© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: freedom, john wayne, republic

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: America, freedom, Marco Rubio, prosperity, speech

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

When the current Republican leadership first “stepped up to the plate” following the election, they proposed a $100 Billion cut to the budget in their “Plan for America” or whatever they called it. Not much of a cut, considering our current crisis, but, enough to be worth supporting them in the fight.

Well, it didn’t take long before that 100 billion became proposed legislation asking for only 60 billion in cuts, and, since then, things have only gone downhill with a recent compromise proposing only 39 billion dollars in spending cuts.

Fax ALL of Congress Now – It’s Quick, Easy & CHEAP!

A Little Bright Spot

The only glimmer of hope that I’ve seen is Paul Ryan’s plan, but even then, 6 Trillion dollars over 10 years is only a bit over a half billion dollars per year. Of course, I say “only”, not because this is chump change – it’s a TON of money. Unfortunately, Ryan’s plan is an improvement, but is not nearly enough to really put a dent in our national debt.

Since the INTEREST on our debt is closing in on a half billion per year, cutting a little over a half billion per year only gives us a couple hundred billion left to put toward the actual principle balance of our national debt (over 14 trillion dollars). At that rate, it will take 70 years to pay off the debt! We don’t have that long.

Leverage Lost

The only leverage the Republicans have had to bargain with is the “debt ceiling” and the government shutdown. Without this leverage to force the Democrats to get serious about spending cuts, we’ve got nothing. The good news is that these are two VERY POWERFUL playing cards – if we actually use them.

Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner has given no indication that he’s willing to use this card. He has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of allowing the government to “shut down”, and we’ve seen signs that the Republican leadership may be wavering on the issue of raising the debt ceiling.

They were voted into power by a landslide vote to get Washington spending under control, but the Republican leadership is unwilling to use these 2 powerful sources of leverage

The fact is, allowing a government shutdown would force a showdown that can only be won by Republicans – if they stand their ground. With so much support for cutting spending, this would only give them a larger platform to begin informing the public about just how bad our financial situation REALLY is.

In addition, if they REALLY believe what they SAY they believe about the size of government and the overblown spending, they should follow their principles & SLASH government spending, regardless of where the political winds blow. It’s RIGHT to cut out all of these bloated programs and unnecessary (and mostly unconstitutional) government agencies.

So, cut them, and if it takes a government shutdown to make it happen, so be it.

One of two things are going to happen if a shutdown is allowed to occur:

• Either Americans will support the move & elect more Conservatives in 2012

• OR … They won’t – proving that entitlements have killed America – let her die and start over

We HAVE to Know if America Still Lives!

Draw a Line in the Sand

There HAS to be a line that we do not cross. The debt ceiling CANNOT be raised. Compromises on cuts CANNOT be allowed. The President says we shouldn’t take a machete to spending, but rather a scalpel. I say, forget either one. A chainsaw is what we need. We need to cut AT LEAST 2 trillion dollars from the federal budget NOW – not next year, not over the next 5 years – NOW!

Let’s make it clear to Congress that we will accept no compromises on these issues. Their recent statements & actions regarding budget cuts, government shutdown and the debt ceiling are unacceptable.

Either hold the line or get tossed in 2012.

Fax ALL of Congress Now – It’s Quick, Easy & CHEAP!

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: budget deficit, federal spending, government shutdown

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I sometimes wonder how many great physicians, scientists, inventors and statesman have been killed over the last 30 years before they even had a chance to take their first breath. After all, literally, MILLIONS of babies have been killed since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down. Chances are at least SOME of them would have been “important” people, right?

WRONG!!!

ALL of them were important people. Their lives were valuable, not expendable.

Over 1.5 Million Babies Murdered Every Year

This beautiful 20 week old BABY could be legally aborted today.

Copied from the “Abortion Clinics Online” directory of the GynPages.com website, which is, obviously, not a pro-life website by any stretch:

“Abortion is legal in the United States through the second trimester (24 weeks). In some special instances, abortions may be available after 24 weeks.”

From the Same Page: “Each year, over 1.5 million women have abortions. They come from all walks of life, all races, all economic situations, all educational levels, all stratas of society, and all states. Sometimes, abortion is the most empowering thing a woman can do, and over 30 million women have had abortions since it was legalized in 1973.”

Empowering? Is that really the appropriate word for killing your own baby? Empowering?

D&E (Dilation & Evacuation Abortion)

“The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart.

For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely re-moved.”

(US Supreme Court, Gonzales vs. Carhart, 4/18/07, describing D&E procedure).

The American Holocaust

Hitler killed nearly 6 million Jews during what is now called the Holocaust, and this was an atrocity of epic proportions. But, it pales in comparison with the 30 million babies have been brutally murdered over the past 35+ years through D&E and other horrific procedures with our government’s blessing. This isn’t like being shot in the head and dying instantly. Babies are being, literally, ripped limb from limb as they are suctioned out or torn out of the mother’s womb.

At the right is a 21 week old BABY. I would like someone to tell me at what point the “fetus” becomes a “baby”. Was this “baby” a “fetus” 20 minutes earlier, just because it was still in it’s mother’s womb? Was it “alive”? Was it a “person”?

Truthfully, the real question is, “Why are we even asking these questions?” They are ludicrous. The only reason that anyone even asks these questions is so that they can justify this most barbaric of practices in a so-called “civilized” society.

Close Your Eyes and Picture …

I would like you to close your eyes and picture this baby in your mind’s eye. The wide open eyes. The little toes and fingers. Picture yourself holding this baby in your hand as the person in the image is.

Then, I’d like you to picture yourself with a pair of pliers in your hand ripping this little baby’s leg off. Do you think the baby would scream? Do you think it would be in pain? Now, do it again. Rip the other leg off, then the arms. Now rip the baby’s little body from it’s neck. Finally, crush the babies skull and put all the pieces in a jar and throw them away.

THAT is the reality of abortion in this country and around the world. In fact, the following is the sworn testimony provided by an abortionist in Madison Wisconsin regarding the perfectly legal D&E procedure:

“And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we’re making our initial grasps or if we’re using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we’re starting the procedure. It’s not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point.”

“When you’re doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it’s floating free inside the uterine cavity…So it’s rather like a ping-pong ball floating around and the surgeon is using his forcep to reach up to try to grasp something that’s freely floating around and is quite large relative to the forcep we’re using. So typically there’s several misdirections, misattempts to grasp. Finally at some point either the instruments are managed to be place around the skull or a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…”

- Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S), by Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist.

Ask Any Gradeschool Child …

How do we know if someone is alive? Pro-choice advocates will dance around this question until hell freezes over, because it’s a sticky one for them. You see, the answer is so simple, even a child could answer it. If it’s heart is beating, it’s alive.

In fact, since the LACK of a heartbeat is the test we use to determine if someone is dead, it only makes sense that the presence of a heartbeat suggests they are alive. Even the abortionist, Mr. Haskell, suggests as much in his testimony above. He says, “we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we’re making our initial grasps or if we’re using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we’re starting the procedure.”

This is a DOCTOR (although I use that term loosely). You’d think he ought to know how to determine if someone is “alive”, and even he suggests that “movement” or a “heartbeat” suggest that the “fetus” is alive at the time when he begins the dismemberment process. This man, literally, rips the arms and legs and torso from this baby, and then fishes around for the “ping pong ball” in the uterus to remove it.

Does this sound like an individual that you would entrust your life and your health to? He’s a psychopath. Anyone that could actually perform even one of these gruesome procedures has got to be, but he and many other “doctors” have, literally, performed thousands of them, earning millions of dollars in the process.

These aren’t doctors, they are hired “hitmen”, being paid handsomely for pre-meditated murder. But, they get a “pass” because they work in a “doctor’s office” and wear a white coat.

Take another look at the picture of that 21 week old baby. Could YOU do that – rip off it’s arms and legs, crush it’s skull? It makes me want to throw up just thinking about it. What makes the procedure any different, just because the baby is still in the womb and we call it a “fetus” instead of what it really is – “a baby”. A precious life that is about to be RIPPED to pieces by the very individual who has sworn to “do no harm”.

How ludicrous is it that, legally, this can be done while the baby is within the mother’s womb, but, if the woman went into premature labor just before the procedure, and delivered the baby, the doctor could go to jail for doing it afterward. The ONLY thing that changed is the baby’s location.

That’s like saying it’s illegal for you to murder someone at the mall, but it’s ok for you to do it at Wal-mart.

It’s About “Choice”, Not Life or Death

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say, and yet, every day, millions of people use this argument to justify the “shredding” of little babies (oh, I’m sorry – to justify the “termination” of “fetuses”).

“It should be the woman’s right to choose – after all it is HER body”. Right?

Well, let’s just put all the cards on the table, shall we? There are really only two ways a woman can get pregnant, by choice or by force. Either they CHOOSE to have sex, knowing full well there is a possibility that they may become pregnant, or they are forced to have sex, in which case what they know or don’t know is irrelevant.

Pregnancy by Choice

If I CHOOSE to do something foolish such as getting drunk and then driving my vehicle, I am held accountable for those actions if they result in the death of another human being. It’s called vehicular manslaughter, and I would rightly go to jail for such actions. Few people would suggest that the result should be otherwise. I knew what I was doing when I got drunk. I was too irresponsible to make sure that I had a way to get home without getting behind the wheel drunk. Someone died as a result of my irresponsible actions (although, at least I didn’t specifically CHOOSE to kill them intentionally).

VERY few people who get pregnant are not fully aware of how this type of thing occurs. Therefore, they cannot claim ignorance. If a person CHOOSES to hop into bed with someone of the opposite sex and romp around, they know there is a chance that they are going to get pregnant. But, somehow, when it happens, it’s all of a sudden a big shock and is too much for them to handle. Naturally, to avoid the physical and emotional strain of a pregnancy, a civilized society that values women should make sure that it’s legal for these new “accidental mommies” to MURDER their babies. After all, why should they be punished for one really stupid decision?

The only reasonable course of action is to kill the baby, right?

Except, it seems to me that the end result here is that someone died as a result of one really stupid decision. At the very least, if we compare this with the stupid decision of the drunk behind the wheel who kills someone, this new EX-accidental mommy should be facing a manslaughter charge.

But, even that would be letting them off lightly, since in this case, the baby was killed as a result of a pre-meditated decision. This woman realized the impending responsibility of her stupid decision and made another conscious decision to eliminate that responsibility by killing the baby.

She called the abortion clinic. She contracted with the doctor to have the baby killed for a certain price. Then, she drove to the clinic at the pre-appointed time, and her doctor carried out the terms of the contract – he or she killed the baby. With the abortion complete, she paid the clinic for their “services” and left.

What if the situation was just a shade different? Let’s say a young woman meets some guy she really likes and two weeks later she marries him – not really knowing much of anything about him – a stupid decision by anyone’s standards. Then, she finds out that he’s a total jerk and a drunk, but, doesn’t know how to leave him. She realizes that getting married so quickly was really stupid and the consequences of that decision are going to follow her and make her life very difficult.

Fortunately, she has a solution. She calls a hit-man and contracts to pay him $500 to kill her new husband. He does the deed. She pays him the money and they go their separate ways. Thankfully, our civilized society recognizes a woman’s right to CHOOSE whether her husband lives or dies – it IS, after all, HER life that he’s ruining.

Oh, wait. That’s actually considered a contract murder. There are actually laws AGAINST that. She and her contract killer will go to jail. Why? What is so different about these two scenarios, except that the baby doesn’t even have a fighting chance and didn’t do ANYTHING to the woman?

Pregnancy by Force

Let’s switch gears and discuss pregnancy by force for a moment. Obviously, rape is a terrible crime, the emotional scars from which will long outlast any physical trauma that is normally experienced. I cannot begin to imagine the horror of being a victim of such abuse and certainly would not wish such a trauma on anyone. At the same time, pregnancies due to rape are often used as a “cover” for the abortion cause.

Anytime it is suggested that abortion should be outlawed, the cry is, “What about all of the women who are raped every year? Should they be forced to carry their rapist’s baby to term? How can you be so cruel, so callous?”

My response is two-fold. First, according to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network):

In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped. According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.

Over that same time period, the CDC estimates that well over 800,000 abortions were performed in the United states (which is the region the above rape statistics are ascribed to). However, this number does not include data from California (one of the nation’s largest states), West Virginia or New Hampshire. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) suggests that the number exceeded 1.2 million nationally.

Let’s split the difference and call it an even million. Let’s also assume that the rape statistics reported by RAINN are likely under-reported, which is a reasonable assumption. There’s probably a good bet that there are actually 3 times that many rapes that occur in this country every year (maybe more). So, if we triple the number of rape pregnancies estimated by RAINN for 2004, we get a number awfully close to 10,000.

We know that not all victims of rape choose to abort their babies. In fact, MANY choose to carry the baby to term, even if they choose to give the baby up for adoption at that point. But, for the sake of easy numbers and to err on the high side, let’s assume that all 10,000 pregnancies due to rape are aborted every year.

If that was the case, which it is not, that would mean that, of the 1 million abortions that occur each year, roughly 1% are rape related. That means that the other 99% are NOT. Thus, the argument that abortion should remain legal so that these rape victims don’t have to carry these babies to term is an irrelevant argument and is only a smokescreen to avoid talking about the real issue.

