WisdomWorld

One step at a time, we are reclaiming our civil rights. This is just a small step though. We need to put unlicensed carry back on the table and also push through a bill to declare Wyoming guns off limits to the federal government. It’s a start though…

An email dispatch from the NRA

Concealed Carry Reform Becomes Law in Wyoming!

On Thursday, March 4, Governor Dave Freudenthal (D) signed Senate File 26 into law. The bill is effective immediately.

Sponsored by State Senator Cale Case (R-25) and State Senator Eli Bebout (R-26), SF 26 will reform Wyoming’s concealed weapons permit laws regarding eligibility, reciprocity, and issuance of permits. This bill will limit the Attorney General’s ability to determine reciprocity by taking away his/her power to determine if that state has similar laws authorizing permits.

Please join us in thanking the sponsors of this bill, Senator Case and Senator Bebout, for all of their hard work and support. Also please contact Governor Freudenthal to thank him for signing such important legislation into law. Contact information for the Governor can be found here.

Senator Cale Case (R-25)

ccase@wyoming.com

Senator Eli Bebout (R-26)

senbebout@wyoming.com

www.NRAILA.org

Write Your Representative

Write The Media

Get Involved Locally

Register To Vote

Contribute

Follow NRA-ILA

NRA Facebook pageNRA Myspace Page
NRA Youtube page
NRAu
Twitter

Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030

If you wish to be removed from this list please click this link and you will be removed immediately:

Please note: In their efforts to curb SPAM, many ISPs, servers and SPAM filters treat legitimate and legal bulk emails as SPAM. In order to ensure you receive NRA-ILA email alerts in a timely manner, please adjust your SPAM settings to accept bulk emails from the “nraila.org” and “ilaalerts.org” domains. Otherwise, there is a possibility that our email alerts will not make it to your inbox.

A mentor once told me, speaking of the Republican Party, “This isn’t a religion for me. I’m a Republican because it’s the party that I believe is best suited to promote my values and my vision. If it stops being that party, I’ll find another one.” The abandonment of Dede Scozzafava by the conservative voters in her district is that threat put into action. If the Republican Party has moved so far away from its conservative base that it has turned to promoting liberals like Scozzafava over real conservatives, simply because they think they have a better chance of winning an election, then it is time for a change.

One of the fundamental issues that I have with today’s Republican Party is that we allow ourselves to be defined by liberals and the liberal press rather than defining ourselves. As a former county party chairman, I had to live with county and state by-laws that forbade party officials from endorsing candidates in the primaries. It never happened in my county, but the fact that I might have one day been forced to officially support a liberal candidate always festered in the back of my mind.

The problem is that the National Republican Party, together with state and local parties, spend more time, money and effort trying to include everyone in the “big tent” than they do standing by the core conservative values that should be guiding them. I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing the goal is to elect people with R’s at the end of their names. Obviously, without enough R’s the party loses majority control of government, but this ignores the reality that control by Republicans isn’t the real goal. The real goal is holding our nation true to the conservative principles by which it was created.

Talk Radio personality Andrew Wilkow likes to say, “Individual Patriot first. Conservative second. Republican third.” What he means is that it is our first duty to be individuals who support our country, that we can do that best by living and promoting our conservative principles, and that the Republican Party is the currently the best tool that we have to do it with. If the Republican Party ceases to be the best tool for that job, then we are left with a couple choices. We can throw out the tool and get a new one, or we can refurbish our current tool and make it work how it’s supposed to.

Throwing out the tool would mean abandoning the Republican Party altogether and forming or joining a third party. This is a difficult course to follow, but it isn’t unheard of. There have been several ruling political parties throughout our history including Democrat-Republicans (one party, not the same as todays), Federalists, Whigs, Democrats, Republicans and dozens of smaller parties that exist in smaller numbers around the nation. It might be rare in our national history for a new party to come out of obscurity and take power at the federal level, and it is a difficult proposition, but it’s not impossible.

Refurbishing the current tool is the more likely scenario and would mean bringing the Republican Party back into line with its historical conservative principles. In order to forward those principles, we need to elect conservative Republicans. Not liberal Republicans. Not moderate Republicans. Conservative Republicans. Conservatives must retake control of the Party at all levels — from local precincts, to the statewide parties, to the National Republican Party. To succeed, we will have to make a stand against mediocrity, and so called moderates, and refuse to vote for or fund candidates that don’t truly represent us, regardless of whether or not they registered as Republicans. The first battle we face is to get conservative candidates nominated in the primaries, and only then can we carry those candidates through to victory in the general elections. We have to make our voices be heard loud and clear, and not allow the biased liberal press agencies decide which candidates are going to win our support.

