A Letter To Americans

[BlackHorse]

Let me open by saying that I don't care what your political beliefs are. I don't care what your gender is, or your age, race, financial status, or religous affiliation is. I don't care becuase these are the lines along which politicians work to keep us separated, to plot one against the other and play the role of champion to us all. What I care about is to have the opportunity to live in a country where opporunity is something that we have. What I believe is that freedom is given to us by a higher power. Some people may call that power God, others Allah, still others Buddah and so on. Regardless of what name you may call your diety, I believe the fact remains that we as humans inately understand that there are forces at work in the universe that we may never understand, and perhaps we are not meant to. But I am not here to debate the existance of God, particularly with those of you who have cast off all belief in him. He exists, this I know, as surely as breath fills my lungs, the sun warms my back and the wind cools my brow. To that end I believe that once in a great while a gathering of just the right people at just the right time in the right place can bring about a result so fantastic and so insipiring that the idea becomes a nation. Ideas start as words and the words that started this nation were these.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

 

We live in a nation where the idea was that the government was accountable to the people and that it derived it's power from the people's consent. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. This has not of late been the case however. It was Thomas Jefferson who prophetically said "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

 

Do we live under tyranny? Some might say that we do. I would argue that at this point we still enjoy many freedoms that others do not. But rest assured, those that crave power and control above all else are hard at work to expand their control over we the people. They find their way to the halls of power where they ply their trade in an effort to make us all like minded individuals. They operate under the guise of doing the peoples work, serving the common good, championing the cause of the little guy. They profess to have your best interests at heart and make all manner of promises about how they will improve your lives if you will only entrust them with the power they seek.

 

In recent weeks one such promise was made that has captivated many in our fair nation. For some it was a promise of hope and change. For others it was a promise that forebode an ominous future. A promise to "spread the wealth around." It is the sort of rhetoric many of us have heard before, though never from an American politician. It is the kind of promise that seems to come naturally to a person who pits the working class against the wealthy. Who paints the wealthy as deserving to have their fortunes taken for the common good. Who proclaims that we will rebuild our economy "from the bottom up", a feat never accomplished in the history of economics, and for good reason. It is of little surprise to me that when we hear such promises, such rhetoric and such plans that there are those among us who will naturaly ascribe the title that is justifiably accorded to such a person. Socialist. In light of the 2001 radio interview that has recently surfaced there is no doubt left in my own mind that Barack Obama is in fact a socialist.

 

In some places, the voting has already commenced. Soon we will have a new President. I don't think there is any doubt in the mind of anyone reading this for whom I will cast my vote. John McCain is by no means the man I would have preferred to run on the Republican ticket and frankly I think he has so mismanaged his bid for the White House that if he wins it will be in spite of himself, not because of himself. Given the alternative, I will gladly vote for him if only because I know that at least under John McCain's leadership I will have the opportunity to continue living in a nation where we have opportunity.

 

For those of you that have decided to vote for socialism I have some prophetic words of my own.

 

When the socialists rob us of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms remember that it was not just the conservatives who told you they would do it. It is the socialists themselves who have promsied what they call "common sense" measures though they have never clarified what "common sense" means. One mans common sense could easily be another mans loss of rights. It is the socialists who have promised to bring back and make permanent gun banning legislation that was immensely unpopular the first time the socialists passed it. This time, however, they have expanded greatly the number of fireams they don't want you to have and the effort will effectively destroy the Second Amendment. If this should happen, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

When the socialists raise your tax burden and you are made to pay more to the government you may cry all you like about how Barack promised that 95% of us would not pay one dime in a tax increase. Your anguished pleas will fall on deaf ears once they have taken control. Perhaps rightly so because anyone with even so much as a 5th grade education can take a look at Baracks proposed tax plan and realize that the numbers simply do not work. In order to pay for everything that he wants the "champion of the middle class" will eventually have to raise your taxes. If you are not smart enough to see that, despite the repeated warnings of conservatives, despite the fact that even some in the media have said the plan doesn't work as he has pitched it, then perhaps you deserve to pay more. Perhaps that is just retribution for an entire group of people who so willingly side with a man that wants to punish people simply for having more money than the rest of us. If he will do it to them, he will do it to you. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

