It seems to me that two of the “false attacks” against ObamaCare were that your costs would go up and that you would not be able to keep your insurance plan. Well, from the looks of the packet that the state just sent me, I have to change my insurance as I have to get a PPO because the POS is no longer available. Oh, and I do believe the costs went up. I believe I hear Joe Wilson in the background.
Archive for the ‘Constitutional Issues’ Category
Mosques and Real Meaning Behind First Amendment
Wednesday, August 18th, 2010Not a long post, but more of a thought. Is building a mosque near Ground Zero a good idea? Probably not. I did watch Keith Olbermann the other day. In the clip I watched online, he went on about how the place was not really a mosque and how it was not near Ground Zero. I am not sure what the facts are, but I will continue to call it a mosque and near Ground Zero because that seems to be a general consensus. That being said, it is not a good idea, but I do not see how government can keep someone from building a place of worship due to freedom of religion (1st Amendment), nor do I because of our right to property (Declaration of Independence). So, it is not a good idea, but government should not have the power to stop it from being built. It is private property, so whomever owns it should be allowed to build whatever on it. Don’t use the zoning issue on me on this one, because I don’t really see a constitutional power that gives government the right to override property rights by allowing zoning anyway. It is also a religious issue and as such, the government cannot make a law which would say a religious building cannot be built because that would be government making a law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
On the flip side of the issue, people have the right to disagree with the mosque being built. People are given the right to protest (1st Amendment — right to assembly). If government were to step on this right, they would be as guilty as any government official who might want to stop the building of a religious worship place. Both are clear violations of the First Amendment, however Nancy Pelosi is just that person. She thinks government should bully people who disagree and investigate those naysayers. In a release, she cites the First Amendment as a reason for the right to build the mosque, but then she wants to shred the First Amendment to go after critics. Amazing, isn’t it?
Now, onto Dr. Laura Schlessinger. Dr. Laura is quiting her radio show later this year over a firestorm that erupted following her usage of the “N-word.” Rightfully so, citizens called her out and called for sponsors to pull their sponsorship. That is part of the right to assembly mentioned above. This is not pseudo-anger as is applied in many cases by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but this is a problem that she created on her own. I am not saying she is racist or anything except that she used very bad judgement. I don’t think she should be fired, but she should have known better. Now, she is not being fired. The kicker is, she says she is quiting because she wants to regain her First Amendment rights. I assume she is talking about her right to say what she wants. She did. The First Amendment does not guarantee that people won’t take a stance against what you said. It simply says that government cannot make a law that takes away your right to speech. It didn’t. People just didn’t like what she had to say. Seems everyone is misunderstanding what the First Amendment acutally says.
Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Worship
Sunday, July 18th, 2010Obama uses the term “freedom of worship,” but is this different from what the Founders and Constitution says. Read more here.
Obama’s Growing Problem
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010Federal law states that a federal official cannot promise a federal position for a political act. Chicago style politics just a catchy phrase? Ask Fmr. Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Apparently someone in the Obama White House (and there would be a high probability Obama would had to have known himself) offered Rep. Sestak a federal job to drop out of his US Senate race against Sen. Specter.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617
Furthermore, the Census is having its own problems as it truly “creates” jobs created. So, is that a told you so as the Census structure was changed to allow the White House to have more control of it?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/two_more_census_workers_blow_the_OqY80N3DBTvL17VmxKKR0O
The Rand Paul Problem
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010I don’t tend to make myself an apologist for politicians or aspiring politicians. In some ways, I may be doing just that with this entry concerning Rand Paul and his comments on the Rachel Maddow Show. Last week on her television show, Rachel Maddow twisted Kentucky’s Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate, Rand Paul’s, ideology in a way to make it seem as if he wanted to reverse the Civil Rights Movement.
Sensationalism is what drives ratings. MSNBC needs good ratings as it regularly falls behind FOX News in ratings. Rand Paul and Ron Paul always seem to be willing to go onto any news program that will have them, and as far as any politician is concerned, they probably have some of the largest followings. MSNBC is a left-leaning news organization, lest we kid ourselves. They need to throw some red meat to the left to keep their ratings among their target audience, so they need to go after Republicans any time they can. Rachel Maddow is also an avowed liberal, so it would seem fair to assume that would come out in her program. It does. Add all of this information together, and it is easy to see why she would want to go after Rand Paul. I cannot fault her for doing this. Paul should have seen that this would be what she would attempt to do.
