We have seen a new name floated for AG, Loretta Lynch is a prosecutor from NY.
Archive for the ‘Bill of Rights’ Category
Posted by revkharma on November 9, 2014
Posted in administrative power, Attorney General, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, Civil liberties, condron.us, Constitution, Democrats | Tagged: Attorney General, Bill of Rights, civil rights, Clinton, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Obama, race politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on June 20, 2014
Feb 13, 1913 The United States ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Since that time what was introduced as a way for the wealthiest among us to pay a little more (sound familiar?) has grown and expanded beyond all imagination. Here is a graphic to illustrate:
Additional outrage can be gleaned from such things as this:
Rep. Jeff Duncan wants to know why IRS law enforcement agents are training with AR-15 rifles.
As chairman of the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee, Duncan (R-S.C.) toured a federal law enforcement facility in late May and noticed agents training with the semi-automatic weapons at a firing range. They identified themselves as IRS, he said.
“When I left there, it’s been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability,” Duncan told POLITICO. “Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?
Today during a hearing Paul Ryan in questioning IRS commissioner John Koskinen stated the following:
You demand that taxpayers present seven years worth of information, yet you can’t maintain six months worth of employee emails?
All of this (and much much more) brings to mind only one question:
It is time, if not well past time, for the IRS to be abandoned. It is time to repeal the 16th amendment and dissolve and destroy the Internal Revenue Service and all the dangerous and repressive government coercion it represents and creates.
Time after time, republicans and democrats have used and abused the power of the IRS to compel and control others to advance their own power.
It’s time. NOW.
Posted in 16th Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Fair Tax, Government Power, IRS, liberty, Political parties, regulations, Taxation, White House Enemies List | Tagged: Abolish IRS, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Federal Government, Freedom, Government Power, IRS, Leviathan, Opressive Taxation, Politics, taxation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on June 9, 2014
KHARTOUM (Reuters) – A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.
Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.
OK, Where is the condemnation from the United Nations? From western nations? From the White House? From the House or Senate? From ANY leaders anywhere in the world??
And one more thing:
“Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Note the phrasing ‘Granted… by the Constitution and Law…”
The words betry a mindset, one which is different from the original ideas enshrined in the US Constitution. At least originally our founding documents declared that our rights pre-exist and supercede our constitution and laws. Rights co exist with humanity, ‘endowed by their Creater’ and inalienable.
As soon as they are ‘granted by law, or granted by Constitution’, they can be removed or altered by law.
As we in this nation continue to ‘grant rights’ by government fiat, we move quickly toward a legal grant which can be removed also by law.
Watch out, we are moving toward the very standard embraced by the Sudanese.
Posted in Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Culture of Death, Government Power, islamism, Politics, religion of peace, transnational law, Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill of Rights, change, Constitution, Freedom, Government Power, Islamism, liberty, society, Sudan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by brotherkharma on November 3, 2010
Once again I will pop out of nowhere, fire off a post and return to normal life. This time I am cheating a bit. The following is an essay written by a student in a public high school. There is hope that despite all efforts to indoctrinate, some students can see the truth. Let’s call the author…….nephewkharma? It is long but it was an assignment and I think you too will be a bit more hopeful for the next generation.
Why Deregulation Works Better Than Regulation
In his book, Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck writes as if he is having an ongoing conversation with a friend whom he has dubbed an idiot. One particularly amusing passage comes in his chapter about Capitalism where the idiot makes the argument, “We need a new kind of capitalism, one where the government has more control.” To which Beck responds, “Thanks for buying the book, Stalin.” While the exchange was intended for humor, it also makes a point. With that statement Beck says that there is no room for government in private enterprises and business, and he is right. While government regulation is generally harmful to the economy, deregulation provides for a much more profitable economy. There are several proofs of this. One is how regulation is harmful to the economy by restricting a company’s ability to adapt and placing hardships and financial burdens on the working class. Another proof is that deregulation brings more profits and companies to the market and is beneficial to consumers and the working class. Finally, there is proof in the fact that while the New Deal and other government programs were failures, private sectors achieved far greater success. When the facts are examined, it is hard to believe that anyone still believes in regulation of business.
