With the economic crisis now foremost in American's minds, pushing back their concerns for the ongoing War in Iraq (a manipulated crisis at it's core, occurring just prior to the 2008 elections mind you), below are some suggestions for getting our economy back on track the "old fashioned," way - by abiding by the Constitution. I am concerned with Obama's suggestions, since as a Constitutional lawyer you would think he might consult it with respect to his policy making before making any more of his mesmerizing speeches. But it is clear this Administration is simply another promise of "change" without substance, that much has been clear since the changes in position he has made on both the war, and his economic plans.
1. Rescind the 700 Billion Dollar fraud of a bailout that was rushed through before the American people could become none the wiser, and which was covered up by the mainstream media acting in concert. This bailout was nothing more than a "payback" for those members of Congress, and the two presidential candidates, for their loans for their campaigns, billed at the American people's expense and will result in inflationary taxes that, no matter what pittance is rebated to the American people in the form of a stimulus package will only stimulate the coffers of the government once again in tax revenue. Obviously, the individual Americans had had it with the two party system that has merged essentially into one in defrauding the American people time and time again for their own agendas and purposes. It is called bi-partisanship, but is actually treason against the Constitution. A Ponzi scheme if ever there was one.
Instead:
2.Call in the loans of all countries whose balance sheets are now in the black, and whose currency is thus now also more stable, for all the foreign aid and loans we have made to them while our own economy has sunk in the process. No more foreign aid unless and until America gets some of those loans repaid, with interest.
3. Recall immediately all non-essential service personnel now serving in Iraq, leaving only the career army and diplomatic corp to oversee the arrangement of the transferring of the costs of the rebuilding efforts to their own government, since we were so very gracious in dethroning their latest dictator rather than abiding by the original Congressional Resolution calling for the capture of those strictly responsible for 9/11....Osama bin Laden and all those who directly gave him aid and comfort. The costs of this ongoing frivolous conflict are putting is putting our children and grandchildren's welfare and continued safety at risk, and also their own economic futures. If Mr. Obama cares about his two daughters, I am sure he would see the wisdom in such a position, unless it is his own financial future which is more important, or temporary political legacy as the "winner" of a "no-win" conflict. How can you defeat any enemy whose personal beliefs hold that dying for their jihad earns them their right in heaven. The logic of this continuing war based on that simple premise continues to astound me, and a good many other Americans.
4. Pass effective legislation calling for accountability of the Federal Reserve, and no more independent actions outside the oversight of Congress, per our Constitution that gives Congress, and Congress alone, the power to print and value our currency. Since that provision was unlawfully transferred by the Wilson Administration, then at the very least also provision should have been included to provide for strict regulation and oversight, not our Congress essentially working for them and their agendas. Also, enact sufficient oversight and regulation of those private banks who are recipients also of loans from the Federal Reserve and their policies in their dealings with the public. No more freewheeling and fraudulent bailouts, especially not for global industries, such as AIG.
5. Repeal the 16th Amendment that affords the majority of legislator's time and now a year around Congress to be bribed and forsake their oaths of office to the American people in favor of corporate and global interests and using their tax dollars in order to so do. We are at this point funding the entire world's economy, and tying our economy into that of other nations is how we got to where we are today, in debt and at the mercy of those international bankers.
6. Repeal the 17th Amendment calling for state legislative election of Senators, so that they again have a voice at the federal levels, and are not simply lobbyists at the federal trough for pork bills as another special interest group. No campaign election fraud with respect to the election of Senators, and Constitutional government once again. Institute the provisions that campaign contributions may only be accepted for House members from citizens, not corporate interests, that live in their districts. No outside state or federal funding. You cannot have a government of the people when the representatives serve outside interests, and not the people at all.
7. Since corporations only pay income taxes on their profits, tax them to the hilt. Then maybe those profits will trickle down to either the employees, or into research and development costs in order to protect their investment the old fashioned way - by reinvesting in it rather than the Boards of Directors and upper level management skimming the profits. Institute regulations that call for investor/stockholder approval of all severance and bonus packages to eliminate "golden parachutes." The investors own the company, so should have a say in the compensation for which these top level management employees are entitled and worth. Not them self-determining, in many instances, their own salaries and severance packages.
