On Friday, July 23, 2010 I heard Sean Hannity on XM Radio Channel 166. He was saying that we must not allow a Mosque to be built in New York City at Ground Zero. He basis this decision on what the Iman of the proposed Mosque believes and what he might do. It has been said that the Imam wants America to become a more Sharia compliant society. He believes that America's actions are responsible for 9/11. During one conversation he also said that he wouldn't support a church for satanic worship. This gives evidence that Mr. Hannity does not understand the Constitution of the United States, freedom or liberty. Mr. Hannity gives as proof of his understanding of the First Amendment the fact that he makes a living with the First Amendment. I beg to differ. He makes his living as a talk show host. He told one of his callers that you can't yell fire in a theater. This is a false statement. You can yell fire in a theater if there is a fire. You can yell fire in a theater if the theater is empty. If you yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic is when the problems arise. The same would be true if you yelled tire in a crowded theater and caused a panic. The limit is not on the speech, the limit is on the results of the speech. With all rights come responsibilities. You have the freedom to say anything you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. If you cause a panic with with what you say you are infringing on the rights of those panicked.
Before I continue, I must give full disclosure. The first Presidential election in which I was able to vote was between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. I voted for President Reagan. I've been a registered Republican since that first election. I don't always vote for Republican, I vote for the person that I feel will best uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Back to the Mosque. We were not attacked by Muslims or the Muslim religion. We were attacked by a group of radical criminals who, in my opinion, perverted their religion to justify their actions. There have been criminals in every major religion that haver perverted their religion to justify violence against others. Many Catholic priests have committed sexual violence against a great number of children over the years. We didn't rush to ban building Catholic churches anywhere. Many white supremacist groups , including the KKK, consider themselves members of the Christian church. We don't rush to ban their existence or the building of Christian churches based on these groups. Our founding fathers fought hard for this country. Part of the reason they did so was for religious freedom.
Mr. Hannity complains loudly about possible attempts of the Government to limit talk radio. There are people in this country that don't agree with what talk radio says so it should be okay with Mr. Hannity to stop it. After all, Mr. Hannity and other talk show hosts are okay with the the Patriot Act. Part of this act makes it okay for the Federal Government to do warrant less wiretaps in this country. Because this is in direct violation of the founding principles, we should be able to stop his and other shows.
The mindset of people that want to ban things amazes me. Even if Mr. Hannity and others were able to stop the Mosque, they won't stop the Imam from his beliefs. This country banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol in this country in 1919. This ban did nothing to stop the manufacture, sale, or transportation in this country. Prohibition did more to increase crime in this country than the thing they attempted to ban. Because prohibition increased crime, the Government created the FBI, an agency with no basis in the Constitution of the United States. The increase in crime was directly responsible for the Gun Control Act of 1934. A law that is in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The unintended consequences of banning something are usually more onerous than the thing being banned.
If the things said about the Imam are true he disgusts me. I will not, however, infringe on any of his rights. If he, or anyone else, does something to harm this country I will do everything with in my power to bring those people to justice. We can never live with freedom and liberty if we are willing to so easily deny it to others based solely on their beliefs.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Do Your Duty
Monday, May 31st was Memorial Day. It was formerly known as Decoration Days and it commemorates U.S. Soldiers who died in military service. It has expanded to also be a day to remember the service and sacrifices of veterans and active duty military. Soldiers who have fought and died for this country have made huge sacrifices. Many of them carry scars, both visible and hidden. The sacrifices they make are so that we can live in Freedom and Liberty. I wonder how many New Mexicans were out camping, boating, drinking and just generally partying? I wonder how many of them did so without knowing why they didn't have to work that day?
Tuesday, June 1st was primary election day in New Mexico. On that day only 28% of eligible voters actually voted. It is shameful that our soldiers sacrifice so much but 72% of eligible voters won't sacrifice anything to do their duty as citizens. It is not difficult to drive to the polls and vote. If people find it difficult, they may request and absentee ballot and not have to leave their houses to vote. I recall the first elections in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Men and woman risked their lives to take part in their elections. After voting, they proudly held up their purple fingers to show that no amount of threats would stop them from doing their civic duty. Low voter turnout favors the incumbents. The incumbents have gotten us in our precarious position. The are charged with regulating the financial industry. They abdicated that responsibility and many people lost their life savings. The Government is charged with regulating oil companies and drilling in the United States. They abdicated that responsibility and we now have an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Government rules without Government oversight will always lead to disaster. Yes, the businesses involved in these problems share some of the blame but Government is there to provide checks and balances.
A Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires the participation of the people. If 72% of the people are to lazy and apathetic to do their duties as citizens we must stop asking our military to make such great sacrifices defending the rights that allow us to vote.
Take time to read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Federalist papers, and Anti-Federalist papers. If you under 60 years of age, forget everything you learned of American History in school, if you learned anything at all. It's likely all wrong. Find more writings of the founders and read them. Our founders weren't a bunch of rich, old, white racists. There were Black and Hispanic founders that fought and died for our independence.
Tuesday, June 1st was primary election day in New Mexico. On that day only 28% of eligible voters actually voted. It is shameful that our soldiers sacrifice so much but 72% of eligible voters won't sacrifice anything to do their duty as citizens. It is not difficult to drive to the polls and vote. If people find it difficult, they may request and absentee ballot and not have to leave their houses to vote. I recall the first elections in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Men and woman risked their lives to take part in their elections. After voting, they proudly held up their purple fingers to show that no amount of threats would stop them from doing their civic duty. Low voter turnout favors the incumbents. The incumbents have gotten us in our precarious position. The are charged with regulating the financial industry. They abdicated that responsibility and many people lost their life savings. The Government is charged with regulating oil companies and drilling in the United States. They abdicated that responsibility and we now have an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Government rules without Government oversight will always lead to disaster. Yes, the businesses involved in these problems share some of the blame but Government is there to provide checks and balances.
A Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires the participation of the people. If 72% of the people are to lazy and apathetic to do their duties as citizens we must stop asking our military to make such great sacrifices defending the rights that allow us to vote.
Take time to read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Federalist papers, and Anti-Federalist papers. If you under 60 years of age, forget everything you learned of American History in school, if you learned anything at all. It's likely all wrong. Find more writings of the founders and read them. Our founders weren't a bunch of rich, old, white racists. There were Black and Hispanic founders that fought and died for our independence.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Thwarted Attack?
I'm having a hard time understanding why Government officials are saying that the attempted car bombing in NYC over the weekend was thwarted? The attempted bombing was not thwarted, it failed. A citizen did notice the SUV smoking and alerted authorities. That was after the detonation failed. Had the bomb been well constructed, nobody would have noticed before death and destruction ensued. New York and we as a nation were very lucky. It's unfortunate that the Obama administration is trying to take credit for thwarting this attempted attack. This gives people that impression that we are not as susceptible to terrorist attacks as we really are.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Rights Are Unalienable
The United States Supreme Court will soon rule on McDonald V. Chicago. The question in this case is whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to States through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. I don't understand why there is any doubt that the Second Amendment applies to the States. I also don't understand why the Fourteenth Amendment was needed? I do understand that states were denying rights to the newly freed slaves after the Civil War but I don't feel an Amendment was needed to protect their rights. Being free, they retained the same rights as all citizens of the United States. The United States of America was responsible for six percent of the slave trading in the world. While this is not a huge percentage, we brought them here against their will. Once freed, if they chose to remain they were citizens as much as any other freeman.
The first ten amendments are referred to as “The Bill of Rights.” These rights are a few of the unalienable rights that each person is endowed with by their Creator. At the time of the Ratification of the Constitution, a number of the states insisted the Bill of Rights be included. The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads, “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adoption of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” For some reason, this preamble is often left out of printouts of the Constitution. Amendment Nine reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the rights codified are not the only rights the people have. The Tenth Amendment reads, “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.” In other words, we, the States give the Federal Government some powers and we reserve some powers for ourselves. The rest we, the people, retain.