Many consider Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Whether or not he accepts this label, I do not know, but his small government conservatism would, at the very least, mirror some basic tenets of libertarianism. Being a small government conservative myself, I can easily see many, many places that I agree with adherents of libertarianism. His views on government that he portrayed are now creating a bit of a crisis in his march to the U.S. Senate.
Rachel Maddow questioned Rand Paul about whether or not he believed that restaurants or other businesses should be able to discriminate and not serve someone based on that person’s race. Paul never directly said “yes” or “no,” (MSNBC transcripts falsely used the word “Yes” to begin his quote when, in fact, he never said “Yes.”) but Paul attempted to explain that he had a problem with a government telling a private business who they must do business with.
On the surface, Paul’s statement could seem that he holds to some unsettling racial views, if you do not understand the belief that government should be extremely limited. According to many libertarians and small government conservatives, the only role of government is to insure the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or protection of property. These adherents believe that rights not specifically given to government are understood to not be the power of government. By extension, there is no specific allowance for government to interfere in private property, thus the government should not have interfered in private property as they seemingly did through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul deviates somewhat from his small government views by stating that he would not favor the repeal of the act, and he has even stated he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Most people do not have such a view of limited government. Many Americans believe that government should fix society’s problems. How many times have you heard someone discussing a problem and someone else saying, “There should be allow against that?” The left is for economic regulation. The right is for social regulation. Some in the middle are for some of both. These views are hypocritical in a sense. Where should government intervene and where should it not?
Paul’s view is that government should not interfere in business. He believes that the government should not interfere in private property. He believes that government should be very limited. States should have the right to decide things not specifically given to the federal government per the 10th Amendment. This view is actually what the Founders theoretically believed since this is the view that was incorporated into our U.S. Constitution, though it is entirely arguable that the Founders did not practice this.
Let’s view this question for how it should be viewed. You want to start a business? Start one. You want a restaurant? Start one. Who owns it? You do? Okay. Run with it. You want to serve fat foods? Go for it! You want to allow guns in your business? Go for it. You want to allow smoking in your restaurant? Go for it! You want to only serve those of caucasian descent? Go for it.
You probably agree with some of the above questions, but disagree with other parts if you are the average American. The question that really frames the whole argument is, who owns your business. Do you own the business? If so, it is your private property. Should you be allowed to invite someone to your private property and be allowed to sell them foods high in fat content? Should I be allowed to buy food high in fat content? Unless you are a strong believer that the government knows more than you do, then the answer is yes I should be able to buy or sell foods high in fat content.
Smoking and guns are legal. It is my private property, so should I not be able to allow people to bring legal items to my business? Should people be allowed to bring guns to my property if I allow them? Should government be allowed to tell me no? Should I be able to allow people to smoke on my property? This is where many begin to waffle. People start talking safety here. It is my PRIVATE property. A restaurant is PRIVATE property. The public is allowed to come into my PRIVATE business. I am not forcing them. They can say “NO!” Why should people not be allowed to come to my PRIVATE business and smoke if I say they can? I don’t owe workers a job. They can choose to quit if they don’t want to be around smoke. If they don’t want to be around guns, they can quit. Keep in mind, it is PRIVATE property. Whatever you think about smoking, it is legal and can be done on private property. Same with guns. They can be carried on private property. Well, that used to be the case. Governent now views PRIVATE business as quasi-public, simply because the public goes to these places.
What if I wanted to allow you to smoke in my PRIVATE home? Should you be allowed? What if I opened my home to many people to come in? Should people be allowed to smoke in my home? Why would my restaurant be any different? See how there is a bit of hypocrisy there?
Now, what if I were racist? What if I just absolutely hated an ethnic group? Should I have to allow anyone of that ethnicity to come into my home? Apply that to a PRIVATE business. This is where Rand Paul’s ideology becomes reprehensible to so many. He has a belief that a person has a right to his or her property that government cannot and should not be able to control. This is a belief that he holds to be absolute, regardless of how disgusting someone’s beliefs may be. In other words, if someone is racist, it does not matter that racism is absolutely disgusting, but they have a right to their property so that they would not be forced to serve a person of that race.
