Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Dissecting the Constitution: The Preamble


So much of what I post and write about is all the evil that has come as a result of the perversion of the powers of government.   The brilliance of the constitution is how it leaves so little up to interpretation when it comes to the powers of the federal government.   We all know that left to ourselves, we can rationalize anything.  A group left to its own devices will do the same.  Christ was God’s perfect answer to salvation, leaving no room for guessing.  The constitution was Man’s attempt at creating a government that removed the interpretation of man in its day to day governance.   It begins with the preamble, which lets you know what the intention of the document to follow is. 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 
 The preamble is intent, what follows are the instructions for carrying out the intent.  The opening sentence lets you know that the intent of the founding document is to allow for a government of the people.  Not a certain type of people, but people of the United States.  What about slaves and discrimination?  Had the constitution been carried out literally, there would be no room for slavery and no room for discrimination.   The next phrase elaborates in saying that the goal is to form a “more” perfect union, not perfect.  This is an admission that since the government is of the people and that people are flawed, there will be mistakes.     
To make this more perfect Union, it is necessary to establish justice, which defined in the rest of the constitution, is a procedural form of justice, meaning that so long as the process is followed, justice is served, as opposed to the admiralty courts that preceded the nation’s founding.   
Domestic tranquility is not a reference to making sure things go well in your home, but rather than conflict within the union is dealt with at the federal level.  
Providing for the common defense is simple and very telling.  By forming a Union, the essential sovereignty of the states is recognized.  A small central government is to be laid out in the articles of the constitution with one of the central roles of the federal government to be providing for the common defense.  This would let foreign intruders know that an attack on one was an attack on the other.  That all states of the Union would contribute to the defense of the states.   
Promoting the general welfare, meaning prosperity, is not the welfare of today.  The limitation of the government was to accomplish this goal.   Prosperity, as believed by our founders, was through the efforts of the individual.  It was a rebellion against a government that was believed to be too intrusive, yet had a fraction of the power our current government has, that was fought to promote prosperity. 
Securing the blessings of liberty is also a telling phrase of our founders.  The use of the word “blessings” implies the grace of a divine power, that has endowed the people with liberty, and that government should not infringe, but protect this divine gift.  It acknowledges that our government is a partnership with God and not apart from God, to secure God’s blessing of liberty.  
From the preamble, our founders then set out to define the actual codification of these principles.   Each article explicitly lays out what the federal can do.  The first 10 amendments then go on to say what no government has the power to do and what powers are left to the states.    At the founding, the balance of power rested with the people, followed by the states and then the fed.  221 years after the ratification of the constitution, we have flipped the balance of power upside down, yet little has changed in the constitution. 

Monday, November 29, 2010

What is the Wikileaks Story About?


This is not a story about backstage diplomacy and battle tactics.  To be quite honest, the information wikileaks displays is nothing more than telling people in black and white what they already believed to be true.  The damage that is done is that now nations actually have to deal with it, which is not good for us.  I feel the true story goes beyond the information itself, actually centering around the leak itself.  Where does this information come from?  How is it that such a vast array and quantity of information makes its way into internet.   Why is it not the Obama administrations top priority to discover the source of the wikileaks.  Divulging this information puts our soldiers, diplomats, and the American people in jeopardy.   This is an act of treason and the perpetrator should be put to death.  However, I think that what is more embarrassing is how weak and inept Obama looks once again as our pants are taken down in front of the nations.  If you have ever read anything else I have posted, you would probably say that I think that wikileaks is exactly the depanting the US hating Obama wants.  When the truth is finally learned, perhaps we will get an image of Obama sitting in the White House basement scanning documents to send to wikileaks.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

