Tag: Politics

Posted on

One of the Most Ignorant Videos I Have Ever Seen

In an argument in a different venue someone referred me to a video that is, as the title tells you, one of the most ignorant videos I have ever seen. Our discussion was about religious principles in the system of government for the United States. The video presented to me, as an argument that the U.S. government and Constitution are not based on religious principles, was a wonderful opportunity to present many fallacies, foolish ideas and deceptions commonly used by those who disagree with me. I was salivating as I watched it. Critical thinkers watching the video should be able to quickly pick up on many of the aforementioned types of problems.

Let’s dissect this puppy piece by piece:

Our Constitution, our founding fathers and our heritage have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe. They are either lying or they’re too stupid to know any better.

No argument there.

But the Glenn Becks, the Palins and the Limbaughs are claiming our founding fathers based the Constitution on religious principles. It’s simply not so.

Wrong. It is not based on a specific religion, but it is based on religious principles. The respect for one’s fellow man and the rights of the same, are most definitely fruits of Christianity and religious principles. Most major movements to help people outside of one’s own group have been religious movements, and the American Revolution is no different. The abolition movement in the U.S. and Britain, the civil rights movement and the fight to save Indians and central Americans from slaughter have all been religious movements. The teachings of Christ really did revolutionize the world and even the most ‘rabid’ non-believer benefits from that today. In today’s world we are “born on a moral third base, and think we hit a triple.” If we look back in time at Greeks, Romans and other civilizations we will see that they would enslave those who were not Greeks or Romans and they would slaughter newborn babies for being female or less than desirable. (Granted, babies are still slaughtered in the U.S., which is unconstitutional) The abhorrence for enslavement and slaughter of those not in one’s own group is rooted in religious teaching and correct understanding of that teaching.

Not enough? OK. The phrases “taxation without representation”, “consent of the governed” and “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” can be traced to the Reverend John Wise. The coining of these phrases is attributed to the Reverend studying his Bible and preparing sermons. Nearly 50 years after his death his sermons were printed as pamphlets and passed around the colonies. 51 years after his death a certain Declaration was made containing many of his words. The principles (taken from sermons created from Bible study for religious purposes) in the Declaration are the basis for the Constitution, thus the Constitution is based on religious principles.

Still not enough for you? OK. When drafting the Constitution the delegates relied heavily upon John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible roughly 1500 times regarding government. Locke extracted principles and wrote about them, after which, our founders based the Constitution on them.

Still, even now, not enough for you? Take a look at the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which, anyone who knows that little bit of history would also know that the U.S. Bill of Rights(1789) was based on it. Article 16 reads “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Sounds a bit like religious principles when it says, “Christian forbearance, love, and charity”.

I could go on……

Let me introduce you to the founding father and the gentleman from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson. The very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

The first big problem any critical thinker might come to is the fact that he says that Jefferson is “the very person who drafted our Constitution…” If you are going to single out one person, and ignore all the other delegates, as having drafted the Constitution, anyone who knows a tiny bit about history would put James Madison way out above the rest.

For the second problem let’s ignore the first. The video man says, “the very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time.” then proceeds to give a quote supporting his position. The problem is that the quote is from 1814, well after 1787 when the Constitution was completed. How could Jefferson draft the Constitution after this statement if he had not made it.

The third problem is that Christianity is not part of the common law, but that does not exclude religious principles from the common law. In fact there are specifically Christian references in the Constitution itself, but that does not make Christianity the law of the land. It only makes certain ‘principles’ found in Christianity the law of the land.

” In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.

First off – again with an 1814 quote.

Secondly, anyone who would deny that there have been bad priests who sought power and control over people knows nothing of history. That does not mean that all priests have been bad. And even if Jefferson did mean that all priests, ever, are bad, that does not make it true. This once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia 1782.

Finally, one that could have possibly been drafted into the Constitution, but it once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles. This is merely a statement of fact that religions and/or people in any beliefs, are not uniform.

Why would our founding fathers want to forge a new nation under the same religious ethos that had supported the divine rights of kings and the class system that oppressed human endeavor, dignity and freedom for centuries? Still there were those who tried.

In answer to his question I just reply, “They didn’t, you idiot.” As for his follow up statement of, “Still there were those who tried.” it is moronic, unsupported here and doesn’t fit with his question.

