Third Party & Independents Archives

For candidates, Bill of Rights optional

The oath required of the president on his inauguration is a simple one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yet both major party candidates have already found amendments in the Bill of Rights they have no desire to “preserve, protect and defend.” Would it be too difficult for Americans to find a president who takes the responsibilities of the office seriously—and most importantly, respects its limitations?


The near-reverential media treatment of John McCain since his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination in 2000 has ignored some of his most chilling statements regarding rights guaranteed in the Constitution. In defending the deplorable set of campaign finance rules that bears his name, McCain offered the justification that he would “rather have a clean government than one where quote ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt.” This reasoning follows from McCain’s belief in “national-greatness conservatism,” that our faith in government must be restored in order to undertake projects that, in his opinion, would prove mutually beneficial. Across the board, this serves as the underpinning for much of McCain’s political philosophy.

However, it is fatally flawed in that the Founders never intended for Americans to regard the government with a blind patriotic zeal; on the contrary, the power of the state was to be viewed with suspicion, lest we descend to the depths that required a revolution in the first place. Our ability under the First Amendment to challenge elected officials served as the lynchpin to this relationship, and it is this right that has been limited under McCain-Feingold. As challenges continued to mount to the constitutionality of the law, John McCain stood poised at every step to deny Americans their First Amendment rights to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

On the other hand, Democratic nominee Barack Obama fares no better in his consideration of Bill of Rights issues, despite his background as a constitutional law professor. While he has since attempted to track back from that position, he initially appeared to support the recently-disallowed D.C. gun ban which essentially ignored the Second Amendment. The senator’s skating on this issue looks less convincing when considering that as an Illinois state senate nominee, he supported banning the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns in the state.

Just as McCain’s vision of the role of government disregards the importance of constitutional guarantees of free speech, Obama believes that states and localities are entitled to override the constitutional right to keep and bear arms if they believe it will crack down on crime. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller underscores the idea that no matter the intent, Bill of Rights provisions are inviolable.

In addition, both candidates plan to vote in favor of the “compromise” FISA Amendments Act currently being filibustered in the Senate after being approved in the House. The only thing compromised in the hastily-passed bill is Fourth Amendment protection from searches and seizures conducted without a warrant. Despite the denials of those who voted in favor of the bill, Americans will continue to be subject to warrantless wiretapping if they are communicating with a foreign “target.” The evidence which designates any specific foreigner as a target is not subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The provisions which confer immunity to companies complicit in the violation of the law prevent those who have been wiretapped from discovering the extent of the search. Thus, both candidates are willing to allow Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights to be violated through warrantless searches, and deny those who have already been subject to such searches any legal recourse.

Again, note that in all of the examples listed here, the nominees have good-faith justifications for violating Bill of Rights guarantees. But that is the very reason why these guarantees are in place—these rights are conferred to us as human beings and there is no sufficient rationale for their suspension by the government. It is our responsibility to say to Senators Obama and McCain that whoever is elected in November, we expect him to take his oath of office seriously and respect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Posted by Matthew Tyler at June 28, 2008 3:27 PM
Comments
Comment #257020

Seems to me they have violated their oaths of office?

Where’s the Accountability?

How is John McCain getting away with violating FEC laws?

Without Accountability, there is Corruption.

  • Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

How many constitutional violations can you think of (aside from these other abuses and corruption)?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 28, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #257032

“Barack Obama fares no better in his consideration of Bill of Rights issues, despite his background as a constitutional law professor… “he initially appeared to support the recently-disallowed D.C. gun ban which essentially ignored the Second Amendment.”

What? The Supreme Court takes decades to resolve the meaning of the 2nd amendment, does so with a 5-4 vote, and now Obama and anyone else who does not agree with a controversial ruling, and sides with the four dissenting judges, is not sufficiently reverential towards the bill of rights?

That’s complete crap.

I’m sure Obama will uphold the consititution as the Chief Executive. For now, the issue is settled. However, a large number of people in the country, both in and out of the legal profession, do not see the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing gun ownership, for sound and logical reasons.

When it comes to FISA, we do agree. I’m hoping Obama will come around. Current policies blatantly contract the 4th amendment. There’s no controversy about that. Creating a surveillance society is only being done because there are some pretty good technologies for doing it, and consitutional rights seem “quaint” or whatever.

So tar the candidates over FISA, but please don’t tell me disagreements over the interpretation of the 2nd amendment meet the same standards.

Posted by: phx8 at June 28, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #257043

Matthew, money is NOT speech. Money is an instrument of purchase for goods and services. If I say nice things to you, will give me 20% of your pay for the next year? Speech is communication, money is an exchange medium. DO NOT confuse the two. The 1st Amendment NOWHERE defines bribery as speech.

