Mark Levin is a nationally-syndicated radio host and conservative commentator. He has just released a landmark new book, “Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto.” The book is flying off store shelves across the country. It sold out on its first day of release and has broken all sales records for Amazon.com. This is an incredible feat for any book given the current economic conditions. The phenomenal interest in this work is not hard to understand when one considers its stated purpose: “to galvanize readers to begin a new era in conservative thinking and action…revitalizing the conservative vision and ensuring the preservation of American society.”
We are entering the most pro-government era of state-controlled monopolies since FDR’s New Deal. Americans are legitimately disturbed at this rapid movement toward Socialism. A recent IBD/Tipp poll showed an increase of 80%, since last summer, in the number of people who believe we are moving dangerously closer to a Socialist economy- from an average of 26% to 45%.
Levin outlines the history and development of Socialism analyzing it in terms of Statism vs. Individualism. The book seeks to clarify the nature of tyranny and how our Founding documents sought to preserve our freedom by restricting government, not empowering it.
The Left-wing, Liberal Socialism propagated by the Democrat party in America, is a seductive type of Statism that has been termed “soft tyranny.” C. S. Lewis warned, “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Levin uses a number of examples from history to substantiate his arguments with both empirical evidence and irrefutable logic. He deftly reveals, in easy to understand language, the commonality between conservative ideology and the founding principles of our nation.
The Constitution has been described as the most conservative document in human history, because it seeks to confine, restrict and frustrate the lustful desires of monopolistic power emanating from government activism. Gathering more and more control under the auspice of centralized government, regardless of the motive, is not only antithetical to our Constitution, it is the very definition of Socialism.
Levin demonstrates with example after example how the Statist- i.e. that individual using politics to enlarge the state- is ultimately interested in power, not truth.
Levin writes, “the Statist’s Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fascism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species—tyranny. The primary principle around which the Statist organizes can be summed up in a single word—equality.”
“Equality,” as Levin explains, “is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.” The Statist misuses this concept to increase his power by promising an equality of outcomes, irrespective of individual merit or toil. As President Obama said, “[O]ur individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” Soft tyranny holds out the hope of a collective salvation through the work of an all-powerful state. As I have said before in this column, there remains no collective means to individual success. This is exactly how FDR laid the foundation for all of the Statist programs that have come along after the New Deal.
Roosevelt proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” based on a new concept: the government guaranteeing “security and prosperity.” Under this revolutionary idea that negated the Founder’s precepts, Roosevelt was proposing- not the Natural Law Rights given by God- but new Rights given by government to re-distribute wealth. For the first time there was a “right” to things that someone else must provide. Of course, if one individual claims a right to the labor of another that also has another name- slavery. These new “rights” included: a right to a useful job; to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation; to a decent living; to a decent home; to adequate medical care and the enjoyment of good health; to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment; and to a good education.”
This is where the seeds of our modern, soft tyranny were sown and how we are going broke under the yoke of ever-increasing taxes! Buy and read Mark Levin’s book. Share it with others. It may prove to be the manifest change we need to stop this tyranny before it’s too late. (Send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN, 37757.)
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Political Promises Made, Political Promises Broken By Dennis Powers
A politician running for a state office once made the statement, “Tell the voters anything they want to hear to get elected and after you get elected, then you can do anything you want.”
Isn’t this typical of what it is going on in Washington today?
Take our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, for example, or as Rodney Dangerfield would say, “take her, please.”
I remember her words in January 2007 after the Democrats took the majority and pushed through the pay-as-you-go budget rule.
At that time, Pelosi said, "Democrats will demand and deliver a fiscally responsible budget. We will submit all of our ideas in our innovation agenda to pay the rigors of pay-as-you-go. No more deficit spending."
That was then, this is now.
"Today, we are cutting our national credit card," added Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat, as he cut a credit card in effigy in 2007. Republicans applauded the effort and one, Rep. Jeff Flake, Republican, Arizona, stated, “I give them kudos.”
But, the House Democrats went even farther in 2007 to promote fiscal responsibility by approving a Democratic proposal that requires lawmakers to publicly disclose their pet projects, or "earmarks."
