Now, for the moment, I won’t bring up the fact that Conyers, if I’m not mistaken, is a lawyer because that doesn’t make what I’m about to say any less valid.

The real issue lies in the complication of the law that has become the trend of our political generation. This is something that our Founding Fathers did, indeed, warn us against. From The 5,000 Year Leap:

“The Founders were sensitive to the fact that the people have confidence in the law only to the extent that they can understand it and feel that it is a rule of relative permanence which will not be continually changed.”

This is essentially making the case that if a law is to complicated, convoluted, or “masked in form” by its language, that it is, then, a “broken” law. This follows the case that I am about to make—that the only rights you have are the ones which you understand.
To continue, James Madison argued the following:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

So do you agree with Conyer’s argument that, it would be impossible to understand this bill for the average person because it’s “just that good”, or do you agree with Madison who said a bill so difficult to the understanding of the average man does him no good?
Therefore, the argument that I put forth is this, to restate: The only rights that you truly have are the ones which you understand. This doesn’t mean that you are barred from other rights. It simply means that you must be ready to act upon and/or defend your rights in order to have them. Otherwise what good is a right which is not vigorously defended or understood? To understand a right is to exercise that right.
Allow me to put it another way: Say you go to court for whatever reason. Now, it is within your power to defend yourself without an attorney. But this is the rare exception, rather than the rule. Why? Nearly everyone hires an attorney to act in their behalf. Is this because those without an attorney have less rights that those with one. No. It does, however, mean that the average person’s understanding in the rule of law is limited. Therefore, rights not understood can become rights no longer held. The attorney, then, who has a greater understanding of the law, is able to give you greater rights. But in the case of the Healthcare Bill, an attorney is no longer our representative. It is our representative, or those whom we have voted into office. But if they are now saying, “Who can understand every bill?” then are we now losing our rights, because there are no way of understanding them, anymore? Maybe, and I mean “just maybe”, we should begin simplifying the bills to, say, less than 1,000 pages. And maybe make them easy enough to the understanding that our representatives can read them.
“So why do they make them so complicated. The world’s just that complicated anymore I guess.” I reject this mode of thinking. I believe that there is a more deliberate mode of thought behind this unnecessary complication of things. It has been my experience that when a person has no interest in helping you, that he/she will talk over your head, intentionally present their case in a convoluted fashion, and go on and on in such a manner that you become lost rather quickly. A person who does this usually has within their intentions the goal of getting the upper hand, either to show how intelligent they are and make you feel “small”, or more sinister, their desire is to confuse you so as to distract you from what they are about to do. And nothing to my mind, feels or appears straightforward about this Healthcare Bill. But please, pay attention: it is not just healthcare; consistently the bills coming out of congress of late have been similarly administered—large bills full of speech which only a lawyer could understand. Now, it may be that the subject matter is just that complicated. It may be. But my common sense tells me that it isn’t that difficult to come up with a solution for healthcare reform which handles the crippling costs and other issues surrounding it.

The Great American Experiment

The Founding Fathers of this nation foresaw for this nation something unique to the world’s history. Similar things had been tried before, from a true democracy to varying degrees of the republic idea. But these were small pockets in a world otherwise ruled by Kings and centralized powers. The founding fathers, however, felt that if the people governed themselves, that they would choose the good more often than the bad. Above all, they saw the evils heaped upon nations who were ruled by irresponsible, tyrannical, and otherwhise vicious leaders under the supreme rule of a king or monarch.
This would not do.
They believed that a people was intended by their Creator to be free, and that for a supreme government to force its citizens to do as it saw fit was unjust, corruptible, and ultimately, immoral.
Keep in mind that they had just come from a Monarch; the only government that they had ever known. The notion of letting your fellow citizens make their own choices around you was a lifestyle most alien to them. What if what they tried fell apart? What if the people ran towards anarchy? There was no evidence that their “experiment” would work. Quite the contrary: similar systems had been tried and failed—throughout history. Was this better than having a king? Couldn’t they just have a better king that the one that they had just left? The answer: “no king had ever led a nation to be just.”
So, they set out to make a nation of laws. Governed by the people, with representatives chosen by them to be agents on their behalf–a uniquely original republic. There was to be three branches, not one, to keep the others in check. This would protect the international interests of the nation, grant representational law to the people, and protect the laws that they had already established. Their idea was to limit the power of their government, even control it—if you will—while maintaining the premise that the people could govern themselves. Laws would be put in place mainly to defend the rights of one from interfering with the rights of another. The people would then be free to pursue their own happiness.

