I Love the Constitution

Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

2008-05-03T15:09:00.001-07:00

Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

Exactly the reason why government does not belong in the school system. By doing so, it by default has to rule and choose for the people on topics such as this. And by doing that, you are also by default not allowing the people freedom in their education.

I personally probably wouldn't want such a teacher for my kids. However, I certainly wouldn't mind a teacher who was religious and along with the lesson taught things of spiritual/religious natures. Of course, that might not be another person's cup of tea, and thats fine. I wouldn't want to impose my beliefs on them, and I don't want them to impose their beliefs on me by not allowing such a teacher, due to laws made up in response to teachers such as in this example. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are wrong. But what right does either of us have to impose our rights and wrongs on other people? Is the ability to control our own lives simply not enough anymore?

It is impossible to meet the freedoms of everyone in a system that only allows 1 thing. And that is what we are seeing today. By default people are being divided on these things. Which is understandable because by default you would be infringing on the freedoms of 1 or the other. Currently things tend to be majority rules, except where people are allowed to make a constitutional argument. Of course the reason we have a republic of limited government rather than a democracy of limited rights is because such broad democracy is merely just allowing a majority to rule over the minority. As long as you can get the majority of the people, you can basically do anything. Even when the majority of those people likely have no clue what exactly is going on, and a biased media doesn't even give the majority a chance to do so.

If we had a government today which operated on a constitutional basis, this kind of a topic wouldn't even be an issue. It would be handled on a local level, as the parents not the government would have direct control over their kids education. Rather than the parents having to deal with politicians who are elected on any number of issues, not a single issue who might bring change 2 years from now, you the parent would have the power to go to the school and say NO. You would have merely your local community to deal with, and on a local level these kind of issues can be solved quicker, without affecting 300 million people. If you live in a community where they wish to allow this to happen, then it's probably in your best interest to move, and not over the single issue, but because likely their are other things which you disagree with. This is how a real community is formed. There are literally thousands of communities in the US, and most likely a community with laws and things you agree with.

And this goes beyond education or religion. It's not about the issues themselves. It's about living in a system that works and handles the problems without infringing on the liberties and freedoms of other people. The founding fathers worked and died to bring about such a system, and that system is today being tested. Not because the system itself is broken, the constitution works just as well in a modern society as it did 200 years ago, only we have the ability to make it even better. But it is up to the American people to learn and educate themselves on what it means to be a free people. Otherwise the people will neither deserve their freedom, nor will they have it. And that is wisdom the founding fathers knew even back then. Why do we as a modern society fail to grasp these concepts?

The US government is in breach of contract

2008-05-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

I have a bit of a confession to make. I did not file my taxes this year. For all I care, the government can keep their $600. But I'm not going to pay my taxes anymore. I outright refuse to do so. You hear that IRS? I am not scared. I do not care what you think you can do to me. I would rather die in prison. Atleast then I will not have people to argue if I am free or not, nor will I be living under an illusion that I am a free person.

The constitution is a contract between the American people, and the US government. Failure of the citizen to keep up to their end of the deal will result in fines, imprisonment, harassment or worse. Failure of the government to follow the constitution/contract results in a loss of rights for the citizen.

When this election started, I told everyone - I think Ron Paul will win. And to this day I still think he can/will. Now, some might find that a bit crazy considering the circumstances, however it is what lead to those circumstances that has resulted in this post. You see, up until this election I actually believed this country had a fair and free election. I actually believed that elections were as advertised.

So why would I think Ron Paul would win? Well, lets look at the positions for a minute. #1 most obvious is the Iraq war. Today, GWB has the lowest approval rating of any modern president. And support for the Iraq war is also at an all time low. If you look at the recent elections, and republicans won that presidential election, then it seems that at least half the American people are conservatives. You look at the foreign policy GWB ran on in 2000, and most Americans seem to want a humble foreign policy. If you assume that all democrats want to end the Iraq war, then you also based on polling come to the conclusion that more than half the conservative base also want us out of the war. The conservative base has shrunk considerably in the past few years, losing the house and senate because of this issue. As we all know, the voice of the American people has been ignored and we are still in Iraq.