Those are just a few, but there are so many more Constitutional abridgements which have been enacted, that it would take days to address them all. But those "Lucky 7" would truly be the legal and Constitutional way to reverse what has brought us to this point, at least initially.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Obama Inauguration: Get Your Boogie On
Reading this week of all the hoopla and gala events planned in Washington for the Obama inauguration, and with our country now on the precipe of an economic depression, also with an ongoing engagement for which there still appears no end (since the Bush accord recently signed with the Iraqi parliment calls for a three year plan for troop withdrawal, and Obama has made noise now about Pakistan and India), the delusion of the American people to most of us who have ascertained that this new Administration will most likely be another Federal Reserve/Council of Foreign Relations exercise in formenting the global world government they seek with simply a "change" in mouthpieces has been simply too incredible to believe.
It appears that the events as planned, the cost of which also will be billed to the federal deficit and American taxpayers in the guise of the "Inaugural Committee," will be the most expensive inauguration ever undertaken, and with all the trappings of a Hollywood premiere. Even Arianna Huffington is having her own little soiree, as is Oprah Winfrey. This event is a far cry from the inaugurations of those first presidents, and their solemn occasions and dignity that was inherent in both the position, and the costs as public funds. Mr. Obama, it is clear, enjoys the celebrity lifestyle and all the trappings since his candidacy has been likened to the Kennedy era, of course with that Administrations over the top excesses and Hollywood connections also now historically documented. Politics and Hollywood have made strange bedfellows since that era, although had been put under wraps until this latest election cycle and study in excess.
As a citizen now who is suffering economically from both the housing crisis, and who has been opposed to this war since the invasion of Iraq and abandonment of the original mission, I find it rather offensive that while those men and women are serving in Iraq, some of whom were woefully misled upon their enlistment and now serving their second and third tours of duties, Obama will be boogeying with the likes of Rhianna. While the costs daily continue to mount, even on Inauguration Day. No word in Obama's economic plans at this point in transferring the costs of the war to the Iraqi government, which is in the black while we are deeply in the red. The presidency is a position of service, not celebrity, and should be accorded the same ceremonial simplicity as such, and not a coronation.
Give me the good old days of our first hundred years. A solemn ceremony from the White House balcony with Mr. Obama swearing his oath and fidelity to "defend, protect and uphold the Constitution of these United States," and a leader whose ego understands that as a representative of the people, such an exercise in excess in light of the ongoing war and economic crisis this country is now facing could be seen as quite offensive, and that the ceremony should match the circumstances of those he is bound to serve and protect. Not the Hollywood elite.
In other words, give me a another humble Jefferson or Lincoln, not an elitist Kennedy or George H.W. Bush. Campaigning in Germany and Europe and now this. Happy days are here again. Or are they?
I hope this isn't a replay of Rome and Nero.
It appears that the events as planned, the cost of which also will be billed to the federal deficit and American taxpayers in the guise of the "Inaugural Committee," will be the most expensive inauguration ever undertaken, and with all the trappings of a Hollywood premiere. Even Arianna Huffington is having her own little soiree, as is Oprah Winfrey. This event is a far cry from the inaugurations of those first presidents, and their solemn occasions and dignity that was inherent in both the position, and the costs as public funds. Mr. Obama, it is clear, enjoys the celebrity lifestyle and all the trappings since his candidacy has been likened to the Kennedy era, of course with that Administrations over the top excesses and Hollywood connections also now historically documented. Politics and Hollywood have made strange bedfellows since that era, although had been put under wraps until this latest election cycle and study in excess.
As a citizen now who is suffering economically from both the housing crisis, and who has been opposed to this war since the invasion of Iraq and abandonment of the original mission, I find it rather offensive that while those men and women are serving in Iraq, some of whom were woefully misled upon their enlistment and now serving their second and third tours of duties, Obama will be boogeying with the likes of Rhianna. While the costs daily continue to mount, even on Inauguration Day. No word in Obama's economic plans at this point in transferring the costs of the war to the Iraqi government, which is in the black while we are deeply in the red. The presidency is a position of service, not celebrity, and should be accorded the same ceremonial simplicity as such, and not a coronation.
Give me the good old days of our first hundred years. A solemn ceremony from the White House balcony with Mr. Obama swearing his oath and fidelity to "defend, protect and uphold the Constitution of these United States," and a leader whose ego understands that as a representative of the people, such an exercise in excess in light of the ongoing war and economic crisis this country is now facing could be seen as quite offensive, and that the ceremony should match the circumstances of those he is bound to serve and protect. Not the Hollywood elite.
In other words, give me a another humble Jefferson or Lincoln, not an elitist Kennedy or George H.W. Bush. Campaigning in Germany and Europe and now this. Happy days are here again. Or are they?