The first fact to be examined is how regulation restricts a company’s ability to adapt to a changing market and to consumer needs. The airline industry is a prime example of regulatory harm to companies. This is because it has experienced complete regulation until 1978, when it was partially deregulated (Hamrin 245). While it was regulated the government controlled prices. The result was that airports couldn’t adjust prices, and the prices set by the government were too low to cover some basic maintenance costs. They had to close a few gates, which limited the number of carriers they could bring in, which cut their profits even more (“Airline Deregulation: The Concise”). Conditions would have been better if the government had allowed them to set their own prices, as will be shown. Yet the prices would not have been too high, because competition in the market would have driven them down. They would have started off initially higher than government prices, just so that the airports could cover the maintenance cost of the gates. After they had a steady income, they would have been able to open more gates. The additional gates would bring in additional carriers, bringing in more profit. Competition in the market would make them lower their prices so that consumers would choose them over their competitors, and the increased profit from the additional gates would allow them to. As previously stated, the airline industry is a great example of how regulation hurts businesses, but it is not the only example. Another prime example would be the United States housing market and the crash.
Many people say the collapse of the housing market was caused by a deregulated, free-market economy, but when the facts are examined the opposite holds true. The United States housing market was far from deregulated. The government wanted to increase home ownership to paint a better picture of the economy and the American dream, and so they began to regulate and set interest rates. (“Price”) According to economist Walter E. Williams in his paper, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” interest rates provide potential investors with clues and signals as to whether or not to invest. When the investors saw the low-interest rates, they believed this was because the public was becoming more interested in the housing market, when in reality the rates were artificial and manufactured by the government to entice people to buy homes. Investors then made mistakes in investing in the market when public interest was not as high as they were led to believe, and these investing mistakes led to the housing crash. So it is quite apparent that if the government had left the housing market alone and allowed the economy to run the way it should, the housing market crash, which many cite as the cause of the global recession, would never have happened. Interest rates would have been based properly off of market factors, and that many investors would not have made bad investments in the market at the same time, which is what caused the crash. Rather, any poor investments would have been spread out, not doing as much damage to the market. Regulation hurts business in more ways than this, however. It also causes numerous other problems.
Among these problems is a decreased competitiveness between companies, which is essential to operating a business in a free-market economy. Once again, the airline industry is a prime example. As previously stated, airlines were very heavily regulated up to 1978. When deregulation finally came, some of the larger companies that had existed under regulations were hurt by their lack of competitiveness. Up until this point, these companies were not used to having to handle competition. The government had regulated almost everything in the industry, including prices, flight times, and carriers providing which flights. When competition came, large companies such as Braniff had no idea how to change their business plans to be competitive with smaller, more localized airlines. They had plans built around the fact that they flew at these prices at these times, and they were the only ones who flew at those times. So when smaller companies came and offered flights to the same destinations at the same time, but with lower prices or quicker routes or both, Braniff did not know how to properly adapt. Reliance upon government regulation caused Braniff and several other companies to collapse when smaller carriers entered the market (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”). Without government regulation, these companies would not have become dependent on the government for support. They would have been able to properly adjust their plan and cost structure to compete with the smaller companies. With previous regulation taking away all competition, they had no idea how to do this, nor would they have been able to because of their business structure and cost structure. Because of this, their companies collapsed, costing many American jobs. Regulation does more than just decrease a company’s competitiveness; it also places hardships on many people.
The group most affected by government regulation is the consumers. For this example, the automobile industry is a good reference. From 1967 up to 2001, there were government regulations in the industry that mandated certain safety features, among other things. In that period of time, average cost of a vehicle rose about twenty-two thousand dollars. The mandated safety equipment was expensive, and the only way companies could compensate for costs was to raise the price of their vehicles. Now if the government hadn’t stepped in, the prices would not have gone up that high. Some argue that prices would still have risen, and although that may be true, we’ll never know for sure, but it is true that government regulations and requirements contributed to about a third of vehicle cost increases. (“Price”) So while the regulations maybe made cars a bit safer, it also placed an economic burden on the consumers. If the market had been deregulated, but people wanted safer cars, they could have opted to pay the higher price for the more expensive car. Instead, the government mandated the safety regulations and therefore indirectly took that choice away from the public. The automakers had to raise the prices, placing a burden on the consumers. Another example of how regulation places a burden on the working class can be found in the electricity industry in Texas. In 2001, the electric industry was regulated in Texas. The government deregulated the industries, and prices plunged. The average price of an electric plan in 2009 after deregulation was substantially lower than the average in 2001. Across the board in all companies and in all companies’ plans, every single rate for every plan went down (“The Success”). Obviously, the deregulation helped the market immensely. It is important to deregulate fully, as the Texas electric industry was. If an industry is only partially deregulated, there will only be partial success. Full deregulation has many benefits, as does even partial deregulation, though there is less success there.
