It is no secret that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been sitting on the edge of their seats waiting in anticipation for a president who will sign into law any and all legislation that comes out of the legislative branch. We are about to enter a period of an out of control, tax happy, deficit spending congress, with no checks and balances set to be in place. Nancy Pelosi is already promising major democratic seat gains in the House and there is a good possibility of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. On the surface, this appears to be a bad dream. The consequences of this however could be a nightmare with major assaults on the rights outlined by our founding fathers in the Constitution.I do not feel the need to reprint word for word the first and second amendments here. If you do not know them you probably should not be reading this. Freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms are the two key principles that the founders guaranteed us in the bill of rights. The return of the fairness doctrine is on the horizon. The fairness doctrine mandates that radio stations give equal time to any and all political parties who want it. The last time this was tried it failed and was ended when Reagan abolished it in 1987. This is appalling! Democrats want to take away our most essential right! This could have serious consequences on the economy as well. Many jobs will be lost in radio if equal time is required for every political institution. Radio stations will be forced to once again move away from political talk and opinion and only run public access like infomercials and ultimately more music. This could leave thousands of talk show hosts as well as behind the scenes production personal without jobs; another adverse effect of Senator Obama’s policies. Taking economics out of the equation; we can’t allow government to dictate what is and isn’t tolerable. If they are going to assault talk radio, then wouldn’t it be fair to also target the network news stations; NBC, CBS, and ABC? Are those not public airwaves as well? How about equal representation in PUBLIC streets. Will conservatives be allowed the same leniency that liberals get to protest? Will liberal protest groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. only be allowed to match in numbers the turnout of conservatives groups? Are you beginning to see how ridiculous government controlled “fairness” is? Let the consumer determine what is and is not fair. Most Americans realize that they have options, and that they are not forced to listen or watch anything, hence the word freedom!
How about that all important second amendment that the founders were adamant about inserting into the Bill of Rights? It is often stated by those who deny the 2nd amendment as a right today that it only applied to militias in time of war. Obviously those who argue this have never researched the words of the founders themselves. Many of delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress also advocated gun rights for individuals. Thomas Jefferson said in a proposal to the Virginia Constitution that “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” The New England hardliner, John Adams, a key figure and supporter of separating from England, also believed individual gun rights. In defense of the amendment Adams said that “arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.” But the most interesting words, probably those most relevant today, came from Thomas Paine; one of the greater writers of the American Revolution. Paine believed that “arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Now, the argument tends to be what the founders of our great country intended the 2nd amendment to mean. The words of the foregoing written above address a great deal of the thought and intent of the 2nd amendment. With that being said, I do support certain gun laws and detailed background checks and permits for firearm ownership, but over the years it has become apparent that the left in this country would rather do away with it altogether.
Will Senator Obama be the one to actually introduce these policies? Probably not. But he surely would not stand in the way of the congressional democratic majority and oppose such an attack on our Constitution. He has proven in the past that he doesn’t stray far from his party on such bi-partisan issues; why would he begin doing so as President of The United States?