I hope this isn't a replay of Rome and Nero.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Corporate Tax Breaks and Bailouts - Are They Constitutional?
Below, verbatim, is the actual language within Article 8, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and Congress's limited authority with respect to it's powers of duties. Granted, these powers have been unlawfully expanded and increased - particularly by the Wilson and FDR Administrations with respect to social welfare, and under subsequent administrations in corporate welfare, most egregiously by this last Bush Administration and the 700 billion dollar campaign finance fraud bailout for the banks and financial sectors. Nothing more than enforced campaign contributions for the 2008 elections at the American public's expense. Here is the actual, LIMITED powers and duties for which Congress has been assigned. These powers were so limited in order to place most legislation within the state's purview, the more local government, and thus more accountable to the people. It has been successive abridgements of the Constitution, therefore, which have brought us to where we are today, and getting progressively worse under each Administration and far less accountable to the point where the U.S. budget and dollar is no more than monopoly money with no true backing whatsoever.
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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Those are the specific powers granted to Congress. And per a subsequent provision, any and all powers not specifically enumerated or prohibited by our Constitution are left to the states and the people, respectively. There is no "general welfare" clause, that language is intended simply as an introduction to the "intent" of the Section and provisions contained within it. Since incorporation by any business in and of itself is a voluntary act and governed by the laws of the state in which the business is incorporated, then any "bailout" of any U.S. corporation, such as the Big 3 automakers, or the financial institutions, should have been sought through the states in which they were incorporated themselves, not at the federal level. And of course due to also the "privileges and immunities" clause barring any unequal privileges and immunities to any specific class contained in most state and the federal Constitution, then those bailouts should have beeen unilaterally denied, unless of course Congress amended the Constitution and transferred federal bankruptcy authority to Congress, rather than to the oversight of the federal judiciary.Insofar as corporate tax breaks, that is another story, since taxation per the same Section, does not have to be equal, and as the founder's envisioned, corporations as property were to be taxed in order to offset the costs of government and any regulatory powers needed over them, not the income of the private citizens. Congress has already afforded large major corporations the ability to "write off" research and development costs from their bottom line profits, in addition to also providing federal grant monies for such R&D costs - and it is their bottom line profits alone upon which they are taxed. The U.S. automakers have been given tax breaks already in order to facilitate the development of alternative energy vehicles, even though such research costs are clearly tax deductible from their profits on the sales of their existing gas powered autos. The Big Three are in trouble primary due to lack of regulation of foreign imported vehicles as in the past which are in direct competition with U.S. industry, and lack of protection of the stockholders and investors in the remuneration which is paid to high level executives who sit on the Boards determining their own salaries and severance packages. This is where Congress should place it's attention, since it is the investors and public that need to be protected, and if the Big Three were being adequately protected from competing foreign interests it would place them in the black once again, or at least competitive with those foreign imports. If an imported auto were to be tax sufficiently and the supply regulated as the founder's intended with their "protectionist" beliefs, it would encourage Americans to "buy American" once again, or if an import is what they desire, then they should have to pay extra for it. That is why Belgian chocolate is more expensive than Hershey's, yet Hershey is the largest seller of chocolate in the U.S. This strategy has been abandoned by Congress with respect to the automakers, and the American people should not have to pay for their errors nor should the Big Three executives not expect Congress to do it's Constitutional duty and place those protective measures once again for American industry in future legislation.
As far as past history, the details of that recent 700 billion bailout have been hidden from the public for one specific reason, and one reason alone. They were fraudulent bankruptcies to begin with, one involving a global international insurer to boot, over which Congress has no right to indebt the American people and their posterity for a globally based concern.The treasonous actions of the Bush Administration and the 110th Congress will live in infamy in the annals of American history, and most likely will be referred to as the genesis of the anniliation and destruction of the late, great United States of America as global reach and indebtedness contributed to the fall of that other great exercise in republican and democratic government, Rome.