Paul did go on and say that he would not join any private club that would discriminate based on race. He has stated that he would not support repealing the Civil Rights Act. He has stated that he would not go to a restaurant that refused to serve people based on race. He just happens to believe that rights are not able to be limited just because someone else does not like what you believe.
Paul’s ideas are actually the basis for our government. Many people are quick to say that we live in a democracy. A democracy does not need a written constitution. As a matter of fact, the nation of Israel is a representative democracy. It has no written constition. A democracy has no need for a written constitution because a simple majority vote (the people’s will) decides the law. Our government is a democratic republic. A republic allows laws to be created, yet laws cannot be created that will infringe on anyone’s rights. Christians cannot vote to take away the right of Muslims to worship how they see fit. Caucasians cannot decide to take the lives of dark skinned persons. Republics have set limits. Democracies limits are whatever the people decide the limits are at any given time. In a democracy, rights are pointless because a majority can overrule those at any time, similar to how a Tennessee governor’s veto is pointless because a simple majority can overrule it.
Paul’s words do not show him to be racist. His words do not say that he will support discrimination. He has gone far to show and state that this is not the case. He simply believes in limits. How often does a politician actually live by limits of his or her own power? Plenty say it, but few live by them. Paul is a different kind of politician. Whether you like his politics or not, you should take comfort in the fact that he says what he believes and that he will stand up for your rights whether he thinks you use them wisely or not.
Ray Stevens on ObamaCare - “We the People”
Saturday, January 9th, 2010Health Care Open Meetings? No…
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
Lifting Ban Good for Public Health?
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010In 1988 the federal government banned federal money from being used to purchase new needles for drug addicts. Recently, the Obama administration lifted this ban. The New York Times did an editorial claiming that the decision to ban federal funding for purchasing clean needles was responsible for the death of many who used dirty needles and contracted deadly diseases such as AIDS. They then praised Obama for lifting the ban.
If the question were whether or not the lift was good for public health, then the answer it seems would be that lifting the ban will help slow the spread of some diseases. That, however, should not be the question. The Constitution Party has a story about David Crockett that they use with some of their literature. I believe the name of it is “Not Yours to Give.” The question should be, does government have the right to force its citizens to pay for other Americans to have things? To rephrase this question, does government have the right to redistribute wealth?
Government owns nothing. Government receives its taxes, property, and consent from the governed. Therefore, anything given to anyone by the government actually is forced giving from the citizens. I, myself, have a problem with my money being given to drug users to keep them from getting deadly diseases. Do I hope that they get diseases? Absolutely not. I wish that all disease were eradicated, but I have a problem with paying for it. I also have a problem with the government subsidizing anything, much less something illegal. What else are we going to subsidize? How about we give materials for making meth labs safer. Let’s make a law saying that you can cook meth in the open so as to not harm others? Where does it stop?
Lifting the ban will help people from contracting disease as easily, but it is and should be unconstitutional. It is not yours to give.
Obama, Health Care, and the State of the Union
Thursday, December 24th, 2009A few weeks ago I took an exam. Part of the exam was a couple of analytical questions. One of the questions stated that truth is not a virtue for political leaders. I then had to agree or disagree with the statement. The fact that this was even a question is a sad reflection on our society and political system. If lying and half truths are a virtue, we are indeed standing on our heads.
Americans have come to expect very little out of our political leaders. Mark Twain had several quotes about Congress and our political system. He stated said that “… I never can think of Judas Iscariot without losing my temper. To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature, Congressman.” More famously he stated, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
Steve Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, wrote an editorial entitled “The Other Prostitution Scandal” in which he wrote that “[p]olticians take people’s money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can’t be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering.”
Ronald Reagan also stated, “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”
Those who become involved in politics start out tainted because the American public is inclined to distrust our government because of the power government wields, but also because those running government are rarely virtuous. George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force; Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Americans used to love their government. Loosing the binds of the tyranny of Britain, the American patriots were able to construct a government that erred on the side of caution. The Articles of Confederation was an experiment which was meant to allow power to remain with the states and a federal government weak enough to allow it citizens freedom from oppression.
