I'm missing something . . . please clarify this, since the numbers don't add up and they're critical to the argument.
I have concerns about some points, such as religious freedom. Islam troubles me on many levels, and I have trouble viewing it as just a religion. Unfortunately, once Sharia law comes into the picture, it ceases to be a private matter affecting only those who practice it. I won't go on, as we all know the issues. Still, I can't go along with banning its peaceful practice, and can't support constraining religious freedom - as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. As a society, we need to find a better way to deal with the latter issue. Restricting immigration may certainly be part of the answer. I'd like to see a great reduction in immigration overall, as I think we're being swamped with more people than we can assimilate - no matter what their origins.
I also disagree with the section about not permitting people to vote if they haven't paid taxes in 5 years. I guess this educated mom who stays home to raise her kids is now ineligible to vote - at least in someone's eyes. I can't go along with that. I have issues with people who don't contribute to the treasury voting themselves money from the treasury, so I understand where the sentiment comes from. I don't agree with the solution. Citizens have the right to choose leadership. The bigger issue in my mind is that corrupt leaders blatantly buy votes and don't get called on it. Educating our fellow citizens and replacing corrupt legislators is the proper goal, not restricting citizens' rights to vote.
I see a lot to like in this approach. I'm already doing more than this, as many of us have been. Making the outreach to others and commitment of time and money explicit is a good idea, and local coordination and action are spot on.
Please work on clarifying the section on federal elections. The numbers are confusing, and we really need to make a crisp argument here or we'll lose people. As a minor point, it's helpful when quoting scripture to include the text. It isn't always convenient to go look it up, and while I read my Bible, I don't have it memorized.
I'll look forward to seeing version 2.0, once a few bugs are worked out. I see you offered some new links which I haven't checked. I had trouble with a few of the links in the document, so presumably these are now being fixed. I'm thinking about which friends to enlist. I would like to see more thought put into the religious freedom and voting rights, as well as the financial bits though. If I pass along a document which comes across as infringing on liberty, it undercuts our valuable message and risks backfiring.
You are right. The numbers don’t add up. It should be 100 million people, $4 a year = $400,000,000 ($400 million.) I think maybe the author added an extra zero in there.
Given THAT, if 100 million people put in $40 a year, which is less than the price of one carton of cigarettes or a couple of cases of beer, we could make that $4 billion easy.
I didn’t check the figures. I apologize. It has been a lot of work to try and get this together, and I appreciate all the help I can get. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Again, I appeal to the state boards to check in. We need you guys!
Once we get as much input as we can, we will start a new thread with all the glitches worked out. But the clock is ticking on us. We have to put forth some serious efort here.
The religious freedom issue has really not been addressed to the full extent it should be. The bedrock of this country is that we are free to believe and practice whatever religion, (or non-religion,) we so choose without state mandates OR interference, so long as that religion does not infringe on the rights of others.
That is where it goes off the tracks. What actually qualifies as a religion? And where do you draw the line when it infringes on the rights of others? Does sheer numbers matter?
This issue is not going to be clarified here. Suffice it to say that the Constitution has been perverted to allow that which it never meant. THAT is what we need to clarify.
You are right on the money. And you said it much better than I did.
It seems that some conservatives are willing to exercise tyranny as easily as the Liberals are doing it.
Our focus should be on taking power away from the Central Government and not just changing the emphasis of tyranny tfrom one on the left to one on the right.
FWIW every person in America, if they so much as buy a gallon of gas or turn on a light at home is a "taxpayer". So if you try to limit the voting right to those who pay taxes, then what is meant by that? Income taxes? What if you don't have an income or the money you earn is tax free? Should you then be prohibited from voting? Such a proposal should not even be suggested on a forum called FREE REPUBLIC!
This thread and this movement may be a "work in progress" but I don't particularly like the direction it is headed. Is it our aim to overturn tyranny from the left only to replace it with a tyranny from the right? Some of these proposals appear to be leaning that direction.
Rather than focusing on a platform that limits our freedoms of religion, our voting rights and our free speech rights, perhaps we should be focusing on how we can remove the power to regulate ANY aspect of our lives from the Central Government and returning that power to the States, the communities, and to the Individuals. That is the principle this nation was founded upon. That is the first principle of a FREE REPUBLIC.