The fact is, even if we agreed that a woman who is raped should have the right to kill that baby, we could still eliminate 990,000 BRUTAL murders every year (where babies are, literally, being torn to pieces by “doctors”) by simply restricting abortion to only cases that involve a proven rape.

Moreover, as much as I sympathize with rape victims that end up pregnant as a result, suggesting that it should be ok for them to kill the baby of the rapist to avoid the emotional trauma that would result doesn’t make any sense. First and foremost, virtually ALL of the available scientific evidence suggests that women who choose to abort their baby (whether the result of a rape or not) suffer significant emotional trauma and an increased likelihood of medical problems as a result. Such consequences include severe depression, higher rates of cancer and numerous other medical problems.

But, even if we completely discount this evidence and what it means for women who choose this path, it makes little difference. Legalized abortion still makes no sense.

What if a woman was married and had three kids and her husband turned abusive and raped her? By the same reasoning, it should be legal for her to kill her three children because they could all remind her of the man who raped her, a daily emotional trauma that she’d have to deal with – after all, they ARE his kids. It’s HER life they’ll be ruining.

The kids had nothing to do with the rape. They did not choose a rapist as their father. They did not encourage their father to rape their mother. How does it make sense that they should be murdered for their father’s transgressions?

But, That’s Different …

Pro-choice advocates would say that’s different. The two scenarios are nothing alike. It’s different to have to spend 9 months carrying the baby that you know is the result of a horribly traumatic experience. And, on some level, I can understand that argument and even sympathize with the victims.

But, at the same time, the state has a mandate to protect the liberties of ALL people, and to punish those that infringe on the the rights of others. So, the only outstanding question is, does the state have a right and/or a responsibility to protect the rights of an unborn baby? IS that unborn baby a “person”, a “citizen” of the United States who would be protected by our Constitution?

To BE or NOT to Be … a Person

How is it established who IS and who is NOT a “person” deserving of Constitutional rights to protect their life, their liberty and their freedom to pursue happiness? WHO should establish that? Who makes the decision?

Ultimately, from the pro-choice perspective, the state does (or at least “the Court” does). Pro-choice advocates contend that Roe v Wade is the standard and that it supports the conclusion that an unborn baby is not yet a “person” under the law, and is, therefore, not due the same rights that are afforded to those who have already been born.

So, what characteristic is it that an UNborn baby doesn’t have that a delivered baby DOES have? I can think of only two differences between the two. One is physical location. One baby is still in the womb (or on it’s way out but not “completely out yet”), while the other is not. So, there is a physical location difference between the two.

The other difference that I can potentially see is age, since MOST babies that have been delivered are at least 24 – 25 weeks old at birth, since younger babies often don’t survive (although with advances in modern medicine, the rate of success with younger babies is getting considerably better all the time – and will continue to improve as medicine continues to advance).

So, the only two criteria that separate the unborn child (who currently has NO rights, under the law) and one that has already been born (and is afforded ALL of the rights of any other citizen) is age and location. The ONLY difference.

Who’s Next?

If the state or the courts can decide who deserves the protection of our Consitutionally guaranteed freedoms simply based on our physical location or our age, then who is, technically, safe? Abortion is currently legal in cases where the baby is under 24 weeks old (and even later in other “special” circumstances) because in the days of Roe v Wade, it was nearly impossible for a baby under 24 weeks to survive on it’s own outside the womb – so the baby isn’t a “person” at that point, right?

So, do YOU cease to be a citizen deserving of rights when you get into a car accident and are only still “living” as a result of medical life support? Could the state choose to decide as such? If a baby isn’t a “person” because he or she is not yet “viable” and could not live on it’s own (ie. without the “life support” system of the mother’s womb), then what about older people who need medical devices to extend their life or to enhance their ability to function normally?

Are they still a “person” with rights? What’s to stop the state from deciding that they are not? The same logic applies. They can’t sustain themselves. They are potentially a “burden” to the medical system and also to their families who would need to care for them. Why not “cut our losses” and just “abort” them – I mean MURDER them?

Obviously, to any SANE individual, this suggestion is nuts, as well it should be. My wife’s grandparents live in a basement apartment in our home and could not live on their own. Grandpa is basically blind and grandma has dementia, so it requires alot of work on our part to help take care of them.

