here are some things I oppose. Why? I think their basic purpose is to destroy America. Therefore, I believe they are not patriotic:
The ACLU--created by a communist, exactly for its purposes--communism. All ACLU members need to rethink their loyalty positions and what they are about. Rarely, if ever, does the ACLU take up a case for the benefit of a conservative cause. Have you noted that? And, by the way, it is a 501-c3 organization in the IRS code--that is, non-profit status and non-taxable.
Planned Parenthood. It has demonstrated its purpose is to see that as many abortions as possible can be encouraged. Do they offer alternatives? Some might claim so, but not likely as a basic principle. It is tied to the same push that the global warming crowd, the reduction of the earth's population and control of the masses. Abortions are numbering at 55 million since Roe vs. Wade, and rising. These are clearly murders of potential citizens, that is, many of them.
The Liberals push this agenda like crazies, then yelp about the growing shortage of viable taxpayers to fund their liberal causes. Had those millions been allowed to live and mature, they would no doubt have contributed greatly to the hoped reversal of Medicare's apparent demise in the few years ahead. What a bunch of dummies!
And, it too, is a 501-c3 organization, non-taxable under the IRS code.
Have you seen the IRS go after either of these groups for "crossing the line" of supporting a political cause, as they do frequently in challenging any kind of support from a church pulpit for a conservative cause? No, and it seems that liberal pulpit speakers are often left to their own freedom of speech from their pulpits or public forums.
What I would prefer:
I would like to see an annual review of each elected official's oath of office, where he or she stands, raises the right hand, and swears on the BIBLE, to uphold all the tenants of our Constitution, "so help me, God"!
You say they are reviewed, essentially, at their election day every two or six years? That is not soon enough! And, the entity that does the review cannot be from among those elected officials. Let each State form its own review board, made up of balanced viewpoints, guided by constitutional tenants, upon which the public official is rated. A score of 70 or more, of a total of 100, would be a passing score. Less than 70 would mean failure of his oath of office, and failure as an elected official. He or she must resign, immediately!
After all, are we not agreed that we are to be ruled by our Constitution and Bill of Rights? We all raise the flag, salute, stand and sing our national anthem. Yet, Liberals want to be sure their judges are those who figure out ways to fiolate the true meaning of the Constitution in their rulings. The most recent addition to the U. S. Supreme Court will soon show her true roots in the decisions she makes, contrary to the claims she made prior to her selection by the Senate, and contrary to the arguments made for her by favorable Senators. She, like President Obama, with his 100% liberal rating in the Senate, will soon revert to who she really is. Watch it happen!
So, what do you say? Shall we push for an annual review of their oaths of office? Each state should put the issue on their next election ballot, for it is the State that sends its representatives to Congress and the Senate. We will never take control of our own government of "we, the people, for the people and by the people" unless those officials are held to their oath of office, exactly! And, since judges are also sworn in, on the same oath, they should likewise be reviewed and rated, fully exposed for what they have done in relation to their oath performance.
Gene Lawley
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
About the Spiral Downward
When liberals see that they are losing ground, they throw in the race card. Now that the health care issue seems to be facing a strong challenge--because folks have begun to see the connection of its principles with the thread of the same principles in all of the actions of this administration in its history so far--that looks a lot like much more federal control and thinking citizens do not like that.
Former President Jimmy carter throws in the race card. It is so contrary to the issues that have sounded out from the Tea Parties and the Town Hall Meetings, that it makes Mr. Carter appear foolish. Not that he is otherwise not foolish, of course. His tenure as president was the worst I have seen in my lifetime. He had no uplifiting and motivating messages for America then, and he has none now. He has sold his soul to the shadow power block that desperately wants American to go down the tube into socialism and melt into their vision of a New World Order.
He was made the first chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which is linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, whose membership numbers in the hundreds of political, business, big media, academic and other leading groups from around the world. Both of these are secondary to the much-denied-everywhere Bilderbergers, whose long-term goal has always been total control of the whole world in a One World Government.
So, Jimmie Carter was a Georgia peanut farmer and govenor, hand-picked to be that president in the hopes he would lead America into the loss of its sovereignty and set up the New World Order. Not so, apparently.