The Reverend Dr. Jonathan Mayhew famously preached repeatedly against the divine right of kings and class systems. Mayhew is noted by John Adams as being one of the “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential in the awakening and revival of American ‘principles’ and feelings”.

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy Author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and Mohammeddan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Thomas Jefferson in reference to the Virgina act for religious freedom.

Idiots the world over think that if the Constitution is based on religious principles that a theocracy is what must result. This is an absolute abandonment of all reason, especially when a religious principle is: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” If you wish to be allowed to believe as you do you must allow others the same.

Once again this statement does not support the Constitution not being based on religious principles.

Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers weren’t anti-religious, but they recognized the inherent dangers in religious fanaticism and the importance of keeping it out of politics.

The video man seems to be conflating religious principles with religious fanaticism. Referring to religious principles as “fanaticism” is dishonest and stupid. Of course, any kind of fanatic can be dangerous; especially in politics. That still has nothing to do with “religious principles” in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is a basic and essential tenet of our Constitution.

Wrong. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Rather we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. By not using the real text of the Constitution people focus on keeping church away from state rather than state(congress) not being allowed to make a law respecting the establishment of religion(church) or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is all it says.

To demonstrate the inaccurate interpretation of Jefferson’s words (“separation of church and state”), in the famous Danbury baptists letter, I must inform you that two days after the letter was written Jefferson went to church. He attended services at the U.S. capitol building and listened to John Leland give a sermon there. (As an interesting side note to this, since 1865 the U.S. capitol building has had a painting in the rotunda of George Washington becoming a god. That sounds pretty religious and actually very akin to Mormon teachings.)

Our Constitution does not belong to the lunatic fringe or a bunch of silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes or shooting off replica muskets.

False; it does belong to them if they are citizens of this fine nation.

It belongs to all Americans whether your forebears came with the pilgrim fathers or on an immigrant ship from Europe or Asia. Whether your forebears were shanghaied and brought out in chains from Africa or they were of Hispanic descent and were overwhelmed by the rapacious greed of manifest destiny. The promise of the Constitution belongs to all of us and it’s about time we raise our voices in protest against those who would corrupt it’s message for their own opportunistic purposes or because they are simply to simple to understand the safeguards and the principles therein.

The principles in the constitution do belong to anyone. Even though they are based on religious principles, they can be claimed by irreligious people as well.

There is far too much of this ill-informed, poorly-argued media floating around and there are far too many simpletons ready to throw out links to such garbage in youtube comment arguments or message boards. It makes for plenty of ammo against such historically inaccurate or irrelevant arguments. This video is an atrocious example of many fallacies. To sum up this video’s argument:

There are no religious principles(A) in the Constitution(B). Thomas Jefferson(C) wrote the Constitution according to what he said. Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity(D) is not part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson said bad things about priests(E) and Thomas Jefferson noted the non-uniformity(F) of mankind, therefore there are not religious principles(A) in the Constitution. Or to put it more simply

Main Point = A is not in B
C wrote B according to what C said. (which is at the very least misleading, at most just false)
C said D is not in B at a date after C wrote B
C said bad things about E at a date after C wrote B
C said something about F
Therefore A is not in B

Awful, just awful and weak. What kind of unthinking idiot would fall for this dung heap of an argument? Probably the same kind of person who thinks that simply having “religious principles” in the Constitution would make us a theocracy.

Posted on

Constitution Mania

Laws are not established for the good people in a society. Laws are for those who cannot control themselves and therefore must be controlled. More and more in recent times laws have jumped out of their proper frame to come after the good people of society. The American Revolution occurred, in part, because laws were beyond their proper place and came after the common man (Stamp Act). The Constitution of the United States of America established the best system yet devised on earth for men to be free to act for themselves while maintaining some control on those in society who cannot control themselves.

There are many ways to get past the Constitution to gain more control over all people in society. Let’s look at a few, shall we?

First we have the “living document” crowd. This group declares that the Constitution was meant to evolve and change with the times. Just to keep it straight, there is a built in mechanism to adapt the Constitution to new challenges in the amendment process. The amendment process has been used before as a way to warp the Constitution and grab way too much power for the federal government. (ie. 16th, 17th and 18th amendments) Progressive and statist policies that are much related and similar to the aforementioned amendments have been easier to implement outside of amendments through things like case law and executive orders. Each of these help to detract from the original intent of the document.

Another way to be able to get past the Constitution is to pretend that it is some complicated document that is too difficult for the average person to understand. These people act as though it might as well be written in Sanskrit or hieroglyphics. For those who can read and don’t have extra motives it is plain that they are wrong.

The most obvious and, let’s just say it, the most fun people are those who just ignore it straight up. Here is a great collection of many people who are in power that have a deep love for the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Posted on

Dueling Brainiacs

Where do I begin on this one? Let’s start with the most famous proposed mosque in the world. A group of innocent, well-meaning Muslims bought a plot of land that used to house a failed Burlington Coat Factory and decided this place two blocks from ground zero would be perfect for what they are calling the Cordoba Initiative. This is to be a big mosque and community center. Let’s take a minute to unwind some facts about this project and set some things straight.

1. They are not building a missile silo.

2. It is not an Al Qaeda training camp.

3. They own the land and have the right to do what they want with it.

A. Cordoba Spain is the site of a mosque built over an old Christian church when the Moors came in and conquered.

B. The Imam behind the project has questionable ties to fun people and has been known to make statements that aren’t filled with love for America.

C. Funding for the mosque is uncertain at the moment and will most likely come from foreign bodies that hate America.

All of the above mixes together for one fun-filled, good time. To sum it up simply, the Cordoba people should understand the feelings of those who are offended and not use questionable foreign money to fund this horribly-named project and they should love America more. The people who are freaking out about the mosque should be ready to accept the fact that there will be a poorly named mosque near ground zero. They should accept the fact that they own the property and can do with it as they please. The freak out crowd is very much in the wrong when they are looking to the government to find a way to get rid of the mosque. Unless there is actual illegal activity coming out of the mosque, there should be nothing done by the government. Offensive as it is to many, it should not be stopped as long as there is nothing illegal going on.

Now from one stupidly offensive act to another. This super-genius leader of the small church that wants to burn the Quran on Sept. 11 this year is a real cerebral type. Of course he is only following his “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet. The Savior definitely wants to really stick it to those who disagree with him. He is all for book burnings and attacks at other groups of people. Nothing works better to spread the gospel than hating and offending those who do not follow it. (I really hope that the sarcastic tone comes through my text.) Then of course, on the other side of this shiny coin, we have those who don’t care about a right to free speech and a level up from them we will most certainly have those looking to kill these people who are burning the Quran.

It really is exhausting isn’t it? So many idiots doing so many fun things to each other. I say, “A pox on both your houses” in a great many situations and these are no different. The real lesson I take from all of this is that we should all shop at Burlington Coat Factory more.

Posted on

A Scout is…

The Boy Scouts of America is a fine organization that has been teaching youngsters to do many good things throughout the years. They recently had their 100th jamboree in Virginia and there was much controversy over President Obama not showing up to the celebration but instead appearing on The View (and probably golfing too). Then there was this:

After watching this I felt that these Scouts had missed a great opportunity to demonstrate what they stand for and what they represent as Scouts. Let me remind everyone that:

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Those were just rattled off from my memory so I may have missed the part about the times when a scout is not one of the above. I can honestly say that if this preachy eagle scout was present, I would not have booed (I have never booed anything). I can understand the youngsters feeling spurned by our fearless leader’s desire to go hang out with some hags over them, but again I must go to the principles and point out that they represented the scouts and what they stand for while they were there in uniform.

Although I understand their point of view I am disappointed in the missed opportunity and hope that they each come to realize the missed opportunity too. It would not have made any headlines but it would have demonstrated the principles that the Boy Scouts stand for very well if these young men had not behaved the way they did.

Posted on

Redistributionists and the Glaring Problem With Their Methods

Many people seek to “level the playing field” or “spread the wealth around” so as to be kind to others and have a utopia of sorts. I believe the claimed cause to be very noble and right, but the methods sought after by such individuals expose the motives of those who claim to believe this way.

