In the February 13, 2014, issue of the Forum, I was criticized for having a distorted perspective. I respectfully disagree but appreciate the writers' time in arguing his point. With that being said, there is a need to clarify some items for the readers.
The point of the article was to show Senator Franken does not value gun rights or the rights of the individual. Franken's desire to limit magazine capacity and further regulate assault weapons had nothing to do with deer hunters, but in limiting gun rights. If a person wants to own an assault rifle, he or she should have that right. How many deer hunters use an assault rifle or would to shoot a deer 50 times. Gun rights belong to the individual, not the state or federal government. The role of government is to enforce reasonable laws that are truly in the public interest. Moreover, the purpose of allowing ownership of assault weapons is more for the ultimate protection of the people against a tyrannical government, and a large reason the founders favored gun rights. By definition, our government is "tyrannical" and threatening every constitutional right we now have. This is an administration gone "rogue" and every day is another step towards absolute power.
The shootings sensationalized by the White House, the media, and gun control advocates to plead for greater gun control are due largely to mental illness. This is how the liberals work; they seek to punish legal, respectable gun holders because of the rare actions of mentally ill persons. They sell a myth without disclosing the real underlying causes.
I have no problem with mining companies paying higher taxes as they are extracting resources from the earth and benefiting from it. However, businesses in general are not extracting finite resources, they are providing jobs and tax revenue in the hopes of earning a desired, needed profit. Excessive regulations and taxes make the possibility of profit difficult and lead to fewer businesses.
The writer questions why I disagree with subsidies for alternative energies while arguing that the government should not punish fossil fuels. I disagree with all subsidies as they undermine the effectiveness of a free market. The point was that alternative energies are not cost effective and our money would be better spent using the plentiful fossil fuels our country possesses. Cellulosic technology is far from efficient and far from reasonable consideration at this point. Sun and wind, while in plentiful supply, are also not cost effective. If you took away the tax breaks and subsidies, these so-called "alternative energies" would disappear rapidly from the conversation. The common person cannot expect to implement alternative energy strategies to save any money - not without passing the true expense onto all taxpayers. This country is bursting with oil, natural gas, and coal resources -- but the public is being sold a fairytale about "climate change" and devastation. A president with any vision could lift the standard of living for billions of people around the world by simply allowing the production of oil, natural gas, and coal resources to be fully utilized. We would have jobs, cheaper energy, lower inflation, and prosperity rather than growing unemployment, lack of hope, higher inflation, and higher energy costs.
Only with a broad-brush can one say that aerial surveillance, much like the NSA spying of everyone, is legal and justified, just because a patch of marijuana might be spotted. It is unconstitutional and a violation of privacy rights of the individual to suggest the government has the right to invade our private lives without proper checks and balances -- that is simply an invitation to government control and ultimately tyranny. You cannot trample the rights of the majority because one person might be doing something considered deviant.
Reasonable regulations are justified, but I would argue against the endless regulations that serve to put companies out of business, or make it difficult for businesses to earn a profit. There are enough gun laws, and sorry, but global warming claims are at best unsettled science. To me, and millions more, it is an agenda intended to serve the global interests of the United Nations and the ultimate objective of a one-world government. Given the many interests of the world, many not serving those of Christians and American citizens, we must argue against such measures.
When did getting elected mean you could hand our rights over to an international body? No one in office should have the authority to offer our rights to an international body like Senators Franken and Klobuchar, and President Obama continue to attempt.
My writing may offend some even though they are intended to serve the principles and values of the Constitution and God. Our country wasn't created to be a mere member of the U.N. but the leader of the free world. The U.N. is filled with many elements Americans detest. Why are we even a member of this corrupt, ill-fated organization?
Senator Franken's endorsement of climate change initiatives is a devastating economic decision based purely on political motives. In 20 years, history will show what a catastrophic decision it was for the U.S. to throw billions away at the notion when it is likely just a natural weather cycle. This embellished claim merely increases domestic costs while countries around the world use the cheaper fossil fuels - to the detriment of our own country. As this country kills it use of coal, the world continues to use more and more.
The writer suggests affordable health insurance and good health care is available through Obamacare. The government is doing what it does best - running way over cost, delivering little of what it promised, and show what we already had was much better. Obamacare is destroying us economically, socializing medicine, ridiculing Christianity -- and ultimately, resulting in as many uncovered individuals as before. The loss of one's doctor, better coverage, and coverage for all were the biggest LIES ever sold to the American public. They would have been smarter to simply devise a plan for the uncovered rather than displacing a country of those already insured.
Our country has simply become one of entitlement and that is her ultimate death. Everything comes at a cost, and expecting everything for nothing, is subjecting oneself to government dependency. The mirror I see shows a desire of many to rely on government for what they should do for themselves.