I'm getting really sick and tired of the harrassment of people sharing their opinions about Barack Hussein Obama. R Lee Ermey issued an apology after his comments about B.H.O. which basically consisted of - Obama is trying to implement socialism in America which is destroying it. I understand Gunney feeling the need to apologize only in the consideration that the event was not the correct venue for sharing such opinions - it was a toys for tots fundraiser. Other than that his comments do not necessitate an apology - it's an opinion. Why isn't Matt Damon harrassed to the point of public apology for all of his asenine comments? Or any other celebretard for that matter.... And then there's UFC Fighter Jacob Volkman who said he'd like to fight Obama in the ring, and recieves a visit from the Secret Service!?! How much money was wasted flying the Secret Service to Minnesota, per diem, putting 'em up in a hotel, so they could question Volkman about comments he did not deny making?! Come on, this is ridiculous. We're precipitating into a pre-WWII Germany, with Gestapo and SS (not the secret service) harrassing citizens for disparaging comments about the nation's leader.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AkPS94eW5I.6m1uc2HBwXPFzfNdF?slug=mmaweekly-b0eb628c4e352ae5a67151dca2a17281
I have actually seen Volkmann's interview with Ariel Helwani on YouTube. Those comments were made in a joking fashion and were not actually made during the ppv broadcast, but afterwards backstage. Hearing about the whole FBI incident is just ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteThere is far too much government harassment of citizens who disagree with the government - on both the left and the right. No matter how inane the comments may be, as long as an individual or group is not calling for violence against the President or other elected officials or the violent overthrow of the government, then they should be left alone by the FBI, Homeland Security and the rest of the police state apparatus.
ReplyDeleteWell said Charles. It's fun when we agree.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately in Arizona yesterday we saw one consequence of the increasingly violence in our society today. We are a nation that celebrates violence in our entertainment, uses violence to enforce our political will on others, and employs the imagery of violence in our political rhetoric. Like every society we have our share of deranged persons, but when we provide fodder for their violent fantasies and make it simple for them to acquire powerful weapons we put not only our politicians but our freedom and the entire republic at risk.
ReplyDeleteIt's time to tone down the rhetoric and treat one another with respect and decency even when we disagree. It's also time to realize that we can and should exercise care and judgment in determining which citizens should be permitted to own firearms and purchase ammunition. Those with a history of criminal activity or mental illness or who have no rational need for a weapon should be prohibited from having one. We can certainly do that without impinging on the ability of normal, law-abiding citizens to enjoy the benefits of gun ownership.
The republic has been put at risk by the implementation of socialist policies. I condemn what that shooter did in Arizona and as a former Az resident he is one of the reasons that I carry a concealed weapon, because you never know where or when such a thing might take place and I prefer to be prepared to counteract such a threat. I would like to know Charles, where or how did we make it, "simple for them to acquire powerful weapons?" By definition a criminal is someone who does not abide the law, so how does increasing laws pertaining to the acquisition of weapons prevent criminals from obtaining them? All it does is restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. As the current law stands a person with a history of criminal activity or mental illness may not obtain a weapon, indeed they are prohibited from the posession of a weapon. Unfortunately one of the drawbacks to freedom is a decrease in security, case in point TSA. The stricter the security the less freedom. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteGWH, unfortunately (in my opinion) the republic has not implemented any socialist policies and there is little likelihood that they will. The government has instituted all manner of policies that I find repulsive, but that is no excuse for anyone to take up arms and shoot innocent people (or guilty ones for that matter) in a shopping center.
ReplyDeleteWe will discover soon enough where this kid got his weapons, but is there any possible rational reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic weapon of any kind? There is no reason why someone who actually needs a weapon for some legitimate purpose could not wait a sufficient time and pay a sufficient fee to permit the authorities to determine with certainty whether he or she should have one. Is this kid a hunter? I doubt it and the weapon he used is inappropriate for the purpose. Is he a collector? I doubt it. Is he some lame-brained jerk who wants a gun so he can pretend to be a tough guy? Probably.
