by Kybasser » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:56 am
I totally understand this response, but it is the wrong way to respond, or to react actually. Our President has broken his oath of office by ordering that certain agencies not enforce American law, specifically the DOJ. The role of the president, well one of them, is to enforce the laws of America, and he is not doing this. It is a part of his oath of office to uphold all laws of our country, yet he has chosen not to do so. In response, what happened? He got re-elected. He has the gift of gab. He can easily talk is way out of most things. As good as the democratic machine is at rhetoric, they are just as bad at execution of the duties of America, and this is a perfect example.
Recently, maybe a year or two, a democratic governor, I think from South Carolina, not sure, but it was one of the Carolinas wanted to do away with elections while democrats were in control so they could get some things done. Then in the last two weeks, one member of the Congress (not sure which house) who is in the democratic party has suggested doing away with the Constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on presidents. That's what we need, a dictator in chief, regardless of whichever party it may be.
Further, I'd love to see a new political party emerge. I know I will get some push back on this, and let's discuss it in an intelligent manner... I love that, but take me for instance, I am registered a Republican. Despite this, I mostly disagree with the Republican planks on social issues. In these areas I tend to be much more liberal, but on fiscal issues I tend to be very conservative. I am also very "small federal gov't" inclined, giving the major law making abilities to the states.
Along these same lines, I'd love to see a movement for election change. I agree with having ID to prove you are who you are. A friend from Alabama has reported that he knows for fact, that you can make money during elections by signing up to have a car come and get you, take you to different polling places, tell you who you are at each place, and who to vote for, then they pay you and take you home. He did not say if it was republican or democratic in nature. I'd also like to see us change the electoral college. When our founding fathers set this republic up, we did not have the ability or technology to quickly gather and verify voting results from around the country. Times have changed. The electoral college has disenfranchised many voters. I can name at least five people that I know very well who refused to vote because the polls ensured which presidential candidate would win our commonwealth, and as such they felt their votes did not count. We don't want to disenfranchise poor and minority voters by requiring a photo ID, yet states are willing to go to these people to help them get their photo IDs. Why are they so disenfranchised? I am helping my father-in-law through a fight with cancer. It requires us to regularly get medical records, his own records, to take to other doctors, and each time he has to show a photo ID. I have to have a photo ID at my bank. I just don't understand the reluctance to prove a voter is who they are unless there is something being hidden.
What all this really leads to is that we need a political party, it can be the republicans, the democrats, or a new party, but they need to represent what the constitution puts forth, and MOST of all, they need a good orator, someone who can communicate in a manner that all will understand and gravitate toward.
I see one more post was made, and it brought me back to gun control. Let's look at Norway, where they guy killed over 80 people with his gun. Norway has some of the most restrictive gun control laws. Also I was told something I have not yet been able to verify, but I was told that Sweden that has very low gun violence has a law that says all men, maybe all people... I was informed men, had to own and know how to use a handgun. Seems that is a model that basically proves guns are useful in controlling gun violence. Also in today's paper there is a story about three men running from police in the area. One of the suspects was caught and held for police by a group of armed men who were patrolling their neighborhood.
I will add, that if we want to use the second amendment as our only reasoning, we must realize that even assault weapons would be of no use toward a tyrannical gov't today. We would also need to have GPS guided missiles, heavy artillery and very advanced weaponry to wage war against our army.
Dan