One of these main benefits is a generally more profitable business environment, characterized by higher profits and more companies. For example, railroads were partially deregulated in 1981. As previously stated, partial deregulation will bring only partial success, but even this partial success brought a profit increase of forty-four per cent by 1984 (Hamrin, 246). After the airline industry was partially deregulated, fares have fallen twenty-five per cent. Economists say that if they continued under regulation, the fares would have fallen only three per cent. (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”) Also, while regulated, no interstate carriers were granted permission to open, but after deregulation twenty-six new carriers opened from 1978-1988 (Hamrin, 246). The change in the railroad industry was drastic. A profit increase of forty-four per cent in only three years, and that is only under partial deregulation. Based on those numbers, the profits under full deregulation would be incredibly high. Some argue that full deregulation would mean an increase in control of the top companies, and a growth in “Big Business” but the airline industry proves quite the opposite. Rather than smaller companies being forced into bankruptcy, twenty-six new carriers were formed. Now it is apparent that deregulation is beneficial to companies, but many people are mistrustful of business in general. Deregulation does not only benefit companies, however.
Deregulation also benefits consumer and the working class. With an increased freedom for competitiveness, deregulated airlines resulted in more choices and even more services offered to consumers. Among these choices were city-pairs, which are flight direct from one city to another with no stops or connecting flights. After deregulation, there was a fifty-five per cent increase in city-pairs, which are quicker and more convenient for flyers (Hamrin 245). Obviously, quicker service and more convenience are positive aspects for consumers, and what is positive for the customer is positive also for the provider, as the customer will be more likely to return and do business again. Many supporters of regulation say that regulation protects small business and keeps Big Business in check. This is a common misconception. In fact, the opposite holds true. In an article “Big Business and Big Government” published on the CATO institute’s website, Timothy P. Carney points out this flaw in thinking. He writes, “The facts point in an entirely different direction . . . Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.” Enron would not try to keep laissez-faire politicians off of federal commissions if deregulation increased its control over the business. So clearly, it must be that deregulation threatens its power. Carney goes on to explain that newer, smaller business cannot keep up financially with all the government regulations, whereas big businesses have the resources to easily afford whatever regulations the government puts in place. They use government regulations to keep their smaller competitors one step behind and struggling financially under the burden of the regulations, which usually are not quite big enough to do any real damage to big business (“Big Business”). It is not good for consumers or for an economy to have the majority of the financial power residing with a group of large corporations. It reduces customer choices, and prices are more likely to rise, placing a burden on the people. With less competition, business can and will slowly raise their prices. This is the point of business; to make a profit. A free-market economy ensures that these prices do not go out of control. Simply put, if two companies offer the same service or good with similar quality, but one offers it a lower price, consumers will go to the company with the lower prices, forcing companies to have fair, competitive rates. With regulations and restrictions, companies are either forced to raise these prices to cover the cost of these regulations, or they have the freedom to raise them with less competition, as proved above. So it is clear that regulation ultimately ends in failure.
There is no better way to show just how and why these regulations end in failure than to examine government run economic programs such as the New Deal and other programs that amounted to nothing. According to Glenn Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots, the reason that government is ineffective in areas involving economics and business is simple. He writes:
Their motives are completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the government exists (at least in theory to provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage expenses and ensure every dollar has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it’s given and measures returns in campaign donations and polling data.