All earmarks were included in the pay-as-you-go rule. Rep. John Spratt Jr., a Democrat, from South Carolina added, “And if you want to enhance an entitlement, you've got to pay for it." Conservatives and Blue-Dog Democrats were ecstatic.
However, when Obama became president, those rules were thrown out the window along with our tax dollars. Now, we know what can happen when you get a Liberal president with a Liberal Congress.
In a November 16, 2006, press release, Pelosi said “We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility.”
How’s that working out for us?
Pelosi also said, "The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'”
As Obama said on the campaign trail “Folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” We need to include Nancy in the next study group.
Here’s something that is in the Bible in Psalm 106, (for Ms. Pelosi - that would be in the Old Testament) verse 12: Then they believed His promises and sang His praise.
The same could be said of the media and our new president. But, before we start singing, let’s look at some of his promises:
During the first presidential debate, he said, “Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
He just signed a bill with 9,000 earmarks.
Obama also promised that he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
His first bill was not published at all and the second bill was signed just hours after it passed in Congress. Most Americans and members of Congress still have no idea what was in the 1,100 page, $787 billion stimulus bill - so much for transparency.
And what about the famous quote by Obama that “Lobbyists will not find a job in my White House?” To date, he has hired at least a dozen to high-profile positions including several to his cabinet. I suppose it is difficult to find qualified candidates in Washington who pays their taxes.
Yes, we hear one thing from candidates on the campaign trail and another after they win an election. We are still looking for politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.
Obama was sworn into office with the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used for his first inauguration in 1861. Obama identified with Lincoln throughout his campaign and quoted him often.
Lincoln once walked 20 miles to return a book. We need that type of honesty in Washington and let me assure you Mr. President, “You’re no Abraham Lincoln.”
As Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
So, Mr. Obama, we’re not fooled by your promises. And in regard to your spending and infringements on our rights - we’ll keep our money and our guns – you keep the “change.”
Dennis Powers is a conservative columnist and his columns are found in BackyardPolitics.org and OnTheRightTrackOnline.blogspot.com. Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.
Isn’t this typical of what it is going on in Washington today?
Take our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, for example, or as Rodney Dangerfield would say, “take her, please.”
I remember her words in January 2007 after the Democrats took the majority and pushed through the pay-as-you-go budget rule.
At that time, Pelosi said, "Democrats will demand and deliver a fiscally responsible budget. We will submit all of our ideas in our innovation agenda to pay the rigors of pay-as-you-go. No more deficit spending."
That was then, this is now.
"Today, we are cutting our national credit card," added Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat, as he cut a credit card in effigy in 2007. Republicans applauded the effort and one, Rep. Jeff Flake, Republican, Arizona, stated, “I give them kudos.”
But, the House Democrats went even farther in 2007 to promote fiscal responsibility by approving a Democratic proposal that requires lawmakers to publicly disclose their pet projects, or "earmarks."
All earmarks were included in the pay-as-you-go rule. Rep. John Spratt Jr., a Democrat, from South Carolina added, “And if you want to enhance an entitlement, you've got to pay for it." Conservatives and Blue-Dog Democrats were ecstatic.
However, when Obama became president, those rules were thrown out the window along with our tax dollars. Now, we know what can happen when you get a Liberal president with a Liberal Congress.
In a November 16, 2006, press release, Pelosi said “We will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a commitment to integrity, to civility, and to fiscal responsibility.”
How’s that working out for us?
Pelosi also said, "The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.'”
As Obama said on the campaign trail “Folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” We need to include Nancy in the next study group.
Here’s something that is in the Bible in Psalm 106, (for Ms. Pelosi - that would be in the Old Testament) verse 12: Then they believed His promises and sang His praise.
The same could be said of the media and our new president. But, before we start singing, let’s look at some of his promises:
During the first presidential debate, he said, “Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
He just signed a bill with 9,000 earmarks.
Obama also promised that he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
His first bill was not published at all and the second bill was signed just hours after it passed in Congress. Most Americans and members of Congress still have no idea what was in the 1,100 page, $787 billion stimulus bill - so much for transparency.
And what about the famous quote by Obama that “Lobbyists will not find a job in my White House?” To date, he has hired at least a dozen to high-profile positions including several to his cabinet. I suppose it is difficult to find qualified candidates in Washington who pays their taxes.
