Asked if I have read history, why sure, it is part and parcel of the American education system.

What is not taught in history is what the founding people, the Puritans, those in Virginia, Rhode Island actually thought and practiced.

The Puritans came here, escaped religious persecution because there were ultra conservative, and promptly set about constraining the people’s freedoms and banished those, Roger Williams, to what is now Rhode Island because he was heretical, in their views.

The Puritans, were the people before the founders of the country, and the framers of the Constitution took from their history, the road map, what mistakes not to make.

“The Constitution allows us to be INDIVIDUALS, and gives us the FREEDOM to worship as we chose, or not worship at all”

Why then, was it necessary for Congress to enact, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

When we look at the Constitution there is all this freedom this or freedom from that, and yet, history has shown us that, there has been restrictions placed on us, that run contrary to the principles we hold dear, and is this case, it is clear the legislation was drafted because there was a clear and consistent pattern of discrimination and there still is.

“We employ them. We are not their underlings. So, what we think does matter in between times that we hire or fire them in the election process.”

Yup, and there are 200+ million people in the U.S. and each and every one of us, has different ideals, wants desires, politcal philosophy.

There should be a sign on the Capital, This is not Burger King and you can’t have it your way, all the time.

“Our freedoms and liberties are being infringed upon by regulations on food and cigarettes….”

Freedoms and liberties infringed on because of health concerns, by companies using potentially unhealthy products and introducing them into our food supply?

What freedom or liberty is being infringed on? I cannot find anything from farming, food, etc., written anywhere, that states that clean and safe food is a right or liberty.

“…. taxes and “revenue enhancement” and the redistribution of our money to the masses…”

The masses are the frail, the infirm, the aged, those that are born with defects, is there no greater good than to support them?

“But can someone please tell me how well the government has run Medicare or Medicade?”

Let’s do away with both and just let the people fend for themselves, then?

That would run contrary to the expression of community in this country and return us to an age, of me, me, me, wouldn’t it?

3. FINDING COMMON GROUND: It is obvious just from these posts that there will always be debate. We can choose to focus on who’s right or wrong, or we can find what things we have in common. For example: Many of you have commented on our seemingly “pro-life” stance. Personally, I cannot say if perhaps our members are pro-life but believe in the death penalty. We do not qualify people. But when you look at that statement, perhaps it would surprise you to know that many of our “respect for life” discussions have been in the perspective of a government run health care plan. Now I know that many will say, as President Obama has, that he does not want to “run health care”. But can someone please tell me how well the government has run Medicare or Medicade? If we allow the government or state to get their hands on healthcare for people, we will have fewer or no choices. And, it is here that our debate comes in with respect for life. What is to say, that when we have a “government run” health care system, and my employer for reasons of cost, drops my employee option and forces me to the government plan..Because it’s “free”. And I get sick. And, I have cancer. And the government can decide my best course of treatment, or whether the stage of my cancer is worth the cost associated with treating me. Or my parents? Your parents? Do you want the national or state government to decide that since your parents are old, and they are going to die in several years anyway, that treatments for certain things are not warranted? These all deal with “respect for life” issues. It is not just about abortion. There is so much assumption, but we are convinced that there are many things we have in common, if we could just take the time to have a conversation and find common ground.

I would welcome any of you to come to a meeting. This group has and always will be about the people. If you chose to participate in one activity and not another because of a personal belief, we understand that. But, in the mean time, we hope to find others who are open to the conversation and alternative perspectives on the same issue. It’s all about a mutual respect and the agreement that we may disagree. And above all, know that it is time to stand up for what you believe, no matter what it is, because this is the best country in the world. We must exercise our right to preserve and protect it, and everything it stands for…or we will lose it.

Rourke, I will attempt to clarify and answer some of your questions. But I also want to preface this by saying that the article attempted to bring attention to our group, a “teaser” of sorts I guess, not giving every specific. The specifics come from the energy and passion in our group, who value our role as citizens. We acknowledge that for a long time, we have sort of been in the wings, not saying much. Perhaps partially because when we do, we are ridiculed as “right-wing nuttery”, “touchy” “anti-civil rights”…well to name a few stated here. For us, it seems that inasmuch as the more liberal “advocacy” has been speaking out for some time, we as citizens need to start bringing different perspectives to the table. You might admit that most of the media, even Fox news, takes liberties with the dissemination of information that is biased, one way or another. Our argument is that people need to think for themselves, and it is not the media or the government that should tell us what to think, what to eat, what cars to drive, etc. etc. You will note that the entire conversation here seems to have been based on human curiosity that leads you to click on our website and see our core values. The article never said we had requirements. And assumptions were made based on the reading and interpretation of what was listed on our website. With that in mind, we are committed to several things.
1. EDUCATION. How can we expect the electorate to make wise decisions when they vote? On what basis are they voting? Because of the D or the R in front of a candidates name? Or because their union “strongly urges” them to vote one way or another? If I am “pro life” or “pro-choice”, that may be a deal breaker when I am choosing a candidate. The point is that we want people to be educated, on both sides of an issue, so that as an individual who has been given a right to vote, they can make a decision that is informed.

