For those of you who are not Methodist, the Methodist church encourages its followers to use their skills and power to help the; community, church and Jesus. I have always felt a little like the little drummer boy in the hymn I had nothing to bring so I bring the only gift I have and that is honestly.
I live in Reading which is a multi-cultural town and recently a mosque has been completed, ironically near the local giant Tesco. There is a wonderful vista: the giant Tesco sign and the shining gold dome of the mosque and I am sadden and intimidated by this alien building so alien to me and so alien to my faith.
It is not as if this Mosque is the only non-Christian religious building there has been a Buddhist temple for many year and even a Hindu temple (based in an old Methodist church oddly enough) and I am sure there are more but these have adopted are architectural norms, these other faith one can ignore but the Mosque is not in tradition of British architecture religious or otherwise.
I am shocked by my shock. I lived in Leicester for three years a city with more than one traditional designed mosque. Indeed Leicester had a variety of non-western designed buildings including a Jan (Hindu) temple which was clad in Jan deity’s in white marble and none of this bothered me even a little.
So I came to conclude that one’s homes town is different, one’s home is different. Here we become insensibly sensitive to the alien architectural styling of a Mosque and unfortunately equate this alien design with an alien faith. Well I have known Muslims and they are no different from us, good people, striving to be good. Yes they are not identical to us nor are there architecture but we cannot hold them at fault for having a different religious or architectural tradition.
So dear reader be not ashamed at being taken aback and even a little irritated, we are merely meek and weak people trying to make are way in a world where the new or the alien makes us uncomfortable but soon enough the alien become the common, given enough time a Mosque is no more noticeable then church.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
On higher education
The biggest issue facing higher education is not actually, directly, financial. It is how to connect student education with student outcomes via there retrospective universities and course choices. This is a very complex way of saying something very simple. The funding any university receive should reflect the income of its ex-students.
I am very unhappy with the idea that the government should use the higher education system as some proxy for economic planning. I.e. funding only those courses which it perceives will be required far into the future. I am also unhappy with the current system where the whim of the student is the sole economic force in degree choices and there is utterly no connection between employability and course take up.
Therefore I suggest a new system: Allow universities to charge whatever they wish all of which must be totally funded by post-employment paid loans but base the funding the universities then receives on the money recouped by their ex-student on these loans. Ideally the universities would hold the loans (regulated by the government) themselves and directly survive at least in part from the income garnished from these loans.
Of course the government will provide the bases funding to all universities / technical institutes keeping the loan amounts within a reasonable level and also paying the entire loaned amounts of disabled and poorer students on their successful and only upon there successful graduation. It may even wish to guarantee payment of some per cent of some favoured courses loan.
Universities can always sell or partner with business in providing research or it can partner with government for the same purpose. Indeed universities would be wise to partner with business to link directly into their recruitment schemes and provided training to their employees and thus build an additional source of income and a possible avenue for their graduates. So whilst research would remain unaffected universities can offer more training and better integration with business.
The benefit of my system is it makes the university financially responsible for the courses it offers and also the quality and applicability of the teaching they offer and of course the student is finically responsible for their course via the loan. It also offers government some leeway to focus recourses on its favoured course and of course it will lead to better educated / trained post graduate students. It would also encourage a greater synergy between business and university and also pays for the research and development which university provides.
There is one further alteration we need, we need to stop saying all course are equal to students and start telling students the employability resulting from different courses at different universities. We must explain to them the financial implications and possibilities of university and teach them of the possible outcomes of their course choice or their lack of choice.
I am very unhappy with the idea that the government should use the higher education system as some proxy for economic planning. I.e. funding only those courses which it perceives will be required far into the future. I am also unhappy with the current system where the whim of the student is the sole economic force in degree choices and there is utterly no connection between employability and course take up.
Therefore I suggest a new system: Allow universities to charge whatever they wish all of which must be totally funded by post-employment paid loans but base the funding the universities then receives on the money recouped by their ex-student on these loans. Ideally the universities would hold the loans (regulated by the government) themselves and directly survive at least in part from the income garnished from these loans.
Of course the government will provide the bases funding to all universities / technical institutes keeping the loan amounts within a reasonable level and also paying the entire loaned amounts of disabled and poorer students on their successful and only upon there successful graduation. It may even wish to guarantee payment of some per cent of some favoured courses loan.
Universities can always sell or partner with business in providing research or it can partner with government for the same purpose. Indeed universities would be wise to partner with business to link directly into their recruitment schemes and provided training to their employees and thus build an additional source of income and a possible avenue for their graduates. So whilst research would remain unaffected universities can offer more training and better integration with business.
The benefit of my system is it makes the university financially responsible for the courses it offers and also the quality and applicability of the teaching they offer and of course the student is finically responsible for their course via the loan. It also offers government some leeway to focus recourses on its favoured course and of course it will lead to better educated / trained post graduate students. It would also encourage a greater synergy between business and university and also pays for the research and development which university provides.
There is one further alteration we need, we need to stop saying all course are equal to students and start telling students the employability resulting from different courses at different universities. We must explain to them the financial implications and possibilities of university and teach them of the possible outcomes of their course choice or their lack of choice.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Why are we hitting are core vote?
I am not and never will be against making people pay for their education, they received the education, they will benefit from it and they are improved by it. The important point is the word they. Not their parents or their neighbour or any other person connected via blood or via nationhood.
I say this because it is a myth that upfront tuition fees are paid for by student. I doubt any student (beyond mature) could afford tuition fees as they are paid up front and I doubt even more anymore students will be able to afford the larger ones.
So who pay the new increased tuition fees? Well of course because we now believe in social mobility as an absolute, the poor do not pay. The student, who comes from a family who dare earn above £21,00 and thus should or will have to pay his fee cannot realistically pay so that leaves the parents to pay and parents are expected to pay because it is there income which is used in the decision.
So asking okay off (you fees are only paid if you earn over £21,000) parents to pay £3,000 was bad enough but suddenly turning around and demanding £7,000 is nothing short of criminal. How many of us could suddenly find not just £7,000 but £21,000 to fund the education of our children? How fair is it to make hard working parents, who (yes) pay huge amounts of tax, pay an extra £21,00 to send their children to university?
We can all defend the imperfect alteration to child benefit, in the end, those who earn over £44,000 can suffer the loss and we can try to work out inequality in this reduction but can we defend asking hardworking and tax paying families for upfront payments in excesses of £21,000. Is this the reward for the hard work and faithful tax payment of are core vote? (The enterprising muddle classes).
Add into this another consideration, a child of a family with an income £21,000, who chooses to study manufacturing (an economic sector the government would give their first born to see resurrected) would be, or his parents would have to pay at least £21,000 in tuition fees. While a student born in poverty who undertakes a degree in media studies or foot wear design (actual cores at DMU) the state would pay the £21,000 for them. Again I ask is this fair?
If the state wants to increase tuition fees they become an increased barrier to the enterprising class, that class which actually funds and operates the state and the economy. As I stated at the start I believe university should be paid for by the educated student and this after they have finished their study and began to earn their increased income. Let them service the debt incurred in receiving there education, let everyone attend university and pay for it themselves afterwards. Let us not punish the enterprising classes.
I say this because it is a myth that upfront tuition fees are paid for by student. I doubt any student (beyond mature) could afford tuition fees as they are paid up front and I doubt even more anymore students will be able to afford the larger ones.
So who pay the new increased tuition fees? Well of course because we now believe in social mobility as an absolute, the poor do not pay. The student, who comes from a family who dare earn above £21,00 and thus should or will have to pay his fee cannot realistically pay so that leaves the parents to pay and parents are expected to pay because it is there income which is used in the decision.
So asking okay off (you fees are only paid if you earn over £21,000) parents to pay £3,000 was bad enough but suddenly turning around and demanding £7,000 is nothing short of criminal. How many of us could suddenly find not just £7,000 but £21,000 to fund the education of our children? How fair is it to make hard working parents, who (yes) pay huge amounts of tax, pay an extra £21,00 to send their children to university?
We can all defend the imperfect alteration to child benefit, in the end, those who earn over £44,000 can suffer the loss and we can try to work out inequality in this reduction but can we defend asking hardworking and tax paying families for upfront payments in excesses of £21,000. Is this the reward for the hard work and faithful tax payment of are core vote? (The enterprising muddle classes).
Add into this another consideration, a child of a family with an income £21,000, who chooses to study manufacturing (an economic sector the government would give their first born to see resurrected) would be, or his parents would have to pay at least £21,000 in tuition fees. While a student born in poverty who undertakes a degree in media studies or foot wear design (actual cores at DMU) the state would pay the £21,000 for them. Again I ask is this fair?
If the state wants to increase tuition fees they become an increased barrier to the enterprising class, that class which actually funds and operates the state and the economy. As I stated at the start I believe university should be paid for by the educated student and this after they have finished their study and began to earn their increased income. Let them service the debt incurred in receiving there education, let everyone attend university and pay for it themselves afterwards. Let us not punish the enterprising classes.
Monday, 27 September 2010
relativism
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)
It very fashionable to doubt everything in this modern world, even we believers doubt that we hold onto some higher or grander truth or that there is a singular path to salvation Some even seem to believe that a really good atheist could by their own perfect goodness open to non believer the gates of heaven.
The argument runs like this, some Christian (regular attendees of church and even some ministers) have not been and are not and will not be good people. That some people who are not believers are better than these Christians and thus not only dose Christianity not hold monopoly of doing good but neither do we hold the right to truth.
This discussion is held in a greater narrative called post-modernism or relativism. The relativist says there are many faiths and unless you behave counter to the commands of Christ (and judge them) you must accept them as equally truthful or at least you must accept that your faith, your truths is merely one among a set of probably infinite set of faiths and truths.
These ideas erode faith and I mean faith. There is only one God and one way to him and that is through Jesus Christ. Yes other believe differently but people believe many silly things mere belief does not reality make. I could believe until I exploded that I was a six foot anodise with a personality that made women knees buckle but reality would not bend one inch to my delusions and those who seek God can believe until the end of days there is a path excluding Jesus but they will never find it because the truth is that Jesus is the path.
Now your ministers and reverent may speak against this they will say this is nothing but empty dogma, that I am nothing but an scared and confused believer running away from the “realities” of the post modern world (though how anyone can use realities and post modern in the same sentence is beyond me). I embrace them and there challenge and dear reader I tell you this I am fearful not of post-modernism. I have studied its poisonous and truth destroying creed, I see daily the effect of taking moral certainty and exchanging relativist morals (though moral they are not they are merely the temporal taste of man).
I will say something to those who think that are faith can exist in the world where certainty, faith and even rules are not immortal but temporal, a world where certainly is exchange for anarchy. It is they who are scared. They are the decedents of the church that denied the literal truth of Gods existence, which denies the historical truth of his miracles and now they turn and run from his laws and truth.
Look at what they give us. They give us a bible which we can no longer understand alone (we require commentary, historical lesions, a MA in linguistic philosophy and in post modernist ideals and of course ancient Greek). No we mere humans cannot understand the true message of the bible anymore they say. It is for these (largely post Christians), to lead us so we can fully understand the churches 2000 year old mistake that of actually believing in the bible and its universal application.
So what are we to do? When I say we I refer to you my dear reader who remains loyal to the singular greatest fruit of the protestant revolution, the revelation or rediscovery that the bible contains all we require for salvation and that anyone can follow this path, that anyone can meet Jesus and that even the most unlearned, darkest, most oppressed soul can know Jesus and the sole path to salvation through him.
So what are we to do? Those of us who remain to save are beloved and multiple churches (actually the Catholics are leading the charge, they long ago realise that relativism and doubt is incompatible with faith). Well my catholic brothers and sisters can remain loyal to their church teaching and to the pope who is relived not because of his past but because the forces of doubt know that he alone among church leaders will not buckle and bend to them but will stand alone is necessary against their poison.
Those of us in the protestant churches that challenge relativism and refuses to alter their message of sovereign truth need only to remain true in the knowledge that they are the decedents of the protestant revolution and of Jesus Gospel but also keep this article in mind, keep the scattering, diluting effect of relativism in mind and carry on the good fight.
Those of us (and I think this is more common in the Anglican community) whose churches are trying to embrace (or swallow) the relativist / post modern ideas? We must be prepared to fight against them, to even stand against are church leadership not only on a particle level but also on an intellectual level. We must cry out against the dangers of relativism and remain true even in internal exile to the single truth that salvation is found solely though Christ and no other.
It very fashionable to doubt everything in this modern world, even we believers doubt that we hold onto some higher or grander truth or that there is a singular path to salvation Some even seem to believe that a really good atheist could by their own perfect goodness open to non believer the gates of heaven.
The argument runs like this, some Christian (regular attendees of church and even some ministers) have not been and are not and will not be good people. That some people who are not believers are better than these Christians and thus not only dose Christianity not hold monopoly of doing good but neither do we hold the right to truth.
This discussion is held in a greater narrative called post-modernism or relativism. The relativist says there are many faiths and unless you behave counter to the commands of Christ (and judge them) you must accept them as equally truthful or at least you must accept that your faith, your truths is merely one among a set of probably infinite set of faiths and truths.
These ideas erode faith and I mean faith. There is only one God and one way to him and that is through Jesus Christ. Yes other believe differently but people believe many silly things mere belief does not reality make. I could believe until I exploded that I was a six foot anodise with a personality that made women knees buckle but reality would not bend one inch to my delusions and those who seek God can believe until the end of days there is a path excluding Jesus but they will never find it because the truth is that Jesus is the path.
Now your ministers and reverent may speak against this they will say this is nothing but empty dogma, that I am nothing but an scared and confused believer running away from the “realities” of the post modern world (though how anyone can use realities and post modern in the same sentence is beyond me). I embrace them and there challenge and dear reader I tell you this I am fearful not of post-modernism. I have studied its poisonous and truth destroying creed, I see daily the effect of taking moral certainty and exchanging relativist morals (though moral they are not they are merely the temporal taste of man).
I will say something to those who think that are faith can exist in the world where certainty, faith and even rules are not immortal but temporal, a world where certainly is exchange for anarchy. It is they who are scared. They are the decedents of the church that denied the literal truth of Gods existence, which denies the historical truth of his miracles and now they turn and run from his laws and truth.
Look at what they give us. They give us a bible which we can no longer understand alone (we require commentary, historical lesions, a MA in linguistic philosophy and in post modernist ideals and of course ancient Greek). No we mere humans cannot understand the true message of the bible anymore they say. It is for these (largely post Christians), to lead us so we can fully understand the churches 2000 year old mistake that of actually believing in the bible and its universal application.
So what are we to do? When I say we I refer to you my dear reader who remains loyal to the singular greatest fruit of the protestant revolution, the revelation or rediscovery that the bible contains all we require for salvation and that anyone can follow this path, that anyone can meet Jesus and that even the most unlearned, darkest, most oppressed soul can know Jesus and the sole path to salvation through him.
So what are we to do? Those of us who remain to save are beloved and multiple churches (actually the Catholics are leading the charge, they long ago realise that relativism and doubt is incompatible with faith). Well my catholic brothers and sisters can remain loyal to their church teaching and to the pope who is relived not because of his past but because the forces of doubt know that he alone among church leaders will not buckle and bend to them but will stand alone is necessary against their poison.
Those of us in the protestant churches that challenge relativism and refuses to alter their message of sovereign truth need only to remain true in the knowledge that they are the decedents of the protestant revolution and of Jesus Gospel but also keep this article in mind, keep the scattering, diluting effect of relativism in mind and carry on the good fight.
Those of us (and I think this is more common in the Anglican community) whose churches are trying to embrace (or swallow) the relativist / post modern ideas? We must be prepared to fight against them, to even stand against are church leadership not only on a particle level but also on an intellectual level. We must cry out against the dangers of relativism and remain true even in internal exile to the single truth that salvation is found solely though Christ and no other.
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Technocracy
A technocracy is a state rule by a technocratic elite, the best example of a technocracy is the EU where the commission is a house of technocratic entrusted with the technical and diplomatic functions of the union. Technocrats are chosen (by other technocrats) not because they are popular or even democratic but because of their technical expertise. In the EU case this is mostly legal or industrial.
It is important here to differentiate the commission from the House of Lords or other second houses where some technocrats may sit. The House of Lords for all its floors does take once elected member into its body in order that they may serve a semi democratic purpose.
I say all of this merely to make a point we do not live in a technocracy but we are in danger of doing so. From Tony Blair onward both the labour party and the Tory party have elected technocrats as leaders (even the lib-dems did this with Clegg). Men who have no track record of party politics and who have served parliament as unelected technocratic supports to actual politicians.
The party serve the technocratic creed, they manage rather than lead, they talk instead of acting and above all the parties seek power rather than to serve some higher aim. Indeed there is something terrible technocratic about the middle ground as it hold no truck with extremes of passion or love for the complexity and peculiarity of the human species and seeks only dull inhuman stability.
This may seem like sour grapes. I have always voted against the technocratic rule of ex special advisors and I have always lost but it is a genuine concern that though we are not the EU commission yet are parliament is stocked up with technocracies aka professional politicians. People whose skill is electoral and nothing more.
I am reminded of Burke the age of duty, honour and glory have ended and the age of the beaucrarte, financier and professional has dawned. Weep now brothers for the age of belief of ideas of anything beyond statistical at arm’s length governance has come and the age of the speechmaker, rabble rousers and believers has passed.
It is important here to differentiate the commission from the House of Lords or other second houses where some technocrats may sit. The House of Lords for all its floors does take once elected member into its body in order that they may serve a semi democratic purpose.
I say all of this merely to make a point we do not live in a technocracy but we are in danger of doing so. From Tony Blair onward both the labour party and the Tory party have elected technocrats as leaders (even the lib-dems did this with Clegg). Men who have no track record of party politics and who have served parliament as unelected technocratic supports to actual politicians.
The party serve the technocratic creed, they manage rather than lead, they talk instead of acting and above all the parties seek power rather than to serve some higher aim. Indeed there is something terrible technocratic about the middle ground as it hold no truck with extremes of passion or love for the complexity and peculiarity of the human species and seeks only dull inhuman stability.
This may seem like sour grapes. I have always voted against the technocratic rule of ex special advisors and I have always lost but it is a genuine concern that though we are not the EU commission yet are parliament is stocked up with technocracies aka professional politicians. People whose skill is electoral and nothing more.
I am reminded of Burke the age of duty, honour and glory have ended and the age of the beaucrarte, financier and professional has dawned. Weep now brothers for the age of belief of ideas of anything beyond statistical at arm’s length governance has come and the age of the speechmaker, rabble rousers and believers has passed.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Freedom and liberty
Man may set aside laws which are important to him and these laws he may found pleasurable indeed these laws may come to define everything he loves or enjoys and be key to allowing him to be a free man in society. He is in deep trouble as are these highly regarded laws when he sees them as natural or inalienable for he then entrust their keeping not to the social from whence they come and in which they are regarded but to government as they are the keepers of all laws and as these laws are natural or inalienable cannot be altered.
Of course government being capricious and jealous seeks to ensnare man not in the social web but the web of the bureaucrat and administrator and so robs man of these highly regarded laws and replace them with rights and freedoms which are the rights of freedom the government deems to give him with no regard to the nature of man. Worse still via these new liberties and freedoms they try to shape man to their will and through him undermine the social and consume its power into itself.
Therefore bother loves those laws which grant you joy and freedom within the social and allow no body to keep them for they will turn them but keep them yourself, keep them in the social for it was here they come, it here they are valued and it is here they are safe from those who speak so much of their nature and inalienability in order to rob you of what man ins society has made and thus man in society is best able to keep
Of course government being capricious and jealous seeks to ensnare man not in the social web but the web of the bureaucrat and administrator and so robs man of these highly regarded laws and replace them with rights and freedoms which are the rights of freedom the government deems to give him with no regard to the nature of man. Worse still via these new liberties and freedoms they try to shape man to their will and through him undermine the social and consume its power into itself.
Therefore bother loves those laws which grant you joy and freedom within the social and allow no body to keep them for they will turn them but keep them yourself, keep them in the social for it was here they come, it here they are valued and it is here they are safe from those who speak so much of their nature and inalienability in order to rob you of what man ins society has made and thus man in society is best able to keep
Saturday, 18 September 2010
Tea Party Patriots
Tea Party Patriots
Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetuses for the Tea Party movement are excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of his or her own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject it's citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. The runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action because we know that a heavy burden of national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetuses for the Tea Party movement are excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of his or her own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject it's citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. The runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action because we know that a heavy burden of national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)