Yes, we hear one thing from candidates on the campaign trail and another after they win an election. We are still looking for politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say.
Obama was sworn into office with the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used for his first inauguration in 1861. Obama identified with Lincoln throughout his campaign and quoted him often.
Lincoln once walked 20 miles to return a book. We need that type of honesty in Washington and let me assure you Mr. President, “You’re no Abraham Lincoln.”
As Lincoln said, “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
So, Mr. Obama, we’re not fooled by your promises. And in regard to your spending and infringements on our rights - we’ll keep our money and our guns – you keep the “change.”
Dennis Powers is a conservative columnist and his columns are found in BackyardPolitics.org and OnTheRightTrackOnline.blogspot.com. Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.
UN Proposal Threatens American Families
(guest columnist)
by Whitney Dotson
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is, after a seemingly silent period, emerging into public notice once again. Established two decades ago as a charter ambitious with the stated purpose of ensuring children’s rights around the globe, nearly every government throughout the world has embraced its terms---that is, with the exceptions of Somalia and the United States. Certain Americans, however, feel compelled to voice their acceptance of the charter. Prominent figures such as Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton comprise perhaps two of its most unabashed and motivated supporters. The document attracts most in its claim to preserve the domestic and public safety of children; what is often overlooked by casual readers, however, is the convention’s imbalanced perspective regarding governmental authority and familial rights.
Should the United States find itself submitting to the convention’s terms, children ages eighteen and younger would possess, upon the authority of States Parties, “a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (Article 2,1), ” the right to mandatory education involving primary levels (Article 28, 1(a)), the right to moral and religious liberation as indicated by law (Article 14, 3), and protection against imposition in consideration of privacy (Article 16, Section 1). Within this frame of order, the child’s welfare would ultimately originate and progress from the consciences of politicians. According to these assertions, parents are not to interfere with their children’s moral convictions or privacy---a factor which could encourage minors’ access to abortions independent from parental knowledge, access to pornography, and state-regulated education. Parental direction in morality would be limited by governmental insistence of privacy rights. Social workers and others deemed worthy by the convention would inherit the business of supplementing parental authority according to their discernment, becoming familial spectators and wedging imposition when parents are considered insufficient providers.
The major defect with this convention is not a question as to whether or not the child is entitled to certain rights. As a Christian, I firmly believe that all children are inborn image-bearers of the only true God, and are entitled to every God-given privilege to humankind. No, the matter within dispute rests in a proper analysis of whether or not the government should be given access to our families, familial rights, and parental authority. In short, why should States Parties perceive themselves more capable of parenting than the parents themselves?
The two purposes of government were intended primarily to reflect justice in punishment, and to preserve what our forefathers regarded as certain unalienable rights. These rights were viewed not as legalities discharged by any earthly rulers, but characterized liberties imparted by the Creator. These liberties equate what are simply known as natural rights---rights which are instilled from conception, and cannot be denied. Our forefathers derived their understanding of natural rights from the principle underlying Genesis 1:26---that men are created reflections of God. Within this principle, God simultaneously instituted marriage and parenthood, demanding the sexes to procreate. Parenthood is a natural right---a right not to be impinged upon by man, but a covenantal responsibility to God. Any transcendence of such a right signifies a deified and misrepresented comprehension of government. It may surprise some people to know that Scripture always connects training and educational duties with the children’s parents. The writings of King David and Solomon repeatedly endorsed parental guidance in order that future generations might know God (Proverbs 1:8). How is this freedom of child rearing to continue when parents are no longer sole executors in guiding their children?
When examined, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests a socialistic undertone. A socialist government asserts the desire that everyone be treated in corporate measure, and that government assumes the position as sole Benefactor and Sovereign over men. Note Sir Thomas More’s infamous work, Utopia; its pages envision a society in which everyone is endowed equally. Every person is directed in both personal and religious life by their governing factors. This ideology may strike the reader as an advantageous concept---especially when the less fortunate are considered. Think again, however, about the ultimate result of such living: the government would own all, distribute all, and decide all. This is nothing short of communism in which all free and individual thought is suppressed and discouraged.
