition.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      @ Mike, what kind of guns sold at the time of the signing of the Constitution, was not the kind manufactured today. No-one has advocated that everyone's gun(s) be taken away. And I never accused you of wanting to take away any guns. Can't speak for mr. cell, and wouldn't if I could.

      An assault weapon: is one that fires more than 10 rounds of AMMO in rapid succession.

      You say, I should petition MY CONGRESSMAN? Michael Burgess is my suppose to be congressman. Enough said on that subject?

      I do appreciate you input Mike. Why don't you join HubPages?

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      Also, for those of you insisting on more background checks, how many people have been prosecuted for lying on an ATF Form 4473?

      Also, a Department of Justice study found that 78.8% of criminals get their guns from sources outside of retail store purchases. 39.6% get guns from friends or family while another 39.2% get guns from the street or other illegal means. How do you propose to prevent that?

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      "The Constitution is a living thing, says so right in it, and those who wrote and passed it expected it to be altered as times changed and things the Founding Fathers could not even have imagined, much less thought up, came to pass."

      The founding father's may have agreed with you. That is what amendments are for and the process is described in the constitution. I pasted it earlier.

      If you feel the constitution needs to be changed you should petition your congressman to introduce an amendment. As I stated earlier, amendments can be added or repealed, but not changed. This is not rocket science.

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      @ Shyron

      "What kind of guns were sold at the signing of the Constitution."

      The state of the art at the time and identical to what the military was using. The Second Amendment would have had no teeth if it required citizens to be armed with inferior weaponry.

      "You and mr. Cell seem to think I want to take away everybody's guns."

      Maybe you don't want to, but others do.

      "What I am against is gun-runners/sellers who would sell to anybody (even if they knew the purchaser(s) to be terrorist, murderers or simply insane.) "

      I am not happy with Barack Obama or Eric Holder either.

      "I am still in favor of background checks and the assault weapons ban."

      First, what is an "assault weapon?" Also, you said you didn't want to take my guns.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitu...

      here it is mr.cell, I looked it up again, just for you.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      Oh, I forgot! @Shyron: None of the remarks you quoted are in the Constitution. They were merely somebody's comments on the Constitution.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      @AJ: You have incredible nerve lecturing me about name calling. You are unbelievable! You have to bring up a person (Patrick Quest) that I have never heard of just to make your point! Thank you, however, for not name-calling me (ameba is OK) in your latest comment.

      Where in the Constitution does it say it is a living document? The founders did indeed expect the Constitution to be altered, as evidenced by their creation of the amendment process and their addition of the first ten. They did NOT foresee or intend for it to be changed by the decisions of judges or by the executive order of presidents simply because they did not agree with it. One of the purposes of the Constitution is to prevent exactly that kind of governmental control/abuse. Constitutional changes ultimately are supposed to be in the hands of the people. How is the way I "think" the Constitution should be changed in any way wrong? Once again, merely saying it does not make it so; it is Shyron who is "wrong, wrong, wrong" until someone explains how she is right by the use of facts, not opinion.

      Regarding change: You are exactly right. Change is the only constant. Here are some changes that I would like to see:

      1. A return to the values that got us here, especially regarding fiscal responsibility. The whole country, in my view, is heading to Detroit. AJ, we can't continue to help the poor if we are broke. More "Taxing the Rich" will simply not get it done. That can be mathematically shown and the rich are paying the large majority of taxes now, anyway. The present socialistic tendencies will cause us to evolve into a country where most or all of the "rich" will be governmental officials, just like that which has already occurred over and over again throughout the world. Then, what of "the American Dream?"

      2. National discussions on the issues that are based on their validity (the truth), rather than "spin," demonization, deflection and personal attack.

      3. True enforcement of existing laws in all areas (especially the penalty phases), including immigration, gun laws, laws relating to fraud in business practices and especially in financial areas. Changes in those laws, if necessary, to put thieves of all description at all levels in jail [Obama correctly stated that some of the crooked activities of financial institutions that caused the recession (along with stupid governmental policies) may not have even been illegal].

      4. Term limits, at least for national elected offices. We must be led by the "citizen legislators" that the founders envisioned.

      People in both parties need to change or we should get rid of them altogether. Our government is a farce made up mostly of small-minded greedy crooks, lapdogs, cowards and demigods. We need to change all that.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Ameba! Remember your own statement: "Name calling is not substantive, shows weakness and generally indicates ignorance." Keep your own words in mind the next time you are tempted to say something unkind.

