1st Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Last night the issue was freedom of speech. Tonight, it is freedom of religion. The first amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, addresses what Congress cannot do. Neither this one nor the following amendments were designed to give the citizens rights. It was understood that the citizens already had their rights - "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." (Declaration of Independence). The Bill of Rights was deemed necessary as a way to spell out specific areas where the Federal Government cannot go. The list of rights, in the first eight amendments was also not meant to be all-inclusive. Amendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
The Constitution gives the three branches of the Federal Government certain and specific responsibilities and authority. Whatever was not given, by the Constitution, to the Federal Government, was reserved to the various state governments or to the people.
The first amendment states that Congress cannot pass any law that has to do with the establishment of a religion. In other words, in the United States, there is not to be any specific religion that is sponsored by Congress. There can be no "National Religion". It goes on to instruct Congress that they cannot pass any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion, by the people.
The "wall of separation between religion and government" is not a part of the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that there can be no religious activities on public property or as a part of government functions. This notion of "the wall" was invented later in our history and has now grown to a point where only rarely is there any form of religion associated with any level of government or any other public entity, such as public schools.
Washington, the ACLU, atheist organizations and others have been busy over the past 50 years getting religion out of public view. We have heard of a church in Phoenix being prohibited from ringing their church bells. We have heard of cities prohibiting home Bible studies in residential neighborhoods. The trend has been more regulation to restrict the free exercise of religion. This is, of course, with some exceptions.
A notable exception, across the country, is found with the Islam religion. For some reason, it seems that Muslims are being granted more freedom and flexibility than the Christian churches. Have you ever heard of a Muslim gathering being cancelled due to city restrictions on their activities? Have you ever heard of Muslims being told that they cannot announce the daily calls to prayer over loud speakers? Why are Muslims being granted special rules as pertain to airport security screening? Would you ever think, for a second, that you could cover your face when your photo is being taken for your "photo ID" or your driver's license?
Why are so many trying so hard to bend over backwards to placate and appease the Muslims? Because, after all, aren't they "the religion of peace"? If you doubt that, just look at the middle east. See how well they play with their neighbors in Israel. Learn from their example of reaching across the aisle, between the tribes, in Iraq. Notice how, when they decide to blow people to pieces, how careful they are to not hurt fellow Muslims. Listen to how much love there is between Iran and the Jews. Peace, peace, as far as the eye can see!
Also, pay no attention to the things their leaders say, such as: wanting to wipe Israel off of the map, believing that all Christians should be killed, seeing the United States as the great Satan and Israel as the little Satan, cheering as they watched the twin towers crumble on 9/11, and their tremendous respect for the females in their society. Remember "honor killings"?
The Islam religion, along with their Sharia Law, is not conducive to co-mingling with Christian religions or the Jews. How many Islam religious leaders in the U.S. loudly and adamantly spoke out against the acts of terrorism conducted on American soil on 9/11, or any of the others since? When some Muslim does speak out, he is so rare that it gets a lot of attention.
Freedom of religion has close ties to freedom of speech. How tolerant should we be in the United States to a religion that promotes terrorist acts, preaches the elimination of Israel, believes that all Infidels (whoever does not receive the Islam faith) should be killed? As we discussed last night, how far can people go in what they say before they have crossed the line and left Constitutionally protected territory?
We, in America, appear to be granting special favors to a "religion" that favors the fundamental transformation of our country from the basics it was founded upon to an unrecognizable nation. They are anti-capitalists, anti-Christian promoters of violence. They view women as property. They prey on the poor and uneducated to entice them to become suicide bombers. Are you aware that leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death? Why are they set on building a 13-story mosque next to "ground zero" in NY City? Why is NY City allowing them to proceed?
What about this religion fits into this country, the way it was founded? This kind of "peace" we do not need!
So, should we rewrite Amendment One? Is there a way to deal with the fastest growing religion in the world? No, the Bill of Rights are just fine, as written. We need to apply the same conclusion we reached last night. They are not free to promote the destruction of the United States. They cannot teach that non-believers should all be killed. They cannot get away with hate speech any more than anyone else. If they are found to be promoting or teaching the over-throw of America, the killing of those who disagree, etc.; they should be treated the same way a right-wing, black guy or left-wing white guy would be treated. It should be treated as criminal behavior. There should be arrests and prosecution and punishment.
If they want to be here, fine, just get along and fit in. If you believe different than me, fine, just respect my faith and actually be a religion of peace. Muslims have no right to diminish the rights of non-Muslims. If they promote doing so, then they must be stopped with the full force of the law, backed by our Constitution. They do not have a level of rights that supersedes mine!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
When are Rights, Wrong?
1st Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When we claim to possess the right of "freedom of speech", are there limits as to what we can say? You have probably heard the same thing I have, "You do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Sounds reasonable and makes sense.
It also sounds reasonable to expect that some conversations would cross the line as to protected speech. If a group of people were planning a crime - say, killing someone; would law enforcement have to wait until they actually attempted to carry out the murder before they could step in and file charges? Is a discussion about an intent to commit a crime, a crime?
How about someone attempting to insight violence? Can you stand on your soapbox, on the street corner and preach to the crowd that they should go and commit crimes? How far can "hate speech" be taken before it crosses the line of becoming a criminal act?
Our country now has a category of criminal behavior categorized as "hate crimes". We have watched, at least on TV, someone burning the American flag. We have seen the photos of protesters at soldiers funerals with signs stating that God hates soldiers, etc. There are the "works of art" showing Jesus in sinful acts, etc. All of these, we are told, are protected under the first amendment as freedom of expression, which they say is a part of freedom of speech.
So, if a white guy promoted the murder of black people, what would that be called? Is it freedom of speech, a hate crime, or just plain criminal? Since "justice is blind" and does not see or weigh the color of skin of the accused or the victim, what is wrong for one race is also wrong for any other - right?
If I were a racist and openly encouraged the murder of people of another race, I believe that I would spend a long time behind bars; and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, how is it that the following statements could be made in public, filmed, and broadcast on national television; and nothing happens?
"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" yelled Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.
Is this kind of rhetoric protected under freedom of speech? Is this just another one of those "expressions" that the rest of us have to put up with, or is this criminal behavior? When a black man stands on the street and yells to other black men that they need to go kill white people and their babies, in order for the black men to ever be free; that has crossed the line. This is not the expression of opinion, it is the promotion of murder. If I, as a white, did what he, as a black, did; the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that I be punished. If he, as a black, did what he, as a black, did; and he were arrested, the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that he not be punished.