Now, we see Barack Obama, rising out of nowhere, of doubtful credentials, as well as doubtful leadership experience and abilities, of whom Henry Kissinger has stated that he has been picked to lead us into a New World Order. Thus, we are again back into the same mode, but now with greater intensity and commitment by those who have such goals for America and the world. Their window of opportunity at this time must remain open, having been provided by a thoughtless voting population and a ring-in-the-nose news media blinded by a giddy worship of a condidate they wanted to know nothing about.
Many see this trend as a parallel to the Biblical prophecies that proclaim the times of the end of this age, highlighed by the increasing anti-Israel attitudes, the increased apostasy (turning away)of Christian church members from the basic tenants of their faith, economic breakdown worldwide, and increased warring confrontations in the world.
Those who have opposed America's constitutionally-provided fredoms have a devilish motivation to envision and work toward the downfall of its sovereignty and its replacement with a socialistic system, which will lead to a dictatorship--though they may not include that part in their vision. They just plan to be "more equal" than the equality that they claim will be the status of every person. It is an amazement to me that those folks do not learn anything from the examples of history in the experiences, before and now, of socialism in other countries!
Why would anyone with any mental capability desire the bondage of an all-controlling government over the freedom of personal choice? I stnad by my label, above, of "devilish" motivations.
Note this statement in 1944 by Norman Thomas, who was a six-time candidate of the Socialist Party for the Presidency of the United States: "The American people will never knowlingly adopt socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened." He went on to say, "I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."
Can an indifferent, slumbering populace, which hardly notices anything that does not disturb their daily lives of fun and games, wake up to the challenge? It does look like there is beginning to be an awakening, as the Tea Parties and Town Hall confrontations have unsettled the liberal opposition, to their surprise.
It does restore my confidence that the Truth will still win, in the finality.
Gene Lawley, MBA, CPA(Rtrd)
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Where Does the Money Come From?
A couple days ago on the RushLimbaugh show he was interviewing Vice-President Cheney. Twice he asked Mr. Cheney where the monty to do these bailouts was coming from, citing numerous requests from listeners concerned about it.
both times Mr. Cheney talked about all other aspects of the bailouts, but not once did he address the question so deftly presented by Rush Limbaugh.
so, where does the money come from?
The term, "conpspiracy theorist" is a tag that public figures shy away from like the plague. But, in things political and monetary, it is no hokey-pokey idea to be shrugged off so easily. We Americans have an interesting monetary system. It is debt based, not gold standard based. If money is needed, the Treasury orders it from the Federal Reserve Bank.
If you've been thinking that is just another pocket of cash that the government holds, then think again. Ever wonder why, and to whom, the interest figure in the national budget is owed? Oh, sure, a lot of it is owed out on Treasury bills and bonds held by citizens, foreigners and foreign governemnts. Eventually, it all comes down to owing the Federal Reserve.
To pay off the national debt, our money supply--available cash in the economy--would have to be reduced--take what is collected from citizens in taxes and return it to the Federal Reseerve. Or, borrow more money to pay off the older debt. M-1 and M-2 are the labels given to the money supply.
So, the money to bail out those companies must come from the Federal Reserve. About 1820 or so, Nathan Rothchild stated that "give him control of a nation's money supply and he would not care what the country's laws are."
The Federal Reserve System is not U.S. Federal. It is a system of private banks owned by elite banking families of the world. It was begun in a conspiratorial gettogether of those banking folks back in 1913 at an island off the coast of the Carolinas and called the Federal Reserve System to mislead the American people into accepting it by law as the monetary system of the USA.
I understand that if Congress prints currency, it then sells the printed bills to the Federal Reserve at 10 cents on the dollar. Then the US buys them back at face value to put into our treasury. However, coinage is pressed and sold to the Feds at face value. Strange workings, eh?
Probably, we would not have had the economic expansion of the 20th century under any other, tighter system, but one can see how it has gotten us into great financial difficulty in relation to the world community of nations. And, sad to say, he who holds the gold, rules.
