Posted on 01/13/2007 9:14:29 AM PST by joanie-f
Edited on 01/13/2007 10:59:19 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yes, I received notification from Focus on the Family, but wasn't aware that AFA was sending out red flags as well. Glad to hear it, and thanks for the kind words, FGS. :)
My dear Dad died in 2001, shortly after 9/11. He was a veteran of World War II, and often said that he had 'seen America's best days' (meaning that she is in sorry decline).
I have often said, as you voiced here, that the only fortunate thing about the fact that he is no longer living is that it would break his heart to see what has become of his beloved country in the mere five years since he passed away.
~ joanie
The four-box system:
soap box
ballot box
jury box
cartridge box
Which one of these is left?
I fear that we're fast approaching Claire Wolfe's once-fuzzy line of demarcation.
This one needs to be shouted from the rooftops, or that option may be taken away too!
Ping
More info on that Senate Bill 1.
:)
I understand exactly how you feel as well. We lost our dad's around the same time. Feels like forever since I've spoken to him. I have no one to call me their daughter.
bump
Even though we are still "free" to contact Congress, they seem to be free to not respond. In my attempts to contact them, the disconnect has been complete and total.
They take care of each other, and couldn't care less about representing the American public.
Has anyone done a comparison of HR1 and Sen1 yet?
TIA.
Thanks for the ping, joanie~f...and a BTTT!
Bush could and should have vetoed CFR, but instead chose to avoid the flak altogether by tossing it over the transom to SCOTUS which, the White House was convinced, would surely declare it unconstitutional (well, "surprise, surprise" as Goober used to intone). Of course, an increasingly out-of-touch SCOTUS, still part of our federal Komintern,, didn't do that, leaving Bush with egg on his face and a thoroughly pissed off conservative base. Now comes presidential opportunity #2. Will Bush, this time, step up and do what we elect our presidents to do, protect and defend the Constitution, and veto HR 1? Or will he sign it as presented, like he has everything else?
I am not optimistic.
They'll see the United States of America in history books."
Which means they will never know the truth.
The history books are redacted while the history is still warm.
Not really as far-fetched as some might think. Give it a few years."
If you had said on Jan. 19, 2001, that Bush would refuse to protect our borders for two terms, how many Freepers would have told you to put on your tin foil hat?
Especially in the wake of 9/11, I would have laughed at anyone who even suggested that our borders would remain open for another five-plus years. But I've become more 'street-wise' in those same five-plus years, in that I know realize that the large majority of our leadership in DC has other than my best interests at heart.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
I am of the same mind as you, czar.
The analysis on the Free Speech Coalition site is excellent especially their continual reference to the fact that the bill would pose financial and legal penalties on those simply wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights, without first registering with Congress.
As mentioned before, the loophole in the bill will allow large trade unions, corporations, and other special interest groups to collect and spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to brainwash voters into accepting their point of view. Even foreign corporations, and foreign nationals, would fall under the exemption. But small citizen associations will be monitored closely, and will have to expend great time and expense to abide by the bills dictates.
The Founders would be horrified at the notion that, under the provisions of this bill, public interest groups, representing average citizens, must register with the government in order to question government actions, and in order to disperse the results of their analysis to American citizens.
The analysis of the bill (undertaken by four attorneys knowledgeable in the machinations of congress, and Constitutional scholars all) concludes with these two telling paragraphs:
H.R. 4682 [the companion bill to S.1] would target and restrict the First Amendment rights of citizens on an unprecedented and needless basis. There is no correlation between the fundamental rights being targeted by this and similar bills and the real ethics and corruption problems in Washington. The bill also provides huge loopholes for wealthy Washington insiders and special interests that actually may be engaging in (1) writing legislation and making policy without disclosure and sunshine, (2) providing money, gifts and trips for members of congress, and (3) seeking pork, privileges and handouts from congress.
There are ways to legislate to reduce corruption in Washington, but regulating First Amendment rights, in the way H.R. 4682 [and its counterpart S.1] proposes to do, would only further corruption, not reduce it.
Bottom line: If you or I, or the groups that have organized to represent us, dare to inquire as to the motives or methods of our elected representatives, we must register with them first, and then continually report our every move, contact and expense to them, so that they can monitor (and perhaps even anticipate) our actions. Yet those powerfully entrenched, agenda-driven, wealth-backed (and even foreign-backed) special interest groups, whose motives are often far more sinister than a mere desire for information, are completely unrestricted under this particular bill no registering, no forms, no reporting, no monitoring.
I would like to ask Ms. Pelosi, her cohorts in the house, and their counterparts in the senate, to explain the liberty-based parameters under which they believe this to be a necessary, let alone Constitutional, bill. Interestingly, should it be signed into law, my ability to do just that would be severely limited.
Ive said countless times before, and I believe this to be a good example: the leftists can get away with this incremental dissolution of our Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties because the media do not report on their crimes, but, even more importantly, the average American simply doesnt even care enough to know.
I used to occasionally watch re-runs of Hannity and Colmes late at night. I will never again do that. With all of the government negligence in relation to our borders, especially, and the liberty-robbing legislation that is being proposed (and will no doubt be signed into law) without so much as a word of it being reported in the major media, the major focus of the edition of Hannity and Colmes that I watched a few days ago was on the continuing feud between Trump and ODonnell.
The media may be consistently (and with great relish) playing the bread-and-circuses card because that is what the lazy, apathetic American public craves, but ninety-five percent of the news they report/analyze is a grotesque insult to any thinking person.
It is our national sloth, more than anything else, that will be our undoing.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
Wow! Now I don't know how well I'LL sleep tonight!
Anyone read George Orwell's 1984 recently??
I bought a copy of it a few years ago and re-read it. It may be time to get it off the shelf again.
When the Socialist Democrats succeed in silencing the general population, they'll have the mainstream media, academia and the loud leftwing whackos, all spouting their Marxist slogans. - - - - - - - Goodbye to America.
Hail to Big Brother!
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.