November Elections Won't Change a Thing

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Your poll is incomplete...

You are stating a fact that our economy is declining and saying either... "yes" the Republicans will save us or "no" it's too late. You should have asked, Will the elections will bring any real change "yes or no."

I'm not even going to vote in your poll or read what you wrote because the question you asked is way to biased.

If you thought I was espousing a partisan solution, I apologize. Let me rephrase:
The change necessary to correct the current trend toward collapse cannot be made by voting. Which does appear contrary to everything we are taught.
But if you read the law, it is more clear.

Government has two jobs:
A. Secure rights, and
B. Govern those who consent.

Consent waives job A.

The correct or effective strategy is to discover how and when you gave consent, and withdraw that consent. Then the government is restrained to merely securing inalienable rights.

To illustrate, militia duty, as are all civic duties, is compulsory, punishable for failure. However, the supreme court ruled that civic duties are NOT involuntary servitude. Oh?

Civic duties are obligatory because one has volunteered at some point, to be so burdened. What "they" have done was to mislead us regarding the way we gave consent.

Another example is national socialism via "voluntary" enrollment into SocSec/ FICA. We are led to believe that there is a law that requires participation and punishes those who do not. But there is no such law.
It was and is 100% voluntary servitude. Because involuntary servitude is still unconstitutional. He who consents cannot object.

So instead of a partisan battle waged between "Takers" and "Taken", where voting blocs empowered by conflict of interest vote for the candidate most capable of bribing them, the solution is not being in either group.

But few Americans will learn of that option, let alone read the law available in any county courthouse law library.

The servant government owes a duty to the sovereign people. But if the sovereign people are tricked into becoming servants to the servants, the government becomes the master. And keeps in power, by pitting one interest group against the other.

But if you carefully read the law, you will find that servant government never has trespassed upon the natural and personal liberty of the American people, domiciled upon their private property within the boundaries of the United States of America. But you will find volumes of rules and regulations for citizens / residents who reside at residences, exercising "civil and political rights" (*liberties) bestowed by government - at a high cost to their sovereignty and freedom.

[juppiter]

Honestly, if the Republicans are committed to real change and not just pulling off stunts to make the Democrats look bad, they could make some great compromises with Obama. When Clinton and the Republicans were forced to work together in the 90s, we got some amazing results.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by juppiter

Honestly, if the Republicans are committed to real change and not just pulling off stunts to make the Democrats look bad, they could make some great compromises with Obama. When Clinton and the Republicans were forced to work together in the 90s, we got some amazing results.

Compromise sounds so good, at first. But in a government instituted to secure rights, how can you compromise? How does one compromise on punishing murder, theft, mayhem, assault? I would think that all partisans would be in agreement that those injuries are bad.

But that's not the compromise you refer to. In a socialist government operated by opinion polls, popularity contests, and legalized bribery, everyone is compromised. What remains is a food fight over the vast resources stolen by government.