Mr. Cheney did not answer Limbaugh's questions because the answer would create more questions than answers are allowable at this point.
Gene Lawley
both times Mr. Cheney talked about all other aspects of the bailouts, but not once did he address the question so deftly presented by Rush Limbaugh.
so, where does the money come from?
The term, "conpspiracy theorist" is a tag that public figures shy away from like the plague. But, in things political and monetary, it is no hokey-pokey idea to be shrugged off so easily. We Americans have an interesting monetary system. It is debt based, not gold standard based. If money is needed, the Treasury orders it from the Federal Reserve Bank.
If you've been thinking that is just another pocket of cash that the government holds, then think again. Ever wonder why, and to whom, the interest figure in the national budget is owed? Oh, sure, a lot of it is owed out on Treasury bills and bonds held by citizens, foreigners and foreign governemnts. Eventually, it all comes down to owing the Federal Reserve.
To pay off the national debt, our money supply--available cash in the economy--would have to be reduced--take what is collected from citizens in taxes and return it to the Federal Reseerve. Or, borrow more money to pay off the older debt. M-1 and M-2 are the labels given to the money supply.
So, the money to bail out those companies must come from the Federal Reserve. About 1820 or so, Nathan Rothchild stated that "give him control of a nation's money supply and he would not care what the country's laws are."
The Federal Reserve System is not U.S. Federal. It is a system of private banks owned by elite banking families of the world. It was begun in a conspiratorial gettogether of those banking folks back in 1913 at an island off the coast of the Carolinas and called the Federal Reserve System to mislead the American people into accepting it by law as the monetary system of the USA.
I understand that if Congress prints currency, it then sells the printed bills to the Federal Reserve at 10 cents on the dollar. Then the US buys them back at face value to put into our treasury. However, coinage is pressed and sold to the Feds at face value. Strange workings, eh?
Probably, we would not have had the economic expansion of the 20th century under any other, tighter system, but one can see how it has gotten us into great financial difficulty in relation to the world community of nations. And, sad to say, he who holds the gold, rules.
Mr. Cheney did not answer Limbaugh's questions because the answer would create more questions than answers are allowable at this point.
Gene Lawley
Sunday, December 14, 2008
President Bush Has Stood Solid
I get tired of the self-styled, know-it-all writers, both nationally and locally, who declare Presidnent Bush a dumbell and absent of intelligent--now compared to the brilliant intelligence of President-elect Obama.
Its a lot like the critics of Abraham Lincoln in his day. He was fixed on saving the nation from permanent separation, showing great strength of character in the face of terrible conditions and opposition. President Bush declared on the day after 9/11 that the threat of terrorism was worldwide and he would lead the effort to overcome it wherever it may be, including those who harebored terrorists, supplied them, and hid them. He said then that it would not be a quick, short-term effort. Everyone was for it, backing the President. Liberals soon forgot.
Liberals have wanted to classify the 9/11 attack as a mere police action and not a war, thus accusing Mr. Bush of not going after bin Laden directly. They would not have done it. Clinton never did, nor any before him. Jimmy Carter could not get our citizens out of Iran's captivity. He was putty before Iran.
Critics launch attacks at Mr. bush as if they had sat in on national security briefings and new all the facts about a situation, so their wisdom, so--called--is so much better than the President's. The conclusion that Iraq never did have weapons of mass destruction because none were discovered there is one of the most stupid, ill-informed conclusions to come out of this era. All intelligence before Mr. Bush came into office was that they had WMDs; they had used them against Iran earlier.
They were capable of supplying and hiding terrorists, given the attitude of Saddam Hussien and his ignoring of UN resolutions. Thus, the move into Iraq was within Mr. Bush's declaration on September 12, 2001. He has stood on principle.
The liberal left, led by the liberal news media, have developed in this nation a disdain and hatred for President George W. Bush that is ill-founded, based on lies and fiction. Liberal writers, like those of the New York Times, write of Bush's "failed policies" in a blanket sttement, yet can they name any of them?
