Government Turned Upside Down.

     I don't think anyone, no matter which position they choose to take in the political debate, can deny that we have serious problems with the functioning of our government these days. I contend that most of our problems stem from the fact that our government, in its current form, is nearly the opposite of what is necessary for our system to work.
     In its present incarnation, our government is a highly centralized federal system in which the federal level is viewed as supreme, followed by the States, with the local governments picking up the scraps, so to speak. Many mistakenly believe that this is the best system based on their belief that they can not trust the local officials to do what is best for the people, so they prefer to have a single, central presence to do this. This, however, is a completely flawed argument, no matter the justification, for if we can not trust elected to properly run something as small as a city, how does it follow that they can be trusted to properly run an entire nation?
     Let's reverse the system and see what it looks like.
     Starting with the federal level, what was it intended to do? First, protect us from foreign entities and handle relations with these entities, including trade and treaties. Second, make sure that the various States respect one another's laws and people, and to ensure that States do not interfere with each other's trade or internal affairs. This is essentially the end of the assigned federal authority.
     The role of the States is much more involved, and diverse. Each State is expected to enact its own Constitution detailing its responsibilities with regard to, and in accordance with, the wishes of the citizens of that State, and that State alone. the majority of the governing currently taking place at the federal level was intended instead to be done at this level. In this way, the State would, and should, each be unique, with the people of that State selecting the form and structure of their own governance, or failing that, relocating to a different State according to their preference.
     It is the local governments which should be supreme. It is only at this level where the people of a community can actually control directly how the government conducts daily business. It is not the fault of the system that the local government so frequently do not work, but the fault of the residents of that local area. They must, whether they like it or not, take an active role in this local structure, or resign themselves to be ruled by the wishes of their neighbors.
     The very idea of restructuring things this way leads to opposition based, in my experience, on two questions. What about taxes, and who would provide services?
     The answer to taxes is simple. The local communities would collect revenue from those who reside there in whatever form they select. This could range from voluntary contributions, to tolls, to sales taxes, or any other of a myriad possibilities. The important thing is that the local community would decide for themselves. As this would cause each community to have its own unique system, a person who didn't wish to be involved in a particular system would be able to move to an area which had adopted a preferable one. In the initial stages of development, this would be quite inconvenient for some people, but in time it would begin to run much more smoothly.
     The States, in their turn, would collect needed revenue from the local communities and from activities exclusive to that State, but not directly from the people. The federals would do likewise, drawing revenue only from the States themselves, or from sources such as allowable tariffs.
     What about services? Where will these come from? Since the people and the communities will not be sending an unduly large percentage of their wealth to a higher level of government, they will immediately have the option of directly selecting and paying for whatever services that they decide upon. If they decide to have a fire department, they will have the wealth available by virtue of not having to support a top heavy government to either hire a contractor for this or to create a department of their own. Likewise with law enforcement. Who will build the roads? Those who will use them. They will either build them or do without. If the need is legitimate, the roads will follow, paid for by those who use them, not by wealth confiscated from hapless individual who will never see this road, let alone use it. Here too, the means will be determined by the community itself, not by mandate from on high.
     This is just a brief view of my position in this, but it should provide a fair glimpse of my concept of government. Hopefully it will also provide content for further thought.
   

"Buy American" Back Again.

     A new bill is on its way to the House Capital Investment Committee in St. Paul. The chief author is Carly Melin, DFL Hibbing. It would require the State of Minnesota to purchase only American made steel for public works.

     The idea sounds pretty good on the surface. It is intended to bring business, unions, and government together to strengthen the economy of Minnesota by ensuring demand for the ore from the Iron Range. 

     It won't work. Yes, it will ensure demand and help the production side in the short term, but in the long term, it will further damage the economy and create more problems as time goes on.

     First, it will ensure a demand, but it will not do this by increasing the demand for the product, it will do this by restricting competition. Disqualifying some of the potential bids will allow the remaining bids to possibly be quoted at a higher rate, and it leads to the situation where the government decides which companies will be allowed eligibility to be awarded a contract. This gives rise to the opportunity for a company to either influence the government to either add them to the list or exclude their competition. It is obvious where that can lead.

     Second, by arbitrarily excluding bids which may be at a lower cost, it necessarily drives the price of the product up. Those who support this theory would have us believe that the price would be worth paying to make sure jobs are available in one area, but who pays the price? All of us. This is just a well camouflaged redistribution tactic in which the government forces us to pay taxes, then takes those revenues and sends them to corporations of their choosing, in this case domestic steel. In spite of the beautiful, rainbow colored appearance, this is the definition of crony capitalism, which most would vehemently oppose were it in a different setting.

     This bill will likely pass into law. When it does we can expect the price of the projects the State of Minnesota decides to make us pay for will be maintained at an inflated level. I doubt that it will create any jobs, as it can not possibly change the overall demand that much, but it will benefit the unions (although probably not the union members), the industry lobbyists, and the politicians they influence. The rest of us will bear the cost in the form of higher prices for these building projects that the government selects for us.

When Did "Allow" Become a Word to Fear?

     I read the following article as soon as it was released and viewed it, as one would expect, as good news. From what I observed shortly thereafter, many other people did as well.

South Dakota approves guns in the classroom — RT USA

     Later on I thought about this for a while, and realized that there is something far more important to consider than whether or not guns will be allowed in some schools. What we are facing today is a fundamental flaw in our way of thinking, at least for most of us. It is the acceptance of the fact that we must ask the government permission to do something. This is an all to common way of thinking which evidences itself in nearly all typical conversations about laws and regulations.
     "You're not allowed to park there."
     "You're allowed to have a rally only with a permit."
     "You're allowed to build only according to our code specifications."
     "You're not allowed to run a business without a license."
     "You're allowed to possess a registered firearm of an approved type in your own home."
     "You're not allowed to drive until paying the fees and receiving a license."
     "You're allowed to reside in your home only if the property tax is paid."
     I could continue on almost indefinitely. My point has been made, though. We are now at a point where instead of allowing the government to administer only those tasks designated by the Constitution, which is the way it was intended to be, in which system the government would be powerless to do anything which we did not specifically allow, the relationship between the government and the people has been inverted.
     When the original colonies broke away from England, it was not because they wanted their independence. Although I am sure many people did have that as their main goal, the status quo would have prevailed but for one thing. The government of England at the time was a government which granted the citizens permission to engage in each aspect of their daily lives, or restricted their ability to do so. Leading up to the beginning of the Revolution, the combination of the King's complacency and Lord North's heavy handedness led to a situation in which the government had rapidly become far more oppressive than was their wont. When petitions for redress failed, falling on deaf ears, insurrection began, rapidly growing into full rebellion, then separation.
     When our current government was formed, the intention was for it to be allowed privilege to do only what we allowed, and nothing more. In the intervening years, that has been almost completely reversed. Now, with few exceptions, the government does what it will, allowing us to do only what it grants us specific permission for, frequently through the means of licensing and registration, for which it charges us the highest tolerated rate. It also prevents us from doing many things which neither harm ourselves nor our neighbors, merely because someone, at some point in time, decided that their version of how we were to live our lives was superior to our own version. Our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property are now only a picturesque facade. These rights are now fleeting privileges either granted or removed by the will of the state.
     It is time for us to take back these rights, or forever lose them, never to be regained. We must be dedicated to this task, and also dedicated to causing as many of our neighbors as possible to join us, or we will live to witness the expiration of the American Experiment, never to be resurrected.

Political Correctness. Should We Surrender, or Have We Just Begun?

     After reading several reports on Rand Paul's notable filibuster yesterday, I should be fully encouraged by the noble stand he took against the march toward destruction on which we, as a nation, find ourselves. Unfortunately, I am still filled with a sense of dismay when I view numerous comments on the results of the filibuster. How many times in the last twelve hours have I read or heard statements which all seemed to follow the same pattern: Someone finally forced the administration to admit that they believed that drone strikes against US citizens on US soil without due process are unconstitutional!
     Hallelujah! What a victory! They actually said that they believed it was unconstitutional. This is a fine example of an empty victory. How many times have they said what we wanted to hear when they obviously believed something completely different, and how many times have they said one thing only to do precisely the opposite? Will we really be so quick to bury our heads back in the sand that we have only just recently began to extricate ourselves from?
     It is not time to relax after hearing what we wanted so much to hear. Rather, it is time to turn the heat up even higher, and scrutinize their activities with even greater magnification. It is not the time to force them to say the correct things, but the time to force them to stop doing the incorrect and dangerous things.
     Where do we go from here? I sincerely hope that we have managed to find a few real leaders in Washington who can steer us back toward the proper path. Even if they don't go far enough in the restoration of our liberty, pointing us in the right direction will be a refreshing change.
     That being said, it is not their responsibility to lead us back down the path toward freedom. It is theirs only to lead the forum in which they exist. It is our responsibility to walk the path to freedom, bringing as many of our neighbors along as we can convince to take up the journey. True, we are individually responsible for our own welfare, as our neighbors are for theirs, but in this no individual can stand against the reckless might of a power hungry state.
     Now is the day that all of us who value our individual rights must work together to humble the state, so that later we will still have the freedom to go our separate ways.
     Let us not meekly accept the answers given and return to our daily routines as if satisfied, but instead let us voice our questions and complaints with an ever louder condemnation of the misconducts of those who would control us.

Could Robots Replace Jurors? - Law Blog - WSJ

Could Robots Replace Jurors? - Law Blog - WSJ

     Although this article seems to discount the possibility, I find the fact that there are some people willing to entertain the idea disturbing. Can artificial intelligence replace jurors? I believe that this topic transcends mere speculation and enters the area of a debate about individual rights.
     Can an algorithm legitimately be developed to judge an individual human being? Would it even be desirable? I do not think that there is anyone who would honestly be willing to be judged by anything less than a jury of their peers. The only reasons I can attribute to the search for a possible AI jury would be either economic or consistency, but how can economy of action or consistent results supersede justice in an infinitely variable world?
     Something to think about.

Revealed: Holder Says President Could Authorize Military Drone Strikes Inside U.S. in Emergency | TheBlaze.com

Revealed: Holder Says President Could Authorize Military Drone Strikes Inside U.S. in Emergency | TheBlaze.com

     The following are some excerpts and an image from the above referenced article.

In a response dated March 4, 2013, Holder wrote that the U.S. government “has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” The attorney general went on to note that federal officials believe that in areas where there is “well-established law enforcement,” these officials serve as the preferred mode of handling terrorist threats; military options inside U.S. borders are, thus, “rejected.”

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront,” the letter continues. “It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”




     I would like to add two comments to this, in the form of questions.
     The first question. If federal officials recognize law enforcement as the preferred means to combat what they call domestic terrorism, at what point does it cease to be the preferred means? By failing to specifically rule out domestic drone strikes, does that not mean that drone strikes, instead of being ruled out, are considered as less than preferred, but are still considered an option?
     The second question. What extraordinary circumstances are there short of invasion or armed insurrection are being referenced here? Are there any other circumstances besides these two which call for military strikes, especially domestically? The only other circumstance I can envision is a clear case of defense from imminent attack, but in that case, how would a drone be useful if not already on station?
     I would call on the Attorney General to answer these questions specifically and clearly, and would hope that our elected representatives also demand these answers.

Logic and Abortion.

     To use logic in the argument about abortion while at the same time abstaining from emotion is likely to draw the ire and disdain of both sides, however, I feel that it must be done.
     I will not discuss the intermediate positions, as I see no logical validation for them with their lack of scientific evidence. I will focus only on the two positions in the extremities, that opposing all abortions, and that approving of all abortions.
     I will also argue from a point of view that holds that an individual's rights are paramount and must not be infringed upon by another. With this in mind, we are beholden to determine at what point a pregnancy ceases to be one individual and becomes two.
     The arguments from both sides have been lengthy and strenuous. On the one hand, those who approve of abortion point to the fact that the fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for life, and is therefore a part of the mother, and as a part of the mother's body is subject to her will for its disposition. On the other hand, those who oppose abortion maintain that life begins at conception, and has from that instant the same rights as any other individual.
     To put the question in its most basic terms, is the fetus an appendage of the mother prior to birth, or is it a separate individual with rights of its own from the instant of conception?
     First, what are the qualifications to be classified as an appendage? In this setting, would it not be an integral part of the body, able to be identified as such by having the same characteristics? Would this not, according to our most advanced medical science involve having the same DNA as the rest of the body? Failing that, it must be a separate life.
     Now we have deduced that the fetus is its own separate life by virtue of its unique DNA, we are faced with another problem. The fetus can neither sustain itself nor maintain its own life without an integral connection to the mother. So does this give us enough evidence to disqualify the fetus as an individual with rights of its own? Since it has its own unique DNA, and therefore its own unique identity, we simply can not deny that this fetus is a unique individual in its own right, but what of its inability to survive without direct connection to the mother? The answer here may possibly be found in simple definition. Since the mother and fetus are clearly engaged in a fully symbiotic relationship, and the mother can survive without the fetus, but not the fetus without the mother, we must define the fetus as a parasite.
     With the fetus defined as a parasite, but with its own distinct identity, we can greatly simplify, and perhaps eventually solve, the great abortion debate by answering one further question: As a parasite from conception until birth, is the fetus to be recognized as having the same individual rights to life as any other human for that entire time period, or by its status as a parasite, does the fetus lack those rights up until the moment of separation when it leaves its symbiotic connection to the mother?
     This leads us to an uncomfortable place where few wish to go. It appears that we must choose between all abortions being allowed based on the fetus's status as a parasite, or none based on a fetus's status as a unique individual. If the fetus is accepted as a parasite with no individual rights, the mother clearly has the right to do as she will. If the fetus is instead accepted as an individual with the included natural rights, then the mother is obligated to do what she can to ensure the life and well-being of the fetus, as to fail in that would be a clear infringement on the dependent individual.
     I am afraid that I have not solved the debate here, or offered any new solutions. My attempt is just to simplify and clarify the debate, even though by so doing I have surely offended most of the readers. As always, comments are welcome in the pursuit of the truth.

Non-aggression in debating.

     It is difficult to address this subject without, well, inviting aggression. Many people have embraced the principle of non-aggression in their physical lives, and quite a few have also done so in their financial lives, but how many are willing to do so when it comes to debating their philosophies?
     This is an area where the natural tendency of a person is to believe that their position is correct, and all others are somehow lacking. This can lead to the unfortunate temptation of viewing others as being somehow inferior to yourself in their understanding of the subject of the debate, and frequently it is a subconscious temptation of which you are not even aware. This can easily result in taking an overly defensive stance in arguing your position, and engaging in either overt or subliminal attacks on your debate opponent.
     When you strengthen your position and weaken your opponent's in this matter, whether consciously or not, it may well appear to you that you are prevailing, but you should remember that your opponent probably has the same impressions regarding their efforts. What is the probable result? Either an endless disagreement, or a cessation of communication leading to.....nothing. A wasted effort on both sides.
     Here is how I try to apply the non-aggression principle to my debates. Rather than staunchly defending my own position while denigrating that of my opponent, I first try to find out what my opponent believes, and why. I must be able to understand my opponents position to be able to properly refute it if I believe it to be incorrect. I also keep in mind my own fallibility and prepare myself for the possibility that my opponent has found a better solution or idea than I have. I have discovered that if both of us can enter the conversation with this mindset, and maintain that attitude though out, we will gradually acquire each other's correct strengths and shed our own incorrect weaknesses. The result will be that both of us will together move one more step towards the true solution to the problem we are debating.
     Although this is a time consuming way to engage in a debate, I propose that if continued to its conclusion it is generally the best way to approach the truth of the matter, and to maintain a friendship at the same time.
     Those who know me, especially those who have debated me, can attest to the fact that I do not always adhere to this principle very well myself, and my only answer to that is that we are all, even and especially myself, equally fallible at times.

Dem Reps Maxine Waters And Keith Ellison Outraged By Sight Of Debt Clock On Capitol Hill…

Dem Reps Maxine Waters And Keith Ellison Outraged By Sight Of Debt Clock On Capitol Hill…

     This article says it all, however, although he will probably never read it, I will address a statement directly to Keith Ellison. I live in Minnesota and am one of the voters you are supposed to be representing. How dare you say that you think the debt clock is a political prop? The debt you people are so carelessly racking up is a valid concern for all of us, and to say that it is merely a prop is akin to saying that either you care nothing for our concerns or you are not competent to hold that office of which you appear to be so proud. In either case, that is a clear indication that you are unfit to appear as our representative, and I would appreciate your resignation. Failing that, I will campaign against your reelection as stridently and thoroughly as I can.
     Anyone with an interest in either Minnesota or National politics, please feel free to spread this message.

What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

     The Libertarian movement has grown tremendously in recent times, but there is still a large rift to be found between what can be best described as two competing sides, both of which essentially want the same thing, more individual liberty, but who have differing ideas on the methods to attain this result.
     The two factions are usually described, although this is not completely accurate, as "conservative" and "liberal" libertarians. Both have fallen victim to some extent to the trap of, "I am right and you are wrong." I propose, however, that both sides are right, and that both have their proper place. I also lay the claim that both positions are wrong, in that neither will succeed alone, but both have a proper role to play, and both must be willing to recognize this and work together.
     The conservatives claim that the liberals want to remove all restraints on society and allow people to do anything that they want. The liberals accuse the conservatives of wanting to regulate certain behaviors which the conservative do not approve, and claim that because of this that they are not really libertarians. Both of these positions are correct in their goals, but are incorrect in their methods and timing. Yes, the ultimate goal is to completely remove the government from any regulation of individual behavior, except for that which harms another, or infringes on the freedom of another, but to go directly there is not possible in our current society. This is where the conservative side shows its merit. Since we must accept the fact that there are not enough workable moral and ethical restraints existing at present, we unfortunately rely on some form of government intervention, even though we do not like the idea, to keep people's "bad" tendencies in check initially until a proper respect for the rights of others is gradually restored in our society. The problem with this is that if the government controls are maintained too long, they will naturally grow incrementally until we are right back to the situation we find ourselves in now, which is what happened in the previous two centuries of our history. This is where to liberal side will find its proper place. While the conservatives start the process, the liberals must educate people in the value of having a proper moral code, especially regarding the respect of the rights of others, so that the government controls can immediately, but gradually, begin to be replaced. If we can not work together in this way, yet still manage to set up a libertarian system, we will end up following the same path we have already seen in our own history, with a country initially among the most free on earth, but gradually being subverted by statists who take advantage of the fact that most people do not have a proper understanding of their own personal responsibility in the maintenance of their own freedom.
     The negative arguments in this are both valid, but not impediments in the proper context. True, allowing state control for the long term will lead to an authoritarian type of government, while not allowing state control at the outset will leave us victim to the depravity of those who do not have the proper moral structure in their personal lives to dissuade them from violating the rights of others. I maintain that both systems must be used in tandem, with mostly state control at the beginning, followed by a gradual, but intentional and controlled, transition away from that state control, until the end result is the absolute minimum necessary. It is unfortunate that this would be necessary, but since we are not trying to set up a society from scratch, and are trying to repair an existing society, we must devote ourselves to the task of gradually dismantling the broken country, then reassembling it properly.

FEMA Camps and Propaganda.

     What I intend to do today may at first sound like a statement about FEMA camps, but it is not really that. I am just going to use the FEMA camp story as an example of how mis-information is sometimes used as a tool of propaganda. The statements i will make about the alleged FEMA camps are mostly, at this point, my personal opinion, but I do believe that there is some validity here which I also believe will be shown later by history to be true. My focus today, though, will be to demonstrate how mis-information can be used to hide or distract from a story which someone does not want to come to light.
     Let us suppose, in this example, that there is one real "FEMA camp" which has been demonstrated irrefutably to exist. That, in and of itself, would be a huge story. Now suppose that the evidence can not be hidden by those who do not want it known. This evidence will certainly become public, so what is their safest course to protect themselves? Add false evidence to the mix, or even better, allow someone else to whom they are not connected, add false evidence. In either case, allow the story to become 800 camps, most of which can be proven to be something altogether different, and not FEMA camps at all. Next, allow, or encourage, people to repeat this enlarged story without properly verifying it, which is relatively easy to do if you can cause them to emotionally overreact, and cause the story of the one to be completely replaced with the new story of the 800. Then introduce into our scenario the inevitable detractors, who do not or will not believe the story, and begin to try to discredit it. They will immediately begin to spot the false information which has been added, and based on the amount of these false claims, decide that the entire story is false and  not only dispute the validity of the story, but proclaim loudly and clearly that those who sought to spread the story are "conspiracy theorists." What will result is pretty much what we see now in so many areas; we have a large number of people who are expending their energies defending an indefensible position which they took prematurely.
     The above is just a speculative example of how the introduction of a large quantity of false information can be used to cover up the real truth. For the record, I personally believe, but can not prove, that there are quite likely camps such as this in existence, but in much smaller numbers than the 800 that have been reported. This is also a story which must continue to be looked at, because the existence of only one of these camps should be of grave concern to us all.

Business owners and the minimum wage.

     The minimum wage debate is in full swing again. Many of the leaders in the argument against it are business owners, and they are frequently demonized for this, even though they rightly maintain that they need to preserve their profit margin in order to stay in business. In this they are correct, however, most of them make a fundamental mistake in regards to their pay scale, for which they should be blamed as much as the minimum wage is. This mistake is to view their labor costs as a whole, and therefore wholly as an expense. This is the root of their basic mistake. This has, unfortunately, been fostered by the increases in the minimum wage at a faster pace than the market would sometimes bear, especially since the minimum wage is usually applied as a blanket rule rather than being tailored to a specific environment.
     If the employer would look at wages as in individual investment in a specific person, based exclusively on their contribution to the profitability, they would be able to more easily see that the more they invested in a productive person the more they would profit, and the more they invested in a non-productive person, the more they would lose. Whenever everyone in the employ of a company is paid at the same rate in perpetuity without real possibility in greater reward for greater profitability, the company is enticed to look at all employees equally due to the fact that on paper they are all an equal expense. Likewise, the employees are subtly discouraged from putting forth extra effort, as there is no tangible reward. There will always be a few who exhibit enough pride and self-esteem to do their best in spite of this, but for the most part, the employee will work no harder than anyone else, because for them it is not personally worth the extra expense of effort for no apparent reward. This leads the company into the realm of the lowest common denominator, and prevents the company from succeeding solely on its own merits, causing a reliance on market demand to keep the doors open, and when demand wanes, these companies usually fail or are forced to significantly downsize. It also leads to the employment of a cross section of all who are available in the work force, rather than being able to draw the very best exclusively by having a higher pay scale than the average company in the same market. This leads into further mediocrity cause by having an adequate set of employees instead of an excellent one.
     There is no easy solution, as the minimum wages skews the market and limits the flexibility of employers to have a large enough wage spread to provide real and obvious incentive with which to reward the best workers, but to start the process employees need to be viewed as investments which are either profitable or not rather than as a piece of a large labor cost analysis.

Marriage

     The current debate on marriage, I feel, has been insidiously derailed into a debate on the means by which the federal government will be allowed to further intrude into our personal lives. What is my basis for this statement? The vast majority of people seem to fall into one of two camps. Either they support the government mandating that marriage be allowed for all, regardless of sex, or that the government mandate that marriage be restricted to being between one man and one woman. There is, however, a serious fallacy with both of these arguments. They both require assignment to the government the authority to regulate the personal affairs of individuals, without regard to whether those affairs infringe upon a third parties rights. The idea that a child is a third party whose rights are being infringed upon is brought up frequently, but that is really a separate discussion, and should be debated as its own topic.
     Whichever one of the two most popular positions you take, I ask you to point out the part of the U.S. Constitution which assigns the federal government the authority to regulate marriage at all. Yes, there is a case for the requirement that the states recognize and respect each other"s laws, but does this really mean that the federal government has the constitution authority to create a law superseding state laws, or that the federal government simply has the authority to require the states to recognize each other's laws? I answer simply that if the federal government is allowed the ability to override state laws in one area not specifically assigned it by the Constitution, by inference it is given authority in all areas, thereby eliminating the concept of state sovereignty which is so vital for the success of a constitutional republic such as ours. The solution is to assign the authority to regulate or not to regulate marriage to the individual states where it was intended to be. Here I must answer the question of individuals moving from one state to another. The answer is obvious. While you are a resident of a state where your marriage is accepted as a legal contract, all other states must recognize that. If, however, you become a resident of a different state in which that contract is no longer valid, it is not that state's responsibility to change their laws to recognize your desires, it is your responsibility to either abide by that state's laws, even if it means renewing your marriage contract under their requirements, or to choose not to move there if you find their laws unacceptable to your desires. If the laws in that state do need to be changed, they must be changed in the proper format, as defined by that particular state's constitution, and by the will of that state's citizens, not by federal mandate from above where the citizens of that particular state have minimal say.
   
   

Is History Repeating itself?

     Back in the 16th century, Europeans "discovered" North America. They soon realized that it was a large territory full of resources which they could use to further their power, wealth, and authority. Unfortunately for them, it was already populated by the Native Americans. They at first tried to civilize these "heathens" with religion and goods, and this worked in some areas. Their next step was to conquer them by force, then enslave them both directly and by removing them to unproductive areas with the promise that if they complied, they would be taken care of. In the cases where neither of these solutions worked, they resorted to genocide. All that is left now is a small remnant of the once numerous Indian Nations.

     Starting in the 19th century, European idealists and their allies in North America saw the same place as an extremely desireable place to spread their central government systems, but this time for two reasons. The first was the same, the quest for power, wealth, and authority. The second made their goal more urgent. The citizens of the United States were among the freest in the world, and the Constitution at that time sufficiently restrained the government to hopefully keep it that way, and improve their situation even more. Since the United States had demonstrated that it could not easily be defeated by force of arms, the whole system had to be subverted to remove it as an example of a government that worked without full central control. This was the birth of the Progressive Era. For over a hundred years those who believe in a strong central authoritarian government have been trying to "educate" us in its benefits, then they, as they gained power, began to slowly remove our liberties a little at a time "for the good of us all" so as to gradually enslave us. The next step was to begin to give us "stuff" so we would be adequately taken care of. Starting to feel like the reservation yet? It gets better. When eventually enough people learned to depend on them that they felt ensured of remaining in power, They began to take "stuff" away from us and to curtail our private activities, again for our own good. They seek to make themselves look like heros, don't they? My question in all of this is, "When will we become so dependant, and our liberties so scarce, that they begin the final phase of genocide to get us out of their way, or have they already started it?"

     You can disagree with me on their endgame if you like, but the parallels are uncanny

The First Amendment

     In light of my belief that the Bill of Rights was intended to be read literally I am going to write this commentary. I am sure my views are held by few people, and that many would actually get upset reading them, as they strongly counter commonly held beliefs which I see to be in error by being based on interpretations of the First Amendment rather than on its actual words.

     I'll start with the first word. Congress. This Amendment was specifically addressed to one entity, Congress. The federal legislative body. We can also logically infer that this applies to the whole of the federal government.

     "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof," This is the first item in this Amendment. What does this mean? That Congress shall not endorse any religion, nor shall it prevent anyone from practicing one. In the simplest terms, any law that the federal Congress makes either promoting a religion or preventing anyone from practicing one, even in the halls of Congress itself, are unconstitutional. One of our biggest and most devisive issues today can readily be resolved here. Congress is allowed to neither mandate school prayer nor forbid it. 

     "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Upsetting to some, but it says "freedom of speech" NOT "freedom of expression." What is freedom of speech? Being able to freely express your opinion without fear of reprisal. It is not the frredom to show off, or the freedom to slander, or even to express something which is not your opinion. It prohibits Congress from stopping you from saying what is on your mind, or from retaliating against you for doing so. And now what of the press? If speech is voicing your opinion, then press is the tool you use to do so. "Press" here is not the organized media, as we have been led to believe, but it is the means by which we communicate with each other. Importantly, it includes the internet, as it is an important communication tool. Congress is not allowed to engage in legislation which curtails, in any way, either speech or press.

     "or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This part is not debated nearly as strenuously as the rest, but the beginning of this debate can readily be evidenced in the attitude today in parts of the federal government that protestors are "low-level terrorists." This will, I predict, become an increasingly important part of the First Amendment.

     Now the really unpopular part. The First Amendment neither prohibits, nor allows the federal government to prohibit, these laws from being enacted by the various States. Those who gave us the Bill of Rights knew that the various States would have equally varied populations, and allowed this authority inside each individual State specifically to allow the people making up the population of their State to tailor their own State Constitution to as closely as possible reflect their own needs and desires. In other words, this is exclusively an issue to be addressed at the State level, except when it involves more than one State simultaneously and in combination, at which time it then, and only then, becomes federal purview. 

US: A nation of inmates? - Inside Story Americas - Al Jazeera English

US: A nation of inmates? - Inside Story Americas - Al Jazeera English

     Here is a story which strikes close to home. It is another unfortunate case where it was found in a foreign source rather than a domestic one. It can not be disputed that the U.S. has an extremely large prison population, but the reasons are best argued by someone else at this time. My question is about the results. How many of those who advocate for large and numerous prison sentences are considering the long term effects on society? How much does it cost to fund this system, and how much more when someone is released after years of incarceration with no advanced job skills and is faced with a choice between government assistance or a return to crime? And what about the non-violent crimes where restitution could sensibly replace incarceration? I am disappointed that these questions are largely ignored in favor of emotional arguments claiming that we need only to focus on the removal of these "undesirable" elements from access to the public. I see the end result of that line of thinking to be a very evil place. Let's have an honest discussion about real solutions which solve problems rather than merely creating different ones.


   

Myanmar holds peace talks with ethnic groups - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

Myanmar holds peace talks with ethnic groups - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

     There is not much to add to this, I just present it as a sample of why I follow Al Jazeera in spite of the bad reputation they have been assigned by many in the United States. Were it not for the reports I have found through Al Jazeera I would likely not know what these peace talks were about, because aside from the President's lauded trip, Myanmar has received virtually no attention from the U.S. press.