I think that conservatives will benefit most by using third parties to force change in the Republican Party. By selectively abandoning the Republican Party, conservatives can bring about enough pressure on party leaders to force them to rethink which candidates they will endorse and support in the future. By supporting independent and third party candidates that more accurately represent our conservative values and principles, as the people of New York’s 23rd Congressional district have done, we can send the GOP a message about what kind of candidates we will accept. Give us a real conservative candidate to support, and we will. Send us a wishy-washy liberal like Dede Scozzafava? We’re gone. If we do it consistently, each and every time, the Republican Party will figure out that they should only send us candidates that share our values. Anything else will be a waste of our time, their money, and an erosion of their power base.

By regaining control of our party, and only supporting candidates that we want to support, we can define the Republican Party ourselves instead of letting the liberals and the liberal press define it for us. If the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to carry our endorsement, then there is no reason for us to continue to be Republicans. We can throw our support behind a third party like New York’s State Conservative Party, or start a new one. If the Republican Party can retool, however, and show us that they can send us honest-to-goodness, conservative candidates, then we can continue to be part of the Grand Old Party. If we lose a few races in order to cement that position, then so be it. I would rather have a Democrat in office that we can challenge straight up in the next election than a sponge like Arlen Specter who sucks the party coffers dry, while voting with the Democrats anyway, and keeping the party from endorsing a real conservative candidate.

Conservatives are going to regain control of this country’s future and hold our country true to its conservative roots, regardless of the tools we use. The Republican Party just needs to decide whether it’s going to be the best tool for that job, or just a tool.

President Obama recently commented that the reason American K-12 education is falling behind other industrialized nations is because kids don’t spend enough time in school. His plan to save our education system from its slow death spiral is simple: on a national basis we should make school days longer and extend the average school year into more of the summer months. Really? The answer to returning our school systems to their once greater glory is to force our children to sit through even more hours upon hours of the liberal indoctrinal drivel that has displaced real teaching in our nations schools? Give me a break. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The spine of our public education system is broken, and no amount of Federal intervention is ever going to fix it. Why? Because it is the full weight of the U.S. Department of Education riding our education system pony style that broke it in the first place. Want to know how to fix it? Read on.

Primary school in open air. Teacher (priest) with class from the outskirts of Bucharest, around 1842.

Before we do anything, we as parents must step back and take stock of the fact that it is our individual responsibility to provide a quality education to our children, not the responsibility of the government. School districts were formed as tools to allow communities to pool their resources in order to assist parents in meeting that responsibility. The current system, which is governed by federal regulations and union contracts, has perverted that original purpose and replaced it with a behemoth of a machine whose goals have more to do with societization than education. The very school systems that we created to assist us have now usurped us, and dictate to us how our children should be taught instead of the other way around. The education of our children is our own individual responsibility. It easy to ignore that fact, but until we face it again as a people our education system is doomed.

What do we do about it? Simple. We take it back.

First of all, the U.S. Department of Education as it exists today needs to be abandoned. The federal government has no place in our public education system, and the very existence of this bloated, rotting bureaucracy is a slap in the face of every student, parent, teacher, administrator and locally elected school board member in America. Our school boards are elected by us to manage a school system that is owned by us, and they need to act that way. When the federal government decides that they are in charge, the elected members of our school boards have to stand resolute and do what they were elected to do. Represent us. If they won’t, they must be replaced. The U.S. Department of Education won’t go away on its own, but if communities across the nation turn their backs on them, and ignore them, they will become functionally impotent, with no more hold on our schools.

Part of the reason the U.S. Department of Education has gained such a stranglehold on our failing school system is that we became lazy. It’s too easy to sit at home, complaining that the system is a mess, and wondering when the government is going to fix it. As parents we have to hold our schools accountable again, and not to some federal agency, to us. We entrust our children to the school system because we believe that the specially trained teachers employed there are better able to teach our children, but how do we know? What do these people actually teach our kids? Reading? Writing? Math? Arguable considering the trending test results. Volunteerism? Activism? Socialism? Those seem to be common themes, but again, how do we know?

