Post by Nathaniel DubeCurrent law prohibits citizens from running ads criticizing elected federal
office holders by name within 60-days of an election. Nothing could be more
contrary to the principles of a free society and representative government.
Fortunately, Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R.-MD) has re-introduced his
“First Amendment Restoration Act” to repeal these restrictions on free
speech and political dissent. Click here
<http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=17> to send a message to your
representatives asking them to co-sponsor HR 689.
There are lots of laws contrary to a free society.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
---
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
Isn't it high time to join The Resistance?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice
Our civil liberties were slipping away long before Patriot Act
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PatriotAct.shtml
----
"
In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge
implicitly and explicitly two key truths:
The first is that government does not grant rights it acknowledges them.
They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we
are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the
only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
The second is that government is a servant to whom we delegate powers,
not a master who dispenses privileges. The Constitution carefully
enumerates the powers we, the people, delegate to our government and it
specifically denies that government any powers not so delegated. Our
rights lie beyond the pale of that delegation. They are sacrosanct. Any
government which infringes upon them is engaged in an intolerable
usurpation.
"
www.badnarik.org
-----
A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government was
not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e., your
pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right" to
health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in the
way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your obtaining health
care. The "right" to an attorney means that the government cannot
prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent you.
Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that some
slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health care
means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to own
guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
Gary Popkin,
NYC
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Rights.shtml