Is the American sense of justice and morality dead?

You live in a pit of fear and have no evidence of any of that while you have not said who they are.

My point is that IF the people focus on a lawful and peaceful revolution, there will be success, and they, whoever "they" are, will not matter.

 

if you make human labor more expaensive more jobs will be replaced by robots there for instead of having a worker with a lower wage job you have a worker with no job
but of coarse you failed ideology is more important then reality

 

Basically you are conducting "all or nothing thinking" and trying to get others to do it as well. Likely because you want to justify your own fear, apathy or alienation.

It is true "THEY" (you have not identified) can do a lot, but NOT anything.

THEY have to be careful, because THEY do not want to be exposed, and there is a LOT to expose.

Since I know who THEY are, and am not afraid; I do respect their power and knowledge; I will identify them. THEY are secret societies and the church. I also know THEY are not all bad, there are some very good ones, BUT, all of them are sworn to secrecy and the good ones cannot do anything about it.

Therefore, my fearful fellow citizen, it is up to you and I. As long as we act in a lawful and peaceful way with our revolution, we will be okay.

 

Patriotism is alive only in name in the U.S. It no longer has meaning, and people usually support or protest the status quo purely on the basis of how it affects them personally in the here and now, and the implications for our country in the future are not considered.

However, who we are individually is of little consequence to others, but collectively we have earned the respect of the entire world as an uncontested world leader. As members of the elite group commonly referred to as “Americans”, we each proudly claim the prestige, protection, and the considerable benefits that are granted to us individually as entitlements of our citizenship.

The blame that most people place on the government for our problems should be shared individually by each one of us. In our democracy, the American public’s primary duty as a collective unit is to guide, not just follow; consequently, each one of us shares a portion of the blame for not effectively monitoring and influencing our leaders’ decisions. Citizenship does not simply grant us privileges; it also endows us with responsibilities. Specifically, we must work together for the good of our country, despite our differences, whether they be racial, cultural, political, religious, or otherwise.

Our Constitution is the blueprint for our government, and in its pages you will find that the American public is the source of power for this government. We, as individuals, are at the bottom of the chain of command, but we, as a united populace, are at the top of the chain of command. Therefore, the effectiveness of our government is dependent on the extent of our unity. When we blame the government for mismanagement, we are pointing fingers at ourselves. If we can’t agree on solutions, we lose our voice in government, which is an invitation for highly funded special-interest groups to take over.

Our international success in the past was embodied in the musketeers' motto, immortalized by Alexander Dumas in "The Three Musketeers": "All for one, and one for all". Our own motto, "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL" was meant to be a rallying cry for our nation, not its epitaph.

We can turn our situation around, but only by universal agreement by right and left on what is BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY, along with OUR mandates to OUR government for enforcement.

 

I will opine that the 1% are paying 20 percent of all the taxes paid, that they upper 10% are paying 50% of all the taxes paid and the bottom 40 % not one red cent and are, on the whole, net tax takers.

 

According to the Federal Reserve Board, the richest 1% of our nation possesses 37% of its wealth, while its bottom 40% possesses only two-tenths of 1% of its wealth. Another way of saying this is that an average member of the top 1% owns net assets valued at 7400 times the worth of those possessed by an average member of the bottom 40%. Our sluggish economy is due simply to a lack of available funds in an increasing number of potential buyers because most of the finite capital resources of our country are stagnating or recirculating within the wealthiest echelons of society. But still, we are under the spell of "trickle-down", and so many have been led to believe that government-subsidized social programs along with overtaxing the wealthy are the main causes of our economic downturn. Just as disturbing is the fact that the total wealth of the top 1%, made up for the most part of those involved with the corporate sector, actually increased during the current recession, in spite of it . . . or maybe as a result of it???

Might it be considered a possibility that the indigence of the bottom 40% might be due to exploitation by the wealthy? I am more than certain that you will not bother to research it, but the cost-of-living of the poverty-stricken is much higher than for the middle class because of those who take advantage of the desperation and vulnerability of the destitute. If we are already subsidizing the bottom 40%, what would be the net effect of taxing them? Essentially, the logical conclusion to be deduced from your assertions is that we either write off the bottom 40% or increase taxes on the middle class.

 

It's not as exotic or mysterious as you seem to assume.

It's simply most of the Upper Class, aided and abetted by the Upper Middle class. Look into the leadership of the Fortune 500 companies and the annual listing of the most wealthy in Forbes for many of them.