After it became obvious to many of the leaders of the young republic, the framers met to construct a new document which would make improvements on the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was a document that not everyone could get behind. The Anti-Federalists, with the likes of Patrick ‘Give me Liberty, or Give me Death’ Henry, Samuel ‘Father of the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party’ Adams, George ‘Father of the Bill of Rights’ Mason, and Richard Henry ‘Father of the Motion to Separate from Great Britain’ Lee, were against the Constitution because they felt it did not protect the rights of people.
It is evident that there is a genuine distrust of government that has existed from the founding of our nation. It existed due to the tyranny of Great Britain on the American Colonies, and it continues to exist today because of the deceitfulness of our elected officials at present.
The president of the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia is the greatest iconic figure of American history. That figure went on to an unanimous win in the first presidential election in our nation’s history. George Washington is our equivalent to Zeus and is chiseled into our Mt. Olympus at Mt. Rushmore. The myth surrounding the man is bigger than his life itself. Probably incorrectly, the most famous legend of Washington is of him as a lad. It is said that one day he cut down his father’s cherry tree. When asked about the incident, he is said to have replied, “I cannot tell a lie,” and he admitted to it. History tells us that this story is likely untrue, but this perception still sticks. The greatest American ever is seen as a truthful saint.
The next American that even rivals Washington, himself the other bookend of Mt. Rushmore, is equated with truth also. Honest Abe, as he is sometimes referred, is consistenly listed in the top 3 of greatest American Presidents lists. Lincoln is treated as being a representative of truth as his name denotes.
It is not coincidence that the two men considered by most to be the two greatest Americans of all-time are known for honesty, whether through fact or just perception. Honesty is a virtue that Americans long for in government. Lying and half truths are not. It is indisputable, however, that lies are tools of contemporary politicians. Healthcare is one such area where the Left has consistently wielded deceit as a weapon and tool.
Early on as the debate over health care raged, top Democrats stated that abortion was not a part of the health care overhaul plan. Leaders of the Democratic Party stated that the Hyde Amendment of 1976 would not allow abortion to be a part of the health care plan. Apparently that was a flat out lie. Rep. Stupak (D - MI) offered up an amendment to the House health care bill which would place restrictions on abortion coverage in the health care bill. The Stupak Amendment was not included in the Senate plan. As a matter of fact, abortion is covered in the Senate plan.
President Barack Obama stated “the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegaly.” On its surface, this appears to be truthful in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, but there is a loop hole. The bills as they are now written expand and fund the expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid does fund some health care for illegal immigrants. In effect, the health care bill does fund illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson was correct in his ascertation that Pres. Obama is a liar on the health care for immigrants issue. In fact, Americans also cover the cost for illegal immigrants’ health coverage whenever we pay for any medical care. Medical care that cannot and is not paid for by a consumer is spread out in costs to other consumers.
President Barack Obama has claimed he would not sign a bill for health care reform that is not deficit-neutral. He has touted that the Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill will actually cut the deficit. Matt Welch of Reason.com in “Obama’s Latest Health Care Lie” points out that the CBO must take what is said at face value, and the fact that Congress promises to make unspecified future cuts, the CBO must take those cuts into account, whether or not they are ever instituted. He also points out Obama’s numbers are inflated from what the CBO is actually projecting. Peter Suderman, another writer for Reason is referenced as reminding readers that cutting a deficit does not necessarily mean spending less. Opponents of the health care plan have also pointed out that the bill double counts savings in order to achieve deficit-neutrality. Label this a lie or half-truth from Obama as well.
The term “death panel” may be an exaggeration, but the fact is the idea of the so-called death panels exists. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a panel responsible for deciding how to cut and control costs. This type of rationing in effect does make life or death decisions for a patient. It may be decided that a patient with a certain disease may not receive the treatment that the patient and doctor decide on, and so the patient and doctor may need to seek a cheaper, less desireable option of care that does not work as well. Any time that medical decisions are handed to bureaucrats, medical decisions are made more slowly and denied based on economics. To say that the “death panels” are non-existent is more disengenuous than saying there are “death panels.”
