Do you think any of the presidential candidates who are left can fix this country?

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:30:08 -0500

We had an intelligent, trustworthy, Christian man running for President and the media took little notice until he suspended his campaign. He's the only decent candidate who ran a clean campaign without the first hint of a juvenile scrap. He has the demeanor I want to see in our next president. Doesn't look like that will happen no matter who gets elected.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 5 at 2016 11:36 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:36:42 -0500

And that is why so many of us love him. I will never understand how this person of quality could be so overlooked by the voter, D or R.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Mar 5 at 2016 11:41 AM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:41:27 -0500

Asking about a fix implies the USA is broken. It's not far from Trump going around saying that he's
going to make America great again. I don't believe that the US is broken, and she is still great. But, judging by the public's choice of top candidates, although she doesn't need repairs yet, she's in dire need of a calibration.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Mar 5 at 2016 11:58 AM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:58:52 -0500

He is right with that! Very Much on Point!

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2016 12:24 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:24:01 -0500

What exactly made Ben Carson such an amazing candidate? I mean, okay, he was a nice guy and all, but is that really the only criteria with which we judge our potential Presidents? This man displayed shockingly little knowledge of foreign affairs and American government.

Response by SFC Joseph McCausland made Mar 5 at 2016 12:34 PM

SFC Joseph McCausland — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:34:23 -0500

Dr. Carson is man of great wisdom, who has eloquent dignity and an unshakable character; unfortunately this go around, it seems many Americans would rather have a man in the White House who lacks all of the above.
To all of Trump's supporters hanging on every word and cheering at every witty retort, I thought it ironic that Megyn Kelly would choose to read a segment from the court ruling against him that said..

Victims "often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize they have been fleeced."

That was a statement from a Judge that ruled against Trump in one of the court cases filed against Trump University.

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Mar 5 at 2016 1:53 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 13:53:52 -0500

Ben Carsin will be placed in President Trumps Cabinet in a post where he will add his great mind to help my America Stronger.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 5 at 2016 2:00 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:00:55 -0500

Depends on what the word fix means. There are some that believe things are going swimmingly, the checks keep on arriving. $19T in debt and growing.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Mar 5 at 2016 2:31 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:31:17 -0500

I'd argue Kaesich is a candidate who could've done right by the country on the GOP side. Carson's problem wasn't that he was dumb, it's that he didn't take charge on the stage, and wasn't prepared. He's a very intelligent man, but not knowing how to pronounce Hamas? Not being up on foreign events, having a campaign staff that are all fighting each other? That doesn't bode well for him, and he was rather boring onstage. You know something's wrong when Trump won't even crack on you. Carson also made people think with the whole Popeyes incident, and his getting a scholarship to West Point. Something no one gets, and was easily fact checked to be wrong. GEN Westmoreland wouldn't have made a mistake that small. Moving forward, Bernie's integrity would serve us right, but the free ride wouldn't. No one left in the GOP is worth a damn, and Hillary? I'm dead set against her for many reasons but her last name sums it up. No more dynasties in office. So it'd come down to Kaesich or Bernie. I'm voting #NOBODY2016! And while it may seem like a joke, I'm not going to vote for the "lesser of two evils" just to say I voted. Barring a miracle from the RNC, Hillary will be President 17Jan17.

Response by MSgt Aaron Brite made Mar 5 at 2016 2:32 PM

MSgt Aaron Brite — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:32:18 -0500

Ha! None could fix it as the breakage is not in the country but in our leadership. The best fix is a new government (the elected and appointed folka). Well since Christy left (too much baggage), the candidate with the most experience in "cleaning house", we are stuck with Trump. None of the other candidates, Carson included, saw a need to clean out our political process so the people's voice is heard. Carson would be a great president for the Clean House.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2016 2:43 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:43:34 -0500

It's very hard to fix a country when both political parties portray the country in it's most negative light. No matter who wins the nomination one side will feel slighted and will do whatever they can to undermine the next President. So, you can't fix a problem when your fellow citizens are working against you.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Mar 5 at 2016 2:55 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 14:55:35 -0500

When has any candidate ever "fixed" America after being elected. Indeed, their "fixes" tend to make matters worse. Only Americans can fix whatever needs fixing. They can begin by electing representatives and executives who will limit themselves to the enumerated powers of the Constitution and then getting the hell out of our way.

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 5 at 2016 3:18 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:18:17 -0500

I believe that government has not and never will fixed this country. At its best government, creates conditions that let the people who have prepared themselves to seize opportunity and succeed. At its worse, government plows the soil in the road and fills it full of mud, then announces we're going to have a tractor pull today. What we wanted was to go to the grocery store.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Mar 5 at 2016 3:57 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:57:59 -0500

Not one of them, so long as congress & the WH continue to argue & screw with each other over trivial crap, and until term limits for congress is instituted and the MASSIVE amounts of $$$ and lobbyists are eliminated, NOTHING will fix this country.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2016 6:05 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:05:42 -0500

I like Ben Carson and black men before him like Alan Keyes. The media goes Pirhana against any black conservative and leaves black liberals usually unscathed! I learned so much from this video that I first had on Wolf Blitzer's situation room preempt yet CNN never pursued his questions! Why won't the media answer Ben Carson's questions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60nC_3RQZqo

Ben Carson Loses His Cool, Slams Obama and Media Double Standard

People know Ben Carson as soft spoken, but it looks like he has had enough of the media's double standards.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Mar 5 at 2016 11:11 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:11:22 -0500

Any of them could, if that were truly their mission.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Mar 5 at 2016 11:23 PM

SFC William Farrell — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:23:27 -0500

A1C Private RallyPoint Member I believe Dr. Carson was the only man out of the whole group with any class and he always conducted himself as such. He would have had my vote over Trump, Rubio or Cruz. Fiorina was also a classy lady.

Response by GySgt G. R. Mobley made Mar 6 at 2016 2:15 AM

GySgt G. R. Mobley — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 02:15:11 -0500

A1C Adams:
The real problem with our Republic is its paradigm. For over 150 years the rising generations have been inculcated into believing in “nationalism or federalism,” via a ratcheting (or gradual) process. Too few understand that the Constitution is a contract and subject to contract law. Once one begins to examine the real history of what was instilled by the framers (i.e. the men who worked together to create a hybrid Constitutional Republic) that was then ratified / accepted by the founders (i.e. the States for they are the stakeholders of the contract), one can garner and understand why the general (i.e. Federal) government was vehemently restrained from being able to assume any new role, responsibility, or power.

After James Monroe and John Quincy Adam’s Presidencies the general government began to over reach the Constitutional constraints. This is primarily due to the fact that the framers were dying off and a few nefarious lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, and religious leaders with machinations of avarice and power began to change the political energy of the Republic.

Originally the energy of the Republic that was set in motion was outward flowing, a distributive form of energy that would compare to a centrifugal force. What these lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, and religious leaders did was an insidious incremental change of this energy to one that was centripetal in nature. Jefferson spoke of these political energies that was installed was harmonious to natural law and based upon individual liberty and sovereignty. The other energy, Jefferson likened to as a destructive force that seeks to centralize controls and powers and eventually creates a void of individual liberty and sovereignty.

I would suggest anyone who wishes to speak with any authority of our Constitution and our Republic must read the ratification debates in the context that these are the arbitration forums as the founders pounded out the definitions and elucidations of what each line of the Constitution meant. Bear in mind that those who were used as the “Authority” of the Constitution were the States delegates who worked on the Constitution. In addition to this, in preparation to New York’s ratification, at the behest of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay authored a series of articles / documents referred to as the Federalist Papers that echoed what was stated by the other delegates in their States ratification debates.

In basic contract law, the Ratification debates are actual appendages to the Constitution or as Jefferson and Madison referred to it as a compact / contract. As one studies these documents, one will come to the conclusion that each State heard in different words the same type of testimony. This is why most of the States submitted amendments with their Ratification of acceptance and why we have a Bill of Rights. You can find the Debates here as well as many other great source documents: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp

In essence what was instilled in the newly created general government via the contract was specifically defined by the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution; thus, any and all other roles, responsibilities, and powers were retained by the States. The only way the general government could constitutionally assume a new role, responsibility, or power was identified in Article V of the Constitution. This codified process identifies that before a new role, responsibility, or power can be assumed the Constitution must be amended; requiring three-fourths of the States approving. Thus, the new role, responsibility, or power would then be “delegated” by the States for the general government to exercise. As a point in fact, there is no other way for the general government to take on any new role, responsibility, or power. Therefore, when Congress writes a law that assumes a new power such as the creation of the Department of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health, Welfare, Education, Energy, or an agency such as the EPA, unless the Constitution is amended to grant and delegate these powers than these are simply usurpation of State sovereignty and blatant violations of the contract.