The government of the United States of America has been the most important magnifying glass to examine redistributionists. In America people are free to do with their property as they please. They can horde money and food or they can give every last penny away. With this freedom Americans have done well generally, as America is the most generous nation ever seen on planet earth. Many people have the view that there should be no poor among us and that everyone should share of their good fortune with others and not have more than everyone else. I am one of those people.

Where the vast and overwhelming majority (considering I have never met anyone who has expressed thoughts like mine on the topic) of such people go wrong is in their looking to government to force others to redistribute. Being in America, people are free to come together and pool their resources in a community effort to have all things equal. It can be done and I believe should. It is my contention that if people were to do this, it would lead to greater prosperity of, not just poor individuals but, everyone. Doing this would lead to the next jump ahead, or you could say another 5000 year leap. If even 50% of Americans would choose to pool their resources to share with everyone else imagine the problems we could solve. By having government force people to do such, imagine the problems we create.

Where I part ways with the socialists and communists is in free will (and quite a few other things really, but this one is most relevant). Government should not force anyone to give up property. This is despotism and exposes the motives of powerful people who claim to want this equality. Under every redistributionist government there has been a powerful and rich few ruling over the equally poor masses. The only reason that I can think of for an already powerful person to promote government imposition is that like Tim “the Toolman” Taylor they want more power. History is filled with villainous tyrants oppressing people and seeking more and more power. The problem with many Americans is that we do not think it can happen to us in today’s world; that somehow our day is different. Well guess what, it can happen and has been happening for a while in a very Fabian way.

Eliminating poverty and making sure everyone has plenty is a good cause and one that should be promoted more widely for people to choose. But sadly, many look to government imposition. Doing this would only put Americans under the rule of that all too common rich and powerful few. Since redistribution can be done freely in our society there is no need for government to force us into it. People can and should just do it and encourage others to do it. There has been an entanglement between two causes in the United States. The government that was set up to protect the rights of individuals has mixed itself up in social and moral issues in which it has no place. Instead of focusing on the former task we have people in government looking to provide for people by “spread[ing] the wealth around”.

The Constitution established a perfect place to exercise one’s free will and choose to give to others. That should be the message promoted by those who truly believe in giving freely to others, in a free country such as the United States. Instead we have a few already powerful people looking to be the ruling class hiding behind what appears to be a noble cause. If they truly believed in the cause they would encourage people to use their freedom to live in such a way. Instead they seek power, coercion and oppression of others. Charity requires no legislation, no middle man and no enforcer. All that is required is knowledge, desire and choice.

UPDATE: Apparently I write like George Orwell.

I write like
George Orwell

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Posted on

Worst Spectrum Ever

In high school and college I was taught that along the political spectrum we have communists on the left and fascists on the right. I have heard many others outside of a school setting use this view many, many times as well. I must say that I have always absolutely despised this view of things. Come with me now and learn why.

First off, if I have Stalin on the left and Hitler on the right where can a fella go to not be bossed around or killed for beliefs or ethnicity? On the left we have crap and on the right we have crap, how can this “spectrum” suddenly become more pleasant when it gets halfway between the two views? Most people don’t know that this view of right “wing” and left “wing” refers to seating arrangements in French parliament during the 1700’s. The people on the left were the commoners and the people on the right were the fat cats. The left side extended to views such as socialism and communism because such views claim to work for the little guy and the right side extended to crony capitalism and government being in bed with business for obvious reasons. The “wings” view sucks as it leaves me without a place to sit. But that is not the only reason that it sucks. Both ends of this spectrum begin with a premise that I reject outright and that is; that government should have a certain level of power that is beyond what I will allow. The right side in this view wants business to grow in size and power along with the government and the left side wants government to grow in size and power as it controls what people have. Both options sound horrible. Much of the beauty of the American Way is that bad guys are supposed to fail and not be bailed out and that little guys can get ahead and become big guys without then having what they have earned taken from them in equalization efforts.