Here are some that did not fail: 1) Tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased and sustained employment; 2) The war in Iraq was right, the surge worked, and all would have been done much sooner had the liberal faction put the nation ahead of their socialistic and anti-American agenda. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade: many of those liberals and Bush-haters are clearly
unpatriotic, and some are traitors!
In the matter of Mr. Obama's intelligence being so much better than George Bush's, do you wonder about what motivates the news media leaders? On the night of October 31, 2008, on the Charlie Rose program on National Public Television, he and Tom Brokaw were asking each other what they really knew about Obama. About his foreign policy positions and other high-level issues of critical national importance. Neither of them could come up with anything. Both of them admitted they knew very little about lMr. Obama, though they had delighted in embracing and promoting his candidacy throughout the campaign. THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT HIM!
Why did they not think of asking for his records of his schooling, his law school teaching, writing, positions, etc.; his associations with political and radical figures in Illinois; his records of birth? Mr. Obama has seen that all those records have been locked up. Why? The next day after Sara Palin was nominated, the media went to work to dig up anything tey could find about her that could be used to dishonor her before the public. They did the same on "Joe, the Plumber" and he was not even running for office! I see great effort for DECEPTION in all of this.
Why does a bank robber pull a silk stocking or ski mask over his head when he goes into the bank? Because it's stylish? Or, maybe his face is cold? No, it's to hide his true identity.
October 31, the night of ghostly things, and Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, with seemingly little concern, disclosed a very scary thing!
That's my take on things political.
Gene Lawley
Its a lot like the critics of Abraham Lincoln in his day. He was fixed on saving the nation from permanent separation, showing great strength of character in the face of terrible conditions and opposition. President Bush declared on the day after 9/11 that the threat of terrorism was worldwide and he would lead the effort to overcome it wherever it may be, including those who harebored terrorists, supplied them, and hid them. He said then that it would not be a quick, short-term effort. Everyone was for it, backing the President. Liberals soon forgot.
Liberals have wanted to classify the 9/11 attack as a mere police action and not a war, thus accusing Mr. Bush of not going after bin Laden directly. They would not have done it. Clinton never did, nor any before him. Jimmy Carter could not get our citizens out of Iran's captivity. He was putty before Iran.
Critics launch attacks at Mr. bush as if they had sat in on national security briefings and new all the facts about a situation, so their wisdom, so--called--is so much better than the President's. The conclusion that Iraq never did have weapons of mass destruction because none were discovered there is one of the most stupid, ill-informed conclusions to come out of this era. All intelligence before Mr. Bush came into office was that they had WMDs; they had used them against Iran earlier.
They were capable of supplying and hiding terrorists, given the attitude of Saddam Hussien and his ignoring of UN resolutions. Thus, the move into Iraq was within Mr. Bush's declaration on September 12, 2001. He has stood on principle.
The liberal left, led by the liberal news media, have developed in this nation a disdain and hatred for President George W. Bush that is ill-founded, based on lies and fiction. Liberal writers, like those of the New York Times, write of Bush's "failed policies" in a blanket sttement, yet can they name any of them?
Here are some that did not fail: 1) Tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased and sustained employment; 2) The war in Iraq was right, the surge worked, and all would have been done much sooner had the liberal faction put the nation ahead of their socialistic and anti-American agenda. I am not afraid to call a spade a spade: many of those liberals and Bush-haters are clearly
unpatriotic, and some are traitors!
In the matter of Mr. Obama's intelligence being so much better than George Bush's, do you wonder about what motivates the news media leaders? On the night of October 31, 2008, on the Charlie Rose program on National Public Television, he and Tom Brokaw were asking each other what they really knew about Obama. About his foreign policy positions and other high-level issues of critical national importance. Neither of them could come up with anything. Both of them admitted they knew very little about lMr. Obama, though they had delighted in embracing and promoting his candidacy throughout the campaign. THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT HIM!
Why did they not think of asking for his records of his schooling, his law school teaching, writing, positions, etc.; his associations with political and radical figures in Illinois; his records of birth? Mr. Obama has seen that all those records have been locked up. Why? The next day after Sara Palin was nominated, the media went to work to dig up anything tey could find about her that could be used to dishonor her before the public. They did the same on "Joe, the Plumber" and he was not even running for office! I see great effort for DECEPTION in all of this.