Welfare is a socialist policy. Medicaid is a socialist policy. Social Security is a socialist policy. Funny enough all are nearing financial breakdown....so strange how that is...anyway that's a topic for another discussion. Point being, our country is struggling today because of a slow decline towards socialism and we need an American Sarkozy to try to wake Americans up to the reality that socialism does not work. The Healthcare thing has already been hashed over and I would agree with you that while being labeled socialist it is merely a pandering to Insurance companies and something else entirely - namely corruption. I agree with you that there is NO excuse to take up arms and shoot innocent people. Where I differ in my opinion is that if we carried your opinion of "or guilty ones for that matter" into practice, then there would be no republic of which to speak. The British were guilty of a number of grievances and were it not for the American Revolutionaries we would still be a British colony. (Not a good thing) So on to the next topic of your comment - "is there any possible rational reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic weapon of any kind?" Answer - yes. Why? As a last resort and final "check and balance" to oppressive governance. This was the intent of the founding father's for implementing the 2nd ammendment. Furthermore the fact that as the 2nd ammendment it is only preceded by free speech speaks to the importance that the Founding Father's esteemed the right to bear arms to be. I suspect that you have never fired a weapon. Have you ever held a gun? Can you tell me what a "semi-automatic" weapon is and what makes it semi-automatic? Currently you do have to wait a sufficient amout of time, and do pay a fee allowing the store to call the FBI to make sure you are not a criminal, have no mental illness, are not on a watch list, and are cleared to legally posess a firearm. So what can we agree on? - that that guy was some lame brained jerk who wants a gun so he can pretend to be a tough guy, absolutely! -GWH-
ReplyDeleteIf you think that owning a few guns will provide a check and balance to oppressive government, you are deluded or have a death wish. The 2nd amendment was designed to support citizen militias as a viable alternative to the standing armies that the founders believed would become an invitation to tyranny. Since there is no way we are about to disband our standing army, the reason for the 2nd amendment no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteAs for socialism, you have it confused with liberalism or with crony capitalism (the bailouts). A socialist policy would be nationalization of health care delivery and nationalization of the banks and a government pension system that was sufficient to live on.
Crony Capitalism....Socialism.... Potato...potato...
ReplyDeleteLets face it, this last health care bill included a health care plan from the government. The Vets in this country already function under a socialized medical system, have for years. That system sucks. It is failing in this country and it is failing the people who have fought to defend this country. If it does work for them, it is not going to work for everyone.
No matter how you mask it, the outcome is the same. If the government regulates anything to the degree that they control the means to production indirectly, it is the same as socialism where they control it more directly.
What I don't understand Charles is how you can be for a system where the government runs everything, pays for everything, and then turn around and say you don't want a system where the government oppresses the voice of the people? If the government is the center of all our means of expression, they control that voice. If the newspapers are government run, that voice is limited to the government voice. If we don't want the "brand" of health care that the government offers, but there are no other options, then I have no voice in health care.
We express ourselves through our decisions. These decisions include who we patron, who we support with our purchases, and in choosing an option contrary to another option. If there is no other option, then there is no voice.
The collective voice of millions of armed citizens does indeed act as a check and a balance to oppression. It also acts as a check and balance to invasion - as in the case of Yamamoto who was the supreme commander of Japanese forces in WWII and was asked why he didn't follow up the attack on Pearl Harbor with an invasion, to which he answered essentially that to do so was a deathwish because in America there was an armed citizen behind every blade of grass. He studied at an American university prior to WWII.... Anyways, to your point that the intention was for citizen militias and is therefore no longer valid - What is a citizen militia? What was it then? It was a collection of armed citizens. The bottom line was that the Founding Father's wanted weapons in the hands of citizens as a final and last check and balance to tyranny. How does socialism function? It takes from one and distributes to another. Where does freedom fit in? Socialism and freedom are like oil and water. I'll take freedom. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteWell, James I never said I wanted our current government to run everything. Unless and until "we the people" can retake our government from its corporate masters, there's no reason to give it any more power over anything.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be advocating a sort of consumer-driven politics. I make purchasing decisions so therefore I am free. It sounds good, but the problem is that a politics based on consumption is a politics based on money. You have exactly as much freedom as you can afford, no more. You want options and a choice in health care and if you have enough money you can have those options, if not then you not only have no options but no care either. We cannot simply express our freedom by making decisions between options others have selected for us, or by buying or failing to buy commodities in the marketplace. That isn't freedom at all.