      Also, inform your Republican buddy Patriot Quest who without cause directed the following to lovemychris: "Your side is SCUM!" He said that in the comments section of his hub titled, "Who Do We Blame For Ignorant Americans?" He included it in a short remark just above a disquisition I wrote almost at the end of the comments section.

      I understand it is uncomfortable to be taken to task by Shyron for not adhering to the Constitution the way you insist you think everyone else should, but if you're wrong, you're wrong. The Constitution is a living thing, says so right in it, and those who wrote and passed it expected it to be altered as times changed and things the Founding Fathers could not even have imagined, much less thought up, came to pass.

      Something a lot of people have trouble with is all the new technology and the way so many things have changed. Yet that is normal. The one thing that is constant in our world is change.

      There will always be times when any person might wish for simpler bygone days, but those days are fin fact gone forever. They aren't coming back no matter how you or anyone else stomps your/their foot and rails.

      Time is forever moving forward. You'll be much happier if you learn to accept change. To refuse to do so only guarantees you will have an unhappy life; it will not stop the change.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank Aunt Jimi, you definately hit the nail on the head on this one.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      You definately hit the nail on the head on this one.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Aunt Jimi, I am thinking you are right about conservatives, they don't seem to use common sense.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      @ mike,

      I do not need to explain anything to you. But, to set your straight on what mr.cell and I were discussing, I asked mr. cell, how many guns were sold at the time of the signing of the Constitution. What I intended to ask was: What kind of guns were sold at the signing of the Constitution. I don't think the guns listed on Sen. Feinstein's bill were even produced at that signing. And I don't think the signers of the Constitution ever thought the guns of the future would be produced for mass murder.

      DO NOT misunderstand me mike, I am not against guns, never have been. What I am against is gun-runners/sellers who would sell to anybody (even if they knew the purchaser(s) to be terrorist, murderers or simply insane.) Their only goal is the almighty dollar!

      You and mr. Cell seem to think I want to take away everybody's guns. That is not the case at all, but I do believe in background checks, I have seen what guns can do in the hands of people who have a mental problem, or cowards who think the guns make them 'Big and Bad'.

      I saw my mother hit across the face with the stock of a double barrel shotgun. I had to leave her lying on the floor while I went to a neighbor to get help for her, and I had to take my 2 little brothers with me, the youngest not even walking.

      Before this my mother shot a man with the same gun, who intended to break in on us. Mom was a beautiful woman and the man knew my father and knew he was away in the Army. What he did not know was that mom had a shotgun, I told about this in Momma and the Prowler. And then you presume to tell me how I feel and think about guns. Let me tell you mike! I am my mother's daughter. I am still in favor of background checks and the assault weapons ban.

      As for the rest of your rambling mike, read my response to mr. cell.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      LibertyCell,

      I am truly glad you Worship the same God as I do.

      Quote from you, 4 days ago. About Scalia: He condemns their tendency to treat the Constitution as “the Living Constitution, a 'morphing' document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean." He urges judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in the words of Amy Gutmann, editor of the volume, their interpretations are "guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time."

      You are right; putting up with the twisting of words and meanings is tiresome...So stop twisting mine!

      I took your reference to walking and chewing gum at the same time, as a reference to me; based on previous snide remarks of yours.

      “Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law.”

      No mr. cell, I would not presume to quote mr. scelia on anything. The above is Direct Quote from the Constitution of the United States of America.

      Again mr. cell, also a direct quote from the Constitution:

      "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will."

      That is the reason I asked if you have read the Constitution.

      In referencing your choice of words (i.e. disciple) it is too bad you do not have a sense of humor or you would not give me so much to work with.

      Have a good day mr. cell.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      @AJ, Shyron: I specified in detail how Shyron was twisting my words by accusing me of worshiping Scalia because I used the word "disciple." Name calling is not substantive, shows weakness and generally indicates ignorance. Just writing that I twist words is not presenting a responsible argument. Examples?

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Usually the people who object to background checks when buying guns are the reason we need those background checks in the first place.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Mr. Cell, I have noted how good you are at twisting words yourself, but perhaps I give you too much credit. Maybe you aren't twisting your words at all. Maybe you're not pretending you don't understand. Maybe you really don't understand. Maybe you and Republicans generally, really are as ignorant as you/they sound. I've thought so all along, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      @Shyron

      You cited the constitution when referring to constitution as a "living document." The problem with your argument is that the method for amending the constitution is clearly defined in the constitution and is not being followed. The Second Amendment seems to be one of your favorite topics. The problem with your argument on firearms is that an amendment can be repealed, but it can not be changed, nor can its intent. Please read Article V below.

