In religious circles, it is taught that the law "cannot make someone perfect". This is what scripture says. This means what our Founders understood to be character. Americans were to be self-governing.
Character is about how we behave, not just about values. Do we respect another's right to "be", or do we demand them to be what we want? The Founders understood that a Republic will never survive apart from the character of its people. There must be a concern about the state of affairs, as government was not to run itself, but be run by the people! I think this is what the tea partiers desire, the people's voice.
Civility has been a little tattered these days, because most of us haven't felt we have had a "voice" or been respected by those that should be concerned and listening. These are our Representatives after all, aren't they?
What has been America's response to abuses of power? Have we been concerned and informed? I have taken my government for granted, thinking that religious or sacred things were the only things "eternal". I know better now. I'm not assured of eternity, but I do have now. I must live it in the conscience of my values, but be just as concerned about the state of affairs in my government! I think this is a "real perfection" and not the "idealized perfection" of holiness camps!
Showing posts with label the Founders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Founders. Show all posts
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Free Speech of the Voter
We are to be a Representative Republic, Not a Corporately held STATE....
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can have just as much leeway to give to campaigns as the individual....No problem with big corporations "buying" the campaign....
So, what does this mean? Does the little guy usually have as much a voice and does it motivate the American people to care about their government? Does it give Unions an unfair advantage? Won't this mean that money will "buy" the politician? And want that mean that those who have more money have more voice? Does it mean that the taxpayer will continue to buy out the risks of corporations?
After all, Emmanual said that the First Amendment was "over-rated"! WHAT???!!!
The Democrats want to buy out the free information to the American people by limiting our freedom of speech in the media and "protect" rights of the liberals in their agenda propaganda, by the "Fairness Act"...
No wonder they think the First Amendment is "over-rated"!!! Our Founder's knew better!
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can have just as much leeway to give to campaigns as the individual....No problem with big corporations "buying" the campaign....
So, what does this mean? Does the little guy usually have as much a voice and does it motivate the American people to care about their government? Does it give Unions an unfair advantage? Won't this mean that money will "buy" the politician? And want that mean that those who have more money have more voice? Does it mean that the taxpayer will continue to buy out the risks of corporations?
After all, Emmanual said that the First Amendment was "over-rated"! WHAT???!!!
The Democrats want to buy out the free information to the American people by limiting our freedom of speech in the media and "protect" rights of the liberals in their agenda propaganda, by the "Fairness Act"...
No wonder they think the First Amendment is "over-rated"!!! Our Founder's knew better!
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)