As for GWH and the citizen militia. The idea of the founders was that a standing army controlled by the executive was a threat to their freedom (an idea that had been a strong current in British politics for a hundred years before our revolution). They wanted to avoid a standing army by insuring there would be a citizen militia, not so that the citizens could rise up against tyranny but so that the executive would be unable or unlikely to setup a standing army in peacetime that would permit tyranny. Besides, the founders talked about a "well-regulated militia" not a free for all where any jackass could go buy a weapon more deadly than any that existed in 1787 on a whim.
If you are not free to demand and expect that your government provide for the common welfare then you are not free. All government takes from some and distributes to others, the question is one of priorities. Our government takes from the middle class and working classes and hands it over to the corporations and the rich who then destroy the economy, engage in endless wars, and make ordinary people pay for needed services. That's not freedom either.
Go read the constitution and bill of rights then we'll continue the discussion. It states nowhere in there that the government's role is to "provide for the common welfare" the only thing that comes close and in my opinion is nowhere close to that connotation at all is the clause "promote the general welfare". -GWH-
ReplyDeleteI've read the constitution and am aware that it is an outdated document in desperate need of replacement. The structure it created is unequal to the task of fulfilling the objectives outlined in its preamble. There is however, nothing in it that precludes the government from providing anything.
ReplyDeleteWould you like to revise that statement? "The Constitution is an outdated document in desperate need of replacement" - What does the word Constitution mean? - A nation or state's fundamental set of laws. Most nations with constitutions have them in written form, such as the United States Constitution. The constitution of Britain, by contrast, is an informal set of traditions, based on several different laws.
ReplyDeleteThe American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Would you have us rely on an informal set of traditions Charles? Do you believe that you are more intelligent than the Founding Fathers? I believe there is no one today politically as intelligent or as benevolent as those men who crafted our Constitution. I would even go so far as to say that the Constitution is a holy document and it's contents sacred. The brightest minds came together to organize a nation the likes of which had never existed in the history of the world, and look at the results of what they created. A wealthy, powerful, nation like nowhere else on earth. I love to travel, I love to experience other cultures and visit diverse parts of the world, it is a special experience to return home to the United States because it is special. America is what it is because of it's Constitution. It is a foundational document off of which all other laws have been created. It outlines the rights of the individual and the limitations of it's government. To say that it is an outdated document that needs to be replaced is offensive. Nevertheless it is your opinion, so please do share what specifically within the U.S. Constitution you feel you would like to have replaced. -GWH-
We can and should do exactly what the Founders did - hold a Constitutional Convention and write a new Constitution for the country. They didn't see a choice between the Articles of Confederation and chaos, they weren't afraid to admit that the Articles were inadequate and to replace them. They didn't consider the Articles to be sacred and certainly didn't think their own effort, the Constitution, was sacred. It's not a scripture and American politics is not a religion.
ReplyDeleteAs for what I would like replaced, let's start with the obvious fact that the structure of government they created has proven to be inadequate to maintain our freedom and fulfill the noble objectives of the Preamble. Specifically, I would suggest we abolish the Electoral College and the Senate since they are anti-democratic and subvert the will of the people. I would favor some limitation to the terms of Supreme Court justices and provide a method by which legislation that is of questionable constitutionality can be brought directly before the Court before it becomes law. I would want to set a definite relationship between the number of citizens and the number of representatives in the congress and not have situations where some districts have almost twice as many citizens as others. I would want a clear definition of a citizen that is restricted to human beings, not corporations.