The prohibition of this charter depends upon the action and voice of the people. In order for parents to maintain familial rights, the senate must be notified. If you also respect the foundation of the family unit, contact your state senators, requesting that they oppose the statements posed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and sending your request to the address below:
1. Senator Bob Corker
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C. 20510
2. Senator Lamar Alexander
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C. 20510
by Whitney Dotson
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is, after a seemingly silent period, emerging into public notice once again. Established two decades ago as a charter ambitious with the stated purpose of ensuring children’s rights around the globe, nearly every government throughout the world has embraced its terms---that is, with the exceptions of Somalia and the United States. Certain Americans, however, feel compelled to voice their acceptance of the charter. Prominent figures such as Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton comprise perhaps two of its most unabashed and motivated supporters. The document attracts most in its claim to preserve the domestic and public safety of children; what is often overlooked by casual readers, however, is the convention’s imbalanced perspective regarding governmental authority and familial rights.
Should the United States find itself submitting to the convention’s terms, children ages eighteen and younger would possess, upon the authority of States Parties, “a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (Article 2,1), ” the right to mandatory education involving primary levels (Article 28, 1(a)), the right to moral and religious liberation as indicated by law (Article 14, 3), and protection against imposition in consideration of privacy (Article 16, Section 1). Within this frame of order, the child’s welfare would ultimately originate and progress from the consciences of politicians. According to these assertions, parents are not to interfere with their children’s moral convictions or privacy---a factor which could encourage minors’ access to abortions independent from parental knowledge, access to pornography, and state-regulated education. Parental direction in morality would be limited by governmental insistence of privacy rights. Social workers and others deemed worthy by the convention would inherit the business of supplementing parental authority according to their discernment, becoming familial spectators and wedging imposition when parents are considered insufficient providers.
The major defect with this convention is not a question as to whether or not the child is entitled to certain rights. As a Christian, I firmly believe that all children are inborn image-bearers of the only true God, and are entitled to every God-given privilege to humankind. No, the matter within dispute rests in a proper analysis of whether or not the government should be given access to our families, familial rights, and parental authority. In short, why should States Parties perceive themselves more capable of parenting than the parents themselves?
The two purposes of government were intended primarily to reflect justice in punishment, and to preserve what our forefathers regarded as certain unalienable rights. These rights were viewed not as legalities discharged by any earthly rulers, but characterized liberties imparted by the Creator. These liberties equate what are simply known as natural rights---rights which are instilled from conception, and cannot be denied. Our forefathers derived their understanding of natural rights from the principle underlying Genesis 1:26---that men are created reflections of God. Within this principle, God simultaneously instituted marriage and parenthood, demanding the sexes to procreate. Parenthood is a natural right---a right not to be impinged upon by man, but a covenantal responsibility to God. Any transcendence of such a right signifies a deified and misrepresented comprehension of government. It may surprise some people to know that Scripture always connects training and educational duties with the children’s parents. The writings of King David and Solomon repeatedly endorsed parental guidance in order that future generations might know God (Proverbs 1:8). How is this freedom of child rearing to continue when parents are no longer sole executors in guiding their children?
When examined, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child suggests a socialistic undertone. A socialist government asserts the desire that everyone be treated in corporate measure, and that government assumes the position as sole Benefactor and Sovereign over men. Note Sir Thomas More’s infamous work, Utopia; its pages envision a society in which everyone is endowed equally. Every person is directed in both personal and religious life by their governing factors. This ideology may strike the reader as an advantageous concept---especially when the less fortunate are considered. Think again, however, about the ultimate result of such living: the government would own all, distribute all, and decide all. This is nothing short of communism in which all free and individual thought is suppressed and discouraged.
The prohibition of this charter depends upon the action and voice of the people. In order for parents to maintain familial rights, the senate must be notified. If you also respect the foundation of the family unit, contact your state senators, requesting that they oppose the statements posed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and sending your request to the address below:
1. Senator Bob Corker
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C. 20510
2. Senator Lamar Alexander
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C. 20510
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Glenn Beck Starts a Revolution
Glenn Beck is a popular talk show host for Fox News. He has the third highest ratings behind Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. He recently launched a movement to engage patriotic citizens in the cause of changing the direction of the country. This Friday, March 13, he is encouraging viewers to gather their friends and family to watch his 5pm show. In front of a live studio audience, Beck plans to explain how “we the people” can take our country back.