Why does a bank robber pull a silk stocking or ski mask over his head when he goes into the bank? Because it's stylish? Or, maybe his face is cold? No, it's to hide his true identity.
October 31, the night of ghostly things, and Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose, with seemingly little concern, disclosed a very scary thing!
That's my take on things political.
Gene Lawley
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The One-Sided Stupidity of Leftists
My Dad had a saying I heard from time to time over the years: "Some folks don't have the sense God gave a goose!"
America has not won a war, really, since World War II. In that one, the nation pulled together as one, garnered its resources and manpower, and paid the price for freedom. Since then, internal opposition from leftists has splintered our ability to get the job done. Political expediency plays a part, as well as a lack of moral integrity and strength of character in the liberal segment of our nation.
Yes, that's right. Our local newspaper, The Times News, consistently publishes columnists associated with the most liberal media in the nation--New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, etc. They drop in a column from Cal Thomas quite often, but rarely anyone else not identified with liberal mindsets.
Those columnists are consistently down on President Bush, directly or indirectly, and fail to show the courage of convictions that are right and true. For instance, in a column some months ago by Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times surmised that he would rather contend with an Iran with threatening nuclear capabilities than to confront them head-on! Given the types of threats coming out of that regime, that is like a puppy dog rolling over on its back and wetting on itself in pre-mature self-defeat.
The Times News opinion page article by Paul Krugman (yes, he writes for the New York Times) on July 12, 2008, is about as one-sided as they get, though he seems to say things are not President Bush's fault while saying they really are his fault. He compares the likelihood of Bush leaving office with a record of only 5 million job gains, while Clinton "presided over" a gain of 22 million jobs. What he doesn't tell us, with the use of the words, "presided over", is that it was a Republican-controlled Congress that provided that gain, and without an overriding terrorist threat and a rising military resistance to it for most of his two terms.
This threat of worldwide terrorism came to a head on 9/11, mainly because of liberal passivity, political opposition and lack of the courage of conviction in administrations since the Reagan era. Terrorists have been nibbling at our military outposts, embassies, and even the World Trade Center in New York during those years, yet no real "stand up and be counted" resistance came forth. Sure, we resisted Iraq's intended takeover of its neighbor in the first Bush administration, but the job was not completed, and it was not a direct response to terrorism attacks on America.
Prior to Reagan, President Carter could not get our captives freed from Iran, but as soon as Reagan was in office the issue was resolved. Carter was soft as putty in that arena, as well as on economic issues, yet he won a Nobel peace prize, just like Clinton wanted to do.
Here is a quote from Krugman's opinion column: "And what does Bush have to say about his dismal record? 'I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work.' Clueless to the end." Krugman clearly comes under my Dad's categorization for stupidity. By his summation statement, Krugman tells us he is for increasing taxes, as if that would solve economic problems! Blind stupidity just cannot embrace reality, for what kind of thinking is it that believes taking funds out of the economy through heavier taxing and running them through Washington will increase economic expansion, greater job opportunities and financial well-being of the citizens?
Had the liberal left been supportive in this war on terror instead of showing constant hatrid for President Bush, most of the foreign and domestic problems would be under control now. Our enemies see a divided country and relish in their success at our expense. Yet, how many attacks on American soil or our foreign embassies can you count since 9/11 when Mr. Bush stood up and declared "we will pursue terrorists wherever they go as well as those who support them"? Liberals have a lot to learn and I am not at all donfident they will succeed in the process, for history has taught them nothing.
Krugman and all of his like-minded colleagues fit my Dad's caustic description of mental deficiecy, and I have no use for their kind of thinking.
Gene Lawley
America has not won a war, really, since World War II. In that one, the nation pulled together as one, garnered its resources and manpower, and paid the price for freedom. Since then, internal opposition from leftists has splintered our ability to get the job done. Political expediency plays a part, as well as a lack of moral integrity and strength of character in the liberal segment of our nation.
