Fix America is moving to a new home. Please bookmark our new site at http://www.unitedwestand2017.com/ and join the discussion there.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Fix America Is Moving!
Fix America is moving to a new home. Please bookmark our new site at http://www.unitedwestand2017.com/ and join the discussion there.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
What I Learned Today: Or Elected Servants Think They Are Masters
UPDATE!
See below!
I was unable to sleep after attending a meeting of the Corvallis City Council. Something was bothering me and I could not fall asleep. And then it hit me!
I listened to a small group of people who had very little or no direct contact with arms tell the Mayor and City Council why they needed to pass an unconstitutional ordinance to prohibit the open carrying of loaded arms within the city limits. All kinds of figures and percentages about gun violence were offered as testimony, while opposition spoke of rights and Constitution, and lawsuits if this ordinance passes a council vote.
But it wasn't until the early hours of the morning that it finally became clear. Here were a group of people who were elected by a majority of the people of Corvallis to serve their best interests, who were willing to break the law (Constitution) to pass a law (ordinance) to please a small group of "concerned" citizens who claim that seeing people carry loaded weapons made them afraid and added undo stress in their lives.
Imagine that! City Council thought that fear and stress were adequate justification to infringe on the rights of the majority to appease a special interest minority. I reminded them about a little skirmish that occurred with the British Crown when they came to confiscate weapons from the colonists.
Today is Election Day and I urge the Esteemed Readers to go out and vote. Go out and vote for the people who will protect your rights and not cater to special interests by taking from you what is rightfully yours.
If We the People stand up and rescind out consent of the form of governance that has evolved from that which was created, we can restore the system to what it was once meant to be.
UPDATE:
The Corvallis City Council has decided to drop the open carry ban ordinance. It seems that the State is taking up some new gun control legislation and focus on that is required at this time.
Actually it is time that we put these public servants into their proper place. The rights of the People MUST be protected by the servants in government, not usurped because of social pressures. Freedom loving Americans must unite in common defense of our rights and freedoms.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
What Has Happened to Our System of Governance?
 |
| . (Credit: EPA) |
The government will determine if you medical needs warrant the expense versus your potential worth to the government. In a nation of share the wealth, nobody can be permitted to burden society unless they are privileged by their service to the government and loyalty to their leader.
A Congress is no longer necessary since all they do is argue and never get anything done. Some even bring up issues such as constitutionality, when it is clear, that anything government deems, “necessary and proper” or “promotes the general welfare” (from the government's point of view) is constitutional period. The President will determine what the best laws are and will just write an executive order to make it law. Those laws already written will be ignored or changed to best suit the needs of the government.
Even the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land cannot be questioned once they decide a law is constitutional. Why if that were permitted, every law the People don't like can be called into question. Government cannot permit such blatant disregard for the tyranny it forces upon us.
Government can take all of your rights if you allow them to. The only thing they cannot take is free will. That is the root from which the Tree of Liberty grows. Free will in inherent in all of humanity and is our birthright.
Have we reached the point of total enslavement by the government, now an entity unto itself? Knowing what the government has become, it makes me wonder if Americans have forgotten who they are! (Or is it simply a matter of education?)
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
An Open Letter to the Tea Party
I received this letter via email a few days ago. I had to read through it several times because of the impact it has on me and I trust it will have a significant impact on the Esteemed Readers of this blog.
I am including the list of reference links attached to this letter so you may also do the research for yourself.
"11/22/13
I am including the list of reference links attached to this letter so you may also do the research for yourself.
"11/22/13
To The Distinguished Members of the Tea Party,
I come to you with a heavy heart about something that is plaguing the poor families of this once great country. I say once great because we are now having the government dictate how we should live and raise our children. What I am going to reveal to you hurts the very core of our existence in this nation.
To me this brings to mind Adolf Hitler and his taking of children to train them to be better soldiers for his cause, which we all know failed and we all Thank God for that, but none the less it devastated the children and families. What is happening in this country to poor families across this great land has the same theme, but being covered up by saying it is in the best interest of the children.
Thousands of families that fall below the poverty level are easy prey for DCS and the government is funding this out of the Social Security fund that are supposed to go to the senior citizens and disabled people that mostly depend on that money to barely exist. When President Clinton was in office he signed a bill taking money out of Social Security to help CPS take care of children that were in their care. I am sure at the time President Clinton thought this was a good idea and I believe in the most part it was until CPS figured out a way to use this to fund themselves instead of trying to reunify the families take their parental rights from them. If they know that they cannot take parents rights away, they make the families jump through hoops by doing classes on parenting, take a mental health evaluations and the list goes on all the while keeping children in their custody to earn money from the federal government.
We all know when you are below the poverty level, you cannot afford to pay for an attorney to represent you and are given a public defender that is employed by the court and is extremely handicapped in representing his appointed client. If the attorney puts in a request, say, for an expert witness, he is usually turned down by the judge saying we don't have the funds for it. All the while CPS has millions of dollars at their disposal to justify their actions and in 99% of cases the judge agrees with CPS because they believe that the parents are liars and CPS is telling the truth or they may even be getting a kick back from CPS.
If you will look from the beginning when President Clinton signed the bill, you will find a rise in children being taken from their families and put up for adoption. Most of these families are poor and that is their only crime. Some of CPS's claims might be only that they could not afford toys for their children.
Mothers have committed suicide after losing their children and husband and wives divorce, all because CPS wants to make money. CPS has lost sight of what they are supposed to do and in part because they make more money by taking the children from the home and removing parental rights to place the children up for adoption.
I love my country and the people in it, I pray for our young men and women being placed in harms way, wanting them to come home to their families safely. I will not fly a flag until this atrocity ends and children are returned to their families. It seems to me the only time our elected officials cares about anyone is when they need votes to be reelected, making promises to all of us and then as soon as they are elected or reelected, they forget about their promises to us until the next election.
I know you want change and are trying to get the government under control and give it back to the people. What I would like to know- will all of you in the Tea Party stand with me to change this and get the children of good families returned home?
We need to make the public aware of this epidemic in our country, we need men and women that are running for office to stand up for us and say this has to stop and stop now. Make the ones in office be accountable for these families that they have helped destroy. Don't get me wrong there is a need for CPS but they have to get back on track of preserving families if they are able to, not just take them for the benefit of monetary gain. There are thousands of children in our nation that are being abused everyday and yes they should be removed and placed where they will be loved and taught about our Savior which by the way was what this country was founded on. CPS needs to be revamped where they will be productive again in the preservation of families and the protection of children that are truly in need of help.
I know this Is true not just by the research that I as well as others have done but because it is happening to my family and is now in appeals court. My daughter has not seen her children, in February will be for 2 years. The court sided with DCS because she had a public defender and they won based on the testimony of a mentally challenged person. In a forensic interview my granddaughter admitted that what she said wasn't true, but there was a baby involved and the night we went to try to pick them up, my wife and I were told that we would never see them again because they had someone already to adopt the baby. This was in less than 2 hours after they intervened in our lives.
I am sending list of websites you can look at as well some stories from families. I do hope you will look into this matter and get on board. Just think this could happen to you when you least expect it. All it takes is for someone that is upset with you call and make an anonymous phone call to the CPS hot line even though it is a lie, your children could be gone in a heartbeat.
Sincerely Yours,
Warren Howe, Pastor"
Reference Links:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-resolution/519?q=LAWS+signed+protecting+children
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Congress Will Hear Us!
Some things are self-evident and we don't have to refer to founding principles for guidance. We have the foundation that was set before us with the creation of a national government under the Constitution. It is up to us, We the People, to restrict that government to the constitutional limitations placed on it.
Social changes notwithstanding, the principles of a federal republic and the limitations of that federal government to protect the rights and property of the people, led to prosperity for as long as the representatives of the people operated within those constitutional limitations, and did truly represent the best interests of their constituents.
The love of liberty was the cause that birthed this nation and giving up that love will be its downfall.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Meaning of Liberty
In the past several months I have written about liberty and rights. I have used both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as evidence of the commitment to liberty our founders made. But I cannot do the subject as much justice, nor can I offer the level of inspiration and motivation that I discovered in this short video with the late Paul Harvey.
In this monologue, Mr. Harvey explains the agenda of the founders in a way that is contrary to those that I have learned in school or discovered for myself at the library in documentary texts or film.
I trust you will share this with others. We must all know and understand the real sacrifices made to bring this nation into being. It is most relevant that we learn from the past and know what is necessary to restore liberty while it is still possible to accomplish that goal through the ballot box.
But we also must remain vigilant and prepared to fight for our freedom in whatever manner circumstance may dictate.