The driving force behind this effort comes from the unprecedented failure of our elected leaders. The fall of the stock market combined with our huge national debt is threatening to destroy our future. The Obama administration’s proposals for tax hikes, spending programs and government intervention is not hopeful change, but rather, an irresponsible move that will prove disastrous to our free market economy.
Beck has found inspiration to address this crisis from our Founding Fathers. He calls his agenda “We Surround Them” and bases it on 9 principles and 12 values taken from patriotic sources. He displays the principles using Benjamin Franklin’s famous 1754 “Join or Die” campaign drawing.
In the Revolutionary era, Franklin used the image of a dismembered rattlesnake to relate the need for the colonies to unite together to fight tyranny. Beck is renewing the symbol to express these Founding principles and to remind viewers that they are “not alone” in their beliefs.
So, what are these principles? They are distilled from the work of W. Cleon Skousen and his book “The 5,000 Year Leap.” Skousen was a staunch anti-Communist. Ronald Reagan was so impressed with Skousen’s work that he wanted to make his book mandatory reading for all students. Unfortunately, the effort was blocked by liberals in Congress.
The Beck set of principles is a short-hand version of the Skousen research. It can be boiled down to: a belief in God; the sovereignty of the people; moral values; and, respect for family, the law and private property.
Principle number one identified by Skousen is adherence to Natural Law. The Founders believed that Natural Law is the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations. This was the first, and most important, priority to ensure peace, prosperity and freedom in the American form of government.
Principle number two states that a free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. Franklin remarked, “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams said, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Founders believed all things are created by God. Therefore, upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.
This is followed by another principle: the proper role of government is to protect these equal, unalienable rights, not provide equal things. The Founders also believed in the principle that a constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers. Madison said, "if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" “In questions of power, then,” explained Jefferson, “let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Principle 14 reveals that life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure. John Locke reasoned that all things in the world were given as a gift from God, but that once a person adds ingenuity, labor and value to change it, then that property becomes invested with exclusive individual rights of ownership.
The next principle says that prosperity is maximized whenever there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Prosperity, the Founders believed, depends upon an unencumbered environment of four basic freedoms: the freedom to try; the freedom to buy; the freedom to sell; and, the freedom to fail.
Finally, principle 27 equates the destructive power of debt to that of an invading army that destroys human freedom.
You can find out more about these principles at GlennBeck.com. Will this movement succeed? It’s hard to predict, but it may come down to Franklin’s assessment spoken over 200 years ago: “We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
The driving force behind this effort comes from the unprecedented failure of our elected leaders. The fall of the stock market combined with our huge national debt is threatening to destroy our future. The Obama administration’s proposals for tax hikes, spending programs and government intervention is not hopeful change, but rather, an irresponsible move that will prove disastrous to our free market economy.
Beck has found inspiration to address this crisis from our Founding Fathers. He calls his agenda “We Surround Them” and bases it on 9 principles and 12 values taken from patriotic sources. He displays the principles using Benjamin Franklin’s famous 1754 “Join or Die” campaign drawing.
In the Revolutionary era, Franklin used the image of a dismembered rattlesnake to relate the need for the colonies to unite together to fight tyranny. Beck is renewing the symbol to express these Founding principles and to remind viewers that they are “not alone” in their beliefs.
So, what are these principles? They are distilled from the work of W. Cleon Skousen and his book “The 5,000 Year Leap.” Skousen was a staunch anti-Communist. Ronald Reagan was so impressed with Skousen’s work that he wanted to make his book mandatory reading for all students. Unfortunately, the effort was blocked by liberals in Congress.
The Beck set of principles is a short-hand version of the Skousen research. It can be boiled down to: a belief in God; the sovereignty of the people; moral values; and, respect for family, the law and private property.
Principle number one identified by Skousen is adherence to Natural Law. The Founders believed that Natural Law is the only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations. This was the first, and most important, priority to ensure peace, prosperity and freedom in the American form of government.
Principle number two states that a free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. Franklin remarked, “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams said, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Founders believed all things are created by God. Therefore, upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.
