No Facts on Racism Charge from Morgan Freeman

Mr. Freeman says that just because Mitch McConnell says that the Republicans will do everything they can to make Obama a one term president, that makes the Tea Party Racist??

Even though Mr. Freeman agreed that the Republicans tried to make Bill Clinton a one term president.

Where are the FACTS??

Here is the Video...
http://www.breitbart.tv/morgan-freeman-attacks-tea-party-as-racist/

17th Amendment

With what all That is going on in Washington, D.C. It would be a
good idea to do away with the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

In my opinion when Senators are picked by State Legislators, they do not need
millions of big business dollars to campaign with. They will be picked by
State Legislature, and all they will need to do is go before the
Legislators and prove that they would make good Senators. This would keep
the donators of Big Business from controlling the Senators as they are doing
today and have been since the Fraudulent 17th was placed in the Constitution.
 

It is much easier to talk to your State Senator or Representative and
get something done then trying to talk to our Senators. In my opinion the
time is ripe to do things needed to be done with Politicians which have
needed to be done for years. We need to get back to the Constitution and
what it stands for.

1st Amendment

When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.

There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
 

The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.

"Fair Share"

Pres. Obama and Warren Buffet are misleading the country and stirring up class warfare.

For either of them to say that rich people are paying a lower tax rate is misleading.  What Buffet is talking about is how he only pays 15% and his secretary pays 35%.  The misleading part of this is the secretary is paying Fed Income taxes, and Buffet is paying long term capital gains tax.

For Buffet to say we need to pay more in taxes is a joke.  Buffet CHOOSES to not take a salary, which would be taxed at 35%, and gets his money from capital gains on investments, which is taxed at 15%.

But for those that are in the 35% Fed Tax bracket and have investment income, (which the investment has already been taxed), will have to pay the additional 15% on investment income.  So in effect some people are already paying 45% of their income just in Fed Taxes, and then you have to add State & Local Taxes.  So how are they not paying their “fair share”?