BUT, they still have ALOT to offer, and I can’t imagine how any individual could justify stripping them of the rights they have been given by our US Constitution (and, more importantly, by our Creator) just because they are not physiologically able to live independently of others. And, yet, that is precisely the argument that is used to suggest that a baby under 24 weeks has no protections under the Constitution.

It’s a Baby!!

Regardless of all the banter over Constitutional rights and such, the real issue is very simple. Is a “fetus” a baby and do we have the right to kill MILLIONS of babies out of convenience.

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

On the other side, we’ve got the conservatives & Tea Party “members” who are looking at this 60 billion dollars as pocket change – a token “gift” designed to appease Tea Partiers without actually doing anything.

Where Is the truth?

Is there middle ground? Honestly, I’m not sure.

It is most definitely true that this 60 billion dollar cut is pocket change, considering that our annual federal budget is about 1.6 trillion dollars OVER what the federal government is bringing in via tax revenue. Thus, without a MAJOR shift in spending, we will continue to go an additional 1 1/2 trillion dollars into debt every single year (unless the fed choose to simply print more money to pay for it, in which case the dollar will continue to be devalued even further).

So, am I happy with 60 billion? Absolutely not! If we don’t cut AT LEAST 2 trillion dollars from our ANNUAL federal budget, we have NO CHANCE of ever paying off the debt, and even then, we wouldn’t be able to pay anything significant toward the principle balance (over 14 trillion dollars and counting).

It simply CAN’T continue, but, there has to be a starting point. Honestly, I’m surprised that Republicans are standing firm even on that, so at least it’s a step in the right direction. If we don’t support them on this, what chance do we have of encouraging them to go further?

What About 6 TRILLION?

Paul Ryan’s new proposal is slated to cut about 6 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years, which is certainly a much larger step in the right direction (although it STILL falls far short of what will really be necessary to even BEGIN to pay off our national debt).

Compared with the 60 billion that Congress is currently quibbling over, this is HUGE. However, compared to what needs to be done, it’s still only a very small step, probably only a QUARTER of what really needs to be cut. Nevertheless, again, it’s another step in the right direction.

So, What Do We Do?

We HAVE to support them when they take a step in the right direction, which this 60 billion IS.

There isn’t much time. Unless we do a MAJOR about face within the next year or two, I’m not sure it will matter anymore – the entire house of cards will simply collapse. But, we’ve got some momentum in the right direction. Let’s not completely derail it by being overly critical at this point.

Let Congress hear from you so that Republicans AND Dems know that you support the cuts, because right now, the media and the unions and the public employees and the Dems and Prez are all railing against Republican leaders. It’s not easy to stand up against that, even for those who actually have a backbone.

Let them know that YOU think they are doing the right thing.

Fax ALL of Congress Now – It’s Quick, Easy & CHEAP!

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: federal budget, government spending, national debt

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Christianity & Social Justice

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: budget cuts, christianity, federal government, social justice

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.

Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.
The Channel 2 Action News investigation found a 1,300-year-old Egyptian mosque that was almost flooded by contaminated sewer water that is one of many ancient Cairo mosques and churches that were saved from destruction by the U.S. taxpayers.

This is part of a $770 million program to rebuild Cairo’s sewer system, paid for by the U.S. State Department’s USAID program.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25762604/detail.html

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: foreign aid, islam, mosques, muslim, taxes, taxpayers

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper “Prager Zeitung” on 04.28.2010. Often, one must step outside the circle to get a clear point of view……

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool, but it is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Get a Zazzle T-Shirt of This Image - Click

Government’s job is simple. Protect us from foreign invasion, maintain and enforce a basic set of laws to prevent one individual or group from harming another individual or group physically or materially and to create and maintain infrastructure that will allow for efficient interstate commerce. In a nutshell, that’s pretty much it. Once government begins to move outside of those boundaries, freedoms are lost and tyranny becomes more and more the rule.

Human nature is what it is and nothing that government can do will EVER change basic human nature and the intrinsic instinct of self preservation. When this basic law of human nature is ignored or discounted or assumed to be transformable by government control, problems arise. In contrast, when this basic law of human nature is understood and taken into account when considering new legislation or governmental controls, it becomes clear 99.9% of the time that whether problems exist or not, government intervention will only create more of them, whether intended or unintended.

The topic of discussion at the link below is one of those areas where, in theory, social conservatives would consider government intervention and enforcement a good idea, for the public good. Unfortunately, in practice, it turns out the same as any other government intrusion into the lives of our citizens – disaster.

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/the-evils-of-the-drug-war/

© admin for TheNextAmericanRevolution.com, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: freedom, government control, individual liberty

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh