http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtOm9UXfnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS-BziPW6FQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFG6W2_iiQE
—
During President’s week, the military and our two most recent Presidents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw
Also posted at: http://www.armyparatrooper.org/dropzone/showthread.php/22772-How-Marines-wel
—
From: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2014/02/19/concealing-evil-n1796179/page/full
“Concealing Evil
Walter E. Williams |
February 19, 2014
Evil acts are given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions, such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution, caring for the less fortunate, and the will of the majority. Let’s have a thought experiment to consider just how much Americans sanction evil.
Imagine there are several elderly widows in your neighborhood. They have neither the strength to mow their lawns, clean their windows and perform other household tasks nor the financial means to hire someone to help them. Here’s a question that I’m almost afraid to ask: Would you support a government mandate that forces you or one of your neighbors to mow these elderly widows’ lawns, clean their windows and perform other household tasks (This use to be done voluntarily by neighbors helping and caring for one another!—my addition)? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as fines, property confiscation or imprisonment? I’m hoping, and I believe, that most of my fellow Americans would condemn such a mandate. They’d agree that it would be a form of slavery—namely, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another (It would be and slavery is outlawed by Amendment XIII!—my addition).
Would there be the same condemnation if, instead of forcing you or your neighbor to actually perform weekly household tasks for the elderly widows, the government forced you or your neighbor to give one of the widows $50 of your weekly earnings (There should be! It is called stealing! It may be sanctioned by the State, but it is still stealing! Which is what the federal government does under the present income tax system!—my addition)? That way, she could hire someone to mow her lawn or clean her windows. Would such a mandate differ from one under which you are forced to actually perform the household task? I’d answer that there is little difference between the two mandates except the mechanism for the servitude. In either case, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another (I would rather do the labor than have my money confiscated/stolen!—my addition).
I’m guessing that most Americans would want to help these elderly ladies in need but they’d find anything that openly smacks of servitude or slavery deeply offensive. They might have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced (taxed) to put money into a government pot. A government agency would then send the widows $50 to hire someone to mow their lawns and perform other household tasks. This collective mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it doesn’t change the fact that a person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of others. Putting the money into a government pot simply conceals an act that would otherwise be deemed morally depraved (It shouldn’t but I’m afraid he is right! We have become desensitized to the criminal action of the government! Government money should be used for government purposes! And “helping” others no matter how noble is not a purpose of the federal government according to the Constitution!—my addition) .
This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, confiscation and intimidation (And force if necessary!—my addition), to accomplish what are often seen as noble goals—namely, helping one’s fellow man. Helping one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets to do so is laudable and praiseworthy (And is called charity!—my addition). Helping one’s fellow man through coercion and reaching into another’s pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation (Yes, it is! And GOD does condemn it!—my addition). Tragically, most teachings, from the church (NOT GOD’S church! Religious organizations, yes. GOD’S church no! By definition GOD’S church does not and can not condone stealing!—my addition) on down, support government use of one person to serve the purposes of another; the advocates cringe from calling it such and prefer to call it charity or duty (By definition, charity can not be forced! It must be freely given or it is not charity!—my addition).
Some might argue that we are a democracy, in which the majority rules. But does a majority consensus make moral acts that would otherwise be deemed immoral (According to the federal courts, the federal courts have the power to deem immoral behavior to be moral! The courts are wrong!—my addition)? In other words, if the neighbors got a majority vote to force one of their number—under pain of punishment—to perform household tasks for the elderly widows, would that make it moral (NO!—my addition)?
The bottom line is that we’ve betrayed much of the moral vision of our Founding Fathers. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who had fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison rose on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, ‘I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents (Because there is none!—my addition).’ Tragically, today’s Americans—Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative—would hold such a position in contempt and run a politician like Madison out of town on a rail (Not all of us!—my addition).”
The income tax system has been adulterated far beyond the purpose and intent of Amendment XVI! And we the people have allowed it to happen! Does the ends justify the means?
—
This is my two part suggestion to Tea Party groups, social conservatives, Constitutionalists, and anyone else who wants to save our Republic from the approaching destruction.
1) Run as many conservative candidates in as many Republican primaries as possible.
2) Then, run as many independent and/or third party candidates as possible in as many races as possible where we did not win the primary.
That is why I am working to get the Constitution Party on the ballot in Texas. If we get on the ballot, we will have two Congressional House candidates running and two State candidates running. Getting on the ballot is the first step. Winning elections is the second. Winning elections will grow the Party. The Constitution Party is much more in line with the Tea Party movement than is the Republican Party. And I have been involved with all three!
—
The Constitution Party of Texas website: http://cptexas.us/home/
—
If elected to Congress, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for present Speaker of the House John Boehner to be Speaker of the House. I call on every Republican primary candidate running in Texas Congressional District 19 to publicly (in writing) make the same pledge. It would not be a bad idea for every Republican candidate running for the House of Representatives to give the same pledge. See my post at http://christiangunslinger3.blogspot.com on December 16, 2013 entitled “Speaker of the House John Boehner Attacks the Tea Party Again for Being Fiscally Responsible!”
—
If I am elected to the House, I will use the Constitution, as written, to do everything in my power to stop judicial tyranny! Will the other candidates pledge the same? I know our present Representative has NOT done everything possible to stop judicial tyranny! Why is that?
—
If elected to Congress, I pledge that I will do everything within my authority as a member of the House of Representatives to begin and complete impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States for violating the Constitution, the laws of the United States as passed by Congress, and his oath of office. I call on every Republican primary candidate running in Texas Congressional District 19 to publicly (in writing) make the same pledge. It would not be a bad idea for every Republican candidate running for the House of Representatives to give the same pledge.
—
Competition is good for the economy and competition is good for the Republican Party!!! Competition keeps Congressmen committed to we the people!!! Primary Republicans who do not support the Constitution as written.
—
The Constitution Party of Texas website: http://cptexas.us/home/
