FREEDOM RINGS 1776 is a conservative voice, defending the views of those who still believe in the constitution and opposing any and all who would lead us from our tried and true beliefs. We who still believe in the spirit of 1776 must oppose anyone who would set this nation on a course that will fundamentally transform America.
Danny Jeffrey


I have the distinct honor of introducing Rex Foster to my readers, as a man who disagrees with what I wrote in my last essay 'Freedom Of Speech...A Gift Of God?'. He not only disagrees but states his case with clarity and reason. This is not the first time that he and I have had opposing viewpoints as Rex is an outstanding patriot with strong points of view. I have long compared my relationship with him to that of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as they were renowned for their differing opinions but until they died, both on the same day, July 4, 1826, each held the other in the highest regard. Without further ado I give you the thoughts of my friend Rex Foster:

I have to disagree with the premise that the right of free speech did not come from God. 

That premise that rights do not come from God goes against what the founders understood and embodied in our Declaration of Independence and in the US Constitution. Such is the very basis of our nation. All rights do come from God, but it is up to man to secure them. Thus we fought for what God provided to us, but fighting to secure it did not create the right. Speech is only an extension of one's thoughts, and no law or government can eliminate thoughts. Our Constitution designates levels of government, and the powers delegated to those levels, but it enumerates rights of individuals that already exist. It is the individual that decides whether to use those rights or not, or to stop others that would try to take away those rights. 

As far as elections go, the choices were made by voters, not party officials or elected public officials. For instance, in NC, the race for the US Senate, 55% of the voters in the primary did not support the nominee, but did not agree on who they wanted to be that nominee out of the 8 candidates. Neither did they listen to the TV and print ads about who they should elect. But 45% of the voters did agree on a nominee, for whatever reason, and by law, that is who won. While the nominee choice was not the preferred choice of conservatives, it was conservatives who did not secure that choice. They did not act to secure that which was given them. 

From the NC BOE website, the turnout of the NC primary was :
15.79% (1,028,600 voters out of voted out of 6,516,126 voters total including Democrat voters. For the Republican Senate race there was about an 12% or 13% turnout of registered voters that were eligible to vote in that race that actually voted. (Both Republicans or Unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote in a Republican primary.)

The lack of participation is why the race was not decided in someone else's favor. Nobody made the conservatives stay at home but themselves. They failed to secure their right to have a say in their government, and nobody made them give up that right but themselves. 

This is extremely important for several reasons. 

First is the premise our whole government is based on. If rights come from man, then man can legislate them away or give them at will. 

Second is correctly identifying the problem so the correct solutions can be used. If we are applying a splint to a leg when the problem is a heart attack, the patient is not going to do well. If we are blaming the powers to be for people not participating, that ignores the majority of the ones that did participate who did not listen to the establishment or the likes of Rove or Norquist. 

Third is the false assumption that we don't have any blame for those "establishment Republicans" for being established. Someone must have let them stay in power somewhere along the way.

I suggest that the main answer is in who did not show up to vote to secure a good government.