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.

13th Amendment

So we have this amendment that prohibits involuntary servitude but we still have Selective Service. Does anyone see a problem with this or am I just being quaint in thinking that the Constitution of the United States is actually law.

Arguments:

1. B-b-b-b-but then couldn't get enough people to fight our wars. What war? There hasn't been a declared war since WWII. If the Congress (which is the only body that has the authority to declare war, they don't have the authority to "authorize" military action) and they can't get enough people to show up for it what does that tell you?

2. B-b-b-b-but we have to protect ourselves. From what? If we do have a problem just follow the law and declare war. Then take care of business and come home.

Side issue on feminism: It is noted that we do have this travesty of Selective Service. It is also noted that the feminist movement has not marched on Washington D.C. to demand that women be included. It is only men and that is sexist. I am defeaned by the silence on that issue.

Women should enjoy all of the human rights that men do. The concept of women's rights implies that they get something extra. In the full inclusion of women in our society they should be included in the full violation of natural rights. They should have to register in case we need another slave army.

An Open Letter

This will be sent everywhere that I can send it. Hopefully some of you will support it and send it where you can.

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”

- Marcus Tullius Cicero

An open letter to all candidates, from all the parties, for the nomination to be President of the United States of America.

The nature of political debate in our great nation has devolved into a quagmire of 30 second sound bites and skirting of the issues facing our society. There are a few significant issues that are of great importance to our nation and our future. Please, at your leisure of course, review these questions and respond if you would be so kind.

Foreign Policy:

1. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the powers granted to the United States Congress. It states that one of those powers is “To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” The War Powers Act of 1973 allows for the President to send troops into combat (by authorization of Congress) for a period of 60 days with a further 30 withdrawal period. This act, and the sole authority of the Congress to declare war, seems to be in conflict with other actions that have allowed long term occupations and “nation building.” Will you commit now in writing and word to never place our troops in harm’s way without a Declaration of War from the Congress?
2. Will you pledge now in writing and in word to effectively secure the borders of the United States of America? The treasury of the United States, and the several states, cannot be spent for the benefit of those peoples that are not legally in the United States. This is a matter of protecting our laws and our economy.
3. Will you pledge now in writing and in word to sponsor an effective overhaul of our immigration laws that will allow for reasonable immigration balanced against our employment rate and needs?

Domestic Policy:

1. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to support an amendment to the United States Constitution that will prohibit our Legislature from passing any law that has provisions that preclude the Senators, Representatives, and the President from having to live under those laws?
2. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to adhere to the United States Constitution and not attempt by action or omission to pass laws that have an effect on the private lives of our fellow citizens excepting of course those actions that cause material harm to others?
3. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to repeal any law that allows for the use of Federal troops in domestic law enforcement actions?
4. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to support and defend Amendment II of the United States Constitution and support the sovereign right of the citizens to defend themselves from criminal actions?
5. Article II, Section 1 states that “Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress . . .” Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to support an amendment to the United States Constitution that requires all states to publish the names, offices, and manner of selection of all Electors vested with the authority to cast ballots for the office of the President of the United States?
6. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits any alteration or infringement upon the “Bill of Rights?”
7. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to support Amendment XIII of the U.S. Constitution that specifically forbids slavery and involuntary servitude by repealing the Selective Service Act (in all of its manifestations)?
8. Will you commit now, in writing and in word, to support an amendment to the United States Constitution that would require the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari to all questions of the meaning and application of the “Bill of Rights?”

Economic Policy:

1. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the powers granted to the United States Congress. It states that one of those powers is “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standard of Weights and Measures;” This section of the Constitution does not allow for the Congress to delegate this authority to a private body. The Federal Reserve as a private institution is allowed to operate as a private bank but they do not have the authority to take over Congressional authority and Congress can not delegate this authority any more than the Department of Defense can delegate our national armed forces to Black Water.
2. Will commit now, in writing and in word, to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit the use of public funds for the benefit of private institutions and foreign governments without a popular vote to do so?

Any qualm with the United States Constitution cannot be solved by the Legislature passing a law to by-pass our foundation legal document. It cannot be solved by “signing statements” by the President of the United States. If there issues with our Constitution the mechanism exists to change the Constitution. I ask that you obey the Constitution.

Sincerely and most respectfully,

Brandt Smith

Citizen, veteran USAF