Two other misrepresentations that were parroted early on by President Obama is that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor and you can keep your health plan if you like your health plan. No doubt, these promises were made as a way of halting early talk that government health reform would take away your right to see your own doctor and keep your own plan. This is another instance of a situation where things have a good chance of happening indirectly.
Say you have a company. You are paying a good portion of your employees’ insurance. For representative reasons, let’s say you are paying $400 a month for each employee. Now a new bill has passed and become law that says that you (as an employer) will be fined $200 a month for not providing insurance to employees. Furthermore, there is an option that your employees can take if you do not provide them with insurance. Obviously, you can save money and your employees do not have to go without insurance. It is a win-win situation for you. Unfortunately, the employee does lose out on their insurance plan that they liked as they are moved to the government plan. Oh, and by the way, the government insurance isn’t accepted by the doctors your employees visit. Think that is not coming?
The public option is not included in the current health care plan, but it is next on the horizon. If it is not included in the reconciled bill, it will come soon after this health reform bill is passed. Several Congressmen are claiming that any bill that does not address the public option is unacceptable. They also state the public option will soon be revisited. Many supporters of the public option further hope that the public option will soon lead to a single-payer plan. Though Pres. Obama seems to distance himself from the idea of a single-payer system as he did in speaking to the American Medical Association recently, he has said to both SEIU and AFL-CIO in two different settings that he is a proponent of a single-payer plan and that he did not think he could “eliminate employer coverage immediately.” The Chicago Sun-Times quotes Pres. Obama as saying he was not pushing a single-payer system because our system is employer based, but he thinks “moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.” Keeping your insurance and doctor is not as certain as Obama makes it sound with health reform.
After getting 60 votes for the Senate health bill, Harry Reid said that there was a lot of partisanship going around the health care debate, but he did not view it as 60 Democrats voting against 40 Republicans. He saw it as 60 leaders who stood up against insurance companies and stood up for hard-working Americans. He also stated that this is a declaration that health care is a right, not a privilege.
A recent CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans were against the health care reform. That leaves only 44 percent of Americans who are either for the reforms or are undecided about the reforms. In effect, Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate is telling America that they know what is good for America and at least 56 percent of America is too stupid to understand.
Those poll numbers are likely to slip further as Americans are upset at backroom dealing that came out of the compromise. Sen. Ben Nelson (D - NE) was able to insure that Nebraskans would be exempt from paying for the increased Medicaid costs. Louisiana also got kick-backs as did Connecticut. In all, thirteen Democratic Senators received a pay-off for their yes vote on the health bill. Not only are these pay-offs, but these are instances of Democratic senators opting their state out of parts of the health care bill. Contrary to what Sen. Schumer (D - NY) says, not every state received a pay-off in the vote. Sadly, Democratic leaders are even downplaying the buying of votes by saying it is minor and a part of politics. What would happen if you did that to a judge or a Supreme Court Justice?
Furthermore, Reid’s assertion that health care is a right, not a privilege is not what this is about. This bill is not about receiving health care. In fact, Rep. Kucinich stated that the whole bill has become about insurance, not health care. Also, the idea that health care and insurance is a right is not consistent with how we have view rights consistently. People have a right to life and liberty, yes. No one can kill us or take away our liberty. The final part of our rights is our right to pursue happiness. John Locke listed property. We have a right to pursue what we want. Yes, we have a right to pursue property, health care, and such, but we are not guaranteed to have these if we do not pursue them. Americans have a right to seek health care and insurance, but we must work to obtain them. They are not something government is supposed to give us.
While running for office, Obama talked about how the Constitution was filled with “negative liberties.” He said the Constitution said what government could not do to us, not what it had to do for us. In case he did not know, that was how it was meant to be. Britain controlled many aspects of colonial life. Colonists wanted liberty and freedom. When government starts doing things for you, they also start taking liberty from you. Thomas Jefferson stated, “Government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take everything away.” Americans should have known then that he was going to increase the size of government by “gifting” things to Americans.