When you have aged into your golden years and your body doesn't quite work the way it once did, perhaps then you will find the final irony in putting the socialists in power. As you grow older you will have a front row seat to watch the spectacle of what once was the finest health care system in the world degrade into a pitiful and ineffective shadow of its former self. As the number of days ahead grows fewer than those behind, remember that in many socialized health care systems the government can at some point decide that your life is not worth saving. That the cost is not worth the effort, not that the effort would be all that effective anyway. They will deny you care based on the idea that you have lived long enough or because you had some politically incorrect habit in your younger years like smoking or eating too much, or drinking. If only you had been like minded enough to take better care of yourself in your youth. If you don't believe this can happen then I suggest you ask someone who has lived under the British health care system. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

This is our nation. Ours. Americans. It does not belong to the republican party. It does not belong to the democrat party. It belongs to the American people. We are responsible for it, entrusted with its care, so that we might pass on to our children a country where they have the opportunity to be anything they wish to be. A country where hard work and devotion are rewarded, not penalized. A country where regardless of race, age, gender or religous preference you will not be denied the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is not an easy task. It requires vigilance, and the will to stand up and be your own man, your own woman, an American. It requires that you place more importance on knowledge and learning than video games and TV shows. It requires that you pass on that which you know to your children so that they too will be as vigilant and hard working. If you yearn to be free, to live free and to remain free than you must never place your faith and your fate in the hands of the government. This I know because a couple hundred years ago a briliant man who stood among a group of brilliant men had this to say of government.

 

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.

Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

George Washington

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its up to you Americans.

[mettech]

You're not going to vote for Sen Obama are you... :shades:

 

No matter who wins, I'm am sure they will do the best job they can...

[Trimdingman]

You're not going to vote for Sen Obama are you... :shades:

 

No matter who wins, I'm am sure they will do the best job they can...

 

The best job for who? The people are now vulnerable because of the state of the economy. Socialists took advantage of such vulnerability before during The Great Depression. You had Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and FDR. Hitler and Mussolini were defeated. Stalin murdered many millions. FDR saddled the American people with too much government. Now is the time to keep government out. They will be on the take. Obama wants to re-distribute the wealth. That means taking from you and giving to government. Socialist government is similar to the Mafia. You have to pay them to protect you from them.

[sprinter]

Want to get out of this mess? Then we will have to shun the present 2 party system. People need to be put in office with common sense and high morals. I am a constitutionalist. And it is quite apparent to me that our last few presidents would rather spit on this great document than to follow it wisdoms. By dividing our population between two political parties, they are succeeding in convincing their followers that the Constitution should be trashed.

 

I am a firm believer in the frog in the boiling pot tale. And I also know there are evil greedy tyrants that want control of the world. This has been a dream of some men going back thousands of years. Many wars have been fought because of ones greedy dream of power. But these men are also very intelligent. They are the tortoise that beat the hare. Moving slowly and methodically, they create situations of tribulations where they in turn offer a solution. But their solution always moves us one step closer to their final goal. If they veer off course and try to cheat to get further ahead, the people will rebel.

 

Just examine our current banking situation. Yes the controls were removed and the fox was guarding the hen house. Our chickens are almost all gone along with several other countries. And what are we to do? Has anyone else seen the news article proclaiming we should move into a world currency? Is this not one step closer to the ultimate prize?

 

Unfortunately power corrupts. Way too many people have become corrupted by the sense of authority and money. Those government jobs might not offer a high salary, but what other benefits do they truly seek?

 

President Eisenhower left office with a warning. He was right, but the American public was too busy to notice.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

[RaZor]

You're not going to vote for Sen Obama are you... :shades:

 

Sorry BH, it is an honest reaction. I do understand (though do not agree with) much of which you write.

 

Personally, it all comes down to something McCain said this past Sunday morn on MTP with Brokaw, which was something to the effect that his policies are really not much different than Geo W's.

 

No matter how many times he has tried to distance himself from Dubya by making general statements which are nothing more than a "trust me", he still has not identified or explained in detail how he differs from Dubya.

 

His selection of Palin showed that he lacks the judgment to even be president IMO (and apparently to most moderate/independent Americans and many Republicans). That was a huge mistake and when you consider that he really has never even released his medical reports (well he did release selected 1200 unnumbered pages and allowed a select number of reporters to review them for 3 hours - which is totally suspect) in detail and considering his age - Palin was a terrible choice. A handful of people are supposed to review 1200 pages in three hours - yeah right. What's he hiding?

 

How can we "trust" him to handle Iraqi or Afghanistan (or any other) insurgencies - when he apparently cannot even handle the Palin insurgency?