      Article. V.

      The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      mr. cell, do you think I deserve your twisted words? I guess you do.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      @Shyron, the second definition of "disciple" is: b : a convinced adherent of a school or individual. I do not worship Scalia. I worship the same God as you do. Putting up with the twisting of words and meanings is tiresome. I do not deserve it and will not subject myself to it anymore. My reference to walking and chewing gum, etc., was in no way a reference to or about you; it was only meant to illustrate that two or more dynamics can occur simultaneously.

      The people cannot "unmake" the Constitution without a revolution. Is that what you advocate? If changes are needed - and they have "been needed" 28 times (or thereabouts) - they occur via the amendment process.

      "Although most of the Framers . . ." Were you quoting Scalia? If so, that is not the strongest statement he has ever made. The last two sentences are kind of silly, don't you think? One says SC decisions are final and the next explains how to overcome them. Huh?

      Of course the people made the Constitution. So what? Our discussion has been about how to interpret it. Textualism says it "means what it says." Liberals think it means "what it ought to mean." Perhaps we should rewrite it every morning before breakfast! The principles set forth in that document have led to the existence of the greatest nation in the history of the world. What have liberals principles gotten us? Detroit.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      LibertyCell, mr. cell. when I ask you how many guns were being sold when the Constitution was signed. What I should to asked was WHAT KIND OF GUNS?

      Your comment mr. cell, in reference to the man you are a disciple of: “He condemns their tendency to treat the Constitution as “the Living Constitution, a 'morphing' document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean." He urges judges instead to adopt a textualist approach.”

      Mr. cell, have you read the Constitution?

      Has the man that you worship textualized this mr. cell.

      Per the Constitution: The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.

      What does the man that you are a disciple of say about, “The Power of the Courts?”

      “Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law.”

      Your Comment, referencing the man you worship: “He condemns their tendency to treat the Constitution as “the Living Constitution, a 'morphing' document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean."

      Again mr. cell, Per the Constitution: The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.

      And to reply to you sarcastic remark, yes! mr.cell, I can and do walk and chew gum at the same time, and I can and do play and sing at the same time.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Have you accompolished that Mr. Cell (walking and chewing gum at the same time)?

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      @Shyron: I am not aware of an instance of Scalia failing to apply the textual method of interpreting the Constitution, so unless you know otherwise, I most certainly CAN tell you that he adheres to the text of the Constitution as the basis for his opinions.

      I regret using the word "disciple." It threw you into a religious funk. It is possible, Shyron, to use that word and not be referencing the followers of Christ, much less Jim Jones. The lengths you and AJ will go to distort a discussion are unbelievable. Good grief!

      Regarding interpreting the Constitution, we all can and do "have it both ways." Textualism involves gaining an understanding of the Constitution by applying the present to the words and thinking of the founders. You know, like walking and chewing gum, singing while playing a guitar, stuff like that.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      @ LibertyCell, I worship my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I don't care about Justice Scalia, and you can't tell me that in his study of 'textualism' that he adheres to the text of the constitution. Maybe you thing that he does because you are an admitted disciple of his. You know Jim Jones had a lot of disciples. Then his dead followers lay before his throne, in Jonestown, Guyana.

      What was written in the constitution would not mean the same thing today.

      You say/imply that the man you are a disciple of studies strict adherence to text, then you say "None of the tenets of the Constitution are absolute." You can't have it both ways Mr. Cell.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      by

      @Shyron: Mr. Cell, how many of the guns were being sold at the time the Constitution was signed???

      Shyron, you ask a question that is much larger than it seems. That question leads directly to the issue of how to read or interpret the Constitution. I am a disciple of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who promotes a method that is known as "textualism." Following is a paragraph from Ralph A. Rossum, Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College on the subject of textualism.

      "In A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticizes the tendency of federal judges to ignore the text of the Constitution or statues and to adopt “the attitude of the common-law judge -- the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” He condemns their tendency to treat the Constitution as “the Living Constitution, a 'morphing' document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean." He urges judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in the words of Amy Gutmann, editor of the volume, their interpretations are "guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time."

      As I understand it, all that is a complicated way of saying "the Constitution means what it says," and it is appropriate to interpret the Constitution according to the words and the social standards in place at the time it was written, not the words and social standards of the judges currently interpreting it. At least a couple of problems arise with this or any method of interpreting the Constitution. 1. None of the tenets of the Constitution are absolute. Therefore, one cannot yell "fire" in a theater and expect to be protected by the 1st Amendment, for example. 2. Some things and situations could not possibly have been anticipated by the Founders. Therefore, nuclear power and tons of inventions, for example, often cannot be applied to the language of the Constitution, although sometimes they can be, via the projection of the original values involved.

