Shop More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Member TBSchemerMale/United States Group :iconliberals-stdt: Liberals-STDT
Liberals say the darndest things
Recent Activity
Deviant for 8 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 6 Deviations 599 Comments 20,348 Pageviews

Newest Deviations



It's no secret that we're living in an age of unprecedented federal corruption in the United States. We are in a Constitutional crisis, thanks to the inability to hold the Executive Branch accountable for breaking the law. The actions of the Obama administration have been unanimously (as in, 9-0) ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 20 times, and 13 of these rulings occurred just in the last 2 years:……

Yet, this administration does not suffer any punishment for their treason because the Democrats control enough of the Senate to fend off impeachment (and even after Tuesday's election, they will still control enough seats to fend off any convictions), and they continue to argue that violating the Constitution is not a crime. This allows corrupt federal officials to eternally push back constitutional limits on their power. It doesn't hurt them to try, so they might as well keep trying until they (by chance) get a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court that they can manipulate to their own advantage.

Thus, politicians are held to a much lower standard of behavior by the law than all of us average Joes. This lack of punishment is the entire reason our federal government has become an organized crime operation. If you want people to follow the law, there actually needs to be an effective punishment for breaking it.

Hence, in order to hold politicians within the constraints of the law and restore the power of the Constitution to protect our individual rights, I propose a new Constitutional Amendment:
Any government official found by the Supreme Court to be complicit in an unconstitutional act may be found guilty of high crimes and treason by simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, upon which the official will be removed from office, banned for life from holding any public office, and subjected to 10 years in federal prison.

With this Amendment, the Constitution would grow some teeth. Politicians would effectively be held to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens. Elected and appointed officials would be severely limited in the ability to push the limits of their own power. Corruption would dwindle, and the balance of power would start shifting back towards protecting individual rights. Our electoral system would stop selecting for psychopathic criminals. And yes, Barack Obama and his accomplices would be in jail by the end of next week.

So what do you think? Do you like the idea? Would it work?…

"Donít let anybody tell you that itís corporations and businesses that create jobs."
~Hillary Clinton


Seriously, Hillary Clinton just claimed that jobs aren't created by businesses. There is nothing about the context that changes this. This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard a politician say.

Is she saying that only the government creates jobs? Does she think she creates jobs when she stands up there yelling bullshit? How, exactly, does she think jobs are created?

I know I'm supposed to prompt a discussion, but I literally just can't even. Is the entire Democratic Party this stupid, or is it just Hillary Clinton?
I've posted on this forum in defense of violent video games many times before, but this topic just got pushed to its logical extreme.

Destructive Creations has just released a gameplay trailer of their new production, Hatred, in which you play as a mass-murderer trying to kill as many innocent people as possible before getting killed yourself. The gameplay trailer is here, but I have to seriously warn you that this is possibly the most psychologically disturbing thing I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm no stranger to the internet.

For those who have chosen not to watch the video (I really don't blame you), the protagonist is a brooding, hateful, genocidal asshole who has decided that he's had enough with the world, and it's time to die and take down with him as many innocent people as possible. The gameplay scenes show him walking out of his house and gunning bystanders down, slitting people's throats, blowing their brains out, and doing battle with the cops. The victims beg for their lives as they're dying.

Some have argued that this is no different than Grand Theft Auto, but isn't it? GTA certainly has gratuitous violence, but it's so much more fictional. It's nowhere near as realistic or immersive as Hatred. You can have morally repulsive violence in a game, OR you can have immersive, first-person realism. To combine the two gets a little terrifying.

At what point does a game go from "Freedom of Speech commentary on society" to "terrorist training simulator"?
The principle of the Separation of Church and State has done wonders for religious freedom, and has brought impressive levels of interpersonal harmony and general prosperity. Why? Because this principle removes the mechanism of violence from religion, making the proposal in explicitly harmonious terms.

Unfortunately, a new kind of violent, crusading morality has taken its place, in the form of economic progressivism. Progressives believe that certain kinds of economic transactions between people, though completely voluntary on all sides, are immoral, and thus must be violently suppressed. This has created, on economic matters, the same kind of heated partisan discord that once divided British Catholics and Protestants. In the less civilized corners of the world, the economic crusaders have employed corruption and military strength to gain a permanent advantage over their opponents, establishing socialist dictatorships.

To restore harmony on economic matters, and ensure that violence is never used for the sake of overly-intrusive, moralistic crusading, what we need is a principle of Separation of Commerce and State.

I believe this principle would function the way the Separation of Church and State has, becoming shorthand for the plea to maintain civility through the enforcement of "live and let live" on economic matters. In other words, you may not agree with the contracts that I agree to, but I am free to make my own choices according to my own economic beliefs, and so are you. Certainly, the progressives will object to such a principle, arguing that the people are too stupid to know what's best for themselves, just as religious crusaders have continued to do, centuries after the introduction of the Separation of Church and state. Yet, I think the formalization of this concept in parallel to the language that protects religious freedom will take a giant leap forward in protecting economic freedom, with far more success than general pleas for liberty (which are often difficult for the uninitiated to understand).

So, have I made my case? Are you ready to start framing the debate over economic liberty in terms of "Separation of Commerce and State"?
Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a Constitutional Amendment that would effectively repeal the 1st Amendment protections of political speech for everyone, and put the phrase "except for people organized as corporations" after every clause in the US Constitution that secures our basic human and political rights. The amendment as proposed is here:…

The Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid, have voted to move this Amendment forward for debate, and plan to spend the few weeks between their Summer vacation and the November elections trying to push this Amendment through. A few dozen trolling Republicans have also voted to bring the Amendment to the floor so that they can hammer the Democrats for supporting overt totalitarianism.…

This just goes to show that the complete insanity in the Democratic Party doesn't end at the California borders. Is this the dawn of a new era of Big Brother-style speech controls and fascist corporate nationalization? Or will the Democrats' open embrace of totalitarianism incur a high enough political cost to send them scurrying back to the dark corners of the country whence they came?
Other deviants on the politics forum can get 300 comments on their posts after a week if their thread is particularly controversial. I get 300 comments overnight. :iconnorrisplz:


United States
I'm a Minarchist Libertarian, fighting against the oppression that our world complacently endures.

AdCast - Ads from the Community




Add a Comment:
ctulthu-agent-7 Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014  Professional Artist
Thank you for the watch!!
partical0 Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2014
I see a whole lot of bitching and not much art here....
Deluwyrn Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the watch!
Madam--Kitty Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Hi! wanna join my group called Anti-illuminati? anti-illuminati-01.deviantart.…
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2014
You're going to get blocked if you keep this up.
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
If you can't answer the simple questions I asked, then you really have no place talking about such things as if you knew. Because clearly you don't know shit.
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
When you're being a contrarian on every little thing, it's a waste of my time to respond to everything.
(2 Replies)
JooPe Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2014
Clearly, you have already placed a mental-block on all questions you cannot answer. Go ahead, I look forward to adding you to my signature.
Timon-Berkowitz Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2014
A response...  individual rights are good, but if we have a nation of solely extreme individuals, then would it not be much easier for Americans to be taken advantage of if they cannot organize or unify together?
Add a Comment: