by Humphrey Stevenson
I caught myself reading the Declaration of Independence. I know, I know, old stodgy document written by a bunch of men who knew nothing about today; heck they never even seen an iPhone. But, I found that it does have relevance in today’s world and maybe holds the solution to our problems. Let’s take note of a few passages:
Everybody knows this passage:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
This is our Founders statement as to the existence and the rights of men. Notice that they stated that rights come from their Creator, not their government. The next passage tells us governments’ role in rights of men:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This passage tells us our Founders view of the purpose of government. It wasn’t to provide people things; whether that is food, clothing, shelter, retirement, health care or anything else. It was to secure the rights given to men by their Creator. They felt that when men were secure in their rights, they could provide for themselves.
It also tells us where our Founders thought governments acquire their power. Notice that the passage does not say that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. There are many governments that have power without consent (one a little too close to home for my liking). Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So it is only when a government has the consent of the governed that its powers are just. I think this quote from Thomas Jefferson sums it up very well:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”
Now we see what our Founders thought should be done if the government gets out of control and no longer secures the right of men.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”
Our Founders envisioned a beautiful system of government. They understood that total freedom is anarchy but total government is tyranny. So they came up with a way to have just enough government to have a functioning society. In my view, the Founders looked to the several States to govern the people and the Federal government was to primarily govern the interaction of the States with each other and the outside world.
The Federal government was an invention of the States and was put in place to act as an agent of the States. We have moved far away from that founding principle to a point where the Federal government is the principal governing force over the people and the States are simply agents of the Federal government.
A great example of this is the recent advertisements for the census. The primary message is “fill out the census so that your state can get its fair share of Federal funds to build schools and roads.” I’m all for building roads and schools but shouldn’t funding that be a state function? Why should the people of a state have to fill out a census form in order to get proper funding? The original function of the census was simply to apportion proper representation to each state based on population. But now it’s used to dole out Federal government loot; that they took from the states in the first place.
Near the end of the document, our Founders declared, “…that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…” and therein lies the key. They did not look to a central, overarching government to rule the people. The Founders looked to the thirteen (now fifty) “free and independent” little nations. We must reclaim this vision and see the States as not just meaningless lines on a map (sorry, GPS) but as a group of free thinking individuals that have different wants, needs and desires from the free thinking individuals of another State. We must understand that any big government “solution” is doomed to failure and only ends up further restricting the rights of men (and women).
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Fresh Out of Sympathy
The Conservative Camel
I am sorry but I am fresh out of sympathy for these Congress people you claim to be receiving death threats or having acts of vandalism committed against their district offices due to their vote for Obamacare.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. If you are making death threats or committing acts of vandalism; PLEASE STOP IT!!! If you are thinking of doing so; PLEASE DON’T!!! Come November, these two-bit tyrants are in for an electoral beat-down they won’t soon forget.
That being said, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, you must know you brought much of this on yourself. The American people told you politely but firmly: NO!!! They told you no in every way they could think of, phone calls, emails, letters, polls, elections, and you arrogantly ignored them. You just better be glad that this isn’t the 1770’s or we would drag you out of that Capital building and tar and feather your butt.
I am sorry but I am fresh out of sympathy for these Congress people you claim to be receiving death threats or having acts of vandalism committed against their district offices due to their vote for Obamacare.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. If you are making death threats or committing acts of vandalism; PLEASE STOP IT!!! If you are thinking of doing so; PLEASE DON’T!!! Come November, these two-bit tyrants are in for an electoral beat-down they won’t soon forget.
That being said, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, you must know you brought much of this on yourself. The American people told you politely but firmly: NO!!! They told you no in every way they could think of, phone calls, emails, letters, polls, elections, and you arrogantly ignored them. You just better be glad that this isn’t the 1770’s or we would drag you out of that Capital building and tar and feather your butt.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tyranny Takes the Day
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Last Sunday night the US House of Representatives did something many of us thought they would never do. In defiance of common sense and overwhelming public opposition, the House passed the Senate Health Care Reform bill. With the signature of President Obama the following Tuesday, our long national nightmare became a reality.
The Democrats lied, cheated, and bribed their way to passing the Senate Health Care bill. To Democrats the ends justify the means; they recognize no rules, including the Constitution. Alcee Hastings, Member of the House Rules Committee (note the oxymoron), declared “There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along.” To quote Rush Limbaugh, “There are rules and there are Democrats. When you have Democrats, you have no rules.”