Let's use the Freedom of Speech as an example. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit speech so there should be no need to tell them they can't make any law abridging the freedom of speech. The foresight of our founding fathers was amazing. Imagine how many more laws abridging the freedom of speech would exist had they not insisted on including the prohibition in the First Amendment? Now let's use the Second Amendment as an example. The Amendment reads, “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.” In other words, from time to time we are going to need a well trained militia to protect our security so Congress can't infringe on our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Even with this strict prohibition, there are around twenty-thousand laws that do infringe our our right to keep and bear arms. As we've seen, some of our founding fathers trusted the government to abide by the Constitution and others didn't. These two groups of founders wanted the people to retain our unalienable rights.
There are people that believe that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government. It makes no sense to suggest that our founding fathers would forbid the Federal Government from making laws abridging Freedom of Speech but be fully accepting of a State doing just that. How could you exercise right to freely speak out if the State you live in abridges that right? Similarly and back to McDonald v. Chicago, how does it makes sense that our founding fathers would use such stringent words as “shall not be infringed” against the Federal Government but then think it okay for a city to completely ban handguns? I don't think they would and I've seen none of their writings that would suggest this was their intent. Their writings are quite the opposite. Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” During Virginia's Convention to ratify the Constitution, George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment was asked “What is the militia?” His answer, “It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Patric Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed.”and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Thomas Paine said, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Alexander Hamilton, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
During oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago, the justices seemed open to the idea of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment with the understanding that “reasonable restrictions” could be enacted by the state legislatures for the betterment of society. Let's say a state legislature determines that because the great majority of crime in the inner cities is black on black crime, they are going to pass a reasonable restriction against blacks living in the inner cities. This type of law would obviously be a violation of the rights blacks and the justices would hopefully find this law unconstitutional. In Heller v. D.C., the majority agreed that reasonable restrictions were allowable and they will likely do the same in McDonald v. Chicago. How can they do this when the Second Amendment clearly says, “...shall not be infringed?” There is no equal protection under the law in this country.
The first ten amendments are referred to as “The Bill of Rights.” These rights are a few of the unalienable rights that each person is endowed with by their Creator. At the time of the Ratification of the Constitution, a number of the states insisted the Bill of Rights be included. The preamble to the Bill of Rights reads, “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adoption of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” For some reason, this preamble is often left out of printouts of the Constitution. Amendment Nine reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the rights codified are not the only rights the people have. The Tenth Amendment reads, “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.” In other words, we, the States give the Federal Government some powers and we reserve some powers for ourselves. The rest we, the people, retain.
Let's use the Freedom of Speech as an example. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to limit speech so there should be no need to tell them they can't make any law abridging the freedom of speech. The foresight of our founding fathers was amazing. Imagine how many more laws abridging the freedom of speech would exist had they not insisted on including the prohibition in the First Amendment? Now let's use the Second Amendment as an example. The Amendment reads, “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.” In other words, from time to time we are going to need a well trained militia to protect our security so Congress can't infringe on our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Even with this strict prohibition, there are around twenty-thousand laws that do infringe our our right to keep and bear arms. As we've seen, some of our founding fathers trusted the government to abide by the Constitution and others didn't. These two groups of founders wanted the people to retain our unalienable rights.
