Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Loss of Freedoms List (Vanity Post)
Cornpone | 25 Jan 2005 | Cornpone

Posted on 01/25/2005 4:37:42 PM PST by Cornpone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 last
To: Southack

The military draft, forced conscription, is gone.

The boys are still required to register for the draft. They can still be drafted but now they can be placed under a UN commander.

Income taxes are now lower.

How much have they cut spending?

The estate tax is dead.

You are an optimist. Don't count your money until it's in the bank. The estate tax is promised to expire in 2010 -- unless the Dems gain control of Congress or unless the Republicans continue their march towards Big Government.

National union shop laws have been repealed.

Might as well. Manufacturing is now done in forced labor camps in China thanks to the World Economy loved by both sides of the aisle. It's hard for me to enjoy my freedom when so many products I need are made by slaves.

We've repealed, nationally, Gun Controls Against Active, Retired, and Off-Duty Law Enforcement Personnel Carrying Weapons Into Local and State Prohibited Zones

Too bad the airline pilots have to run a federal gauntlet to carry weapons.

We've killed the freedom-robbing Kyoto Global Warming nonsense,

It's a monster that's still out there. Wait until Hillary's in office.

as well as withdrawn from the uber-Left-wing International Criminal (and gained exemptions from it in numerous foreign jurisdictional areas).

Instead of exemptions from it I would rather we didn't play patty-cake with the UN or any of these leftist international bodies. Better to form our own coalition.

The federal ban on such citizen [space] travel was repealed by HR 5382 in 2004. The President signed that bill into law two days before Christmas.

Good for him. When government gives us a break there might have a slight chance for some of us to leave this planet and get away from the UN and the international wolves that eventually will devour Western Civilization.

Segregation is gone.

Replaced with affirmative action programs and their new surrogates. Coming soon: reparations for slavery via class action suits.

I'm hitting the sack. Good night. You have the last word.

251 posted on 01/26/2005 9:42:54 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Segregation is gone.

"Replaced with affirmative action programs and their new surrogates. Coming soon: reparations for slavery via class action suits."

I'd love to hear you tell me again how you are "trying" to be an optimist...

252 posted on 01/26/2005 9:48:52 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

BTTT!!!!!!!


253 posted on 01/27/2005 3:11:14 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
Government attempts to redefine millennia-old family relationships and bonds, i.e., gay marriage

The flaw is that government defined marriage in the first place. People were getting married for millenia before Congress came along and started punishing and rewarding based on marital status. But what the government can define, the government can re-define at whim.

The way to eliminate government promotion of gay marriage is to eliminate government promotion of any marriage, and let the institution stand on it's own. Somehow, I think marriage would do better without the government "help".

254 posted on 01/27/2005 4:29:46 AM PST by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

No knock search warrants.


255 posted on 01/27/2005 4:38:33 AM PST by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Evryone wants to be a bloody commissar. :):)

No Guns ~ No Rights!

Be Ever Vigilant!


256 posted on 01/27/2005 7:17:37 AM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: jonestown
All of the 'grandfathered in' State supported religions

The exact mechanism for "grandfathering" was the 1st amendment, which prohibited Congress, not the States from establishing a state religion.

In fact, nearly all the states have some strongly worded statement in their Constitution respecting religion:

"The Nebraska Constitution provides that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the Legislature . . . to encourage schools and the means of instruction.' Nebr. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 4. "

Why was that allowed? It wasn't "grandfathered" in.

"The first Congress, comprised of the same elected officials who drafted the First Amendment, admitted Vermont as a new State, with a constitution that provided: `every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.' Vt. Const. of 1786, Ch. 1, Art. 3, reprinted in 6 Thorpe 3749, 3752"

So why did the original founders who wrote the 1st amendment admit a state that tells Christians they should keep the "Lord's day"? I say it's because they never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states.

257 posted on 01/27/2005 8:44:45 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Idiotic misstatement of fact by 'Wikipedia'.

-- 'Some states, in the early years of the nation, had officially established religions, - religions which dated from the Colonial government era.' -- Is accurate.

All of the 'grandfathered in' State supported religions had withered away by the 1840's, -- whereupon Utah tried to gain statehood, with a state religion in their proposed constitution.
This unrepublican form of government was rejected for 40 years or more, till Utah agreed to conform with the US Constitution.