      I believe that the constitutionally upheld restrictions and bans related to automatic weapons and weapons of war fall into the 2nd category. The adjudicated division seems to be between semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons and weapons of war.

      So, Senator Feinstein listed in her bill weapons that are Constitutional. The problem is that she also made the list exclusive. When one is addressing the Amendment that ends "shall not be infringed," one obviously cannot do that.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Now I know what the stiffy refers to.

      You said: Okay, but the laws in many states allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms after a criminal background check and training. They are not the ones causing problems. If they were, concealed carry rights wouldn't be expanding.

      I responded: Your logic is faulty. Like saying, if it wasn't a good idea and moral to hold African slaves, there wouldn't have been so many people doing it. If it weren't true that women are intellectually inferior, there wouldn't be so many people, especially superior men, believing it and saying it.

      Just because the whole herd of sheep jump off the cliff it doesn't follow that it was a good and wise decision on any or all of their parts.

      Do you get it now? Just because a lot of people are doing something (or a lot of state governments are doing something), doesn't mean it's a good idea or wise. Didn't realize I had to spell everything out for you, but that tells me more about you that I didn't know before. Well, I suspected, since you are a Republican, but now I know for sure. I'll try to say anything too complicated in future.

      I guess if you have enough money the cops will do your bidding, but here, most of us are poor. There's a lot of criminal activity and mostly minorities living here. There are some token whites and retirees because this is one of the cheapest places in town.

      You joined 28 minutes before addressing me Stiff one. ;) Sorry, but I have to chuckle every time I see that handle. You have no hubs, and it isn't necessary to join this site to make comments on it, so it would seem you are in fact a troll. Write some hubs and prove me wrong.

      No matter. I'm sure some people find you entertaining and that's a worthwhile goal.

      I still like the woman in Baytown TX who put a carjacker who snuck into her car in the hospital. She didn't have a gun, just herself and her car. She even had to fight him hand to hand and got cut by his knife a couple of times, but he's still the one in the hospital. If she'd have had a gun in the car the intruder would probably have had it pointed at her and her kids before she could get into her car.

      Way past my bedtime. Adieu.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Mr. Stiffy, who were the remarks addressed to?

      I know the last one was addressed to me.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Mr Stiffy, did you join HubPages, to go on the offensive, against a writter you do not like? Or are you a Troll? What is your Modus Operandi?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Aunt Jimi, thank you, you are a blessing and a dear friend.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Mr. stiffy, you bring up Eric Holder, so I am guessing you are talking about the Fast and Furious, BS. Like Mr. Cell, you can read it or hear it and it does not stop to register as it passes through one ear and out the other. F & F? George W. Bush owned and started it, it was called 'Wide Receiver,' then the republicans changed the name to Fast and Furious to hide the fact that it started under George W. Bush.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Mr. Cell, how many of the guns were being sold at the time the Constitution was signed???

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      If I were talking about toy guns I would have said so. A toy gun is not a gun, it is a toy. I don't care what it looks like, it's a toy and incapable of killing anyone. You really aren't very good at twisting words. You must not have been a troll for very long.

      If they're really and truly that dangerous and they have proven it by committing a violent crime, then sadly life in prison would be my solution, but I do not think non-violent crimes should require jail time. Restitution and steady employment makes more sense so tax payers don't have to foot the bill.

      My argument is fine, and what you call personal attacks are ribbing. I'm teasing you. Before I can attack your character I have to know if you have any and what it involves. I admit I do not, and so you are safe for now. You can sleep tonight.

      Your logic is faulty. Like saying, if it wasn't a good idea and moral to hold African slaves, there wouldn't have been so many people doing it. If it weren't true that women are intellectually inferior, there wouldn't be so many people, especially superior men, believing it and saying it.

      Just because the whole herd of sheep jump off the cliff it doesn't follow that it was a good and wise decision on any or all of their parts.

      There's a first time for everything and until a person has broken the law they will pass the background check. They may not pass it once they own a gun, but it's too late then.

      Someone said laws already on the books should be enforced, and I think that might be a help. Stop waiting until a situation accelerates before police involvement. I live in a neighborhood that needs a lot of police surveillance, but does it get it? No, police spend their time in the fancy neighborhoods protecting the wealthy. They only come here to clean up the mess.