In this monologue, Mr. Harvey explains the agenda of the founders in a way that is contrary to those that I have learned in school or discovered for myself at the library in documentary texts or film.
I trust you will share this with others. We must all know and understand the real sacrifices made to bring this nation into being. It is most relevant that we learn from the past and know what is necessary to restore liberty while it is still possible to accomplish that goal through the ballot box.
But we also must remain vigilant and prepared to fight for our freedom in whatever manner circumstance may dictate.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Health, Wealth, Laws, and Rights
First, abortion is not a choice. Having sex is a choice and doing so with responsibility is what needs to be taught and not legislated. As a teenager, my parents spoke with me at length about sex and how it will be my responsibility to take care of a child that I father. Neighbors with daughters also taught them that having sex was not just about feeling good, as it is a reproductive process that will produce a child. Abortion was never considered as an option to carelessness and disregard for the sex act itself.
Contrary to popular social ideology, health care is not a human right or a right of an American citizen. Medicine as it is practiced today is an extension of the pharmaceutical industry, and it does nothing to further cures or to maintain good health. Sure, diet and exercise are both stressed as important factors in health care today, but it is drugs that are relied upon to accommodate those with unhealthy lifestyles. And now with the unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Patient Protection Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, the decisions regarding your own health are being handled through government bureaucrats who will decide whether or not you are worth the treatments you require. In other words, even your doctor has little to say in regards to your personal health.
Finally, we are now faced with proposed new legislation to make it easy for immigrants to gain legal status and a path toward citizenship, even though they have been breaking the laws of immigration for many years. While I am writing this, I am also listening to the President speaking about this issue. He wants to make new laws when he and his administration has refused to enforce the laws already there. He wants us Americans to believe that we will benefit from immigration laws being changed.
Obama wants to punish businesses that take advantage of illegal workers by having them work long hours and with less that minimum wage pay. Most of these workers are supposedly doing labor that Americans will not perform for these low wages. But if these businesses were able to afford to hire American workers at living wages, don’t you think more Americans would take those jobs? Perhaps the underlying problem is the value of our money and not greedy employers. It’s greed of the banking cartel that must be addressed, and by We the People not just by the politicians we elected to protect us from them.
When my ancestors arrived here from Europe, they did not receive benefits. They worked and saved, educated their children to strive for a better life here. Many succeeded in businesses and professional careers, paid their taxes and contributed to charity to benefit their community. They did not have any government programs that entitled them to benefits from taxpayers. They themselves were taxpayers. And whatever laws on immigration and naturalization there were at the time were obeyed and eventually they became citizens. Why do we need to change a system that worked so well? What is needed is enforcement of the laws currently in place.
There is always the cry for being humanitarian and allow these illegal immigrants to stay here. But look at other nations around the world and you will see that we are the most lenient on the planet when it comes to illegal immigration. We cannot continue to subsidize those who break our laws and reform the laws so that they will go unpunished for their crimes.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Taking Issue With Definition of Marriage
 |
| Image courtesy of Tufts University |
I received an email this morning from a good man who
forwarded an article from the Family Research Council. It was about two female
cadets at West Point who were married in chapel in defiance of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) that was passed into law. I felt compelled to address the
issue myself although I am certain that it will not be well received by either
side in this ongoing debate.
Back in September, 2011, I wrote a blog post (Marriage:
Is It Legal or Lawful?) because the DOMA was being hotly contested in the
media. I felt it was necessary to separate the issues at hand into their
respective parts. Namely, the legal license that binds two individuals in a
contract (civil union) and the ceremony of marriage, which is a religious institution,
which is protected by law.
I also posted “Media Hype Aside: Ron Paul Stands Out!” where Dr. Paul articulates
the need to remove “gay” preceding “rights” as all individuals enjoy equal
rights, regardless of sexual preference. To grant rights to any group above the
rights of others is not provided for in the Constitution.
The difference in not always obvious since the legal
document called a marriage license is merely a contractual agreement for legal
purposes, such as power of attorney when one party is unable to make decisions
for themselves, and the other party therefore is granted the right to make
decisions for the other. Just as a parent has legal power of attorney for a
minor child, so does a license of marriage give the same power for their spouse
or partner.
But the institution of marriage itself, the ceremony if
you will, is particular to the religious faith of the two parties to be joined.
After all, does not the ceremony state, “in the holy bonds of matrimony?” There
is nothing “holy” in legal or lawful contracts between two parties.