 

I am still amazed that people cannot (or refuse to) see the redistribution of wealth that has been occurring for the last 28 years (just in the other direction and where did that get us?). And do not forget that most conservatives' hero - Ronald Reagan actually raised taxes his first two years in office. Bet you forgot about that too, didn't you?

 

Remember who proposed the first "socialistic" program of our time? And who immediately came up with 4 provisions to protect the Americans taxpayer. And who couldn't come with anything else to protect/improve it for the taxpayer? The answer to the first is, as you know, Republicans. The answer to the second is Obama. The answer to the third is McCain.

 

The way I see it is, the only way he can win - is if the GOP steal the election again. But don't worry our world is not going to come apart if Obama is elected and as the former policy advisor to Reagan said, "Obama actually poses less of a threat to the American way and our security."

[theripper]

bh, a lot of writing doesn't make it for me. nice try. i blame the current administration for the situation we find ourselves in.

 

mccain will do nothing but take us down the same path. i vote no to that.

 

i fear socialism much less than i fear totalitarianism, because that's been the united states under king bush, and mccain is just king bush the third.

 

in typical fashion, bh will come back and tell us he doesn't care what we think, that we're stupid, we're uneducated, we're unamerican, he's not biased, he's the only one with the answers, etc., etc.

Edited October 28, 2008 by theripper

[BlackHorse]

bh, a lot of writing doesn't make it for me. nice try. i blame the current administration for the situation we find ourselves in.

 

mccain will do nothing but take us down the same path. i vote no to that.

 

i fear socialism much less than i fear totalitarianism, because that's been the united states under king bush, and mccain is just king bush the third.

 

in typical fashion, bh will come back and tell us he doesn't care what we think, that we're stupid, we're uneducated, we're unamerican, he's not biased, he's the only one with the answers, etc., etc.

 

I have to admit, it is difficult for me not to find you stupid when you can't even seem to find the shift key while typing. If you think that what I posted was a lot of writing I would only offer that as futher proof that too much of our society looks at everything in sound bites, buzz clips and has the attention span of a gnat on crystal meth. But above all I found this part of your post particularly funny and yet amazingly uninformed at the same time.

 

 

i fear socialism much less than i fear totalitarianism

 

 

That is the equivalent of saying "I fear not being able to see much less than I fear being blind."

[Len_A]

Sorry BH, it is an honest reaction. I do understand (though do not agree with) much of which you write.

 

Personally, it all comes down to something McCain said this past Sunday morn on MTP with Brokaw, which was something to the effect that his policies are really not much different than Geo W's.

 

No matter how many times he has tried to distance himself from Dubya by making general statements which are nothing more than a "trust me", he still has not identified or explained in detail how he differs from Dubya.

 

His selection of Palin showed that he lacks the judgment to even be president IMO (and apparently to most moderate/independent Americans and many Republicans). That was a huge mistake and when you consider that he really has never even released his medical reports (well he did release selected 1200 unnumbered pages and allowed a select number of reporters to review them for 3 hours - which is totally suspect) in detail and considering his age - Palin was a terrible choice. A handful of people are supposed to review 1200 pages in three hours - yeah right. What's he hiding?

 

How can we "trust" him to handle Iraqi or Afghanistan (or any other) insurgencies - when he apparently cannot even handle the Palin insurgency?

 

I am still amazed that people cannot (or refuse to) see the redistribution of wealth that has been occurring for the last 28 years (just in the other direction and where did that get us?). And do not forget that most conservatives' hero - Ronald Reagan actually raised taxes his first two years in office. Bet you forgot about that too, didn't you?

 

Remember who proposed the first "socialistic" program of our time? And who immediately came up with 4 provisions to protect the Americans taxpayer. And who couldn't come with anything else to protect/improve it for the taxpayer? The answer to the first is, as you know, Republicans. The answer to the second is Obama. The answer to the third is McCain.

 

The way I see it is, the only way he can win - is if the GOP steal the election again. But don't worry our world is not going to come apart if Obama is elected and as the former policy advisor to Reagan said, "Obama actually poses less of a threat to the American way and our security."

Excellent post. Don't forget about, not only the redistribution of wealth, not only over the last 28 years, but especially the last 8. Plus the "no to regulation" crowd (GOP & Alan Greenspan) who help create this mess with financial derivatives & swaps that blew up Wall Street (great story here: link) - a legalized form of gambling on Wall Street, thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, spawn of former Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm - John McCain's former campaign chairman, and author of those wonderful words "mental recession". McCain voted "yes" on that catastrophe of a bill.

 

 

 

bh, a lot of writing doesn't make it for me. nice try. i blame the current administration for the situation we find ourselves in.

 

mccain will do nothing but take us down the same path. i vote no to that.

 

i fear socialism much less than i fear totalitarianism, because that's been the united states under king bush, and mccain is just king bush the third.

 

in typical fashion, bh will come back and tell us he doesn't care what we think, that we're stupid, we're uneducated, we're unamerican, he's not biased, he's the only one with the answers, etc., etc.

So true. So very true.

[Len_A]

I have to admit, it is difficult for me not to find you stupid when you can't even seem to find the shift key while typing. If you think that what I posted was a lot of writing I would only offer that as futher proof that too much of our society looks at everything in sound bites, buzz clips and has the attention span of a gnat on crystal meth. But above all I found this part of your post particularly funny and yet amazingly uninformed at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

That is the equivalent of saying "I fear not being able to see much less than I fear being blind."

 

And you consider yourself well informed? How? By reading GOP propoganda? Spare me.

[BlackHorse]

And you consider yourself well informed? How? By reading GOP propoganda? Spare me.

 

 

Perhaps I should try some socialisl propaganda instead?

[RaZor]

Instead, let's review some Republican Presidents on the topic "distribution of wealth"

 

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective: a graduated inheritance tax increasing rapidly with the size of the estate.”

- Theodore Roosevelt

 

“Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

In 1986, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax “refund.”

 

“It's the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

- Ronald Reagan

 

Suppose they were "socialists" too?

[BlackHorse]

I am completely uninterested in any effort to paint some Republican President from 40 or 50 years ago as a socialist. If John Kennedy ran for President today his platform would require him to be a conservative. I'm also keeping in mind that all those years ago the income tax, even though graduated, was not taking nearly the percentage of Americans income that it is taking today.

 

Ronald Reagan did something to help poor people? Really? lol It's refreshing to actually have to hear a democrat admit that.

 

 

You gentlemen are under the midguided notion that I am trying to change your vote. I am not. If you want to go vote for the socialist that is your right and you must vote for whomever you think is the best choice. My only point here in posting the letter was to let you know that if Barack wins and there is a democrat control in both the house and senate then you have no one to blame but yourselves when they start passing legislation that does irrevicable damage to this country. You have no one to blame but yourselves when they start by taking away your 2nd Amendment and move on to the 1st Amendment. You have no one to blame but yourselves when everyone of us have our tax burden increased to pay for ever bigger government. You need not plead your case to me gentlemen, I am not voting for the failure of socialism. A few years from now when you finally realize we really can't tax our way out of this, you have no one to blame. That's all I'm saying.

[napfirst]

I am completely uninterested in any effort to paint some Republican President from 40 or 50 years ago as a socialist. If John Kennedy ran for President today his platform would require him to be a conservative. I'm also keeping in mind that all those years ago the income tax, even though graduated, was not taking nearly the percentage of Americans income that it is taking today.

 

Ronald Reagan did something to help poor people? Really? lol It's refreshing to actually have to hear a democrat admit that.

 

 

You gentlemen are under the midguided notion that I am trying to change your vote. I am not. If you want to go vote for the socialist that is your right and you must vote for whomever you think is the best choice. My only point here in posting the letter was to let you know that if Barack wins and there is a democrat control in both the house and senate then you have no one to blame but yourselves when they start passing legislation that does irrevicable damage to this country. You have no one to blame but yourselves when they start by taking away your 2nd Amendment and move on to the 1st Amendment. You have no one to blame but yourselves when everyone of us have our tax burden increased to pay for ever bigger government. You need not plead your case to me gentlemen, I am not voting for the failure of socialism. A few years from now when you finally realize we really can't tax our way out of this, you have no one to blame. That's all I'm saying.

+1

[theripper]

high and mighty blackhorse: you're not interested in changing votes? why did you type that diatribe? typing practice? bored? lonely? all of the above?

 

i don't bother with the shift key because it isn't worth the extra time. i'm not a professional message board poster.

 

bait taken. you are so predictable, blackhorse. so predictable.

[RangerM]

.....thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, spawn of former Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm - John McCain's former campaign chairman, and author of those wonderful words "mental recession". McCain voted "yes" on that catastrophe of a bill.

 

You left out something here. That bill was also voted for by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. Remember them?

 

It was passed 377 to 4 in the House (180 Democrats and 194 Republicans voted yes)

 

It was passed by unanimous voice consent of the Senate. That means that every Republican AND Democrat voted favored it.

 

It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 21, 2000. (A month before President Bush took office)

 

BTW, the Phil Gramm version of this bill, was never voted on. As I stated above, the House Bill was what the Senate passed by voice vote. (unanimously).

[Len_A]

You left out something here. That bill was also voted for by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. Remember them?

 

It was passed 377 to 4 in the House (180 Democrats and 194 Republicans voted yes)

 

It was passed by unanimous voice consent of the Senate. That means that every Republican AND Democrat voted favored it.

 

It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 21, 2000. (A month before President Bush took office)

 

BTW, the Phil Gramm version of this bill, was never voted on. As I stated above, the House Bill was what the Senate passed by voice vote. (unanimously).

Point taken on the vote - nice sell job by all the proponents of deregulation. Talk about blow back. Phil Gramm's original brainchild may have never been voted on, but he has his fingerprints all over the so-called "Enron loophole" (7 U.S.C. §2(h)(3) and (g)) - he worked with the Enron lobbyists on that provision, for something called "Enron On-Line".

 

Hopefully, if Obama is elected and Congress swings more to the Democrats, the piece of crap law can be over-ridden and regulation can return to the commodities markets.

[Len_A]

I am completely uninterested in any effort to paint some Republican President from 40 or 50 years ago as a socialist. If John Kennedy ran for President today his platform would require him to be a conservative. I'm also keeping in mind that all those years ago the income tax, even though graduated, was not taking nearly the percentage of Americans income that it is taking today.

 

Ronald Reagan did something to help poor people? Really? lol It's refreshing to actually have to hear a democrat admit that.

 

 

You gentlemen are under the midguided notion that I am trying to change your vote. I am not. If you want to go vote for the socialist that is your right and you must vote for whomever you think is the best choice. My only point here in posting the letter was to let you know that if Barack wins and there is a democrat control in both the house and senate then you have no one to blame but yourselves when they start passing legislation that does irrevicable damage to this country. You have no one to blame but yourselves when they start by taking away your 2nd Amendment and move on to the 1st Amendment. You have no one to blame but yourselves when everyone of us have our tax burden increased to pay for ever bigger government. You need not plead your case to me gentlemen, I am not voting for the failure of socialism. A few years from now when you finally realize we really can't tax our way out of this, you have no one to blame. That's all I'm saying.

 

Vote for whomever you want. I look forward to the fact that Bush will be gone, and none of your crap will come true. Move on the 2nd Amendment? How? the Supreme Court's June 26, 2008 ruling mean nothing? As they ruled, 5 to 4, on 2nd Amendment rights, to over turn that decision would take a constitutional amendment, something completely unlikely to happen, no matter how much the gun control lobby wishes it.

 

As to the rest of your post, nothing more than the usual conservative hyperbole and utter crap.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Len_A

[napfirst]

Point taken on the vote - nice sell job by all the proponents of deregulation. Talk about blow back. Phil Gramm's original brainchild may have never been voted on, but he has his fingerprints all over the so-called "Enron loophole" (7 U.S.C. §2(h)(3) and (g)) - he worked with the Enron lobbyists on that provision, for something called "Enron On-Line".

 

Hopefully, if Obama is elected and Congress swings more to the Democrats, the piece of crap law can be over-ridden and regulation can return to the commodities markets.

Ranger, that went right over his head!

[sprinter]

I think there are several people on this board that needs to watch this. Maybe you will then understand what America is really facing. Don’t even try calling it a conspiracy theory. When some of the major political players are out right calling for a NWO, it is a conspiracy fact. It is time to grow up and get over the Democrat/ Republican nonsense. Neither party is looking out for your best interest.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSVDM2LZhOs

[Len_A]

Ranger, that went right over his head!

No, it didn't go over my head, but since you're going to make an issue of it: Gramm cosponsored the version that passed, and what RangerM didn't point out was that the version that passed was not a standalone bill that was debated by either house of a Republican controled Congress.

 

Instead, the House version H.R. 5660, was slipped into an omnibus budget bill, "The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001(Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill) (H.R. 4577)." The Senate vote, a voice vote by "unanimous consent" was done without hearings or recorded votes, also when as outgoing president, Clinton was in no position to veto anything. Was RangerM didn't point out was that this was a late year budget showdown,take-it-or-leave-it battle between the Clinton Whitehouse and the Republican controlled Congress, and there is no statement by the Clinton Whitehouse stating approval of the deregulation of the commodities markets.