Folks, we have a problem here! If a white person paints the "n" word on something in the public view, that is called a hate crime. But we have this angry, black man, who clearly has an aggressive nature, calling white people "crackers"; and no one seems to have an issue with that. How could that be racist or a hate crime? It was committed by a "black". We all know that only "whites" are racist. Everyone else of any other race is characterized as being a victim of the whites and it is understandable when they lash out.
Is the right, wrong? Should "freedom of speech" be restricted? The answer lies in another common sense saying, "Your rights end at the point where they would begin infringing upon someone else's rights." If we each have equal rights, then I do not have the right to trample on your rights - even if it is only in my speech.
Just as we do not have the right to promote the overthrow of our government by violent means, we should not have the right to promote the overthrow of another's life by violent means. If this man is not held accountable for this type of speech, the line will be pushed further. If you tell someone to go kill someone, and they do, you are also guilty of a crime. So, why would the same act, on your part, not be a crime if that person decided to ignore you and not kill someone. You committed the same offense either way.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
When we claim to possess the right of "freedom of speech", are there limits as to what we can say? You have probably heard the same thing I have, "You do not have the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Sounds reasonable and makes sense.
It also sounds reasonable to expect that some conversations would cross the line as to protected speech. If a group of people were planning a crime - say, killing someone; would law enforcement have to wait until they actually attempted to carry out the murder before they could step in and file charges? Is a discussion about an intent to commit a crime, a crime?
How about someone attempting to insight violence? Can you stand on your soapbox, on the street corner and preach to the crowd that they should go and commit crimes? How far can "hate speech" be taken before it crosses the line of becoming a criminal act?
Our country now has a category of criminal behavior categorized as "hate crimes". We have watched, at least on TV, someone burning the American flag. We have seen the photos of protesters at soldiers funerals with signs stating that God hates soldiers, etc. There are the "works of art" showing Jesus in sinful acts, etc. All of these, we are told, are protected under the first amendment as freedom of expression, which they say is a part of freedom of speech.
So, if a white guy promoted the murder of black people, what would that be called? Is it freedom of speech, a hate crime, or just plain criminal? Since "justice is blind" and does not see or weigh the color of skin of the accused or the victim, what is wrong for one race is also wrong for any other - right?
If I were a racist and openly encouraged the murder of people of another race, I believe that I would spend a long time behind bars; and, in my opinion, rightly so. So, how is it that the following statements could be made in public, filmed, and broadcast on national television; and nothing happens?
"I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em... You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!" yelled Minister King Samir Shabazz, aka Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party's Philadelphia leader.
Is this kind of rhetoric protected under freedom of speech? Is this just another one of those "expressions" that the rest of us have to put up with, or is this criminal behavior? When a black man stands on the street and yells to other black men that they need to go kill white people and their babies, in order for the black men to ever be free; that has crossed the line. This is not the expression of opinion, it is the promotion of murder. If I, as a white, did what he, as a black, did; the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that I be punished. If he, as a black, did what he, as a black, did; and he were arrested, the blacks would be marching in the streets demanding that he not be punished.
Folks, we have a problem here! If a white person paints the "n" word on something in the public view, that is called a hate crime. But we have this angry, black man, who clearly has an aggressive nature, calling white people "crackers"; and no one seems to have an issue with that. How could that be racist or a hate crime? It was committed by a "black". We all know that only "whites" are racist. Everyone else of any other race is characterized as being a victim of the whites and it is understandable when they lash out.
Is the right, wrong? Should "freedom of speech" be restricted? The answer lies in another common sense saying, "Your rights end at the point where they would begin infringing upon someone else's rights." If we each have equal rights, then I do not have the right to trample on your rights - even if it is only in my speech.
Just as we do not have the right to promote the overthrow of our government by violent means, we should not have the right to promote the overthrow of another's life by violent means. If this man is not held accountable for this type of speech, the line will be pushed further. If you tell someone to go kill someone, and they do, you are also guilty of a crime. So, why would the same act, on your part, not be a crime if that person decided to ignore you and not kill someone. You committed the same offense either way.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Remember November!
The next election is less than 100 days from now. Do not take it for granted that the cRats will be swept from office by a bunch of iCans riding in on white horses. (For any Libs that might read this, "white horses" is not a racial comment, that phrase refers to the "good guys", just as the good guy in the old western movie was usually wearing a white hat.)
Not only is it not a "lock" that the iCans will gain some level of power in D.C., it is not even sure they will win their individual seats. The problem lies with two issues: first, too many iCans are honestly iCan'ts. We seem to send to Washington people who are too timid or lack the backbone necessary to stand firm or lack the gumption for a good fight. Second, iCan'ts seem to attack their own harder than they do the enemy. We are known for political cannibalism.
The McCain and Hayworth primary in Arizona is a prime example of this. Many have commented that McCain might be President if the last campaign, against Obama, had of been fought as hard as he is fighting to defeat a Conservative. This primary has been down and dirty, no-punches-held! McCain, it is reported, has spent around $10,000,000 so far in this primary. Much of that money, it is also reported, has been transferred from his failed presidential campaign. Yep, the rough-and-tough Senator from AZ went through the last campaign saving up money, instead of using everything he had to defeat the foe.
Now is a call to action. If there is a way to help a true conservative win the primary and then the general, step up and do what you can. Not everyone can send money to a campaign, but most can do something. Call their offices and see how you can volunteer your time and service. Folks, this is important!
Not only is it not a "lock" that the iCans will gain some level of power in D.C., it is not even sure they will win their individual seats. The problem lies with two issues: first, too many iCans are honestly iCan'ts. We seem to send to Washington people who are too timid or lack the backbone necessary to stand firm or lack the gumption for a good fight. Second, iCan'ts seem to attack their own harder than they do the enemy. We are known for political cannibalism.
The McCain and Hayworth primary in Arizona is a prime example of this. Many have commented that McCain might be President if the last campaign, against Obama, had of been fought as hard as he is fighting to defeat a Conservative. This primary has been down and dirty, no-punches-held! McCain, it is reported, has spent around $10,000,000 so far in this primary. Much of that money, it is also reported, has been transferred from his failed presidential campaign. Yep, the rough-and-tough Senator from AZ went through the last campaign saving up money, instead of using everything he had to defeat the foe.