There are many versions and views of the political spectrum, many of which have obvious flaws. One of the most popular and one that I have the least issues with is the Nolan Chart. This chart has four Superman symbol shapes (Truth, Justice and the American Way, aaaahhhhyeah!!) around a centrist square. This view shifts from right-left to North, South, East and West where communism and fascism would be more correctly near each other on the bottom. Here is my result:

One flaw in this is, of course, a flaw in every political name assignment game. It ignores other situations and takes only my approach to federal government and could give the appearance that that is how I am in all situations. I had a star right at the north of the libertarian shape. If the survey had been about interaction with others of my own free will I would have been deep in the liberal section. If it had been about how I personally conduct my life it would have been deep conservative. I do not see a situation in which I would ever venture to the statist or centrist regions. Another problem is that it, as do most other views, has liberal being opposite of conservative. Liberal the way it was classically meant focused on allowing freedom for individuals. Conservatism is focused on preserving traditional things that are viewed as positive. These are not opposite from each other. Conservatism is the opposite of progressivism. Progressivism and statism are also opposite liberalism. When I say that I am liberal in relation to interaction with others I do not mean the popular meaning of today where I want to force people to pay for my health care or to wipe with one square to save the environment. I mean that I want to allow others to do as they will, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. When I say that I am conservative in my personal living I do not mean, as many have a view of today, that I want to bailout corporations and start up a PATRIOT act. The definitions have been skewed from their original meaning. Most people have taken these changed definitions and made them a big part of their worldview.

Another way of looking at things which I like, which makes things much more clear as to why the most popular spectrum is dumb, is the Law spectrum.

This helps to explain my uneasiness with a view that has total government on both ends. This view sums up what the American founders were thinking very well. They did not want another tyrant and they didn’t want to just have anarchy. The system they set up allowed bad guys to fail and little guys to grow. Under this system groups of people could come together of their own volition and disperse their incomes amongst each other if they wanted without government involvement at all. It also allows people the freedom to be greedy jerks or to do other things that are not “nice” but are not infringing on the rights of other people.

If I were someone seeking power and control I would definitely want the popular “wing” political view to prevail and be taught as it would make people feel as though they must have some form of imposing government and they should pick their favorite of the sides.

If you follow the Nolan link and take the survey let me know your results below.

Posted on

General Welfare: UPDATED

You may have seen or heard recently any of a number of politicians justifying actions taken by government by citing the general welfare clause of the Constitution. It may surprise many to find out that there is no such clause in the Constitution.

“Whaaaaaa????”, you may say. “B-b-but I memorized the preamble and it is most definitely in there” Sorry but you are wrong. Let’s get down to it and learn here and now that the preamble is not legally binding as it is merely an introduction to the finest political document ever penned. If one goes by the preamble, which may be the only part of the Constitution they ever read in school, then they could be led to believe that any of the three branches of government in the United States could be responsible for any of the things written in the preamble. Such a situation would clearly be incredibly confusing and contradictory to the system of checks and balances that was actually established. Using anything in the preamble as justification for government action is clearly not the way our government was established. Although with executive orders, signing statements and Courts using case law and outright activism, the original checks and balances are currently very useless. Regardless of that, the original situation was definitely not one in which a branch of government could pick their favorite part of the preamble and force anything they want on the people willy nilly.

Now for those who can read and have made it to Article 1 Section 8, you may think, “Aha, it has the words ‘general welfare’ in there”. Indeed it does. But it is NOT saying that the government can force citizens to pay for goods and services for other people. It is NOT establishing a system for government to give money away to the citizens of the nation. “Well that is your opinion”, I hear a non-critically thinking voice cry out. The line that has the phrase “general welfare” in it is the line that gives congress the power to tax. If you understand the Constitution then you know that it was established to limit government power and split it up among many different people to keep others in check. The powers of these branches of government were enumerated and given some specific limitations. To further clarify things, at the end of the Bill of Rights we have, of course, the tenth amendment; which says that if a power was not given to the federal government then it is left up to states or individuals. With this limiting purpose in mind let us return to Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This line is not a “general welfare clause” but rather is a taxation clause. Let’s put on our thinking caps here and really dive in. “Lay and collect taxes, duties imposts and excises” OK I got that part, Congress can tax me. But why? Oh I see, to pay debts (listed second in section 8), have an army/navy or provide for the common defense (listed 12th and 13th in section 8), and general welfare of the United States. With your thinking cap on tight, go for it. You know the answer. No, OK, first of all, it says “of the United States” not “of the citizens of the United States” or “the people”. This is made more clear when someone goes where they have never gone before and reads the rest of the Constitution and they find that there are more references to “the United States” clearly distinguished from “the States” or “the people”. These taxes are not supposed to be collected and used for the general welfare of “the people” but for the general welfare of the “United States” which is a nation. Of course the people will benefit from having national debts paid and having defense but that is not the focus of the enumerated power here in section 8. The end product of having that line written is to say that congress can raise funds through taxes which they will use to take care of their enumerated powers. If you do not agree with that, go read the “Federalist Papers” and find some of the writings of James Madison the Father of the Constitution. Reading such with your thinking cap on should clear that up for you nicely.

