Posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
We published an analysis on “Dollar Myths” in which we criticized spending habits in Washington:
"Interestingly, nobody seemed to focus on the fact that there is an unconventional solution to foreigners holding too much of our debt: live within your means and do not issue debt. Such an old fashioned concept would indeed strengthen the dollar. Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates at either side of the aisle seem to have heard of this notion."
We missed that there is indeed a presidential candidate who believes in the old fashioned view to “live within your means.” Our apologies go to Congressman Ron Paul, who threw his hat in the ring on March 12, 2007, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Ron Paul is the one member of Congress who is a true fiscal conservative. As a member of the House Committee of Financial Services, he does not hesitate to speak out against inflationary policies. On his campaign website, Ron Paul 2008, he writes:
“Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation… If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
(Excerpt) Read more at fxstreet.com ...
What Congress has done is end legislation that discriminated against religious organizations.
The constitutional and conservative way to stop discrimination would be to stop funding all of these organizations, not liberally funding _more_ of them.
The Constitution does not forbid it.
But I agree that the most conservative course would be to end all funding of any organization.
Stop playing stupid games how about it it's getting real old. Similar to another poster actually. We all know it was in the news. Keeping databases on FELON criminals is a legitimate use. Keeping such records on lawful activities however is not. For example not so long ago states purged driving records after 5 years. Not anymore. I've heard driver histories going back a long ways. Seems someone found some old records the state forgot to destroy and now in my state I hear traffic citations going back as far as 15 years. I bet you support traffic light Cams as well.
Check FR threads on Tennessee Income Tax or Tenncare/Tenn Care it is reliable information. My point was Frist used it in Medicare reform.
You're playing games.
Specifically, you keep on making reference to some big, spooky, scary database - but you have yet to actually identify this phantom database.
I ask again: what database are you talking about?
Number one is ISP records. And there are others. But then again you know that but you wish to continue playing trollish and childish games now don't you? Who is your other posting name?
Aaaargghhh!
You can continue claiming this all you want.
What is the name of this database?
Who administers it?
Which piece of legislation authorizes it?
I have never heard of this mythical database with medical records and ISP records and all this jazz you are talking about.
I am aware of the FBI databases, firearms registry databases, CDC databases, IRS databases, DoD databases, etc.
But this database you keep referring to does not exist!
They are databases the USAG keeps asking for. Stop playing games.
Provide a citation to a document in which such a database is requested by the USAG.
Database? What Database? (Big Brother & your medical records)
White House Seeks to Expand DNA DATABASE...
Gonzales pressures ISPs on data retention
Now wanna play some more games? I proved my point.
No, you've proved mine.
You have been implying for posts and posts now that USAG Gonzalez has called for some kind of a unified database containing everyone's ISP records, medical records, phone records, etc. and that this database is to be used for domestic spying.
The examples you cite tell a very different story.
Your first example contains an allegation - not a confirmation - that the NSA began creating a database of call records shortly after 9/11/01.
If this unproven allegation is correct, that places the initiation of this database well before Gonzalez was USAG.
Your second example references a a proposal for a network of healthcare records databases that would not be maintained by the federal government, but which would be maintained by health insurers, and which would be subject to the same doctor-patient confidentiality rules as paper files are.
There is no indication in your referenced article that USAG Gonzalez has requested the creation of this information system, and the system as described does not eleiminate privacy or privilege or put private data in the hands of the Justice Department.
Your third example relates to a proposed expansion of the preexisting FBI DNA database to include DNA samples from arrestees. The article claims this is pursuant to a Bush administration proposal, but does not give any checkable reference to such a proposal.
The timeframe again demonstrates that this is well prior to Gonzalez appointment as USAG.
Your fourth example is the only one that involves USAG Gonzalez and it is not a request for the building of a database or even a request for information. It is a request by the USAG that ISPs maintain their own internal records for a long enough period so that if law enforcement obtains a warrant for ISP records, they will still exist instead of having vanished into the ether.
Your examples show that USAG Gonzalez has never requested or even suggested some kind of unified database administered by the Department of Justice that would have unlimited access to citizens' phone, medical, DNA and ISP records.
You took four very disparate initiatives, the existence of two of which remains an open question, and conflated them into a mythical unified database neither USAG Gonzalez nor anyone else in the administration has ever suggested.
Bye bye TROLL.
I disagree as it prohibits Congress making laws to fund establishments of religion, and it reserves powers over religious activity to the states and to the people.
Your deception has been unmasked.
USAG Gonzalez has never even suggested, let alone requested, the creation of a national database containing warrantless access to citizens' private records.
You just made that up out of whole cloth.
Your pathetic response to my point-by-point analysis of the "evidence" you submitted for your claims shows how disingenuous you were.
Don't go away, but if you must, see if you could bring OrthodoxPresbyterian back.
You reveal for the nth time that you are unfamiliar with what the Founders meant by the term "establishment" of religion.
Consult the Federalist.
An "establishment" of religion is a scenario in which a specific religion - like the Episcopal Church was in pre-War Of Independence Virginia - is the official religion of the state (known as "The Established Church") and it is supported by direct taxation to the detriment of all other religions.
Creating a common fund which all religions and non-religious interest groups can draw on for charitable purposes is not establishing any specific religion.
Creating a common fund which all religions and non-religious interest groups can draw on for charitable purposes is not establishing any specific religion.
No, but it is a law respecting an establishment of religion. By the way, funds confiscated from taxpayers' income are inherently non-charitable as they are coerced.
A law establishing a religion is a law saying: "The Episcopal Church is hereby declared the official religion of the state. The Episcopal Church and all its activities will receive exclusive government funding."
A law "respecting" an establishment of religion would not make the Episcopal Church or the Presbyterian Church the official state religion, i.e. establish it - but it would offer lesser privileges to it that other religions were not privy to and which would contemplate or respect it as if it were an established religion.
The law we are discussing does not single out any religion for establishment or even for such lesser privileges and advantages falling short of establishment.
By the way, funds confiscated from taxpayers' income are inherently non-charitable as they are coerced.
Fair enough. They are used for relief purposes, then.
Redistribution to establishments of religion inherently does this by taking earnings from people of one faith and giving it to other religious organizations.
The founders were wise to prohibit Congress from making such laws.
Again you play fast and loose with terminology.
There are no "establishments of religion."
You seem to be meandering between using the word "establishment" in the informal sense of "drinking establishment" or "flooring products establishment" and conflating it with the Constitutional meaning of "establishment" as "an organization privileged above others in law."
inherently does this by taking earnings from people of one faith and giving it to other religious organizations.
No it doesn't - because their own faith's service activities are also being funded or their faith's service activities have an equal right to apply for funding.
No one group is being privileged above others, no one group is being excluded.
I'm not leaving the thread or forum LOL. But I got better things to do than debate a GOP RINO Spinbot apologist. If Reno had been doing this the poster would be calling for a rope or at least removal. The fact that the USAG the highest person in the Department of Justice calls for and endorses highly questionable acts IMO says he is no better than Janet Reno but people overlook him because he's a Bush Choice.
It's not about right or wrong with such apologist it's about supporting their beloved political party over any Constitutional Principles which like Bush they consider a da** piece of paper to be subverted at their beloved leaders will I reckon. Never mind their parties elected has office holders as bad or worse than Clinton term DEMs. The leadership in the Democratic and Republican Parties left unchallenged by We The People will destroy this nation on their course to Socialism. Such apathy and enablers have paved the way in history for such tyrants as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc. They could not have gotten to power had the people not surrendered their rights to their Glorious Leader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.