The biggest joke of Sunday night was once again “pro-life Democrat” Bart Stupak. I thought Dennis Kucinich was cheap when he sold his vote for a ride on Air Force One but at least he got a ride on Air Force One. Bart Stupak sold his vote for a piece of paper, which he was quick to wave around like Neville Chamberlain back from his trip to Germany in 1938. Supposedly, Stupak got an executive order from President Obama barring use of federal funds for abortion procedures. Originally, Stupak had said he would accept nothing less than the long standing Hyde Amendment language being placed in the actual health care legislation. In the final analysis, I doubt Stupak’s paper will turn out to be worth any more than was Chamberlain’s. Some good did come out of this; we now know there are no pro-life Democrats.
Several of the states Attorneys General are filing suit in Federal Court to void the Health Care Law because the individual mandate in blatantly unconstitutional. The new health care legislation mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. It matters not if the individual wishes to purchase health insurance; he must do so under penalty of law. Why doesn’t the Federal government help the auto industry by mandating that every American driver must purchase a new GM or Chrysler automobile? What’s the difference? If you can mandate one, you can mandate the other. Never before has the Federal government required that a person purchase any good or service as a condition of citizenship.
If truth be told, I don’t think the Federal government cares that you don’t purchase health insurance as long as you pay the fine for not purchasing it, which in most cases will be far less than the cost of the insurance. So let’s go back to our automobile example. You have a choice, buy a new car or pay a fine. The government sees that the fine will be far less than the price of a new car, so most people choose to pay the fine. This can become one heck of a revenue racket for the Federal government if allowed to stand.
In addition to the individual mandate, this new law drops a poison pill on private insurance companies by requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions. That’s like buying auto insurance after you wreck your car and then requiring the insurance company pay for the repairs. That is not insurance; it’s passing the buck. No way can they stay in business under these conditions. It is all a sinister plan; require everyone to purchase insurance, then drive private insurance companies out of business and soon people will be clamoring for government to do something. Can you say public option? Only now it won’t be an option; it will be the only game in town.
Many commentators have said the American people lost a battle but not the war. Understand that the American people did not lose anything; in fact we clearly won the argument. However, our win along with our will was ignored. Obama and the Democrats arrogantly stuck their nose in the air and spat in the face of the American people. My father fought in the Pacific during World War II. He did that so his children would not live under tyranny; and we won’t. These two-bit tyrants can celebrate now but they will get their comeuppance. The real work will be unraveling this mess and putting this Republic back on the road to limited, Constitutional Federal government.
Last Sunday night the US House of Representatives did something many of us thought they would never do. In defiance of common sense and overwhelming public opposition, the House passed the Senate Health Care Reform bill. With the signature of President Obama the following Tuesday, our long national nightmare became a reality.
The Democrats lied, cheated, and bribed their way to passing the Senate Health Care bill. To Democrats the ends justify the means; they recognize no rules, including the Constitution. Alcee Hastings, Member of the House Rules Committee (note the oxymoron), declared “There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along.” To quote Rush Limbaugh, “There are rules and there are Democrats. When you have Democrats, you have no rules.”
The biggest joke of Sunday night was once again “pro-life Democrat” Bart Stupak. I thought Dennis Kucinich was cheap when he sold his vote for a ride on Air Force One but at least he got a ride on Air Force One. Bart Stupak sold his vote for a piece of paper, which he was quick to wave around like Neville Chamberlain back from his trip to Germany in 1938. Supposedly, Stupak got an executive order from President Obama barring use of federal funds for abortion procedures. Originally, Stupak had said he would accept nothing less than the long standing Hyde Amendment language being placed in the actual health care legislation. In the final analysis, I doubt Stupak’s paper will turn out to be worth any more than was Chamberlain’s. Some good did come out of this; we now know there are no pro-life Democrats.
Several of the states Attorneys General are filing suit in Federal Court to void the Health Care Law because the individual mandate in blatantly unconstitutional. The new health care legislation mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. It matters not if the individual wishes to purchase health insurance; he must do so under penalty of law. Why doesn’t the Federal government help the auto industry by mandating that every American driver must purchase a new GM or Chrysler automobile? What’s the difference? If you can mandate one, you can mandate the other. Never before has the Federal government required that a person purchase any good or service as a condition of citizenship.
If truth be told, I don’t think the Federal government cares that you don’t purchase health insurance as long as you pay the fine for not purchasing it, which in most cases will be far less than the cost of the insurance. So let’s go back to our automobile example. You have a choice, buy a new car or pay a fine. The government sees that the fine will be far less than the price of a new car, so most people choose to pay the fine. This can become one heck of a revenue racket for the Federal government if allowed to stand.
