Friday, June 27, 2008
A parasite, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is defined as, "1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return "
Imagine you took a pair of scales, like those used by jewelers to weigh precious metals, and you put all the benefits that illegal aliens bring to our country on one side, and then toss all the problems and burdens they place upon our country on the other, I think you would find that the bad far outweighs the benefits.
Therefore the third definition for parasite is an apt description of an illegal alien. They may benefit the corporations that hire them by providing laborers at a cost far less than what an American citizen might cost, but does that benefit Americans overall? They may reduce the cost of certain products and services for consumers, but at what cost to Americans?
What other country in the world would allow someone to cross their borders illegally, have a child, and have that child become a citizen, eligible for a plethora of benefits, all funded by the legal residents of that country?
In my article, I may have criticized naturalized immigrants because many of them are not required to learn English adequately to function in society, but there is one good thing about them. They all have to go through a physical exam to make sure they are not infected with a contagious disease. My wife went through a complete physical exam before she was granted a visa to enter this country. Her father, after we petitioned him, had to undergo a complete physical before he could come to this country. Who knows what kinds of diseased these people bring with them? Yet they are hired to work if facilities that handle and serve the foods we eat. Their children, who most likely are infected as well, attend our schools where our children can be infected and then bring that disease home to us, the parents. That our government allows illegal aliens to stay for this reason alone is absolute insanity!
When I speak about illegal aliens, most people automatically assume I am only referring to those who are Mexican, or at least, of Hispanic descent. To me, an illegal alien is an illegal alien. There are many illegal aliens in this country who have overstayed their visa and simply vanished into society an I am as much against their presence in this country as those who sneak across our borders. However, as I just said, those who enter this country on a visa should have been required to have a physical exam to make sure they are not sick with a contagious disease. Those who sneak across our borders sidestep that requirement, and most of those just happen to come across the Mexican border.
I do not like the idea of anyone suffering, not having a job or food to feed their families. However, as I stated in my last article, it IS NOT the job of the United States to be a safety net for all the poor countries in the world. It is not right to give benefits, that most Americans are not entitled to receive, to the illegal alien parents of a child who just happened to have been born on American soil. What makes it even more unfair is that these illegal aliens most likely never paid a dime into the benefits that they so willingly apply for.
One other thing, whenever we have a protest by those in favor of loosening our nations immigration laws, who do you see in the crowd, (beside misguided Americans with some sort of a guilt complex)? Hispanics mostly, that's who you will see. They are there, waving their countries flag, holding banners talking about La Reconquista, and La Raza. They are openly taunting us, with those banners that talk about re-conquering America, or the Race. They openly bite that hand that, literally, feeds them. They want the benefits that this country has to offer, but they do not have one ounce of respect for it.
Finally, the person who responded most negatively to my article said, “I would say that the issue is not outsider coming in, but you government not having a strong immigration policy and not having enough guts to implement them.” Sure our corporations hire these illegal aliens and our government has not done its job in enforcing our immigration laws. That does not mean I have to accept them, or even tolerate their insolence. We the people are also somewhat to blame for this, as we have very short memories and our attention shifts from one crisis to the next in the blink of an eye.
It was barely a year ago when a good percentage of the people of this country rose up in outrage over immigration reform legislation which was introduced in the U.S. Senate. Who just happened to have his name all over that piece of legislation? Why, none other than GOP candidate John McCain. Who voted Yea when that bill was voted on in the Senate? None other than Barack Obama.
Unfortunately now America has a housing crisis and high fuel costs to worry about. Even the war in Iraq has slipped a few notches when it comes to the issues that concern voters the most. Immigration is barely even thought of anymore, except by those who have not forgotten, and those who understand that the problem of illegal aliens is not going away.
The truth is that these illegal aliens do not belong in this country, it is not theirs and they are not entitled to one penny from America. We do not encourage our homeless and our indigent to sneak into Mexico, or any other country for that matter, and apply for benefits. We do not ask our citizens to move to another country and subvert their rule of law to benefit them, or America in general. Why should we tolerate the same from an illegal invader from ANY country?
They are parasites no matter whether our corporations bring them here to work for them, or they sneak across on their own. If you owned a dog that jumped into a creek full of leeches and came home covered in them, would you allow them to stay attached while draining the life away from your pet, or would you pluck them off and discard them? The same goes for illegal aliens. Whether they sneak across on their own, or if they are encouraged to come by corporations with no loyalty to the American people, they still are draining the life out of our country and they need to be removed.