TSA Screening Horror Story

Close your eyes and imagine Eastern Europe 1943 through the lens of a black and white movie camera.    The camera focuses on the large wheel of a locomotive as steam puffs from the spokes.   The camera begins to slowly zoom out, blurred lines cross the screen, transforming into barbed wire as they come into focus.  A full length of wired fence crosses the horizon, broken only by a small gated opening.  Standing on either side are the tall imposing figures of German soldiers in grey winter uniforms, machine gun held at the ready.  Seated behind a wooden desk at the gate’s entrance is a SS officer, the red SS arm band is the only color visible.  On top of the pale officer with wire rimmed glasses is the officers cover, with the skull and bones emblem centered perfectly.  Stretching for 100 yards from the desk is a haggard line of people, barefoot, some holding their pants up for the lack of a belt.   A German NCO paces along the line of people with a sack stretched out, as shaking hands place any water they may have had into the sack.  A child expresses their thirst to their parent in line, which is met with a muted hush.   At the head of the line opposite the desk, a long wooden table sits.  The first person in line places all of their belongings onto the table as the germans sort through them, exchanging jokes as the person in line’s expense.  As he watches his possessions being rifled through, the nonchalant SS officer asks the man his business and destination.  After an inquisitive look, the officer stamps his papers.  He then moves forward to the gate where he is ushered through by the guards.  The next in line, a father and his young daughter, come to the table and empty their belongings.  The man is questioned by the officer and his papers are stamped.  Instead of being ushered through the gate, the father and daughter are separated by the guards.  The father implores for an explanation as his daughter screams “daddy”.  “What are you doing to my daughter”, the father asks.  “Quite down, we have search your daughter”, responds the soldier.  The grisly looking soldier begins to conduct the physically intensive search while the girl screams.  As the helpless father looks on, tears pour down his face.  The soldier finishes his search and the father and daughter are reunited.  The daughter, tears still clinging to her lashes, is despondent.  The father’s spirit is deflated.  They grab their belts and shoes off of the table on the other side of the fence.  They gather up their belongings and walk to the train.  As the conductor at the door of the train reaches for the father’s ticket, he transforms from a 1940’s conductor into a 21st century flight attendant.  The train changes into a fuselage.  The father and child transition to color and their surroundings change into an airport.  Before stepping onto the causeway, the father looks back at the security gate and while all other things have changed into the 21st Century, the German soldiers remain conducting the security screening.

Yes, this is a repeat of a previous blog, but I thought I would change the title to get some traffic.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

I Was Right All Along on Ethanol. Ask Al Gore

One of the mainstays of my blog for a while was the idiocy of using food for energy.  The idea of using a renewable resource to power our vehicles and decrease our dependence on foreign oil is something I fully support.  However, when that renewable resource is a commodity product that is used in most food products made, I back my support off.  When that resource is only feasible as a result of government subsidies, I back my support off even more.  When I'm told it is supposed to be good for the environment, I finally remove all support.
Recently, I have read a couple of articles that have stated what I have said all along, that ethanol is a sham.  For example, one article sited the fact that the environmental impact to produce the ethanol negated any positive impact burning a cleaner fuel might provide.  Now, Al Gore has come out to say that he made a mistake in supporting ethanol made from food products, and that the use of corn ethanol has led to the food price crisis, which, outside of the US, is a significant one.   He stated that his support for ethanol was purely a political move to court favor in the presidential birthing ground, Iowa. 
Now, every point I have made at least 2 years ago has been validated, and honestly, I only used my common sense to interpret the news to draw the same conclusions that "experts" have now drawn as a result of research.  The Fox article then quotes Noel Sheppard that makes the more important point:
"So more than 10 years ago, Gore supported an expensive, 'not good policy' because he thought it would help him get elected president. Yet media don't believe he'd misrepresent the threat of manmade global warming in order to become extremely rich,"
What else needs to be said.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

When Lines are Blurred: If we could see in Color in 1943.