The top group is narrowing, as the video you still evidently have not watched shows, with only about 425 people holding a preponderance of the money in this country right now.

They have plenty of social and business links; no need for any secret societies, although some exclusive clubs could also be a factor. Knowing the group goals, there is no need for secret plots. All of the people acting at that level can be and are individual, autonomous actors. They have no need for the support and approval of others to take action to meet the group goals.

It is a group united by the desire to maintain privilege. Anything or anybody that truly threatened that will be dealt with--in some cases, by partial admission (allowing to run for office/gain a position/win a larger salary). In other cased, ridicule, defamation, and exclusion are sufficient. In a few cases, annihilation. Mainstream church influence is waning, which is part of the problem. There is no longer a sufficient buffer to their greed.


As far as being exposed, they have been, over and over again. People have ignored the warnings, and IMO it is now too late. I'm not afraid--if I were I would certainly not be posting about this on the internet. I know they won't bother with me, any more than they have with most economists and writers that have tried and are still trying to spread the alarm. I would have to do something extremely effective, such as originate a movement like the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, before I would be at risk. That is why the OWS crowd wisely apportioned no fixed leadership.

The Upper Middle class has always striven to meet the needs and desires of the Upper Class, which is the source of the livelihoods of the most powerful in that group. With computerization, there is a need for fewer of them, and they see that their positions are precarious. As with anyone who is desperate, they are more dangerous to the rights of the rest of us than ever. Members of the Upper Class are in the enviable position of being able to have their dirty work done for them, almost untraceably, since the Upper Middles are so eager to meet their needs before they are even expressed. If an UM makes a mistake they can always be fired and disavowed. It is from this group that you would be able to draw most of your "state representatives", as they would be the most likely to understand what you are trying to do, and IMO in most cases wold join up with the intent of taking control themselves to please their UC controllers.

I don't care what you think my motives are. I am angry that someone would be so stupid as to think "they" would not be able to destroy our Constitution once given the opportunity. IMO anyone that makes a move like that in our current situation is either an egotist or a fool, or maybe both. Ask yourself what triggered your desire to do such a thing, and where and under what circumstances you obtained the necessary information. Also consider what was done with Marx's teachings by Lenin and Stalin.

The US Constitution was fashioned in a crucible of special circumstance by the best minds of that day. What makes you think you can or should improve upon it? It is far more likely that you would open a pathway to its destruction.

 

I doubt that you will answer,because you never do when asked a question. What % do you think the 1% should be taxed at?

 

The top 1% also created about half the wealth... Trickle down isn't the problem regulatory overburden is the problem along with unrelenting flood of unskilled labor from south of the border.

 

Not without serious evidence.

 

For someone who cannot define who THEY are with any specificity, you've shown nothing indicating you can define the qualities, capacities or INTENTS of the constitution.

When you failed to respond in the affirmative to this inquiry:

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

You've showed your limits.

You are limited to defining the various trivial aspects of a massive problem.

When you fail to explain WHAT enables the unity needed to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, IF it is NOT free speech; by default; you are not accountable to the basis of asserting that another cannot improve upon it.

In reality, I've made no improve of IT, I've simply defined what IT means with greater detail. You apparently do not realize the competition and distraction that was present when the framers were trying to create these documents.

Simply the fact I do not have dozens of loyalists yelling what can or cannot be included, frees me to increase definition of what the framers intended.

 

Your input is a reflection of what your ego would like to believe and ignores input which was quite specific.

If your dream is that important to your self image, nothing will dissuade you from attempting to place our Constitution at risk, but hopefully your own limitations will themselves protect it.

 

-Removing discipline from schools
-Arresting parents for disciplining their children
-Undermining men in every which way possible to support their family or respect family values
-Promoting individualism & materialism
-etc

 

How many times in the past month has someone attempted to scam you?

Those with low income who are unable to meet credit guidelines pay high rental rates for slum housing, while no-credit-needed car lots sell junk cars at premium prices. The poor are easy targets because they don't keep lawyers on retainer. The wealthy are not going to publicize their exploitive abuses, and the poor have long realized that nobody is listening.

You will not hear serious evidence of exploitation from Fox News, and if you filter out all other sources, labelling them "propaganda", how can you consider yourself "enlightened"? I think that you keep your head buried in the sand to ease your conscience.

 

The top 1% does not CREATE wealth. ALL of its wealth originally belonged to the bottom 99% and the rest of the world.

Regulatory overburden isn't a problem; regulatory incompetence is.

