Our Blog

Keep up to date with what is going on.

 

“I Pledge Allegiance to… The President?”

September 23rd, 2012

Several of Hollywood’s biggest celebrities have come out in recent days with a new version of the Pledge of Allegiance.  Specifically, they’re holding their right hands over their hearts and pledging allegiance to President Obama.

Actress Jessica Alba is leading the way.  She told the Washington Examiner:

“Growing up, my classmates and I started every day with a ritual.  We’d stand up, put our right hand over our hearts, and say the Pledge of Allegiance,” explains Alba. “To me, that gesture was a promise. A promise to be involved and engaged in this country’s future.  A promise to work for liberty and justice — and for affordable education, health care, and equality — for all.”

For her part, Alba is simply acting as one of the faces of the Obama campaign’s new “For All” promotion.  Obama supporters are taking pictures of themselves pledging allegiance to Obama with important issues written on their right hands — like “equal pay”, “cleaner energy”, and “women’s rights”.

But should we really be pledging allegiance to any one person?

Doesn’t the entire thing conjure up an image of a leader who is so blinded by power that he starts operating in his own best interests — instead of ours?  Regardless of your political beliefs, America is supposed to be greater than any one person.  It’s supposed to be a nation of “We The People”.

The key word there is “people”.  Collectively.  Exercising our natural-born rights.

No matter who is in charge, we aren’t supposed to pledge allegiance to him… We’re supposed to pledge our allegiance to something much bigger.

What is Redistribution?

September 23rd, 2012

In a much talked-about video from 1998 that has just surfaced, President Obama says “I actually believe in redistribution.”

But what does that mean?

Redistribution is a fancy word for creating level incomes in a particular society.  Specifically, you take money from the rich and give it to the poor.  Redistribution is the main focus of Socialism, because Socialists believe that everyone should be equal — regardless of how much they work or how much money they make on their own.

To a point, America already redistributes some of its wealth.  After all, money for welfare and other government assistance programs comes from tax dollars.  So, some of the rich’s money is already given to the poor.

However, what would happen if America were to place more emphasis on redistribution?

History gives us two big examples of where redistribution has been tried — and failed:

–        Henry VIII seized money from the Catholic churches in England and gave it to his supporters.  However, it still wasn’t enough to keep the country afloat.  Henry VIII wound up having to lower the value of the country’s coins — which led to massive inflation.

–        During the French Revolution, police took money from the wealthy citizens.  What they left behind, looters stole for themselves.  In the end, Louis XIV was beheaded, and France was left with a dictator in charge named Napoleon.

It made a nice catch phrase for Robin Hood, but is taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor what our forefathers intended for America?

While we can’t speak for all of them, we know that Thomas Jefferson was against it.  In a letter to Joseph Milligan in 1816, Jefferson wrote:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

Is Mitt Romney Right?

September 23rd, 2012

If you’re a loyal visitor to Our Voice Counts, you know that we’ve already debated whether or not America is becoming a society of moochers.

Turns out, GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney shares some of our thoughts.

Although it’s probably not the way he would have preferred the information come out, a video of a Romney fundraiser has been the talk of much discussion over the past few days.  On it, Romney talks about the people whom he can never convince to vote for him over President Obama.  According to Romney:

“There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.”

As of 2011, 46% of Americans paid no income taxes.  So, there are plenty of people who want to be PAID by the system — but aren’t willing to PAY INTO the system.  Romney mentions these people by saying:

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives…”

Even though the video was leaked without his knowledge, Romney has stood by his comments.

So, is he right?

Has America turned into a “me-first” society?  Are Americans simply looking for a handout?  Has it really been that long since John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country,”?

Regardless of what you think about Mitt Romney’s political beliefs, is he right?  Is a huge portion of Americans dependent on the government?  What would our forefathers think about that?  More importantly, what do YOU think about that?

Protesting Everyone?

September 4th, 2012

If you turn on coverage of the Democratic National Convention this week, you’ll undoubtedly see protesters getting some air time.  In fact, so far, there are more DNC protestors than there were at the RNC last week — a major surprise to many a political pundit!

The DNC hasn’t even started yet, and Occupiers have more than 100 people living in their encampment.  Several hundred protestors marched through Charlotte’s business district on Sunday, spouting off views about everything from the war in Afghanistan to immigration.

It’s an interesting turn of events, considering that President Obama has always been vocal in his support of protests like these — especially when it comes to the Occupiers.  In fact, when the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations began last year, the President said, “We understand their struggles, and we are on their side.”

So, why aren’t Occupiers on his side?

In fairness, the Occupiers are not fans of the GOP, either.  In fact, many protestors went straight from Tampa (and calling Mitt Romney the “king of the 1%ers”) to Charlotte.

So, why are they protesting EVERYONE?  What is it that they WANT?

That’s an answer that’s tough to get.

In fact, there seems to be as many opinions as there are protestors.  At best, the Occupiers send a mixed message — shown off most glaringly by their attacks on corporate greed, all while snapping pictures with their iPhones.

But that’s not all they’re against.  They also don’t like housing evictions, nuclear weapons, and the hopelessness of the nation’s unemployed workers.

The problem?

Without a solid, cohesive message, they’re confusing people more than encouraging them to join in.  And, by being against everyone on both sides of the political aisle, who do they think is going to solve their problems?

Regarding Obama’s eligibility

August 29th, 2012

Friends,

Regarding Obama’s eligibility:

Briefing by Lord Monckton – 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, England – hereditary peer of the Royal Monarchy, policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher;  “Obama birth certificate a forgery”, “GOP treasonous for inaction.”  His full PDF briefing can be found at this link: http://www.moncktononline.com/images/peers-briefing.pdf

Patrick Leddy

Article:

A SAD FAREWELL TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Exclusive: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley calls GOP treasonous for eligibility inaction

 

 

Hot Topics

Keeping The Idea of America Alive!
get in touch
HomeAbout UsContactPhotosSitemap
back to top