If one disagrees that government is incompetent in the business and economics field, he or she need only look over previous regulations and programs and find the proof. During the New Deal, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to seize all the banks and make them close during a national “banking holiday” as it was called. After the so-called holiday, five thousand of the banks did not re-open. The majority of failed banks were in states with unit banking laws, which forbade a bank from opening new branches to lessen risk. Now this could be circumstantial, but further evidence proves otherwise. In Canada, there were no such laws, and banks could feel free to open new branches wherever and whenever they like. The number of bank failures in Canada at this time was a grand total of zero (“Great Myths” 8). The logical conclusion is that the unit banking laws caused the banks to fail. The banks were not allowed to open new branches, so when there was an opportunity to make more profits in another area, they were unable to seize that opportunity. Obviously, these banks needed the extra profit badly, or they would not have failed. In Canada these banks could open new branches when they got into financial troubles, and the new revenue could save their company. So it is clearly established that government regulation and government programs ultimately end in little or no success.
In contrast, private sectors have achieved far greater success. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, both government agencies and private charities rushed to help. The government also put forth numerous recovery plans. The majority of these failed miserably. For example, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, put forth over three hundred public projects and rebuilding efforts. Almost three years later, only six were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart was having incredible success. One hundred and twenty-six of Walmart’s stores had been severely damaged in the hurricane. Within ten days, one hundred and ten of them were up and running (Arguing). It is hard to believe those numbers. In less than two weeks, Wal-Mart had completed recovering eighty-seven per cent of its stores, while in over three years less than two percent of the government programs were completed. Obviously the private company had much better success than the government; the facts do not leave room for any interpretation. New Orleans recovery is not the only example of the government versus private companies though.
For an additional example of how private sectors achieve greater success than government-run operations, the National Center for Educational Statistics offers this interesting report. Private school students in the fourth grade outscored public school students by 14.7 points in reading, and 7.8 points in math. By the eighth grade, private school students were outperforming their public school counterparts by 18.1 points in reading and 12.3 points in math (“Comparing Private Schools”). As the students in the private school advanced through the grades, their scores over the public school students increased by 3.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The longer the student remains in a private school, the more his or her scores improve. Clearly, the private-run schools provide a better education than the government-run schools. Financially, the private schools were better also. Competition in the private, less regulated sector drives efficiency and lower cost. According to that same report, the average annual cost per public school student in 1996 was $6,857. The average tuition in private schools that same year was about half that, at $3,116. Obviously, the government is doing something to raise costs that the private sectors are not. This same basic effect occurs whenever the government attempts to regulate private industries that it should not be involved in.
So it is obvious that government regulation hurts the economy, while deregulation provides for a more profitable business climate. This can be seen in the way regulation restricts companies and places financial burdens on consumers. It can be seen in how higher profits accompany deregulation and the effects of deregulation on the working class. It can be seen when government is directly compared with the private sector. The Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution with distinct goals in mind. Among these goals was the decentralization of power, keeping the federal government as far detached from citizen’s day to day lives as possible. Through regulations and restrictions, however, the federal government has inserted itself into areas it does not belong, with complete disregard for the Constitution. It is time for a change; it is time for the government to realize that the welfare of the economy is more important than its own power. Deregulation can bring many benefits to the economy where regulation can only cause more harm. It is time to deregulate, before it is too late.
Posted in administrative power, bailout, bank takeover, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Democrats, economics, federal reserve, Federal reserve bank, gold, gold standard, international money, monetary policy, Obama, Obama Administration, Political parties, TARP, Tea Parties, unconstitutional | Tagged: Arguing with Idiots, Deregulation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on July 16, 2009
There is so much smoke and mirrors, we never know where to look. When something truly important is happening, most of the people in this nation are too distracted to see what’s going on. This is by design. If the people who paid the bills knew what they were paying for,they would be outraged.
The most recent examples:
A couple of weeks ago, all media attention was focused on the ‘Michael Jackson Funeral’ seemingly the most important news on the planet. While that was covered end to end, all the 24 hour news channels wall to wall, the house slammed a thousand page ‘climate change’ Cap and Trade bill through with barely a comment from anyone. At the last moment, a three hundred page amendment was also put in place. This contained payoff money to just enough legislators to buy their complicity in robbing their constituents.
In fact, the ‘bill’ that was voted on did not actually exist. There was no single printed version of ANYTHING. But this momentous legislation was forced through with little notice.
This week we have the glorious spectacle of ‘hearings’ into the nomination of a clearly radical jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States. We are focused on her ‘Wise Latina’ quote. All the supposed ‘right wing’ media are screaming about that. All attention is on that throw away line. With barely a few sentences this canard can be dismissed and ignored. Then the legal geniuses like Lindsay ‘Grahamnesty’ from South Carolina can agree that barring a ‘meltdown’ he will vote to confirm her. After all, she’s not really a racist or a bigot. That would be the worst possible thing we could do to the Supreme Court.