So once again I am drawing attention to the post
mentioned (Marriage:
Is It Legal or Lawful?) since the question of whether or not West Point was
correct in allowing these two women to be joined in marriage. Since the
Constitution makes it explicitly clear that no particular religion can be
chosen as the religion of the government, in also implies that all faiths must
be treated with equal respect and reverence.
In times of war there were many soldiers who were of
different faiths, and while the chaplains of the military may have been
predominantly Christians, be no means were other religions made less
significant by those chaplains.
While we may all have our convictions of what is right
and wrong, and what is permissible based on religious doctrine, our nation was
created on principles of liberty, and regardless of our personal beliefs, we
must therefore accept the fact that there are others who will not always agree
with our own religious practices.
It seems obvious that by prejudice against others of
different beliefs we have become the Divided States of America, and that is a
dangerous precedence to set when We the People must stand united when high
crimes and treason are the main issues that are eroding our freedoms and
nation.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The World Will Change
It is predictions and prophecy that guides many. It seems that when you believe so strongly in something, that it will occur. Many people believe in the End Times, and they have pretty most the same idea of what that is supposed to look like.
I see a possibility of an alternative outcome. But it will take a great amount of people who are willing to look beyond the doom and gloom prophets many people now follow. I see the possibility that people all over the world will begin to awaken.
For so long, the world has been fighting a spiritual tug-of-war as different religions claim exclusive dominion over the souls of humanity. Followers of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses all believe their way is the only way to salvation. But what if they are all wrong?
It is quite arrogant for people to cling to beliefs that put the Earth at the center of the Universe. At some point in the past there lacked a basic knowledge of the cosmos and the Earth was even considered to be flat, and punishment of death do those that dared to think otherwise.
As a nation, we face the most important election in our history. The United States was founded on fundamental principles that stated our rights our derived from our Creator, in whatever form that may be to you as an individual. It doesn't matter what God or religion you believe in. As far as individual rights are concerned in the context of a government, our Constitution makes it your right to choose. But keep in mind, others have that same right also. And most important is the fact that because both you and they share the same rights, you don't have to share the same beliefs and opinions, nor can you force your beliefs and opinions on others. That is a clear violation of their God-given rights.
But throughout history, there are always those who feel that "they" know what is best for others. Whether it be a church or an entire religion, whether it be the local, state or federal government, there are always those who think their way is best for the community or for society. I feel there are some basic rights that get infringed upon when one special interest group tries to force their beliefs on everyone.
Which brings us back to why the world must and will change. It is a matter of choice. Some choose to back a group thought process and tell us that they are "free thinkers" and that they just happen to agree with most of the group. If the group is of a special interest, then that it to the exclusion of all others who are not in that particular group or who just don't agree with their opinions.
This nation as an example to the rest of the world, was to allow everyone group to live as they feel best for themselves but without interfering with everyone else. But that was also against the wishes of those groups who wished to control all the groups, and who wanted to homogenize society into a group of obedient workers and managers. They assumed the roles of executive officers and with privileges that denied the majority their basic God-given rights.
Bans on anything the government wants to control is against basic human rights. Allowing one group special privileges over all others is an infringement on the rights of others. Often I hear or read about people who feel that they have been wronged by others who have not allowed basic rights. The simple solution is to allow them rights but not to grant special privileges to them.
The world is in crisis. Economies are toppling the world over. Political and religious conflicts occur daily, with humans murdering humans simply because they differ in thinking. It is all a manipulation and it is made easy because most people deny that it exists. People refuse to believe that their government would harm them. Especially when their government is formed under their beliefs in God. Somehow they equate the religious leaders as being all knowing and always right about what God wants from you.
Did you ever bother just asking God? Do you really think that any other human has a more direct communication with God than you or I? Doesn't it seem rather arrogant to think that if God wanted to tell the world something, that it would be through one religion as opposed to all others?
There is religious war being waged today. It is being waged on many fronts as Islam and Christianity clash and Judaism it caught in the middle. But more important to the idea of God-given rights, it the ideological and philosophical war being fought. That the two are intertwined is obvious. Each religion has its own set rules, or prohibitions. And the forcing of those prohibitions as laws of government directly infringe on the God-given rights of all others, who are of a different faith than the current majority or the loudest protester.