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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Those are the specific powers granted to Congress. And per a subsequent provision, any and all powers not specifically enumerated or prohibited by our Constitution are left to the states and the people, respectively. There is no "general welfare" clause, that language is intended simply as an introduction to the "intent" of the Section and provisions contained within it. Since incorporation by any business in and of itself is a voluntary act and governed by the laws of the state in which the business is incorporated, then any "bailout" of any U.S. corporation, such as the Big 3 automakers, or the financial institutions, should have been sought through the states in which they were incorporated themselves, not at the federal level. And of course due to also the "privileges and immunities" clause barring any unequal privileges and immunities to any specific class contained in most state and the federal Constitution, then those bailouts should have beeen unilaterally denied, unless of course Congress amended the Constitution and transferred federal bankruptcy authority to Congress, rather than to the oversight of the federal judiciary.Insofar as corporate tax breaks, that is another story, since taxation per the same Section, does not have to be equal, and as the founder's envisioned, corporations as property were to be taxed in order to offset the costs of government and any regulatory powers needed over them, not the income of the private citizens. Congress has already afforded large major corporations the ability to "write off" research and development costs from their bottom line profits, in addition to also providing federal grant monies for such R&D costs - and it is their bottom line profits alone upon which they are taxed. The U.S. automakers have been given tax breaks already in order to facilitate the development of alternative energy vehicles, even though such research costs are clearly tax deductible from their profits on the sales of their existing gas powered autos. The Big Three are in trouble primary due to lack of regulation of foreign imported vehicles as in the past which are in direct competition with U.S. industry, and lack of protection of the stockholders and investors in the remuneration which is paid to high level executives who sit on the Boards determining their own salaries and severance packages. This is where Congress should place it's attention, since it is the investors and public that need to be protected, and if the Big Three were being adequately protected from competing foreign interests it would place them in the black once again, or at least competitive with those foreign imports. If an imported auto were to be tax sufficiently and the supply regulated as the founder's intended with their "protectionist" beliefs, it would encourage Americans to "buy American" once again, or if an import is what they desire, then they should have to pay extra for it. That is why Belgian chocolate is more expensive than Hershey's, yet Hershey is the largest seller of chocolate in the U.S. This strategy has been abandoned by Congress with respect to the automakers, and the American people should not have to pay for their errors nor should the Big Three executives not expect Congress to do it's Constitutional duty and place those protective measures once again for American industry in future legislation.
As far as past history, the details of that recent 700 billion bailout have been hidden from the public for one specific reason, and one reason alone. They were fraudulent bankruptcies to begin with, one involving a global international insurer to boot, over which Congress has no right to indebt the American people and their posterity for a globally based concern.The treasonous actions of the Bush Administration and the 110th Congress will live in infamy in the annals of American history, and most likely will be referred to as the genesis of the anniliation and destruction of the late, great United States of America as global reach and indebtedness contributed to the fall of that other great exercise in republican and democratic government, Rome.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Who Owns the Federal Reserve?
Below are the card-carrying shareholders in the `Federal' Reserve Corporation:
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Israel
Moses Sieff Banks Of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank Of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank Of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank Of New York
So we have an ex-employee of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, and upcoming current employee, Mr. Geither who are going to oversee that 70 billion bailout outside the scrutiny of Congress or the American people. AIG a London based global insurer, and Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers, who recently were declared in financial straits but who are actually owners of the Federal Reserve. Congress then is borrowing money from the stockholders, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs who claimed financial bankrupcy recently?
What is wrong with this picture?
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Israel
Moses Sieff Banks Of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank Of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank Of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank Of New York
So we have an ex-employee of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson, and upcoming current employee, Mr. Geither who are going to oversee that 70 billion bailout outside the scrutiny of Congress or the American people. AIG a London based global insurer, and Goldman Sachs and Lehman brothers, who recently were declared in financial straits but who are actually owners of the Federal Reserve. Congress then is borrowing money from the stockholders, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs who claimed financial bankrupcy recently?
What is wrong with this picture?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
What's Wrong With Roe vs. Wade?
Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade. Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school. For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.
When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized. Interesting, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available. Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than an assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet. It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35. Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them. Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly. Conveniently omitted in such reports is that Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions based upon the facts presented in the Roe case.
For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if a, horror of horrors, conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now. At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples have never been higher. Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy? Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?
I am a Christian, and I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones. This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think. And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATIONWIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants. Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel. It does seem the founder's new what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it. Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning. If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, than God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteress might have been pregnant. It is also biblically fairly clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation and then by directing them to "go forth and multiply." And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness. It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own. The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it. Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and radicalism sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.
When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized. Interesting, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available. Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than an assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet. It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35. Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them. Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly. Conveniently omitted in such reports is that Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions based upon the facts presented in the Roe case.
For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if a, horror of horrors, conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now. At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples have never been higher. Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy? Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?