      It is indeed a difficult issue because as you say, criminals will often get guns illegally with little effort.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Love it Shyron, Dr. Stiffy's input. ;)

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Hey Stiffy! What do you doctor? So you opened an account here just to write to me. Should I be flattered?

      Seems to me that when someone introduces a weapon, especially a gun, to a crime it means they will use it if they deem it necessary. They're not against the idea of killing if it suits their purpose in other words. People who use guns that way are dangerous because they have a dangerous attitude aside from the gun. They don't care who they have to kill to get what they want.

      Why wait 'til a rape or a murder has occurred before deciding these guys shouldn't have a gun? And why do you want to extend their stay in jail at the tax payer's expense? Who's really being punished here? The criminal or the tax payer?

      Shyron, many states say life in prison, but it doesn't amount to life. Some people come up for parole after 20 years or so. It varies some from one state to another. Life in prison doesn't mean life anymore and hasn't for a long time.

      With either life in prison or the death penalty, once a person has killed somebody that's likely to get them one of those sentences they have no incentive not to kill again. After all, once caught they won't see daylight for a long, long time, if ever, so what's another corpse or two?

      No Stiffy, I don't think we should spare these people in an effort to change their thinking about killing more people. Not likely it would work anyway because if they were thinking straight they wouldn't have killed anybody in the first place. But no doubt some of them do reason that once they're going to be fried they may as well keep killing while they can.

      Interesting how some people take nicknames the opposite of what they are. You know, "Tiny" usually weighs about 400 lbs, and "Slim" is usually as wide as 2 horizontal axe handles. Wonder what it means when you call yourself Stiffy? ;)

      I actually don't have a problem with ordinary people owning reasonable guns for hunting and protection, I just don't think they need guns that shoot several dozen rounds a minute, or surface to air missile launchers, you know?

      I would throw the book at anybody who owns a gun and doesn't instruct their child about why they shouldn't touch it, and who doesn't keep it where the kid won't get it. That includes grandma who keeps her gun in a kitchen drawer and forgets to put it somewhere safer when her grandkids visit. It's a parent's responsibility and duty to instruct their children about gun safety whether they like it or not & whether they own a gun or not.

      This argument about guns is really a distraction about what people ought to really be concerned about. As a result, most of the people on both sides of the argument are going to die. Neither side is paying any attention at all to the real threat and if they ever recognize it, it will be too late to help themselves or anybody else.

      All guns look scary to me because they have only one purpose and can carry out that purpose even by accident. Somehow when I think of all the people I've known my entire life, I mean ALL of them, it doesn't make me feel safer to know some of them are carrying concealed weapons on the streets, at Wal-Mart, etc. Believe it or not, idiots often do not realize they are idiots. They think they are sane and then they buy a gun and something terrible happens because they are careless, or because they lose their temper and the first thing that comes to mind is the gun they own. They see it as the solution to everything, then they kill somebody out of stupidity, and the solution is prison or death for them. If they'd never had a gun in the first place because they really weren't capable of handling the responsibility of owning a gun, some unfortunate soul would still be alive. Maybe more than one. You just never know what someone who doesn't know their own mind will do when they get stressed. Often it's something ignorant and it will change somebody's life forever. There are more idiots out there than you think, and they usually have no trouble getting a gun.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Dr Stiffy, thank you for your input, however I am sure Sen. Feinstein did come up with the list by herself, which is neither here or there, because she is not requiring a ban on anything that is already out there, so I am sure your Beretta Storm is safe, and because the bill did not pass, the gun runners, I mean sellers can sell all they want of anything.

      congrats.

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      I imagine it would be nice to have a discussion based on what is written rather than distortions, but I will never know with you two.

      DC or Chicago? Not the point, of course. The point is that gun laws do not decrease crimes committed by firearms. Try to focus.

      You skipped entirely the matter of trusting Obama. That is understandable, given all the cabinet members and other high ranking officials caught lying, recusing themselves, stonewalling, pleading the fifth, etc. Eventually, I predict, the exposure of that kind of behavior will lead to the White House, but these things take time.

      Assault weapons are merely semi-automatic weapons "dressed up" with military attachments. Automatic weapons have been banned for decades. Once again, you both failed to address the truth: mass murders occur in locations where weapons are banned.

      The phrase "shall not be infringed" steps all over Senator Feinstein's attempt to list acceptable weapons. The 2,200 guns specifically mentioned are THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGAL if the bill had been passed and signed. Once again, you failed to address my point, which was the Constitutionality of her bill.