Now, what does all of this have to do with Obama’s State of the Union Address? Barack Obama had to get this approved. He has to get things moving on health care early in January. If things fall apart in the House, Obama is in trouble. Obama is banking on health care reform to be a success that he can talk about at his State of the Union Address. He doesn’t want to dwell on sagging poll numbers. He doesn’t want to fret about inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. He doesn’t want to spend a speech discussing how terrible the jobless percentages are. He doesn’t want to have to admit that nothing has been accomplished despite a Democratic House and a Democratic super-majority in the Senate. Obama doesn’t want to spend his time wielding lies and half-truths as his only weapon.
The truth is the health care bill currently under consideration is a failure based on what Democrats wanted. It is not the last step. Sure, most of it is unconstitutional. Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance? No way that can stand in the Supreme Court. It is also likely that the House will be unable to rech a compromise. To stop this mess, Americans must keep pressure on their representatives. It can still be defeated.
Yes Madame Speaker, the Constitution is Serious
Saturday, October 24th, 2009“Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
This Ain’t America No More!
Saturday, August 29th, 2009The Fourth Amendment (Focus on the Issues)
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The 4th Amendment means that government agenst cannot make a search and/or seizure without probable cause. A government agent cannot just show up for a search and seizure without first obtaining a valid search warrant from the judiciary. Furthermore, the search must stick to the scope of the search warrant.
Katz v. the United States (1967) ruled that a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy.
The government has disregarded this amendment in several ways such as the usage of “red light cameras.” If a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy, the usage of government cameras without probable cause would violate this.
Another example is the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was done, in no doubt, with good intentions. We were attacked by international terrorists and the fear of more attacks allowed us to ‘reasonably’ give up a little liberty for a little security. This was a major blow to that expectation of privacy and our security in our property and person. We did not heed to the advice of our great American statesman, Benjamin Franklin. It was Franklin who said, “Those who give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both.” That was the beginning of this round of losing our rights as we have over the past few years. Now is the time to rise up and say enough is enough. Legislators, government executives, and judicial officers, please listen. Enough is enough.
The Patriot Act has damaged this Amendment in several ways. The Patriot Act allows for searches and seizures without probable cause or what are the traditional search warrants. Furthemore, a person’s property is not valued as notification of a search does not happen either. There have even been government admissions to abuse of powers of the Patriot Act. We want to be safe, but do we want to be slaves instead? Many of us conservatives were silent about abuse of our rights under Bush because we trusted him. Now that a leftist is in charge, we fear what might happen. Hopefully we will never allow this to happen again, regardless of who is in charge.
What is a Small-Government Conservative?
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009I have been asked several times recently about different political stances that I have. When I discuss these, people ask me if I am a Libertarian. I answer with a quick no. I am not a Libertarian. When asked what I am, I usually respond that I am a small-government conservatice. When pressed on political party, I will answer that I am a Republican.
The difference, for me, between being a Libertarian and a small-government conservative is that Libertarians, as a party, tend to be pro-choice among other stances. Not all Libertarians believe this way, but the Libertarian Party does. I believe that being a small-government conservative is more traditional, while Libertianism blends too much progressive values within. My small-government conservatism could also be considered a blend of libertarian Republicanism.
I have tried to develop a political philosophy that remains consistent. One may ask how I can defend pro-life ideals and my stance against gay marriage with my small-government conservatism. I even talked to someone earlier yesterday who told me that her son is a Libertarian who is pro-choice. I feel that this is not completely compatible with what Libertarians have as a philosophy.
When it comes to the issue of abortion, I am against it not on the grounds that I should be able tell someone else how to treat their bodies. If someone wants to make medical decisions that effect them, so be it. My problem is that I don’t personally believe that abortion is effecting just the woman, but I believe that abortion is murdering another human life. I know that you can’t force everyone to do what you think, but that is exactly what government does by allowing abortion. My real problem is with government deciding who is not a living human. It didn’t work out really well when our government did not recognize Africans as humans. People used ‘rights’ to trod down living humans and place them into slavery. History judged that to be wrong. History may just do the same with abortion.