Yes, that's right. Our local newspaper, The Times News, consistently publishes columnists associated with the most liberal media in the nation--New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, etc. They drop in a column from Cal Thomas quite often, but rarely anyone else not identified with liberal mindsets.
Those columnists are consistently down on President Bush, directly or indirectly, and fail to show the courage of convictions that are right and true. For instance, in a column some months ago by Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times surmised that he would rather contend with an Iran with threatening nuclear capabilities than to confront them head-on! Given the types of threats coming out of that regime, that is like a puppy dog rolling over on its back and wetting on itself in pre-mature self-defeat.
The Times News opinion page article by Paul Krugman (yes, he writes for the New York Times) on July 12, 2008, is about as one-sided as they get, though he seems to say things are not President Bush's fault while saying they really are his fault. He compares the likelihood of Bush leaving office with a record of only 5 million job gains, while Clinton "presided over" a gain of 22 million jobs. What he doesn't tell us, with the use of the words, "presided over", is that it was a Republican-controlled Congress that provided that gain, and without an overriding terrorist threat and a rising military resistance to it for most of his two terms.
This threat of worldwide terrorism came to a head on 9/11, mainly because of liberal passivity, political opposition and lack of the courage of conviction in administrations since the Reagan era. Terrorists have been nibbling at our military outposts, embassies, and even the World Trade Center in New York during those years, yet no real "stand up and be counted" resistance came forth. Sure, we resisted Iraq's intended takeover of its neighbor in the first Bush administration, but the job was not completed, and it was not a direct response to terrorism attacks on America.
Prior to Reagan, President Carter could not get our captives freed from Iran, but as soon as Reagan was in office the issue was resolved. Carter was soft as putty in that arena, as well as on economic issues, yet he won a Nobel peace prize, just like Clinton wanted to do.
Here is a quote from Krugman's opinion column: "And what does Bush have to say about his dismal record? 'I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they'll recognize tax cuts work.' Clueless to the end." Krugman clearly comes under my Dad's categorization for stupidity. By his summation statement, Krugman tells us he is for increasing taxes, as if that would solve economic problems! Blind stupidity just cannot embrace reality, for what kind of thinking is it that believes taking funds out of the economy through heavier taxing and running them through Washington will increase economic expansion, greater job opportunities and financial well-being of the citizens?
Had the liberal left been supportive in this war on terror instead of showing constant hatrid for President Bush, most of the foreign and domestic problems would be under control now. Our enemies see a divided country and relish in their success at our expense. Yet, how many attacks on American soil or our foreign embassies can you count since 9/11 when Mr. Bush stood up and declared "we will pursue terrorists wherever they go as well as those who support them"? Liberals have a lot to learn and I am not at all donfident they will succeed in the process, for history has taught them nothing.
Krugman and all of his like-minded colleagues fit my Dad's caustic description of mental deficiecy, and I have no use for their kind of thinking.
Gene Lawley
Friday, October 26, 2007
Constitutional Freedoms and Fifth Columnists
One might add to this blog's title, "and political correctness", for it fits in well with my concerns about our national plight.
Cal Thomas, the conservative news columnist, wrote in today's newspaper of the infiltration of fifth columnists by Islamic fundamentals through "front" organizations, such as Islamic schools and Islamic-related Foundations. A court case in Florida was the object of his article, and that case did not conclude favorably for the safety of Americans.
Here is a quote from the article: "Anyone in doubt about the game plan for infiltrating, undermining and attacking America from within our borders had better sober up. Our enemies know our ways and they are using them to gain a strategic advantage over us."
For quite some time I have pondered this question about our First Amendment's provision for "freedom of religion": When a religion's doctrine is such that it requires its followers to murder anyone who will not submit to its precepts, its god, how is the constitution to be followed?
Will the courts decide--in their present liberal bias--that this confronting religion wins out, and that it may proceed in its "freedom" stance, or will the protective provisions of citizens' rights under the Constitution--pursuit of happiness, etc.--prevail? When this issue comes to that First Amendment provision, how could it be turned about and used against us in that manner?