***One last thing. I will not be writing anything tomorrow. It is my wife and my birthdays. She turns 44 and I turn 50. I intend to enjoy a nice day with my family.***
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
As fortune would have it, I had read an interesting article in my local paper on citizenship, and had also received an interesting e-mail that ties in nicely with the subject as well.
According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service webpage, "Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:
-a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
-residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;
-an ability to read, write, and speak English;
-a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
-good moral character;
-attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and, favorable disposition toward the United States.
Yet in my local paper, the article I read stated that, (the name and location have been deleted as they are not important), "______ a ________ resident since 1992, does not speak English and can't read or write in English or Punjabi, his native language.
But after learning to recognize every possible written and verbal question in the citizenship test, and to memorize the correct answers-a feat that has taken him two years to accomplish-he has successfully reached his goal."
This plainly shows that this gentleman does not meet at least two of the requirements for becoming a citizen, he cannot communicate in English, and he does not have a knowledge and general understanding of U.S. history and government. One can only wonder if he has an attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
How could the immigrations official who performed this persons interview not see that he had memorized his answers and was repeating them by rote? That is not what I consider having an understanding of U.S. history and government.
My wife is a naturalized citizen and she had to, not only answer simple questions about our government but, provide, in her own words, basic explanations concerning the various branches of our government.
I am not picking on this gentleman in particular, as I am sure that there are literally thousands of people who become naturalized citizens who are not required to have even the most rudimentary understanding of how our system of government is supposed to work, (Sadly, the same could be said about most of our high school graduates). Yet these people now have the right to vote without the understanding of what the Constitution says about the duties and responsibilities of those for whom they vote. Am I the only one who finds something wrong with this?
It is not only that this gentleman, and many others as well, are not expected to learn the principles of our system of government that bothers me. It is the fact that they are not expected to learn enough basic English so that they can, if not assimilate, at least function in society. We are complicit in this due to the politically correct belief that we should provide forms and handbooks for them in their native tongue. Just as an example, California provides the DMV handbook in Punjabi, as well as Armenian, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog and Vietnamese. In doing this we display a serious lack of common sense due to the fact that we desire to keep our nation fragmented into communities that cannot communicate with each other, and fund it with our own tax dollars. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/pubs.htm
With the inability of so many of these naturalized citizens to speak English, it makes one wonder if they understand the meaning of the oath of citizenship, which states, “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Those words define the difference between the immigrants that came to our country throughout our nations history, and those who come today. Not only that, if this is how little we demand of immigrants who come to this country legally and go through the process of becoming citizens, what about those who chose to violate our nations laws and enter this country illegally?
It is my opinion that a majority of the illegal aliens that come to this country are bloodsucking parasites in the truest sense of the word. They have no allegiance whatsoever for this country and have no respect for those who live here, or our laws. They come solely to partake of the benefits this country has to offer, and care not for whom, or what they hurt along the way. They are parasites and we are the host. As long as we can provide those things that they are seeking, they will continue to come and continue to be a drain upon our country.
Judicial Watch posted a short article about illegal immigrants returning to Mexico due to tough economic times and deportations because of tougher enforcement of immigration law. The following are two passages from that article.
“It turns out that enough illegal immigrants have either fled the U.S. or been deported that officials in the Mexican state of Sonora, which shares an extensive border with Arizona, have complained that too many of their fellow countrymen have returned. They miss the remittances sent from the U.S. as well as smaller class sizes in local schools.”
“One baffled Mexican legislator, Leticia Amparano Gamez, asked in Spanish “how can they pass a law like this?” She went on to explain that Mexico is not prepared for the “tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs. Another member of the Mexican delegation, Representative Florencio Diaz Armenta, asked “what do we do with the repatriated?”
That article infuriated me. Mexico misses the remittances sent back to their country by those whom they could not provide for within their own borders. That alone proves that the only thing they want from this country is our money or the benefits that we provide. We should put a 50% tax on all remaining wire transfers to Mexico as well. We may just see more people deciding to return home of their own volition when they find it is just not worth it to come here any more.
Then there is the fact that Mexican legislators are at a loss as to how to deal with these people who are returning without jobs. It just breaks my heart that Mexico is going to have to take care of their own people instead of allowing them to be leeches, draining benefits from the United States. They ask what are they going to do with the repatriated, and I say, I don't care as long as they are not our countries problem any more.
That may sound cruel but America is not capable to be the safety net for countries which cannot give their citizens the same opportunities and benefits that we do. Our roads are overcrowded as are our classrooms, water and electricity usage are on the rise without the ability to keep up with demand, and food supplies are dwindling, especially due to the devastating weather that has destroyed much of this years crops.
I say it is well past time that America grew a backbone and declared that we need to take care of America, and Americans first. If people feel bad for all those across the globe that are suffering, then they should find a charitable organization and donate their money for the support of these people. However, don't place that burden upon my shoulders, especially when it means that my own welfare is at stake.
Immigrants, whether they be legal, or illegal, are not expected to show true allegiance to this country. We are at fault for that for not requiring that they do. However, what do we expect when a good percentage of the people of this country no longer understand what it means to have true allegiance to your own country? But that is a subject for another paper...
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I find it interesting that during the religious holidays of Easter and Christmas some of the television networks broadcast movies with a religious theme such as the Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston. Why then, since we are in the midst of the process of selecting our next President, and to a lesser degree certain Congressman and Senators, does nobody seem to care about the document that outlines the duties of these elected representatives?
I am pretty sure that, by now, most people are aware that there are two candidates running for president who get all the media attention, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. However distasteful it is to me, one of those men will most likely be our next President.
With that in mind, I find it interesting that in a 2006 MSNBC interview, Barack Obama made the following statement, “I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.”
Senator Obama must have foreseen his future nomination when he said that, otherwise he would not have run. First of all the Senator does not understand that we do not have a democracy, we have a representative republic. Just repeat the Pledge of Allegiance and see if you can find where it says, “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands...”
Next up, the Senator does not even know how many states there are in this country. He claims to have visited 57 of them, “It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon and over the lat 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty uh seven states, I think one left to go. One left to go, Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to, but my staff would not justify it.
It could be said that he made a simple slip of the tongue, that he actually meant 47 states. But then that would still suggest he thinks there are only 49 states. I wonder which one he left out?
I do not wish for people to think that I am picking on Senator Obama and that I support Senator McCain. Hardly, Senator McCain, in my opinion, is as much a walking, talking piece of human excrement as Senator Obama.
There are two quotes that pretty much sum up how I feel about politicians in general, including the two primary candidates running for President. The first is by H. L. Mencken, “A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.” The other is by comedian Robin Williams, “Politics: ‘Poli’ a Latin word meaning ‘many’; and ‘tics’ meaning bloodsucking creatures”
What does it say about our country, and we as a people, that these two men are the best this country can come up with for President? Does it suggest, as Senator Obama himself stated, that we have gotten lazy and are therefore getting bad politics and politicians? Or is it as Theodore Roosevelt said, “The most successful politician is he who says what the people are thinking most often in the loudest voice.”
Clarence Darrow once said, “When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it.”
I hate to do this, but Senator Obama, once again, may have described exactly how we got to the point where we are having to choose between him and Senator McCain for the highest office in the land. In May of 2004, Senator Obama stated, “People are whupped. I'm whupped. My wife is whupped. Unless it's your job to be curious, who really has the time to sit and ask questions and explore issues?”
That, my friends, is pure nonsense. I work my tail off almost every day, yet I still come home and research, write, and stress out over the future of my country because of people who claim they are too whupped to take the time to research the issues. That is the definition of apathy, and Plato had this to say about apathy, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
It is not just that we are apathetic, we also have very short term memories. Our country has been on the downhill slide for many years, but people are oblivious to it. Years ago Georg Friedrich Hegel said the following, "What experience and history teach is this- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
How many remember a certain governor from Arkansas who ran for, and was elected as President, who was just as slick and charismatic as Senator Obama? How many remember that this President once said, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."
The old Chinese proverb says “"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” Is America about to be fooled again?
Former Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas once said, “As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
However, since we are so ‘whupped’, we don’t see the darkness falling upon our nation. We have been led to believe that the only viable candidates for office shall emanate from either the Republican or the Democratic parties. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about political parties, "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."
We have been led to believe that our government is the cure for all that ails us and that only through their benevolence can we obtain security and happiness. The guidelines concerning the powers granted government which are found in the Constitution are forgotten, just as Arthur Schlesinger said, “For most Americans the Constitution had become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions but forgotten in the daily transactions of life.”
Those who blindly follow a candidate because of the political party they belong to, or because they are too ‘whupped’ to research the issues, should ponder what Albert Einstein once said, “...for those who would joyously march in rank and file, they already earned my contempt, for they were given a large brain by accident when a spinal chord would have sufficed.”
Our country is worth saving, the idea that all men are created with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not things that we should let slip away because we are ‘whupped’.
Samuel Adams once said, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”
Unfortunately I am realizing that far too many people, as a friend recently told me, “...that most people do not support a civilization and are not concerned with what, why, when, and who make a civilization function. Most people are interested in a dry roof, reasonable health, good food sex and easy to use toilets. After that, most people are concerned with becoming undisciplined hedonists with their free time and surplus capital or borrowed capital.”
Americans care more about sports, video games, the lifestyles of celebrities, and reality television than they do about the affairs of their nation. Let me tell you, reality television has nothing on what is unfolding, and has been, for years in this country. Our rights are slowly being stripped away from us by the very people whom we elect to watch over them. It does not seem that this will change much either, not when we have two candidates who, in a perfect world, probably couldn’t get a job flipping hamburgers at McDonalds.
To quote Edward Langley, “What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.” To quote myself, “What this country needs is some comprehensive government reform.”
The framework for good governance is there if only people would read it and apply it to how they choose their elected representatives. However, as long as they remain too ’whupped’ nothing is going to change.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
It is no longer politically correct to ask, no, to expect people who come to this country to learn our language.
Language can be either unify a nation, or divide it. David Simpson, in his book, The Politics of American English wrote, "Language, in other words, is seen from the start as a potential element in constituting a political and cultural unity among the citizens of the new republic; or, if it goes wrong, a means of prescribing or perpetuating disorder."
John Adams, the second President of the United States, once wrote a letter to the President of Congress saying that Americans should, "force their language into general use." However, since we had just fought a war with England the founders were hesitant to declare English the official language, as there was no distinct 'American' language.
Nevertheless throughout much of our history it was commonly accepted that English was the official language, and all business would be done in English. In 1795 the House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would require the printing of 3,000 sets of the laws of the U.S. in German "for the accommodation of such German citizens of the United States, as do not understand the English language."
That all began to change in the 1970's. In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 that federal civil rights statutes required schools to provide special educational assistance to students with limited English language skills.
Did you know that according to the U.S. Census that there are 311 languages spoken in the United States? http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/november/USlanguages.html
Are we to be required to print our laws, our documents, and provide teachers fluent in all these languages to appease those who come to this country who are not equipped to function in society?
That my friends is political correctness at work. We are made out to be the villains because we refuse to change our beliefs or our behavior to accommodate others.
Just the other day at work I got lectured because of the mistake made by another person who happened to be East Indian. This person relieved me at my line so that I could take a scheduled break. I explained to him what I was doing and he just smiled and waved his hand at me as if to say, ‘just go’. I was gone for just ten minutes and when I returned it took me almost half an hour to clean up the mess that he had made. Yet I could not say anything about this individuals inability to understand English for fear of being written up for discrimination. This is what political correctness does to our country people, and the sooner we do away with it the better.
Scottish author George MacDonald once gave a fitting description of political correctness. He said that the two pillars of political correctness are:
a) willful ignorance
b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth
Doris Lessing, the 2007 Nobel Prize winning author writes, “Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing once again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”
It is not merely the acceptance of languages other than English that have been forced upon us by political correctness. We are told that we must accept and tolerate perversion. In fact our thoughts are legislated in such a way that if we speak out against these abominations we may be charged with discrimination or even a hate crime.
Our nation and our laws were built upon principles contained in the Bible. James Madison, once of the primary writers of the Constitution once said, ‘We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.’
John Adams once said, ‘We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’
In 1782, Congress voted on a resolution which stated, ‘The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.’
John Jay, or First Supreme Court Justice, stated, ‘Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.’
Up until 1963, the McGuffey Reader was used in all our public schools. It was written college professor William Holmes McGuffey, and in it he wrote, ‘The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology.’
However, in 1947 political correctness found its way into the Supreme Court. In that year the Court ruled on the case of Everson v. Board of Education. The Court ruled that, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
Yet for over 150 years from the time of the ratification of our Constitution, the use of teachings from the Bible was permitted, indeed it was considered the foundation upon all that sets our nation apart from so many others. Why the sudden change in direction taken by the Supreme Court?
Since Everson v. Board of Education the Court has consistently ruled to restrict the rights of Christians by limiting our ability to profess our faith. In 1948 the Court heard the case Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education. The Court ruled that religious instruction could not be conducted in public schools. In 1963, in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp, the court ruled that passages from the Bible or the Lord’s Prayer could not be recited in schools. In 1965 it was ruled that a student can not bow his head in prayer and pray audibly for his food. In 1980 in Stone v. Graham, the Ten Commandments were outlawed from public schools. In their ruling they said, ‘If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective.’yer. How would James Madison feel about that?
What has this wrought for America? Sin is now something that we are to tolerant of and evil does not exist. When someone does something that used to be considered evil and sinful the blame is shifted away from them and onto the society that produced them.
Albert Einstein once said, "Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment, and learn again to exercise his will - his personal responsibility."
Nowhere is this nonsense about political correctness more apparent than in the way we are forced to accept, what is now called, alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality, according to the Bible, is a sin. Leviticus 20:13 states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Yet since we are told that we need to be tolerant, this is no longer a sin. It is a lifestyle choice, or even more ludicrous, that people are born this way. Can anyone who is a Christian believe that God would make such a terrible mistake as to place the soul of a woman into the body of a man, or vice versa? Yet these same people want the churches to be allowed to perform gay marriages. It is pure hypocrisy!
Political correctness has ruined our ability to see things as they are, or at least to speak out against wrongdoing when we are confronted with it. I remember growing up that gay was not a word to describe homosexuals, they were called queers. What is the definition of queer?
According to Merriam Webster's, queer is defined as, "1 a: worthless, counterfeit
Political correctness should be categorized as a mental illness, if you want my honest opinion. It blinds people to the truth, or at least causes them to fear speaking out against perceived wrongdoing. It stifles a persons first amendment right to free speech. I would like for everyone to ponder something, if they would. If the goal of political correctness is tolerance, why then are people taught not to be tolerant of the views of those who stand in opposition to the agenda of the political correct movement? Why is it that all that used to be considered good and decent is now viewed as being unacceptable?
Political correctness only exists because we allow it to. If we refuse to bow down to them, refuse to remain silent when we witness something we find offensive, the political correct movement would have no power over us.
There is right and there is wrong. William Lloyd Garrison once asked, "Are right and wrong convertible terms, dependent upon popular opinion?" No, the Ten Commandments were written in stone, they are Gods laws for us to follow. Therefore, as Anthony J. D'Angelo said in The College Blue Book, "Transcend political correctness and strive for human righteousness."
As I stated in the beginning, political correctness is something that appeases people, makes them feel comfortable with their deficiencies, their abnormalities, and gives them an excuse for errant behavior. It is up to you whether or not to be politically incorrect or not. For me, I will do what my father used to always tell me to do, call a spade a spade. That is the only way I know how to be, and, as far as I am concerned, those who push political correctness can stuff it.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
As I said, I missed it, so this is all just hear say and cannot be confirmed by me. However, if it is true, if this person said these things, I cannot understand how they could come to such asinine conclusions.
It appears that this person feels that the thoughts of the founding fathers are irrelevant in today's society. From my conversations with others, I believe that this person is not alone in that belief. Unfortunately he is sadly mistaken. Who better to understand the intent of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, than those people who wrote it, or championed it during the ratification process? Do we honestly think we are better qualified to discern the reasoning behind the clauses and amendments than those who wrote them? What arrogance, especially when we, due to our lack of understanding of those documents, have allowed our government to grow far beyond what it was ever intended to.
It may be a waste of time to use this quote, seeing as how this person does not like it when people use quotes by the founders, but it is, nonetheless, essential that people understand what George Washington said about our Constitution, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."
What part of sacredly obligatory is hard to understand? If the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all, and by all I mean the people, and those elected to represent us, then they must govern within the limitations it places upon them.
Since I was not there to question this person as to what he meant, I am guessing that he meant that parts of our Constitution are no longer relevant? Who is to say which parts no longer hold relevance? The government? Isn't that a precarious assumption, that the very government which was created by said Constitution, is able to decide which of the limitations it places upon them are no longer relevant. That is a recipe for tyranny if there ever was one.
Why don't we just consider what would happen if the tables were turned, if we the people just decided to see what would happen if we chose a law, that our government had enacted, which we decided was no longer relevant to us? How about the income tax, what would happen if we just decided to stop paying income taxes?
Our government is very good at enforcing the laws they impose upon us. Why should we not be any different by enforcing the Constitution upon them? However, since the topic of my article that started this whole discussion was gun control, let's take just one second to consider the second amendment.
If the Constitution not only grants government its powers to govern, but also places limitations upon them by specifically enumerating the powers that document grants them, what is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, of which the second amendment is a part?
Not many know that the Bill of Rights also has a preamble, which states, "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
Let us take a moment to examine that. The states expressed a desire to prevent abuse of the powers contained within the Constitution by creating "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses..." In other words, the Bill of Rights are declarations of further restrictions that are above the Constitution itself. Those ten amendments protect the rights, of the kind described in the Declaration of Independence as 'unalienable rights', that is to say that no one, not even our government, have the right to infringe upon them.
Our second amendment rights have nothing to do with the fact that the people of this country needed guns to fight the British. If this person recalled their history, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were ratified AFTER we had one our war for independence.
So, to fully understand the reasons why these ten amendments were considered important enough to be added as further declaratory and restrictive clauses we can only rely upon the writings of the very people who added them, our founders. Therefore anyone who says that they hate it when someone quotes them, has no desire to understand their intent, and is due to their ignorance, a consenting partner to our governments abuse of its clearly defined powers.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
I remember what he said to me, as if it happened only yesterday. He asked me, "Why should the United States Air Force continue to employ Staff Sergeant Neal Ross?" I could have made excuses and tried to weasel my way out of my predicament, but instead I told him, "Sir, I made some mistakes and I have no one but myself to blame. I think standing here in front of you has put the fear of God in me, and if you will give me another chance I promise to be a better airman."
He told me to come back the next morning and he would let me know what he decided. So, the next morning I showed up, mentally prepared for the worst, but praying for another chance. My commander gave me another chance, however it cost me. I lost one pay grade and would not be eligible for promotion until I had proven that I had indeed learned my lesson.
Some may have been mad at the severity of the punishment but I was not. I was glad that I had been given another chance. I had made some mistakes and I took sole responsibility for them.
This wasn't the first time that I was held accountable for my actions, and I am sure, knowing my wife as I do, that it won't be the last. However, that is how I was raised, to accept responsibility for my actions, not to try and place the blame upon others.
There are two important points to this story, the first is that I was held accountable for my actions, and the second is that I took responsibility for them.
Each and every individual in this country, no matter their status and position, is responsible for something, and that is even more so for those whom we elect to serve us in our government. Each elected representative takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
What exactly is an oath? An oath, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, is (1): a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says (2): a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words b: something (as a promise) corroborated by an oath.
Therefore, when our elected representatives swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, they are making a sacred vow, both to us, and to God, that they will in fact uphold the Constitution.
However, we as citizens also have a very important role, and that is to keep a watchful eye upon those elected representatives to ensure that they are in fact upholding that oath.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." That is our responsibility, to watch over our elected representatives and to make sure they are upholding their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
However, how can we do our job when the majority of the people are ignorant when it comes to what the Constitution actually says? James Madison stated that, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
Patrick Henry, who gave that inspiring speech in which he said, “...give me liberty or give me death” had this to say about our Constitution, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government--lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Andrew Johnson, who became President after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, once said, “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”
Therefore, if we are to uphold our responsibility to restrain our government within the confines of the power granted them by the Constitutional, we must become intimately familiar with what it says.
Sir Josiah Stamp, a British industrialist, economist, and banker once said, "It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities."
As a people, we have been negligent, we have dodged our responsibilities, and we are now paying the price for it with a government that no longer governs according to the dictates of the Constitution.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, in his book, The Constitution in Exile, says, “The Constitution, as Justice Felix Frankfurter reminded his colleagues from time to time, was not written in order to right every wrong. It was not written to allow every federal do-gooder and busybody to impose his notion of clean living, safe working, or pure thinking on individuals. It was written to keep governmental power diffused, to restrain the government from interfering with the Natural Law, toward one solitary goal: The freedom of the individual to pursue happiness.”