      AJ, there judicial penalties other than the death penalty. There is a virtual nationwide tendency by the courts to offer probations and shorter sentences in plea bargaining exercises in all criminal cases, including those involving the use of guns. Leaving aside social concerns, a person who is incarcerated does not shoot people. This is not rocket science and I don't understand why you take me on regarding criminal justice matters, anyway.

      How many heads of state would I have to mention who first registered, then confiscated the firearms of his citizens for you two to pull your heads out?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Aunt Jimi, thanks for the input.

      I was laughting and asked hubby when I heard that one man got 2 life sentences, what do they do for the 2nd one? Dig him up and breath life back into him? Once is not enough? Or are they afraid that someone might change/commute the first one?

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Hey Ameba! Long time no see. Thought it was D.C. that had the strictest gun laws and the highest number of gun deaths. Are we rotating Chicago and D.C. back and forth now?

      Leave it to a Republican to place casting a vote over the value of somebody's life. Somebody else's life that is.

      So many votes are cast on election day in this country that a few hundred thousand one way or the other seldom makes any difference, and the reason for that is the Electoral College. Everybody's vote doesn't count anyway. Only matters if it pushes the majority over, and there are precious few states where that could happen. Swing states decide the presidency, the red and blue states always go the same way.

      Given how much Republicans love other people's deaths, it doesn't really surprise me that you would value the voting privilege over somebody's life, but of course the Supreme Court just struck that voter I.D. down, so it's now a dead issue.

      Increase penalties for gun violence? You mean give 'em more than one death penalty? We already give 'em more than one life sentence. How long do you want to keep a smelly old corpse around Mr. Cell? How many times do you want to kill these guys? I know you Republicans love death, but recycling corpses is going a bit far don't you think?

      Most of you people (Republicans) believe a whole lot of stuff that no one who hasn't been in the loony pen would believe. Registration precedes confiscation. Still have your car don't you? Nobody took that just because you registered it. That's about the biggest bullet ordinary folks are allowed to have. You can kill a lot of people in one fell swoop with a 4,000+ pound bullet.

      Come to think of it, a woman here in Texas just ran a car jacker over the other day and put him in the hospital. Who needs guns when you've got a car?

      They're not trying to control the little guns anyway. Just the ones that shoot several hundred rounds a minute and more. Why's that a big deal? Are you such a bad shot you need that many times to hit your target? You people always make a mountain out of a mole hill and then you say, "Ain't I sumfin? I just made this great big mountain and all I had to start was that little bitty hole in the ground!" Then you throw yourself a fish to celebrate. There are enough real issues that you shouldn't have to make any up.

      You all believe a bunch of garbage. If you didn't you wouldn't be Republicans. Think y'all must be possessed or something. There's just no explanation why otherwise intelligent people come up with so much barf as y'all do.

      Well, no time to mess with you now Ameba. Work is callin' my name.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      You do not know me Mr. Cell or you would not accuse me of being against Voter ID's. I very often vote with my drivers license.

      I lived in Chicago, Mr. Cell, I know what Chicago is like. I worked in an area that had the highest crime rate in the nation.

      Weapons excluded from Sen. Feinstein' s bill Protects the Following Weapons: (NOT BANS THEM)

      • Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

      • 2,200 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns are excluded from the bill by specific make and model;

      • Any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

      • Semiautomatic assault weapons used by military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement; and

      • Antique weapons.

      The Assault Weapons Ban only prohibits assault weapons not yet manufactured. However, an estimated 18 million to 35 million assault weapons have already been legally manufactured.

      The Justice Department estimates that loopholes allow approximately 40% of these items to be transferred to new owners without background checks. That means 7 million to 14 million assault weapons are owned by individuals who have not undergone background checks.

      The Assault Weapon Ban closes these dangerous loopholes by requiring background checks on all transfers of assault weapons covered by the legislation including sale, trade, gift, etc.

      Do you think we should go back to the lawlessness of the OLD WEST, Mr. Cell?

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      Shyron, if you were really interested in accountability (background checks for guns), you should also be for voter ID's. The privilege of voting is infinitely more important and infinitely more abused than the 2nd Amendment. But, of course you are not, are you? Gun registration for gun shows similar to that already required in stores is OK with me. Here's the problem: with Obama there is no trust. With Obama, most of us believe that registration is a step toward confiscation, as has happened many times historically worldwide by those with similar ideologies to Obama's.