It is time that we demand an accurate accounting of everything that our educators are teaching our children. Every teacher must be required to inform every parent of what they intend to teach our children in their classrooms. Their syllabuses and talking points should be posted publicly, and be subject to parental review. If a teacher plans to spend their hour teaching my child how to solve simple algebraic equations, then the pre-class report will be nice and simple. A copy of the worksheet can be posted online on that class’s web page. If a teacher plans to explain to my child why a single payer health care system is preferable to a free market system, then they can post those talking points to the website as well. If the teacher plans to spend their hour teaching the proper construction of a functional irrigation system and instead the conversation turns to the effects of federal endangered species regulations on the local economy, that can be posted to the online class notes, too. These online class notes can be preserved year to year and be a tool for parents to decide what kind of a person they want teaching their kids. If we read them and find that a particular teacher manages to turn daily discussions of Shakespearean literature into daily discussions about the benefits of strong labor unions, we will be able to make educated decisions as parents as to whether or not this is the kind of person we want educating our children.

I know…you teachers out there are reading this and are up-in-arms right now screaming at me that we have no right to hold your occupation under a microscope. Too bad. You chose a profession where your actions will have a profound effect on the direction of the lives of our children. My children. And I want a say in how that education is provided. If putting your occupation under a microscope is the only way to do that, then so be it.

These are simple but important things that we can do to return our education system to its greater glory. Take back control of our childrens’ education from the federal government. Require adequate representation from the school board members that we elect to steward our schools. Demand accountability and transparency from our teachers. Not so tough, right?

Remember, your child’s education is your responsibility, and the school system is nothing more than a tool to help you provide your child the best education that you can. We can sharpen that tool, we can throw the tool out and get a new one, or we can throw the tool out for good and teach our kids at home. In the end, it’s our call. Either way, arbitrarily lengthening school days and school years on a national basis is just face makeup and yet another ploy to keep the power out of our hands and keep it in the hands of government.  That’s what got us into this educational conundrum in the first place.

Matt Drudge over at the DRUDGEREPORT pointed out this speech today from Governor Rick Perry of Texas dressing down the federal governments blatant disregard for the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and reaffirming states’ rights and sovereignty. It is refreshing to see a governor stand up to the federal government and demand a return to the federalism envisioned by our forefathers.

I called for the governors of the several states to stand up for their sovereign rights in my post from last week, and it looks like at least some of them are thinking along the same lines. This kind of thinking could get the governor a special file in the DHS’s rightwing fanatic watchlist though!

Let’s all join him. The first file to 100 pages wins!

WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACKS RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: “Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas.”

[VIDEO]

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Developing…

Governor Perry might only think that he is speaking for millions of Texans that are feeling oppressed by the Federal Government, but he is speaking for tens of millions of Americans that are feeling the same way. Find out where your local Representatives stand on HCR 50, and let them know that you want them to support it!

In the 25+ years since the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed into law by President Nixon it has been used like a shock collar to keep individual States from wandering too far away from the herd. I’s initial purpose was noble, but in the quarter century since its inception the ESA has been corrupted to such an extent that it is completely unrecognizable as a successful, manageable, or even Constitutional piece of legislation. Instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with dozens of environmental groups, to continually erode each States individual sovereignty, the States need to stand up to Washington and challenge their authority to impose this failed policy.

The purpose of the ESA is to protect species that are identified as threatened or endangered and the ecosystems that they depend on. There are some examples of success among the plants and animals listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. The most notable is the American Bald Eagle, whose population of just 417 pairs in 1963 increased to an extraordinary 11,040 pairs when is was delisted in 2007. Another is the Ursus arctos horribilis, also known as the good old Grizzly Bear, whose population in the Yellowstone area more than doubled from a measely 271 bears in 1975 to more than 580 in 2005. He was also delisted in 2007. In fact, there have been 19 success stories in the nearly three decades of protection given by the ESA to 1,891 species of plants and animals around the world. Yes, you read that correctly. There have been only 19 species removed from the endangered species list because their populations have recovered. That is a success rate of about 1%. For all of the taxpayer money that has been spent on 589 distinct recovery plans, and for all of the private property owners and businesses that have been bankrupted in the name of habitat protection and restoration, there have been only 19 success stories to come out of the Endangered Species Act. It is one of the most wildly unsuccessful government programs in history.

Species can be added to the list as threatened or endangered in one of two ways under the ESA. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), can directly list species through their candidate assessment programs. The second is by petition. Any individual or organization can petition the USFWS or the NOAA to list a species. Both processes are long, drawn out, and nearly impossible to accomplish. Did I say that there were only two ways? I forgot one didn’t I? The ESA only lists two, but our liberal federal courts have created another, and as a result, the new and preferred way to get a species listed is to file a lawsuit. The federal courts are clogged with lawsuits against the federal government, demanding that they list one species or another.

The listing process, however, is not nearly as long and drawn out as the process of delisting, and so far, only 45 species have ever been delisted. Presently, there are only six reasons that a species can be delisted. The first is extinction. Obviously, once an animal is extinct they don’t need federal protection anymore. Thankfully, only two species are known to have gone extinct while they were listed (7 went extinct before they were listed). The second way is when new populations are discovered that increase known population levels to a number that warrants delisting. That has happened five times. The third is taxonomic reclassification, which has happened ten times (I’m not even going to try to explain what that means, because I have no idea). The fourth is because of a listing rule violation, which has happened once and the fifth is by an act of Congress, which has happened once. The last is as a result of recovery, which has happened only 19 times in the history of the ESA (as we discussed earlier).

I have to admit though, that the number 19 is probably not really indicative of the number of species that have actually recovered. Realistically many more species probably should be delisted, but lawsuits have also become the new preferred way of making sure that no species ever gets taken off the list. It doesn’t matter if the species meets the population goals set by the biologists charged with their recovery, and it doesn’t matter if their habitat size expands to reach the goals set by their recovery plans. Either way, the conservation and the environmental groups that feed off the broken legislation file lawsuit upon lawsuit, blocking the delisting of even species that have recovered beyond even the most liberal benchmarks. The constant meddling by the courts in these matters have made the ESA almost completely unmanageable, and utterly useless as a tool protect endangered wildlife.

Ultimately though, the biggest problem with the Endangered Species Act is that it has no Constitutional foundation. The United States Constitution gives the federal government very specific powers, and nowhere among their number is the power to manage wildlife. The power to raise armies and declare war? Check. The power to mint coins and print money? Check. The power to protect interstate commerce? Check. The power to bankrupt a farmer and take the private land that his family has cultivated for six generations in order to create a viable habitat for the Southeastern Dismal Swamp Shrew and force its host state to spend millions of dollars on politically motivated, non-scientifically contrived, court ordered and unattainable recovery plans? Hold the check! Since the Tenth Amendment guarantees to the States any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, the individual States are Constitutionally empowered to manage their own wildlife without interference from Washington!

The reintroduction of wolves into the greater Yellowstone area by the USFWS, and the subsequent lawsuits that have prevented their delisting in Wyoming but allowing their delisting in Idaho and Montana, on completely political instead of scientific reasons, has presented fertile ground for a challenge by the States of this unsuccessful and unmanageable legislation. This is an opportunity for the individual States to reclaim control of their own jurisdictions, and put the out of control U.S. Congressional and Executive Branches back in their places. The Governors and Legislatures of each State should direct their Attorney Generals to immediately file suit against the federal government and to challenge the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment and infringes on the sovereignty of the individual States. This is a battle that should be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

It’s time to take off the leash that the federal government has put on our States, and retake control of our lands, our wildlife, and our rights. The Endangered Species Act, as it currently exists, needs to be made extinct. Individual States, who are much more qualified to manage their own wildlife populations, must retake the command they once held over their own jurisdictions, kick the Washington bureaucrats out of our forests, our swamps,  our deserts, our rivers and our lakes, and send them scurrying back to D.C. where they belong.

In a recent discussion, term limits came up as a topic, and as usual, I took a side. Personally, I am against Congressional term limits, and I said so. I believe they are nothing more than an attempt by one group of people to dictate to another group of people who they can, or more accurately in this case, can’t vote for. As is often the case when I defend my position against Congressional term limits, it was pointed out in the discussion that the President is limited to two terms. I was asked, as an opponent of Congressional term limits, if I also opposed Presidential term limits. The answer is, no, I don’t.  On the surface, the dichotomy between my two perspectives on term limits for the separate branches of federal government may look hypocritical at best, but to understand my viewpoint, a more in depth discussion about the nature of the elected offices is necessary.

First, as we all know, the members of the House of Representatives are considered to be the closest representatives to the people. This is evidenced by both the fact that they are subject to election every two years, and the fact that they typically represent more specific groups of people (districts). They are meant to be close and well known to those they represent.  As much as Nancy Pelosi makes me cringe, she is sadly quite illustrative of the people she represents in her home district (San Francisco, CA). I am more concerned that Democrats representing all the other districts in the nation would see fit to elect her their leader and put her in line for Presidential ascension. Term limits won’t protect us from that kind of stupidity, especially since her power has more to do with her success at getting supporters elected to key seats around the nation — thereby taking majority control of the House, and majority control of the House Democratic Caucus at the same time — than any power that comes from longtime entrenchment. As a result of this direct representation, I stand by my position against term limits on members of the House.

The Senate started a little differently. They began as appointed representatives of the states, chosen by each state’s legislature, and not by popular vote. It wasn’t until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1917 that Senators were elected by popular vote of the people, and became a body directly representative of the people. I won’t into detail about the corruption that spurred the change (just think of Governor Blagojevich and his attempt to sell Illinois’ open Senate seat multiplied by 96), but the 17th amendment clarifies their role as direct representatives of the people of their respective states. Their six year terms are meant to give them a little more insulation from mob rule, and create a little bit of stability in the government, even when the tides of populist opinion shift quickly. Since Senators are also direct representatives of the people, I stand by my position against term limits on their elections, also.

The President, however, is a different animal. The Constitution specifically creates a process of election for the President that removes him from a position of being a direct representative of the people. The Constitution clearly defines his role as that of The President of the United States. As much as we often like to think of him as such, he is not The President of the People of the United States. It might seem inconsequential, but it is an important distinction. Like Senators had been until 1917, the President is not elected by the people, but by representatives of the individual states, as determined by their respective legislatures. Until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, U.S. Presidents had always abided by George Washington’s unwritten rule that no President should serve more than two terms. FDR’s successful bid for four terms was enough to spur the adoption of the 22nd amendment, which limited future Presidents to just two terms. There were many underlying reasons for the amendment, but primary among them was to protect the nation from the future possibility that one man could hold the Presidency for so long that his individual power would grow to supersede that of the balanced government as a whole. Examples of the dangers of such power building at the executive level are abundant throughout the world. Since the President, as dictated by the Constitution, is not a direct representative of the people, and since the danger of allowing one man to stay in a such a unique position of power for too long is all to real, I support the term limits placed on the office by the 22nd amendment.

The framers of the Constitution weren’t perfect and they obviously didn’t think of everything. This is evidenced by the fact that we have 17 amendments beyond the Bill of Rights. But they outlined rules in the Constitution that allowed the members of each house to set rules for their members and punish the members who break those rules. There are systems in place to prevent corruption among our directly elected representatives. They are subject to both the rules of membership of their respective houses, and the laws of the land that are enforced by the executive branch and under the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not a perfect system but, when used correctly, it is an effective system.  The voters and citizens of the United States are best served by making sure that our elected representatives follow the rules already set forth, and most of all by making sure that the most qualified representatives are sent to Washington every two and six years. Term limits for those representatives would merely hobble the voters ability to make those decisions.

The other thing term limits won’t do is protect the rest of the nation from representatives from districts like San Francisco, and states like Nevada. Pelosi and Reid are quite illustrative of the people they represent. If they were forced out by term limits, the voters from those districts would send someone with another face, with another name, but with the same radical ideologies to serve in their place.

We don’t have a right to be protected from the will of an individual district or state, except as already outlined by the Constitution, and we don’t have the right to tell the people of other districts and states who they can and can’t have as their elected representatives. It is much more important, if you ask me, that we find a way to protect the rights of individual states from the will of the federal government. That is where the real battle is.

The United States border should be better protected. When the military of a foreign nation can cross our border and hold a U.S. law enforcement officer at gunpoint with no repercussions, we have a problem. At any other time in our nation’s history, that would have been considered an act of war. Now it’s just another in a long line of insults to our nation’s sovereignty. If we dared open fire in the event of such an invasion, big daddy U.N. would bend us over his proverbial knee and spank us till we bled billion$ in restitution.

Washington Times – Border patrol agent held at gunpoint .

This was forwarded to me via e-mail. Quite pointed and quite right!

-Wisdom

“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, and delusional folks who seem to be everywhere. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.”

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. 

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. 

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. 

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. Get an education and go to work. ..don’t expect everyone else to take care of you! 

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care. 

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. 

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure. 

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!) 

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. 

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! 

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution The phrase “IN GOD WE TRUST” is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

Fred Thompson has formed an exploratory committee to test the feasibility of a 2008 Presidential bid! It’s about time we Republicans have a candidate that we can be excited about.

Check out his official website at imwithfred.com

Donate to his campaign here.

Wisdom