Another item to note is that if “general welfare” can be stretched over anything that can be construed as good for our nation, then this one line about taxes inadvertently grants congress all powers of government, thus destroying any checks or balances that may have ever existed. If it is good for the country then congress has power over it. Such “general” terms as “good” and “welfare” (which meant “well-being” in 1789) are relative terms and can be viewed differently in the eyes of different people. This wide-open language gives politicians and the power hungry, plenty of room to work in whatever they want regardless of its relation to the intent of the Constitution. This goes against the whole point of the Constitutional system of limited government with checks and balances. To view the words “general welfare” as granting additional powers besides the power actually being enumerated is to destroy the Constitution.

“Oh now there he is again hating on people. Some people just don’t have insurance and are dying because they don’t have it and you want them to die”, I hear that silly voice crying out again. Wow, for those who still do not get it, wow. First off, no one has ever died because they did not have insurance, ever, in the history of humans. “Oh sweet Aetna come save me, I don’t have any premiums.” People die from disease, bodily malfunctions, accidents, violence or old age. Those are your only options. Not having insurance does not kill you. If you are unlucky enough to have such things happen to you and you require the goods and services provided in the health care industry then insurance might have been a good purchase, but there are ways around not having it. Personally, I was struck ill a few years back and thought I was dying. I was uninsured as I was a college student and didn’t qualify for the oh-so-helpful government programs and I was rejected by private insurance a few months earlier because I get “white-coat hypertension”. I went to the emergency room and incurred thousands of dollars in bills which I, of course, could not pay. The hospital had a charitable donation program that they qualified me for after reviewing some information. For the rest of my life now, I am going to donate to hospital charity programs. Oh what’s that I hear, the non-critically thinking, silly voice doesn’t give much to others? Well if we all chipped in and took care of each other we would do a much better job than anyone in Washington D.C. could do. Last year I had a friend who had been fighting cancer for a while. In fact, I never knew him at a point when he was cancer free. I and several other people donated time, talents and other material possessions to try to lighten the burden on our friend and his wife. He died exactly a year ago today. Our giving and receiving of contributions made us all better people. And people coming together to help one another is the real system that will make our country and even our health care industry better. It is not just pie in the sky either, try it out.

In addition to charity amongst the citizens of our nation there are other ways that are allowed under our Constitution. Take for example the state of Massachusetts. They have a big expensive and deficit bloating health care program all their own. Well guess what, it is perfectly Constitutional. Oh my, who would have ever imagined that a government run health care program could be Constitutional? If it is run by a state or local government, it fits perfectly well with the Constitution and the tenth amendment. The central federal government will not be the solution to any of our problems. In fact, to quote the great Reagan:

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

If we can just learn and apply good principles then we will govern ourselves. So many in our society now look to someone else to help others and those who seek power and control (maybe not even for bad reasons) are perfectly willing to be given more power to be in charge of something we should be doing ourselves. It is when we disregard what we know we should be doing for those around us that we have need of masters and there are plenty who will use any reason to be your master.

To sum it up, there is no “general welfare clause” but rather a tax clause with the word “welfare” in it. To apply the term “general welfare” to government health care and retirement plans is to stretch that one line to points of being completely absurd and so all-encompassing as to grant all government power to one branch. There are ways that small groups of people or even larger groups of people such as cities or states can work out such problems without destroying the Constitution and I might add, such things should be tried out as long as they do not put said groups under the bondage of debt. Lastly, just give. Seriously, give. Find people who need your help and give it to them. They are all around you and sometimes find you, but most times don’t. If the government hadn’t taken as much money as they did you might be able to give more, but for now give your time or anything else you can give. Just don’t give more power to control our lives to someone else. If we keep moving the line in the sand, then what is the point of the line?