Now is a call to action. If there is a way to help a true conservative win the primary and then the general, step up and do what you can. Not everyone can send money to a campaign, but most can do something. Call their offices and see how you can volunteer your time and service. Folks, this is important!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
FENA - Fair Elections Now Act
FENA - Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826)
A "bipartisan" bill in various committees in Congress. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill are 23 Senators (22-D, 1-I) and 154 Representatives (151-D, 3-R). You can rest assured that it will be good for the country if both parties are supporting these bills. Want to know who some of these co-sponsors are: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), etc.
Below is the partial list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation:
Campus Progress - Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest - Change Congress - Chesapeake Climate Change Action Network - Common Cause - Consumer Watchdog - Corporate Accountability International - DEMOS - Democracy Matters - Dolores Huerta Foundation -
Friends of the Earth - Greenpeace - Healthcare Now - Hip Hop Caucus - League of Conservation Voters - League of Young Voters - Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund - MoveOn.org - NAACP - National Organization for Women - Natural Resources Defense Council - People For the American Way - Progressive Future - Rock the Vote - Sierra Club - SEIU.
It is being promoted as a way to fund political campaigns for the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The stated objective is to free up the incumbents to do the work of Congress instead of having to spend so much of their time raising money for the next fight.
Most of the above information comes from the website (as well as some of what is below):
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
A video that is against the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVQD0rAGkk&feature=related
So how would it work and what would it cost?
1. For a candidate for the House to qualify, they would have to raise contributions of $50,000 and from 1,500 supporters with each giving no more than $100. Senators would have to have 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each congressional district in their state, of $100 or less.
2. Qualified candidates for the House would each receive $900,000 (40% for primary and 60% for general elections). Senate candidates would each get $1,250,000 + $250,000 for each congressional district.
3. In addition to the above amounts, they would also receive matching funds for additional contributions of up to $100 each. For each dollar contributed, they would get $4 in matching funds. This amount is "strictly limited" to three times what they got for the primary and another three times what they got for the general. There appears to be a provision for additional matching funds to match what an opponent, who is not in public funding, is spending on their campaign.
4. Participating candidates will also receive a break on media advertising. They get a 20% reduction from the "lowest broadcast rates". Also, House candidates who win their primary will get a voucher for $100,000 to cover media expenses. Senate candidates would get $100,000 per legislative district. These vouchers can be exchanged for cash with their political parties.
5. Candidates could still set up PACs which could raise money.
6. The COST to fund this would come from "a small fee on large government contractors" for the Senate campaigns. For the House, the funds would come from 10% of revenue generated from the auction of "unused broadcast spectrum."
7. The estimated cost (apparently calculated by the politicians) would be $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 per year.
_________________
My thoughts and questions:
Three Republicans, in my opinion, do not make this extremely bipartisan. It is clearly a liberal agenda item. It is backed, almost exclusively, by Democrats in D.C. and left-wing groups. The two lists, above, have some familiar names - some that we on the Right are not particularly fond of - for some strange and biased reasons.
If the purpose was to let the elected politicians sit at their desk and work on running our lives, instead of going to fund raisers where they could get corrupted - heaven forbid, then why is the whole plan geared around how much they can personally raise in contributions? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If the purpose was to keep special interest groups out of politics, then why are they each allowed to form PACs (political action committees) to raise more funds?
This also seems like a very expensive way of trying to get our leaders to stay on the job and lead. In the meantime, we would be funding everyone who could qualify to run against them. Is there another purpose of making sure these other guys don't do any fund-raising dinners, either?
Just a minor item - I thought that "matching" meant "one-for-one"? What is this, raise $1 and get another $4 of matching funds?
As to the discounts they would receive on advertising, how is that supposed to work? Will this law force the media to sell political ads for 20% less than their lowest ad prices? How can they do that? (That is a problem, unless by the time this would go into effect, the government has taken control of the media companies - then it should be no problem.) How can Big Brother force you to sell your product for 80% of your price? Will they make up the difference or just mandate that the media outlets absorb the loss? This would also set up a bias in advertising pricing between those qualified for 'Fair Elections"funding and those who are in Unfair Elections.
As to the cost, charging government contractors an additional fee, which would be used to fund the Senate campaigns is just a little deceitful! Think about it. A contractor bids on a project to do work or supply a product for the government. He knows that there will be "a small fee" tacked onto his bid to cover these Senate campaign costs. Does he just take the lumps or does he increase his bid to cover the added costs? I would think he would raise the bid amount. Then, when he is awarded the bid and gets the contract, the government pays him the awarded amount of the bid and he turns around and pays the government back for funding the campaigns. The contractor did not pay these costs, the government did. Do not forget that the government spends our money - yours and mine. In other words, we the taxpayers would be funding the Senate campaigns.
As to the House campaigns, no problemo here! This money will be generated from the government selling unused airwaves. What a racket! Makes you pity the poor sap who buys this air from the government. How could we be better off than to fund this from selling something that is just extra? Well, if this extra spectrum has value and the government has the authority to sell it, someone will buy it. So, is it that buyer who then funds the House campaigns? No, once again, it is you and I. How? If the government sells something that belongs to the government (you and I) but then gives the money to candidates in campaigns, instead of using the money for legitimate expenses of the government, they will have to turn around and collect that money from us to pay those bills. Candidates win, we lose, again!
Now, here is the grand deception. They are telling us that this will just be a little expensive and even though we now know better, someone else will be paying for the cost. Don't worry, nothing to see here! The total is expected to stay under $850,000,000 per year. In my book, that would take a lot of "small fees" and sold spectrum. But, as with most government estimates, you cannot trust them.
I ran the math, myself. These numbers are based on the following:
1. All of the politicians running for these offices qualify for these funds. That each Senator and Representative enters this program and that from each party (only two-Rep. and Dem.) that there are three candidates running in the primary who are in the program.
2. It is based on each candidate qualifying for the maximum in matching funds, excluding the extra funds to match some other politician's spending.
3. These numbers do not include the money each candidate raises during the campaign.
4. The "per year" numbers recognize that House races are every two years and 1/3 of the Senators run every two years.
For the House races, the total cost would be $8,961,000,000 for each election cycle. That is almost nine billion dollars. It equals $4,480,500,000 each year. It equals $10,300,000 per year, per House seat.
