Some Things I Oppose and Some I Prefer

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