Greatest threat to the United States of America

Maybe we need to rethink this "falling birthrate" notion. Can America only survive if we continue to expand and increase the population? We'll ultimately wind up like Gaza.

 

The cause will be weakness from within. The snowlake generation, the unisex culture and the feminization of America are all signs of our impending demise.

 

It's that 'demographic cliff' thing that Harry Dent keeps writing about. I don't buy many of Dent's theories about 'deflation' because the world's big central banks have worked relentlessly for the past ten years to promote inflation, squash interest rates, and create plenty of imaginary money to make sure 'deflation' never re-balances the scales in favor of a genuinely free market! Although I did buy Dent's book, and read it with great interest, I don't necessarily recommend all of it to others as some overpowering 'axiomatic truth'... Link: https://www.amazon.com/Demographic-...=1514472285&sr=8-1&keywords=demographic+cliff

That said, Dent accurately points out that the birth rate has fallen steadily over the past forty years in 'civilized', First-World countries -- particularly in Europe and the U. S.. Aging, shrinking populations spend disposable wealth in very different ways from younger, expanding ones... which is one big reason why the 'insiders' who really run Europe and the United States are hell-bent on bringing in more and more immigrants, especially those who are 'hungrier' and better-educated than our own generally unambitious, poorly-educated twenty and thirty-somethings.

So, yeah, the "rotting-from-within" syndrome appears to be our greatest threat -- although that's not really the same thing as "exhaustion"....

 

It's a court ruling in cases involving its parent organization (the federal government) as a litigant, what do you expect?

 

I wasn't there but the result is the fox watching the hen house. The Constitution is a contract between The People (the employers who pay the wages of government servants) and their government (the employees being paid specifically to defend, preserve and protect the Constitution via Oath and tasked with the duty to secure the individual rights of The People - see Declaration of Independence).

So imagine an employer/employee contract where the employee assumes the power to interpret his/her employment contract and the employer has no say other than to challenge the employee's interpretation. But the employee can refuse to hear the employer.

 

De-limiting the powers of each branch was maybe one of the things that the founders possibly overlooked or couldn't agree on when drafting the constitution. But It think they did a great job (What other revolution and constitution since the 19th century has remained, largely intact?). And no matter WHAT they might have written to say what the Supreme Court can and cannot do,, unforeseen tensions would have been detected.

 

I don't understand the analogy; the Supreme Court Justices do not materially benefit by their rulings or whims, as does the chicken-guarding fox, and there are liberal and conservative wings offsetting each other t an extent. And the Supreme Court doesn't control the police or the military who have the power to implement their rulings. I think the Congress and the President are much more dangerous branches.

 

To those voting for "exhaustion," is there anything government can do to rectify or slow it down? If not, then it's up to each of us to seek continual rejuvenation. We can do this by periodically reading the actual constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as well as staying physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

 

cheap foreign imports and cheap foreign outsourcing

if the American worker can not find good jobs, the American dream dies

 

First, it's irrelevant whether they materially benefit by their rulings or not, the result is still the same. At least one party benefits by their rulings and the other party is a victim of their rulings.

It's also irrelevant but their rulings are a form of control. Certainly control of the Constitution from the bench. For example, in Bush v Gore, SCOTUS controlled the presidential election, Bush benefited, Gore and The People were the victims. In Citizens United v FEC, SCOTUS controlled the power of corporations, the corporations benefited and The People were the victims. In Warren v District of Columbia, SCOTUS controlled the police by releasing them from their obligation to protect The People. The police benfited and The People were the victims.

That's a matter of personal judgment. From my point of view, he who controls the Supreme Law of the Land controls everything.

 

The supreme court does not control the military, the police, or "the purse." Those are three very important things they do not control.

 

Really? Domino theory? I thought that one died in the jungles of Vietnam...

 

I stand by my opinion and the examples given (they are only 3, there are many, many, more). If SCOTUS controls the Supreme Law of the Land via "interpretation" of the Constitution whenever a question of law arises, via grant of petition of writ of certiorari or via denial of petition, they control everything. As explained, they are not the only threat but they are the leading threat IMO. Again this is a matter of personal opinion.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Only the Constitution has no practical provision to enforce it on the very entity it was designed to protect The People from. And that's especially true of the Supremes, a bunch of unelected black robed lawyers.

 

Nope. It slowed down the trend towards entropy, but it didn't stop it.