Most of all, I believe we need to come together as a nation and find a way to govern ourselves and preserve our liberties. We cannot continue as a corrupt empire with a Constitution heavily biased toward propertied interests which today means corporations, that ignores the will and the needs of the majority of the people. Our basic freedoms are not being preserved by the Constitutional government. Our rights of free speech, press, due process, habeas corpus, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures have been under attack by our government for decades and the current structure of government is providing no recourse for us. It's time we had the guts to change it the way Jefferson, Madison and the others did when faced with the same problem over 220 years ago.
Charles, I like the challenge that you bring to the discussions on this blog, and I agree with you more than you might think. However, I can't find common ground with you on this one. I revere the Constitution and I find it more than adequate to meet the needs of this nation, and believe that if the principles it espouses were adhered to it would exist as a timeless document to guide the nation. Unfortunately people today are not as principled as they were during the Founding Father's time, that and there are many in this nation that are no longer God fearing people. I cannot think of a single person let alone an entire group of people that could today get together and draft anything remotely close to accomplishing what the Constition accomplished since it's drafting. I think the Senate is necessary because it equalizes the playing field for people who may have a marginalized voice by giving 2 Senators representing each state regardless of population it acts as a counter-balance to the rule of the majority. While I tend to agree with the concept of majority rule, I think having a Senate tempers that effect, or at least that's what it was intended to do. I am pessimistic and skeptical of all our Congressional leaders because I like you think they have been bought and paid for by private companies pursuing legislation to collude in furthering their business interests. The electoral college is antequated and an inhibitor of freedom - but what was it's original intention? From usgovinfo.about.com the electoral college was originally intended as an insulator to the ignorance to political proceedings of the lay citizen:
ReplyDeleteTyranny of the Majority
To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.
Preserving Federalism
The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.
Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.
So in concept I don't necessarily disagree with this either, there was wisdom behind this decision to include an electoral college in the U.S. Constitution. Things are no different today - designing men lead mass media outlets swaying the public's opinion without really educating and informing much of the public. Anyways, I'm just trying to point out that there were wise reasons behind why the Founding Father's drafted what they did into the Constitution. Out of curiosity who would you select to draft a new U.S. constitution?
-GWH-
The Constitution of the United States is a fluid document. There is no need for a constitutional convention because the foundation is laid in the most effective way to allow for the PEOPLE to make changes where needed. However, the big problem is that we as a nation have strayed from the constitution. The constitution established a country that was guided by the rule of law. Lately, because the government has turned into a government run by regulations, red tape, and essentially have regulated our nations economies to the degree than we are in effect more socialist than we are what this country was designed to be, the system is not working.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the system is not working not because the constitution is wrong, it is because we no longer use it as a guide. The only reason anyone thinks the constitution needs to be replaced is if they hate freedom, they hate a society governed by the rule of law, or in other words, they are afraid of freedom. Fear of freedom breeds distrust of the countries citizens and therefore opens the door to regulations and a life of compulsion by the government to its citizens in order to quell certain fears. The constitution was designed to protect freedoms that are not available anywhere else on the planet earth. As far as I see it, the constitution is not at fault here. The fault lies with the people who falsely swore an oath to uphold and defend that constitution.... not change and defile it.
Charles, you may have read the constitution but you have misinterpreted it. To abolish the senate is folly when under the idea that it abolishes freedoms of the constitution and does not promote democracy. THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DEMOCRACY - IT IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. In order for that system to operate, it needs representatives - the Senate being representatives of the state to the federal government. That role changed with - you guessed it - a change to the constitution that screwed up the system as it was designed.
Look, if you feel the constitution is so terrible, why live here? Why not go to a society and place that fits more to what you want. Just out of curiosity, if America is so stupid, what country would you rather live in? In the Mind of Charles D, what country fits you closest?