Our government has grown far beyond what the founders envisioned when they drafted the Constitution. Our government legislates upon matters they have no authority to do so, and it tramples upon the Bill of Rights.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights plainly states, “The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The Bill of Rights were restrictive clauses which superseded the Constitution. No legislation enacted by our government could infringe upon the rights defined within the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Pearl Buck, the Nobel Prize winning author, once said something we all need to be mindful of, “We need to restore the full meaning of that old word, duty. It is the other side of rights.” We as Americans, not only have the responsibility, but we have the duty to educate ourselves so that we can keep that watchful eye upon our government.
If we chose not to do so then, as John Baptiste Moliére, the 17th century French playwright, once said, “It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do.”
Sunday, June 01, 2008
It is now June 1rst, and soon the Supreme Court will render its decision on the case of D.C. v Heller, which may once and for all settle the argument over the intent of the second amendment.
At issue is whether the second amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for individual use, or whether the second amendment solely pertains to the establishment and maintenance of a militia.
Just the other day I received an e mail update from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. For those of you unfamiliar with the Brady Campaign, it is an organization headed by Jim and Sarah Brady. As many may remember, Jim Brady was also shot in the assassination attempt upon President Ronald Reagan. After his recovery the Brady's formed their organization with the following as their mission, "As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities."
The Brady's may be one of the better known organizations which fight for stricter gun laws, however they are not alone in that fight. The list of organizations fighting for tougher gun control laws could fill a book, but here are a few of them that you may, or may not have heard of.
There is the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), The Violence Policy Center (VPC), Handgun-Free America, Inc. and The Ford Foundation just to name a few. For a more in depth look at who is fighting to pass tougher gun control laws, you can use the following URL's, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=14 and http://www.gunowners.org/fs0302.htm.
Getting back to the e mail I received from the Brady Campaign, their update urged their supporters to vote for a presidential candidate that would not nominate 'extremist justices' to the Supreme Court. That is what got the whole idea for this article started, what exactly do they mean by extremist justices? Do they mean those who would rule on the side of tougher gun laws, or do they mean justices who would rule on the side of those who feel the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
Whatever is the outcome of D.C. v Heller, or any future ruling on gun control issues, there are just a few things that the people of this country need to be aware of. Far too often Americans fly off the handle and support any new gun laws because of their emotions, especially when these new gun laws are put into place after some tragic shooting somewhere. People need to take a breath and decide whether to support these new laws only when they can make an informed decision based upon facts.
From the webpage of the Brady Campaign I found the following quote, "Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke said that he is hopeful that the "ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families."
How do they expect common sense gun measures allow communities and families to protect themselves? When I was growing up everyone I know had guns. Although my father kept it in his bedroom closet, I got my first gun at age ten, a .22 rifle. Kids grew up respecting guns, and understood their potential for harm if handled improperly. We went out shooting with our fathers, we attended hunters safety courses where we were taught the proper safety precautions and handling of firearms. You want to know something, from the time I moved into the town I grew up in until the time I joined the Air Force in 1979, that town had not had a firearm related homicide in fifteen years. Yet kids came to school with hunting rifles, in plain site stored in racks in the rear windows of their trucks. So how can you say that even more gun laws now will make us safer?
Whenever people are deciding whether or not to support stricter gun control laws, they have to consider the intent of the second amendment. The second amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Twenty seven words that are so misunderstood.
Much of the misunderstanding comes when people try to discern the intent, whether the inclusion of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Are these two separate clauses, or are they tied together. This is the crux of what the Supreme Court is going to rule in D.C. v Heller. Although I am not a Supreme Court Justice, and my opinion carries no legal weight, I would like to explain how I view the intent of the second amendment.
First off we have to ask ourselves, what is a militia? In 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. In their ruling, the Court stated, "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."
The ruling went on to quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, "Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force."
Finally, the Court stated, "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
It seems then, that the militia were to be common men who would come to the defense of their county, bearing arms that they had supplied themselves, which were of the type that were in common usage at the time. This is similar to the sentiments of George Washington, when he said, "It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it." This is in stark contrast to what we have today, National Guardsmen who are nothing more than part time soldiers, components of a standing army, something which the founders were particularly wary of.
The true intent of having a well armed militia is something that not many wish to come to terms with, that one day we may have to take up arms against our own government to defend our liberties, much as the founders did during the Revolutionary war.