As we are less than a week away from the 2012 Presidential Election, it appears that there are lines being drawn to differentiate between the two most prominent candidates in the media. Yet there are so parallels between these two, I find it less than amusing that the major likenesses are most ignored.
Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are for big government and tight control over the citizens. Individual rights mean nothing to either of them although they each pay lip service to it, and defend the denial and suspension of rights when the illusion of security is at risk.
Make no mistake; there is no difference when it comes to enforcing laws like the Patriot Act or National Defense Authorization Act. Both agree that if they feel it necessary, an Executive Order can be written that will by-pass the normal channels of legislation to do whatever it is they want to do.
While on the surface they seem so far apart on many issues that are relevant, they both support the same methods that got us in this mess, whether it is taxes and regulation, or defining a class of people to single out as being good or bad for the nation.
Is it too late to convince registered voters of both major parties to abandon the party and vote for a different candidate? How about a Libertarian? How about Gary Johnson?
I see a possibility of an alternative outcome. But it will take a great amount of people who are willing to look beyond the doom and gloom prophets many people now follow. I see the possibility that people all over the world will begin to awaken.
For so long, the world has been fighting a spiritual tug-of-war as different religions claim exclusive dominion over the souls of humanity. Followers of Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses all believe their way is the only way to salvation. But what if they are all wrong?
It is quite arrogant for people to cling to beliefs that put the Earth at the center of the Universe. At some point in the past there lacked a basic knowledge of the cosmos and the Earth was even considered to be flat, and punishment of death do those that dared to think otherwise.
As a nation, we face the most important election in our history. The United States was founded on fundamental principles that stated our rights our derived from our Creator, in whatever form that may be to you as an individual. It doesn't matter what God or religion you believe in. As far as individual rights are concerned in the context of a government, our Constitution makes it your right to choose. But keep in mind, others have that same right also. And most important is the fact that because both you and they share the same rights, you don't have to share the same beliefs and opinions, nor can you force your beliefs and opinions on others. That is a clear violation of their God-given rights.
But throughout history, there are always those who feel that "they" know what is best for others. Whether it be a church or an entire religion, whether it be the local, state or federal government, there are always those who think their way is best for the community or for society. I feel there are some basic rights that get infringed upon when one special interest group tries to force their beliefs on everyone.
Which brings us back to why the world must and will change. It is a matter of choice. Some choose to back a group thought process and tell us that they are "free thinkers" and that they just happen to agree with most of the group. If the group is of a special interest, then that it to the exclusion of all others who are not in that particular group or who just don't agree with their opinions.
This nation as an example to the rest of the world, was to allow everyone group to live as they feel best for themselves but without interfering with everyone else. But that was also against the wishes of those groups who wished to control all the groups, and who wanted to homogenize society into a group of obedient workers and managers. They assumed the roles of executive officers and with privileges that denied the majority their basic God-given rights.
Bans on anything the government wants to control is against basic human rights. Allowing one group special privileges over all others is an infringement on the rights of others. Often I hear or read about people who feel that they have been wronged by others who have not allowed basic rights. The simple solution is to allow them rights but not to grant special privileges to them.
The world is in crisis. Economies are toppling the world over. Political and religious conflicts occur daily, with humans murdering humans simply because they differ in thinking. It is all a manipulation and it is made easy because most people deny that it exists. People refuse to believe that their government would harm them. Especially when their government is formed under their beliefs in God. Somehow they equate the religious leaders as being all knowing and always right about what God wants from you.
Did you ever bother just asking God? Do you really think that any other human has a more direct communication with God than you or I? Doesn't it seem rather arrogant to think that if God wanted to tell the world something, that it would be through one religion as opposed to all others?
There is religious war being waged today. It is being waged on many fronts as Islam and Christianity clash and Judaism it caught in the middle. But more important to the idea of God-given rights, it the ideological and philosophical war being fought. That the two are intertwined is obvious. Each religion has its own set rules, or prohibitions. And the forcing of those prohibitions as laws of government directly infringe on the God-given rights of all others, who are of a different faith than the current majority or the loudest protester.
As we are less than a week away from the 2012 Presidential Election, it appears that there are lines being drawn to differentiate between the two most prominent candidates in the media. Yet there are so parallels between these two, I find it less than amusing that the major likenesses are most ignored.
Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are for big government and tight control over the citizens. Individual rights mean nothing to either of them although they each pay lip service to it, and defend the denial and suspension of rights when the illusion of security is at risk.