UPDATE:
I must post this video here as it was my inspiration for this.

Wow, chairman of the judiciary committee. We are in huge trouble.

Posted on

What Are ‘Rights’?

“You don’t have the right”, it’s a commonly heard phrase containing a commonly heard word. The word ‘right’ gets thrown around in such a haphazard and inconsistent way that it has almost lost all meaning.

Concern for the rights of people has only been on the plate for societies for a very small amount of time throughout history. Most of history has been dominated by rulers giving commands and decrees without regard for it’s effect on others and their rights. What makes the USA so special is that its system was created with inalienable rights. Why are they inalienable? Because they are given by “nature and nature’s God”. The fact that there are God given rights makes it impossible for government or anyone else to remove them. If rights are granted by government or a majority of people then these granted rights can be taken away. Rights coming from God also makes it impossible to add to the list of God given rights.

What has been happening for a long time to the USA is that many people have attributed the status of rights to things that are not God given rights. You are lucky because you have me to help you clarify what is a right and what is not. It is very easy and, with the exception of one case that I know of, the great principle of rights is universally applicable and clear. Here it is: A right is something that you can claim without forcing anyone else to do anything.

Let’s try it out:

Bearing arms – Do you force anyone to do anything by owning a weapon?
No, thus that is a right that you have.

Education – Do you force anyone to do anything by laying claim on a formal education system?
Yes, thus it is not a right. You force people around you to pay for the education, you force the requirement for a teacher in the school to teach you.

Information – Do you force anyone to do anything by finding available information and possibly even publishing it to others? No, thus you have that right.

Life – Do you force anyone to do anything by just living your life? No, (with one huge caveat) Thus you have the right to live and exist. The caveat is that when you are an infant you do require others to be subservient to you. The reason that this works as a right is because of another right that we all have. We have the right to make contracts or agreements with others. When two people come together and act in unity they have the right to put themselves under bondage to the terms of an agreement. Two people creating a child are performing a contract action that will bind them to the consequences of that action.

Abortion – Does killing your unborn baby force anyone to do anything? Yes, it forces the child to die. Thus you do not have that right.

Food – Does a guarantee of having food force anyone to do anything? Yes, it must be grown and distributed by someone. Thus it is not a right.

Marriage – Does marriage force anyone else to do anything? Yes, it takes two to get married and it is a contract action that must be agreed to by both parties. Thus there is no right to get married.

Health care – It should be pretty obvious that no one has a right to health care. Claiming such forces someone to be your doctor and forces someone to pay for the service. Health care is a good and a service, not a right.

Slothfulness – Do you force anyone to do anything by laying at home and wasting away? No, you can sit on your couch til you die. You have that right.

I am very much a person that enjoys freedom and not being forced to do anything. If I am to provide a good or service for others I will do it by contract action. Government granting rights is not something that should happen and it is only made worse by government becoming the provider and facilitator of those rights. The principle of free agency in the realm of rights works every time. Give it a try when someone in the media or government claims something as a right for people.

Leave your comments (seriously come on, leave some comments). What do you think? Do you disagree? Or are you an intelligent person?

Posted on

It’s Like You Never Left

Someone put up a billboard with a picture of George W. Bush on it with the words “Miss Me Yet?” on it. If only there was another billboard right next to it, then I would put a picture of Obama on it striking the exact same pose with one of the following phrases on it:

  • “No”
  • “It’s like you never left”
  • “Why should we?”

Or something similar to those.

Some people seem to forget or were never aware of what Bush did that was awful. Many of the things that defined the Bush presidency are the same things going on in the Obama presidency. Bush expanded medical entitlement programs. Obama wants to. Bush got government further into education. Obama will probably want to, although if he doesn’t, school children sing enough songs about him that we can count that. Bush abandoned free market principles to save the free market. Obama has continued the same non-free market policies. Bush seemed subservient to the Saudis at times. Obama has bowed to everyone and their dog. Bush wanted some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Obama will go for the same thing. Bush nominated an idiot for the Supreme Court and so has Obama. If you were looking for change in Iraq, Guantanamo or Afghanistan, you should be disappointed as well. The differences are few; more apologies, higher taxes and more speeches. Indeed it is as if he never left.