Posted on 10/28/2003 1:09:13 PM PST by Marcus Alonzo Hanna
|
|
Dear Republican, Over the last few months, Laura and I have traveled the country and have been humbled by the enthusiastic support we have been given. Our country has faced many challenges in the last two and half years and we are meeting these challenges at home and abroad. We're defeating the enemies of freedom. And at the same time, we're confronting challenges to build prosperity for our nation and a more compassionate society.
We are meeting the challenges of our time but there is much more to be done and I need your support. Will you join me in these efforts by volunteering for my re-election campaign as a Bush Team Leader? http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/ As a Bush Team Leader you will be asked to help by volunteering at local events, hosting your own events, registering new voters, turning out voters on Election Day and more. Most importantly, you will be asked to recruit more Bush Team Leaders to help us win in November 2004. Please sign up to be a part of this important effort today. http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/ The challenges we face cannot be met with timid actions or bitter words. They will be overcome with optimism and resolve and confidence in the ideals of America. We are acting to advance human freedom and liberty and making the world and America more secure. We took action to create jobs and get the economy growing again. We acted on principle. You did not send me to this office to mark time. You sent me here to restore dignity and honor to the White House and to help build a safe and prosperous and caring nation. Will you join me in this effort by becoming a Bush Team Leader and volunteer your time? http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/SignUp/ I want to thank you for the work that you will do in the months to come. There is no question in my mind that with your help we are laying the foundation to win a great victory in November of 2004.
P.S. Again, thank you for making my campaign strong at the grassroots level all across the country. I am grateful to the over 300,000 Americans that have contributed to my campaign and the millions more who've signed up on the campaign email list. And I am grateful to everyone that chooses to volunteer in support of this effort. I need you to make certain your friends and family register to vote. I need you to make phone calls, send emails, help organize rallies, put up signs, and get out the vote. I need you to volunteer in my campaign today. |
No, you got yourself, again.
All I have on my side is the Constitution...
No you don't:
The Constitution, to a large degree, is whatever at least five Justices (a majority) interpret it to be at any given time, based on their ideology, and regardless of what the Founders intended or the expectations of the citizenry (that includes you).
Ah, isn't that sweet. Well, Mr. Prez, it works both ways here --- you scratch our back and we'll scratch yours. .....So start scratchin'.
The Contract With America energized the conservative base in '94 and look at how much was accomplished at the polls...I don't see where conservative policies cost us at all, especially when properly explained by good candidates who sincerely believe in the virtues of limited government.
"Governing requires compromise, particularly when one is protecting the polical viability of their chief priorities."
The problem as I see it is that the we're always compromising to the Left, and the Federal Leviathan continues to grow with no end in sight, no matter which Party is in control. I guess I just expect better outta the GOP.
FReegards...MUD
Was this the same Clinton that froze pay raises for the military?
Was Clinton a President that entered into office after eight years of gross neglect to the infrastucture of our most vital resources?
Bill Clinton was handed the fruit of 12 years of solid, smart government policies, and he left behind the kind oif mess we have today.
By the way Mud, did you just catch yourself praising Bill Clinton?
Try doing some reading:
Here's where I have a problem with this line of thought. I took an oath to defend the Constitution when I enlisted in the Army. Let's say hypothetically that one day years from now, the Supreme Court rules that the gun-grabbing groups which define the "militia" as each state's respective national guard is the correct definition, and that firearm ownership by citizens is hereby illegal. At this point, am I justified in using deadly force to defend that right as I interperet it, rather than how the SCOTUS defines it, using Constitutional rights as my justification?
Keep in mind, the Founding Fathers made the wording of the Constitution simplistic for a very good reason.
I have a big problem with it, as well, but I think it's accurate.
Let's say...the Supreme Court rules....that firearm ownership by citizens is hereby illegal.
It looks like that will happen using the law and the Constitution to accomplish it incrementally.
At this point, am I justified in using deadly force to defend that right as I interperet it, rather than how the SCOTUS defines it, using Constitutional rights as my justification?
They will use that to their advantage any way they can.
Keep in mind, the Founding Fathers made the wording of the Constitution simplistic for a very good reason.
We know that but they don't care and they will continue to use the courts to advance an agenda that can not be advanced legislatively.
I'm not praising Slick Willie...it's just that we are so happy to have a GOPer in office that we seem willing to accept out-of-control spending that we'd be excoriating if it was done by the RATS. Shouldn't we expect more from the guys we put in Power?!
FReegards...MUD
They will use that to their advantage any way they can.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Could you please clarify that a bit?
You need to use better words then, because you used the word "crime" in your statement. When we are able to label an individual's behavior as a "crime", the label is given after the formal charge by the state or federal government. When a crime is charged, a trial ensues. The point I made was that after the Alien and Sedition Acts was enacte by Congress in 1798, immigrants and other non-citizens could be deported without a trial. In otherwords, proof of a crime wasn't even a standard for deportation.
You will playing into their set-up. You will create their martyrs. It will all be filmed and documented, more gun control laws will be passed by "popular demand" and more nails in the coffin will be driven. They would love for people to "take the law into their own hands" and they won't care who dies in the process, IMO.
My point in using this paradigm, was that your statement saying that immigration laws have never been more strict than they are now, was inaccurate. The fact is that even after September 11th, immigration laws are not much stricter than 10 years ago, and certainly no more stringent than the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, or the National Origins Act of 1929.
If the current immigrations laws were actually stricter than "ever before", than the United States would have banned all immigration from all countries known to harbor or appease terrorist cells, because that would have then been at least equivalent to the past immigration laws I had listed above.
Yes you are right, but that was a different time. The Republicans could mobilize, partially off the energy that was anti-Clinton. I guess we can't know for sure, but while the Dems have their anti-Bush base, a combination of their inept politics and Bush's agenda have prevented them from growing that base.
The problem as I see it is that the we're always compromising to the Left, and the Federal Leviathan continues to grow with no end in sight, no matter which Party is in control. I guess I just expect better outta the GOP.
I don't disagree, there have been compromises where I would prefer that hadn't been. But I can't minimize the success Bush has had in leading the country after September 11, the recession and the Wall Street crooks. Nor can I forget the political risks he took in winning back control of the Senate. (I know some say that hasn't mattered, but taking the leadership away from Daschle was victory enough for me.)
I am happy that Bush is positioning himself to have four more years to attack some of the domestic issues that have gone ignored and to replace the Supreme Court justice(s) that likely will retire. So I don't disagree with your take, I guess I just balance it differently.
He isn't. Gonzalez runs his own radio show and is probably in his 40's.
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.
