I am not a genius, but the answer seems clear to me.

God stepped back and now we see what man can do on his own.

I don’t think its to late, but it’s real close.

First off, you’ve quoted the First Amendment to the Constitution. What’s the first word there? CONGRESS. It is CONGRESS that shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that is the issue currently at play. The mandate BY CONGRESS to force a religion to provide services and products that violate their STATED PRINCIPLES is a violation of this First Amendment Protection, and it is a clear violation BY CONGRESS. (Notice that I keep emphasizing the focus here: CONGRESS!!

Next, you challenge the application of my “Simplistic View” to other issues. “The Bible tells Christians that slavery is okay.” Really? That’s news to me. Not personally being a theological scholar, I’d love for you to tell me which verses in the Bible, specifically the New Testament, which deals with the fundamental beliefs of the CHRISTIAN Faith, that suggest that Slavery is acceptable. The fact that slavery existed at the time of Christ does not suggest an acceptance of it, even though there have been SOME “Christians” who have claimed that it’s Biblically Supported. As I recall from my experiences in the Church, Christianity as a Faith is centered on the teachings & acceptance of Jesus Christ, which includes that you should treat your fellow men with charity & respect, in a manner in which you wish to be treated. This doesn’t exactly scream “SLAVERY” to me. So, in my opinion, this barb of yours isn’t really a valid argument. You’re just trying to tick people off, which, I have to say, doesn’t bother me in the slightest. All you’ve done is reveal your ignorance on the subject.

As for the issue of the Ground Zero Mosque, I’d suggest that you travel back in time to my post from 8/18/2010 in which I point out the very hypocrisy that you are accusing me of having. (http://maverickvoice.com/2010/08/18/constitutional-consistency/) In my post on CONSTITUTIONAL CONSISTENCY, I state that President Obama was absolutely correct in his argument that Congress has no place approving or disapproving the Mosque; however, it was totally within the rights of the City & State to decide if it was in the best interests of their community to have such an institution built so close to Ground Zero, so long as it did not violate the State Constitution or City Charter. It was the community in New York that raised the biggest objection to it, and it is within the rights of that community to set the standard of decency. IN FACT, it is not a violation of the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION for States to impose restrictions on religion. The First Amendment addresses the authority of the FEDERAL Congress: not the State. Perhaps you should sign up for the free class on the Constitution currently being offered by Hillsdale College.

OR, you could just keep coming back here, Lance. Keep reading, and don’t be shy about commenting. I’ll keep on correcting your errors for you, and you just might learn something along the way.

What if we applied your simplistic view of this to other things? The bible tells Christians that slavery is okay, why shouldn’t Christians be outraged that the government is restricting their religious freedom by not allowing them to have slaves. Also, why wasn’t this argument brought up by the republicans when they wanted to build that mosque near ground zero.The hypocrisy here is ridiculous!

As for the “1% Control of the Media,” you’re not far off, but it isn’t a matter of wealth so much as philosophy. When you have the likes of George Soros (very wealthy/in favor of a “New World Order” with “One World Government” (Under Soros)) and Progressive groups like The Tides Foundation (supporters of Media Matters, ACORN, MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, the openly-socialist “Democracy Now!” and the openly-communist “Free Press”) pulling the strings, then, yes, the MEDIA becomes an instrument of spin, and it takes a lot not to get dizzy. Five minutes on MSNBC is enough to make my head explode, and while FoxNews WAS a very right-leaning news station, the assault on Fox by these organizations (and others) have forced them to “Moderate their tone,” removing a majority of their more Conservative and Libertarian “Talking Heads” and replacing them with the leftist mouthpieces who actually do openly spin the news. Oh, and let’s not forget folks like Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, who could stand in the middle of a snowstorm blaming Republicans for Global Warming and do it with a straight face, and it’s hard to tell where reality ends. But, yes, there is spin on both sides of the aisle. As always, it is the responsibility of the consumer to resist the influence and think for themselves. Unfortunately, that’s a little hard to do when the Media (the Press) acts as complicit mouthpieces for a corrupt administration instead of being what the Founders expected them to be: a watchdog FOR THE PEOPLE against corruption. Instead of serving as the “Fourth Estate,” they’ve become little more than the Obama Propaganda Machine, similar to what Woodrow Wilson had during the World War I with his “Four Minute Men.”

As for the issue of Campaign Funding, the money is there. Relying on Federal Funds is a fools bet because the deck is always going to be stacked against a 3rd Party. The only way a 3rd Party could break into the game would be with Private Sector Support, and it’s the Candidate that would defend the rights and freedoms of the Private Sector that would actually support the changes necessary to 1) fix the economy and 2) restore the Constitutional Limitations on the Government. Call me an optimist if you must (WOW…just imagine it…ME, an Optimist!), but I still retain hope, even when the odds are good that we’ll end up with Romney or Gingrich.

Winner-takes-all isn’t the only *huge* hurdle for third party — it’s also the way that public election funds are distributed based on prior election cycle results.

If a third party candidate could accumulate votes, but not win a state, and still receive electoral votes, they’d have a shot at actually winning (imagine a candidate that could win California as a Libertarian that could *never* win as a Republican, while simultaneous winning many of the states in the South), but with winner take all, finishing *every* state in second place means no electoral votes. It’s not hard to come up with a scenario where a third party candidate could actually win a *majority* of votes and come away with virtually *no* electoral votes.

Which means next time around, no significant portion of the publicly available campaign funds would be available to the party that won the popular vote in the prior election. Without winning multiple states, it would be virtually impossible to be a serious force.

As for the “Brokered Convention” potential, one thing is certain: if the GOP resorts to this methodology, the GOP is history. If the country survives, there will be a third party, possibly the Libertarians, that will rise up, and we’ll be dealing with a nation that never again elects a President by Majority, but by Plurality. I’m certainly not looking forward to that outcome, but, then again, I’m not eager to having to vote for either Gingrich or Romney in November.

But, even if this *is* Operation Chaos Redux, the thing that about it that makes me happy is that it takes away a little bit of the mainstream media’s certainty in trying to award the nomination to Romney already…

What really has me concerned though, is the rumor that the party leaders are considering holding a “brokered convention” — essentially meaning that all of the votes in the primaries wouldn’t matter one bit, since the nominee would truly be chosen by a deal in a smoke-filled back room…

Bear in mind that I’ve stated that, if the store violated its lease, then it should be evicted in accordance with that lease, but there are plenty of bakeries that I’m sure would have loved to take the business. Let them. It’s called competition, and it is the greatest form of regulation that there is. Businesses don’t act in a way that hurts their bottom line without a reason. “Tolerance” is a lie if you force one person to act in a way contrary to their beliefs in the name of Tolerance.

My thoughts:
No government support after the second child. Two year time limit for cash benefits, and then five years to requalify. Minimum age to qualify is 18 – under that it is the parent’s responsibility or the grandchild is counted as one of their 2 children for benefits purposes.

Food stamps and housing subsidies based on up to two children may need to continue indefinitely because, let’s face it, many people are not mentally equiped to earn enough to pay for the cost of a basic existence these days.

All persons residing in the home must be included when determining income qualifications. Two unmarried parents with two kids each may earn enough separately to qualify while the combined household income as a couple would be too high to qualify. Or they may live with a higher income person that pays all the bills and the government money is just extra spending money.

Starting with these changes will help, although there is a very long way to go.