2. FACTS. Between elections, we must deal with the multitude of “votes” that our elected officials are casting on our behalf. The fact of the matter is that whether I voted for a specific candidate or not, that elected representative is paid by you and I. We employ them. We are not their underlings. So, what we think does matter in between times that we hire or fire them in the election process. Information needs to be transparent and available to us, and as a group, we are committed to making sure that we encourage our members to write to their representatives, call and tell them to vote for or against something based on our individual preference. Before we can be active citizens involved in the process, we must be informed. Our goal as a group is to keep track of things that congress and senate, state and local government are doing. For too long, we have let government grow and grow into an untouchable bureaucracy. This is not the America that our founders envisioned. Our freedoms and liberties are being infringed upon by regulations on food and cigarettes, taxes and “revenue enhancement” and the redistribution of our money to the masses…to name a few. Spending is out of control, pork is common pratice. They are bankrupting our children. We have no money, but we are printing it! We believe that our elected officials need to be responsible stewards of our money…if we must give it to them to beign with! It is not theirs to play with or to bail out or to give to someone else.

Founding Americans? That would be the people who were here first wouldn’t? Ya, know those that had to be killed because they were “savages.”

Or do you mean the Puritans, who were ultra conservative and included, who had public stocks for those that broke the law, that was infused with religious doctrine and who had laws in place that discriminated against the Quakers, reagan tax increasesbecause the Quakers, were not the same thinkers as the Puritans.

“…the overwhelming majority of which were practicing Christians?”

And what does have to do with the price of Tea?

It’s about religion or not?

And kateb, your religion is well known, you have stated on many boards that you are a Christian.

Which is not the point, and never was and never shall be for me, if its not about religion, when do people bring up, God, and the founding fathers religions

People talk about the Constitution and returning to values, okay what Constitutional values, then?

We have the freedom to do as we please, within the constraints of laws, rules, ethics and so on.

So, what else do we want?

The freedom as we please and be free? We already are and we can and do pursue all that we desire.

We don’t want to be taxed? Well, then let the roads and bridges go to pot, stop maintaining the infrastructure, let it all go and let people take care of it, and stop financing wars, and stop giving charitable aid to countries around the world, stop sending people and machines into space, that will surely save some tax dollars.

Oh, and stop caring for the frail, the aged, all the taxes that could be saved by not funding medicare and medicaid, and oh, do away with Social Security, that would save trillions.

People like to quote Reagan and others, and yet they forget that he like others, made government bigger and raised taxes.

Limited form of government means what?

We saw what less got us when it came to financial greed spread globally across the globe and some of the same that reaped the gains, probably sat in pews and confessionals and then went back and reaped all that they could.

We don’t seem to know what we want, but will know when get it.

Who could possibly be against the Constitution or limited government? Why not define how you interpret the Constitution and say exactly what government should be limited to? If you think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution, then what do we have a Supreme Court for?

Just give me three specific things that this group wants to see done, and why.

Religious views or a plan of action that moves the city forward.”

What on earth made you think that these two things could ever be mutually exclusive?

Have you ever read anything about American history? About founding Americans – the overwhelming majority of which were practicing Christians?

Please stop asking questions that have already been answered multiple times in the earlier posts.

What freedoms are being taken away? How is the Constitution being trampled? Why is it so hard to get any specifics here?

No one is against educating the public. The question is, who is qualified to do it. Who has a hidden agenda and is twisting and cherry picking history to fit some ideology the framers never possessed? They’re pushing the book “The 5000 Year Leap” for God’s sakes. Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al would have been alarmed and nauseated by how their views and ideas have been hijacked by a jingoistic mob.

As for Glenn Beck, come on now. Anyone that had a little healthy curiosity about his dubious relationship with the truth (and sanity) can do a little checking on him. Try http://www.mediamatters.org for starters. But then again, maybe a high school educated, ADD afflicted ex-alcoholic somehow has a keyhole view to the truth all the experts missed.

Interesting fact about the “respect for life” part of the mission statement. Did you know that at the time of the nation’s founding, abortion was legal up until what was then considered quickening (about 24th week of pregnancy)? So I guess the founders, who didn’t even think women should vote, had enough respect for women’s autonomy to not force them to bear an unwanted child.

HA! Then I read the comments and didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. To begin with, I am at a total loss to comprehend what ANYONE would have against being “educated on our constitution and our economy” ????????? In this day and age?? Am I blind, deaf and dumb? Being educated in our constitution and our economy is a bad thing WHY???

Then I read something about creating a more informed electorate… again?? and that is a bad thing WHY??? Do you understand what is wrong with our country today??? We have elected officials who honestly and truly believe that the voters know nothing and will vote for whomever spends the most money and looks good/sounds good/and throw around the biggest and best BS. Wake up! I fail to understand what could possibly be wrong with an “informed electorate.” What I do understand is that Congress counts on the voters to be UNINFORMED.