So obviously, in order to win a general election, the candidate will need to be in favor of getting out of Iraq. The 2006 congress elections proved that much. It would be near impossible for someone to win the general election with a position that atleast 70% of the population(registered voters) were really against. So, here we have an obvious +1 for Ron Paul, and an obvious -1 for the other candidates.

So, we look at other conservative issues. Here again, Ron Paul stands for them strongly. Has voted for 20 years over a 30 year period for these basic principles. There isn't a single candidate who has a better voting record on the issues. In all this time, he has never voted for an unbalanced budget or tax increase. He's pretty much a conservatives dream candidate. Again another +1 for Ron Paul.

He seems like the logical and best candidate for the GOP to me. He was the only person bringing in new people to the Republican party, something that was obviously extremely needed due to a lose in the republican party in the past elections. He was steadily pulling democrats into the republican party, something none of the other candidates could do. He drew bigger crowds by himself than the other candidates could muster between them all. John McCain has even called him the "most honest man in DC".

How could such a person lose? In a fair election, he wouldn't have. But what did happen was corruption. Corruption of the worse kind, and what you would except to hear from 3rd world countries. So, lets take a look at that.

From the start of the election, he was considered not a serious candidate. This was sited in the media as being due to his fundraising and his polling numbers. Fine Ron Paul supporters said, we filled his bank account with record numbers. Easily worthy of media attention, and proof that his candidacy was real. Did we see fair coverage after this? No. Instead it was pushed off as being internet only. To imply that people on the internet are not real people. Which is absurd, behind every "internet" person, is an "offline" person as well. Did we ever see this FACT brought out? Why didn't Ron Paul get "into the mainstream"? Because the media refused to cover him fairly.

After winning straw poll after straw poll, other than the ones where Mitt Romney was paying for votes and people were allowed to vote mulitple times. Or when the local GOP just outright canceled the straw poll when it was apparent who would win. Did this change anything? No.

Of course, then comes the actual elections, where the voting in itself was at times questionable(Part 2). Record turnouts they said.

But the corruption doesn't stop there. Now comes time for the GOP state conventions. Where delegates from the states are elected, and party issues are discussed change. However, when things don't go as the establishment scripted them to go, and Ron Paul might win a majority of delegates, they resort to just walking out without a vote. In other cases, the GOP simply ignored the people and read the script and left. In this case, the GOP completely changed the delegates that were elected at the smaller elections for people who weren't even present. When a point of order was called for to clarify this problem, it was ignored.

And that pretty has done it for me. It is now apparent that free and fair elections do not happen in this country. I don't know if they ever did, some people even defend the system, and encourage backdoor deals that ignore the will of the people.

It is now apparent to me that this country will not be allowed free elections. That the US government constantly ignores the constitution, and that those in charge are guilty of treason and are traitors. It is no longer a government which protects the rights and freedoms of it's people. It engages in unethical practices.

This government is in breach of contract. And there is atleast 1 US citizen who isn't going to put up with it anymore. I haven't given up on Ron Paul. I still have hope that the American people will wake up and see what is going on. But I am very near to giving up on this government.

What my plan would be for Iraq.

2008-03-19T06:51:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul says he would immediately bring the troops home. I completely agree with him. For a number of reasons.

Honestly, the job being done currently in Iraq isn't even a job for the military. You are trained to kill and take over objectives in the military for the most part. It's not a function of the military to be a police force in another land.

The job of the military was done years ago in Iraq. And they did a great job. They did exactly what they are paid and trained to do. And they did it in record time as well. When Bush landed on that aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished", that was basically the truth. The military had accomplished it's goals and purpose.

But now they have stayed and are asked to do jobs that are not a function of the basic military. Sure, they have MP's and some specialized troops. But it is not what they signed up for, and it's just not what they do. Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt about it. But obviously, the goal of the administration was not just to get rid of the bad guy. It was to get rid of the bad guy, and then replace him with the people/government of our choosing.

And that is going over about as well as milking a bull. Sure, you might get a little out of it, it might look similar to what you want in smaller amounts, but it's nothing you want to put your lips on. And why would it? Do you think we would let China or Russia come over here and tell us what government we can have, and which leaders we can and can't have? I certainly hope not.

