I attended a Freedom Rally on Saturday. It was organized by the same folks who have organized two TEA parties and a Constitution rally in this area in the past few years. These are hard working folks who have a sincere wish to re-visit the America of our founding fathers. They were able to obtain the cooperation of some big name speakers -Dick Morris, Herman Cain and Bob Basso as Thomas Paine. The rally was well done, and well attended, by -once again cheerful, well behaved citizens who picked up after themselves.
And yet I found myself to be a bit disturbed. The message of the rally was clearly "vote and vote republican". There were observations by Mr. Dick Morris that we had cleaned the republicans house-and it had needed cleaning. There were specific candidates endorsed by different speakers-all republican.
Maybe I'm just a perfectionist, but I prefer the message to vote based on character and values-not party.
There is video of most of the speakers on YouTube posted under the user name CEMF100. I ran out of memory before Mr. Cain spoke so I will include a photo of him here in lieu of video there. I did appreciate his remarks. If I find that someone else has posted his speech, I will make a link here.
I also feel the need to apologize to Mrs. Hansen, whose speech I only got a smidgen of, and not the best parts at that due to battery issues and the call of nature. She was advocating for an organization that is working towards making sure that the ballots of our military men and women get counted. She noted that her son's ballot for the last presidential election was never counted. This is shameful. It needs to be remedied yesterday. Please check out the site that I linked to on Mrs. Hansen's video and here -the Military Vote Project.
"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. "~ Gen 3:13
"And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. "~ Gen 3:13
Posts
10 comments:
Good post and radio show. I would vote for a third party candidate over a Republican who was a RINO any day and have. The exception being the Presidency, however I would if the Republican nominee were pro-choice; I could never vote for a pro-death candidate.
I agree with you on Petri; I was so hoping he was going to be challenged. I talked with him about one of his votes. It was one of the most frustrating experiences ever. The guy just doesn't care what we think.
I have become more and more Libertarian over the last couple years. I am starting to agree more with Libertarians on the drug issue. I grew up with an abusive, drug-addicted step-father and was always very pro-law enforcement when it came to drugs, but I am tired of the massive government bureaucracy that is built around drug enforcement.
I also believe it should be a states issue for each state to decide. I have never tried, nor would I ever try, drugs, but if some hippie wants to smoke weed in his house should we care?
I was there, too. But I did not get the sense that certain candidates being pushed were just BECAUSE they were Republican. I felt speakers were mentioning the better candidates, the ones who could help our economy to recover. And which Democrat incumbents or candidates are or will do that? Character matters, of course. Which Republicans mentioned do you have a problem with?
DR,
It was a treat to meet SR and your little ones. You are to be commended on your choice of spouse.(I hope his shoe dried out.-lol)
The only reason I would say we should care is if that hippie's children are being exposed and if that hippie is not able to support himself because of his weed smoking.
But, logically, we have other laws in place to protect the children. In my opinion, said hippie is far more likely to continue smoking when the government provides a safety net when he can't hold a job due to his habit than would a private charity or family. My mother had a live-in alcoholic boyfriend so I'm with you there - on both counts.
Speaking of the radio show, what are you doing on Wednesday, around 1:30? ;)
Jill,
It's not that I have a particular problem with the candidates that were mentioned, more that I have a problem with the candidates that were not. Mr. Neuman is running for the Republican ticket, as is Mr. Westlake and I didn't hear a word about either of them.
Those rather obvious omissions gave it a real "business-as-usual-we-will-tell-you-who-can-win-and-you-will-vote-for-them" feel.
Maybe I'm too much of a purist, but I didn't like that one bit.
Mom, You are right, some of the primary candidates were not mentioned. And that is a good point. You might mention that observation to the Liberty Coalition, too, a valid criticism. On the other hand, each speaker has the right to his/her opinion, too.
My own trouble with the event was that it went too long and put Mr. Cain at the end, and I could't stay for him.
Also, as I was leaving to get to another commitment, a woman at the edge of the crowd confronted me about my Christian faith. Though I told her I was happily saved, she continued to badger me about the specifics, and her flyer said her Milwaukee church believes you must follow their way to be right. This event simply was not the place for this.
DR, Without the legal barrier, someone close to me would still be a pot-head, or worse. Once gov. would legalize that poisen, they would get addicted to the taxes it generates. Some laws are to protect the people and maintain a safe society, and the law against certain drugs is what helped in my family's case. Plus, you think drunk driving is out-of-control, just wait until you get people high on other stuff out there. Some already do, but once it is legal, the numbers and instances will rise.
SR or I would love to do your radio show, just email me the details.
Jill,
I guess I tend to view folks who want to save my soul in a positive light. I enjoy discussing the Bible and salvation.(Undoubtably why the Jehovah's witnesses were told by their pastor to stop visiting me. How obnoxious must I be? lol) I was given a flyer by somone-probably from the same church, but was not "confronted" about my Christian faith.
I'm guessing your evangelist was part of that large group of folks in the old fashioned outfits?
In my observation they stayed pretty much oriented towards the farmers market area with a few drifting over now and then to listen.
The bottom line is that it was a public event. The SLC has no say over who attends or with what agenda.
re: legalizing drugs
Individual freedom is the name of the game. I'd like to think the majority of "We the People" are up to it. Yes, there will be tragedies from those who are not. I think we could fashion laws in such a way that those folks can be addressed and helped more effectively than the current system allows. Legalizing drugs is not equivalent to legalizing driving under the influence or any of the other things that alcoholics and drug users do illegally now.
Would you approve legalization if a conviction for DUI or any other crime in which the use of a drug(s) was a contributing factor to that crime(i.e. drunk and disorderly, child abuse/neglect and etc.)resulted in a lifetime ban on using that drug for that individual?
Interesting post, and interesting discussion. Allow me to give my two cents per drug laws:
I don't see in the U.S. Constitution any authority delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, to control or regulate drug use. I must assume, then, that this is a power reserved to the States or to the People per the tenth amendment and the Article VI supremacy clause, which the tenth merely elaborates on.
For my own part, I really wouldn't want to see, in my area, the establishment of street corner drug stores selling pot and other illicit drugs. I don't like the idea that legalizing these drugs would plummet their price, thus making them readily available, and in large quantities to people who probably shouldn't be able to afford them in any event. But I think we need to follow the constitution on this and let the State and local governments control or regulate these drugs without federal intervention unless requested by State officials per the constitution.
If that makes any sense.
It does make sense, Mr. Morris and more. It takes the discussion from the realm of the hypothetical to the physical nuts and bolts of such de/re-regulation of drugs.
It also neatly solves the problem of folks who don't care to live where such substances may be sold on the street corner. Move to a state that doesn't allow it and be active in your duties of citizneship to keep it from becoming legal where you live.
The real challenge, as always, is shrinking the power of the federal government to the levels defined by the Constitution. You do know how to cut to the heart of a matter. I have missed you, sir.
Post a Comment