I am a Christian, and I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones. This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think. And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATIONWIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants. Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel. It does seem the founder's new what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it. Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning. If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, than God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteress might have been pregnant. It is also biblically fairly clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation and then by directing them to "go forth and multiply." And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness. It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own. The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it. Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and radicalism sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Disenfranchised Electorate
This election more than any other it is becoming abundantly clear that the political process as it now stands has actually disenfranchised the electorate and people for whom the government is supposed to serve. This year more than any other there are more registered Independents, and many more simply choosing not to choose. The power of your vote seems rather meaningless when the choices are really no choice at all. One of the two (who are becoming more and more as one) will remain in power, and the status quo basically will remain. It was recently announced that John McCain has even selected ex-employees of Karl Rove (Bush's architect) to act as his campaign advisers, and Barack Obama is now backing down from many of his former positions with respect to both the war, and in focusing on a "global" rather than "American" message.The missing link in all of this is that it is the two corporate political parties that control and govern the political process. Such was not the case to the degree it is now. In order to put the power back into the hands of the electorate, and our of the political parties and corporate interests, and also level the playing fields there is one major change and suggestion that might get our country back on track once again. It is found in our Constitution.
The small additional provision to write in or legislatively mandate that the "option," of "none of the above," be afforded to every American. If the "none of the above" option wins, then we have a "run off" election returning to the original method of selecting our president. Each citizen is afforded a ballot and option of voting for two members of the elected Congress (including the President if incumbent), one of which may not be a senator or representative from his state of residency. The candidate then who receives the greatest number of votes is then named President, the candidate with the second greatest number is then Vice President, regardless of party affiliation. The Vice President has little official duties, but is mainly there as a replacement for the President if death or illness prevents his executing the duties of his office. This "runner up" should be left to the electorate also, and not simply to the candidates who are less concerned about qualifications for office, than in just how many votes their selection might bring them. Now, it's less about presidential leadership ability, than about winning an election. This is about what is right for the country, not for the candidates.And the winners should be announced quietly then on the Senate floor. Sorry, Fox, CNN and MSNBC. This isn't a media blitz or gossip fest, it's an election. Or at least it's supposed to be.
The small additional provision to write in or legislatively mandate that the "option," of "none of the above," be afforded to every American. If the "none of the above" option wins, then we have a "run off" election returning to the original method of selecting our president. Each citizen is afforded a ballot and option of voting for two members of the elected Congress (including the President if incumbent), one of which may not be a senator or representative from his state of residency. The candidate then who receives the greatest number of votes is then named President, the candidate with the second greatest number is then Vice President, regardless of party affiliation. The Vice President has little official duties, but is mainly there as a replacement for the President if death or illness prevents his executing the duties of his office. This "runner up" should be left to the electorate also, and not simply to the candidates who are less concerned about qualifications for office, than in just how many votes their selection might bring them. Now, it's less about presidential leadership ability, than about winning an election. This is about what is right for the country, not for the candidates.And the winners should be announced quietly then on the Senate floor. Sorry, Fox, CNN and MSNBC. This isn't a media blitz or gossip fest, it's an election. Or at least it's supposed to be.
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Economy and the Myth of the Free Market
In my opinion, I hate to break it to those Libertarians and far, far right wingers, but the answer to reinstituting capitalism and a competitive free market economy in which the American citizens were to be the beneficiaries is not simply in "hands off" governmental policies or deregulation of these now large national and international corporate concerns now operating in this country.The Libertarian and far, far right wing mindset continues to tout that if the government would not overly-regulate or control corporate entities prices would be lower, and American ingenuity would reign in this country once more. Their argument continues that the courts are there if there are any disputes or citizen complaints in the event these entities fail to live up to their marketing ploys, and accessible to the citizens for redress of any grievances they might have with them. I don't feel at this point in our history it is as simple as that. I don't know if you have ever been involved in a case where you are fighting a corporate entity, or the stamina and costs it takes to even use our state or federal courts anymore, not to mention even attempt to find an ethical attorney to represent you since most law firms are now "corporately" owned.