By staying, we are only causing more people over there to be angry. As we are a foreign country, our presence alone is the #1 recruiting tool for more terrorists. Terrorism in itself is a tactic. You can never defeat a tactic. The best you can do is make the tactic ineffective, or defend against it. Thats just the plain truth of the matter. Every day we stay, we recruit and invite people to kill our troops. And for what? And we have spent over a trillion dollars for it, meanwhile our own borders are wide open and our country is going broke spending all our resources on Iraq. We are borrowing money from China, then turning around and giving billions away in foreign aid, weapons and such to countries like Pakistan. It's just downright insane.

I think most people realize this today. Hindsight is 20/20. And the most popular response I see is - If we leave now it will cause more troubles. I on the other hand feel if you want to heal a wound, you must first remove the item that caused it. And while sometimes a knife/surgery may be needed to remove something like a tumor, when the job is done you remove the knife so the wound can heal.

It will take atleast 90 days before our troops could leave the area safely I've heard estimates mention. And I'd venture a guess that an ideal withdrawal would maybe take a little longer. However, the day we mention we will be leaving, the people will start to see that the knife is leaving, and they will not have a reason to push it out any longer.

This is what we can do physically to help. But as we are leaving, we should leave the Iraqi people a copy of our constitution. Explain to them how it works - the limited government way, not the general welfare clause loophole way we have now. And then suggest they form 3 separate states.

If they adopt a constitution like ours, then by default the bulk of the power of each state goes to the people themselves. So you no longer have the problem of 1 faction gaining rule over another, which is a big factor for a civil war. However, you still have the Federal government of Iraq to provide defense and help commerce between the states etc.

It's a great system I do believe. And one people have died to fight for, and one people have put their lives in danger to escape too. If you offer it to the Iraqi people, and they are smart they will take it. If not, then they will have to work out their own way. But it is there responsibility to do so. With freedom comes responsibility, and that means the people have to stand up. I personally think they will.

And speaking of why it is such a great system, I think the fact that our own properly function government would solve the problems of the middle east easily, is all the more reason we as Americans need to stand up and protect it. How stupid would we have to be to let it go?

But as far as I can tell, we are more worried about getting people we like in power there. Which I find a bit odd. Lets assume another Saddam type person does come into power there. So what? It took us all of 2 weeks to take over the country, and we lost alot less lives in doing so. And it's alot cheaper as well. Plus, if it's a bad guy like Saddam, they probably will like us - if we leave after it's done.

Personally, I find the excuses for staying in Iraq to either be scare tactics, or down right lies and exaggerations.

I'm still voting for Ron Paul

2008-03-09T09:57:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm still voting for Ron Paul. Why? Because I don't want to waste my vote, thats why. Is there a single viable alternative? The simple answer is no.

I'd rather vote for something I wanted, and not get it, than vote for something I didn't want and get it. That is what I call not wasting a vote. Because the only difference between the other 3 candidates is how they present the same ideas to you.

And that isn't by accident in my opinion. Ever played a game of chess by yourself? So is it really amazing that you win every time? By putting yourself on all sides of the contest, you are guaranteed victory. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can control the politics of a country by playing both sides, nor does it take one to see and understand it. However, it does take people who actually pay attention.

The current candidates don't offer anything different than a king or queen would in history. The king and queen generally handled things differently from 1 to another, just as our politicians do today, but that all agreed on a few basic principles. Namely, they were in control of the issue, and the citizens were not.

And the United States represented a country and government directly opposed to this principle. Offering instead that the people of the country itself were more than capable of taking care of themselves. And that is what we call Freedom. But today, politicians have managed to keep those basic principles silent in the debate. And rather than even argue over who should have control of the issue, it's only a debate on who should be in control, or who/what they should give money to. That is all we do anymore, is elect someone to manage our own money for it. And the American people are soaking it up and asking for more.

But not Ron Paul. The real reason Ron Paul has been censored and why he has the support he does is because he brings up those basic principles(otherwise known as liberty). And there isn't a single politician out there who will debate him on the level, because once the people see - hey, we don't have to let these people control everything, the game is over. And that is exactly what this "revolution" is about.

It's not just about getting 1 man elected. It's not just about getting certain people into the government. What is needed today is educating the citizens to how a proper government works, and why it is the best system. Because what good would it do if Ron Paul were elected, and the citizens didn't understand things? The fact of the matter is that a person like Ron Paul getting elected is the result, not the real action here. And it's important not to forget that.