The Great American Experiment was a success. It was not without its trials, but ultimately it held together. Just as the idea was unique, so was the nation that came out of it. No other nation has seen the kind of success and history that this one has.

Utopia

The perfect society: sounds wonderful. It may be . . . until viewed through the lens of what is required to reach it. Utopia is the notion that a perfect state can be reached in this life, not just in the next. It requires that all eventually comply with the system. It expects you to accept that, in the long run, it will be better for all; you simply have to accept it. Utopians beleive that nothing is more important than the collective succeeding; a society perfect in all ways. There’s just one problem: Who’s idea of “perfection” are we subscribing to? Are blacks unclean? Are whites too oppresive and immoral? Does mental handicaps, disease, or age obsolete this perfect society? Are those who don’t see as you do too incompetent, to belong here any more? The problem with the Utopian mode of thought is that if you’re in their way, then Utopia will fail and, therefore, you must somehow be “neutralized”. There is no room for imperfection. By definition, “imperfection” destroys the Utopian concept entirely.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, “Yeah, but you’re speaking in absolutes.” You have to understand that this is how Utopians think. Deviation is simply “unacceptible”.
The reality is society will never be perfect. This is to say nothing of agency. What about your choice to participate or not? One thing that must be understood about Utopians is that they’re the ones who have the vision: Of what could be; of the final end game. If you don’t accept what they’re proposing, then the problem is with you. You are not sophisticated enough to recognize what’s best for you. There NEVER is a middle ground. The very ideas which they cling to “requires” absolutism. Otherwise, perfection will have failed. So, even if their concept of perfection is noble or arguably valiant, the very idea is flawed, because too many integers exist in the race of man. This “is” an imperfect world. It’s intended to be. What’s unique is my perception of imperfection and yours can be two different things. And what is perceived as different or misunderstood, can evolve. Enlightenment is the very definition of change. This process does not ask Utopia’s opinion first before moving on.

That’s what is so great about the Founder’s system: We can coexist. If you see the virtues in, say, Bhuddism or other Eastern ideas, and you wish to pursue them—you are free to do so. If you “evolve,” and turn to Christianity or other faiths, that is your perogative. But under the Utopian concept, there is no room for tolerance. One must comply to “perfection”. So ask yourself: is Buddhism in or out? Is it corruptible and against Christianity? Or does it contain beauty of form, harmonious teachings regarding respect for your fellow man, respect for the earth and the nature of things. Does Christianity contain too violent a past to be maintained or tolerated?
And what if all religion is deemed by Utopians as being simply silly superstition? Does the perfect Utopian society get rid of it althogether? Or for atheists, what happens when Utopia adopts the “perfect” religion? Does that mean that people like you are obsolete?
It doesn’t just have to be religion. What about business ownership, degree of accepted prosperity, or quality of life? When is society no longer required to sustain your life? Can you be too old, too handicapped, or too expensive to maintain? You may say to yourself that these are not for society to decide; that these should be personal choices. But then you’re not thinking as a Utopian. In Utopia, it is for society to decide, on behalf of the collective whole.

The last thing you have to ask yourself is, “Where are we heading now?” Are these the only two choices: “The Great American Experiment” and “Utopia”? This battle is not new. It is very old, actually. Either there is free agency with individuals, choosing for themselves; or there is the entire group being led to their salvation—with or without their consent. These cannot coexist.

I know where we are heading: and it is not for further personal freedom. Rights come with a price. There are too many who would see them taken away. We must fight. Don’t give in to the opposition’s voice because “it’s just so much louder” than yours. I know where the current administration would have us go. Nancy Palosi has said of the Healthcare Bill, “We must pass healthcare, so that people can finally see all the wonderful things that are in there.” Do you understand what she’s saying? This is Utopian speak. It’s a way of saying: “It’s not up to you, really, because you don’t understand. We’ll decide, and then you’ll see . . . you’ll see. Leave it to us.”
Obama’s own words have stated, “My salvation is dependent on the success of everyone else.” He’s stated this philosophy on more than one occasion. He believes as a Utopian does: Nothing is done without all going together.

