After reading some of the latest news postings here, i was going to respond to one of them, but decided to post seperately.
I think that if the current form of Democrat's come to power, it will be the beginning of the end for this country. Even now, I don't see the USA being but a shell of itself today in 100 years. Unsustainable energy practices, a corrupt government with no incentive to fix itself (ie. our electoral process, Citizen's United), a new generation of "entitlement" citizens, too much political correctness, etc. Hmmm....maybe Trump could shake things up a bit, but I still have my doubts.
I am going to have to disagree with one point.
Let me explain first. A republic (which is the ONLY form of government that puts the rights of the individual first) sits on a tripod where if any one leg falls, the entire structure falls.
Those pillars are 1) free speech, 2) the right to bear arms, 3) freedom of religion.
The left leaning among us have been attacking these three things continuously since I was born, trying to bring down the republic and turn us into a democracy, which is just mob rule, and as progressives they wish to be the controlling mob, which is what progressivism is.
We have had two landmark cases recently that have shored up two of those pillars. First, our beloved Heller. Which did really nothing more than state that 2nd amendment really says what it says.
The second (and this is where we disagree) is Citizen's Unites. The actual decision states..."he First Amendment protects not just a person’s right to speak, but the act of speech itself, regardless of the speaker", whereas the dissent stated "the First Amendment protects only individual speech." Which basically says, the 1st amendment really says what it says.
This is almost more important to the republic than Heller. Regardless of your disdain of how much money is spent by whom, this case may have saved our Constitution and republic as we know it.
I agree with the 'Citizens Untied' decision. Freedom of speech should be broad. Commercial speech, Political speech, and freedom to spend your money as you see fit, not as the government says.
For me a good gauge of any decision is how the left reacts to it. The left went apoplectic over Citizens United, which to me means its a good decision. It allowed corporations the ability to do what unions had been doing for decades i.e., spend money on political speech.
Another important piece is this:
"although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis."
This basically says the government can fight corruption, but it has no power to decide what corruptions is. More simply put, the government can believe you broke the law, but cannot decide on its own that you did. They must take it to a trial and prove it, and if you chose, prove it to 12 average citizens who decide.
Citizens United is filled with far reaching implications securing our liberties.