As for the guns and 2nd amendment, the brightest of academic and Constitutional minds have differed on the interpretation of that amendment from BEFORE it was ratified. You say tom - a - toes, others say tom -ah- toes. Your argument against Obama does not hold water, and I say that as a person who disagrees entirely with Obama on the issue of government denying access to guns for law abiding citizens.

As for McCain, his McCain-Feingold Bill was to be a down payment on removing legalized special interest lobbying from government. He says he is still committed to that goal, though his case for violating his own law is headed to Federal Elections Commission. He was wrong to violate his own law, but his sponsored law to BEGIN to remove bribery in and of our government was in no way an infringement upon the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of political speech was to be granted equally to all with the end of slavery. Not doled out and afforded to folks according to wealth and status.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 29, 2008 1:38 AM
Comment #257052
I’m sure Obama will uphold the consititution as the Chief Executive.
That would be nice, since Obama and all other members of Congress already appear to be violating the Constitution today.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 7:02 AM
    Comment #257053
    However, a large number of people in the country, both in and out of the legal profession, do not see the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing gun ownership, for sound and logical reasons.
      • 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    If you recall, in 1791, when the 2nd amendment was ratified, gun ownership was never intended to be for the militia only. Not then, and not now. The inherent right of self-defense is central to the 2nd amendment (especially when considering the time it was ratified; e.g. 1791). The clear, obvious, and literal language of the 2nd amendment is unambiguous and no construction is required to see that the literal interpretation and the intended interpretation of the 2nd amendment are consistent with the 5 Supreme Court Justices upholding the 2nd amendment.

    What is disturbing is that the 2nd amendment was upheld by only a margin of 1 vote (5-to-4 Supreme Court Justices)

    Judges supporting the 2nd Amendment:

    • (1) Antonin Scalia

    • (2) John G. Roberts Jr.

    • (3) Samuel A. Alito Jr.

    • (4) Anthony M. Kennedy

    • (5) Clarence Thomas
    Judges dissenting the right of citizens to bear arms:
    • (6) John Paul Stevens

    • (7) Stephen G. Breyer

    • (8) Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    • (9) David H. Souter

    If Obama was on the side of the dissenters, then Obama and those dissenting judges clearly need to return to elementary school to obtain some remedial reading and comprehension.

    The issue of whether the 2nd amendment is a good idea is an entirely different matter. For those that disagree, they need to get the 2nd amendment changed, rather than trying to resort to construction and twisted re-interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Also, there are some studies that show when law abiding citizens are denied the right to bear arms, criminals are naturally more emboldened.

    But, the violation of the 2nd Amendment in D.C. is only one of many constitutional amendments, lawlessness, and other abuses.

    At any rate, in a voting nation, and as long as voters can vote and get an accurate vote-count, the voters have the government that the voters elect.

    Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 7:29 AM
    Comment #257055

    Fortunately, even though 4 of 9 (44.4%) of the Supreme Court Justices need some remedial reading and comprehension, the vast majority of Americans get it …

    Do you believe the 2nd Amendment should protect an individual’s right to have a gun?

    • 5831 votes:

    • YES: 91.9%

    • NO: 8.1%
    Would you support legislation for stricter gun control in your state?
    • 5839 votes:

    • YES: 15.8%

    • NO: 84.2%

    Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 7:39 AM
    Comment #257073

    David, thank you for bringing up something that has been a major major source of our problems. Money is free speech. Talk about judicial activism over the top….. Wonder how much MONEY changed hands in that deal. I just checked our VISION FOR AMERICA page and to my amazement there was nothing about correcting this overstepping of the Constitution. Well, in a day or two it will be included on the site.
    I fail to see the usefulness of discussing anything regarding Obama or McCain. These two ARE the oligarchy as much as if they were the CEO’s of the CEO’s. Has not 60 years of oligarchy been enough? I don’t listen to or watch a thing regarding the duopoly. They are history for me. I’m going on, working on a revolution through a third party with built-in accountability. I did try to catch Nader on ABC this morning. CNN was debating about the lack of coverage for Barr and Nader and noted that ABC was interviewing NADER and how quaint that was. I rushed to ABC but… to late. You may have noticed that Dobb’s is not covering third parties either and he is a supposed Independent. Yes, I did send him a blast on that….and will continue to do so.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 29, 2008 12:22 PM
    Comment #257078

    Good point. I’m going to send CNN an note about that too.