The exact mechanism for "grandfathering" was the 1st amendment, which prohibited Congress, not the States from establishing a state religion.

The exact mechanism for "grandfathering" was the "Republican form of Government" clause and the 1st amendment, which prohibited both Congress, and new States from establishing state religions.

In fact, nearly all the states have some strongly worded statement in their Constitution respecting religion: "The Nebraska Constitution provides that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the Legislature . . . to encourage schools and the means of instruction.´ Nebr. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 4. " Why was that allowed? It wasn't "grandfathered" in.

Odd point. -- Why would I have objection to that Nebraska clause?

"The first Congress, comprised of the same elected officials who drafted the First Amendment, admitted Vermont as a new State, with a constitution that provided: `every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath or Lord´s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.´ Vt. Const. of 1786, Ch. 1, Art. 3, reprinted in 6 Thorpe 3749, 3752"

Again, - why should I object to that Vermont clause?

So why did the original founders who wrote the 1st amendment admit a state that tells Christians they should keep the "Lord's day"?

To form a lasting Union? -- Political compromises were made, and the peculiar wording of the 1st is a fine example. It worked. We have a union of States where religion is kept out of government, and no religious test is required to hold office.

I say it's because they never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states.

I say the founders got what they intended in religious freedom.

258 posted on 01/27/2005 9:49:55 AM PST by jonestown ( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: jonestown
Are you a liberal? The reason I ask is liberals use the same kind of vague and twisted logic that you do. It is like you are trying to argue that 2+2=5.

And liberals are famous for finding "new rights" in the penumbras of the Constitution. They see things that aren't there. It is like they are hallucinating.

You invent the concept of "grandfathering" although the word does not appear in the Constitution.

When I point out state law (state constitutions) accepted after the Constitution was written that specifically respect establishments of religion, you say that "political compromises were made".

You try to say that the meaning of words change when people agree to a document, that swearing an oath to obey the Constitution changes the word "Congress" to "the States".

Apply Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that explains all the observations is that the Constitution means what it says. Instead you try to say it means something different from what it says and evidence to the contrary was just a "political compromise" or an unwritten "grandfather clause".
259 posted on 01/27/2005 10:11:20 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

You've stooped to making personal observations because you can't refute the plain words I use to explain the plain words of our Constitution.

Indeed, those words mean what they say, in the context of the day & the men that wrote them.

You say the founders never intended that the 1st amendment should apply to states, - that State religions are OK.

I say the founders got what they intended in religious freedom. - We have a union of States where religion is kept out of government, and no religious test is required to hold office.


260 posted on 01/27/2005 10:51:35 AM PST by jonestown ( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: jonestown
You've stooped to making personal observations because you can't refute the plain words I use to explain the plain words of our Constitution.

I'm just trying to understand you. If you were a liberal, it would explain your logic because liberals don't believe in absolute truth. They think there is such a thing as "your truth" and "my truth". They think they can change the meaning of words to fit their argument and thereby change the truth.

261 posted on 01/27/2005 12:45:19 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

Whatever. -- Your insistence on making personal comments on 'if' this or 'if' that lead me to doubt you want to understand anything about religious freedom in our republic. -- Find someone else to troll.


262 posted on 01/27/2005 2:18:01 PM PST by jonestown ( A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G

"I mean, who is going to defend the 2nd amendment rights of somebody with a domestic violence rap on their record?"

You may wish to rethink this one.. for there is a gentleman in the county where I live, that lost his right to own firearms for yelling at his wife. The court considered it domestic violence...


263 posted on 01/27/2005 9:24:11 PM PST by Refinersfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Refinersfire
Yes, I agree-----my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I know that a lot of domestic violence convictions are completely bogus; and that's why taking gun rights away from people with such convictions is especially disturbing. Plus, they did it retroactively.
Do not be surprised to find more politically unpopular convicts added to the list in the future, such as people convicted of DUI, drug offenses, you-name-it...
264 posted on 01/27/2005 11:24:47 PM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Dan Evans
The estate tax is dead. No longer must families sell their father's farm to pay an estate tax bill.

Not dead; merely in a coma. It comes back in 10 (9?) years...

265 posted on 01/28/2005 11:28:07 AM PST by packrat01 (Politics:Saying "Islam is a religion of peace" while seeking final destruction of Islamist Terrorism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson