[Vision2020] And the hits just keep on comin' . . .

[Joe Campbell]

Wow. Walter Steed is NOT a radical progressive! Certainly, I've had my
disagreements with Steed, as well. But it is wrong to misrepresent him in
this way. I could just imagine if you or I had said something like this
about Steed, Tom. There would be requests for a public apology -- and in
this case, for good reason. The claim is absurd.

This shows that the rift discussed in "Suicide Conservatives," the NY Times
column that Art posted earlier today, is present here, too. But we knew
that. Don't local political groups help to elect ultra-conservatives in the
primaries, who are then unelectable on the state level? This is kind of
phenomenon about which the NY Times articles article comments.

Apparently this is a common dilemma across the country. On the one hand,
there are old school conservatives (fiscal conservatives, genuine
libertarians) who (like Karl Rove) care more about simply getting
conservatives elected; on the other hand, there are the new kids on the
block (tea party) who care more about "principles" than winning elections.

I put "principles" in quotes because whether they adhere to principles is
debatable. They swear to uphold the Constitution but they don't seem to
understand either the first or the second amendment; they don't seem to
understand the separation of church and state; and they speculate that we
have rights that are not found in the Constitution, rights that override
governmental rights. There is a lot of complex stuff going on here.

The Palouse Liberty Project is built on the 9-12 Project, which focuses on
9 Principles and 12 Values supposedly derived from "the principles of the
Founding Fathers." For instance:

Principle 4: "The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate
authority, not the government."

What does this mean? This seems to bestow a right that overrides
governmental authority. Does the Christian Scientist have the right to
withhold medical treatment when her children are sick? There are clearer
cases (abuse) where governmental authority overrides parental authority.

More importantly, what on earth does Principle 4 have to do with the US
Constitution, or Delegates to the Constitutional Convention like Alexander
Martin who never married? Further, I don't see how if the family is the
"ultimate authority," the government could restrict formulations of the
family by restricting who we marry. Likely this only shows that even the
Palouse Liberty Project doesn't REALLY endorse the principles they say they
endorse.

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> Courtesy of the Palouse Liberty Project's Facebook page at:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/palouselibertyproject?ref=stream
>
> [image: image.jpeg]
>
> Seeya there, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130209/458908a0/attachment.html>