The real issue is her appeal to international law to drive the Supreme Court. IN Roper v. Simmons, and Lawrence v. Texas:
Judge Sotomayor said, the court was using the foreign or international law to “help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries and . . . whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.
Another dangerous area will be Second Amendment law. Judge Sotomayor, has generally found the right to bear arms is NOT a fundamental right. Legally this view holds that such rights do not pre-exist the Constitution, and thus can be regulated. In a ruling in a NY case about martial arts weapons, her ruling displayed such views. From Volokh, here are details:
In other words, the Second Amendment is not “a fundamental right.” The Sotomayor panel could have offered a legal explanation for why (in the panel’s opinion) nunchaku are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore a mere rational basis test for nunchaku bans is appropriate. But the Sotomayor court did not do so. To the contrary, the Sotomayor per curiam opinion treats any Second Amendment claim as not involving “a fundamental right.”
broadly held internationalist theory, combined with her incredibly restrictive views on the Second Amendment it is clear the real danger is not her views on ‘wise latina’s’ but her views on the US Constitution. But we will not hear much discussion of that. Once more we are told where to look, lest we see the freight train headed our way.
As important as that is, even THIS is something of a distraction.
While we watch the dog and pony show in the Senate committee room, the house and senate are once more ramming a bill through. This time it is to alter finally and fundamentally the economic liberty of every American. The takeover of our health care system by the federal government will be a complete alteration of the political and economic system of the USA. Once the Federal Government is installed as the guarantor and arbiter of each individuals medical care, we will cease to be actual citizens, and will become subjects. The level of control which can be exerted on an individual when the government controls the payment for and allocation of all medical treatment is beyond comprehension. There is no area of life which cannot conceivably be regulated by the government in the ‘interest of controlling medical costs.’ Everything from the food you eat to the job you hold, to your after hours hobbies can affect your health. If a central federal authority is ‘paying for your health care’ it can regulate, and dictate any and all activities which impact that cost, as it is now a federal interest. By legislating mandatory participation, they can then legislate mandatory regulation.
But the news is watching the Sotomayor hearings.
Funny how that works out, isn’t it.
We are about to– no we have ALREADY run off the rails. We are not the same country I grew up in.
Keep the Faith
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, corruption, deception, Freedom, Global government, Government expansion, Government Power, gun rights, International, liberty, nationalization, Politics, Supreme Court, Uncategorized | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, change, Congress, Constitution, Federal Government, Freedom, gun rights, liberty, Second Amendment, society, Sotomayor, Supreme Court | 5 Comments »
Posted by brotherkharma on July 15, 2009
Legacy. It’s an odd word. It used to mean, according to Merriam Webster, “a gift by will” or “something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past”. Well, as with so many words, politicians have annihilated that as well. Legacy now means the way today’s media would like historians to judge a current political figure. Please don’t confuse this with their actual legacy, which is what they have transmitted to our culture and posterity.
Take for example, and I do hesitate to invoke the name, President Clinton. I am not, in any way attempting to link the current administration to Clinton’s. For one thing, Clinton was much better about doing a poll driven 180° policy turn and convincing a lot of people this was the original direction. That brings me rambling along to something like making a point. (I understand that is what I’m supposed to do with these blogs, go figure). Enough time has passed that we can begin to honestly evaluate the Clinton legacy.
To do this, we will need to look at the “Webster” legacy, and the “Network” legacy. First, the network legacy. I will paraphrase a few things; sort of quote a source occasionally. You know, real, hard hitting modern journalism. There is a NY Times article, “Striking Strengths, Glaring Shortcomings”, that is one of many attempts to describe the former President as someone who tried really hard. He had to overcome a public that just didn’t trust the executive branch after the 12 years before him. They actually referred to his “modest domestic initiatives” in the same paragraph as “his effort to overhaul the nation’s health care system”. They refer to his poll driven policies as navigating between the left and the right. The gist of most of the major news outlets view of the administration is that he was a likeable guy, bad husband, and the only really practical person in Washington. Their version of his legacy is that conservatives learned to move to the left because of him, and those who disagreed with his practical policies had to attack his personal life. The impeachment was, after all, the result of Ken Starr being a pervert and a prude (with no explanation how you are both).