As 1 said, the people will not get the best government possible. They will get the government they deserve. And that couldn't be more true today. Because quite frankly, if the American people don't understand Freedom and liberty, then they don't deserve it. And they won't have it either, just as Ben Franklin said over 200 years ago.

There is still 9 months until the election. And that is plenty of time for things to change. This isn't a time for giving up, it's a time for punching through the wall that is present, and showing what you are made of.

So despite all the negative reporting lately, and claims of Ron Paul dropping out. I will still do my best to educate people on proper government and liberty. I have $2300 waiting to send Ron Paul for the general election donations as quickly as I can. And I will be writing Ron Paul in if I have to come election time.

After all, every revolution starts out with defeats. Even our own revolution to found this country started out as such. But it was the people who believed in what they were fighting for who carried on, and others who woke up and joined them rather than just accepting the things being pushed on them. They deserved their freedom and liberty, and they got it. How long until we as Americans deserve it once again?

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." -- Dwight Eisenhower

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill

If they hate us for our freedoms...

2008-01-15T15:45:00.000-08:00

If they hate us for our freedoms, as the bulk of the presidential candidates running will tell you, then are we not surrendering by giving up our civil rights?

Time and time again, I often see the reason for this war and our foreign policy is that they hate us for our freedoms. And at the same time, these same people tell us we need to give up our freedoms. You are suddenly un-American if you don't give up those freedoms?

And since 9/11, we have had the biggest lose in freedom and civil liberties than any point in our history. If we tear down the base of what we stand for, then we have already lost. No wonder we need troops in Iraq for 100 years as John McCain says, they will be over there working for someone else. Because we have already lost this war, and we lost it the moment GWB signed the Patriot Act. And it's not going to stop until the American people wake up and realize this.

Of course, we all know this really isn't the reason so many in the world hate us. But sure, there are a small minority of people in the world who probably do hate us for our freedoms. And it does appear to me that for whatever reason, we are losing those freedoms. But it doesn't seem to be another country that is taking them, we seem to be happy to give them away.

So tell me America, why have we surrendered? Whats really going on here?

The Real Ron Paul on racism

2008-01-13T12:15:00.000-08:00

The man speaks best for himself.

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Ron Paul detractors - who do you support?

2007-11-22T12:58:00.000-08:00

As Ron Pauls popularity has been increasing, so of course are those against him waking up that he is the leader in the republican primaries at this point by the majority of ways to measure, and has recently shown up as the biggest chance to win against a democrat in the latest Zogby blind poll.

Over the course of these hit pieces, I have noticed one common factor among all of them. I never see anyone offered up in response as a better candidate than Ron Paul. The current hit pieces have the theme of "libertarians are leaving Ron Paul". Which I personally find very curious.

Rarely do these articles talk about issues. They all have one major goal in mind, character assassination. Which in my opinion, only goes to point out that this election really is Ron Paul vs the status quo.

Because of course, when you compare Ron Paul, side by side to any other politician running, these so called claims made just don't hold water. As if because you don't agree with him 100%, you suddenly can't vote for him. Obviously there is likely no candidate you can find you agree with 100%.

If you can show me someone I'd rather vote for than Ron Paul, then I'm am all ears. Please, show me the candidate I agree with more, has an established voting record backing it up, has consistent values and can explain their position in detail, and has taken up the fight to returning our foreign policy to what it should be.

Where is this candidate who understands the constitution so much better than Ron Paul? Who is it that doesn't need lawyers to decide for him, and understands that domestic issues on the whole, belong on the state level. Which other candidate understands that the general welfare is defined in the preamble of the constitution as the amendments themselves, and the general welfare clause is what gives congress the power to uphold those amendments.

Because I must say, I have spent the last 7 years looking for this candidate after it was clear GWB wasn't going to hold up to his promises. I had all but given up hope, and Ron Paul, and more importantly, the support he has gotten, has renewed my hope for this country.

So how is it all you that post articles that don't like Ron Paul actually support? And why if you feel so passionate about that candidate, you never mention it? Just because the major media likes to tell you the American people are stupid, doesn't mean it's true. We aren't that dumb, sorry.

