If it’s Friday…

it’s Talking Points with the Founding Fathers!

So the headline on Drudgereport. com reads:

“Combat troops to get gay sensitivity training”

“American combat troops will get sensitivity training directly on the battlefield about the military’s new policy on gays instead of waiting until they return to home base in the United States, the senior enlisted man in Afghanistan said Thursday.

The Pentagon is launching an extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units…”

The rest of the story is here:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/combat-troops-to-get-gay-sensitivity-training/?page=1

That’s a great way to spend our tax dollars, isn’t it?  Well, if this is the new wave of “compassion”, then why can’t we force “US troops sensitivity training” in our schools and esteemed institutions of higher learning?  What a surprise the majority of our graduating seniors would have to learn our soldiers actually do more than, what is it the left says??, oh, “kill innocent women and children”!  That leads me to another question.  Why does the mislead mainstream media always say they kill “women and children”?  Do men have no place in society anymore?  Do they not die in combat?  Only the women and children?  Right.

Back to the “US troops sensitivity training” idea:  Would the next generation have a higher respect for those that keep them safe at night if they knew the truth?  I believe so.  Would they value the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? I believe so. 

Would they really be able to understand how families sacrificed and lost loved ones if they knew the truth?  I think so.  Would many stop and look at our current government and see what is happening right in front of our eyes, if they knew the truth about our troops?  Again, I believe they would.

Just asking the tough questions here!  Just wanting to make people think about the garbage coming into their livingrooms night after night after night.

Patrick Henry

“Give me liberty, not liability.”

Advertisements

About Patrick Henry

"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to If it’s Friday…

  1. Jae says:

    Superb post, stylish page template, maintain the great work

  2. Tim L. Smith says:

    I generally agree Publius. However, as with any social engineering, it’s only a matter of time before what appears to be “not normal” becomes “normal,” and visa versa. This has been going on since the founding. Example, State’s were represented by Senators as a check and balance against federal power. However, through social engineering (17th Amendment) it’s now normal that citizens vote for Senators, which has greatly undermined state sovereignty, a Progressive move. As you spoke early on at the Virginia Ratification debates, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” I say invoke the latter of Article V.

  3. Goose says:

    Really Mr. Smith? If it wasn’t for the 17th Amendment would Jesse Helms ever have become a Senator? When power is transferred to the people of the state from our gerrymandered Representative State Government, it may be indeed be social engineering, but that doesn’t make it a bad thing. I take it that you think having Senators elected by the State government is superior to direct election by all the citizens of the state? Direct election undermines state sovereignty? I understand that repeal of the 17th Amendment is a Tea Party goal but I fail to follow the reasoning that it would restore power to the states or even that transferring power back from the citizens to the states would be a good thing. Would you care to explain why you think that way?

    • Tim L. Smith says:

      Thanks so much for your comment Goose. I am not Tea Party member, I am independent. To answer your question, the intent of the founders was that the Nation as a whole would be represented by the President, the citizens would be represented by the House and the States would be represented by the Senate. The 17th Amendment undermined this balance by weakening the voice of the state governments. The 17th Amendment has played a significant role in advancing centralized power with the Federal government. Senators are no longer obligated to their states, but to their donors. Otherwise Senatorial candidates would not hold fundraisers. The intent of the founders was to keep Senators from being bought off, as they are today. Professor Todd Zywicki of George Mason University Law School said that,

      “The Senate once played an active role in preserving the sovereignty and independent sphere of action of state governments….rather than delegating lawmaking authority to Washington, state legislators insisted on keeping authority close to home….as a result, the long term size of the federal government remained fairly stable and relatively small during the pre-17th amendment era.”

      I believe the founders got it right. As it relates to the progressive era that passed the amendments to centralize power in the federal government, pay close attention to the sources from which those ideologies derive.

  4. Goose says:

    So basically Mr. Smith you are saying that the citizens can’t be trusted to elect directly but state legislators elected by those same citizens can be? Yes I realize that I sound like one of those “Power to The People” nuts, but history tells me that the system was not performing as designed. “Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. In the worst case, Delaware failed to elect from March 1899 to March 1903; by the end of this period both of Delaware’s seats were vacant for two years.” -Wikipedia
    I will grant you that IF the State Legislators were honest upright citizens the original system was superior, these elite gentlemen could do a better job of selecting Senators to represent State interests than citizens in general. We both know this is not always the case. So now a US Senator has to raise funds to be elected. Pre-17th Amendment Senators were never bribed and owed allegiance only to the state legislators who were also bribe and deal proof. (Sarcasm)
    I never meant to imply that you are a member of the Tea Party, several so called leaders of the Tea Party have made similar comments about the 17th Amendment, but I know it honks me off to be taken as a Canada Goose just because this proud Snow Goose happens to be flying in the same direction as a gaggle of Canadas.
    In closing I just want to repeat the question: if it wasn’t for the 17th Amendment would Jesse Helms ever have become a Senator?

    • Tim L. Smith says:

      Thanks Goose. You are absolutely right in your reference to “honest, upright citizens.” The founders admitted that our Republic would fail if people in government were not virtuous. The oath of office, at all levels, has become a mere formality. I truly believe now that our form of government is a soft fascist oligarchy, state and federal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s