There are people that believe that the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government. It makes no sense to suggest that our founding fathers would forbid the Federal Government from making laws abridging Freedom of Speech but be fully accepting of a State doing just that. How could you exercise right to freely speak out if the State you live in abridges that right? Similarly and back to McDonald v. Chicago, how does it makes sense that our founding fathers would use such stringent words as “shall not be infringed” against the Federal Government but then think it okay for a city to completely ban handguns? I don't think they would and I've seen none of their writings that would suggest this was their intent. Their writings are quite the opposite. Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” During Virginia's Convention to ratify the Constitution, George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment was asked “What is the militia?” His answer, “It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Patric Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed.”and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Thomas Paine said, “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” Alexander Hamilton, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
During oral arguments of McDonald v. Chicago, the justices seemed open to the idea of incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment with the understanding that “reasonable restrictions” could be enacted by the state legislatures for the betterment of society. Let's say a state legislature determines that because the great majority of crime in the inner cities is black on black crime, they are going to pass a reasonable restriction against blacks living in the inner cities. This type of law would obviously be a violation of the rights blacks and the justices would hopefully find this law unconstitutional. In Heller v. D.C., the majority agreed that reasonable restrictions were allowable and they will likely do the same in McDonald v. Chicago. How can they do this when the Second Amendment clearly says, “...shall not be infringed?” There is no equal protection under the law in this country.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Fact Based Policy, Not Emotion Based Policy
On April 20, 2010 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 4 year old Luke Daniels accidentally shot and killed himself. In short order, Democratic state Representative Gail Chasey was calling for tougher gun laws. The accidental death of anyone is tragic but the death of an four year old child is horrific. The heartache the family is going through is unimaginable. However, for an politician to use an emotional event like this to disparage firearms and their owners is imprudent. It's important to look at facts before attempting to use this incident to push an agenda. Reports say that Luke's father is a law enforcement officer. Therefore we can conclude he is trained to use, safely handle and safely store firearms. There are no reports that suggest this is anything more than a horrible accident. Data from the Centers for Disease Control shows that from 1999 to 2006 there were 2 accidental deaths of children aged 1 to 4 related to firearms in New Mexico, 0.19 deaths per 100,000. For the same time period there were 29 deaths of children aged 1 to 4 related to drowning, 2.69 per 100,000. For the same time period there were a total of 169 accidental deaths, 15.65 per 100,000. When there are 167 accidental deaths not related to firearms it seems derisory to focus on the 2 accidental deaths related to firearms.
Let's assume that we hurriedly passed a law that says a firearm must be locked. What then do we do when a child accidentally kill themselves with a kitchen knife? Do we pass another law requiring knives to be locked up? Then a child accidentally dies from ingesting prescription medicine. Another law? On and on. With the plethora of laws already in existence, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't something that would apply if any charges should be filed in this incident. As I mentioned above, there were 29 accidental drownings of children aged 1 to 4. Were any of the parents of these children charged with anything? I'm fairly sure there is no charge of “failure to lock up the swimming pool” or “failure to lock up the bathtub faucet.” If there were charges in these drownings, couldn't those same charges apply here if charges are warranted? Accidents happen in this world and though we do our best to prevent them, they will continue to happen. If there was intent or negligence then charges are probably warranted. If it was truly an accident, and that's how it seems to me, then no charges should be filed.
Let's assume that we hurriedly passed a law that says a firearm must be locked. What then do we do when a child accidentally kill themselves with a kitchen knife? Do we pass another law requiring knives to be locked up? Then a child accidentally dies from ingesting prescription medicine. Another law? On and on. With the plethora of laws already in existence, it's hard for me to believe that there isn't something that would apply if any charges should be filed in this incident. As I mentioned above, there were 29 accidental drownings of children aged 1 to 4. Were any of the parents of these children charged with anything? I'm fairly sure there is no charge of “failure to lock up the swimming pool” or “failure to lock up the bathtub faucet.” If there were charges in these drownings, couldn't those same charges apply here if charges are warranted? Accidents happen in this world and though we do our best to prevent them, they will continue to happen. If there was intent or negligence then charges are probably warranted. If it was truly an accident, and that's how it seems to me, then no charges should be filed.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Where is the Violence?