Re: Attention you politics-hating coders

2007-08-06T13:53:00.000-07:00

So, taking a break from my norm of talking about the constitution to post a little reply to this article:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2046

I would like to state, that yes I am a programmer, and yes I make my living on the internet. I am also 100% against net neutrality, or any other regulations on the internet.

The big issue the writer of the previous article throws out is CHOICE. Yes, choice. If an ISP were to start charging websites(like the one I work for), then I would have 2 choices. I could go ahead and pay the charge, or I can refuse the charge, and not get traffic from that ISP.

But are those the only choices? Not by a long shot. If an ISP were to stop allowing traffic to certain sites, then their users are not going to be happy. I personally use AT&T(they bought out SBC) for my internet. If AT&T were to introduce such charges, then I the customer will not be allowed to visit sites that don't pay. Thus, I would immediately change to an ISP who didn't do such things.

Likewise, if a website wanted to charge an ISP, then I would simply not go to that site. I seriously doubt any website would do such a thing, as it goes against everything about being an internet based business.

What do government regulations do? They remove that choice. They instead use FORCE to make everyone do something. Under regulations, I will no longer have a choice of using a better ISP, as all ISP's will be made to follow the same rules. Let me be very clear on this - NO THANK YOU.

The author himself starts out saying - money decides things in politics. He even goes to use this as a fault for Ron Paul. Well, given this information, then who do you think this law is for?

So I have looked for a candidate who will leave an OPEN internet, VOID of regulations, and that candidate is Ron Paul. However, that is hardly even close to the real reasons I'll be voting for him.

May I however suggest that you start looking at things beyond the name of a bill. Net Neutrality is about a neutral internet as much as the Patriot Act saved our liberties.

Capitalism vs Corporatism

2007-07-23T02:17:00.000-07:00

While visiting peoples blogs, sites and listening to opinions, I am often faced with people who blame capitalism for todays problems. And why wouldn't they? They've always been told we had a capitalistic market.

But is that really the case? Do we really have capitalism in America? Do we have a free market? In some places, yes we do. The best example would be the internet. Where pretty much everyone is given free reign to do business as they please. Obviously, there are still laws that must be obey'd, such as theft, but is free of government regulations. But that isn't the case for the heavier markets. Those markets are heavily regulated.

Why are these regulations bad? Well for starters, regulations are introduced because they feel someone is doing something bad, or that the possibility for someone to do something bad exists. On the outside, it would appear these regulations help the American people and businesses. However, in reality these regulations punish everyone. Even those companies who would never do anything bad to begin with. And not only that, but most likely the act that would cause the regulation in the first place is probably already illegal. In instances where companies must prove they are obeying the regulations, this assumes that everyone is guilty and they must prove otherwise. This is completely against the ideals this country was founded on. Yet, companies are forced to deal with these all the time.

And now that the government is involved in these industries, in come the lobbyist. Big corporations with alot of money are able to persuade politicians into passing laws and regulations that help their business. These are added as little pieces to bills, and by adding them congress is able to get votes on bills and makes changes that otherwise would never fly. Of course, the smaller companies of the industry are rarely represented. A recent well known case of this is the internet gambling law. Clearly not a law the American people wanted.

But that happens with just regulation, what happens when government is really involved with an industry? Such as healthcare, education, etc. Now you have companies who will use lobbyists to get government contracts. Because getting those contracts guarantees you business, funding and customers. And these companies waste money like crazy, and charge the full amount they can for everything. Haliburton was a good example of a company who has been abusing the American taxpayer. Meanwhile, other companies who could perhaps do the job on smaller levels or who don't have good ties are never given a chance. This is passed off as a "free market" or capitalism.

That however just isn't the truth, and goes completely against the definition of a free market and capitalism. When corporations are using money and influence to pass laws, regulate the markets as they see fit and other things, that is corporatism. Some people call it fascism, but I personally believe corporatism is better way to describe it.

So for anyone who says we have a free market and that it doesn't work is wrong. When we had a free market, our economy was thriving. You are right when you say the current system isn't working, but it's corporatism, not capitalism which has lead to the problems and corruption of today.

What limits the 2nd amendment?

2007-07-17T19:48:00.000-07:00

So a popular discussion is the 2nd amendment, and what defines the limits. It's original purpose was to defend yourself, and I still believe in that today. But where do we draw the line on what is suitable and what is just a bit overboard? After all, citizens running around with nukes isn't a good thing no matter how you want to spin it.

