1 - 5
I see here clear demonstration of federal government usurping the social functions of churches—and in a sense, establishing religion. No wonder socialists tend toward secularism. They see churches as competition. The problem? Government sponsored social services receive funding from tax money. We have no choice in whether or not our treasure goes to support those services—good, bad or bogus. (Besides, in deed, they almost always grossly distort the word 'service'.) Thus we see why government should never be involved with establishing religion—even of the secular kind.
Our guns constitute a serious obstacle to them getting all the control they want. Curiously, that's the very threat the Second Amendment anticipated.
On the one hand, we see some trying to circumvent the Constitution, thinking the Second Amendment an obstacle to public safety. On the other hand, we see others struggling to defend the Constitution, thinking the Second Amendment an essential component of freedom. So, which of these groups actually sustains the Constitution? And what implications follow when those “bound by Oath … to support [the] Constitution” endeavor to overcome it? If they can hold such contempt for one piece, then how can we trust them to value any of the the rest of it? The real threat we face is not from guns, but from control-hungry authorities conspiring to rob our inherent freedoms. It's no wonder they want to “infringe” our right “to keep and bear Arms”. Our gun
In response to:

Demography Is Destiny

BewilderedOne Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 5:12 PM
Thanks for noticing the similarity of Obama's success to that of Chavez's. It's comforting, if only a little, to know that I am not just imagining it. It should be no surprise when the economic trajectory of our loved nation follows that of Venezuela.
It's one thing to have the separate States model Health Care policy after that of Massachusetts, quite another for the Federal Government to require it from above. And that makes all the difference.
1 - 5