George Washington understood this, as he explained, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
John Adams, our second president understood that "The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea."
James Madison said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
None were more prolific on this subject than Thomas Jefferson, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Jefferson went so far as to justify open rebellion should the need arise, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
That is the true purpose of having a well trained militia, to defend our nation from its own government should the need arise. Therefore any law that takes away an individuals right to possess firearms, that are "...of the kind in common use at the time" is a violation of the second amendment, in both spirit and intent.
There are those who also believe the second amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms for other purposes, such as self defense. Those who favor stricter gun control legislation say that we do not need guns to protect us, that is why we have the police.
While many police officers do a fine job in protecting the public, they are often overwhelmed, understaffed and just cannot be everywhere all of the time. In an article from the city of San Francisco's webpage, they brag about dropping their police response time to priority crimes from almost ten minutes to just under six.
If someone were to break into your home and threaten you, and your family, six minutes would seem an eternity. I would much rather have a loaded pistol or shotgun that was readily available to protect myself, instead of cowering in fear, praying that the police get there in time to prevent any harm to me or my family.
It is not only the fact that it often takes the police far too long to arrive at your home in case they are needed, they are also not legally required to provide you with protection.
In the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman had taken out a restraining order against her former husband, yet he was able to come to her home, kidnap, then kill her three children, even after repeated calls to the police. This happened even though on the rear of the restraining order it was clearly printed, "NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS,” "YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER.” The Supreme Court ruled, "We do not believe that these provisions of Colorado law truly made enforcement of restraining orders mandatory. A well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."
This was not an isolated case. In 1856 the Supreme Court ruled, in South v. Maryland, that "local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws."
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, it was ruled that, "There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect."
In 1982, in Bowers v. Devito, it was ruled that, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
In 1975 Ruth Brunell called the police twenty times to ask for protection from her husband. The police told her to call back when he got there. Before she could call her husband stabbed her to death. The courts, in the ensuing lawsuit ruled, "The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help."
Need I go on? While the police have a general duty to enforce laws, protection of an individual lies directly upon that individual. If they choose not to own firearms for their protection, they cannot expect the police to respond in a timely fashion to prevent harm from befalling them.
I have heard people say that they will gladly turn in their guns if the criminals turn theirs in first. First off, by their very nature, criminals are not apt to obey the law. So to ask them to turn in their guns is a waste of time.
Our laws state the penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. 18 USC, 924(c)(1)(A) states,
"Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence. . . uses or carries a firearm. . . shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence. . .
(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years;
(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and
(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has yet to be decided, but with the evidence I have provided, I would hope that people understand that there is more to it than just preventing needless deaths.
How many do you think are going to die at the hands of criminals if the law abiding citizens turn in all their guns? Criminals would have a field day with an unarmed citizenry, we would be like sitting ducks to them.
We also have to remember the flip side to the second amendment, that it enables us to protect ourselves from our own government should they gain too much power and refuse to submit to the wishes of the people.
History has given us many examples of what happens when guns are taken away from the people.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. - From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. - From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. - From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
And in more modern times, it has been only recently that gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. - The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Firearms are a vital part of our nations history and are necessary for us to maintain or personal protection, as well as to protect us from tyranny. Gun control laws only serve to limit our ability to do either and place us at the mercy of both criminals and an abusive and overreaching government. I hope you will ponder these facts before committing your support for any new gun control laws.
Some have listened, while others have turned a deaf ear to my words. Then there are those who are already aware of the damage being done to this country by the two headed snake that we call political choice. It is from one of those, one who still has the ability to see beyond the propaganda, the lies, and the corruption that is our government, that I would like for you to read.
Ponder these words, as I could not have said them any better myself...
"That symbiotic dance of always voting for the lesser of evils is what has gotten us mired in this quagmire and only a fool would think that voting the same/opposite way each cycle will bring anything different. The two parties feed off each other's "hatred" for the other. Too many of the voting population are fixated on the two heads of the beast, so to speak, and have lost the ability to think for themselves in any third tangent. Though there is little constructive difference between democrats and republicans, they project the illusion that they are diametrically opposed to each other. Consequently the voters vacillate between the two parties each cycle, thinking collectively that the party currently out of power will fix everything. Back and forth we go, meanwhile sliding ever further into the abyss of extra-Constitutional government. I refuse to be part of that self delusion."