For most, they seem to think it's just what the majority of people deem is ok, even if that means none at all. That is a total violation of the 2nd amendment. So what defines that is property and individual rights. You can't have a nuke, because you could never set it off without infringing on the property rights of millions of people. It goes way beyond the realm of self defense, hunting or anything other than straight warfare. This would apply to many explosive weapons, they would all infringe on other peoples properties, even with just sound waves alone.

But do rifles and such do this? The answer is no. They do not automatically infringe on property rights of other people. And yes, they are for self protection. The immediate comment is, how can you let people run around with these? My answer is, have you looked around, if they are a criminal, they aren't paying attention to the laws. We've all heard it before, it only takes them out of law abiding citizens, the ones who have legitimate reasons to have them in the first place. Which is worse, 30 citizens with automatic weapons, and 1 criminal with one, or 30 unarmed citizens with 1 criminal armed with even just a couple of pistols? Who are you really helping here? Unfortunately, that has been answered too many times in slaughters in our schools. I'm certainly not saying kids need to bring weapons to schools, just that it is an example of what could happen anywhere if all law abiding citizens give up their weapons.

So does that mean people will be walking the streets with these things? I highly doubt it. What is to stop them? You. Private businesses who own their property, also have every right not to allow them on their property. Pretty much every business is not going to allow it. And if they do, you can let them know you will not give them business as long as they allow it.

Statistics keep showing over time that areas that have the strictest gun laws carry the highest amount of gun related crimes. Because the victim is less likely to be able to defend themselves. In places that allow concealed weapons, the crime rate is much lower. Because there is a much higher chance the victim is able to defend themselves.

If we could rid the world of guns tomorrow I'd be in favor of it. But that just isn't realistic. They are here to stay, the only thing we can reduce is their effectiveness, and the less people who have them, the more effective they are.

Adding social programs the constitutional way - amendments

2007-07-09T03:05:00.000-07:00

So previously I explained how the abuse of the general welfare clause was bad for all Americans. I also explained why those who say the current social programs are unconstitutional are right. So now, this is where republicans start to hate me. Because I'm going to tell you how to do them constitutionally.

So, now we know that the general welfare clause is actually what gives power for congress to protect our rights. So in a limited government, in order to add to that power, you need an amendment! Once you add an amendment, then congress has the authority to do things, under the general welfare clause. But it gets better, aside from just being constitutional, it will actually better fit your goals.

Because if you add it as an amendment, then it is added as a RIGHT for all citizens, not just citizens represented by special interests groups, not citizens who will vote for them because they receive them. Because it will go to EVERYONE EQUALLY. And, in doing so, you've only given congress to do the 1 thing you actually wanted to do, not a broad open door to do whatever they want to do. Immediately, our governments role in our lives and in our pockets will be reduced to only the things we exactly want, nothing more.

Passing an amendment is much harder. It requires 2/3's majority in the senate. This is where it takes out partisan politics. As instead of issues being decided on near 50/50 issues, where the American people are basically yo-yo'd around depending no what swing state voted in who, it will require an overwhelming amount of majority to pass things. And once passed, it is then a right for all people, and all people will be treated equally. And that is the main goal of most people who are in favor of socialized programs.

And candidate or politician who isn't trying to pass amendments on social issues, is just looking out for special interest groups and lobbyists. Because they clearly have a better way, and yet they just ignore it, and continue to serve special interest groups and lobbyists.

I personally think these social programs are a bad idea on a federal level, and that they could be handled on the state level much better. IMO, 50 states doing their own programs allows for more creativity, and leaves the other states to adopt their practices when it works, and not be punished by bad ideas another state drops. With the federal government, we are reduced to 1 program, which is only adjusted every 4-8 years and everyone is made to pay for mistakes, while new ideas can't be tried as easily. But at least if amendments were passed, everyone would be treated equally, and we wouldn't have to accept the extra stuff nobody really wants.

I think if this were to happen, education would have a pretty high chance of having an amendment. The big change with this would be that rather than funding being done by the community, all schools would be funded equally. I am personally against this for the above reason, but I think it would have the highest chance of being passed since even some republicans like it. I think how well it did would have an affect on things such as healthcares chances, which would only be around 50% support right now.