Watching some of the recent news of the day is what prompted me on this rambling. I am seeing more of the true legacy. To be fair, it is not all directly from the former President, but what I see is the result of both his actions and those who rushed to his defense. In 1988, there were several prominent Democrats running for their party’s nomination. In these pre-Clinton days, reports of Gary Hart’s affair on the yacht Monkey Business was more than enough to run him out of the race, and politics. That same year, another Senator running for office was discovered to have plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock, as well as a number of papers while in law school. He was disgraced and withdrew from the race (although he did provide me with a good joke for my brother’s wedding toast) and was very quiet for a long time. Now, in the post Clinton days, that man is Vice-President. I look at the Governors of New York, New Jersey, and South Carolina and I hear people saying it’s their personal life. In New York, Eliot Spitzer is actually being considered as a viable candidate.
We used to look for leaders, for people to inspire the nation to greatness. I can’t stand to hear one more talking head tell me that our politicians are just like the rest of us. That’s not leadership. George Washington was not like the rest of us. Most people would have taken the opportunity to become the first American King, or Emperor. Why do we tolerate (and don’t get me started on the new definition of that word) mediocre leadership? I see the messages battering my children that some sex is not sex, and anything you do in private is OK. Spin is OK. I’m sorry but spin is just a soft way to say lying through your teeth. My kids have been told (not at home) that there are times in life when a little lie is the right thing to do. Let me repeat that. They have been told that sometimes a lie is the right thing to do. As long as you avoid offending anyone, and spin it right, just say what you need to say and get past the situation. Of course, if you botch it, there is a guaranteed fix. If you actually do something that someone considers wrong, and get caught, you must apologize. It should go something along the lines of “To the extent that anyone may have taken offense at what I said, although I never intended to offend them, I apologize.” Apologize for someone else’s actions too, while you’re at it. Can’t hurt.
So in the end, I am trying to raise my kids to learn the lesson of the only legacy that truly matters. I understand that this gets me labeled with all sorts of horrible titles, but I still do it. It is a true legacy, a “gift transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past”. The world has the legacy of Christ, handed directly down from Him through Saint Peter. I will hitch my wagon to that, and let the others try to build on the media legacy.
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Cabinet, change, Christianity, citizenship, corruption, Democrats, Faith, Faith under assault, First Amendment, Founders, Freedom of Religion, George Washington, Government expansion, governors, incompetent Clinton, Justice, liberty, Obama, Political parties, Politics, Presidential race, Senate, White house | Tagged: 1988 primary, apology, Eliot Spitzer, Gary Hart, Jim McGreevey, Joe Biden, Ken Starr, leadership, legacy, little lie, Mark Sanford, Monkey Business, Neil Kinnock, spin, truth, white lie | 1 Comment »
Posted by revkharma on July 3, 2009
I know I am not the first, nor the most eloquent to make these observations. I do find myself compelled to do so. Tomorrow is the fourth day of July. Much of the nation will be celebrating just that: The Fourth of July. WHY? Why is that day special? Not because it’s the fourth day of the seventh month. Nothing to do with it. Why do stores run ‘Fourth of July Sales!’? Why do bars have ‘ July Fourth Bash Specials!’ all weekend? Well, those are because they want some extra business.
But WHY is that date special?
Tomorrow is Independence Day. It is because of the document signed and dated for July 4, 1776 that the date is remembered. I realize this is picky and fussy, but once more we see the real historical America subsumed in consumerism and distraction. The only reason we have a nation so wealthy, so free that we can indulge in such consumerist behavior is because the men of that generation were willing to sacrifice it ALL to provide freedom. And not just for themselves. The concluding sentence from that historic document lays out exactly what is at risk:
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
After the conclusion of hostilities, the same men saw fit to enshrine the ideals into a concrete document, one which was meant to set out, clearly and plainly just what it was they fought for. The preamble contains this sentence which can contrast with modern ‘me first’ attitudes:
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.