The Left continues to attempt to deceive the people into believing that Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party members are inciting and committing violence. However, the violence is actually being committed by the Left. In late March there was an political rally for Harry Reid in Searchlight, NV. On the way to the rally, the Tea Party Express bus was egged by Reid supporters. Andrew Breitbart was at the rally and filmed eggs hitting the bus and at least one supporter with an egg in his hand. As well as the egging, Mr. Breitbart was threatened with violence by one of the supporters. The supporters were directing traffic with signs. Mr. Brietbart asked them why the were directing traffic. For the simple act of asking a question, a Reid supporter pointed at Mr. Breitbart and said “Get him out of here or I'm going to jail today.” Let's recap a few of the incidents of violence during the discussions on health care reform over the last year. In August 2009, SEIU members beat Kenneth Gladney for handing out “Don't Tread on Me” (Gadsden) flags. He was called N****r and a sell out to his race. Mr. Gladney is black and so were his attackers. In Thousand Oaks, CA, September 2009, there was a MoveOn.org rally supporting health care reform. A group was also there in opposition to the bill. Bill Rice was one of the protesters in oposition to the bill. A man came from the group of supporters and approached Mr. Rice in a threating manner. Mr. Rice felt threatened and defended himself by punching the attacker and a scuffle ensued. During the scuffle, Mr. Rice's little finger on his left hand was bitten off. On the day of the house vote for the Senate health care bill, Speaker Pelosi walked with Representative John Lewis and others to try and compare the health care reform bill with the Civil Rights marches in the 1960s. To compare this Freedom and Liberty removing bill with the Freedom and Liberty restoring Civil Rights movement is absurd and I would think, an insult to those that participated in that movement, including Representative Lewis. There have been many reports that Representative Lewis, was called a N****r and spat upon. There are very few people that don't have audio and video recorders built into their cell phones. There were many commercial news outlets at the event as well as many independent new reporters and bloggers. If those things actually happened there would surely be video and audio of it. Andrew Breitbart has offered $100,000 to anyone who has such video. As of yet, no video or audio has surfaced.
The Left demands that the Right denounce those that called members of Congress leaving vile messages. Yet the Left has rarely if ever denounced the actual violence committed against the Right.
The Left demands that the Right denounce those that called members of Congress leaving vile messages. Yet the Left has rarely if ever denounced the actual violence committed against the Right.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Health Care is a right.
We do have a right to health care. Nobody can deny us health care. We just can't demand that somebody else provide it to us for free or paid for by someone else. Imagine if I were to opine that because I have the right of free speech, that the Government must give me a computer and internet access, free of charge. I'm sure there would be many out there that would agree with me and would fight to make it so. Next I'll move to the right to keep and bear arms. How many of the people that agreed with me above would totally disagree that the Government must pay for my firearm and ammunition? The fact that something is a right does not mean that it is the Government's responsibility to provide the means to exercise that right.
Before everybody thought they had to go to the doctor for a cough, they took care of themselves. There were home remedies people could rely on and there were also patent medicines that worked. Our Government has made a prescription needed to obtain most medications, causing us to require a licensed doctor to prescribe them. Our Government has allowed frivolous lawsuits and multi-million dollar awards, requiring doctors to purchase expensive insurance and to do unnecessary tests which further increase the cost of health care. If we used our auto insurance the way we use health insurance, an oil change would cost $250 or more. Because of the way we use health insurance, procedures have a cost that is in no way related to the service. Insurance users don't even care what a procedure will cost, they only care about the co-pay and their premiums. They pay the premiums and then the insurance company and the doctor work out the actual cost. If we were to return to using health insurance the way we use other insurance, the prices would be closer to a true free-market system.
One of the reasons we have states instead of just one large conglomerate is because we are not all alike and we all have different ideas of how things should be done. Each state has the ability to test methods to see what works and what doesn't. When methods are found that work well, they can be shared amongst the others states. This is was how our founding fathers intended this Republic to work.
Before everybody thought they had to go to the doctor for a cough, they took care of themselves. There were home remedies people could rely on and there were also patent medicines that worked. Our Government has made a prescription needed to obtain most medications, causing us to require a licensed doctor to prescribe them. Our Government has allowed frivolous lawsuits and multi-million dollar awards, requiring doctors to purchase expensive insurance and to do unnecessary tests which further increase the cost of health care. If we used our auto insurance the way we use health insurance, an oil change would cost $250 or more. Because of the way we use health insurance, procedures have a cost that is in no way related to the service. Insurance users don't even care what a procedure will cost, they only care about the co-pay and their premiums. They pay the premiums and then the insurance company and the doctor work out the actual cost. If we were to return to using health insurance the way we use other insurance, the prices would be closer to a true free-market system.
One of the reasons we have states instead of just one large conglomerate is because we are not all alike and we all have different ideas of how things should be done. Each state has the ability to test methods to see what works and what doesn't. When methods are found that work well, they can be shared amongst the others states. This is was how our founding fathers intended this Republic to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)