In addition to the individual mandate, this new law drops a poison pill on private insurance companies by requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions. That’s like buying auto insurance after you wreck your car and then requiring the insurance company pay for the repairs. That is not insurance; it’s passing the buck. No way can they stay in business under these conditions. It is all a sinister plan; require everyone to purchase insurance, then drive private insurance companies out of business and soon people will be clamoring for government to do something. Can you say public option? Only now it won’t be an option; it will be the only game in town.
Many commentators have said the American people lost a battle but not the war. Understand that the American people did not lose anything; in fact we clearly won the argument. However, our win along with our will was ignored. Obama and the Democrats arrogantly stuck their nose in the air and spat in the face of the American people. My father fought in the Pacific during World War II. He did that so his children would not live under tyranny; and we won’t. These two-bit tyrants can celebrate now but they will get their comeuppance. The real work will be unraveling this mess and putting this Republic back on the road to limited, Constitutional Federal government.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Quick Thought on ObamaCare Vote
by; Humphrey Stevenson
Look at where we have gone under this administration and Congress. First they pass bills they don’t read. Now they pass bills they don’t vote on. What’s next? They pass bills that don’t exist?
Look at where we have gone under this administration and Congress. First they pass bills they don’t read. Now they pass bills they don’t vote on. What’s next? They pass bills that don’t exist?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Chicago Gun Ban
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Jack Hunter (aka The Southern Avenger) wrote an article recently in which he argued that the Supreme Court should not be deciding the legality of the Chicago gun ban because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and in fact the City of Chicago has every right to regulate gun ownership. He buttresses his argument with a radio interview of the esteemed Constitutional historian Dr. Kevin Gutzman.
They argue that the Supreme is getting the idea that the Second Amendment applies to the States by the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Conservative Camel finds himself in an unusual position, disagreeing with both The Southern Avenger and Dr. Gutzmen. However, I think both sides are wrong in this case. The Second Amendment does apply to the States, with all due respect to Mr. Hunter and Dr. Gutzman, but not because of the incorporation doctrine but simply the wording of the amendment.
Compare the wording of the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 1
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.
Notice the specific reference Congress. It does not bar State, county or local governments from making such laws. Does that mean a State could establish an official religion? It certainly does. In fact, most of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded based on an official religion for an individual colony. If Utah wanted to make Mormonism its official religion, there is nothing in the First Amendment to prevent it. Now, I don’t think Utah would because all those hardworking, taxpaying people of other faiths would leave for other states.
Now compare the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 2
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.
Notice there is no specific reference to Congress or any other lawmaking body for that matter. It simply says that the right “…shall not be infringed.” By anybody!
Jack Hunter argues that someone has to regulate the ownership of firearms because we can’t have blind people, mentally handicapped people, children or felons owning guns. However, blind people or even mentally handicapped people might own guns for any number of reasons. They might inherit a gun as a family heirloom. They might purchase antique or otherwise rare guns as an investment. When I was a child, my father gave me a shotgun as a Christmas present so that I could go hunting with him. Conversely, felons can be barred from owning firearms by the Fifth Amendment.
The danger is not in the owning or even the carrying of a firearm; it’s in the utilization. Our Founders’ wording of the Second Amendment is very specific. It gives us the right “to keep and bear arms.” It does not give us the right to discharge our guns willy-nilly whenever we feel like it. Murder is illegal; reckless endangerment is illegal and the Second Amendment does not change that fact.
While the Bill of Rights is a statement that the Federal government cannot squash the rights of a citizen, it does not then give the States free reign treat its citizens in any despicable manner it sees fit. Take the Forth Amendment. The Federal government must obtain a warrant for searches and seizures but the State can bust into your house whenever it wishes and take anything it wants? Or let’s look at the Fifth Amendment. Are we to understand that the Federal government must provide an impartial jury but your State is free to stack the jury against you?
This is in no way ment to disparage the idea of State sovereignty. Our Founders believed that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” In other words, they believed that the individual is sovereign also. We may disagree on interpretation, but Jack Hunter, Dr. Gutzman and I all agree that the Chicago Gun Ban should be removed and, in fact, should have never existed in the first place.
Jack Hunter (aka The Southern Avenger) wrote an article recently in which he argued that the Supreme Court should not be deciding the legality of the Chicago gun ban because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and in fact the City of Chicago has every right to regulate gun ownership. He buttresses his argument with a radio interview of the esteemed Constitutional historian Dr. Kevin Gutzman.
They argue that the Supreme is getting the idea that the Second Amendment applies to the States by the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Conservative Camel finds himself in an unusual position, disagreeing with both The Southern Avenger and Dr. Gutzmen. However, I think both sides are wrong in this case. The Second Amendment does apply to the States, with all due respect to Mr. Hunter and Dr. Gutzman, but not because of the incorporation doctrine but simply the wording of the amendment.
Compare the wording of the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 1
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.
Notice the specific reference Congress. It does not bar State, county or local governments from making such laws. Does that mean a State could establish an official religion? It certainly does. In fact, most of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded based on an official religion for an individual colony. If Utah wanted to make Mormonism its official religion, there is nothing in the First Amendment to prevent it. Now, I don’t think Utah would because all those hardworking, taxpaying people of other faiths would leave for other states.
Now compare the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 2
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.
Notice there is no specific reference to Congress or any other lawmaking body for that matter. It simply says that the right “…shall not be infringed.” By anybody!
Jack Hunter argues that someone has to regulate the ownership of firearms because we can’t have blind people, mentally handicapped people, children or felons owning guns. However, blind people or even mentally handicapped people might own guns for any number of reasons. They might inherit a gun as a family heirloom. They might purchase antique or otherwise rare guns as an investment. When I was a child, my father gave me a shotgun as a Christmas present so that I could go hunting with him. Conversely, felons can be barred from owning firearms by the Fifth Amendment.
The danger is not in the owning or even the carrying of a firearm; it’s in the utilization. Our Founders’ wording of the Second Amendment is very specific. It gives us the right “to keep and bear arms.” It does not give us the right to discharge our guns willy-nilly whenever we feel like it. Murder is illegal; reckless endangerment is illegal and the Second Amendment does not change that fact.
While the Bill of Rights is a statement that the Federal government cannot squash the rights of a citizen, it does not then give the States free reign treat its citizens in any despicable manner it sees fit. Take the Forth Amendment. The Federal government must obtain a warrant for searches and seizures but the State can bust into your house whenever it wishes and take anything it wants? Or let’s look at the Fifth Amendment. Are we to understand that the Federal government must provide an impartial jury but your State is free to stack the jury against you?
This is in no way ment to disparage the idea of State sovereignty. Our Founders believed that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” In other words, they believed that the individual is sovereign also. We may disagree on interpretation, but Jack Hunter, Dr. Gutzman and I all agree that the Chicago Gun Ban should be removed and, in fact, should have never existed in the first place.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Next Target
by: Humphrey Stevenson
A good illusionist is a master of keeping your attention on one hand while he performs the secret of the trick with the other. I’m afraid that the Obama administration is a fairly decent illusionist in its own right. While all of our attention was on the aftermath of the Blair House Health Care Summit, there was something going on behind the scenes.
Even before Obama has finished ramming through Obamacare in order to destroy your private health insurance, he has picked his next target; your private retirement accounts. Using classic Saul Alinsky tactics, the first step is to find an “enemy” to demonize. For the health care takeover it is the insurance companies. For the retirement takeover, it appears the enemy is financial advisors.
During a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force, the Obama administration announced new proposed regulations to protect workers’ retirement savings from unscrupulous financial advisors. The regulations would require financial advisors not steer clients into funds for which they receive commissions or are affiliated and base their investment advice on “objective computer models certified by independent experts.”
However, a couple of questions come to mind. First, who’s to say that a fund that pays the financial advisor a commission is not the best fund for that particular client? Second, with regard to the certified computer models, who’s going to certify that the “experts” are independent? But I bet I can answer that one; your friendly neighborhood Federal government bureaucrat.
Biden’s reasoning for the proposed regulations was, “A lot of folks are not getting the best treatment, the best advice and the most help in figuring out how to deal with their retirement plans.” Let’s give the federal government the benefit of a doubt and assume they just care so much about the American worker and want to make sure they don’t get ripped off. It still shows an incredible lack of faith in the American people. I believe people are smart enough to study the performance of their retirement funds and then go to their financial advisor and demand that changes be made.
However, I’m afraid that my experience with our Federal government has made me a bit more suspicious. There is no reason not to believe that these proposed regulations are the first tentative, baby steps in a much larger process. Next would come the cries that these financial advisors are so evil and the problem so massive that there is no solution other than intense government oversight and regulation of the industry. The administration would not use the word “takeover.” In the health care debate, the administration has been careful not to call it a takeover but it sets the stage for government control of health care.