They are thinking, not only of themselves, but ‘Posterity’. A manner of future thinking which seems to be sorely lacking in these days of trillion dollar deficits which will be paid for by that very posterity. We in America need to return to that mindset. We should, each and all, examine our hearts, and find that still burning spark which longs for freedom. We must nurture it back to the raging fire of Liberty. Only when Americans are once more willing to struggle for their liberties, willing to pledge their lives, fortunes and Sacred Honor. We have become a placated people, but Americans have always been slow to rise to action, but once in action we have always been able to muster the necessary strength to meet any challenge facing us.
Perhaps it’s time to take back that ember, to fan it to flame. Start this weekend. Do not say ‘ Happy Fourth’. No, instead recall the origin of the day, the real reason to honor the date.
This weekend, this Saturday, loudly and clearly greet any and all you meet with a rousing and friendly greeting:
Happy Independence Day!
Keep The Faith!
Posted by revkharma on May 11, 2009
Often in discussions with people the subject of expanding government power and the increasingly intrusive nature of government. Generally the reaction will be ‘eye rolling’ and defensive comments. “The government is working to protect us.” Or ” If you haven’t done anything, you have nothing to worry about!” Or even the complete head in the sand position of those who say it’s all just made up science fiction kind of thing.
It’s not made up, and yet people are ignoring all the signs as government continues to expand, increasing ever more intrusively into what used to be considered the private sphere. This happens over and over, and the courts, which historically were charged with ensuring that government did not exceed its Constitutional mandate, have surrendered and now are complicit with the expansion of government, and the contraction of individual liberty.
In what may seem a small thing, and to some, a good thing, a court in Wisconsin has just ruled that police do not need a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device onto a private vehicle, even if the individual in question has not been identified as a suspect in any crime. Even more appalling, is the assumption by the court that placing a device, on a privately owned car, parked on the owner’s driveway is not at all intrusive as a “driveway is a public place”. This is not a parking lot, this is a driveway on an individual’s private residence.
The end result of this is expansion of the government power to legally have unfettered ability to observe and track the private lives of law abiding Americans. Justice Louis Brandeis is famously quoted as having stated:
The makers of our constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness… They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
This critical right, the right to privacy is vanishing and most Americans either are not aware, or do not care. We are surrendering more and more rights as we beg the Washington for more and more government cheese. In order to provide the free goodies which the politicians are providing, more and more of the wealth earned by law abiding citizens must be confiscated and distributed to others. As more people become wards of the State, more must be confiscated from the law abiding hard workers who are the last resource for government to drain dry. Gradually this is dawning on those who feel the increasing burden. Those who keep their hold on power by ‘redistributing wealth’ know that the entire house of cards will collapse without the cooperation, or at least submission to law, of those who supply the wealth. Once they decide they have had enough, it will all end.
Another lesser reported quote attributed to Brandeis is the following:
The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes — would bring terrible retribution.
As the government continues, with the blessing of the judiciary, to cross clear constitutional boundaries, law abiding Americans are beginning to lose respect for government, and to replace it with fear. A nation whose citizens fear their government cannot long survive. Jefferson’s famous quote clearly applies here:
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; When the government fears the people, there is Liberty
The balance has tipped long ago to the former. By the increasing application of the police power of the state, government has instilled a level of fear in the citizenry in order to maintain control.
There are several issues that will need to be looked at here. First, the court ruled that there is actually no issue at law here to prevent this. The concept of ‘curtilage’ and legal definitions of private/public access. It may be that this is an area not yet covered by law.
The Deacon suggests some interesting ways to get lawmakers to realize the seriousness of this. Spend a few dollars and get some of the devices. Place them on the private vehicles of police, or politicians. Then alert them that ‘someone’ has been tracking them. The moment some government official realizes that there is no legal/constitutional prohibition against such devices, you can bet that laws will be introduced rather quickly.
Or, should you find your vehicle suddenly is carrying some small GPS beacon that’s not factory equipment, the smart thing would be to carefully remove it and sell it on E-Bay or Craigslist. When they begin to realize that they are presenting profit opportunities to someone they are attempting to intimidate, the practice might cease.
These may seem facetious but at least it causes thought! We are moving slowly and inexorably toward a police state, and the vast bulk of the American polulation either is ignorant or apathetic. Those who pay attention must do something to stop the slide, or we will simply slip quitely beneath the waves of state control and into total surrender.