For the Senate races, the total cost would be $56,810,000,000 (over $56 billion) for each cycle of electing all 100 Senators. This equals $9,468,333,333 per year and $94,683,333 per year, per Senate seat.
When I add these two, annual figures together, I get $13,948,833,333 per year; not $850,000,000. For the total cost not to exceed this projected amount, offered by the government, there could only be approximately 100 candidates who qualify and use the public funding.
Remember, if all of the politicians qualified and used this plan, the average annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be almost $14 billion. Also, you would have to be a fool to believe that after footing this bill, the citizens would be getting open, fair elections not corrupted by special interests or big money contributors. I don't know about you, but if I ran for Senate and used this plan for "Fair Elections", I could run one fine campaign on $568,000,000 of your money.
A "bipartisan" bill in various committees in Congress. The sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill are 23 Senators (22-D, 1-I) and 154 Representatives (151-D, 3-R). You can rest assured that it will be good for the country if both parties are supporting these bills. Want to know who some of these co-sponsors are: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), etc.
Below is the partial list of organizations that have endorsed the legislation:
Campus Progress - Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest - Change Congress - Chesapeake Climate Change Action Network - Common Cause - Consumer Watchdog - Corporate Accountability International - DEMOS - Democracy Matters - Dolores Huerta Foundation -
Friends of the Earth - Greenpeace - Healthcare Now - Hip Hop Caucus - League of Conservation Voters - League of Young Voters - Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund - MoveOn.org - NAACP - National Organization for Women - Natural Resources Defense Council - People For the American Way - Progressive Future - Rock the Vote - Sierra Club - SEIU.
It is being promoted as a way to fund political campaigns for the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The stated objective is to free up the incumbents to do the work of Congress instead of having to spend so much of their time raising money for the next fight.
Most of the above information comes from the website (as well as some of what is below):
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
A video that is against the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVQD0rAGkk&feature=related
So how would it work and what would it cost?
1. For a candidate for the House to qualify, they would have to raise contributions of $50,000 and from 1,500 supporters with each giving no more than $100. Senators would have to have 2,000 donations plus an additional 500 for each congressional district in their state, of $100 or less.
2. Qualified candidates for the House would each receive $900,000 (40% for primary and 60% for general elections). Senate candidates would each get $1,250,000 + $250,000 for each congressional district.
3. In addition to the above amounts, they would also receive matching funds for additional contributions of up to $100 each. For each dollar contributed, they would get $4 in matching funds. This amount is "strictly limited" to three times what they got for the primary and another three times what they got for the general. There appears to be a provision for additional matching funds to match what an opponent, who is not in public funding, is spending on their campaign.
4. Participating candidates will also receive a break on media advertising. They get a 20% reduction from the "lowest broadcast rates". Also, House candidates who win their primary will get a voucher for $100,000 to cover media expenses. Senate candidates would get $100,000 per legislative district. These vouchers can be exchanged for cash with their political parties.
5. Candidates could still set up PACs which could raise money.
6. The COST to fund this would come from "a small fee on large government contractors" for the Senate campaigns. For the House, the funds would come from 10% of revenue generated from the auction of "unused broadcast spectrum."
7. The estimated cost (apparently calculated by the politicians) would be $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 per year.
_________________
My thoughts and questions:
Three Republicans, in my opinion, do not make this extremely bipartisan. It is clearly a liberal agenda item. It is backed, almost exclusively, by Democrats in D.C. and left-wing groups. The two lists, above, have some familiar names - some that we on the Right are not particularly fond of - for some strange and biased reasons.
If the purpose was to let the elected politicians sit at their desk and work on running our lives, instead of going to fund raisers where they could get corrupted - heaven forbid, then why is the whole plan geared around how much they can personally raise in contributions? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If the purpose was to keep special interest groups out of politics, then why are they each allowed to form PACs (political action committees) to raise more funds?
This also seems like a very expensive way of trying to get our leaders to stay on the job and lead. In the meantime, we would be funding everyone who could qualify to run against them. Is there another purpose of making sure these other guys don't do any fund-raising dinners, either?
Just a minor item - I thought that "matching" meant "one-for-one"? What is this, raise $1 and get another $4 of matching funds?
As to the discounts they would receive on advertising, how is that supposed to work? Will this law force the media to sell political ads for 20% less than their lowest ad prices? How can they do that? (That is a problem, unless by the time this would go into effect, the government has taken control of the media companies - then it should be no problem.) How can Big Brother force you to sell your product for 80% of your price? Will they make up the difference or just mandate that the media outlets absorb the loss? This would also set up a bias in advertising pricing between those qualified for 'Fair Elections"funding and those who are in Unfair Elections.
As to the cost, charging government contractors an additional fee, which would be used to fund the Senate campaigns is just a little deceitful! Think about it. A contractor bids on a project to do work or supply a product for the government. He knows that there will be "a small fee" tacked onto his bid to cover these Senate campaign costs. Does he just take the lumps or does he increase his bid to cover the added costs? I would think he would raise the bid amount. Then, when he is awarded the bid and gets the contract, the government pays him the awarded amount of the bid and he turns around and pays the government back for funding the campaigns. The contractor did not pay these costs, the government did. Do not forget that the government spends our money - yours and mine. In other words, we the taxpayers would be funding the Senate campaigns.
As to the House campaigns, no problemo here! This money will be generated from the government selling unused airwaves. What a racket! Makes you pity the poor sap who buys this air from the government. How could we be better off than to fund this from selling something that is just extra? Well, if this extra spectrum has value and the government has the authority to sell it, someone will buy it. So, is it that buyer who then funds the House campaigns? No, once again, it is you and I. How? If the government sells something that belongs to the government (you and I) but then gives the money to candidates in campaigns, instead of using the money for legitimate expenses of the government, they will have to turn around and collect that money from us to pay those bills. Candidates win, we lose, again!
Now, here is the grand deception. They are telling us that this will just be a little expensive and even though we now know better, someone else will be paying for the cost. Don't worry, nothing to see here! The total is expected to stay under $850,000,000 per year. In my book, that would take a lot of "small fees" and sold spectrum. But, as with most government estimates, you cannot trust them.
