Posted on 01/15/2002 5:09:42 AM PST by captnorb
I believe we need to stand up as a Christian nation and not accept the paganism supported by this government.
Jesus gave us free will and it's up to us to use it, not up to Him to use it for us. We are going to be graded on this test.
What I'm saying is no easy task, it means being different. It means voting for change and not just so the other guy doesn't win.
There are many people running for offices that would support our Constitution. Our Constitution defines our God given Rights and provides protection for them. It is a timeless document and not outdated as our government would want You to believe.
Hold our politicians accountable for their actions, don't make excuses for them, they are supposed to be America's best. Expect that of them.
Then we need to get the government out of our schools and churches.
Incorporation goes back to before 400BC in Greece. Caesar made good use of incorporation, as did England and now America. Incorporating gives the federal government economic control over your church and school, holding the threat of losing your tax exempt status or federal funding. Churches are TAX FREE but foolishly accept tax exemption from the government putting man above God and silencing His Word.
Our problems can be easily solved with common sense and education. We DO NOT need a world body to think for us.
Peace
I still stand by what I said, so I Thank You.
Peace
The "Bookmark Article" link appears right below the article and right before the first reply, just to the right of the "Report Abuse" link.
I watched Freedom Now [Civil War Later] about the road to independence for India and Africa between 1947 and about 1975. It struck me how different those nations' struggles and successes were and are, after gaining independence, compared to the United States. The main reason, in my opinion, is that our country had a rather more common than not belief in Christ as Redeemer among so many colonists who fought and who helped strike out for freedom and form the new government. Also, the American Founders had studied government and worked at length to establish a sensible, non-royal self-government. India and Africa were largely unprepared to wield the power that comes at the top of a self-governing nation, and what we would call "the bad guys" rushed in to fill the vacuum.
I love our flag beyond words, and most of all, I love the red stripes, for to me they symbolize the blood of every human being who was injured or died fighting to make this country what it is, a bastion of freedom and a hope for the whole world.
Keep the Faith for Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC
Greg
....you didn't need me to tell ya that much, either; but, I have anyway.
Jane Fonda did not matter. The broadcasting of the images of Jane Fonda providing comfort to the enemy is what mattered. You will say that I advocate censorship of the news. I say that, if you don't have a broadcast license, everything that you want to broadcast is censored already. Nothing could be more obvious, than that any fear of censorship of broadcasting is a chimera--broadcasting is heavily regulated and the government is responsible for what is broadcast.
You may say, "but surely broadcasting the news is important to our democracy"--but I reply that our republic is specifically designed not to require it.
You may say, "but broadcast journalism tells us pretty much the same things that print journalism does, only faster. What's wrong with that?" I reply, that begging the question by journalists does not make journalism identically equal and coextensive with "the press" as the First Amendment uses the term. Freedom of the press unambiguously applies to book publishing, and most print journalists do not have broadcast licenses and are therefore censored out of that medium. "Freedom of the press" exists; "Freedom of the wireless transmitter" does not.
You may say, "but broadcasting as we know it would not exist if there were no government-mandated broadcast bands." And I say, "Exactly!" What does it mean, when the people prefer to learn current events not by reading between the lines of in-principle-distrusted printers but by purchasing government-standardized tuners and receiving government-sanctioned "truth" (including misleading information about the results of elections still actually in process)?
Can we seriously think that that is not a governmental evasion of the "Congress shall make no law" limitation on government control of communication? After all, "freedom of the press" does not mean "free attention from the public;" government-sanctioned oligopoly broadcasters have powerful publicity advantages over the unlicensed "great unwashed". That is a situation which the First Amendment aimed to, and did, preclude--until the advent of the FCC.
I suffer from typical male syndrome. Why read directions when I have a wife and other women to do it for me!
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.