      Restricting possession of firearms has resulted in the mass murders of people in such restricted locations. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and traditionally leads the nation in murders by firearms. It has recently gotten better in Chicago, not because of any "gun laws" but because of enhanced and smart law enforcement activities. That's what will reduce gun violence - crack down with existing law on criminals who use guns. Increase penalties if necessary. Penalizing LAW ABIDING citizens who own guns is ridiculous on its face!

      Regarding Sen. Feinstein, who is a nice person: Her gun bill was simply stupid. She presumed to actually list the guns Americans were allowed to have. That is so obviously unconstitutional I cannot believe any thinking American would take it seriously. You said you read my blog on Senator Feinstein. Perhaps you should read it again (www.thelibertycell.com).

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Glenda, thank you for your comments.

    • Uncle Nutsack profile image

      Uncle Nutsack 4 years ago

      Hmmm, Cruz should be investigated for exercising freedom of speech and making a proposal? That's what congress in supposed to do genius.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Uncle Nut is a troll, don't ya know? He has no hubs and just joined to stir the pot. Probably doesn't have any nuts either, it's just a euphemism.

      I'm not worried about anyone abolishing the IRS. I'm surprised they aren't investigating Cruz just for suggesting it. And it's run by a Republican, didn't you know? Seems like Dr. Phil could make a lot of hay with this guy. Trying to explain 'em is almost as hard as trying to reason with 'em. ;)

    • profile image

      Glenda Jacks 4 years ago

      Wow, does this man want to destroy this country? Surely this man must know this is wrong. How did this man get elected?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Before you read this comment, please read my hub.

      No! you miss the point Mr. Nut. Again the people who instituted the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN probably know more about guns than you ever learned.

      Again, I can I understand the NRA not wanting background checks, because they don't care who buys what they are selling and they don't care who gets shot with those guns, whether its children, teachers, babies or who, as long as they make that 'almighty buck.'

    • Uncle Nutsack profile image

      Uncle Nutsack 4 years ago

      Please see previous answer.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      No! you miss the point Mr. Nut. Again the people who instituted the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN probably know more about guns than you ever learned.

      Again, I can I understand the NRA not wanting background checks, because they don't care who buys what they are selling and they don't care who gets shot with those guns, whether its children, teachers, babies or who, as long as they make that 'almighty buck.'

    • Uncle Nutsack profile image

      Uncle Nutsack 4 years ago

      @ Shyron

      You are missing the point. The ban had no impact on crime and only hassled law-abiding citizens. I brought up my AR-15 because it seems to be the focus of all the libs at the moment. The libs seem to think the ban stopped the sale of AR's. It didn't. It was written by people who knew nothing about firearms that went after cosmetic features that looked scary to them.

      Many of us are against any concessions because of these types of bans. If the anti-gun folks are allowed to pass a law, they will only want a more restrictive law when their current law doesn't do anything. It will turn into an endless cycle of well if we only did this now. Dianne Feinstein posing for the camera while aiming an AK-47 at the audience with her finger on trigger isn't going to change our minds.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Mr. Nut for your continued comments. I am a law abiding citizen and I know a thing or two about guns. My grandfather taught me to shoot when I was a little girl. I don't need to brag about big guns that I have or don't have. Most of us 'Law Abiding Citizens' feel there should be background checks.

      President Clinton's ban was allowed to expire because it was his and like President Obama if he attempts to do ANYTHING for the American people, it will be met with opposition.

      You should read my response to LibertyCell above.

      I can I understand the NRA not wanting background checks, because they don't care who buys what they are selling and they don't care who gets shot with those guns, whether its children, teachers, babies or who, as long as they make that 'almighty buck.'

    • Uncle Nutsack profile image

      Uncle Nutsack 4 years ago

      @Shyron

      "Diane Feinstein, wanted to reinstitute the 'assault weapons ban with background checks' that President Clinton had in place, not about taking away your guns."

      It was allowed to expire because it did not do anything to reduce crime and was unpopular with law abiding citizens. The ban was written by people who knew nothing about firearms. They went after weapons that looked scary to them. I purchased my first AR-15 in the middle of the ban. It just couldn't have a bayonet lug or flash suppressor.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Mr. nut for leaving a comment. By the way, did you read my hub. It has nothing to do with Sen. Finestein. Maybe you don't care what Mr. Cruz abolishes. But I do.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for your comment and your up vote. You are very much appreciated.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      LibertyCell, here is what I meant by referencing being nice. I care whether the person who is elected to representative me and my fellow voters. I care whether he/she cares about the well being of others. And it is my observation from hearing Mr. Cruz speak that he is not one of those people, who cares about our country, or even the people he is suppose to be representing.