I ran the math, myself. These numbers are based on the following:
1. All of the politicians running for these offices qualify for these funds. That each Senator and Representative enters this program and that from each party (only two-Rep. and Dem.) that there are three candidates running in the primary who are in the program.
2. It is based on each candidate qualifying for the maximum in matching funds, excluding the extra funds to match some other politician's spending.
3. These numbers do not include the money each candidate raises during the campaign.
4. The "per year" numbers recognize that House races are every two years and 1/3 of the Senators run every two years.
For the House races, the total cost would be $8,961,000,000 for each election cycle. That is almost nine billion dollars. It equals $4,480,500,000 each year. It equals $10,300,000 per year, per House seat.
For the Senate races, the total cost would be $56,810,000,000 (over $56 billion) for each cycle of electing all 100 Senators. This equals $9,468,333,333 per year and $94,683,333 per year, per Senate seat.
When I add these two, annual figures together, I get $13,948,833,333 per year; not $850,000,000. For the total cost not to exceed this projected amount, offered by the government, there could only be approximately 100 candidates who qualify and use the public funding.
Remember, if all of the politicians qualified and used this plan, the average annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers would be almost $14 billion. Also, you would have to be a fool to believe that after footing this bill, the citizens would be getting open, fair elections not corrupted by special interests or big money contributors. I don't know about you, but if I ran for Senate and used this plan for "Fair Elections", I could run one fine campaign on $568,000,000 of your money.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Continental Divide
On April 25 of this year, I posted an article "Irreconcilable Differences". The current article is in follow-up to that posting. If you did not read the first part or do not remember it, here is a link that will take you directly to the earlier article:
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/04/irreconcilable-differences.html
Running north and south through North America and the United States is a line that is referred to as the Continental Divide. This is not a line arbitrarily drawn on a map, it is a line that designates the high point in elevation which separates, from east or west, which ocean rainfall will eventually flow towards. The Continental Divide runs up the Rocky Mountain range. Though it designates a physical divide in our nation, it could represent an image of the present political and social divide that grips the same country.
The United States has long endured issues and beliefs which have divided us as citizens. These could be our chosen religious beliefs, our unchosen race or gender, our financial status, slavery, volunteer or draft military, the war in Vietnam, our political affiliation, our stand on abortion, whether or not there should be a designated hitter, etc. These have ranged from trivial to serious, but we have survived as the UNITED States.
How did our forefathers hold us together? One answer to that question is, barely! The most serious fracture resulted in the Civil War. Prior to the breakout of war, the Southern States withdrew from the Union. The U.S. of A. was not just on the verge of falling apart, it was already falling apart. The seriousness of the situation led to four years of fighting among ourselves and death to around 620,000 Americans.
Prior to that war, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech as he was selected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Illinois in 1858. This speech has become known as the "House Divided" speech. The following is the first paragraph of that speech:
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."
Lincoln was not original in the use of the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is scriptural, from:
(Mat 12:25 KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".
Also, just eight years prior to Lincoln's speech, during Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."
So, are Houston, Lincoln and Jesus right? Can a nation, with serious division, continue to stand? I would have to take Lincoln's following comments as an appropriate answer to this question. His comments have been slightly altered to reflect our current divide:
"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half" (socialism, ignoring Constitutional limits on Federal Government, over spending, over taxation, dependency on government for daily needs [and some wants]) "and half" (desiring to be free men, with limited government, strictly following the Constitution, a nation of laws [not popular opinion], personal responsibility, capitalism, opportunity, free markets, and the basic liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights). "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
Lincoln's wisdom proved to be correct. The Union survived, although with great loss and cost, and it became all one thing. I imagine that if Abraham Lincoln were making his speech today, he just might foresee another great divide on the horizon and attempt to warn us of such a national disaster.
I still believe what was written in the article "Irreconcilable Differences". Although the concept of actually splitting the nation was not meant to be taken totally serious, to some degree, I do believe that if it were feasible and the citizens were in agreement, it might be a solution to the problem. I honestly cannot see that ever happening, just as I cannot imagine the present two sides coming together with a compromise that makes both sides content.
So, where does that leave us? We can look forward and see several possible scenarios. Much hinges on the elections this November. If the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress, along with the President; we, as a country, will continue sliding to the Left. The Socialist (if not Communist) agenda will continue to be rammed down the throat of the American public and by the time another election rolls around, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the damage done.
If Republicans gain control of at least the House of Representatives (assuming those same Republicans get and keep a backbone once they are submerged into the corruption and power of Washington) they should be able to put a stop (if only temporarily) to at least some of the Leftist agenda. While President Obama sits in the Oval Office, we are not safe and we cannot rest. This scenario only buys a small window of time to slow down the Leftists. The future would then rest on the following election and who ends up being President for the next term.
We have a continental divide - will we be socialists or will we be FREE? Where is there room for compromise? The two cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive.
Those of us on the Right have a narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to grab hold and take full advantage of November's election, our nation will (I am afraid) complete it's transformation into becoming a socialist country - the USSA - United Socialist States of America. The Leftists recognize what is at stake in this election - the rest of their agenda and pushing the country so far that recovery may be impossible. Failing to take control of the House will be unforgivable by the following generations.
Lincoln foresaw the looming crisis and that destiny hung in the balance. He understood that they too had irreconcilable differences that would not be solved by negotiation. We, too, are diametrically opposed.
How will our looming crisis play out?
Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them!
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/04/irreconcilable-differences.html
Running north and south through North America and the United States is a line that is referred to as the Continental Divide. This is not a line arbitrarily drawn on a map, it is a line that designates the high point in elevation which separates, from east or west, which ocean rainfall will eventually flow towards. The Continental Divide runs up the Rocky Mountain range. Though it designates a physical divide in our nation, it could represent an image of the present political and social divide that grips the same country.
The United States has long endured issues and beliefs which have divided us as citizens. These could be our chosen religious beliefs, our unchosen race or gender, our financial status, slavery, volunteer or draft military, the war in Vietnam, our political affiliation, our stand on abortion, whether or not there should be a designated hitter, etc. These have ranged from trivial to serious, but we have survived as the UNITED States.
How did our forefathers hold us together? One answer to that question is, barely! The most serious fracture resulted in the Civil War. Prior to the breakout of war, the Southern States withdrew from the Union. The U.S. of A. was not just on the verge of falling apart, it was already falling apart. The seriousness of the situation led to four years of fighting among ourselves and death to around 620,000 Americans.
Prior to that war, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech as he was selected to be the Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Illinois in 1858. This speech has become known as the "House Divided" speech. The following is the first paragraph of that speech:
"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."
Lincoln was not original in the use of the phrase, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is scriptural, from:
(Mat 12:25 KJV) "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".
Also, just eight years prior to Lincoln's speech, during Senate debate on the Compromise of 1850, Sam Houston said, "A nation divided against itself cannot stand."
So, are Houston, Lincoln and Jesus right? Can a nation, with serious division, continue to stand? I would have to take Lincoln's following comments as an appropriate answer to this question. His comments have been slightly altered to reflect our current divide:
"I believe this government cannot endure permanently half" (socialism, ignoring Constitutional limits on Federal Government, over spending, over taxation, dependency on government for daily needs [and some wants]) "and half" (desiring to be free men, with limited government, strictly following the Constitution, a nation of laws [not popular opinion], personal responsibility, capitalism, opportunity, free markets, and the basic liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights). "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
Lincoln's wisdom proved to be correct. The Union survived, although with great loss and cost, and it became all one thing. I imagine that if Abraham Lincoln were making his speech today, he just might foresee another great divide on the horizon and attempt to warn us of such a national disaster.
I still believe what was written in the article "Irreconcilable Differences". Although the concept of actually splitting the nation was not meant to be taken totally serious, to some degree, I do believe that if it were feasible and the citizens were in agreement, it might be a solution to the problem. I honestly cannot see that ever happening, just as I cannot imagine the present two sides coming together with a compromise that makes both sides content.
So, where does that leave us? We can look forward and see several possible scenarios. Much hinges on the elections this November. If the Democrats maintain control of both Houses of Congress, along with the President; we, as a country, will continue sliding to the Left. The Socialist (if not Communist) agenda will continue to be rammed down the throat of the American public and by the time another election rolls around, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the damage done.
If Republicans gain control of at least the House of Representatives (assuming those same Republicans get and keep a backbone once they are submerged into the corruption and power of Washington) they should be able to put a stop (if only temporarily) to at least some of the Leftist agenda. While President Obama sits in the Oval Office, we are not safe and we cannot rest. This scenario only buys a small window of time to slow down the Leftists. The future would then rest on the following election and who ends up being President for the next term.
We have a continental divide - will we be socialists or will we be FREE? Where is there room for compromise? The two cannot co-exist, they are mutually exclusive.
Those of us on the Right have a narrow window of opportunity. If we fail to grab hold and take full advantage of November's election, our nation will (I am afraid) complete it's transformation into becoming a socialist country - the USSA - United Socialist States of America. The Leftists recognize what is at stake in this election - the rest of their agenda and pushing the country so far that recovery may be impossible. Failing to take control of the House will be unforgivable by the following generations.
Lincoln foresaw the looming crisis and that destiny hung in the balance. He understood that they too had irreconcilable differences that would not be solved by negotiation. We, too, are diametrically opposed.
How will our looming crisis play out?
Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
BizarrObama World
I cannot believe it, but things are actually getting more strange by the week. Every time I think that BO and his buddies have pulled the most outrageous thing so far, they take it further. Here are some of the items that hit some of the news sources this week:
1. BO wanted an extreme liberal to run the government's medicare system, which will include the new health care plan recently signed into law. The choice is so vocal about his beliefs and positions that the consensus was that he could not get confirmed by the Senate, even with cRat control. So, BO used a special power of the President. When Congress went home for a summer break, he just appointed the guy.
A president is allowed to appoint someone to a Federal position, if he deems it necessary to get the position filled and Congress is not in session. BO doing this is nothing new. What is bizarro about this appointment is the person appointed.
His positions about medicare and health care: he said, when asked about rationing being in the health care law (remember the accusation by Palin of there being "death panels"), "It is not a question of whether there will be rationing, it is only will we ration with our eyes open." When asked another question about the health care plan, he said, "Healthcare is redistribution." His view of our new and improved health care plan is basically a system to "spread the wealth around" (quoting BO).
2. You may remember seeing the video from the 2008 election cycle of two New Black Panther thugs standing in front of the doors to a polling place, dressed in black para-military uniforms, pounding police batons in their hands, and shouting racial things at white people who wanted to go in and vote. Their goal was to intimidate as many whites as possible to keep them from voting. It worked.
They were charged with voter intimidation, went to trial, were found guilty, and released. A Department of Justice lawyer who was prosecuting these two men and who had obtained a guilty verdict against them, recently quit his job and went public with the following story about how these two racists got away with their crimes. After the verdict, he said that he was told, from the very "top" (whether he meant BO or the Attorney General, I am not sure, but I would imagine the AG would have discussed such a controversial move with BO before making it happen), that the government's charges against these two were being dropped.
I thought that charges were typically dropped prior to court proceedings when it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, not after having a conviction.
The reason that charges were being dropped and these to thugs were being set free is that the DOJ will not prosecute blacks for such crimes.
One of these two New Black Panther members was also caught on video during a rally in 2009. In his talk, where he was yelling into a microphone on a street with many people around, he said, "I hate white people, all of them...if you want peace, you (meaning black men) will have to kill some crackers (white people) and some of their cracker babies."
Isn't it reassuring that our Department of Justice is more concerned about keeping this guy on the street than it is in honest voting or insuring that racial discrimination is not tolerated?
3. Have you heard about the spy swap? The U.S. captured around 11 spies from Russia. Well, since we would not want to make a big show about Russia getting caught spying on us and having trials, we made a deal. We traded the 11 spies back to Russia in exchange for Russia releasing four Russians that they held in prison, who they claim spied for us.
4. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona. They want to stop our new anti-illegal immigration law from going into effect later this month. Their suit basically charges that AZ has no right to enforce a Federal law that they have chosen to ignore. They say that local law enforcement officers do not have a right to question anyone about their legal status, even when stopping them for other crimes.
Since bank robbery is also a Federal crime, maybe we should stop searching for the robbers and just let the FBI do the job. Also, what is the big deal about asking to see papers for non-citizens? It happens to be Federal law that they are required to carry papers at all times while they are in our country. The conclusion must be that even though they must carry papers, no one is allowed to ask to see those papers. If you ask, you are a racist!
As of today, AZ is fighting seven different legal challenges to our new law. All of this taking place even before the law has taken effect.