OK, at the risk of rambling on a bit more, here’s one more item I wish to bring up: “any belief set is welcome. The statement said the group promotes the natural law of God, a respect for all human life, adherence to the Constitution, support for limited government and personal and fiscal responsibilities as foundations of freedom.”

Obviously the part about ‘any belief set is welcome’ is confusing to those who have never heard of such a thing, being only accustomed to making use of one-track minds. Pray tell me what is wrong with welcoming those with ‘any belief set’? Is it scary or what?? For that matter, what is wrong with ‘respect for human life, adherence to the constitution, LIMITED government and personal and fiscal responsibilities’??? Why do you think we’re in this economical mess to begin with???

I am amazed at the direction our country is taking and many of the comments here reflect many of the reasons why we’re heading in that direction. You guys had better wake up and smell the stench emanating from Washington… oh, and I’m not talking about any one particular politician or democrat or republican. I’m pretty much talking about all of them. Our country needs groups like The Children of Liberty, if for nothing else than to send out the wake-up call and educate the voters before it’s too late to do either… before it’s too late and the government tells you that you can’t do things like hold meetings to educate the people…

Having achieved age 70 last month, I have seen our Constitution trampled upon over the years, and am witnessing its further erosion by our existing President, his administration; and Congress. No one appears prepared to challenge him for mortgaging our future, or for appointing czars who are not elected and thereby reducing the Cabinet to second level status.

I applaud the Children of Liberty for striving to uphold the values that require those elected to be accountable to the people whom they serve, and the ballot box wields great power to sort out who shall best serve our ideals.

Also, I think it would be helpful to list the freedoms that have been taken away or that are being threatened. I’d also like to know how the government isn’t respecting your ideals and beliefs.

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.) And we have many more examples. Even Thomas Jefferson said, “I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers. (Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

If I say a prayer it may upset you, but it does not relegate you to second-class citizenry. Get a little tougher skin. The government is not there to salve your wounded pride and/or every little booboo society gives you. The right to pursue happiness does not guarantee it. We say enough, it is time to return to a limited form of government that respects our ideals and beliefs too. God should not be excluded from all forms of public and/or governmental discourse, just as one particular religion should not be promoted, be it Catholicism or man-made global warming.

The attempted slap in our face is that we have not read nor understand the history of our nation or its founders. They were Deists is the statement, therefore they wanted God/religion out of government. They saw the evils inflicted upon the masses by churches and wanted to protect us forevermore from the same. The Deist and Unitarian and traditionalist views of the founders were included in the Constitution to protect us from all forms of rampant abuse of power, but specifically that of the government. Just as you hold us to the standards of inclusion we hold you to the same. Eisenhower finalized the. “In God We Trust” progression, but as a nation we have been using the motto since 1908 on coins and as a statement against the hedonists that wanted slavery. God was included as a part of the discourse in almost every aspect of the creation of this Republic. It was simply not institutionalized; again a way to limit the government’s powers. You may say the inclusion of the Motto is exclusionary, we say its exclusion is.
cont…

What rights are being taken away?

There are rules to life. We are taught that from a young age. We have rules to follow.

What individual rights are being infringed on?

Nobody seems to list them, just some vague notion, that rights are being infringed on.

“From the lack of street maintenance to the malicious enforcement of eminent domain laws..

Malicious enforcement eminent domain laws? Huh? The last eminent domain conflict was about Jeep.

“In fact, we invited you to a meeting, and if you think you can defend your stance, come on. Methinks, it is not our group that is close minded…”

I am not trying to motivate anyone to do anything, I am not forming a group, I have no stance to defend. I am not out to change minds, after all we are empowered individually to do what we feel is best, for us.

I am just one of the simple folk, that likes to discuss something.

“Can we make government more efficient and responsive to the peoples needs without a God centered legal system? ”

God centered legal system? With what the Ten Commandments as the basis?

Didn’t we throw off the restraints imposed by a state influenced with religion?

There is God with out religion? That would be advocating what the Freedom From Religion Foundation wants, and I dare say that is not in keeping with the goals here.

“The founding fathers had various belief structures (read religion), yet freely acknowledged that power comes from God, not man; therefore man…”

Yes, and they kept people as personal property while advocating, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a certain Godliness.

“God would say let what is Ceasar’s be given unto him and let what is Mine come to Me.”

Isn’t this the teachings of one of the followers of Jesus, who was and is a religious figure?

Using the words of the Bible to frame the conversation and it is not about religion?

God, is such a broad word and misused by so many to move forth their own cause.

By the very use of biblical quotations, the whole stance becomes clouded as some claim that there is but one God, but yet followers the words of another.

And what if the citizenry does not believe in God, or has a different interpretation of what or who God is? What then?