[BlackHorse]

Vote for whomever you want. I look forward to the fact that Bush will be gone, and none of your crap will come true. Move on the 2nd Amendment? How? the Supreme Court's June 26, 2008 ruling mean nothing? As they ruled, 5 to 4, on 2nd Amendment rights, to over turn that decision would take a constitutional amendment, something completely unlikely to happen, no matter how much the gun control lobby wishes it.

 

As to the rest of your post, nothing more than the usual conservative hyperbole and utter crap.

 

Take a look back at the main selection in the "Off Topic Discussion" forum and tell me who started the topic about the Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment.

 

Supreme Court rulings however will not prevent the socialists from making the Assault Weapons Ban permanent. If you'll visit Barack's own website he openly declares that he is in favor of making the ban permanent. Now calling that legislation "Assault Weapons" was a clever way to fool the public into thinking they were taking machine guns off the street or something. The truth is that almost every weapon on the list (including the shotguns) are not assault weapons in any way. Even those that have a direct link to an actual assalt weapon like the AR15 are misleading at best. An AR15 is a semi-automatic only rifle and in fact the ban expressly calls out for weapons that are "semi-automatic." Now anyone with a modicum of knowledge about firearms knows that a semi-automatic rifle is not by any meausre an assault rifle. The legislation would be more aptly named "guns we liberals just don't want you to have". But I've made this point before.

 

In addition, you might be guranteed a right to keep and bear arms, but you are not guranteed how much you have to pay for them. Obama has in the past supported a 500% tax increase on firearms and ammunition. That alone would destory the gun industry and they know it. They have not denied you the right to a firearm by taxing them at 500% though have they.

 

Finally, there is an effort under way to serialize ammunition. This would mean that every bullet manufactured must have it's own serial number. Try to imagine the cost in producing that? Again, they have not denied you your 2nd Amendment right, they have merely regulated the industry into extinction.

 

Finally with respect to your 1st Amendment rights, perhaps you've heard of the Fairness Doctrine? If not, I strongly encourage you to research it. We are talking about a man who already abused the power of his office to conduct an investigation on a private citizen for no other reason than because Joe the plumber got some press attention that didn't cast Obama in a favorable light.

 

These things I know to be a fact, they are not simply my belief's born out of some ridiculous devotion to the GOP or some nonsense like that. They are true and verifiable facts. You can look them up for yourself if you like. As I said, you must vote for you whom you deem the most qualified for the job. All I'm saying is that when the short sighted, failure policies of a socialist agenda fall flat on their face, rob us of our rights and do further harm to our economy, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Edited October 29, 2008 by BlackHorse

[RaZor]

Good post Len

 

nice try Ranger

[RangerM]

No, it didn't go over my head, but since you're going to make an issue of it: Gramm cosponsored the version that passed, and what RangerM didn't point out was that the version that passed was not a standalone bill that was debated by either house of a Republican controled Congress.

 

Instead, the House version H.R. 5660, was slipped into an omnibus budget bill, "The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001(Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill) (H.R. 4577)." The Senate vote, a voice vote by "unanimous consent" was done without hearings or recorded votes, also when as outgoing president, Clinton was in no position to veto anything. Was RangerM didn't point out was that this was a late year budget showdown,take-it-or-leave-it battle between the Clinton Whitehouse and the Republican controlled Congress, and there is no statement by the Clinton Whitehouse stating approval of the deregulation of the commodities markets.

 

A couple of points.

 

First, you are correct that the bill (H.R. 4541), after passing the House 377-4, was not signed (as a standalone) by Clinton.

 

Second, you are correct that the bill was incorporated into The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (H.R. 4577)

 

 

Here are a couple of followups:

 

H.R. 4577 (the version signed by President Clinton) was passed by the House of Representatives on December 15, 2000 with 156 Democrats and 134 Republicans voting Yes (9 Democrats and 51 Republicans voted No)

 

This is the same bill voted by Unanimous Consent by the Senate.

 

H.R. 5660 was never passed, and never incorporated into 4577.

[RangerM]

nice try Ranger

 

Maybe the followup meets your approval?

[RangerM]

Ranger, that went right over his head!

 

It wasn't intended as a slight to Len.

 

But whenever someone (anyone) tries to say the whole mess is anything less than a bipartisan f!#@-up, I will call them on it.