So that is how our government is supposed to work, and will hopefully work 1 day again. You'll see that you have more control over the government this way, and it is forced to treat people equally. I think this is something both republicans and democrats can understand, and hopefully we can work together to return to this in the future. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has shown he will get both the republican party, and the democrat parties on the right track.

A government of limited rights, or a limited government?

2007-07-09T02:50:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in my previous post, the abuse of the general welfare clause is a direct violation of our 10th amendment. So why is that bad, you still have free speech right?

Well, it is the 10th amendment which limits the powers of the government. This is a right most people don't even really know exists, and why would they since it isn't given.

As long as this amendment is ignored, and the general welfare clause is allowed to be abused, then we will continue to live under a government of limited rights, rather than a limited government. Because any issue than can be spun for the good of the people, can be construed as the "general welfare".

A fast food tax, which charges people extra money for fast food can be spun to be in the best interest of the people. As it influences them with money to eat better. But is that something Americans really want? Are the many other programs and departments created what they really want? In most cases, no it isn't.

Most republicans and independents who aren't in favor of the social programs automatically subscribe to likely the constitution, because they can see that the social programs are unconstitutional, and they currently are. Most democrats who are in favor of social programs will often site the general welfare clause as what makes it constitutional, without realizing that at the same time, their own broad general use of the term just allows for many things they don't like, and allows for other special interest groups to abuse the term for things they want. This is the major contributer of corruption in our government.

So how do you add those few social programs some americans do like, without abusing the general welfare clause that allows all those other bad things? By using the part of the constitution we are allowed to edit or amend - the amendments!

Abusing the general welfare clause.

2007-07-09T02:22:00.000-07:00

So exactly what is the general welfare clause? The general welfare clause, is a clause in the articles of the constitution, that is manipulated to create all the social problems we have today.

The general welfare clause is located in Article 1, Section 8.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

You'll notice it says to provide for the general welfare. That is the general welfare clause. So, exactly what were the founding fathers referring to? Today, it is a broad term used for just about anything the politician can spin as being good for the people. From welfare, healthcare, education to numerous growing list of government departments. But did the founding fathers really leave such a big broad general word for us? It seems it goes against the theory of limited government as they can, and do, just about anything. Doesn't sound like limited government to me, does it to you?

However, if you look across the constitution, you'll find that term 1 other place. That place is in the preamble. The preamble of the constitution is the start of it, and describes the general purpose of the constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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."

So, right here it says that the purpose of atleast part of the constitution was to promote the general welfare. So, what part is it referring to? The part where it says it is to provide the general welfare, where it is today used as undefined? Hardly. The part of the constitution which defines the general welfare are the amendments themselves. And the general welfare clause of the articles, is defined, and it is where congress is given the power to ensure our defined rights are not trampled on.

So, what part of the constitution limits the federal governments ability to expand the general welfare clause beyond the amendments? This is right guaranteed by the 10th amendment, part of our Bill of Rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

It is a direct violation of every citizens bill of rights - republican, democrat, and independent for congress to abuse the general welfare clause to remove the limits put on them. It is the violation of our 10th amendment right that has lead to our problems today. Reinstating the 10th amendment is the 1st step to returning our country to it's greatness. In future posts, I will explain how social programs can still exist.

My first blog

2007-07-09T02:10:00.000-07:00

So, this is my first blog post ever. The purpose of this blog, is to show that the current abuse of the general welfare clause in our constitution is the main reason for our current social problems. And that both democrats and republicans can achieve their goals constitutionally, and it will even achieve those goals better than the current way.

I will be up front and honest. I am a Ron Paul supporter. I was a Ron Paul supporter before I even know who he was, because I am a supporter of the constitution, and I have studied how it was designed. I am in not in favor of socialized programs such as health care, welfare, education, and I can explain why I think they are not the best solution. However, I will still show you how those things can be applied using the constitution, and how using the constitution properly will end things such as partisanship, special interests groups, and lobbyists and treat all citizens equally.

It is for these reasons, that I think Ron Paul will make the best president, for both democrats and republicans. Because no matter what you think governments role should be, there are procedures and rules laid out on how they should be done, and it is the abuse of the general welfare clause that has allowed these things to happen.