Make no mistake; there is no difference when it comes to enforcing laws like the Patriot Act or National Defense Authorization Act. Both agree that if they feel it necessary, an Executive Order can be written that will by-pass the normal channels of legislation to do whatever it is they want to do.
While on the surface they seem so far apart on many issues that are relevant, they both support the same methods that got us in this mess, whether it is taxes and regulation, or defining a class of people to single out as being good or bad for the nation.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Unwavering - Openness - Clarity - Transparency
“So will there be some [programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
— Mitt Romney
“I actually have a[n immigration] plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. ”
— Mitt Romney
“Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues…”
— Tax Policy Center
WASHINGTON, DC – Admittedly afraid of how voters will react to his ideas, Mitt Romney has a bad habit of teasing his policy proposals before refusing to show voters the details. First, Romney told told the Washington Examiner that he had an immigration plan that he hadn’t unveiled — that was over 100 days ago. Next, he gave a highly publicized “major” policy address at Ford Field in Detroit to unveil his new tax plan, but he failed to actually release the details of the plan in question. And finally, while speaking with the Weekly Standard, Romney flat-out admitted he was keeping secrets from voters because he was afraid his ideas would be unpopular. The Standard wrote: “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.”
“Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his plans before the election shows he’s fully aware that his ideas are out of touch with American values. The only thing more cynical than Romney’s outdated policies that make the rich richer is his willingness to keep the details secret from voters."
— Rodell Mollineau, American Bridge president
Americans expect presidential campaigns to be worthy of the office they’re seeking — for candidates to offer competing visions for the future, instead of defaulting on the promises that got them there. Romney has yet to prove to anyone he has what it takes. In fact, in the sixty months since Mitt Romney began his quest for the White House, the most noteworthy thing he’s done is outspend Rick Santorum in a couple of states. He has failed to realize it’ll take more than that to reach the White House.
Romney promised to eliminate cabinet agencies and government programs, but refused to specify which, out of a fear of the plans being politically unpopular. According to The Weekly Standard, “Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is ‘the critical thing’ that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America.' ‘Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,’ he revealed in a 30-minute interview on March 21. It’s a smart answer in that it actually says nothing and is a deeply politically correct one.
Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to be specific about any programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’
[The Weekly Standard, 04/02/12]
December 7, 2011: Romney admits he had an illegal immigration plan, but refused to unveil it.
In a Washington Examiner editorial board meeting, Romney was asked, “Have you not said enough to encourage that… simply by saying, ‘Well, once we’ve secured the border, we can do something?’" Romney responded, “I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me. I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And then number three, how to secure the border. And every piece of advice I've received from people who talk about this topic say get the first job done first, because if you talk about the other jobs you get highly confused with whether you are going to create incentives for people to come here illegally to take advantage of whatever program you might describe.”
[The Washington Examiner Editorial Board, 12/7/11]
Romney promised to eliminate tax deductions to pay for his tax plan, but did not specify which deductions, making it impossible to accurately evaluate his proposal. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. …
The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now… Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.”
[Tax Policy Center]
Mitt Romney Platform:
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney's 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?
Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy platform is contrasted below with the platform Mitt Romney maintained before and during his governorship of Massachusetts, and the previous article. Why is Mitt Romney running for President on a platform that has been so drastically altered?
Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.
Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage:
1994: "As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]."
2011: "I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Mitt Romney on Abortion:
1994: "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
2002: "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose."
2011: "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."
Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:
1994: "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."
2007: "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."
Mitt Romney on Health Care:
2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."
Mitt Romney on Immigration:
2006: "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."
2008: "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's not appropriate."
Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:
1994: "I would like to have campaign spending limits."
2007: "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."
Platform 2012?
Abortion: pro-life
Capital punishment: against
Censorship: against the Fairness Doctrine
Child protection: "would propose a "One-Strike, You're Ours" law for child sex offenders convicted of using the Internet to prey on children."
Education: supports No Child Left Behind
Abstinence education: supports this in public schools
Prayer in schools: He was against this in 1994, but in 2007 said, "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."
Gas crisis: Wishes to become independent of foreign oil by using alternative fuels as well as domestic reserves of petroleum.
Environment\Global warming: Pro-environment; regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary measures.
Family life: Mitt Romney has said, "That strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America."
Gun control: Romney has "flip-flopped" on this issue, once stating that he supported, "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." and at another date saying he supported gun control and a ban on assault weapons.