James, I think you'll find that the US Constitution is extremely difficult to amend compared to other modern constitutions. I agree that the government has strayed from the Constitutional ideal, but I fail to see how we will get it back on track. It is because I love freedom and the rule of law that I want a Constitution that makes it possible for us to get the nation back on track. We cannot do so while a minority (and a corrupt one) control the levers of power. As for amendment, when was the last substantive change to the Constitution made by amendment? The last 8 are minor tweaks more procedural in nature. When you look at the amendment process, it is not possible to imagine that we could make a substantive change to the Constitution given today's political situation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems we need to reconsider is that of the role of states. When the Constitution was written, the delegates were representing 13 rather independent states and without the assent of all 13 to the resulting document, the entire US was in danger of collapse. Therefore many compromises were made to insure that the "rights" of specific states (particularly those involving slavery) were respected and protected. Today that situation no longer exists. We ought to think about the role of states and realize that the Senate and Electoral College are neither democratic nor representative. Why should Wyoming have equal voice to California in the Senate? What purpose is served by that?
I find it troubling that so many on the right fall so easily into the "love it or leave it" mentality. That, like name calling, is little more than a cover for lack of rational argument. You certainly don't like everything the government does, so why should I? The difference is that I don't worship the constitution or consider America to be some kind of chosen nation that is exceptional beyond all others, nor do I believe our founding fathers were taking dictation from God. I realize that as a nation we have flaws and have always had flaws as well as great accomplishments. We are a nation of humans, founded by humans and with all the mix of good and evil that is found in all human endeavors.
What I want is to make this nation better, to insure that is does not become a police state, to make our government responsive to the citizens instead of the corporations, to get us out of the militaristic empire business so we can restore and protect our personal liberties, and to insure the blessings of liberty for our posterity.
There absolutely is purpose in California and Wyoming approaching debate on equal terms in the Senate - as mentioned yesterday it tempers the rule of majority. If it were the Senate alone then it would not work, but the Senate is counter balanced by the voice of the majority through the House of Representatives. I do believe in American Exceptionalism and I feel blessed beyond words to have had the opportunity to have been born within its' borders. That said, with that great blessing comes the responsibility to not wield our freedom as a weapon against other nations to topple their regimes irrespective of their history, culture, and own desire to be governed as the wish. I never said the Founding Father's took dication from God, however it is my opinion and express belief that their minds were inspired by God with wisdom in the form in wich they created the first government of the United States. How do you propose that through pure socialism a nation can avoid becoming more of a police state than it is through "crony capitalism" - people are no more benevolent through a socialist system than they are at any other time, in fact I would argue they are less so because socialism requires redistribution of resources and compulsion. Human nature is self interested and greedy, and Adam Smith's invisible hand guides that greed toward societally beneficial outcomes - freedom being the key. If it's not corporations that are greedy than it would be the very government itself. Government consists of citizens, and one of the aspects of early wisdom in my opinion was that through the representation method of governing, it kept local officials accountable to their constituents because a governor lives in the state in which he or she governs, as do the local legislators. Having a strong federal government at the expence of state autonomy removes and distances that accountability of local leaders to their constituents. Then we see politicians who live in D.C. are career politicans and feel no allegience to their neighbors from their respective hometowns and states. -GWH-
ReplyDeleteTempers the rule of the majority? By giving a minority power over the majority? What possible good does that serve in today's America?
ReplyDeleteHuman nature is self interested and greedy sometimes, and sometimes it is altruistic and generous to a fault. The "invisible hand" has nothing to do with making people more or less greedy or directing greed in any useful direction. We also have to realize that a corporation, unlike a human, is not going to put aside its self-interest and profit motive to act in a selfless and altruistic or moral way toward others. An executive who made such a decision would be falling from his golden parachute not longer after.
I agree with you about local autonomy to an extent, but we don't need to give the states equal representation in Washington to preserve the accountability of local government. The choice about what level of government should address which problems ought to be made based on efficiency and effectiveness not on some interpretation of a 200 year old document. We certainly aren't going to get more accountable leaders in DC by making the system that selects them less democratic.