This answer may have been true if way back when the U.S. Supreme Court again hadn't overstepped it's boundaries in redefining the Constitution, and progressively over the years first creatively inventing another entity to the Constitution, "corporate personhoods," and then progressively giving them equal and even greater privileges and immunities and First Amendment protections than the actual "legal" personhoods, U.S. citizens. This is even more true on the state levels, where a new type of corporation has been allowed to do business in most states throughout the nation, the "LLP," or Limited Liability Partnership. How you can be allowed to incorporate, and then attempt to essentially "limit your liability" to others through the corporate structure to begin with, is truly a mystery to me. Now we are attempting to bypass personal accountability and responsibility by hiding behind a sham corporate structure. And the states are allowing this, both through the state legislature and unequal privileges now given them, and then also through that other now political check and balance, errant judicial rulings upholding these corporate structure's "protections" and the state statutes affording them these illegal no mea culpa "umbrellas."What is needed is removal of that creative phantom entity given First Amendment rights, and also breaking up the monopolies and associations that then sprung up once they were given "freedom of association." It is the Association of Realtors, Insurers, Home Builders,Banks,Bar and Medical which are dictating market place pricing - and woe to the independent entrepreneur that takes on these giants or attempts to fairly price their product or willingly reduce their profit margins to reasonable levels and undercut them.I don't know what planet the Libertarians have been living on the last few decades, but much more needs to be done than simple deregulation of some of our major industries if we ever truly want to have a free market again. The monopoly problem, "corporate personhoods," and price fixing due to Bill of Rights "association" also needs to be tackled, before our economy can once again recover. Now, those laws and "privileges" are making more and more Americans homeless, as is what is now occurring in the banking and real estate "monopolies." Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, after all, according to some reports, backed and held over 80% of the mortgage market in this country, in one form or another, whether by directly financing those loans, or indirectly through other banking institutions.
And finally, in order to protect American jobs, products and labor, tax the hell out of the foreign and global concerns doing business in this country. Trade agreements, and such taxes actually were to be the primarary source of the federal government's administrative costs and needs, not the labors of the natural and naturalized citizens at all. Wasn't that why the War of '76 was fought to begin with and the Constitution's intent - not to directly tax American labor, but to instead tax foreign products and labor, and indirectly tax the domestic products of those labors, which then would make domestically produced items more economically than foreign imports, thus protecting the AMERICAN economy (instead of our leaders now more concerned, it appears, with the global economy - not their job at all).
This answer may have been true if way back when the U.S. Supreme Court again hadn't overstepped it's boundaries in redefining the Constitution, and progressively over the years first creatively inventing another entity to the Constitution, "corporate personhoods," and then progressively giving them equal and even greater privileges and immunities and First Amendment protections than the actual "legal" personhoods, U.S. citizens. This is even more true on the state levels, where a new type of corporation has been allowed to do business in most states throughout the nation, the "LLP," or Limited Liability Partnership. How you can be allowed to incorporate, and then attempt to essentially "limit your liability" to others through the corporate structure to begin with, is truly a mystery to me. Now we are attempting to bypass personal accountability and responsibility by hiding behind a sham corporate structure. And the states are allowing this, both through the state legislature and unequal privileges now given them, and then also through that other now political check and balance, errant judicial rulings upholding these corporate structure's "protections" and the state statutes affording them these illegal no mea culpa "umbrellas."What is needed is removal of that creative phantom entity given First Amendment rights, and also breaking up the monopolies and associations that then sprung up once they were given "freedom of association." It is the Association of Realtors, Insurers, Home Builders,Banks,Bar and Medical which are dictating market place pricing - and woe to the independent entrepreneur that takes on these giants or attempts to fairly price their product or willingly reduce their profit margins to reasonable levels and undercut them.I don't know what planet the Libertarians have been living on the last few decades, but much more needs to be done than simple deregulation of some of our major industries if we ever truly want to have a free market again. The monopoly problem, "corporate personhoods," and price fixing due to Bill of Rights "association" also needs to be tackled, before our economy can once again recover. Now, those laws and "privileges" are making more and more Americans homeless, as is what is now occurring in the banking and real estate "monopolies." Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, after all, according to some reports, backed and held over 80% of the mortgage market in this country, in one form or another, whether by directly financing those loans, or indirectly through other banking institutions.
And finally, in order to protect American jobs, products and labor, tax the hell out of the foreign and global concerns doing business in this country. Trade agreements, and such taxes actually were to be the primarary source of the federal government's administrative costs and needs, not the labors of the natural and naturalized citizens at all. Wasn't that why the War of '76 was fought to begin with and the Constitution's intent - not to directly tax American labor, but to instead tax foreign products and labor, and indirectly tax the domestic products of those labors, which then would make domestically produced items more economically than foreign imports, thus protecting the AMERICAN economy (instead of our leaders now more concerned, it appears, with the global economy - not their job at all).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