Some talked of ‘Death Panels’ with the healthcare bill. Democrats claimed that this was a scare tactic used by Republicans to kill the bill. They stated it was not even in there. Let’s not discuss that at this point, but by the whole premise of the argument, it seems to work out as a type of a proof that if the government did set up a panel to decide whether or not one would live based on their quality and quantity of life, that would be wrong. Is that not what government does on the issue of abortion? We have Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS deciding that life at the earliest stages is not life at all. When government is the decider that someone is less than a person, we have problems. What else will we trust government with?
Nancy Pelosi: “I’m a Fan of Disruptors”
Friday, August 14th, 2009Thomas Paine: Silent No More
Friday, August 14th, 2009Johnson City Pansy Commission
Monday, July 6th, 2009The Johnson City Commission took on new legislation that would have allowed legal gun carriers to legally carry their firearms into local parks. Sadly, according to the Johnson City Press, all present commissioners voted to treat legal gun carriers as criminals.
I checked out the Johnson City Commission’s website, but they do not have the minutes to show who was present and who was absent. Jane Myron, owner of Jane’s Lunchbox, which is probably a crappy, over-priced diner of sorts, had already voiced her displeasure that the legislature had voted to allow carrying in restaurants. All she has to do, however, is place a sign saying you cannot carry and you can’t. That is you cannot unless you are a criminal who would do it anyways.
*** I have never been to Jane’s Lunchbox, nor do I plan a trip. It could be a good, overpriced diner for all I know. It could also be a crappy, non-diner restaraunt. I have no clue what they have. I just assume it is crappy because a restaraunt is usually a reflection of its owner. ***
A Contact Form Sent to Sen. Lamar Alexander
Friday, June 19th, 2009[The following is in reference to a quote by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) concerning a bill filed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill calls on Congress to audit the Federal Reserve. The empty suit (or plaid shirt), Lamar Alexander thinks that is a bad idea. Enjoy!]
“A sorry day when Congress superimposes itself on the Fed, nosing around in monetary policy?” It is a sorry day when you have Lamar Alexander as your senator, but of course it has been several sorry years for Tennesseans. You are sir, in all due respect, what is exactly wrong with the Republican Party. What part of the Constitution gives the Fed authority to set monetary policy? Take all the time you need to find that answer because I am sure you won’t.
You sure didn’t read the Constitution as Sec. of Education of the US. Sorry to let you in on a little secret, but the Dept. of Education is also unconstitutional. That is coming from a public school teacher, who just happens to be the husband of another public school teacher.
It seems oaths and pledges mean absolutely nothing to you. You take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but you don’t follow through. That is kind of like when you said you would never again run for public office only to decide to run for Sen. Thompson’s seat. You definitely did not deserve to follow him.
Before you dismiss me as some liberal lunatic, I will let you know that I am a lifelong Republican. I have always stood for Conservative values, even in running for political office as a Republican. That is more than I can say for you. You are half-way there though. You can run as a Republican as often as you like, but a Conservative you are not. You are nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing (or goofy plaid shirt). But that did seem to work out for you until you ran for President. Thank God that didn’t work out for you. There is no telling what kind of mess you would have made there. Though it may have actually paled in comparison with Obama.
You are definitely lucky that you had to run for re-election in 2008. You would not win against a real Conservative in 2010. Lucky for you, you can do damage until 2014. I will assume that you will retire at that time, because you won’t want to run against a Conservative challenger with your record.
Alas, you will probably never get this. A staffer will either press the delete button or come up with some form e-mail about how you feel my concerns. It has happened before and will probably happen again this time. If by chance you do decide to read it, listen to your constiuents for once. The American Republic is based on constitutional law. The Fed has been allowed to run all over the Constitution as it is. At least allow Congress to look at the monetary policy the Fed is following. I only worry about how much more the big government Republicans (like yourself) and the leftists can mess things up. But, I have decided that there is no way that the Fed nor Congress can do much worse than is happening now.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything. I do find that he is one of the few principled people left on Capitol Hill. He is also one of the last Constitutionalists left. I even voted for him to be the Republican nominee because he seemed to really understand monetary policy. Things were not terrible, but he told us what would happen. Those things did begin to happen. He really gets it. His bill to audit the Fed is a good thing. Transparency is a good thing. I will put it this way… Transparency in government (including the Fed) is better than getting a new plaid shirt.