      You said: "My differences with Sen. Feinstein have nothing to do with her niceness of the lack of it."

      Diane Feinstein, wanted to reinstitute the 'assault weapons ban with background checks' that President Clinton had in place, not about taking away your guns.

      Conservatives don't even want the most basic background checks, and I can't understand why.

      I understand the NRA not wanting background checks, because they don't care who buys what they are selling and they don't care who get shot with those guns, whether its children, teachers, babies or who, as long as they make that 'almighty buck.'

      You said: "The good old boy syndrome in Congress is killing the country."

      The good old boy syndrome, I don't think Diane Feinstein belongs to the good old boys club.

      First of all she is a decent caring person, and I do not think she would fit in with McConnell, Canter, Boehner, Perry, Paul(s), Ryan, and Cruz. But if you were talking about these eight that I just mentioned, you could be right. Their only goal is to bring down President Obama, and they don't care who they bring down with him.

      You said: "The whole purpose of The Liberty Cell is to encourage governmental decision-making based on the validity of the issues, the truth."

      If you mean that, then learn the truth.

      You said: "BTW did you notice in the news today that many Congressional members are saying things like, "Obamacare is not fair to members and staff and some (both members and staff) are considering retiring or just getting out to avoid massive increases in their health insurance?"

      I did not hear that. This would make a good hub for you to write, because you could explain how congressmen pay health insurance and yet I thought that was part of their benefit package.

      You said: "I don't know why Issa is refusing to release the entire transcript;"

      Issa, can't, that would prove there are no weapons of mass destructions (i.e. connection between President Obama and the IRS questioning Tea Party groups.)

      First of all it was a conservative in the IRS who targeted the Tea Party group. That is like installing a fox in the hen house and then wondering why the fox targeted the Leghorns, and did not target the Domineckers also.

      F & F? George W. Bush owned and started it, it was called 'Wide Receiver,' then the republicans changed the name to Fast and Furious to hide the fact that it started under George W. Bush.

    • Uncle Nutsack profile image

      Uncle Nutsack 4 years ago

      @ Shyron

      "He is so chauvinistic, rude and crude in his attempt to make Diane look stupid, but he did not succeed."

      Well, I thought she looked pretty stupid in that exchange, but she normally comes accross looking pretty stupid to me.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 4 years ago from North Texas

      As you know I don't like to get into politics on this site, but I will say that I think politicians who talk about abolishing an unpopular agency or who talk about making something simpler that seems very complicated to a lot of people, does that in order to become more popular themselves and to get votes. (Wow! That's almost as long as a legal sentence in a statute!) ;)

      A snowball has a better chance of surviving Hell than Mr. Cruz has of abolishing the IRS, but it sounds good to people who don't know any better.

      Voted up and interesting!

    • TheLibertyCell profile image

      Jim Lyde 4 years ago from Austin, Texas

      Thanks, Shyron. Your comments were far more objective than I expected. I also appreciate your comment that you wanted me to post more Hubs. That has become an economic decision, because I am not attracting enough followers to stimulate any advertisement. That is also true on my webpage, but the prospects are better there. I am apparently a very poor capitalist!

      1. If Cruz is not "nice" that is OK with me. My differences with Sen. Feinstein have nothing to do with her niceness of the lack of it. The good old boy syndrome in Congress is killing the country. The whole purpose of The Liberty Cell is to encourage governmental decision-making based on the validity of the issues, the truth. BTW, did you notice in the news today that many Congressional members are saying things like, "Obamacare is not fair to members and staff and some (both members and staff) are considering retiring or just getting out to avoid massive increases in their health insurance?"

      2. I don't know why Issa is refusing to release the entire transcript; but if I were a Democrat I would not have the gall to bring up the subject, considering my party's track record on the subject (F & F, Benghazi, IRS, AP, Fox News, etc., etc.

      3. If you knew that your children were in jeopardy, would you make the decision whether or not to help them based on your budget? Come on Shyron! A campaign was going on, in which Obama was declaring the war on terror to be ending. Benghazi did not match his rhetoric and he took a calculated risk, which he, unfortunately, lost; hence the cover-up. That's the way I see it and I am confident that someday that perception will be confirmed.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      LibertyCell, I read your article on Diane Finestein. However, I saw this debate. You talk about his, Mr. Cruz's education.. unfortunately his super education does not make him a nice person, He is so chauvinistic, rude and crude in his attempt to make Diane look stupid, but he did not succeed.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image
      Author

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      I do hope you do not stop writting on HubPages.

    Click to Rate This Article