AmeriKa

2003-12-12 04:29:00

Larry writes when commenting on the Supreme Court upholding the Campaign Finance Reform:
"Welcome to AmeriKa."

JJ:
I feel the same way Larry. Both parties plus the Supreme Court have let us down and supported the restriction of free speech.

It prohibits the placing of political ads for 60 days before the election except for the candidates. Some call this the incumbent protection act.

This is 100 times more the concern for me than the Patriot Act. This concerns, not the second amendment, the third or the fourth, but the first. Free speech is the first because it is the most important.

The troubling thing is that now the Supreme Court has upheld a violation of the First Amendment on one matter there is nothing to prevent them from doing the same on other matters. If the courts now come across speech they do not like they can just declare it illegal regardless of the Constitution.

Joseph Smith predicted a time when our constitution would hang as it were upon a single thread and this law is taking us this direction.

John C:
Gee, I wonder who signed that bill into law?

JJ:
Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform into law. No wondering is necessary. He had been against it but gave into all the public pressure, as well as pressure from associates in Congress. Many in Congress reluctantly supported this law because they thought it would score points with constituents but then be shot down by the Supreme Court. They were wrong on the second point and hopefully the first.

John:
This is why I said that you can't trust either side. Why bother voting, indeed! But, isn't what they want us to do? Sit back and do nothing?

JJ:
No one is saying we should trust politicians. Everything they do must be examined on a case by case basis by the people.

It is still important that we vote, for one candidate will always be closer to the side of truth than the other. Those who do not vote are like those who do not participate in decision-making. Without personal participation in decision-making the person will be 100% subject to the decisions of others.

There are things that can be done to influence the powers that be toward the good, but as of now the lights do not have much power in this direction. This shall change soon.

John:
I would like to make a prediction. No, it's not prophecy, it's just an observation that history repeats itself. Some of the most liberal policies enacted in this country came under Nixon, leading to the election of Carter. Ronald Reagan got us back on track again, then we elected Bush, Sr. and more liberal policies, leading to the election of Clinton. I'm afraid our "Initiate" is doing the same thing again, so my prediction is he will be a one-term president, the Democrat candidate will win by the tiniest of margins, and he will be a terrible president. Then, perhaps after that, we will get another Reagan again.

JJ:
Let me clarify again that initiates are far from perfect, especially those below the third. You may even have two second degree initiates as sworn enemies against each other.

It is interesting that Bush's enemies call him a right wing extremist yet on social issues he has been more liberal than Clinton as far as the legislation he has supported. To label a president as a right wing extremist when he is more liberal than about 70% of the population is indeed a propaganda coup on the part of the democrats.

Even so Bush has been vigilant on the War on Terror and the economy is on an upswing. Unless a wild card surfaces I see Bush winning by a wide margin.

John:
I don't see two sides to this issue. I see one side pretending to be two sides, pretending to give us a choice. There is a "right" side, but I don't seem them organizing or becoming visible. I see them sitting on their hands, neutralized, turned off, thinking they are powerless.

JJ:
Both sides have similar weaknesses, but I still see two major sides with two major differing points of view. I think the differences are much more pronounced today than in the days of George Wallace where he stated there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. At that time I think he called it pretty close to the mark, but there is a couple dimes worth of difference today, especially concerning national defense.

I am personally not thrilled with either party, nor any of the third parties.

John:
JJ mentioned in one of the gathering talks about the need for a molecule to be self-correcting, or self-adjusting. I believe TJ was contemplating this very subject when he made those remarks about the "blood of patriots". Our form of government has all kind of ways to "adjust" its make-up -- some minor and some major. We have been making a lot of minor tweaks, but a major one is long overdue.

JJ:
All governments rise and fall but the molecular relationship will establish correction in a way that has not been seen before. The correction will happen long before the organization reaches the point of despair or possible collapse.

Do not look to the politicians for a correction in government. This time round it must happen though the grass roots of the people or it may not happen at all.

Movements will spring forth. Some good and some bad. Let us hope the good guys win.

"No good deed ever goes unpunished." B. J. Hunnicutt "M*A*S*H"