Ignorance and Debate

It is okay to be ignorant. That is actually the purpose of open debate. Some people know some things, other people know other things. Hopefully in the exchange both parties will come away knowing a little bit more and the darkness of ignorance will be illuminated a little bit more.

Watching the Republican Party nomination fiasco brings me to fear for the health of open debate in our political system. Maybe it is because universal suffrage allows everyone to vote and many voters don't care to be educated before they make decisions. I don't know.

I see underhanded tactics to misrepresent an opponent. That makes me believe that the one side does not have an argument to bring to the table so they are left resorting to personal attacks to bolster their own stance. It could also be that the parties know that the average voter lacks the desire to know and wants only to be pandered to. I don't know, but I have my suspicians.

For example. President Obama who promised the most transparent administration in history has yet to deliver on that. The economy still sucks. Gitmo, still open. Patriot Act, our President renewed the act but with a slight change, it is renewed for two years now instead of one to make sure that it won't be coming up for a vote during the election season. NDAA and the indefinite detention part, signed by our President.

Our President did end major actions in Iraq. Good. We did get a new one in Libya without even the BS cover of "congressional approval" and now we hear from the Secretary of Defense that international agreement trumps even congressional approval. We also get to see American citizens deprived of life without due process of law. Hope and change indeed.

As a good friend said of our President, "he is just George W. Bush in blackface." Crass and true.

Remember a vote for Obama is a vote for Romney. If you like how things are going continue to do what you are doing.

My vision

My vision is a United States in which a potential nominee like Congressman Ron Paul would not happen and would not be rare. Yes, that is a political statement. I am not amongst those that thinks that a government constrained by the Constitution represents a radical or crazy idea.

I have a vision of a government that obeyed the Constitution, no matter how inconvenient it might be to their personal drives. There will be some ignorant, and unfortunately willfully ignorant people that use words like "ideologue" to demean the realities of the situation. If there is any respect for law and order Congressman Ron Paul would be just another representative in a small district in Texas and he would not be remarkable in any way. All federal officials take an oath to the Constitution. That should be the end of the story. I shouldn't have to take time out of my day to campaign because the important stuff is already covered. Too bad that the Republican darlings and the Democrat masters have already decided that mentioning the Constitution makes a person into a domestic terrorist. Odd that they develop a law that allows indefinite detention without the protections of the document that provides the legal framework and foundation for their job.

Ron Paul should not have had to happen. All of our government officials, from the level of municipal police officer to the President of the United States should work only within the constraints of the Constitution. Some doctor from Texas should not have had to bring these issues up. He is a decent man who has executed the duties of his office, it shouldn't have been news worthy. It shouldn't be news worthy for a government official to support the Constitution. Though I support Congressman Ron Paul for President it is a sad day for me to do so. It is sad because it should not have happened. This discussion should have never come up.

There should have never been a TEA party. There should have never been a "Ron Paul revolution" because it would never have been necessary if the government just followed the law and executed their duties according to law.

One day I hope to wake up and find a government that does not treat me as a criminal just because I want to get on a plane. I hope to find police officers that I can talk to without fear that they will find a way, in case they are bored, to attack me. I hope to find a President that will never spend the blood of our troops without damn good reason and only then with a Declaration of War from the Congress.

It is a radical vision. It is radical because not bombing and occupying is considered to be weak on defense. It is radical because the basis of our Union is now considered "impractical."

Good luck America. It won't get better until you find courage.

Amendment I

Amendment I, to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which was necessary to get the states to ratify the Constitution. It was intended as a way for the people to check and balance excesses of government and to legally constrain what the federal government can do. Amendment I, while short, deserves close examination.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

This part says nothing about the common doctrine of a separation of Church and state to the point that prayer can be forbidden in school nor does it bar the display of Christmas manger scenes on public property. It does say that the Congress cannot make laws to establish a national religion or do anything that would prohibit the people from exercising/practicing their chosen religion (or lack thereof) freely.

“ . . . or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . “

This freedom of speech and of the press is important. It was and continues to be violated at every turn. No law can abridge or curtail free speech of a free press. Why is this hard to understand?

“ . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . . . “

Yet you have to get a permit to assemble, the right is already curtailed. The last part states that we can petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is a contentious issue. For more information on this go to http://wethepeoplecongress.org

The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to address the issue. Some have decided that yes the people can petition but there is nothing that compels the government to respond to the petition and if the government refuses to respond the people have no lever or mechanism by which to punish or force the government to respond and/or correct their behavior, other than voting of course. To date the Supreme Court of the United States of America has failed to grant certiorari for a case brought before them to address this issue. There are some that believe that it is legal and proper to withhold taxes from the government until the petition for redress of grievances is addressed. “No answers, No taxes” is a slogan for that movement.

Opinions?

The Real Debate

We have come to a contentious time in American politics that is getting quite ugly and quite expensive if the Wall Street contributions to the anti-Wall Street President are any indication.

The most important discussion that should be happening now is not a Republican discussion, or a Democrat discussion, or any other political party discussion. It is a discussion of what we would like to the United States of America to be.

Recently a friend of mine mentioned that needed a declaration of war is just not pragmatic and authorization from Congress should be enought. I don't think that it should be enough because people (our people) die. That aside, the Constitution isn't meant to be pragmatic. It is meant to be a constraint on the federal government. I wonder what other parts of the Constitution are no longer pragmatic and should be simply discarded? Of course they won't discard any part of it. That would be too problematic and would take too long, and as our President has said "we can't wait."

Wake the hell up people.

4th Amendment

This is a very important amendment that is violated all too often. Never having it violated would be just about right.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- The Constitution of the United States

This seems be fairly straight forward. Let's examine it briefly.

1. "The right of the people . . . " this part confirms that this right existed before the formation of the government in further recognition of our inherent right to privacy and property.

2. "unreasonable searches and seizures" is a part that many thugs want to focus on. They seem to believe that if they make a "reasonable" argument then they have carte blanche. Not so fast, there are conditions. A warrant is required. This warrant doesn't come from the government agent himself. It must derive from an impartial judge and be "supported by Oath or affirmation" and the warrant then only grants power to search for and possibly seize items or persons that are specifically detailed in the warrant.

Since we, as citizens of the United States of America, have the freedom to travel amongst every state of the union without a passport and no authority is specifically granted to the federal government to restrain that travel (more on this in a later post) we should not be interfered with during our travel without good cause and a warrant issued.

Before any dolt out there balks, yes I know, the "freedom to travel" is not mentioned specifically in the first amendment. Keep reading. The Bill of Rights was not intended to be an exhaustive list of our rights. That is clarified later in the Constitution (stay tuned for that post). In order to fly today we are forced to be groped, threatened, and sometimes humiliated by government thugs with no Constitutional authority to even have their job. Their agency should not exist. By their thinking, you must stand there and watch your wife and children get felt up by government employees who have demonstrated no desire to follow their own rules in order to exercise your freedom to travel.

The whole probable cause issue. You will be searched because you are probably a terrorist.

Many moons ago I served as a corrections officer. My fellow officers and I often found drugs, weapons, and other contraband without having to grab someone's genitals. Nearly every day an inmate was found with some sort of contraband. During the TSA's reign they have failed to catch one terrorist (which is the boogey man that was conjured to get the sheeple to agree to this attack on their freedom - those bastards really do hate you because you are free) but they have protected flights from prosthetics and breast milk.

Where is their probable cause to search anyone? If I purchase a plane ticket that is between me and the airline. The airline has their requirements and I have mine. If we have a meeting of the minds then they grant me a ticket and grant them money in return. The airlines should have their own security.

I can hear the wails of the cowards now: "B-b-b-b-but airport security didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers." That is correct, obviously. TSA failed to stop the "underwear bomber" and the Detroit "shoe bomber." By the logic required to justify TSA (private security didn't stop the terrorists) we would have to dispense with TSA because they have failed. Luckily good people, citizens, put the smack down on the douche bag that tried to take out a plane over Detroit. TSA must go because they can't protect you.

Here are the ugly facts. The world is a dangerous and scary place. Yes, there are people out there that will wish you harm sometimes for no particular reason. If this is too much for you to handle I recommend getting a case of agoraphobia and staying inside (with the lingering fear that the bad guys are most likely targeting your house next). Nut up.