Close your eyes and imagine Eastern Europe 1943 through the lens of a black and white movie camera.    The camera focuses on the large wheel of a locomotive as steam puffs from the spokes.   The camera begins to slowly zoom out, blurred lines cross the screen, transforming into barbed wire as they come into focus.  A full length of wired fence crosses the horizon, broken only by a small gated opening.  Standing on either side are the tall imposing figures of German soldiers in grey winter uniforms, machine gun held at the ready.  Seated behind a wooden desk at the gate’s entrance is a SS officer, the red SS arm band is the only color visible.  On top of the pale officer with wire rimmed glasses is the officers cover, with the skull and bones emblem centered perfectly.  Stretching for 100 yards from the desk is a haggard line of people, barefoot, some holding their pants up for the lack of a belt.   A German NCO paces along the line of people with a sack stretched out, as shaking hands place any water they may have had into the sack.  A child expresses their thirst to their parent in line, which is met with a muted hush.   At the head of the line opposite the desk, a long wooden table sits.  The first person in line places all of their belongings onto the table as the germans sort through them, exchanging jokes as the person in line’s expense.  As he watches his possessions being rifled through, the nonchalant SS officer asks the man his business and destination.  After an inquisitive look, the officer stamps his papers.  He then moves forward to the gate where he is ushered through by the guards.  The next in line, a father and his young daughter, come to the table and empty their belongings.  The man is questioned by the officer and his papers are stamped.  Instead of being ushered through the gate, the father and daughter are separated by the guards.  The father implores for an explanation as his daughter screams “daddy”.  “What are you doing to my daughter”, the father asks.  “Quite down, we have search your daughter”, responds the soldier.  The grisly looking soldier begins to conduct the physically intensive search while the girl screams.  As the helpless father looks on, tears pour down his face.  The soldier finishes his search and the father and daughter are reunited.  The daughter, tears still clinging to her lashes, is despondent.  The father’s spirit is deflated.  They grab their belts and shoes off of the table on the other side of the fence.  They gather up their belongings and walk to the train.  As the conductor at the door of the train reaches for the father’s ticket, he transforms from a 1940’s conductor into a 21st century flight attendant.  The train changes into a fuselage.  The father and child transition to color and their surroundings change into an airport.  Before stepping onto the causeway, the father looks back at the security gate and while all other things have changed into the 21st Century, the German soldiers remain conducting the security screening.

Acquitted Terrorist, Ahmed Ghailani, Equals Victory for Obama.


When somebody does something that makes no logical sense, you have to assume that it does make sense so long as you change your definition of what sense is.  To you and I, having a terrorist be acquitted of over 200 counts of murder and terrorism because a key witness was not allowed to testify is a horrible miscarriage of justice.  It is also confirms the belief that these terrorists should be tried in military courts and not civilian courts.   We look at these results and say “how horrible” to the first and “I knew it” to the second.  As we have learned about Obama over the last 2 years, his reaction is quite different.  His reaction is “Yes” to the first and “works like a charm” to the second.  The only way for this to make sense is when you realize that, as hard as it is to believe, we have elected a president that hates our country, and not just hates, but seems to ally himself more with Islam than our own principles.   This is all subjective observation, of course.  I have no proof that this man actually feels this way.  The only evidence I have is the circumstantial evidence of a man that has bent over backwards to accommodate those that would destroy our nation.   From bowing to foreign leaders, to making NASA’s function to be an outreach to Islam.  From abandoning our Eastern European allies in the implementation of a missile shield, to shady nuclear agreements with the Russians.  From discussions about eliminating the Marines, to putting artificial time tables for ending combat in Afghanistan.  From travelling the Muslim world with words of apology on his lips, to setting up a court system that will bring no justice to those that the terrorist target.   Aside from that, I have nothing.

Fox News is a Royal Triumph Over Competition


Sure we all hear about how the cable news network, FOX, has destroyed its competition at virtually every time slot.    Fox has relegated the former powerhouse CNN to the recycle bin, made msnbc look like a cable access station, and made the big 3 try to play catch up. 
Conventional wisdom says that it is Fox’s conservative leaning counter to the liberal leaning of all other television news outlets that has put Fox over the top.  I tend to agree with this.  I mean, how many Americans really like to watch a constant flow of news that tears down the fabric of our nation.  However, I think I may have come to a new conclusion as to why Fox is on the top.   I was at the gym running on the treadmill.  I was watching Fox’s morning show as I normally do.  On two of the other screens were Good morning America and CNN.  At the top of the 7:00 hour, Fox began by going over the headlines of the day.  One of the headlines was the story of Prince Harry’s engagement to Kate Middleton.   It was reported and then on to the next story.  On ABC and CNN, however, they began with the coverage of Prince Harry’s engagement as Fox did, but they continued on with the story for over 20 straight minutes.   While I agree that it is worth reporting, I don’t think it is worth reporting beyond the 30 seconds Fox gave it.  We live in the US in the middle of a government and financial crisis.  The last thing we care about is a wedding of a fake monarch.  If I was an American engaged in the issues and I like to watch ABC or CNN, I would have ended my viewership after seeing the Royal story.   This is just a sample of a pattern that has drug these stations into the abyss. 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, and Palin Conspiracy