    Posted by: d.a.n at June 29, 2008 1:07 PM
    Comment #257092
    Would it be too difficult for Americans to find a president who takes the responsibilities of the office seriously—and most importantly, respects its limitations?

    As along as we look to the two major parties for one, YES!

    It is our responsibility to say to Senators Obama and McCain that whoever is elected in November, we expect him to take his oath of office seriously and respect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

    It’s our not only responsibility to tell them they need to but also it’s our responsibility to make sure that they do.

    The original 13 states forced the framers of The Constitution to at the bill of rights to it in order to get it ratified. And it’s up to all 300,000,000 of us to make sure the government doesn’t violate any of those ten very important amendments. Just like it’s the responsibility of all of us to make sure the government lives by the whole Constitution and not just what it likes.
    But ya aint gonna get any of that bunch up there in DC to go by our Constitution. That’s why we need to do a major house cleaning and vote both major parties out of power.

    Gotta go now. We’re leaving for Sydney in a coupe of hours. Taking my wife back to her birth country for a visit. It’ll be her fist time there sense she came here in 62. See y’all when we get back.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at June 29, 2008 3:14 PM
    Comment #257095

    Ron Brown, have a safe trip. Ron said: “And it’s up to all 300,000,000 of us to make sure the government doesn’t violate any of those ten very important amendments. Just like it’s the responsibility of all of us to make sure the government lives by the whole Constitution and not just what it likes.
    But ya aint gonna get any of that bunch up there in DC to go by our Constitution. That’s why we need to do a major house cleaning and vote both major parties out of power”.

    Goes right to the heart of it. Accountability. We need reform but along with it we need a citizens oversight of Government officials, political appointees, ambassadors ane the like. The fourth branch of Government, if you will, that has been much talked about but never implemented. Been said many times that the the founding fathers failed to form a more perfect Union by failing to create that fourth branch. At demreps.com we are advocating for a Third Party with built-in accountability for political leaders, appointees, ambassadors and the like. We need reform and further, we need to KEEP IT THAT WAY!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 29, 2008 3:34 PM
    Comment #257111

    Alrighty, I’ll wade back into some of the messes I started…

    re: Obama and the 2nd, I think it’s laughable that Heller ended up being a 5-4 decision because it promotes exactly the type of arguments that are going on here and elsewhere. I’m not someone who believes that the 2nd Amendment forbids all restrictions on gun ownership (as all of the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights have some strings attached) but in DC there was effectively a total ban. That seems virtually impossible to square with the 2nd, and Obama advocated it twice during his political career.

    I’m not above saying where I think a SC decision was wrongly decided, and in this case, I think the decision was correct, but it’s disturbing that 4 justices dissented. Note that the Constitution was not designed to be read only by lawyers, so I feel comfortable in making that statement.

    re: McCain-Feingold, I’m not happy with the campaign finance provisions (and again, here I don’t think that McConnell v. FEC was a correct decision). However, my main issue with McCain was his defense of—and original inclusion of—the provisions eventually struck down in 2007 that banned issue ads within the period directly before an election.

    Regardless of the whole “money is or is not speech” aspect, that part of McCain-Feingold is a patently unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Then after it was struck down, McCain looked to restrict 527 groups. The effect of such regulation is incumbency protection—it stifles dissenting views and handicaps challengers looking to promote their message.

    I figured everyone would be on board with FISA, and I hope that Obama supporters keep pressuring him to rethink that issue.

    Posted by: Matthew Tyler at June 29, 2008 6:05 PM
    Comment #257131

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    At the time this was written, there was no standing army, because a standing army in time of peace was considered harmful to liberty.

    Gee. A military-industrial complex could be harmful to the country’s liberty? Who woulda thunk it? Nah. Never happen.

    Anyway, the concept of a “well-regulated militia” no longer even exists. It’s usually connected with the National Guard, but I’m pretty sure the Guard is not a Bring Your Own Arms type of organization.

    If we really want to get all constitutional, and citizens can BYOA’s to the Guard, because remember, we are freaking purists about the 2nd amendment now , right, eh, come on, no lilly-livered half-steps for purists!- then M-16’s would be a must for every girl and boy. The occasional firearms gourmand might bring along a flamethrower, another landmines, and yet another their own personal tank. Because the right cannot be infringed!

    Of course, that’s silly, and it’s a recipe for carnage, much like what we already see in urban areas today, due to the ready availability of weapons which have no practical usage other than killing human beings.

    Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2008 12:59 AM
    Comment #257143
    phx8 wrote: The occasional firearms gourmand might bring along a flamethrower, another landmines, and yet another their own personal tank. Because the right cannot be infringed! Of course, that’s silly, and it’s a recipe for carnage, much like what we already see in urban areas today, due to the ready availability of weapons which have no practical usage other than killing human beings.
    Yes, that is silly.

    However, that does not eliminate the need for self-defense, nor the right to bear arms (e.g. handgun or rifle) for that purpose.

    Someone else also posed a similar argument in another thread, in which they asked (paraphrasing), “Would you want your neighbor to own a nuclear missile?”

    That is a much different matter:

    • [1]Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is vastly different than a non-automatic fire-arm (e.g. hand-gun or rifle).

    • [2] My neighbor does not need a nuclear missile, tanks, explosives, or even automatic M-16s or AK-47s for self-defense.

    • [3] and it poses an unnecessary danger to the population at large.

    • [4] and, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified (year 1791), nuclear missiles, tanks, M-16s, AK-47s, other similar weapons systems, and WMD, did not exist.

    • [5] fire arms were not only necessary for self-defense in year 1791, but for hunting and survival.

    • [6] fire arms are still necessary for self-defense, since the police obviously can not protect everyone.

    The problem with the extreme extrapolations is that they are 2 of the top 10 abuses of theory and logic:

    • (10) IRRELEVANT or EXTREME COMPARISONS (apples to oranges):
        Example: Why use a hand-gun for self defense to stop an intruder from breaking and entering your home, when a nuclear missile would be more effective?

    • (02) TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
        Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know, he’ll be lopping your limbs off.
    Obviously, the threat level of a hand-gun and nuclear missiles are vastly different (a pitiful attempt to use an apples-to-oranges comparison; see #(10) above).
    After all, a nuclear missile is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), and poses a potential hazard to millions of people (possible planet-wide).

    Neighbors are rarely endangered by their neighbors’ right to own a hand-gun or rifle.
    However, a nuclear missile poses a serious risk to thousand (if not millions) of people; not only if detonated, but potential radiation hazards, etc.

    Also, there’s an obvious mismatch, aside from the danger of WMD. A hand-gun may not be a very good defense against a nuclear missile.

    Despite the following:

    • Guns don’t kill people. People do.

    • Pencilz dont mispel wordz. People do.

    • Spoons don’t make people fat. People do.

    • Cars don’t make people speed. People do.

    • Laws don’t make people break them. People do.
    … WMD is a significantly different matter and poses a MUCH larger threat to the population at large.
    No individuals need their own personal nuclear missle(s) for self-defense.
    And I also would not want my neighbor running a methamphetamine-lab next door either, due to the risk of explosion (aside from not being necessary for self-defense), and danger to the population at large.

    While I support 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, I’m not opposed to some common-sense regulation.

    However, self-defense is a right too, that is central to the 2nd Amendment. Also, in year 1791, when the 2nd amendment was ratified, gun ownership was never intended to be for the militia only. Not then, and not now. The inherent right of self-defense is central to the 2nd amendment (especially when considering the time it was ratified; e.g. 1791). The clear, obvious, and literal language of the 2nd amendment is unambiguous and no construction is required to see that the literal interpretation and the intended interpretation of the 2nd amendment are consistent with the 5 Supreme Court Justices that correctly upholded the 2nd amendment (Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas).

    Matthew Tyler wrote: … but it’s disturbing that 4 justices dissented. Note that the Constitution was not designed to be read only by lawyers, so I feel comfortable in making that statement.
    Yes, it is. Those Here’s a better 4 dissenting Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David H. Souter) need some remedial education in reading, comprehension, and history. Posted by: d.a.n at June 30, 2008 6:47 AM
    Comment #257144

    d.a.n. -

    PLEASE stop using UNSCIENTIFIC POLLS as your ‘proof’. Such internet java-script polls do NOT represent a cross-section of Americans, but only of those who happened to read that particular article on the internet.

    If you’re basing your opinions on such sources, your credibility suffers greatly.

    Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 30, 2008 6:51 AM
    Comment #257159
    Glenn Contrarian wrote: d.a.n. - PLEASE stop using UNSCIENTIFIC POLLS as your ‘proof’. Such internet java-script polls do NOT represent a cross-section of Americans, but only of those who happened to read that particular article on the internet.
    Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are most guilt of themselves.

    Perhaps some people should practice what they preach?

    That poll you are referring to is only one of numerous polls, and the numerous polls I saw all show that most Americans support the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Glenn Contrarian wrote: Try using Gallup or one of the REPUTABLE polling organizations and you’ll find a VERY different answer.
    OK.

    According to this GALLUP POLL, 73% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken 08-to-10-FEB-2008.

    Anything else?