Americans hold some $15 trillion in private retirement funds. It is the largest, untapped source of money left. Washington is broke; it covets cash. Democrats, as well as some Republicans, would love nothing better than to get their hands on this vast pool of money. Unfortunately, because of the tax incentives that are in place to encourage Americans to save for retirement, the ultimate ownership of the funds is a matter of some debate.
In fact the idea of the government taking over 401(k) accounts is not new. In October of 2008, there was a proposal before Congress that would allow Americans to use their 401(k) funds to purchase government bonds. In turn, the government would use the funds to set up a “guaranteed retirement account.” At retirement, this guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation adjusted annuity. You might call it the “government option” retirement plan. You’ll recall that at the time 401(k) accounts were losing massive amounts of value due to the plunging stock market. This proposal was seen as a way to secure workers retirement accounts from such losses.
However, history teaches us these accounts would never remain individual retirement accounts. As with Social Security, the government would take those funds to spend them as part of the general fund. Our spending mad government would soon exhaust this fresh supply of cash as well. That would make two bankrupt government “guaranteed” retirement plans instead of one. Good luck choosing.
These people never stop. Even after tea parties, town halls, polling and elections, they are still hammer down on Obamacare. After that, win or lose, this beast of a Federal government will still be inventing new and better ways to extract our liberty and property.
A good illusionist is a master of keeping your attention on one hand while he performs the secret of the trick with the other. I’m afraid that the Obama administration is a fairly decent illusionist in its own right. While all of our attention was on the aftermath of the Blair House Health Care Summit, there was something going on behind the scenes.
Even before Obama has finished ramming through Obamacare in order to destroy your private health insurance, he has picked his next target; your private retirement accounts. Using classic Saul Alinsky tactics, the first step is to find an “enemy” to demonize. For the health care takeover it is the insurance companies. For the retirement takeover, it appears the enemy is financial advisors.
During a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force, the Obama administration announced new proposed regulations to protect workers’ retirement savings from unscrupulous financial advisors. The regulations would require financial advisors not steer clients into funds for which they receive commissions or are affiliated and base their investment advice on “objective computer models certified by independent experts.”
However, a couple of questions come to mind. First, who’s to say that a fund that pays the financial advisor a commission is not the best fund for that particular client? Second, with regard to the certified computer models, who’s going to certify that the “experts” are independent? But I bet I can answer that one; your friendly neighborhood Federal government bureaucrat.
Biden’s reasoning for the proposed regulations was, “A lot of folks are not getting the best treatment, the best advice and the most help in figuring out how to deal with their retirement plans.” Let’s give the federal government the benefit of a doubt and assume they just care so much about the American worker and want to make sure they don’t get ripped off. It still shows an incredible lack of faith in the American people. I believe people are smart enough to study the performance of their retirement funds and then go to their financial advisor and demand that changes be made.
However, I’m afraid that my experience with our Federal government has made me a bit more suspicious. There is no reason not to believe that these proposed regulations are the first tentative, baby steps in a much larger process. Next would come the cries that these financial advisors are so evil and the problem so massive that there is no solution other than intense government oversight and regulation of the industry. The administration would not use the word “takeover.” In the health care debate, the administration has been careful not to call it a takeover but it sets the stage for government control of health care.
Americans hold some $15 trillion in private retirement funds. It is the largest, untapped source of money left. Washington is broke; it covets cash. Democrats, as well as some Republicans, would love nothing better than to get their hands on this vast pool of money. Unfortunately, because of the tax incentives that are in place to encourage Americans to save for retirement, the ultimate ownership of the funds is a matter of some debate.
In fact the idea of the government taking over 401(k) accounts is not new. In October of 2008, there was a proposal before Congress that would allow Americans to use their 401(k) funds to purchase government bonds. In turn, the government would use the funds to set up a “guaranteed retirement account.” At retirement, this guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation adjusted annuity. You might call it the “government option” retirement plan. You’ll recall that at the time 401(k) accounts were losing massive amounts of value due to the plunging stock market. This proposal was seen as a way to secure workers retirement accounts from such losses.
However, history teaches us these accounts would never remain individual retirement accounts. As with Social Security, the government would take those funds to spend them as part of the general fund. Our spending mad government would soon exhaust this fresh supply of cash as well. That would make two bankrupt government “guaranteed” retirement plans instead of one. Good luck choosing.
These people never stop. Even after tea parties, town halls, polling and elections, they are still hammer down on Obamacare. After that, win or lose, this beast of a Federal government will still be inventing new and better ways to extract our liberty and property.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)