The government is inherently tyrannical if it limits citizens' ability to protect themselves. The SAFE act clearly violates the 2nd Amendment.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
rdnewt - fantastic on point #3.
The "Bill of Rights" are the 10 Commandments of the Constitution, so to speak. They are texts limiting the government to ensure OUR rights.
The forefathers set out to become anything and everything England wasn't. They saw the abuses of power, and their main goal was a libertarian society free of government tyranny.
People don't think about this when they argue the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The religion clause in the 1st was to ensure there would be no "Church of England" scenario, and citizens were free to worship as they chose. The 2nd guaranteed the citizens the ability to protect their "free state", which combined with our very own Declaration of Independence gives the citizens the means necessary to overthrow what is deemed a tyrannical government.
....."Our government was set up to have checks and balances, thereby preventing a dictatorial leadership".... Funny considering Obama has changed Obamacare and the immigration laws how many times outside the constitutional process? The heroes in the House are doing what they can to prevent the destruction of what so many sacrificed to defend!
5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Thirdly-The Constitution does not tell us what our limitations are, it tells the government what IT'S limitations are. It may not tell us who we can pray to, or tell us not to. It can not prevent us from speaking our minds, in an organized and professional manner. It does not allow for us to be disarmed and unable to protect ourselves and family, from both an individual attempting to harm us, or from a tyrannical government attempting to circumvent the Constitutional laws. It does not allow for the government to prevent a citizen from voting, on any basis other than being a felon. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
It also does not allow for the handing out of taxpayer money to individuals. It allows for our roads and bridges, domestic security, and general welfare of the nation as a whole, but it DOES NOT allow for handouts and redistribution of wealth as has been going on illegally for decades.
Any further questions?
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Judi, Yes, I DO have a knowledge and understanding of our nation's history, apparently much more than you.
Number one-Congress is supposed to bring up issues and concerns of the people, that is correct, and then to debate the ideas to decide the best course of action, NOT to pass everything that comes in front of them.
Two-contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a Democracy, we have a Representative Republic. Our forefathers understood that a Democracy was actually mob-rule, in other words-two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. This provides that our rights are safe and secure, given to us by God, even if popular demand states otherwise, (ie 2nd amendment may not be taken away whether you like it or not.)
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
**** Christopher. Really you make me laugh. "Conservatives turning us back to 1800's-1900's"? Are you that ignorant, or just blinded by the head of your union, that you actually think that ANYONE would want to turn us back to zero work safety regulations, and $.10/bushel labor? You forgot to say that conservatives hate old people and puppies, and want to nuc the whales. Just because somebody has a different idea as to how to get the job done, other than to throw money at a problem and hope it goes away, it doesn't mean that they want to hurt people. It is a blatant propagandist LIE, and I expect better from you. BTW, how's that war on poverty going?
4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
And who in the world answered "yes" to this survey?
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Precursors to the NSA were formed during WW1. The NSA itself wasn't officially formed until the Truman Administration in 1952. Just sayin'.
The NSA was formed right after WW I, and active throughout most wars since. BUT, during Nixon's term of office, "In the aftermath of the Watergate Scandal, a congressional hearing led by Sen. Frank Church revealed that the NSA, in collaboration with Britain’s SIGINT intelligence agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), had routinely intercepted the international communications of prominent anti-Vietnam war leaders such as Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock. Following the resignation of President Richard Nixon, there were several investigations of suspected misuse of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and NSA facilities." I rest my case.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
And historically, it was President Nixon, under the leadership of his main lackey Henry Kissinger, that expanded the powers of the NSA beyond that even of the CIA and FBI.
I might add that the Conservative agenda is a turn backwards alright, a turn to the United States circa 1890-1900. No work safety rules, no environmental rules, no child labor/safety/overtime/job protection, as well as a "safety net" of picking beans for 10 cents a bushel.
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The spying done by NSA began under GEORGE W BUSH!! Obama's crime is in his apparently blanket support of that practice. Look up the many things Dick Cheney had to say about the Homeland Security Act before you point fingers leftward.
Our government was set up to have checks and balances, thereby preventing a dictatorial leadership. "Checks and balances" does NOT translate to nor is it synonymous with "Obstructionist" or "obstruction". If that's your version of firing on all 8 cylinders, I'd suggest a trip to Midas.
Stangs firing on all eight cylinders,love the sound!
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Why not? It seems the government our government can violate the constitution without any back lash from the voter. The NSA has been spying on American citizens for years with absolutely no authority and in violation of the Constitution. Snowden brought all this to the fore front and was forced to leave the country in fear of his life. This administration has on several occasions violated the Constitution and no action has been taken by congress or the people to stop it. Violating the Constitution by a person sworn to uphold it is an impeachable offense. Yet, no Congressman or woman will step up and demand the impeachment of Obama. Why is that? Fear of retribution? Fear of not being re elected? You decide. Just like you decided to give Obama a second term.
Judeye, again, do you truly understand our system of government? Congress is suppose to obstruct legislation they feel is wrong. You need to look at our American History and see how obstructionist Congress can be. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton fought a duel to the death over politics. Their have been fistfights between members of congress in the past. Today, they get before the cameras and badmouth each other and make the uninformed think there is contention between them but at night, they’re having drinks together coming up with back room deals
6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Judeye, you’re right, we do have too many extremists in the House; they’re called Progressives. They’ve been around for quite a while. Do a little research on Progressives in America and their Socialist beliefs. See what they did in POW Camps during the Korean War and how these “Americans” turned on their fellow American POW’s and aided the North Koreans.
Just what is the business of the country you want Congress going back to? Spending money we don’t have and trying to raise money by taxing those who work hard for their money. Is the business of the country setting up class warfare? Mostly every social program this country is involved with has absolutely no Constitutional basis. If it does, quote and reference it.
Christopher.. well looks like we share mutual disdain. No problem for me, I couldn't care less.
I think your shorts are in arrears due to an obvious over-ingestion of soy-laden products. Read about it. It might explain your prickly demeanor.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
PR, PR, PR, I don't hate you, I just think you're an A-hole. Not getting the soy- milk thing at all, I don't even like regular milk all that much. Now, if you were asking about Kool-aid, that I understand. By the way, have you?
2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
YES. BUT only if there was an accident that the use of the phone may contributed to. Also in a hit and run case(grissanti). But or their own enjoyment of course NOT.
You mention the Speaker all the time Judeye but never do you mention the Senate(part of the congress)majority leader Reid who refuses to bring up the job bills he is sitting on? Why is that Judeye and why have we yet to hear your wonderful report about Obamacare?
rdnewt.."Congress was designed to be obstructionist."
HUH??? Have you no history of our Country? Do you truly not understand the system of government?
it was NEVER meant to be obstructionist. The Congress is to represent the People..which by the way it is called THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE. They are to bring up issues of importance to the people of our country..and then make and pass bills that will address the issues.
Yes we have a system of checks and balances so that no ONE branch can call all the shots. But they are to work together..****PROMISE....for the good of our Country.
This is what happens though when people are sent to represent us who have not a clue how our government works..nor do they care.
0 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
stangv8.."Senate Majority Leader has refused to allow many of the bills passed by the House, especially budget related, to even come up for vote."
Why no mention of the Speaker of the House who has refused to bring up bill after bill for any kind of vote? Why do you think they have been deemed worse Congress in history...
Do you seriously think it is only due to the senate? You have got to be kidding...
we have way too many extremists in the House who do not understand anything about our constitution, what it means, or how our system of government works.
Hoping they all get kicked out come Nov..so that the House will once again go back to being the People's House...and start to do the business of our Country.
0 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
bear: I agree w/your post, and what alarms me most is the apparent need to plead with lawmakers to stay within the strict confines of the US Constitution.
Sure, there's always someone willing to challenge or interpret our laws in either defense of, or permission to, achieve an objective. However, what makes it more alarming is when it involves Congress. I guess this explains why it's so important to appoint a SC Justice. It's not about black & white law, it's about stacking the deck in an attempt to win favorable rulings, otherwise, any candidate would do.
Newt, to take your point one step further, legislators at all levels should be judged on how FEW laws they pass, not how many. The rush to move legislation through quickly is why we have enormous waste and fraud. It is the reason we have government intrusion into our personal lives in areas that they were never meant to be. What we need is 1. Term limits at all levels, 2. a balanced budget amendment, 3. strict adherence to the constitution. I find it quite hilarious that we see some of the same people on this board absolutely outraged by this idea, yet they're on every other board promoting things like gun control which they personally support. Funny how their rights are superior to ours.
9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
PO Box 391 , Dunkirk, NY 14048-0391 | 716-366-3000