Keep the Faith
Posted in Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Freedom | Tagged: Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, fifth amendment, fourth amendment, Freedom, Government Power, liberty, police power | Leave a Comment »
Posted by revkharma on May 8, 2009
December 29, 1860 a resolution was passed in Charleston, South Carolina. It laid out the reasons for which the legislature was determined to dissolve the legal bonds which bound the state to the United States. There is still a debate over many things, the primary contention still is the ‘true reason’ for secession. Die hard believers still say the issue was ‘States Rights”. Opponents still ask the question: States rights to do what? In this they are casting the accusation of Slavery. In retrospect there is really not much debate, regardless of the noble intent of some, the bulk of the leaders were slavery proponents, and they were the driving force behind the secession and the war.
That is the muddied history which still clings to very word ‘Secession’. The war fought and won by President Abraham Lincoln would seem to have settled the issue of the right of States to secede from the Union.
If that is the case, then why have so many states begun the process of passing State Sovereignty, or Tenth Amendment Resolutions? The last several decades have seen a steady and almost unstoppable trend toward increasing centralization of power in DC, at the expense of the states, and individual liberty.
Recently there was a stunning landmark which passed with little notice. An article in USA Today documented a change in funding for states. The largest source of revenue for most states is now the Federal Government. We are rapidly heading to a point of no return. The DC Government will continue to expand programs, offering limited term financing for them. As the federal funding goes away, states will be forced to increase taxes on their residents to replace the DC dollars which have evaporated. They will turn to DC for more funds, giving away more and more control as they accept increasing federal funding for day to day operations. Once the states are completely dependent upon the DC government for revenue they will no longer be functional as separate government units. At that point we will effectively have the end of the United States, total replacement with a monolithic federal unit dominated by a central government. This will complete the process begun with the 17th amendment. The states are being made irrelevant by design. The founding premise, of Federalism is a notion relegated to obsolete textbooks, and most Americans have never even heard of the concept. Principles of subsidiarity are non existent in our nation. The ideas of Federalism, local rule, and self reliance have been replaced by a culture of dependence and Big Government control and reliance on The State to provide all.
It may be too late, but somehow some of the states are taking stock and beginning to realize if nothing is done, the country will be altered permanently.
The big question that needs to be asked is this: Once a state passes such a resolution what happens when the inevitable conflict arises. Just how strongly will the states fight to protect their rights?
And just how strongly will DC assert its powers? Will this become a new war, fought in the courts? Or will we see another brutal conflict, with states joining together against a federal government intent on maintaining a union by all means necessary, including force?
A potential wild card is the movement toward a new Constitutional Convention. At this point we are roughly two states short of the threshold required to call a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Should that happen, all bets are off. I would bet that the current members of Congress, the lords of the two party system will do anything necessary to prevent such a thing from happening. Perhaps that’s a weak point.
It is interesting to see some of the maneuvering taking place recently. Several states have taken aim directly at the DC government’s infringement of Second Amendment rights. Alaska, Montana and Texas have passed or introduced state gun rights bills, which assert that any federal regulations are invalid within the borders of the state so long as the manufacturing and sale of said items remains exclusively within the state. This is a direct challenge to the many tentacles the DC government has extended via the expansive interpretation of the ‘Commerce Clause’. There is little question, should any of these bills become state law that there will be swift action to challenge them in federal jurisdiction.
As more states get on the same side, the media will be less able to characterize them as extremists
Ride fast and shoot straight has numbers and info on the growing movement. As you can see there is a large and growing sentiment among the various states. As more and more join, this will be perceived as mainstream, making it difficult for the media to describe all adherents as fringe elements.
We need to move on all fronts, using everything at our disposal to press the issue and to regain control of our government from the entrenched party structure that has simply bent government to serve their wishes instead of the goals of the Constitution. Much work needs to be done, but it is beginning to look just a little bit less daunting as more join the fray.
Keep the Faith
Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Government expansion, Government Power, governors, Gun Laws, gun rights, New Constitution, Second Amendment, Second Constitutional Convention, Senate, State Supremacy, states rights, Term Limits | Tagged: 17th amendment, Alaska, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Congress, Constitution, Federal Government, Federalism, Freedom, gun rights, Leviathan, liberty, Montana, Politics, republicans, Secession, Second Amendment, State Supremacy, Texas | Leave a Comment »