Immigration is a problem that Congress has been unwilling to deal with; outsourcing is a bigger problem, but dealing with it would require regulation.

“It’s all about the money” is an often heard remark in our society, yet so few are willing to challenge the economic influences which make them prisoners in a system which so obviously needs reform. We buy into a philosophy endorsing the “trickle down” theory as being the primary factor which will lead to our recovery, yet we seem to refuse to consciously consider that the source of this “trickling down” reserves for itself the regulation of how much will be relinquished and who the beneficiaries will be. But, while apparently the corporate sector has no responsibilities, balancing the budget is unfairly the responsibility of a government which is not allowed to balance the economy.

Government is controlled by the people that we choose to voice our opinions, and when we choose those that value the endorsement of the corporate sector more than the protection of our individual freedoms guaranteed by virtue of our citizenship, then we are voluntarily relinquishing our rights and rejecting the values of our founding fathers and so many others who have sacrificed to preserve our freedom. I am more than certain that the overwhelming majority of members of this forum are in the bottom 99%; those who validate the authority of the 1% are figuratively signing a "Declaration of Dependence".

 

None.

And why do you assume I get my information from FoxNews?

- - - Updated - - -

 

You just failed and disproved all
of your assertions with that failure to address this of my last post.

 

The above is specious nonsense.

And this nation was NEVER purely capitalistic nor socialistic (it's a hybrid). (I won't even go into how much of what America is, was built with SLAVE labor.)

 

Does government itself tend to be inherently sociopathic?

https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/mental-lever/sociopathic-politics/

 

This is such arrant nonsense I don't even no where to start. There is more wealth in the days of ancient Rome than there was in the days of the hunter gatherers/ Where did that come from? Someone had to create it. There was more wealth in 1800 than there was in the days of ancient Rome. Where'd that come from? Some one had to create it. There is substantially more wealth today then there was in 1800. Where'd that come from? Some one created it. Wealth is created when someone finds a new and better way to use an existing tool, or creates a more complex tool, or finds a better more efficient method of making an existing tool.

The chief problem with the left is the stupid idea that wealth is constant when, in fact; it is ever expanding. That and the fact that they seem unable, at times, to differentiate between wealth and money. Wealth was created when the first caveman discovered that if you stuck the sharp end of your stick in the fire it became harder and made a better spear assuming you didn't leave it in there till it caught on fire. Money doesn't show up until one whole hell of a lot later. Wealth is things, more wealth means more and better things, money is simply a way to measure the value of things.

The above post is like claiming that at one time every one had a grand piano but the rich stole them all and burned up the ones they didn't need.

 

Your right to say this country has been perverted into a mix bag of socialism and capitalism. However you wrong to say it was ever intended to be. We were intended to be a Republic Capitalist society. As far as how slavery built the country I will call absurdity on you. Our Wealth creating is 14000 times our population versus the next socialist country. And that didn't happen off the backs of slaves which ended over 200 years ago.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q&list=PLFF7A6CCF6725F1D4&index=3 a great example that illustrates your point.

 

It appears government is, but that is just appearance. It is infiltrated and controlled by secret societies and their agenda is worse than sociopathic. Merwin pretends it is just a set of classes mislead in support of an elite.

No, there is a design utilizing all of media to manipulate, mislead and corrupt the public. That aspect is diabolical and can only be offset by the public DEMANDING that mental health care integrate direct treatment of the unconscious mind. This however can only happen as an aspect of our lawful and peaceful revolution because justice will be needed and the current government with it control over courts will not allow it.

One reason is that most of the mass murderes are unconsciously programmed as an element of a scheme to impose gun control. If such mental health care was developed, their programming could be exposed.

Of course then Muslims that have been programmed to be terrorists using their immense persecution complex, created by manipulating America into supporting crusades upon the ME, could also be understood.

Of course the lawful and peaceful revolution on its own will do a great deal to end the sociopathic appearance of government.

But Merwin fails to be accountable enough, or even try, to express an understanding of the framing documents and constitutional intent. First Merwin failed to accept prime constitutional intent. Alter or abolish with free speech serving the purpose of enabling unity needed for it. Then when failing to explain how the needed unity to alter or abolish is enabled without free speech serving the purpose, it exposed itself.

What I am describing is a technique sincere Americans need to employ to be sure they are not infiltrated by covert agents of foreign governments or secret societies that are in control of multinational corporations. Those infiltrations work to foul cognition of a group to prevent any unity which might successfully oppose the agenda.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95K0ZV20130621?irpc=932
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.