Health Care: supports the right of states to form their own health care plans for their respective state citizens.
Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions: Romney has avidly supported same-sex marriage in the past, saying, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." However, in his 2008 campaign, Romney stated that, "I oppose same-sex marriage and I also oppose civil unions."
Medical Marijuana: Stated, "I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana."
Stem Cell Research: Believes it is ethical, but opposes research involving cloned embryos and opposes federal funding for it.
Free Trade: Supports
Minimum Wage: Supports predictable, steady "changes" in the minimum wage. Up or down... Who knows?
Taxation: Has pledged to not produce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes; advocated for the elimination of the estate tax.
Immigration: Supports legal immigration and decreased illegal immigration. Opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, but supports a path to citizenship for them, without any special treatment over legal immigrants, as well as the requirement to pay taxes and register with the government.
Iran: Believes the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if the latter country threatens to use nuclear weapons is an option.
Iraq War: Romney has stated, "So long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population." Is willing to withdraw from Iraq if the surge proves unsuccessful, which Romney believes is too early to tell.
Pakistan: Wishes to aid this country in military, informational, and governmental ways through the Special Partnership Force."
What... if anything does the previous information actually mean? You could corner Willard Mittington Romney in a closed room and sweat it out of him... but he might not know.
Monday, May 14, 2012
One Of America's Best
Today, people in general believe the young just lie about, play video games and generally contribute to the downward mobility within our society. You will find below... a surprising and refreshing collection of some of the most enlightening ideas I have read in years. Many Kudos to the brilliant 21-year-old woman who put them together and then put them to paper which was subsequently published on November 18, 2010 Waco Herald Tribune. It is truly a shame that two questions remain unanswered, Why, If Romney is so for America, didn't he think of these, and who is this woman and why isn't she in charge now?
Social Welfare Programs have no legitimate place in the governance of the Federal Republic. Until they are removed from the government's list of projects that have been empowered, we can only hope that bright young Americans will become involved, like this young woman, before our nation collapses from the economic strain of social programs.
"Put me in charge …
Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good."
Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self-esteem," consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
by One of America's Best
November 18, 2010, Waco Herald Tribune
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men and women do nothing"
-Edmund Burke"
Monday, April 9, 2012
If Things Were Right: Like a Phoenix Rising From The Ashes
In the vision of our founders, demonstrated by the careful word crafting in the compositions that we now call Founding Documents, the explicit limits to federal government are plain. In all of them the rights to all were equal, not that all are equal. One who works for wages, or takes up a trade or starts their own business is not equal to someone who feels those workers, trades, and businesses all must pay to support them because they are entitled. Charity is voluntary not mandatory.
Freedom is something you must both earn and pay for if you are to keep it. The rights of others cannot be infringed upon by you as you would not have your rights be infringed upon by others, without your wanting and willingness to take action to defend those rights. What right did you give to the federal government to use your tax dollars to give to foreign nations? And at what point did you feel obligated to fund "entitlement" programs for people that are not U.S. citizens or simply plain lazy Americans who use excuses instead of brains or physical dexterity to at least earn their own keep?
Somewhere in our not so distant past we began to lose our rights. Property rights, individual rights, privacy rights, and most of the Constitutional rights were deliberately and systematically taken away and there wasn't even a heated public debate to defend those rights. The right to determine where our tax dollars are spent was something that was much simpler to understand when the Constitution limited taxation with apportionment and a budget had to be approved by the elected representative employees and the People of the many States were heard through the voices of those elected Representatives to that post of service. They aren't our leaders at all, they are supposed to listen to their constituents and follow their majority opinion. If they are not following our lead, we need to remedy the problem.
If things were right in this country, our currency would be stable regardless of what other nations currencies are worth. It would be based on a standard weight of tangible asset the worth of which is based on real industrial value and not a formula that requires a four-year Harvard Degree in Economics.
If things were right we would think $100.00 as a weekly wage was doing pretty good. Fuel prices would be less than 25 cents per gallon and a brand new American built automobile would cost less than $5,000.00 with all of the optional extras.
If things were right, education would be the total responsibility of the parents and not the state. Home schooling, charter schools, and eventually that leads to no public (tax funded) schools at all. All the libraries in the world made available on DVD and online for the world to gain knowledge. The classics as written by those who wrote them and not just the opinions of those lessons written by others. Discussions and debates could take place at a meeting place or online since that enables communications across the continents.