If one reads Madison’s veto of the Bonus Bill (i.e. Congresses first attempt to create the Department of Transportation) one will clearly see Madison refers to the four mysterious clauses (i.e. the General Welfare, Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy clauses) to only apply to the enumerated powers and were not portals to usurp any new power. That if the general government wants to take on a new role, responsibility, or power they must seek the approval from the State’s first. You can read his powerful veto here: http://millercenter.org/president/madison/speeches/speech-3630

What the Constitution did not grant and this can be found in the ratification debates that the Supreme Court has the power to deem what is Constitutional and what is not. This power was vehemently reserved for the States only and the States were the ultimate overseers of the Constitution not the Supreme Court nor Congress, or the President.

The process that opened unconstitutional portals facilitating palpable violations to this contract was through Supreme Court rulings. I refer to these as unconstitutional footings. Marshall’s unconstitutional footings can be found in the following cases:
Marbury v Madison, 1803, he assumed the power of judicial rule and that the court could determine the Constitutionality of all things.
Fletcher v Peck, 1810, he assumed authority for the general government over the States in matters of contract and the ability to repudiate their contracts.
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 1819, he usurped the ability to interfere again with State contracts and restricting the States from creating their own bankruptcy laws.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819, he injected into the mortality of corporations and a State’s ability to challenge such contracts.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819, he invented the liberal construction of the Constitution that the general government was supreme in all things necessary and proper creating a living Constitution.
Cohens v. Virginia, 1821, an additional ruling usurping the States supremacy in all things not delegated to the general government when Marshall consider the general government supreme in all things he assumed.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, Marshall assumed federal power over interstate commerce instead of the actual Constitutional role as the arbiter in Commerce between States when two or more States had a dispute.

To be clear, the outcome of his rulings may have been constitutionally sound, but his verbiage and opinions crossed Constitutional boundaries and were patently incorrect. The obvious reason why the Republic and good leaders like Madison did not rise to refute these deliberate inserted opinions within the ruling were likely because these stalwarts of the Constitution did not recognize the fact that future cases would use these opinions to obfuscate the Constitution and subvert the Republic. This is because the Constitution nor in the ratification debates was there any allowance for “case law” and “precedence.” Another artifact that is not a factor of the contract is statutes of limitation. In other words just because they have been violating the Constitution in some cases for over 150 years does not automatically amend the Constitution or force the violation to become Constitutional.

I can continue to ad nauseam on this topic for quite a while and have written books on this topic and how to solve this problem. Suffice it to say that your premise that a Presidential candidate can fix this problem is an incorrect paradigm on so many levels. The Constitution does not grant the President these types of powers. That does not mean the President cannot call upon the Republic to step in and audit the Constitution a process I refer to as a convention for Republic Review. The fact that we have had such a long string of Kings in the White House, that over 99% of America has been inculcated into believing that the President possess these powers. It’s not your fault; our Republic has been undermined by a long running monopoly of thought in its education system that was implanted at the end of the nineteenth century by the Fabian Society.

I would simply challenge you and all who read this to challenge everything you have learned and research for yourself. In context to the founding of our Republic, just remember that the framers and founders did not trust a central government and recognized the aforementioned of energies that Jefferson described.

Finally, if you are wondering why I choose the photo I did for my profile, I too was taught and educated to believe in the principles of communism and I bought into it. It was only after I educated myself that I was able to recognize the destructive nature of these principles and the brilliance of the framers. Therefore this photo represents that if a stubborn person such as I can be converted from the pernicious teachings of the progressive ideology anyone can.

You may also want to read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. They are also available at the Avalon URL above.

You can find me on Facebook as GR Mobley and my publication page on Facebook is Mobius Strip Press. I hope this helps.

May God Bless the Republic!

B/R
G. R. Mobley

Avalon Project - 18th Century Documents : 1700 - 1799

Response by Cadet 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2016 6:09 PM

Cadet 1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Mar 2016 18:09:40 -0500

Kasich is the only responsible candidate with any kind of resume or policy. He has a great track record for pulling the people up again