 

We the People have the vote and representation in Congress. The colonists did not.

Also, have you read Citizens United? If so, would you have voted with the dissenters who voted to uphold a law barring release of a film critical of Hillary Clinton on a date deemed too close to an election?

 

Best answer yet,imo.

 

interest rates on that $20 trillion in debt go up and will stay there for some considerable time, costing America hundreds of billions. The value of the dollar will plunge as global confidence in the "global currency" will be eroded, opening the door to the so far tractionless efforts to establish alternative reserve currencies.

IOW, it would be a massive global financial clustermuck. Would you want to lend money to somebody who stiffs on their obligations? Bet your banker wouldn't.

 

Iceland got away with it. They ain't starving.

 

If you really believe that, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap. And even if true where has this gotten the American people so far?

The majority and minority opinions. Citizens United is only one of many, many issues here that are a major threat to the Republic, it's far from the only one.

It's not about which way I personally would have voted, it's about that the majority opinion is flat out loony tunes, typical of convoluted "interpretation" of the Constitution.

 

[WHAT CAN I SAY? I DISAGREE. JUSTICES KENNEDY AND ROBERTS ARE HARDLY "LOONY."]

[WELL, ACTUALLY, IT IS ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. YOU SAY IT'S "LOONY TUNES," THOUGH NOT EVEN THE DISSENTERS ALLEGE THAT IT'S "LOONY." WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU DISAGREE WITH?]

"The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech."

I don't mean disagree in a policy sense; Maybe it's a good idea, but I am asking how you can find arbitrary 30 and 60 day prohibitions on political speech and spending to be constitutional? Note that the prohibition covers not just corporations, but also unions and non-profits. That is tyranny.

 

That depends very much on the point of view. Speak for yourself, you don't speak for everyone. Regardless, if you're happy with the system, enjoy.

I never said they were, I specifically said "the majority opinion is flat out loony tunes". They are men and women with an agenda.

Exactly, as for YOU, congratulations, well done.

The end result.

I agree.

 

Everyone speaks for himself. That said, I am not "happy" with "the system" because of what it is doing to our culture -- but this is a result of American style capitalism and the unwashed masses' preference for fast food and reality television over home cooking and literature, which the Supreme doesn't control or even affect.

Everyone has an agenda. It's unavoidable. And the Supreme Court's agenda is not proactive. They only tell you what they think if you ask them, and it's pretty hard to get them to hear your appeal anyway. That's a pretty passive agenda.

And as for the majority. How many people support revolution, right now? Why can't communist or constitutionalist parties get any traction? I talk to a lot of commies and Libertarians. They raise legitimate grievances, but not one that I have met has proposed a better alternative to our system. That's why they can't get so much as a local dog catcher elected, with some isolated exceptions. But to return to the point, I don't know whom we could trust to decide on the constitutionality of congressional enactments or a President's executive orders, if not the Supreme Court. Notice that our presidents and congresses have almost uniformly acceded to Supreme Court rulings. They don't do so out of any fear that the Justices will come and lock them up. They do so because there is no sane alternative.

But you agreed with me, I think, that it it tyranny for the congress to tell you when you may or may not air a movie that you made opposing some politician? This is exactly what the Supreme Court did. It said "no" to the Congress and the F.E.C. Did you know that during oral arguments at Citizens United, the government claimed that the government had the power to ban books?

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."
http://www.ifs.org/2009/09/10/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-book-banning/

Do you agree that the government can constitutionally ban a book advocating a political position? I hope you'll say no.

It was this kind of governmental nonsense that the "loony tunes" majority opinion put a halt to.

 

The greatest threat to the USA is

The Concentration of Wealth.

​

The loss of a hope of home ownership while working 40 hours a week.
Less of the total currency is circulating, feeding a consumer economy.
More of that total currency is playing Wall St. games. Sequestered from circulation.

People will have less true investment in their nation. Such as a home. Not good.


Courtesy of Bipartisan Tax Cuts since JFK.
Dinner and a movie for us with less services such as infrastructure maintenance while "they" . . . .
I mean why didn't Ike and his GOP dismantle the Progressive, FDR/Truman Tax Code?
It was good for


The concentration of wealth is the greatest threat to America.
It powers the Plutocracy. Not good.

As True Today As Then
​

 

The apathy and ignorance of the public itself.

 

The American people have the option to declare bankruptcy, what options do countries have if any?