Ever since the 2008 election of Obama, I have heard the names of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin thrown around as the front runners for the GOP Nomination in 2012.  What do all of these people have in common?  They are all losers in previous presidential bids.  What else do they all have in common?  They are all the people the media want you to believe the front runners are.  All but one of these nominees represent the old guard Republican elite that the tea party have rejected.  So why are they consistently put forth?  I believe that the hope of the media is to frame the GOP primary before it happens.  Say it long enough and maybe it will come true.   This is not a new tactic.  Parents do it all the time.  Instead of asking the kid if they want to go to bed, you ask them if they want to go to bed now or in 5 minutes.   The question is framed such that the child never had a choice of going to bed, just when the timing.  It allows the child to have a sense of choice, but only the choice the parents give them.  In the same way, the media looks at the American people like children.   Instead of asking, who do people want to be the nominee, they ask the people which name from a bunch of people that they know will lose do they want to be the nominee.  This way the media gets to choose the GOP loser.  My hope is that the election of 2010 and the awakening of the conservative movement will negate this media tactic.   My hope is that not a single one of these candidates gets the nomination, and I don’t know anyone else that would vote in the GOP primary that is excited about these 4 candidates, with the possible exception of Palin.   I would rather Palin continue in her role as a promoter of conservatism than run in the primary.     If I were to put a few names up for nomination, I would put Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, and Michael Savage for President and see how that poll comes out.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Mystery Missile Explanation a Stretch?

Allegedly, the missile launch is an optical illusion.  The contrail was produced by a passenger jet combined with the effects of the setting sun and the atmospheric conditions.   This may very well be the explanation, but I'm not convinced just yet.  I can say I have never seen a contrail like this before at any time of the day.  The only time I have seen such a contrail is from documentary footage of missile launches, or shuttle launches.  I have never seen flickering flame come from the lead portion of the contrail, which I can clearly see in the video.  I have never seen a contrail from a passenger jet have a trajectory that looks like it came from the ground to the air, whereby the beginning of the trail looks very thick.    Contrails I have seen are scatter streaks caused by water vapor in the exhaust of the jet engine.  This looks to be a single plume of solid smoke, as you would expect from  a rocket.  I find the explanation to be a convenient one for the government.  The reason they would want to cover up the possible true nature of the contrail was made in my previous post.  In summary, I suppose I should just trust my government implicitly and move on.

What Does Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts Look Like?


What Does Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts Look Like?  A compromise on these tax cuts is simply another way of saying tax hike.   If the republicans are for the permanent extension of the Bush era tax cuts, essentially leaving the tax code as is, and the Democrats are for the elimination of the tax cuts altogether, how do you compromise.  This is the perfect example and opportunity for the Republicans to demonstrate how they intend on “compromising” with Democrats.  Imagine if the Republicans go the White House and announce that they have a deal where the middle class tax cuts are made permanent, but the upper income ones are not.  Is that a victory in that they got some of the tax cuts to go through?  No, it is not.  Another way to translate this is to say that the Republicans agreed to raise taxes on the upper income earners, including small businesses.  And don’t think such a tact won’t be used against them in the 2012 election.  
The problem with compromise as it has existed for decades is that the Democrats have been allowed to set the agenda and the Republicans, in an effort to compromise, simply try to limit the full scope of the Democrat initiative.  So, for example, the Democrats say that we need a stimulus of 1 trillion dollars and the Republican response might be to limit it to 800 Billion.  This is the compromise that got them booted out of office in 2006 and lost the white house in 2008.  The type of compromise that got them elected in 2010 was saying absolutely NO to healthcare and several other pieces of legislation.  Instead of trying to compromise with the Democrats on the premise that taxes will get raised on some or all people, let’s change the narrative.  Let’s propose that not only are we going to extend the Bush Tax cuts, but we are also going to propose several more while we are at it.  This way we put the Democrats in the position to reacting to the agenda we set and frame them as the ones that cannot compromise.