If things were right, we could easily transition from petrochemical fueled vehicles to HHO fuel cell powered electric vehicles. The technology that today is real but at a reasonable cost instead of the premium price that few can afford to pay.
If things were right, regulatory obstacles would be fewer and those additional and unnecessary fees and certifications forced on manufacturers would be eliminated.That would make employment an opportunity that would always be here for younger generations to go out into the world to seek their goals and dreams.
If things were right, I would have work to do and would be self-sufficient instead of desperately trying to produce the rent for every month. I also would be typing less and talking more as the host of an online talk show. But reality is not the same as being right.
If things were right, the known, simple, inexpensive treatments to cure cancer and other illnesses that are so often fatal would be common knowledge and inexpensively available to everyone. If only things were right.
It is the right, and the patriotic duty for all sovereign American individuals to voice their grievances for remedy to those who represent them in our federal government instead of restricted free speech rights and form letters. That remedy begins when we cast our ballots to choose just who will represent us and carry out our mandate for a responsible compliant government and not an irresponsibly reticent and complacent government.
Democrats and Republicans as political parties have taken away our ability to be fairly represented. Those candidates who do not embrace and expound the party ideology are removed from candidacy with the support of the privately-owned major media, who spoon feed spin to the public with the party line of choices while they ostracize the nominees who do not toe that party line.
I have worked for and have been involved with government at all levels and feel there is no level that is not corrupted by lobbying and campaign funding from special interests. While at the same time the media, funded by lobbies and special interests will point the fingers of spin at individuals, groups, and corporations, the problems worsen and never improve.
The presidential election in November, 2012 will be noted as an important historic turning point in the history of the United States of America. It will determine whether America will rise from the ashes like a phoenix, or become absorbed by the global elitists who have been taking over the world through their banks and the corporations they created.
If we keep voting the same warring bigger government unlimited spending party people into office, we will lose our sovereignty and become slave labor to the statists.
Update:
Now that the election is over and Obama stole another four years from the People, will we have any opportunity to regain our prosperity and liberty? Or will we continue to plummet to third-world status?
Obama promised in 2008 that he will "fundamentally change America" and so far he has. The problem is it was not the change that most of us believed in nor wanted.
Friday, March 30, 2012
A Safe America - Part 1
It seems to me that It is very important to remember that before the founding of this nation very independent thinking men became dissatisfied with rulers and struck out for a foreign shore. Since the founding of this country, it was imaginative individuals as entrepreneurs working, always with risk, toward a common goal through voluntary cooperation in both concept and spirit. Team work had very little importance in the founding of this nation. It was individual freemen that made this nation the strongest in the world: it was the concepts of individual strengths and the spirit of freedom that made an American who he was. To be sure there were communities which had various common functions; blacksmith, butcher, baker, candle stick maker, reverend, and often a bookbinder or printer of news. They all had weapons of one sort or another and when aggression occurred defended their family and home. On the occasion of threat to their community they band together as a militia to defend their communities.
Because of the type of mandatory education today, people have been trained to rely on government, not themselves for defense. Today there is more and more reliance on the government for almost everything including permissions. Americans in general have been trained to be various kinds of workers or soldiers. Thinking along this path leads to socialism. This kind of society requires group thinking, standardized actions, and regulated activities. Team work is only important in highly structured social undertakings; the minuet, Virginia reel, football, soccer are some of the things that come to mind. Lock-step thinking and behavior becomes most important in successful social civilizations; colonies of ants, colonies of termites, colonies of bees, are successful due to the queens ability to produce an almost unlimited number of kinds of workers and soldiers controlled by chemical entrainment. Who wishes to strive to be an ant, termite, or a bee?
The various human attempts at hard core socialism have historically failed. These societies failed because they, by necessity, are controlled by the few who spend some amount of time on remaining in control and this inevitably leads to the people feeling disenfranchised in regard to the exercise of control over their own lives. These types of societies leave little or no place for individual imagination and improvement in their station of life. This inequitable and imbalanced condition becomes a generalized dissatisfaction with their station in life and a seeming paradox occurs. The people rely on government for solutions.
The situation in America, relying on government, for direction and safety when perceived threats are seemingly detected has become psychologically epidemic and endemic in the way Americans think. Americans have in one way or another allowed fewer freedoms, liberties, and rights to insure their safety from an ill defined aggressor. How safe are we... really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)