5. The last is not the least bizarro. The director of NASA gave an interview to Arab television while he was on a trip to Arab countries. When asked why the director of NASA was in Arab countries, he answered that the president had instructed him (the head of NASA!!!!) to make it his top priority to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about themselves for their past contribution to science and math.
First, what part of "Space" does Arabia fit into? Second, what part of "Space" involves physco-babel, self-esteem for foreigners? Third, what science and math contributions?
BO and his buddies are making the USA a laughing-stock to the rest of the world. They must be sitting back and having one belly-laugh after another at BO and his gross incompetence and even grosser arrogance.
How on earth (or space) did we get here? How could this guy ever get elected dog catcher, much less president. Just wondering, is there something wrong with his neck that makes his big nose stick up in the air whenever he is in public? How did we get here? We were asleep at the voter wheel for decades. We were negligent at PTA meetings. We were glad to let government take over some of our responsibilities. We accepted Federal money, which always came with strings attached. We were content to let others stand up and fight against the wrongs imposed upon us by our government. We did not fight when others had their rights stripped away. We were negligent in researching candidates pasts and positions. We believed what the media fed us on the nightly news. We were not diligent in checking out the public schools to make sure our children were not being indoctrinated. We let unions take too much control. We were shy when it came to making sure various races were treated equal and no race gained favor. We fell for the propaganda that divided and conquered us.
Also, we did not realize that while we were not at war with them, they were at war with us.
1. BO wanted an extreme liberal to run the government's medicare system, which will include the new health care plan recently signed into law. The choice is so vocal about his beliefs and positions that the consensus was that he could not get confirmed by the Senate, even with cRat control. So, BO used a special power of the President. When Congress went home for a summer break, he just appointed the guy.
A president is allowed to appoint someone to a Federal position, if he deems it necessary to get the position filled and Congress is not in session. BO doing this is nothing new. What is bizarro about this appointment is the person appointed.
His positions about medicare and health care: he said, when asked about rationing being in the health care law (remember the accusation by Palin of there being "death panels"), "It is not a question of whether there will be rationing, it is only will we ration with our eyes open." When asked another question about the health care plan, he said, "Healthcare is redistribution." His view of our new and improved health care plan is basically a system to "spread the wealth around" (quoting BO).
2. You may remember seeing the video from the 2008 election cycle of two New Black Panther thugs standing in front of the doors to a polling place, dressed in black para-military uniforms, pounding police batons in their hands, and shouting racial things at white people who wanted to go in and vote. Their goal was to intimidate as many whites as possible to keep them from voting. It worked.
They were charged with voter intimidation, went to trial, were found guilty, and released. A Department of Justice lawyer who was prosecuting these two men and who had obtained a guilty verdict against them, recently quit his job and went public with the following story about how these two racists got away with their crimes. After the verdict, he said that he was told, from the very "top" (whether he meant BO or the Attorney General, I am not sure, but I would imagine the AG would have discussed such a controversial move with BO before making it happen), that the government's charges against these two were being dropped.
I thought that charges were typically dropped prior to court proceedings when it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, not after having a conviction.
The reason that charges were being dropped and these to thugs were being set free is that the DOJ will not prosecute blacks for such crimes.
One of these two New Black Panther members was also caught on video during a rally in 2009. In his talk, where he was yelling into a microphone on a street with many people around, he said, "I hate white people, all of them...if you want peace, you (meaning black men) will have to kill some crackers (white people) and some of their cracker babies."
Isn't it reassuring that our Department of Justice is more concerned about keeping this guy on the street than it is in honest voting or insuring that racial discrimination is not tolerated?
3. Have you heard about the spy swap? The U.S. captured around 11 spies from Russia. Well, since we would not want to make a big show about Russia getting caught spying on us and having trials, we made a deal. We traded the 11 spies back to Russia in exchange for Russia releasing four Russians that they held in prison, who they claim spied for us.
4. The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Arizona. They want to stop our new anti-illegal immigration law from going into effect later this month. Their suit basically charges that AZ has no right to enforce a Federal law that they have chosen to ignore. They say that local law enforcement officers do not have a right to question anyone about their legal status, even when stopping them for other crimes.
Since bank robbery is also a Federal crime, maybe we should stop searching for the robbers and just let the FBI do the job. Also, what is the big deal about asking to see papers for non-citizens? It happens to be Federal law that they are required to carry papers at all times while they are in our country. The conclusion must be that even though they must carry papers, no one is allowed to ask to see those papers. If you ask, you are a racist!
As of today, AZ is fighting seven different legal challenges to our new law. All of this taking place even before the law has taken effect.
5. The last is not the least bizarro. The director of NASA gave an interview to Arab television while he was on a trip to Arab countries. When asked why the director of NASA was in Arab countries, he answered that the president had instructed him (the head of NASA!!!!) to make it his top priority to reach out to the Muslim nations and make them feel good about themselves for their past contribution to science and math.
First, what part of "Space" does Arabia fit into? Second, what part of "Space" involves physco-babel, self-esteem for foreigners? Third, what science and math contributions?
BO and his buddies are making the USA a laughing-stock to the rest of the world. They must be sitting back and having one belly-laugh after another at BO and his gross incompetence and even grosser arrogance.
How on earth (or space) did we get here? How could this guy ever get elected dog catcher, much less president. Just wondering, is there something wrong with his neck that makes his big nose stick up in the air whenever he is in public? How did we get here? We were asleep at the voter wheel for decades. We were negligent at PTA meetings. We were glad to let government take over some of our responsibilities. We accepted Federal money, which always came with strings attached. We were content to let others stand up and fight against the wrongs imposed upon us by our government. We did not fight when others had their rights stripped away. We were negligent in researching candidates pasts and positions. We believed what the media fed us on the nightly news. We were not diligent in checking out the public schools to make sure our children were not being indoctrinated. We let unions take too much control. We were shy when it came to making sure various races were treated equal and no race gained favor. We fell for the propaganda that divided and conquered us.
Also, we did not realize that while we were not at war with them, they were at war with us.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Free Men!
"Our unalterable resolution would be to be free." Samuel Adams, 1776
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." John Adams, 1775
"To give to every citizen the information he needs for the transaction of his own business...To know his rights..." Thomas Jefferson, 1818
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." Samuel Adams, 1775
"Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." James Wilson, 1790
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." Fisher Ames, 1788
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry, 1775
(The above quotes were found on Founder's Quote Daily, published by the "PatriotPost.us".)