This is followed by another principle: the proper role of government is to protect these equal, unalienable rights, not provide equal things. The Founders also believed in the principle that a constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers. Madison said, "if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" “In questions of power, then,” explained Jefferson, “let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Principle 14 reveals that life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure. John Locke reasoned that all things in the world were given as a gift from God, but that once a person adds ingenuity, labor and value to change it, then that property becomes invested with exclusive individual rights of ownership.
The next principle says that prosperity is maximized whenever there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations. Prosperity, the Founders believed, depends upon an unencumbered environment of four basic freedoms: the freedom to try; the freedom to buy; the freedom to sell; and, the freedom to fail.
Finally, principle 27 equates the destructive power of debt to that of an invading army that destroys human freedom.
You can find out more about these principles at GlennBeck.com. Will this movement succeed? It’s hard to predict, but it may come down to Franklin’s assessment spoken over 200 years ago: “We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757).
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine by Dennis Powers
With the election of Barack Obama, the misnomer of the “Fairness Doctrine” has raised its ugly head again. There should be a law against naming bills that go through Congress because the name rarely reflects the contents of the bill. All bills are assigned a number and, just like in Federal Prison, they don’t need a name.
Soon, Liberals in Congress will once again try to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, which should be named the Suppression of Free Speech Doctrine. No bill has less equality or impartiality in it than the so-called Fairness Doctrine because there is nothing fair about it.
Liberals already control most of the mass media including major newspapers and television networks. Now, they want to silence the principal voice of Conservatives - talk radio, especially Rush Limbaugh.
The FCC promulgated the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure that “contrasting viewpoints” would be presented on radio and television. In 1985, the FCC repealed the doctrine after determining it failed to serve the public interest because it actually resulted in broadcasters limiting coverage of controversial issues of public importance.
Liberals tried their own talk radio and failed with Air America, which was originally funded by money out of a federal grant for the elderly in New York City and later filed bankruptcy. Someone should tell AARP.
Since they could not counter the only voice of Conservatives, the liberal’s goal now is to stifle the free speech of the First Amendment by requiring conservative and religious broadcasts to allow equal time for the opposing point of view!
If Congress is so concerned about equal time, why aren’t conservative views being presented on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, etc.? Will the Fairness Doctrine apply to the taxpayer-funded NPR and PBS? That sounds “fair.”
One of the first things that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro did when they got into power was eliminate media opposition. If the so-called Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, someone in Europe will have to pipe in a Radio Free America signal so we can find out what is really going on in Washington.
In the past, President Bush vetoed hate crimes legislation that could be abused to include penalties for Christian and conservative radio hosts and pastors in the pulpit if they ever mention their opposition to liberal and promiscuous lifestyles. Will they be able to push their agenda through with Obama as president?
It could mean jail time, loss of licenses and loss of tax exemptions for churches if their message is perceived to convey bigotry or hatred. The hate crimes legislation, the liberals have proposed, will lay the foundation for religious persecution in our country. There is no equal protection under hate crimes legislation and free speech will only be granted to those who support the liberal agenda.
Senate Leader Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, once called Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic and said he “stepped over the line” regarding Rush’s comments about phony soldiers and denounced him on the Senate floor.
One such soldier, Jesse Macbeth was a rallying point for the anti-war Left. Macbeth described how he and his fellow soldiers killed innocent civilians, sometimes going into mosques in Iraq, slaughtering and hanging them during prayer time.
One small glitch in his story – Macbeth was discharged from the military after six weeks and was never in the Middle East – he never finished basic training. But, why let the truth stand in the way of a good story?
The attacks are not just on Rush Limbaugh – the smearing of Conservative talk radio hosts is all part of a larger plan – to silence conservative and religious broadcasts. The Left hates talk radio and the Fairness Doctrine will bring about censorship and control of the airways that will favor the liberal view.
According to Benjamin Franklin, "Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech."
Conservatives listen to talk radio because we get tired of the leftist slant on every news report we hear. However, liberals will not be content until conservative talk radio is taken off the air.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat-California once said, “In my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.”
Sorry, Diane – it’s the only place we can find the truth and, obviously - you can’t handle the truth.
Send comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