    Glenn Contrarian wrote: If you’re basing your opinions on such sources, your credibility suffers greatly.
    My claims are based on the Australian government’s own report that showed that violent crimes have actually increased between 1995 and 2003. Sexual assaults increased too. And the total number of homicides increased slightly, but essentially remained unchanged.

    Violent assaults have been steadily rising 6% per year since 1995.
    ____ Violent assaults in Australia (1995 to 2003)_____:
    15000 |————————-
    14000 |————————a
    13000 |—————-a——-
    12000 |———-a————-
    11000 |—-a——————-
    10000 |—a———————
    09000 |-a———————-
    08000 |a————————
    07000 |————————-
    ______1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 YEAR
    ______9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
    ______9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
    ______5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
    Where a = violent assaults (increased 6% per year)

    See more details here.

    Posted by: d.a.n at June 30, 2008 10:04 AM
    Comment #257167
    The clear, obvious, and literal language of the 2nd amendment is unambiguous and no construction is required to see that the literal interpretation and the intended interpretation of the 2nd amendment are consistent with the 5 Supreme Court Justices that correctly upholded the 2nd amendment (Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts Jr., Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas).

    …A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


    It’s funny how many people can find their own meanings in words, and that serious debate chopped, reorganized and reshuffled these words before ratification. (Wikipedia ) I grant you that a well regulated likely meant a body politic with arms to keep a federal militia in check. How do we do that today? What weapons would keep a US army with Nuclear bombers in check today? So can I build a scud launcher with a dirty bomb in my backyard, in case GWBush or Obama are percieved as a threat to my liberty?

    Posted by: googlumpugus at July 26, 2008 1:38 PM
    Comment #257168

    goo, that is the question at the heart of the matter, isn’t it? If the interpretation is that the citizenry have the right to overpower their government, then there should be no prohibitions on citizens engaging in an arms race with our military and national guard.

    It’s one of those interpretations that leads to absurd consequences, regardless of the other merits of the interpretation.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at July 26, 2008 2:12 PM
    Comment #257169

    We went through the historical analysis of this a while back. The “right to bear arms” was a right insisted on in the 1689 Bill of Rights, to be able to defend yourself from people belonging to a different religion. The Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant of history, which is why the well regulated militia was the 18th century version, here and in the Declaration on the rights of Man. The right wingnuts object to it. They want the 17th century version of the Bill of Rights, which has been superceded.

    Posted by: ohrealy at July 26, 2008 2:32 PM
    Comment #257175

    Welcome Back

    Posted by: Cube at July 26, 2008 3:29 PM
    Comment #257186

    googlumpugus

    the last i checked there were over 80 million gun owners in this country. if even 10% were willing to fight back the US military as formidable as it is, would IMHO stand no chance. that is the point. to think that the US gov’t would obliterate it’s own country with WMDs to control the population is IMO crazy.

    Posted by: dbs at July 27, 2008 8:50 AM
    Comment #257198

    Previously posted, on the origin of the 2nd amendment:

    The Bill of Rights were in fact based on the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man:
    12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted…
    and the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which was concerned about “Protestants” being disarmed, among other things… it was clearly intended, based on precedents, to refer to the supporters of the government. ” A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. ” , state being substituted for men and citizens. The full text of both documents are published here:
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/
    I don’t think the 2nd amendment would be necessary for hunters and trappers, since that would fall under the category of historic rights, that did not need to be enumerated:
    “In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. One member of the Georgia delegation had to stay by way of opposition: “If we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated.’
    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    from:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

    Posted by: ohrealy at July 27, 2008 2:41 PM
    Comment #257208

    We’re back on the air!

    There’s an interesting debate on the future of the Second Amendment post-Heller this month at Cato Unbound. It also delves into some of the historical issues regarding the origin and purpose of various rights to bear arms in the 18th century. There’s a pretty diverse panel they have assembled, as they typically do for these discussions, so everyone here will probably have something to agree or disagree with.

    Posted by: Matthew Tyler at July 27, 2008 6:02 PM
    Comment #264732

    An old saying asks the question, “if something isn’t broke, than why fix it?” Speaking of the short term financial assistance that payday lenders offer, things surely aren’t broken. In fact, customers sing the praises of payday lenders largely because, when used properly, they’re one of the fastest and safest ways out of a sticky financial situation. Unfortunately, some people in high places don’t see it this way and are trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Several bipartisan efforts have outlawed the entire industry in certain states, even inspiring presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, to take aim at them as well. On November 4, don’t vote by party; vote for the peoples’ right to financial freedom.

    Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
    Professional Blogging Team
    Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
    Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
    Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

    Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate at September 27, 2008 3:38 AM
    Post a comment