At what price is Liberty? That must be answered on an individual basis. Maybe the question would be best asked, at what price is your liberty, to you? This is not a flippant question and the answer should likewise be thought out, understood and heartfelt.
The question should be thought out as your future depends on your answer. Without proper and adequate understanding of Liberty, what it would mean to be without it and what it would take to preserve the same, you are not equipped to render a committed and intelligent response. Without your answer being from the heart, you will likely shrink back once opposition and difficulty must be overcome in order to be free.
What is your personal value of being free? As, free, I am referring to the freedoms expressed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution. The value others determined for themselves, in the past, is clear. To them, this was not an exercise in theory. They pledged themselves and all they had to the cause of obtaining and preserving freedom. They were not only willing to pay the ultimate price, they paid it down to their last drop of blood. For most, this was not a demonstration of glory, but a miserable ending in an isolated location.
Who, today, do you hear speak words about liberty like those written above? "Give me liberty or give me death!" That level of commitment resulted in liberty. If they had been any less committed, we would all still be speaking English. Oh, wait a second...anyway, you get the point.
Currently, "What is the price for your liberty?", is not an academic concept. Liberty is disappearing, step-by-step, in America on a daily basis. Your bondage is the object of your government's agenda. One of our founding fathers warned us that once we give up our liberty, we will not be able to get it back again.
Read, study, learn, seek to understand the concept of Liberty. You may ask, why is being free so important? Isn't living and living in peace more important than fighting all the time to attempt to be more free? Until you can answer those questions, you are not ready to be free. Another patriot told those who did not understand the value of freedom that he hopes that the chains of their bondage would rest lightly on them.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Comprehensive Government Reform
"Everyone agreed..."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too big to fail!
We must pass the TARP funds by Friday or the national economy will collapse!
Wall Street firms are too big to fail!
We must pass the Stimulus Bill to create or save four million jobs!
Global warming will kill the polar bears, melt the ice caps, flood coastal cities and basically kill everyone and everything forever!
We must bail out Europe so they do not fail!
We must reject our support of Israel!
We must fight wars passively!
We must not have the means to defend ourselves!
We must take over General Motors and Chrysler!
We must bail out all of the union pension fund accounts!
We must pass a national takeover of our health care system!
Due to the oil spill, we must pass Cap and Trade controls!
Due to spending, we must raise taxes on everyone and everything!
Due to Arizona, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform!
We must pass a bill for the takeover of our financial sector!
We must not close the border with Mexico!
We must not let common sense measures take place to improve the oil spill!
We must blame everything that we do not like on G.W. Bush!
We must not question terrorists for information they may have!
We must not call terrorists, terrorists!
We must not fight to win our wars!
We must not obey our Constitution!
We must use Executive authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens!
We must use Czars that are only accountable to Obama!
We must socialize America!
We must restrict freedom of speech!
We must pass the "Fairness Doctrine" to limit conservative talk radio!
We must expand gun control!
We must control everyone and everything!
We must redistribute the wealth!
We must spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow!
We must.......
We are watching, on a daily basis, the utter destruction of America as we have known it. The war to destroy the Republic (anyway, what is left of it) is coming from within, not from foreign soil. The above list is a partial accounting of what has happened in the past two years. These measures have not helped save America or it's economy or our way of life, they are designed to systematically disable capitalism and to restrict liberty. They will ultimately, if not reversed very soon, destroy the greatness of our nation.
We did not and do not need the above government interference and regulation. What we do need is less government, less taxes, less regulation; and more freedom, encouragement and opportunity to pursue the happiness guaranteed to each citizen.
What we desperately need is comprehensive reform of our government! It begins with the election, this year. We the people must send the professional politicians back home and take control back of an out-of-control Washington. They have awakened a sleeping giant that has been busy living their private lives across America. They wanted CHANGE, they are going to get it!
Remember, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them! That has changed! Winning is everything! If the Right does not win control of Congress this year, the losses will be irreversible two to four years down the road.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are too big to fail!
We must pass the TARP funds by Friday or the national economy will collapse!
Wall Street firms are too big to fail!
We must pass the Stimulus Bill to create or save four million jobs!
Global warming will kill the polar bears, melt the ice caps, flood coastal cities and basically kill everyone and everything forever!
We must bail out Europe so they do not fail!
We must reject our support of Israel!
We must fight wars passively!
We must not have the means to defend ourselves!
We must take over General Motors and Chrysler!
We must bail out all of the union pension fund accounts!
We must pass a national takeover of our health care system!
Due to the oil spill, we must pass Cap and Trade controls!
Due to spending, we must raise taxes on everyone and everything!
Due to Arizona, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform!
We must pass a bill for the takeover of our financial sector!
We must not close the border with Mexico!
We must not let common sense measures take place to improve the oil spill!
We must blame everything that we do not like on G.W. Bush!
We must not question terrorists for information they may have!
We must not call terrorists, terrorists!
We must not fight to win our wars!
We must not obey our Constitution!
We must use Executive authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens!
We must use Czars that are only accountable to Obama!
We must socialize America!
We must restrict freedom of speech!
We must pass the "Fairness Doctrine" to limit conservative talk radio!
We must expand gun control!
We must control everyone and everything!
We must redistribute the wealth!
We must spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow!
We must.......
We are watching, on a daily basis, the utter destruction of America as we have known it. The war to destroy the Republic (anyway, what is left of it) is coming from within, not from foreign soil. The above list is a partial accounting of what has happened in the past two years. These measures have not helped save America or it's economy or our way of life, they are designed to systematically disable capitalism and to restrict liberty. They will ultimately, if not reversed very soon, destroy the greatness of our nation.
We did not and do not need the above government interference and regulation. What we do need is less government, less taxes, less regulation; and more freedom, encouragement and opportunity to pursue the happiness guaranteed to each citizen.
What we desperately need is comprehensive reform of our government! It begins with the election, this year. We the people must send the professional politicians back home and take control back of an out-of-control Washington. They have awakened a sleeping giant that has been busy living their private lives across America. They wanted CHANGE, they are going to get it!
Remember, they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them! That has changed! Winning is everything! If the Right does not win control of Congress this year, the losses will be irreversible two to four years down the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