It seems we--the national mentality--are on a roll of "tolerance" and "political correctness" that wants to give away whatever we have that makes America special. And I am concerned that the blatant stupidity of liberal, anti-Christian metality in the courts and in the media would bend further in that direction.
We are at a crossroads, for sure. And which potential national leader will stand in the gap that is widening between the traditional American freedoms we have known and enjoyed for our lifetimes and these new ideas of "tolerance" and "political correctness" that liberals have "lathered" over our bread of life? Who was it that made the statement somewhat like, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence"?
Gene Lawley
fiddlefax@yahoo.com
Cal Thomas, the conservative news columnist, wrote in today's newspaper of the infiltration of fifth columnists by Islamic fundamentals through "front" organizations, such as Islamic schools and Islamic-related Foundations. A court case in Florida was the object of his article, and that case did not conclude favorably for the safety of Americans.
Here is a quote from the article: "Anyone in doubt about the game plan for infiltrating, undermining and attacking America from within our borders had better sober up. Our enemies know our ways and they are using them to gain a strategic advantage over us."
For quite some time I have pondered this question about our First Amendment's provision for "freedom of religion": When a religion's doctrine is such that it requires its followers to murder anyone who will not submit to its precepts, its god, how is the constitution to be followed?
Will the courts decide--in their present liberal bias--that this confronting religion wins out, and that it may proceed in its "freedom" stance, or will the protective provisions of citizens' rights under the Constitution--pursuit of happiness, etc.--prevail? When this issue comes to that First Amendment provision, how could it be turned about and used against us in that manner?
It seems we--the national mentality--are on a roll of "tolerance" and "political correctness" that wants to give away whatever we have that makes America special. And I am concerned that the blatant stupidity of liberal, anti-Christian metality in the courts and in the media would bend further in that direction.
We are at a crossroads, for sure. And which potential national leader will stand in the gap that is widening between the traditional American freedoms we have known and enjoyed for our lifetimes and these new ideas of "tolerance" and "political correctness" that liberals have "lathered" over our bread of life? Who was it that made the statement somewhat like, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence"?
Gene Lawley
fiddlefax@yahoo.com
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Political Issues and Candidates
I just did a short exam or poll of 11 questions to learn how I fit in with the positions of the various candidates. A friend emailed it to me.
My best match was 64% and it was with Tomcrado. Most of the Republican candidates came in the 54% area. Hillary and her opponent, Obama, were both at 7%. We agreed on the death penalty question.
So, am I going to wait for a candidate to come up to the 100% level before I will go to the polls? Or, am I going to chase off after a third party offering?
The worst thing conservatives can do--be they evangelicals or just ordinary mid-America Honest Abes who claim no church affiliation--is to pull off to a third party. In my opinion, 64% or even 54% is a lot better than 7%, and it is a fair bet that a third party entry would turn the whole electorate into the hands of the liberals, namely Hillary Clinton.
Don't forget the inpact of Ross Perot in the 1990s. Bill Clinton did not--I repeat, DID NOT receive anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. Yet, we endured eight years of "its their turn" philosophy. Fortunately, for the first time in some-40 years, we had a Republican Congressional majority.
So, conservatives, give this some thought, and let's be flexible to a point.
Gene Lawley
My best match was 64% and it was with Tomcrado. Most of the Republican candidates came in the 54% area. Hillary and her opponent, Obama, were both at 7%. We agreed on the death penalty question.
So, am I going to wait for a candidate to come up to the 100% level before I will go to the polls? Or, am I going to chase off after a third party offering?
The worst thing conservatives can do--be they evangelicals or just ordinary mid-America Honest Abes who claim no church affiliation--is to pull off to a third party. In my opinion, 64% or even 54% is a lot better than 7%, and it is a fair bet that a third party entry would turn the whole electorate into the hands of the liberals, namely Hillary Clinton.
Don't forget the inpact of Ross Perot in the 1990s. Bill Clinton did not--I repeat, DID NOT receive anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. Yet, we endured eight years of "its their turn" philosophy. Fortunately, for the first time in some-40 years, we had a Republican Congressional majority.
So, conservatives, give this some thought, and let's be flexible to a point.
Gene Lawley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)