I read a quote today that gave me pause. As I thought about the truth of the words I felt impelled to share it with you.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
There are a myriad of ways that we could discuss this but I would like to focus on another quote from one of our current leaders and then compare and contrast.
"As our leader said earlier, we take that step from healthcare as a privilege to healthcare as an inalienable right of every single American citizen. And as I said before, this bill is not complete. I've used the analogy of a starter home in which we can add additions and enhancements as we go into the future but like every right that we've ever passed the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights, and we will do that here surely."
Senator Harkin
One may look at these 2 quotes and wonder what they really have in common. I see these and I see that a U.S. Senator does not understand a key issue of the Constitution; government does not grant rights to the people! No where in the Constitution does it allow this. The Constitution specifically states what the Congress can not do and the limits on their power to act in many ways.
Now the connection. If the We the People allow the government the power to grant rights then we must also allow them to revoke rights. If the government is the deciding body on what we can do then they are also the deciding body on what we can not do. This flies in the face of the principle of inalienable rights.
If we allow the government to grant and revoke rights we will be at the whim of each administration and each congress. We will be part and parcel to the destruction of this great land. We need to elect those who understand, support and defend the Constitution, regardless of the level of government they are in.
As there are new elections this year for the U.S. Senate, I would urge us to choose wisely and choose to maintain the principles our government was built on.
Lessons from the 2009 election: #1 - It is difficult to win if it can be demonstrated to the voters that you don't actually reside in the jurisdiction for which you are seeking office. #2 - A candidate with a known example of demonstrating poor judgment in the past--for instance, carrying a concealed firearm to Little League games--can expect such a story to travel exponentially throughout the community, greatly harming his or her chances of being elected. #3 - Sore losers create a blog after the election to hear themselves rant. gonemoderate
ReplyDeleteWell I appreciate your perspective on the election of 2009. I recognize that with your involvement in local elections and your PAC ties that these are points that you have constantly made throughout the electoral process.
ReplyDeletePoint 3, however is new. Who is the sore looser you are refering to? What blog?
There seems to a lot of insinuation and charges thrown out by this "gone moderate". When are they going to pony up with some facts?
ReplyDeleteMike
I am interested in looking at all parts of the discussion. I would encourage "gone moderate" to explain his position with the facts to back them up. Then we can understand where he is coming from and be able to discuss possible solutions to the issues that we face as a city.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is dangerous and iresponsible for our government to assume they have the power to tell me what my rights are. Is Senator Harkin up for election this year? I want to send money to his opponent.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth
I called his office and they told me that he was up for re-election in 2014.
ReplyDeleteWell lets hear it "gone moderate". It seems that your points are as misleading as your chosen alias. If you have something to say then say it. Otherwise pay more attention and learn something.
ReplyDeleteMike
It sure is quiet out there. I guess gone mederate has no facts to add to his allegations.
ReplyDeleteMike
Mike, I think I know what "gone moderate" is referring to and why he doesn't expound upon them for clarification. He clings to lies and half truths to create concerns that aren’t real. In all factuality his statements had no bearing on the election of 2009 . . . and when you get beyond the shock value of an unexplained “fact” you might actually find that it can be used to support the candidate you are opposing.
ReplyDelete#1 - Anne Laughlin lived outside the city boundaries (by about a mile) because of a messy divorce. As a homeowner of a Duvall property, however, she was found eligible by court to retain her position on council while protecting herself and her daughter. The hit piece on Laughlin brought up the question, but not the answer. She is a wise and caring member of our community. That can be backed up with FACTS.
#2 - John Durant did carry a firearm (concealed in a back holster under his shirt) to a Little League game. The part that "Gone Moderate" doesn't care to explain is that John has a Conceal and Carry License, putting him in the small percentage of safest people in America, and that he was not breaking any Little League rules by bringing it to a game. He had been coaching his son's team, but when a concerned mother couldn't get past her fears of guns, he stepped down from his position, without asking for a hearing. Kids first!
#3 - Both John and Anne took the election results pretty well. It's not fair to call them sore losers . . . and since neither has blogs about political issues, this claim has no factual basis. What are you talking about?
-Carolyn Durant
Carolyn,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the insight.
Thomas
Im with mike
ReplyDeletewhenever "gonemoderate" is challenged he/she/it likes to move to a different subject or make one up.... then the cycle repeats. when will "gonemoderate" accept that he/she/it may not have all the answers.
-Wash
is that wash for washington?
ReplyDeleteactually its for Hoban Washburn
ReplyDeletea great pilot in one of my facorite movies
-Wash