Most often the most ignored right in the Bill of Rights itself is the Third Amendment. If I were to ask anybody on the street I believe 99.99% of the people asked would not know what the Third Amendment was. So just incase you are one of those who are unfamiliar with it, here it is:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered
in any house, without the consent of the Owner,
nor in time of war, but in a manner to be pres-
cribed by law."
Why do we have this in our Constitution? Is there a threat that our military will attempt to take quarter in our homes and that the American people will be forced to billet the troops at our own expense? The answer to these questions are no, of course not, our military has adequate housing and never in the history of our Nation has this been an issue that we've needed to fret. So why was it added into the Constitution by our Founding Fathers then? The answer is both simple and complex at the same time.
First the simple answer. If we read the Declaration of Independence we will see that one of the complaints against Ol' King George was that he had a large amount of standing troops during times of peace during the colonial days of America. These troops were permitted to take over any home of their choosing and would eat all the food and behave in manners unbefitting proper gentlemen of the day. The colonist were obliged to feed, house and care for (in a manner similar to servidtud) the troops for the duration of their stay. These billeting requirements usually lasted until the colonist had no more to give then the soldiers would move on to their next host. This was a sore spot to the colonist therefore when there was a push by the federalist to ensure a standing army during times of peace in the new fledgling nation, those opposed to this insisted on having a guarantee within the Constitution protecting the American people against the tyranical advances of a rogue army. That is pretty much the short of it.
Similarly, just as the First and Second Amendment protected the Citizens against an oppressive government, the Third was added with the same purpose in mind. Our Founding Fathers, understood that if there was a desire by the government who controlled the military to oppress the people, there would be no barrier to protect the person in their property from full scale "invasion". They therefore knowing once again the steps which would be taken by an oppressive government, having been subjected to one and studying the oppressive regeims of the past, placed into the Constitution various laws and protections to ensure that the Citizens would have a chance against their government if need arose.
Indeed as stated at the begining of this treatice, the Third Amendment has been widely forgotten and ignored. No litigation has arisen from this particular Amendment although it has been used to cite the Constitutions guarantee to privacy and property. In one instance which was brought before a lower court, in a case regarding a group of corrections officers who were on strike and subsequently expelled from their State sponsored housing to house the National Guard who were taking over guarding duties at the prisons effected by the strike, the court ruled that the corrections officers' Third Amendment rights were violated by the actions of the State. This ruling was appealed to an Appeals Court and the ruling was vacated, stating that due to the circumstances surrounding the eviction from the housing facilities, and the necessity to provide security at the prisons the State had not violated the rights of the guards and therefore there was no issue of Constitutionality at hand. Other than this one court case no other case has been brought up with regards to the "original" meaning or intent of this Amendment.
This is one Amendment which needs to be watched carefully, because when we forget and ignor something that at one time was a problem, it will usually come back to haunt us in the future. The old addage, those who ignor history are usually doomed to repeat it is very true. This Amendment is important for the sole fact that it shows a clear picture that our Founding Fathers understood historical events and endeavored to protect us from the cycle which has destroyed every major power in the history of the world. It also shows that they desired to protect us from the burden and expense of a tyranical government.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The Second Amendment
Now that we’ve reviewed the First Amendment to the Constitution, let’s take a look at the most attacked and controversial of freedoms granted within the Constitution, the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
First, let us define Militia. What exactly is a Militia? The textbook or dictionary definition of a militia is as follows: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Many of the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army of professional soldiers. They believed that a Militia comprising of citizens would keep the government “honest” and America’s borders secure. Their main fear of a standing army of professional soldiers was that in their experience a standing army could be utilized against the people thereby putting in jeopardy the Nation as a whole. They insisted that when a Bill of Rights was adopted and amended into the Constitution that a provision for the Citizens to defend themselves against oppression from their Federal government and defense against enemies from abroad and domestic by permitting the formation of a Militia and the individual arming of the Citizens of the Country be added thereto.
The argument that has been made by proponents of the First Amendment is that the reasoning behind the positioning of the amendment indicates its importance and therefore you can’t infringe upon that right because of its great importance. If that argument is to stand uncontested, then one must agree that the positioning of the Second Amendment makes it equally as important. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers understood the events, which would lead to an enslaving of the people and the actions, which would be taken by the government to oppress its Citizens. It is clear by the wording of the Second Amendment that it was intention of the Founding Fathers to establish the individual right to bear arms and therefore establish the right of the Citizens to own weapons.
Opponents to the Second Amendment have repeatedly claimed that it makes no guarantee of an individual right to own weapons. One argument that has been made is that gun ownership in Colonial America was scarce and uncommon. They’ve come to this conclusion by reviewing probate records from that era. They say that there is seldom any mention of a gun in the lists of assets found within those records. As an estate planner let me explain the holes found within this argument made by gun ownership opponents. Typically when an asset list is made for the intent of an estate items of worth are made more particular mention of. That is when a list of assets is made you would list furniture, jewelry, personal treasures, etc. Items which hold a particular value to you and your family which would be passed on to family members that they would consider valuable. An asset list would not include clothing, kitchen utensils, and other common household items typically found in everybody’s home because those items would not be of great importance in establishing a value. The absence of guns on the probate lists of the Colonial America era does not necessarily mean that gun ownership was uncommon. As a matter of fact gun ownership was more than common, more so than owning multiple suits of clothing. The obtaining of food was in most cases an individual endeavor. It was not common to go to the neighborhood grocery store and pick up your meat for the day. Another indication that gun ownership was common was the fact that many townships of the day shared Constables and County Sheriffs; this meant that the people were responsible for their own personal protection from highway men, thieves and Indian attacks and any other danger which should present itself during the course of daily life.
The Second Amendment has consistently come under attack by groups claiming that the mere existence of firearms promotes crime. Many Nations throughout the world have taken steps to ban the ownership of firearms to their citizenry with the hopes of lowering and eliminating crime. The outcome of these Draconian measures has been dismal for those Nations adopting such regulations. For example, a recent article on crime in England claimed that a person would be safer walking the streets of New York City, NY than walking the streets of London, England, and England has in place strict gun bans which include even novelty (toy, non-operational) guns. There was a recent incident in which a woman was attacked while walking home by a group of thugs desiring to do her harm, she had in her possession a toy handgun that she had taken from her grandchildren and presented it to her assailants to effectively escape. Upon reporting the incident to the local police she was arrested for threatening bodily harm with a dangerous weapon. England is not the only Nation to see an increase in violent crimes since adopting either all out gun bans or strict restrictions on personal gun ownership. Here in the United States we have seen the opposite happen as States have relaxed restrictions and provided Conceal Carry laws allowing their citizens the right to carry a firearm. The most recent of these would be Minnesota where the anti-gun lobby including several of the State’s Chief’s of Police insisted if the State passed a law allowing the individual right to carry a weapon “blood would run in the streets.” Over the past 7 years that the law has been on the books, murder rates have steadily decreased and crime has been kept at bay and in some areas decreased as well. This has been the trend in every State that has adopted less restrictive gun laws for its citizens.
When the Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago and Bush refused to renew it, the anti-gun lobby once again bemoaned the fact that millions of children would needlessly die and that the U.S. murder rate would skyrocket to unparalleled precedents. This has of course not happened nor has the increase of crimes using assault style rifles occurred as they prophesied would happen. Time and time again the anti-gun lobby has been proven wrong in their dooms day predictions, yet we as a people still give credence to their drivel. Recently Stanford Law Professor Don Kates along with a Canadian law professor named Gary Mauser conducted a legal analysis in the which they reviewed dozens of existing studies from around the world on the subject of gun bans and the reduction of crime and murder rates. Their research proved the mantra from the anti-gun lobby to be not only wrong but blatantly false. There is no empirical evidence to support the statements made by the anti-gun lobby or their cohorts in the legislative bodies of government.
These defenses of the Second Amendment are not meant to imply that firearms are not used in the commission of crimes. Firearms are used in the commission of 66% of murders in the U.S. Yet even this number is misleading due to the fact that it includes crimes committed by guns obtained illegally. If the number were to be removed for crimes committed by legally obtained weapons the numbers would fall dramatically. After firearms the next weapons of choice are those classified by the FBI as other weapons, which include rocks, arrows, tools and so forth. Close behind those are knives and other cutting instruments. My intention in pointing this out is the fact that firearms are not the only weapons of choice for the committal of murder. Even if we as a society could effectively rid America of all firearms including those obtained through illegal means, murder would still be where it is today. In other words, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It sounds trite but it is true. An SUV can’t drive itself into a pedestrian, and a gun cannot discharge itself, it is operator initiated in both instances.
In summation, the individual right to keep and bear arms is in fact a Constitutionally guaranteed right granted us by our Founding Fathers. In their minds the right to defend oneself from violent crime from criminals or oppression from government was one in the same. Any attempt to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms should be met with most strenuous resistance that we can sum up within ourselves. The only reason why anybody would want to remove our right to self armament is to enslave us and give themselves the ability to trample under foot the rest of our freedoms within the Constitution.
To view the study conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser , follow this link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2
“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.”
First, let us define Militia. What exactly is a Militia? The textbook or dictionary definition of a militia is as follows: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Many of the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army of professional soldiers. They believed that a Militia comprising of citizens would keep the government “honest” and America’s borders secure. Their main fear of a standing army of professional soldiers was that in their experience a standing army could be utilized against the people thereby putting in jeopardy the Nation as a whole. They insisted that when a Bill of Rights was adopted and amended into the Constitution that a provision for the Citizens to defend themselves against oppression from their Federal government and defense against enemies from abroad and domestic by permitting the formation of a Militia and the individual arming of the Citizens of the Country be added thereto.
The argument that has been made by proponents of the First Amendment is that the reasoning behind the positioning of the amendment indicates its importance and therefore you can’t infringe upon that right because of its great importance. If that argument is to stand uncontested, then one must agree that the positioning of the Second Amendment makes it equally as important. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers understood the events, which would lead to an enslaving of the people and the actions, which would be taken by the government to oppress its Citizens. It is clear by the wording of the Second Amendment that it was intention of the Founding Fathers to establish the individual right to bear arms and therefore establish the right of the Citizens to own weapons.
Opponents to the Second Amendment have repeatedly claimed that it makes no guarantee of an individual right to own weapons. One argument that has been made is that gun ownership in Colonial America was scarce and uncommon. They’ve come to this conclusion by reviewing probate records from that era. They say that there is seldom any mention of a gun in the lists of assets found within those records. As an estate planner let me explain the holes found within this argument made by gun ownership opponents. Typically when an asset list is made for the intent of an estate items of worth are made more particular mention of. That is when a list of assets is made you would list furniture, jewelry, personal treasures, etc. Items which hold a particular value to you and your family which would be passed on to family members that they would consider valuable. An asset list would not include clothing, kitchen utensils, and other common household items typically found in everybody’s home because those items would not be of great importance in establishing a value. The absence of guns on the probate lists of the Colonial America era does not necessarily mean that gun ownership was uncommon. As a matter of fact gun ownership was more than common, more so than owning multiple suits of clothing. The obtaining of food was in most cases an individual endeavor. It was not common to go to the neighborhood grocery store and pick up your meat for the day. Another indication that gun ownership was common was the fact that many townships of the day shared Constables and County Sheriffs; this meant that the people were responsible for their own personal protection from highway men, thieves and Indian attacks and any other danger which should present itself during the course of daily life.
The Second Amendment has consistently come under attack by groups claiming that the mere existence of firearms promotes crime. Many Nations throughout the world have taken steps to ban the ownership of firearms to their citizenry with the hopes of lowering and eliminating crime. The outcome of these Draconian measures has been dismal for those Nations adopting such regulations. For example, a recent article on crime in England claimed that a person would be safer walking the streets of New York City, NY than walking the streets of London, England, and England has in place strict gun bans which include even novelty (toy, non-operational) guns. There was a recent incident in which a woman was attacked while walking home by a group of thugs desiring to do her harm, she had in her possession a toy handgun that she had taken from her grandchildren and presented it to her assailants to effectively escape. Upon reporting the incident to the local police she was arrested for threatening bodily harm with a dangerous weapon. England is not the only Nation to see an increase in violent crimes since adopting either all out gun bans or strict restrictions on personal gun ownership. Here in the United States we have seen the opposite happen as States have relaxed restrictions and provided Conceal Carry laws allowing their citizens the right to carry a firearm. The most recent of these would be Minnesota where the anti-gun lobby including several of the State’s Chief’s of Police insisted if the State passed a law allowing the individual right to carry a weapon “blood would run in the streets.” Over the past 7 years that the law has been on the books, murder rates have steadily decreased and crime has been kept at bay and in some areas decreased as well. This has been the trend in every State that has adopted less restrictive gun laws for its citizens.
When the Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago and Bush refused to renew it, the anti-gun lobby once again bemoaned the fact that millions of children would needlessly die and that the U.S. murder rate would skyrocket to unparalleled precedents. This has of course not happened nor has the increase of crimes using assault style rifles occurred as they prophesied would happen. Time and time again the anti-gun lobby has been proven wrong in their dooms day predictions, yet we as a people still give credence to their drivel. Recently Stanford Law Professor Don Kates along with a Canadian law professor named Gary Mauser conducted a legal analysis in the which they reviewed dozens of existing studies from around the world on the subject of gun bans and the reduction of crime and murder rates. Their research proved the mantra from the anti-gun lobby to be not only wrong but blatantly false. There is no empirical evidence to support the statements made by the anti-gun lobby or their cohorts in the legislative bodies of government.
These defenses of the Second Amendment are not meant to imply that firearms are not used in the commission of crimes. Firearms are used in the commission of 66% of murders in the U.S. Yet even this number is misleading due to the fact that it includes crimes committed by guns obtained illegally. If the number were to be removed for crimes committed by legally obtained weapons the numbers would fall dramatically. After firearms the next weapons of choice are those classified by the FBI as other weapons, which include rocks, arrows, tools and so forth. Close behind those are knives and other cutting instruments. My intention in pointing this out is the fact that firearms are not the only weapons of choice for the committal of murder. Even if we as a society could effectively rid America of all firearms including those obtained through illegal means, murder would still be where it is today. In other words, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It sounds trite but it is true. An SUV can’t drive itself into a pedestrian, and a gun cannot discharge itself, it is operator initiated in both instances.
In summation, the individual right to keep and bear arms is in fact a Constitutionally guaranteed right granted us by our Founding Fathers. In their minds the right to defend oneself from violent crime from criminals or oppression from government was one in the same. Any attempt to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms should be met with most strenuous resistance that we can sum up within ourselves. The only reason why anybody would want to remove our right to self armament is to enslave us and give themselves the ability to trample under foot the rest of our freedoms within the Constitution.
To view the study conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser , follow this link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Three
I would now like to take a look at the final part of the First Amendment as we've already discussed the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech and the press. This part of the First Amendment refers to the "right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Let us first look at "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". What does it mean to peaceably assemble? Well to define the word peaceably, it means: without disturbance or peacefully. To define peacefully, it means: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration. I strongly believe that this right is essential for the assurance of order within our society. If this right is restricted or infringed upon then we as a society loose an integral part of our freedoms. It is through this guarantee that we are permitted to attend our church meetings throughout this Country, come together in book clubs, Rotary Clubs, Scout troops, etc. It is this guarantee which allows us as Americans to voice our opinion with regards to important subjects as we come together to rally for a cause. It is this freedom that we rely upon when we protest the actions of government or other organizations.
This being said, this right or freedom does not come without limitations. Let's go back to what it says as written, "peaceably assemble". We've defined peaceably as free from strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. Groups that come together and shout profanities at people attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action while fighting in Iraq are not protected by this Amendment although they claim the ability to do so from some loose interpretation of the First Amendment. The shouting of profanities to funeral attendees as well as religious devotees attending a religious meeting are in essence full of strife and commotion. There is not much to be said of this. There has been a very loose interpretation of this right, granting groups and organizations to assemble in an attitude of strife and disorder all the while claiming protection under the First Amendment. I believe our society needs to review this Amendment and enforce it as written.
Secondly, our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I do believe that this is the one right that our government has not profaned as of yet. We have always been permitted to write our government officials. I believe the reason behind the fact that our government has always upheld this right is due to the fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to redress any grievance presented to them, as they look at it. A perfect example of this would be shortly after the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were forced from their homes, murdered, and ruthlessly beaten in Missouri and forced from the State by Gov. Lilburn Bogg's Extermination Order, in the which he stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies and.... driven from the State or exterminated." They gathered affidavits and testimonials from those who had suffered at the hand of the Missourians and sent them off to the Congress. Congress ignored their petition for redress. They then went and met with President Van Buren and presented him with their complaint. After listening to the stories of abuse and mistreatment, President Van Buren exclaimed, "your cause is just, but there is nothing that I can do to help." In the eyes of the government there was no course needed to be taken, and the right of the Mormon people to petition the government for redress was not infringed upon in the slightest.
These rights outlined herein are essential to the assurance of a free Nation. They must be upheld by our government and properly applied by our Citizens. If we are to ensure the right of assemblage and petition we can not and must not abuse these freedoms. Ours is a sacred duty to emphatically uphold the freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution and pretend to no other. By so doing we will maintain order in our American society and peace will be established in our cities and in our homes.
Let us first look at "the right of the people to peaceably assemble". What does it mean to peaceably assemble? Well to define the word peaceably, it means: without disturbance or peacefully. To define peacefully, it means: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration. I strongly believe that this right is essential for the assurance of order within our society. If this right is restricted or infringed upon then we as a society loose an integral part of our freedoms. It is through this guarantee that we are permitted to attend our church meetings throughout this Country, come together in book clubs, Rotary Clubs, Scout troops, etc. It is this guarantee which allows us as Americans to voice our opinion with regards to important subjects as we come together to rally for a cause. It is this freedom that we rely upon when we protest the actions of government or other organizations.
This being said, this right or freedom does not come without limitations. Let's go back to what it says as written, "peaceably assemble". We've defined peaceably as free from strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. Groups that come together and shout profanities at people attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action while fighting in Iraq are not protected by this Amendment although they claim the ability to do so from some loose interpretation of the First Amendment. The shouting of profanities to funeral attendees as well as religious devotees attending a religious meeting are in essence full of strife and commotion. There is not much to be said of this. There has been a very loose interpretation of this right, granting groups and organizations to assemble in an attitude of strife and disorder all the while claiming protection under the First Amendment. I believe our society needs to review this Amendment and enforce it as written.
Secondly, our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". I do believe that this is the one right that our government has not profaned as of yet. We have always been permitted to write our government officials. I believe the reason behind the fact that our government has always upheld this right is due to the fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to redress any grievance presented to them, as they look at it. A perfect example of this would be shortly after the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were forced from their homes, murdered, and ruthlessly beaten in Missouri and forced from the State by Gov. Lilburn Bogg's Extermination Order, in the which he stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies and.... driven from the State or exterminated." They gathered affidavits and testimonials from those who had suffered at the hand of the Missourians and sent them off to the Congress. Congress ignored their petition for redress. They then went and met with President Van Buren and presented him with their complaint. After listening to the stories of abuse and mistreatment, President Van Buren exclaimed, "your cause is just, but there is nothing that I can do to help." In the eyes of the government there was no course needed to be taken, and the right of the Mormon people to petition the government for redress was not infringed upon in the slightest.
These rights outlined herein are essential to the assurance of a free Nation. They must be upheld by our government and properly applied by our Citizens. If we are to ensure the right of assemblage and petition we can not and must not abuse these freedoms. Ours is a sacred duty to emphatically uphold the freedoms guaranteed within the Constitution and pretend to no other. By so doing we will maintain order in our American society and peace will be established in our cities and in our homes.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part Two
Now let us take a look at the next part of the First Amendment of the Constitution as it is written:
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."
What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.
Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.
This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.
Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.
Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.
We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.
In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.
"Congress shall make no law...., abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..."
What does it mean to abridge the freedom speech? According to the definition of the word abridge to abridge one's freedom of speech means to reduce, diminish, or make less. How can a government abridge someones freedom of speech? One way is to put limitations upon what a person can say with regards to those who govern.
Why did the Founding Father's think it important to guarantee this freedom? Could it be that they knew the manner in which an oppressive government would try and effectuate control over people? During the years leading up to the Revolutionary War the British Crown sent officers of the Court to the New World to monitor those things which were being said against the Crown. Individuals who were found speaking out against the Crown were subsequently jailed and their material possessions taken from them as a consequence of their actions. Merely expressing displeasure in the governance of the Colonies made one fear for their lives and families. After the long fought war for independence the Founding Fathers were insistent that we as a people be permitted to express our displeasure and our views without fear of retaliation (except for cases of treason against the United States). This freedom is essential to a free people. If one is truly free and not the subject of an oppressive regime then they have the right to express their displeasure. On the other hand this freedom doesn't mean that it is without regulation and governance. For example you can't enter an airplane and jestingly declare you are going to hijack the airplane. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded building without consequence. These are common regulations placed upon our freedom of speech. There are social restrictions placed upon our freedom as well. It is not socially acceptable to enter a room full of children and commence spewing forth obscenities, the consequence to this action would be an escorted visit to the local police station for disorderly conduct. The list goes on with regards to the regulation of this essential freedom.
This being said, is this freedom equally extended to all Americans alike? The unfortunate answer to this is no. Today's society has interpreted the meaning of this portion of the First Amendment to imply that only the minority voice is protected from the restriction or oppression of speech. In addition to this inequality in the protection of one's freedom of speech, many have also interpreted this to mean that they have the right to be heard by all. Let's look at the wording once again, "Congress shall make no law......, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,..." I see no mention of the fact that only certain groups identified by Congress shall have this protection, nor do I see any mention that when exercising this freedom do you have the right granted to be heard. Furthermore, Congress is currently attempting to move forward with the passing upon of legislation which will make statutory law that which is commonly referred to as the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine was originally adopted by the FCC in 1949 to regulate the presentation over public airwaves of controversial subjects and subjects of importance to the American people to ensure that these subjects were presented in a fair and balanced manner. Essentially it required companies and individuals holding broadcasting licences to give equal time to opposing views of any given subject. This policy was a general practise within the FCC of many years until 1985 when the Director of the FCC decided that the Fairness Doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. It was finally abolished as a policy in 1987.
Many within the walls of Congress and the Senate along with special interest groups believe that the Fairness Doctrine was essential to the dissemination of information through public airwaves. Recently Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico told a local conservative talk show host, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." In June of this year Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California told reporters that her fellow democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied "Yes." Others who have voiced their support of the re institution of the Fairness Doctrine are Dick Durban, Democrat from Illinois and John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. Their desire to establish the Fairness Doctrine through Congressional intervention through legislation has extended beyond the mere application to radio stations and licensed broadcasters. Their current desire is to extend the doctrine to web sites and blogs. Which means blogs like this one would be required to represent both sides of all Constitutional issues or cease all operations and writing. This doctrine would silence talk radio which is dominated by conservative radio hosts, it would cancel Fox News, which has been attacked by the liberal left and Congress as a biased news outlet working for the Republican Party.
Would America be better served with the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? My attitude is of course no. I see no benefit to the American people. I do perceive an encroachment of my freedoms and the freedoms of those who are like minded. Would the Fairness Doctrine be enforced upon MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS? Would those news outlets who have during the last 18 months revealed themselves as no more than political hacks, left leaning liberals, and outright socialists be required to present the news in a fair and balanced manner? As of right now, only talk radio and conservative blogs and websites have been identified as targets deemed dangerous to the American public.
We as Americans owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure that this doctrine is not revived. We have a solemn responsibility passed upon us by our Founding Fathers, one which if we neglect to protect will be taken from us and we will be subjects to an oppressive government, that which our Founding Fathers intended not to happen.
In my next post we will discuss the final portion of this Amendment to the Constitution, which is our freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Freedoms: Commentary on the Bill of Rights, The First Amendment: Part One
Recently I was watching television and had the opportunity to watch an episode of "Little House on the Prairie". The episode was about an immigrant family from Russia who had moved to Walnut Grove and purchased a farm within the community. To make a long story short, in the episode the state levied a property tax increase which the community was livid about, and eventually seized the property of this Russian family because the person who sold him the property had not paid the property taxes in seven years. Charles being upset with his own tax situation seeing this happen was angered at the Country for allowing this to happen and informed his family that they would not be celebrating the Centennial celebration of the birth of this Nation. He went to try and console this family in their loss and complain against the Country. In a manner which caused me to become emotional this gentleman reminded Charles Ingals and myself what it means to be a Citizen of this great Country, and reminded him of what he called, "the freedoms", or what we would call the Bill of Rights. He went on to tell Charles and the rest of the towns people that they should consider themselves lucky to be living in what he considered to be the greatest Country on the face of this earth. This episode got me thinking about the Constitution and the greatness of this Country, and you know what, he was right. Each of us should consider ourselves lucky to be living here in this Country. With everything that we complain about, we are still free, and "the freedoms" still are important. I would like to take the next few posts to review each one of these "freedoms" or rights because I believe that we as a Nation have become so blinded by the media's interpretation of them as well as the way we are taught them in school that we don't take the time to read them for ourselves.
As part of our regular weekly family night in our home we've taken the opportunity to study the Constitution with our children during the course of the past year and a half. We started with a video on the Constitutional Convention and from there took the opportunity to discuss with our children what the Constitution is. Since then we've been going over the Amendments to the Constitution the first ten of which are called The Bill of Rights. The first of these guaranteed rights granted us by our Constitution is:
As part of our regular weekly family night in our home we've taken the opportunity to study the Constitution with our children during the course of the past year and a half. We started with a video on the Constitutional Convention and from there took the opportunity to discuss with our children what the Constitution is. Since then we've been going over the Amendments to the Constitution the first ten of which are called The Bill of Rights. The first of these guaranteed rights granted us by our Constitution is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances."Let's dissect the first Amendment to ensure that we understand its significance to us as a people. First, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I don't think there are many who would argue the meaning of this first section, although there are those who would read into it the separation of Church and State which all too often is mistakenly applied to the Constitution. As a matter of fact when I first posted this blog I had a survey in which I asked if the Constitution contained the phrase, "separation of church and state", and I had some people say that it was found within the Constitution. The truth is, that this supposed separation only exists within the halls of the Supreme Court and not the Constitution. If this phrase is not found in the Constitution, where does it come from?
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group called the
Danbury Baptists, while referencing the First Amendment to the Constitution he
wrote:"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
To understand fully what Mr. Jefferson was referring to we need to know the history or events leading up to the writing of this letter. This group was concerned that Connecticut would pass laws prohibiting their free exercise of religion and felt that they were in danger of being disbanded by political bias. In a letter dated October 7, 1801 they wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson who had just been elected President of the United States they presented their concern thus:
"Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."
The quote above, attributed to Thomas Jefferson was his response to them to assuage their fears. The afore mentioned quote of President Jefferson if taken at face value, indicates something far different from that which society today interprets them to mean. As a side note the "wall of separation" and thus "separation of church and state" never appeared in any Supreme Court Ruling until Reynolds v. United States in 1879 (see blog posting : "Marriage and the Constitution", dated October 11, 2008). It is clear in President Jefferson's letter that he is explicitly referencing the ability of the legislature to establish a religion or govern in the affairs of religion and not that there should be no "religiosity" in political realms. I believe this to be in the contrary. Many of our Founding Fathers indicated religion as being the basis upon which this Country was founded and that if religion and God were to ever be removed by the people in their political realms this would be the cause of great troubles which would befall the Nation as a whole. To prove this point let me here provide some quotes from those who would know what our Founding Fathers thought on the subject of religion and our Country.
John Adams said on October 11, 1798, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Samuel Adams on October 4, 1790 stated, "Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” John Quincy Adams during a Fourth of July speech in 1837 said, “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"? Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence said on November 4, 1800, " Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."Finally, lets end with Benjamin Franklin. In 1749 while laying out the plan for education for public schools in Pennsylvania he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
I believe the quotes as sited by those who are traditionally considered among
our Founding Fathers in this Nation are sufficient to prove my point that at
no time during their lives did they ever believe that religious actions or God
should ever be removed from the public interest or arena. I could go on for hours with quote after quote proving this point, but as stated already I believe these should suffice.In my next post I will continue with my treatise of this subject of the First Amendment and we will discuss the second part of the freedom of speech and of the press.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Constitutional Rights of "Joe" the Plumber
Well it was bound to happen. The man known to America as Joe the Plumber is being attacked by the media. All he did was ask a tough question of Obama and now he is public enemy number one, because he owes back taxes (totaling less than $1,200) and his name is not really Joe, it's Samuel. He should be taken out and severely punished for lying about his name. Oh, and did you know he isn't even a licensed plumber? Yeah, his boss is, not him, how dare he call himself a plumber. I am being facetious here of course. I could care less about his back taxes, or his name or even if he is a plumber or not. What I care about is the fact that his individual right to speech has come under fire. All for asking the question on why he should vote for Obama taking into consideration his current economic situation. If Obama can't answer the question without being put out when a person doesn't agree with him on the outcome is that any reason to cause that he be excoriated for his position in being opposed to his economic views. Any intelligent non-political analysis of Obama's economic "plan" will uncover errors and omissions of major importance.
History has repeatedly shown that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity, it is anathema to common sense. His plan would give tax incentives to companies for a period of two years to create jobs in America and then at the end of two years those incentives would expire and those companies would loose the advantage of the domestic workforce. No company would go through the expense of hiring and training a workforce for two years. The "benefit" doesn't exist and therefore it is a smoke screen or merely a poor attempt at political posturing. America seems to be buying it though, he cares about the little guy, the working class American. When you look into his proposals you will see who he cares about, and it is himself. He will create more unemployment and create more financial stress in the market until he can implement his true economic agenda, socialism.
His health care plan for example, will require companies that are wealthy ($250,000 and more) to provide health care benefits for their employees and be assessed a tax to fund the national fund for health care. Employees will be able to retain their current benefits without any problems according to Obama. Let's look at reality, a company who is paying for health care and paying an additional tax to cover universal health care will gradually lower benefits until the employee declines employer sponsored health care, these employees will then move over to the universal health care increasing the demand. By the way if you think that this is merely an attempt to smear Obama and say that he is unintelligent, look at the case of Hawaii. Seven months ago Hawaii passed the Nation's first universal health care program to cover all children in Hawaii. Today they announced that they were closing it down because too many people who were getting benefits from either work or self-paid were taking their children off of their policies and getting them on the State sponsored policies, which overburdened the system and depleted the funds allotted for it. The same will happen with Obama's plan and there will be a massive push for the government to takeover the health care system. Just like we see right now with the government buying up stock in banks, taking ownership of banks throughout the country.
Obama mentioned in the debate the other night that we as a Nation and them as the government need to re-evaluate the way things are done in the United States with regards to debt and our economic plans, this is merely code for we need to re-evaluate capitalism and consider moving more toward communism if we are to succeed in today's world. Communism is not the answer for America, free market enterprise without government intervention is though. We don't need more government oversight of every little detail, this just creates more bureaucracies to deal with and which drain much needed financial resources from the federal government and therefore from the people.
Let's get back to "Joe" the wanna be plumber. He in actuality represents each and every hard working American. Each of us wants to live the American dream of owning our own company or reaching a level of success in our careers where we are earning six figures easily. Under Obama this dream or hope becomes dead, or as Obama would put it, our " Audacity of Hope". This our audacity is what Obama wishes to conquer and help us overcome by being more Patriotic and paying more taxes and giving up on this foolish notion of business ownership for self improvement and or career advancement. Those who are suckling on the breast of the federal government will continue to be taken care of for their continued support while those who dare try to obtain greatness will be litigiously whipped into submission until we freely accept the redistribution of wealth in America give up our supposed claim to individual rights understanding that the Constitution is a document of yesterday and today America must embark on a new journey, a journey to align ourselves with their view of America as broken and mean spirited.
I for myself will never accept this view of America. I am free, and I will remain free. My rights and this freedom which I claim is not given to me by man, but by God. May our Nation forever be one, united under a common sense of duty and respect. My prayer for America is that our politicians will respect us as Americans and allow us to live free under the protection of the Constitution. May we ever remain a Nation United!
History has repeatedly shown that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity, it is anathema to common sense. His plan would give tax incentives to companies for a period of two years to create jobs in America and then at the end of two years those incentives would expire and those companies would loose the advantage of the domestic workforce. No company would go through the expense of hiring and training a workforce for two years. The "benefit" doesn't exist and therefore it is a smoke screen or merely a poor attempt at political posturing. America seems to be buying it though, he cares about the little guy, the working class American. When you look into his proposals you will see who he cares about, and it is himself. He will create more unemployment and create more financial stress in the market until he can implement his true economic agenda, socialism.
His health care plan for example, will require companies that are wealthy ($250,000 and more) to provide health care benefits for their employees and be assessed a tax to fund the national fund for health care. Employees will be able to retain their current benefits without any problems according to Obama. Let's look at reality, a company who is paying for health care and paying an additional tax to cover universal health care will gradually lower benefits until the employee declines employer sponsored health care, these employees will then move over to the universal health care increasing the demand. By the way if you think that this is merely an attempt to smear Obama and say that he is unintelligent, look at the case of Hawaii. Seven months ago Hawaii passed the Nation's first universal health care program to cover all children in Hawaii. Today they announced that they were closing it down because too many people who were getting benefits from either work or self-paid were taking their children off of their policies and getting them on the State sponsored policies, which overburdened the system and depleted the funds allotted for it. The same will happen with Obama's plan and there will be a massive push for the government to takeover the health care system. Just like we see right now with the government buying up stock in banks, taking ownership of banks throughout the country.
Obama mentioned in the debate the other night that we as a Nation and them as the government need to re-evaluate the way things are done in the United States with regards to debt and our economic plans, this is merely code for we need to re-evaluate capitalism and consider moving more toward communism if we are to succeed in today's world. Communism is not the answer for America, free market enterprise without government intervention is though. We don't need more government oversight of every little detail, this just creates more bureaucracies to deal with and which drain much needed financial resources from the federal government and therefore from the people.
Let's get back to "Joe" the wanna be plumber. He in actuality represents each and every hard working American. Each of us wants to live the American dream of owning our own company or reaching a level of success in our careers where we are earning six figures easily. Under Obama this dream or hope becomes dead, or as Obama would put it, our " Audacity of Hope". This our audacity is what Obama wishes to conquer and help us overcome by being more Patriotic and paying more taxes and giving up on this foolish notion of business ownership for self improvement and or career advancement. Those who are suckling on the breast of the federal government will continue to be taken care of for their continued support while those who dare try to obtain greatness will be litigiously whipped into submission until we freely accept the redistribution of wealth in America give up our supposed claim to individual rights understanding that the Constitution is a document of yesterday and today America must embark on a new journey, a journey to align ourselves with their view of America as broken and mean spirited.
I for myself will never accept this view of America. I am free, and I will remain free. My rights and this freedom which I claim is not given to me by man, but by God. May our Nation forever be one, united under a common sense of duty and respect. My prayer for America is that our politicians will respect us as Americans and allow us to live free under the protection of the Constitution. May we ever remain a Nation United!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Marriage and The Constitution
Before I start in on my intended subject of same-sex marriage, let's take a look at the history of marital laws in the United States of America and the Constitutionality of those laws as set forth by the courts. In order to do this we will need to take a look at the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the laws with regards to marriage as passed by the Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court dealt principally with the Mormon church.
In 1862, Congress passed the anti-polygamy law known as the Morrill Act. This was the first act of the national Republican party in trying to derail the Mormon church since they were created to rid society of the two pillars of social blight, slavery and Mormonism. This law forbade the practise of plural marriage or polygamy. It created strict penalties including prison terms for those who violated the law. The Church was to cease all practise of polygamy immediately. In 1875 members of the Church with the consent of the leaders of the church challenged the law in the Supreme Court. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States in the case Reynolds v. United States, in a unanimous decision by the court, it ruled that the U.S. Congress had all right given under the Constitution to define marriage and make laws to enforce that definition by the governing body. As a side note, what I find interesting with this 9-0 decision in favor of the Morrill Act in 1879 is that in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution protected the individual right to keep and bare arms. I'll let you make your conclusions as to the motivation backing the premise behind these two decisions, and I'll continue with my original topic. With this new found backing by the court, the congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act with stiffer penalties if not adhered to immediately. The Church facing complete isolation and the prospect of loosing all property through seizure by the Federal Government moves to make the practise of polygamy illegal within the Church. Many men who refuse to leave their families are placed in prison and others flee to Mexico to live in peace with their wives and children. I could get into a discussion with regards to the Constitutional issues surrounding this ordeal, but I will leave it at that and continue on topic.
Now let's flash forward in time to today. There has been several attempts by some in congress to introduce an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The opposition to this amendment within the congress has stated that congress has no right to define marriage and that it is a state's right issue. In principle I believe this stance to be correct. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights and ratified in 1791 states as follows: " 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." This means since the Constitution makes no mention of a definition of marriage or contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1879, the States and or the people make the decision on the definition of marriage. This being said, although I believe the ruling of the Court to be motivated by religious bigotry and intolerance, nonetheless they ruled that the Congress has the Constitutional authority to define marriage within the United States, and since we as a people cannot go against the ruling of the Supreme Court as witnessed in the case with Roe v. Wade the Congress has the authority for now to define marriage.
I therefore ask this question, why then has the Congress refused to act on this subject? I believe the answer is simple. As in many instances in recent decades our illustrious elected officials have repeatedly refused to take upon themselves the responsibility to govern in those tough issues and have sat idly by and allowed the Courts to legislate from the bench. I believe this is what they are attempting to do in this case with full knowledge as to how the Court will eventually rule. We see in Massachusetts once the people voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment the Courts came back and said, that although the people spoke, they have no right to define marriage and same-sex marriage was legalized. In Connecticut this week, their High (and mighty) Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage thereby taking out of the hands of the people to define marriage for themselves. Next month in California Proposition 8 will attempt to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman. If the people come out in favor, will the Courts in California uphold the ruling? I believe we can safely assume that the answer to that will be, No. Since they have already ruled in favor of same-sex unions in California.
Twenty-seven states currently have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have statutory laws prohibiting same-sex unions but all are under judicial review. With political hot bed, our Congress has been unable to muster the 2/3 votes needed to pass the law. If nothing is done within Congress the Courts will determine the outcome of this battle between traditional and re-defined marriage.
What can we do? We can write our Congressmen and women and demand that action be taken to define marriage as between one man and one woman. We must hold our legislatures accountable to do their job and stop the Courts from legislating from the bench. Article III of the Constitution states that,"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress makes laws and the Court upholds them, not the other way around. It is time that our government understand the Constitution and stop trying to skirt the issues at hand.
Make no mistake about it, either the voice of the people will be heard, or the Courts will be heard on this issue. Then what will be next? Will homosexuality be taught to our children in schools as a normal choice and perfectly acceptable so that a 5-year old in kindergarten will grow up with their parents telling them one thing and their teachers and educators telling them something else? Will parental rights be completely stripped away with regards to this issue? I believe the answers to these questions will be in the affirmative. Then will those who practise bestiality, or necrophiles, or pedophiles be granted their rights under this new found Constitutional right? Where does it stop? It won't.
My call is to all Americans worthy of that appellation to stand up and make your voice heard. If we are to save the sacred institution of marriage then we must act. The future of our Country and our societies demands that we do something now. Stand up, and prepare for the battle ahead, because this is not a matter of just marriage, but a matter of National security. I feel strongly about this subject. We must act or be acted upon.
God Bless America! And may Freedom ring from the tops of every hill penetrating in every climb and may the flame of freedom burn brightly in the hearts of every American until we are able to say, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America!
(Video on same-sex marriage)
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
In 1862, Congress passed the anti-polygamy law known as the Morrill Act. This was the first act of the national Republican party in trying to derail the Mormon church since they were created to rid society of the two pillars of social blight, slavery and Mormonism. This law forbade the practise of plural marriage or polygamy. It created strict penalties including prison terms for those who violated the law. The Church was to cease all practise of polygamy immediately. In 1875 members of the Church with the consent of the leaders of the church challenged the law in the Supreme Court. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States in the case Reynolds v. United States, in a unanimous decision by the court, it ruled that the U.S. Congress had all right given under the Constitution to define marriage and make laws to enforce that definition by the governing body. As a side note, what I find interesting with this 9-0 decision in favor of the Morrill Act in 1879 is that in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution protected the individual right to keep and bare arms. I'll let you make your conclusions as to the motivation backing the premise behind these two decisions, and I'll continue with my original topic. With this new found backing by the court, the congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act with stiffer penalties if not adhered to immediately. The Church facing complete isolation and the prospect of loosing all property through seizure by the Federal Government moves to make the practise of polygamy illegal within the Church. Many men who refuse to leave their families are placed in prison and others flee to Mexico to live in peace with their wives and children. I could get into a discussion with regards to the Constitutional issues surrounding this ordeal, but I will leave it at that and continue on topic.
Now let's flash forward in time to today. There has been several attempts by some in congress to introduce an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The opposition to this amendment within the congress has stated that congress has no right to define marriage and that it is a state's right issue. In principle I believe this stance to be correct. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights and ratified in 1791 states as follows: " 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." This means since the Constitution makes no mention of a definition of marriage or contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1879, the States and or the people make the decision on the definition of marriage. This being said, although I believe the ruling of the Court to be motivated by religious bigotry and intolerance, nonetheless they ruled that the Congress has the Constitutional authority to define marriage within the United States, and since we as a people cannot go against the ruling of the Supreme Court as witnessed in the case with Roe v. Wade the Congress has the authority for now to define marriage.
I therefore ask this question, why then has the Congress refused to act on this subject? I believe the answer is simple. As in many instances in recent decades our illustrious elected officials have repeatedly refused to take upon themselves the responsibility to govern in those tough issues and have sat idly by and allowed the Courts to legislate from the bench. I believe this is what they are attempting to do in this case with full knowledge as to how the Court will eventually rule. We see in Massachusetts once the people voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment the Courts came back and said, that although the people spoke, they have no right to define marriage and same-sex marriage was legalized. In Connecticut this week, their High (and mighty) Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage thereby taking out of the hands of the people to define marriage for themselves. Next month in California Proposition 8 will attempt to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman. If the people come out in favor, will the Courts in California uphold the ruling? I believe we can safely assume that the answer to that will be, No. Since they have already ruled in favor of same-sex unions in California.
Twenty-seven states currently have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have statutory laws prohibiting same-sex unions but all are under judicial review. With political hot bed, our Congress has been unable to muster the 2/3 votes needed to pass the law. If nothing is done within Congress the Courts will determine the outcome of this battle between traditional and re-defined marriage.
What can we do? We can write our Congressmen and women and demand that action be taken to define marriage as between one man and one woman. We must hold our legislatures accountable to do their job and stop the Courts from legislating from the bench. Article III of the Constitution states that,"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress makes laws and the Court upholds them, not the other way around. It is time that our government understand the Constitution and stop trying to skirt the issues at hand.
Make no mistake about it, either the voice of the people will be heard, or the Courts will be heard on this issue. Then what will be next? Will homosexuality be taught to our children in schools as a normal choice and perfectly acceptable so that a 5-year old in kindergarten will grow up with their parents telling them one thing and their teachers and educators telling them something else? Will parental rights be completely stripped away with regards to this issue? I believe the answers to these questions will be in the affirmative. Then will those who practise bestiality, or necrophiles, or pedophiles be granted their rights under this new found Constitutional right? Where does it stop? It won't.
My call is to all Americans worthy of that appellation to stand up and make your voice heard. If we are to save the sacred institution of marriage then we must act. The future of our Country and our societies demands that we do something now. Stand up, and prepare for the battle ahead, because this is not a matter of just marriage, but a matter of National security. I feel strongly about this subject. We must act or be acted upon.
God Bless America! And may Freedom ring from the tops of every hill penetrating in every climb and may the flame of freedom burn brightly in the hearts of every American until we are able to say, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America!
(Video on same-sex marriage)
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
Thursday, October 2, 2008
George Washington's Vision
Typically I stick to issues of the Constitution and its relation to today's politics. Today I had the opportunity to spend some time in spiritual reflection and as I did so I had several things come to my mind which at the time were disturbing to me. Those who know me, know of my love for this Nation. I love America and its Constitution, and it sickens me when I see it being torn apart by partisan politics. Those individuals who are elected and given a public trust to guide this Nation out of a sense of service to the Country and its people.
As I mentioned, as I was meditating upon the beauty of this land and upon the freedoms which I enjoy my mind reflected upon several scriptures which describe the destiny, and importance of our Constitutional form of government. As I did this my mind caught hold of a memory, a story which I had once heard about George Washington which occurred to him while spending the winter of 1777 in Valley Forge with his troops. What I would like to do is present the relation of his experience as it was published in the National Tribute in 1880.
"The last time I ever saw Anthony Sherman was on the fourth of July, 1859, in Independence Square. He was then ninety-nine years old, and becoming very feeble. But though so old, his dimming eyes rekindled as he gazed upon Independence Hall, which he had come to visit once more."
"Lets go into the hall," he said,., "I want to tell you of an incident of Washington's life, one which no one alive knows of except myself; and if you live, you will before long see it verified. Mark the prediction, you will see it verified." "From the opening of the Revolution we experienced all phases of fortune, now good and now ill, one time victorious and another conquered. The darkest period we had, I think, was when Washington after several reverses, retreated to valley Forge, where he resolved to pass the winter of 1777. Ah! I have often seen the tears coursing down our dear commander's care-worn cheeks, as he would be conversing with a confidential officer about the condition of his poor soldiers. You have doubtless heard the story of Washington's going to the thicket to pray. Well, it was not only true, but he used often to pray in secret for aid and comfort. And God brought us safely through the darkest days of tribulation." "ONE DAY, I remember it well, the chilly winds whistled through the leafless trees, though the sky was cloudless and the sun shone brightly. He remained in his quarters nearly all the afternoon, alone. When he came out I noticed that his face was a shade paler than usual, and there seem ed to be something on his mind of more than ordinary importance. Returning just after dark, he dispatched an orderly to the quarters of an office, who was presently in attendance. After a preliminary conversation of about half an hour, Washington, gazing upon his companion with that strange look of dignity which he alone could command, said to the latter...
"I do not know whether it is going to the anxiety of my mind, or what, but this afternoon, as I was sitting at this table engaged in preparing a dispatch, something in the apartment seemed to disturb me. Looking up, I beheld standing opposite me a singularly beautiful being. So astonished was I, for I had given strict orders not to be disturbed that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the cause of the visit. A second, a third, and even a fourth time did I repeat the question, but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of the eyes." "By this time I felt strange sensations spreading over me. I would have risen but the riveted gaze of the being before me rendered volition impossible. I assayed once more to speak, but my tongue had become useless, as if paralyzed. A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession of me. All I could do was to gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitor." " Gradually the surrounding atmosphere seemed to fill with sensation, and grew luminous. Everything about me seemed to rarefy, the mysterious visitor also becoming more airy and yet more distinct to my eyes than before. I began to feel as one dying, or rather to experience the sensations which I have sometimes imagined accompanied death. I did not think, I did not reason, I did not move. All were alike impossible. I was only conscious of gazing fixedly, vacantly, at my companion."
"Presently I heard a voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn,' while at the same time my visitor extended an arm eastward. I now beheld a heavy white vapor at some distance rising fold upon fold. This gradually dissipated, and I looked upon a strange scene. Before me lay, spread out in one vast plain, all the countries of the world, Europe, Asia , Africa, and America. I saw rolling and tossing between Europe and America the billows of the Atlantic, and between Asia and America lay the Pacific. 'Son of the Republic,' said the same mysterious voice as before, 'look and learn.' "At that moment I beheld a dark, shadowy being, like an angel, standing, or rather floating in mid-air, between Europe and America. Dipping water out of the ocean in the hollow of each hand, he sprinkled some upon America with his right hand, while with his left he cast some over Europe. Immediately a cloud arose from these countries, and joined in mid ocean. For awhile it seemed stationary, and then it moved slowly westward, until it enveloped America in its murky folds. Sharp flashed of lightening gleamed through it at intervals, and I heard the smothered groans and cries of the American people. " This may be interpreted to have been the Revolutionary War then in progress. "A second time the angel dipped from the ocean and sprinkled it out as before. The dark cloud was then drawn back to the ocean, in whose billows it sank from view."
"A third time I heard the mysterious visitor saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn.'" I cast my eyes upon America and beheld villages and towns and cities springing up one after another until the whole land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was dotted with them. Again, I heard the mysterious voice say, 'Son of the Republic, the end of the century cometh, look and learn." "And this time the dark shadowy angel turned his face southward. From Africa I saw an ill-omened specter approach our land. It flitted slowly and heavily over every town and city of the latter. The inhabitants presently set themselves in battle array against each other. As I continued looking, I saw a bright angel on whose brow rested a crown of light, on which was traced the word 'Union.' He was bearing the American flag. He placed the flag between the divided nation and said, 'remember, ye are brethren.'"
"Instantly, the inhabitants, casting down their weapons, became friends once more and untied around the National Standard."
"Again, I heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the republic, look and learn.' At this the dark, shadowy angel placed a trumpet to his mouth, and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he sprinkled it upon Europe, Asia, and Africa." "Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene. From each of these continents arose thick black clouds that were soon joined into one. And through this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I saw hordes of armed men. These men, moving with the cloud, marched by land and sailed by sea to America, which country was enveloped in the volume of the cloud. And I dimly saw these vast armies devastate the whole country and burn the villages, towns and cities which I had seen springing up." "As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, clashing of swords, and the shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I again heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn.' When this voice had ceased, the dark shadowy angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth, and blew a long and fearful blast."
"Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark cloud which enveloped America. At the same moment the angel upon whose head still shown the word 'Union' and who bore our national flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions of white spirits. these immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who I perceived were well-nigh overcome, but who immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken ranks and renewed the battle." "Again, amid the fearful noise of the conflict I heard the mysterious voice saying, 'Son of the Republic, look and learn.' As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel for the last time dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly the dark cloud rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the inhabitants of the land victorious."
"Then once more, I beheld the villages, towns, and cities springing up where I had seen them before, while the bright angel, planting the azure standard he had brought in the midst of them, cried with a loud voice: 'While the stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union last.' And taking from his brow the crown on which blazoned the word 'Union he placed it upon the standard while the people kneeling down said, 'amen.'" "The scene instantly began to fade and dissolve, and I at last saw nothing but the rising, curling vapor I at first beheld. This also disappeared, and I found myself once more gazing upon the mysterious visitor, who, in the same voice I had heard before, said, 'Son of the Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted. Three great perils will come upon the Republic. The most fearful for her is the third. But the whole world united shall not prevail against her. let every child of the Republic learn to live for his God, his land and Union.' With these words the vision vanished, and I started from my seat and felt that I had seen a vision wherein had been shown me the birth, the progress, and the destiny of the United States." "Such, my friends," the venerable narrator concluded, "were the words I heard from Washington's own lips, and America will do well to profit by them."Many people don't believe in God, or don't believe that God had a hand in establishing this Nation and its Constitution. I have had many heated
discussions with people with regards to these subjects. I believe
that God our Heavenly Father wanted America to be free, and that He, the
Father of all, directed those men, our Founding Fathers to establish not
only this Country as a free Nation, but to ensure those freedoms through
our Constitution. For those of you who would deny the veracity of this
occurrence, in 1854 a man by the name of Orson Hyde, an Elder and Apostle
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave a talk entitled "The
Guardian Angel of America", in the which he mentioned that the angel that he
identified as the Guardian Angel of America was with General Washington in
Camp. Now if God wanted America to be established as a free Nation, and
during the time at Valley Forge General Washington was depressed and
disheartened, not only with the fact that severe losses had driven him to
establish the camp at Valley Forge, but because of all the political intrigue at the Continental Congress with those who wanted him disposed of his position as Commander of the Continental Army and those of his generals who would rather see him dead than lead them in battle, wouldn't that God of love send a messenger to this humble man to give him strength and motivation to continue forward? I would dare
say yes. By the way remember the incident of George Washington's vision was first related in 1880, and Elder Hyde gave his talk in 1854, he would not have known through conventional knowledge that George Washington had seen an angel while wintering with his troops in Valley Forge.So may we all remember that this land is a
land of promise and of freedom,
and may each one of us be found fighting for
liberty that it may not be said
of us that we were not worthy of the
greatest of all the gifts of God on this
earth, which is our freedom and our
citizenship in this great Country, The
United States of America.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Presidential Politics and The Constitution
Last night was the first Presidential debate for this election season. I personally was disgusted by the whole thing. McCain was a Chihuahua trying to act like a Pit Bull, he just kept yapping at Obama and not really ready for the debate at hand. Obama had a lot of pretty words, but they were naive (either his naivete or his assurance that the American public was naive enough to accept his blather at face value).
As he explained his economic solutions the only thing that was going through my mind was the fact that although it sounds good in word, in practice it doesn't work. You can't expect to effectively raise taxes on corporations and think that it will spur economic growth. His ignorance of basic economic principles shines when he speaks of economic issues. The fact that McCain brought up that the Corporate taxes in the U.S. are the second highest in the world, thus causing more jobs to be moved outside the U.S. to foreign companies and causing jobs to be lost in our Nation was correct, but he didn't defend his stance of lowering corporate taxes when countered by Obama. Obama's response that the tax loopholes essentially eliminate corporate tax responsibility was correct to a point. Yes, the tax code does allow for various write offs which lower the tax responsibility of corporations, but it doesn't eliminate them. When we talk of corporate taxes we need to look at all taxes paid by the corporation. First we have the FICA match which companies have to pay matching that paid by their employees (Medicare, SSI) this can cost larger companies millions of dollars each year. Secondly we have corporate taxes which are direct taxes on revenues. Then you have the Schedule C which is given to each corporate officer which is taxed at the individuals tax rate. Corporations are pass through entities if organized as a sub-chapter S-Corp not as C-Corps which most larger corporations are formed as C-Corps not S-Corps. Most small corporations those which are the backbone of America are registered as S-Corps and the "tax loopholes" aide them in employing their employees. The companies sending jobs outside the U.S. are the C-Corps which don't get the benefit of corporate tax relief and therefore to retain more profits they send jobs outside the U.S. to save the money on the FICA match. This is where The Constitution comes into effect. Since the C-Corp pays corporate taxes on revenues and then the corporate officer pays taxes on their Schedule C the revenues are double taxed. According to our Constitutional law we are not to be double taxed, but corporations are. Thus, we have a corporate loophole which pays the officer through a non-payroll transaction thus allowing the pay to be received without taxes. The answer to this loophole is not to raise corporate taxes and lower "middle-America" taxes. The answer is to re-write the tax code to be fair. The answer is most especially a flat-rate tax. Set the tax at a flat 15%, with a few selected write off categories and you will as a government bring in more taxes than you do with your current confusing tax code. The mantra from the left that a flat-rate tax would be unfair to the working class because a working class family would be paying the same amount (dollar wise) as the multi-millionaire is completely ridiculous. This is because 15% of $25,000 is not the same as 15% of $10,000,000. I've never understood as I've heard members of Congress and the Senate try and defend the unfairness aspect of the flat-rate tax. Now the purpose of this posting is not to try and sell the flat-rate tax, but to show the ignorance of both candidates with regards to the Constitutionality of the whole taxing system.
Another problem I have this year with the candidates is the other day on the View, McCain was being questioned by the illustrious Whoopi Goldberg (anybody with the name Whoopi should not be given credence when it comes to serious issues) about his claim to want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who were strict Constructionists (meaning individuals who view the issues in accordance with the way the Constitution was written). McCain explained that he wanted the Constitution to be interpreted as it was written and no hidden agenda (political, social, or ideological). Of course Whoopi right away got defensive and wanted to know if she should start worrying that she would be a slave again because the original writers of the Constitution had slaves. And instead of pointing out the utter stupidity of the comment McCain just said, I understand your concern. Understand her concern? What utter stupidity, what ignorance on the part of Whoopi and a blown opportunity for McCain. Even if the whole slavery issue were an issue, the courts never did anything to stop slavery, it was first the Emancipation Proclamation, and then the 13th amendment abolished slavery. The appointing of judges to the Supreme Court who are Constructionists will not effect the social status of Ms. Goldberg or any other. Slavery is illegal because the Constitution makes it illegal, not because any Supreme Court Justice said it should be illegal. Obviously neither Ms. Goldberg or McCain have ever heard of Dred Scott.
There has been several occurrences of this either complete and blatant disregard of Constitutional knowledge during the course of this election. We need to hold our elected officials accountable to the Constitution, not to the whims of their party or social opinion. Pretty words won't secure our freedoms, nor will pretended concern for the affairs of this Nation. Although I disagree with McCain more often than not, I have to support his candidacy for president of the United States of America. God bless us all, and may our elected officials start putting the Nation first and their egos and agendas last.
As he explained his economic solutions the only thing that was going through my mind was the fact that although it sounds good in word, in practice it doesn't work. You can't expect to effectively raise taxes on corporations and think that it will spur economic growth. His ignorance of basic economic principles shines when he speaks of economic issues. The fact that McCain brought up that the Corporate taxes in the U.S. are the second highest in the world, thus causing more jobs to be moved outside the U.S. to foreign companies and causing jobs to be lost in our Nation was correct, but he didn't defend his stance of lowering corporate taxes when countered by Obama. Obama's response that the tax loopholes essentially eliminate corporate tax responsibility was correct to a point. Yes, the tax code does allow for various write offs which lower the tax responsibility of corporations, but it doesn't eliminate them. When we talk of corporate taxes we need to look at all taxes paid by the corporation. First we have the FICA match which companies have to pay matching that paid by their employees (Medicare, SSI) this can cost larger companies millions of dollars each year. Secondly we have corporate taxes which are direct taxes on revenues. Then you have the Schedule C which is given to each corporate officer which is taxed at the individuals tax rate. Corporations are pass through entities if organized as a sub-chapter S-Corp not as C-Corps which most larger corporations are formed as C-Corps not S-Corps. Most small corporations those which are the backbone of America are registered as S-Corps and the "tax loopholes" aide them in employing their employees. The companies sending jobs outside the U.S. are the C-Corps which don't get the benefit of corporate tax relief and therefore to retain more profits they send jobs outside the U.S. to save the money on the FICA match. This is where The Constitution comes into effect. Since the C-Corp pays corporate taxes on revenues and then the corporate officer pays taxes on their Schedule C the revenues are double taxed. According to our Constitutional law we are not to be double taxed, but corporations are. Thus, we have a corporate loophole which pays the officer through a non-payroll transaction thus allowing the pay to be received without taxes. The answer to this loophole is not to raise corporate taxes and lower "middle-America" taxes. The answer is to re-write the tax code to be fair. The answer is most especially a flat-rate tax. Set the tax at a flat 15%, with a few selected write off categories and you will as a government bring in more taxes than you do with your current confusing tax code. The mantra from the left that a flat-rate tax would be unfair to the working class because a working class family would be paying the same amount (dollar wise) as the multi-millionaire is completely ridiculous. This is because 15% of $25,000 is not the same as 15% of $10,000,000. I've never understood as I've heard members of Congress and the Senate try and defend the unfairness aspect of the flat-rate tax. Now the purpose of this posting is not to try and sell the flat-rate tax, but to show the ignorance of both candidates with regards to the Constitutionality of the whole taxing system.
Another problem I have this year with the candidates is the other day on the View, McCain was being questioned by the illustrious Whoopi Goldberg (anybody with the name Whoopi should not be given credence when it comes to serious issues) about his claim to want to appoint Supreme Court Justices who were strict Constructionists (meaning individuals who view the issues in accordance with the way the Constitution was written). McCain explained that he wanted the Constitution to be interpreted as it was written and no hidden agenda (political, social, or ideological). Of course Whoopi right away got defensive and wanted to know if she should start worrying that she would be a slave again because the original writers of the Constitution had slaves. And instead of pointing out the utter stupidity of the comment McCain just said, I understand your concern. Understand her concern? What utter stupidity, what ignorance on the part of Whoopi and a blown opportunity for McCain. Even if the whole slavery issue were an issue, the courts never did anything to stop slavery, it was first the Emancipation Proclamation, and then the 13th amendment abolished slavery. The appointing of judges to the Supreme Court who are Constructionists will not effect the social status of Ms. Goldberg or any other. Slavery is illegal because the Constitution makes it illegal, not because any Supreme Court Justice said it should be illegal. Obviously neither Ms. Goldberg or McCain have ever heard of Dred Scott.
There has been several occurrences of this either complete and blatant disregard of Constitutional knowledge during the course of this election. We need to hold our elected officials accountable to the Constitution, not to the whims of their party or social opinion. Pretty words won't secure our freedoms, nor will pretended concern for the affairs of this Nation. Although I disagree with McCain more often than not, I have to support his candidacy for president of the United States of America. God bless us all, and may our elected officials start putting the Nation first and their egos and agendas last.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
$700 Billion and rising
So a consensus has been reached, and the American Taxpayer will carry the tab to socialize the housing market even further. I know the Wall Street Journal is saying that the possibility that the government will actually earn money off of this deal is high, my attitude is still that this is a wrong move. The government will have that money spent even before they earn it, and with China telling their banks no more lending to the American government what will happen next?
The other night as I lay in bed trying to sleep, I started to think about this whole mess created by our government's interference with private enterprise. And I came up with a plan that I almost sent to my Senator and Congressman, but knew that it would be a waste of time because it made sense and would actually benefit the country as a whole and drive the market upward, and that is not what government is looking for right now because if you fix a problem it no longer becomes political fodder to rub in the face of your opponent. But I just received an email from a friend of mine which pretty much took my idea with slight variation and I decided to present my fix in this forum for your consideration.
Right now the government thinks that it needs to bail out the corporations of America to save America. All due respect, it's not the corporations that drive American economics, it is the American consumer that drives it. My plan would have the government prepare a very simple one page financial analysis form basically following the format of a typical financial balance sheet. Every taxpayer in America would be required to submit this form by a preset deadline to be considered for this "economic stimulus" package. Within this form the taxpayer would indicate the income coming into the household and balance it to their outlay or their liabilities. This form would be used by the government to determine the need of the family. This would weed out the investors who in a large way created the problem of inflated home prices through speculation and artificial inflation. In my mind they took a chance and they don't need to be bailed out. Technically nobody should be "bailed out" but if our government has an itching to spend some money let's send it to where it will actually benefit the Citizens.
Once the formed is filed with the government there will be a predetermined amount issued to each taxpayer who files the form in accordance with the preset deadline. Any forms filed after will be penalized according to preset amounts. The money will be issued to each taxpayer, but will not be a tax free occurrence. So the government will recapture some of the money probably at the current 20% capital gains rate. This money will be used to pay off mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, and any other debt. Now with this money going back into the system the housing crisis is stopped, the whole credit system will be saved and America will be strong a stabilized economically. What will they do with the freed up income, spend more which once again drives growth in the market. Those who don't own homes will be able to purchase homes and the market is strengthened. Home values stay stable and everyone benefits.
In a way this idea comes from the Bible. In the Law of Moses the Lord commanded the children of Israel to forgive debts every seven years. That mainly was to avoid the sin of usury. Like I said I know this is a simple fix, but it wouldn't cost $700 billion and everybody would be able to breath a little bit easier.
America is great because its' people are great. If its' people stop being great then America will fail. God bless us all during this time of economic upheaval.
The other night as I lay in bed trying to sleep, I started to think about this whole mess created by our government's interference with private enterprise. And I came up with a plan that I almost sent to my Senator and Congressman, but knew that it would be a waste of time because it made sense and would actually benefit the country as a whole and drive the market upward, and that is not what government is looking for right now because if you fix a problem it no longer becomes political fodder to rub in the face of your opponent. But I just received an email from a friend of mine which pretty much took my idea with slight variation and I decided to present my fix in this forum for your consideration.
Right now the government thinks that it needs to bail out the corporations of America to save America. All due respect, it's not the corporations that drive American economics, it is the American consumer that drives it. My plan would have the government prepare a very simple one page financial analysis form basically following the format of a typical financial balance sheet. Every taxpayer in America would be required to submit this form by a preset deadline to be considered for this "economic stimulus" package. Within this form the taxpayer would indicate the income coming into the household and balance it to their outlay or their liabilities. This form would be used by the government to determine the need of the family. This would weed out the investors who in a large way created the problem of inflated home prices through speculation and artificial inflation. In my mind they took a chance and they don't need to be bailed out. Technically nobody should be "bailed out" but if our government has an itching to spend some money let's send it to where it will actually benefit the Citizens.
Once the formed is filed with the government there will be a predetermined amount issued to each taxpayer who files the form in accordance with the preset deadline. Any forms filed after will be penalized according to preset amounts. The money will be issued to each taxpayer, but will not be a tax free occurrence. So the government will recapture some of the money probably at the current 20% capital gains rate. This money will be used to pay off mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards, and any other debt. Now with this money going back into the system the housing crisis is stopped, the whole credit system will be saved and America will be strong a stabilized economically. What will they do with the freed up income, spend more which once again drives growth in the market. Those who don't own homes will be able to purchase homes and the market is strengthened. Home values stay stable and everyone benefits.
In a way this idea comes from the Bible. In the Law of Moses the Lord commanded the children of Israel to forgive debts every seven years. That mainly was to avoid the sin of usury. Like I said I know this is a simple fix, but it wouldn't cost $700 billion and everybody would be able to breath a little bit easier.
America is great because its' people are great. If its' people stop being great then America will fail. God bless us all during this time of economic upheaval.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
AIG, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac Who's Next?
It has been amazing to watch the government spend the American people's money as of late. Today was the last straw as I heard the Bush administration try and explain the necessity of bailing out the insurance giant AIG. Now, the federal government essentially owns more than 40% of America's mortgages and about 1/3 of America's insurance basically meaning that the American taxpayer has re insured about 1/3 of America's citizens and businesses and essentially owns 40% of America's homes.
This has been yet another example of the federal governments hunger for power and they've taken another step closer to ensuring that we can soon become a socialist country. Today we celebrate the birth of this Nation with the passing of The Constitution by the Constitutional Convention, yet our government has once again trampled that document under foot with no regards to the impact upon the American people or our economy. Short sighted economist and politicians see the benefit in "saving" these companies, but when viewed in the long run the benefit is non-existent. That is to say that we as a Nation will ultimately be harmed by their wanton lust for power.
To put it as basically as I can the market weeds out weak performing companies and those companies are either swallowed by stronger companies or they hire a turn around team that puts it back on the path to success, or they go the way of all the earth meaning they die out. When the government interferes weak companies are allowed to continue to suck resources away from stronger companies and thereby continue to weaken the economy. Also the market when left alone regulates itself with frequent fluctuations and market corrections. This allows people to enter the market and build wealth. If the market continues to grow without fluctuations and corrections it would be impossible for families to purchase homes or for novice investors to make any gains because everything would be priced out of reach. Additionally in the insurance industry there is a practice that every company does when they are struggling. They sell insurance policies to competitors (of course the insured is notified and can choose to cancel their policy and look for another, which the government guarantees that if an insurance company goes out of business and your policy is effected by it you are guaranteed insurance by another carrier). Nobody would have been left without insurance with the fall of AIG, nor would they have gone out of business. They would have been forced to sell off business at discounted rates and their financial rating or as it is known in the industry their S&P or Moody's rating would have suffered but they would have survived. Just ask Conseco Insurance, they had to do that not too long ago and they are still around and building a strong business model having learned from their past mistakes. The government has done nothing but put a larger burden upon the American people and AIG has learned nothing in the process.
Now with regards to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, where was the government on this one? Both were federally chartered companies with a massive amount of oversight, so how did they get in such bad shape? Right now the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the whole debacle, but where does the blame rightly belong? It can be traced back to the deregulation of the industry in which investment banking was separated from commercial lending and rates were at a point of such historical lows that the banks were encouraged to lend money to anybody. Does anybody remember the rise in "affordable" housing and the push by the government that every American had the right to own a home (a right not mentioned in the Constitution, but a right declared by the all powerful federal government). This all happened during the Clinton administration, not the Bush. He is just the unlucky cuss who got stuck with it. Senator McCain actually sponsored a bill that would have created some tougher regulatory oversight on these two mortgage giants, but the democrats in Washington refused to take it to a vote. Millions of dollars were funneled to democrats through these two companies. Now with the bail out and American taxpayer dollars going to pay the $47 million compensation for the CEO of Freddie Mac will our dollars continue to be funneled to the democrats and to other pet projects of the democratic party? I guess we will see, or not.
Now we are stuck with the bill, we will continue to pay our taxes, we will continue to pay our insurance premiums and mortgage payments but we will not be any better off because we will be paying for this for decades to come.
Who's next to step up to the window and collect their check from the government? Where is it going to stop? How much will they spend to screw the American public? These are questions that I fear to hear the answer to. No, I don't want to see America suffer economic depression, but things like this happen to benefit the economy, if it didn't we'd be paying $1 million for a small 1 bedroom home right now. The market has to be allowed to correct itself or when it finally gets too heavy to be propped up it will come crashing down with deadly force and there will be nothing anybody can do to stop it, and then we will be at the mercy of the government and they will control every aspect of our lives. I desire freedom, isn't that what this country is all about? When we continue to allow such actions by our government we continue to relinquish our rights as a free people and we are forging the chains which will bind us down in servitude to a pompous and self-aggrandized bureaucracy.
This has been yet another example of the federal governments hunger for power and they've taken another step closer to ensuring that we can soon become a socialist country. Today we celebrate the birth of this Nation with the passing of The Constitution by the Constitutional Convention, yet our government has once again trampled that document under foot with no regards to the impact upon the American people or our economy. Short sighted economist and politicians see the benefit in "saving" these companies, but when viewed in the long run the benefit is non-existent. That is to say that we as a Nation will ultimately be harmed by their wanton lust for power.
To put it as basically as I can the market weeds out weak performing companies and those companies are either swallowed by stronger companies or they hire a turn around team that puts it back on the path to success, or they go the way of all the earth meaning they die out. When the government interferes weak companies are allowed to continue to suck resources away from stronger companies and thereby continue to weaken the economy. Also the market when left alone regulates itself with frequent fluctuations and market corrections. This allows people to enter the market and build wealth. If the market continues to grow without fluctuations and corrections it would be impossible for families to purchase homes or for novice investors to make any gains because everything would be priced out of reach. Additionally in the insurance industry there is a practice that every company does when they are struggling. They sell insurance policies to competitors (of course the insured is notified and can choose to cancel their policy and look for another, which the government guarantees that if an insurance company goes out of business and your policy is effected by it you are guaranteed insurance by another carrier). Nobody would have been left without insurance with the fall of AIG, nor would they have gone out of business. They would have been forced to sell off business at discounted rates and their financial rating or as it is known in the industry their S&P or Moody's rating would have suffered but they would have survived. Just ask Conseco Insurance, they had to do that not too long ago and they are still around and building a strong business model having learned from their past mistakes. The government has done nothing but put a larger burden upon the American people and AIG has learned nothing in the process.
Now with regards to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, where was the government on this one? Both were federally chartered companies with a massive amount of oversight, so how did they get in such bad shape? Right now the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for the whole debacle, but where does the blame rightly belong? It can be traced back to the deregulation of the industry in which investment banking was separated from commercial lending and rates were at a point of such historical lows that the banks were encouraged to lend money to anybody. Does anybody remember the rise in "affordable" housing and the push by the government that every American had the right to own a home (a right not mentioned in the Constitution, but a right declared by the all powerful federal government). This all happened during the Clinton administration, not the Bush. He is just the unlucky cuss who got stuck with it. Senator McCain actually sponsored a bill that would have created some tougher regulatory oversight on these two mortgage giants, but the democrats in Washington refused to take it to a vote. Millions of dollars were funneled to democrats through these two companies. Now with the bail out and American taxpayer dollars going to pay the $47 million compensation for the CEO of Freddie Mac will our dollars continue to be funneled to the democrats and to other pet projects of the democratic party? I guess we will see, or not.
Now we are stuck with the bill, we will continue to pay our taxes, we will continue to pay our insurance premiums and mortgage payments but we will not be any better off because we will be paying for this for decades to come.
Who's next to step up to the window and collect their check from the government? Where is it going to stop? How much will they spend to screw the American public? These are questions that I fear to hear the answer to. No, I don't want to see America suffer economic depression, but things like this happen to benefit the economy, if it didn't we'd be paying $1 million for a small 1 bedroom home right now. The market has to be allowed to correct itself or when it finally gets too heavy to be propped up it will come crashing down with deadly force and there will be nothing anybody can do to stop it, and then we will be at the mercy of the government and they will control every aspect of our lives. I desire freedom, isn't that what this country is all about? When we continue to allow such actions by our government we continue to relinquish our rights as a free people and we are forging the chains which will bind us down in servitude to a pompous and self-aggrandized bureaucracy.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Happy Birthday America!
On September 17, 1787 a group of men did the impossible. That is to say they formed a country out of 13 separate squabbling colonies. After days of meetings and disagreements and hurt feelings they came together and passed upon the greatest written document since the magna carta. A document which solidified a Nation and formed what was to become the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. The influence of this document has been felt all over the world as other nations have looked to it to write their own constitutions. This document of course is The Constitution of the United States of America. On the fourth of July our Country declared its independence from British monarchial rule, but on September 17, 1887 our Country was born.
The Articles of Confederation had proven impotent with regards to securing the safety and security of the new little country, a more centralized form of government was needed and a handful of men which included the likes of George Washington, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin moved to establish a government which would stabilize power in the region and do away with the chaos which was threatening the very existence of the Country.
It was interesting after weeks of debate and getting nowhere, just when all were about to abandon all hope of being able to come to a consensus of ideas, the honorable Benjamin Franklin stood on June 28, and declared the following,
The Articles of Confederation had proven impotent with regards to securing the safety and security of the new little country, a more centralized form of government was needed and a handful of men which included the likes of George Washington, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin moved to establish a government which would stabilize power in the region and do away with the chaos which was threatening the very existence of the Country.
It was interesting after weeks of debate and getting nowhere, just when all were about to abandon all hope of being able to come to a consensus of ideas, the honorable Benjamin Franklin stood on June 28, and declared the following,
"Mr. President:
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close
attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different
sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes
as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human
Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we
have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history
for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics
which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer
exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of
their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of
this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce
able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not
hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate
our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we
were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine
Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.
All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances
of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this
happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future
national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we
imagine that we no longer need His assistance.
I have lived, Sir, a long time
and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that
God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground
without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We
have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they
labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that
without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better
than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local
interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a
reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may
hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by
Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg
leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and
its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning
before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City
be requested to officiate in that service."Many involved in the process of writing The Constitution later called it a miracle and inspired. This document of documents has withstood the tests of time and although being under constant attack by enemies both foreign and domestic has succeeded in protecting the American people. A sad prophecy was given by Benjamin Franklin the last day of the Convention after putting forth his support of its ratification. He stated , "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Today we are seeing the fulfillment of Dr. Franklin's words, the people of this Nation are beginning to seek after political leaders who despise the freedoms that we are to hold dear. I seek the further establishment of Constitutional law while others would change or do away with The Constitution making it irrelevant as they sit and sup at the buffet of The Constitution only choosing that which doesn't give them political indigestion.
My fellow Citizens of this great Nation, this Wednesday we celebrate the birth of our Nation, we celebrate what it means to be Citizens of the United States of America, yet nobody realizes that this day is coming up or even the significance of the date on their calenders. Happy birthday America, and may the blessings of a loving God be poured out upon you and your Citizens.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Democrats vs. Republicans
Let's get one thing straight, two party politics is essential to a strong country. It balances out things and ensures that people have a voice. That is when the parties work in behalf of the people and not the party leadership. Today's political scene is a joke. The parties claim to work for the people, but turn a blind eye to the needs of the American people. The interests of the Nation are put aside for personal agendas and power struggles. Lies are sown like fertile seeds in the hope that they will produce a bounteous harvest for the party.
When the Republicans are in office they are constantly cowering to the Democrats with the ubiquitous thought that they will be out of office soon and need to garner favors from the Democrats so that they don't loose positions and prestige in their various committees. The party heads enter politics right out of the gate with no practical understanding of life and business. This is reflected in their actions while "representing the people" in Washington. Many have the idea that destiny chose them for their office and that they know what is best for the Nation. This is found in both parties. They represent fringe minorities while the majority of America are left without a voice.
Although both parties are similar in attitudes there are vast differences between the underlining philosophies behind the both of them. Let's start from the beginning with each party and see how they have evolved over the years. The Democrats were started as the party to protect slavery. They believed that the institution should be protected by the legislative powers of government and it thrived in the south. The prebellum democrats were heavily in favor of maintaining the blacks in a servile status in America, and because of this post-bellum democrats fought tooth and nail to ensure that blacks although free would never enjoy the full benefits of American freedom. They pushed the Jim Crow laws of the past and refused to accept the change being passed upon by the reconstructionist Congress. They fought Civil Rights legislation for years until they discovered a power in the voting block of the blacks. They believed in the expansion of the Federal government and when the time was right, they seized power with the coronation of the self-proclaimed king of America, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The New Deal was sprung upon America in a moment of weakness and FDR made it clear to his staff and cabinet that they needed to pass upon as much of the New Deal programs as fast as possible. As soon as the Supreme Court was able to catch up many of the programs were in place and only those programs which could be identified as over the top were deemed Unconstitutional and done away with. It was too late and America was on its way to becoming a welfare state through the socialist agenda of an elitist class in Washington who thought it was their job to redistribute the wealth of every other American with exception of their own. Since that moment Democrats have labored to ensure the promulgation of socialism in America, with the exception of one act by John F. Kennedy when he actually lowered taxes to stimulate the economy and help the United States stay a looming recession.
Now let's take a look at the Republicans. Started to rid the United States of the two pillars of social decay, slavery and Mormonism (go figure, a large number of Mormons are Republicans and the party was started to rid the world of them). The first national Republican to lay aside this bias against Mormonism was Abraham Lincoln, when asked what should be done about the Mormons he responded, "Let them alone." But I digress, the Republicans pushed hard during the prebellum period to weaken slavery in America and during the post-bellum era also known as the reconstructionist era they passed many laws to punish the southern democrats for their rebellion against the United States. For years the reconstructionists were the heroes of the blacks until the democrats started pushing an agenda that would eventually weaken their resolve and destroy the black family unit with the disease of socialism and welfare mentality which to this day plagues the minority households of America. Republicans have built a reputation of supporting small government and lower taxes. This has mostly been in word only and very seldom in deed. Once the reconstructionist Republicans lost power in the House and Senate all legislation coming out of Washington was geared toward more socialist programs and larger government, and the Republicans in office did nothing to stop it. Today's Republican talks a good story but does nothing to back it up. They allow the media and liberals to label them and do nothing to fight back. The only thing that separates today's Republican Party from the current Democratic Party is one desires more socialism and the other more power, you determine which is which.
We are locked in the middle of a Party war. Both parties want power, and will do and say anything to acquire it. Once in power the Democrats will listen to nobody but the Party heads and do only that which they are directed by them no matter the consequence. The Republicans on the other hand once they gain power become apologetic and tip-toe around the issues doing nothing but try to make friends with the Democrats, when the Democrats are not willing to reciprocate any concession by the Republicans. Our two party system is not a give and take, bi-partisan system working for the benefit of a stronger America, but a rogue system eating away at the moral fibers of the American political system established by The Constitution of the United States. Those of us who adhere to The Constitution are left scratching our heads wondering were is the voice of America. Are we to sit idly by and watch these two parties tear apart our Constitution to suit their own agendas? I for one refuse to be a spectator of this scene of hypocrisy and kingdom building. We are Americans, we have no king but the King of the Universe. We have no aristocracy in America but these politicians believe otherwise. America must remain free, we must adhere to The Constitution in order to remain free. May each of us enter this fight and may we be victorious in our efforts. God bless America and establish us a free people under His divine guidance and direction.
When the Republicans are in office they are constantly cowering to the Democrats with the ubiquitous thought that they will be out of office soon and need to garner favors from the Democrats so that they don't loose positions and prestige in their various committees. The party heads enter politics right out of the gate with no practical understanding of life and business. This is reflected in their actions while "representing the people" in Washington. Many have the idea that destiny chose them for their office and that they know what is best for the Nation. This is found in both parties. They represent fringe minorities while the majority of America are left without a voice.
Although both parties are similar in attitudes there are vast differences between the underlining philosophies behind the both of them. Let's start from the beginning with each party and see how they have evolved over the years. The Democrats were started as the party to protect slavery. They believed that the institution should be protected by the legislative powers of government and it thrived in the south. The prebellum democrats were heavily in favor of maintaining the blacks in a servile status in America, and because of this post-bellum democrats fought tooth and nail to ensure that blacks although free would never enjoy the full benefits of American freedom. They pushed the Jim Crow laws of the past and refused to accept the change being passed upon by the reconstructionist Congress. They fought Civil Rights legislation for years until they discovered a power in the voting block of the blacks. They believed in the expansion of the Federal government and when the time was right, they seized power with the coronation of the self-proclaimed king of America, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The New Deal was sprung upon America in a moment of weakness and FDR made it clear to his staff and cabinet that they needed to pass upon as much of the New Deal programs as fast as possible. As soon as the Supreme Court was able to catch up many of the programs were in place and only those programs which could be identified as over the top were deemed Unconstitutional and done away with. It was too late and America was on its way to becoming a welfare state through the socialist agenda of an elitist class in Washington who thought it was their job to redistribute the wealth of every other American with exception of their own. Since that moment Democrats have labored to ensure the promulgation of socialism in America, with the exception of one act by John F. Kennedy when he actually lowered taxes to stimulate the economy and help the United States stay a looming recession.
Now let's take a look at the Republicans. Started to rid the United States of the two pillars of social decay, slavery and Mormonism (go figure, a large number of Mormons are Republicans and the party was started to rid the world of them). The first national Republican to lay aside this bias against Mormonism was Abraham Lincoln, when asked what should be done about the Mormons he responded, "Let them alone." But I digress, the Republicans pushed hard during the prebellum period to weaken slavery in America and during the post-bellum era also known as the reconstructionist era they passed many laws to punish the southern democrats for their rebellion against the United States. For years the reconstructionists were the heroes of the blacks until the democrats started pushing an agenda that would eventually weaken their resolve and destroy the black family unit with the disease of socialism and welfare mentality which to this day plagues the minority households of America. Republicans have built a reputation of supporting small government and lower taxes. This has mostly been in word only and very seldom in deed. Once the reconstructionist Republicans lost power in the House and Senate all legislation coming out of Washington was geared toward more socialist programs and larger government, and the Republicans in office did nothing to stop it. Today's Republican talks a good story but does nothing to back it up. They allow the media and liberals to label them and do nothing to fight back. The only thing that separates today's Republican Party from the current Democratic Party is one desires more socialism and the other more power, you determine which is which.
We are locked in the middle of a Party war. Both parties want power, and will do and say anything to acquire it. Once in power the Democrats will listen to nobody but the Party heads and do only that which they are directed by them no matter the consequence. The Republicans on the other hand once they gain power become apologetic and tip-toe around the issues doing nothing but try to make friends with the Democrats, when the Democrats are not willing to reciprocate any concession by the Republicans. Our two party system is not a give and take, bi-partisan system working for the benefit of a stronger America, but a rogue system eating away at the moral fibers of the American political system established by The Constitution of the United States. Those of us who adhere to The Constitution are left scratching our heads wondering were is the voice of America. Are we to sit idly by and watch these two parties tear apart our Constitution to suit their own agendas? I for one refuse to be a spectator of this scene of hypocrisy and kingdom building. We are Americans, we have no king but the King of the Universe. We have no aristocracy in America but these politicians believe otherwise. America must remain free, we must adhere to The Constitution in order to remain free. May each of us enter this fight and may we be victorious in our efforts. God bless America and establish us a free people under His divine guidance and direction.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Digital vs. Analog
I've been giving a lot of thought to this whole digital turnover that will occur in February of 2009. I am so grateful to the United States Congress in pushing forward legislation that will ensure that every household in America enjoys the enhanced picture which digital television offers its viewers. Words can't describe the overwhelming sense of pride I feel in my government in taking on this social blight known as analog television and with their powers invested in them by the people of this great Nation pass upon legislation to do away with it. What a country!
With everything that we face as a country what possessed our government to think that making it a law that all television broadcast be mandated to switch over to digital would help in any way? I've heard the explanation by the FCC stating that more channels would be available, better quality of broadcasts and better sound. The chairman of the FCC was so excited in NC this past Monday as he was present for the "historic day" in which Wilmington, NC became the first market in America to make the full switch to fully digital broadcasting. First of all, I wouldn't call the government's interference in the personal lives of every American an exciting and historical moment in history. Many people don't have televisions which will support the digital format therefore they will need to either purchase the digital converter, purchase a new television, or subscribe to cable or satellite service. When did the responsibility of spending my money fall upon the government? I understand that they are going to offset the cost of the converter with their $40 voucher with a limit of $80 per household. That means if just 100,000 households (taxpayer or not) take advantage of this offer $8,000,000 will be spent out of the Nation's budget. Not to mention the cost of printing the voucher and sending it out. This mandate to switch over digital broadcast formats will cost this Nation millions of dollars which will be paid back at interest because we are already spending in deficit, meaning we don't have the money but we're spending it anyway.
I heard the argument that the government giving the voucher to every household is an extension of welfare which represents television as a right and not a luxury. This individual then said it would be comparable to the government deciding to give Viagra to every person who needed it. Well, first of all this argument though I agree with the premise doesn't stand on its comparison. If the government were to all of a sudden mandate that the activity for which Viagra was needed was to be performed at specific intervals then you could say that the two were comparable. Government's interference to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity for better television is nothing more than their never ending grab for power, and the ineffectiveness of our legislative branch in governing the affairs of this Nation. They are out of touch with real issues facing America. They say let us debate and pass upon legislation mandating digital television, but turn a blind eye to America's need to move towards oil independence (I will always bring the argument back to this point until they get off their lazy $%@# and do something). How does better television strengthen America? How does better television benefit anything?
Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. The ink has long since dried and the ball has been set in motion. On February 17, 2009 analog broadcast will cease per the mandate of the Federal Government and every American household will enjoy digital quality television. We will be able to rest assured that our government has our best interest in mind while we sit around our digital quality television picture looking at those digitally enhanced pictures of food while we try and figure out our budget on how to purchase food and fuel.
The digital vs. analog question was not supposed to be decided by the government, but by the people. The Constitution gives no authority to the government to legislate in matters like this one. They screwed up just like they did when they mandated corn ethanol. When government interferes with the daily lives of Americans, the people suffer. Hopefully the Chinese will give us reasonable terms on the loans which we will enter into with them to pay for this mistake.
With everything that we face as a country what possessed our government to think that making it a law that all television broadcast be mandated to switch over to digital would help in any way? I've heard the explanation by the FCC stating that more channels would be available, better quality of broadcasts and better sound. The chairman of the FCC was so excited in NC this past Monday as he was present for the "historic day" in which Wilmington, NC became the first market in America to make the full switch to fully digital broadcasting. First of all, I wouldn't call the government's interference in the personal lives of every American an exciting and historical moment in history. Many people don't have televisions which will support the digital format therefore they will need to either purchase the digital converter, purchase a new television, or subscribe to cable or satellite service. When did the responsibility of spending my money fall upon the government? I understand that they are going to offset the cost of the converter with their $40 voucher with a limit of $80 per household. That means if just 100,000 households (taxpayer or not) take advantage of this offer $8,000,000 will be spent out of the Nation's budget. Not to mention the cost of printing the voucher and sending it out. This mandate to switch over digital broadcast formats will cost this Nation millions of dollars which will be paid back at interest because we are already spending in deficit, meaning we don't have the money but we're spending it anyway.
I heard the argument that the government giving the voucher to every household is an extension of welfare which represents television as a right and not a luxury. This individual then said it would be comparable to the government deciding to give Viagra to every person who needed it. Well, first of all this argument though I agree with the premise doesn't stand on its comparison. If the government were to all of a sudden mandate that the activity for which Viagra was needed was to be performed at specific intervals then you could say that the two were comparable. Government's interference to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity for better television is nothing more than their never ending grab for power, and the ineffectiveness of our legislative branch in governing the affairs of this Nation. They are out of touch with real issues facing America. They say let us debate and pass upon legislation mandating digital television, but turn a blind eye to America's need to move towards oil independence (I will always bring the argument back to this point until they get off their lazy $%@# and do something). How does better television strengthen America? How does better television benefit anything?
Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. The ink has long since dried and the ball has been set in motion. On February 17, 2009 analog broadcast will cease per the mandate of the Federal Government and every American household will enjoy digital quality television. We will be able to rest assured that our government has our best interest in mind while we sit around our digital quality television picture looking at those digitally enhanced pictures of food while we try and figure out our budget on how to purchase food and fuel.
The digital vs. analog question was not supposed to be decided by the government, but by the people. The Constitution gives no authority to the government to legislate in matters like this one. They screwed up just like they did when they mandated corn ethanol. When government interferes with the daily lives of Americans, the people suffer. Hopefully the Chinese will give us reasonable terms on the loans which we will enter into with them to pay for this mistake.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Palin Mania
First of all let me say that I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. Last week in my posting titled, America a Land of Promise, I mentioned that I wasn’t expecting anything special from the Republican National Convention and that it would be a show just like the DNC was. For the most part, it was. That was until Mrs. Sarah Palin took the podium on Wednesday night. I listened to the hype leading up to her speech all the talking heads saying that she needed to hit a home run with her speech or she was dead in the water. I felt that I would give her a chance to present her position and then I would judge her. I must admit that I knew very little about her other than that she was for domestic drilling and I liked that. I didn’t see all of her speech because I was busy preparing a surprise for my wife, but when I sat down and began to listen, I could not believe my ears. For the first time I felt I was listening to sincerity from a politician. I could connect with her as a parent and as an American. I felt a sense of pride in the Republican Party that I have not felt since, dare I say it, my personal hero Ronald Reagan. I sensed in her a person who loves her Country and wants to see it be better than it has become due to petty politicians playing their games with the American people. Now I could not take seriously the remarks given about Senator McCain, but I could overlook that and see her for what she is. If we ever have a female president, I can see her in that role.
Since she took the stage in St. Paul Mrs. Palin has become an overnight sensation. People are coming out to see her and instead of shouting out support for McCain, they are shouting, “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!” I overheard someone say that by calling her by her first name it shows that people are already comfortable with her and feel that they can relate to her as a friend and as an equal. Did Johnny boy know that she would run away with the crowd? I don’t think he or his staff ever anticipated this type of reaction from the Republican base. Republicans have been craving someone like this since Reagan, someone who isn’t afraid to be the bulldog as she is being referred to. Someone who can look at America and see what they see, a shining city on a hill, and who loves their family and their Nation. I admit it, John didn’t have my full support and yes I was going to vote for him just because I felt that B.O. was bad for this Country. But now that Sarah Palin is on the ticket, I don’t feel too worried about voting for him. Now, I don’t expect that she will have as big an influence on him as say Mr. Cheney with President Bush, but I do feel that she will add balance to that ticket. And in four years if McCain has enough sense to step down and retire, perhaps we will be shouting Palin-Romney?
Who knows what lies ahead for this Nation, all I know is that we as a Nation must stand up for our Freedoms and our Liberties and defend them with our all. As for now I will join the crowds in shouting “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!” I will continue to raise my voice in defense of my Country. I will continue to try and make people aware of the importance of The Constitution of The United States of America. We must unite in our support of this Nation regardless of political affiliation. Politics is secondary, our Nation is First and we as a people must begin to understand this or perish as a Nation. God bless America and its People. May He who is the creator and author of our freedoms protect our Nation in these perilous times against those enemies both foreign and domestic who wish to weaken our Nation and its resolve. May we through the grace of God be permitted to see the continued strengthening of our Nation and the further establishment of its people as a good people and entrenched in faith in God, Country and Family. May we be a Nation United!
Since she took the stage in St. Paul Mrs. Palin has become an overnight sensation. People are coming out to see her and instead of shouting out support for McCain, they are shouting, “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!” I overheard someone say that by calling her by her first name it shows that people are already comfortable with her and feel that they can relate to her as a friend and as an equal. Did Johnny boy know that she would run away with the crowd? I don’t think he or his staff ever anticipated this type of reaction from the Republican base. Republicans have been craving someone like this since Reagan, someone who isn’t afraid to be the bulldog as she is being referred to. Someone who can look at America and see what they see, a shining city on a hill, and who loves their family and their Nation. I admit it, John didn’t have my full support and yes I was going to vote for him just because I felt that B.O. was bad for this Country. But now that Sarah Palin is on the ticket, I don’t feel too worried about voting for him. Now, I don’t expect that she will have as big an influence on him as say Mr. Cheney with President Bush, but I do feel that she will add balance to that ticket. And in four years if McCain has enough sense to step down and retire, perhaps we will be shouting Palin-Romney?
Who knows what lies ahead for this Nation, all I know is that we as a Nation must stand up for our Freedoms and our Liberties and defend them with our all. As for now I will join the crowds in shouting “Sarah, Sarah, Sarah!” I will continue to raise my voice in defense of my Country. I will continue to try and make people aware of the importance of The Constitution of The United States of America. We must unite in our support of this Nation regardless of political affiliation. Politics is secondary, our Nation is First and we as a people must begin to understand this or perish as a Nation. God bless America and its People. May He who is the creator and author of our freedoms protect our Nation in these perilous times against those enemies both foreign and domestic who wish to weaken our Nation and its resolve. May we through the grace of God be permitted to see the continued strengthening of our Nation and the further establishment of its people as a good people and entrenched in faith in God, Country and Family. May we be a Nation United!
America: A Promised Land
Lately I’ve tried to understand the whole political process that we are undergoing here in the United States of America. I watch the politicians play their games with the American People, and sit in awe as they weave their webs of lies and deceits. I tried to have an open mind and watch the Democratic National Convention, but became so disgusted after three minutes of nonsense that I had to turn it off. I have a hard time swallowing the drivel being peddled by these ingrates that I can’t stand to give them any more time than I possibly can stomach. Don’t get me wrong I am expecting the same from the Republicans next week. Politics has become a theatrical production. Each actor playing his or her part delivering their lines as rehearsed, but the words are meaningless because they don’t believe. They say what they think their given audience wants to hear. As of yet nobody has been able to deliver the message that I want to hear, the message of a great and wonderful America, a message of unity and strength. Where is the pride in our Nation, it is almost as if the Republicans don’t want to say America is great too loudly because the Democrats have “succeeded” in their design to malign this country and equate it with the likes of Nazi Germany or the Roman Republic. So patriotism can only be expressed to a certain limit so as not to offend with jingoistic expressions of Patriotism. God forbid that we should say that America is a great and promised land.
I’ve stopped waiting for this to happen. The politicians will continue to play their games with the American People. Our Nation will continue to look to the government for the answers forgetting that our Constitution was established so as not to give government the power to come up with the answers, but to give us the Citizens of this Nation the power to decide what direction our Nation should go. Current poles show that a majority of Americans believe that we should no longer hold back drilling off the coast of America and within ANWR. Yet, our beloved Congress has refused to vote on this issue. Nancy Pelosi has made comments stating that she can’t move on emotion, but she has to protect the world. I am sorry, I must be ignorant because I fail to see where in her oath of office does it say that her duty as a Congresswoman and Speaker of the House to protect the world. I also fail to understand what part of “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, she doesn’t understand. Now, I’ve said it before and I will say it again and I will continue to say it until I am blue in the face or until this country begins to understand. The Constitution of the United States of America grants the power to the people and the people in turn delegate the power to two of the three branches of government (the third being the Judicial which consists of appointed individuals). The government is beholden to the people and if the people say drill, then the government should say, “yes sir, yes sir” all the way to the oil fields. Yet we hear rhetoric like “you can’t drill yourself out of this one”, “I have to protect the world”, “drilling now would not produce immediate results to alleviate the situation.” What a bunch of hogwash. I put America first, I put the interest of this people first, I put freedom first. A good friend of mine recently wrote a paper explaining his reasoning behind his belief of a worldwide conspiracy against freedom and liberty. I agree with him wholeheartedly. His premise was based upon that fact that America is in nature good and Satan hates all that is good and therefore leads the efforts of nations, groups and individuals against the further establishment of freedom and liberty in America and in other lands. In the Bible, within the Book of Isaiah, the second chapter, third verse, we read “and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” This is again reiterated in the Book of Micah 4:2. The law referred to here is the law of freedom established by our Constitution. This land is the land of Zion referred to in the scriptures, from this Great Country, this bastion of freedom and liberty should and will go forth freedom and liberty to all people of the world and most especially to this country first. We might suffer a few set backs and Satan will rage against everything good, but we will prevail and we will establish freedom and liberty for all.
My message is to have hope. Don’t let the lies and deceits of those whose desires are to weaken this Nation and its people cause you to relinquish that hope and belief in the success of this Nation. The American dream lives in the hearts of every freedom loving American. Be strong and let your voice be heard. Stand up for freedom and don’t be afraid of what lies ahead. We will be victorious, we will prevail, for those who are with us are greater than those who are against us.
I’ve stopped waiting for this to happen. The politicians will continue to play their games with the American People. Our Nation will continue to look to the government for the answers forgetting that our Constitution was established so as not to give government the power to come up with the answers, but to give us the Citizens of this Nation the power to decide what direction our Nation should go. Current poles show that a majority of Americans believe that we should no longer hold back drilling off the coast of America and within ANWR. Yet, our beloved Congress has refused to vote on this issue. Nancy Pelosi has made comments stating that she can’t move on emotion, but she has to protect the world. I am sorry, I must be ignorant because I fail to see where in her oath of office does it say that her duty as a Congresswoman and Speaker of the House to protect the world. I also fail to understand what part of “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, she doesn’t understand. Now, I’ve said it before and I will say it again and I will continue to say it until I am blue in the face or until this country begins to understand. The Constitution of the United States of America grants the power to the people and the people in turn delegate the power to two of the three branches of government (the third being the Judicial which consists of appointed individuals). The government is beholden to the people and if the people say drill, then the government should say, “yes sir, yes sir” all the way to the oil fields. Yet we hear rhetoric like “you can’t drill yourself out of this one”, “I have to protect the world”, “drilling now would not produce immediate results to alleviate the situation.” What a bunch of hogwash. I put America first, I put the interest of this people first, I put freedom first. A good friend of mine recently wrote a paper explaining his reasoning behind his belief of a worldwide conspiracy against freedom and liberty. I agree with him wholeheartedly. His premise was based upon that fact that America is in nature good and Satan hates all that is good and therefore leads the efforts of nations, groups and individuals against the further establishment of freedom and liberty in America and in other lands. In the Bible, within the Book of Isaiah, the second chapter, third verse, we read “and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” This is again reiterated in the Book of Micah 4:2. The law referred to here is the law of freedom established by our Constitution. This land is the land of Zion referred to in the scriptures, from this Great Country, this bastion of freedom and liberty should and will go forth freedom and liberty to all people of the world and most especially to this country first. We might suffer a few set backs and Satan will rage against everything good, but we will prevail and we will establish freedom and liberty for all.
My message is to have hope. Don’t let the lies and deceits of those whose desires are to weaken this Nation and its people cause you to relinquish that hope and belief in the success of this Nation. The American dream lives in the hearts of every freedom loving American. Be strong and let your voice be heard. Stand up for freedom and don’t be afraid of what lies ahead. We will be victorious, we will prevail, for those who are with us are greater than those who are against us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)