I was also going to discuss the “State of the Union” address, but I have decided to wait. What I did decide on was a brief little essay entitled, “The Great American Experiment VS. Utopia”. Watch for it in the coming days. It will lay out for you the forces we’re dealing with in today’s turbulent governmental seas.

I know time is drawing short, but every voice counts. If not in stopping it, at least in giving yourself that sense of “doing my part” and making yourself involved. This country was built on doers, not complainers, or those who said “what’s the use”?

The actual vote in the Senate is said to take place at 7am, December 24th.

At this point, the only advice that I can give is: America! Don’t forget. Don’t fall pray to short-term memories. Accountability is crucial in matters of government. When elections come, sound your voice. Make your vote count.

The following is a video of my senator, Senator Crapo, going to bat for the people of Idaho. In addition, he has spearheaded a petition against the passing of this Healthcare Reform, as he mentions in the video:

Today we celebrate Veteran’s Day, even as we wait on the President to make a decisive decision on troop deployment in Afghanistan. It seems that he feels that taking our time to “make a prudent decision” is the correct course of action rather than acting too rashly . . . uh, we’re still waiting. And yet Health Care must happen now, now, now! Even with a 1,000 page bill before the Senate (I forget what the actual page count is on the House Bill, at the moment; but It’s not small). They only get a few days to read it, and then they must act swiftly: “Pay no mind to read it and understand everything. It simply has to happen” [rhetorical quotation] (what must be noted are the various other things, not neccessarilly related to Health Care which are creeping into the bill; don’t be fooled‐virtually any bill that size, has some hidden motives buried in it.)

“More of us than there are of them”

I have recently had some important conversations with people as concerned with our country as I am, and in these recent conversations, a certain theme has come up: “There are more of us, than there are of them.” What does this mean? Well, to start, I believe that many of us feel outnumbered, overwhelmed and “paralyzed”. We feel that the world at large is contrary to our varied beliefs. Conservatives hold back, for the most part, from the conversation, feeling that their efforts will be best spent by being hard working, responsible citizens, who will avoid debate and make the peace—that that will be our best contribution.

Now we find ourselves in a time where a tidal wave of Liberal agendas washes over us; we can no longer just hold our views to ourselves. Why, even that mode of belief is unnacceptable to the Liberals ’09. Now, they want us to go the next step by changing them altogether.

I have seen a major transformation happen in the general views of our country over even the last five years. You can no longer disagree with gays and their views. Now, you have to accept their choices and even endorse them by allowing them to fall under the traditional family institution of marriage (Note: If this is a “hot button” issue for you, my apologies: but remember that I have a right to my views as much as you do; please, though, do not overlook the point for sake of the argument—pick any characterstically conservative stance, and apply it there).

My point is that Liberals ’09 are getting louder and louder—more emboldened as the volume rises. It is my feeling that this is causing the majority of us, who just so happen to disagree with most or all that they’re saying, to feel overpowered into silence altogether. Well, I am here to say that, “There are more of us than there are of them.” We have to speak up. Even if we match their efforts half for whole, there are enough of us to make up for the difference. I say this because as we watch the vigilance of the Liberal extremists who make it their life’s ambition to serve any given Liberal agenda, it is easy for us to think to ourselves, “I don’t have that kind of time or energy, on top of all the other responsibilities in my life, to fight back effectively. I’m just trying to provide/care for my family and keep all my other duties together.”

I know that there are enough of us, that if each of us spends even just a fraction of time committed to our portion of the cause, that we can absolutely drown out the dither of the other side. The problem is not that we are outnumbered. The problem is that we have stayed overall silent on the debate. But guess what, agendas that are not ours, are beginning to creep up and become policy.

Liberals saying, “I must be right.”

The other realization that I have reached akin to “there are more of us than there are of them” is that there are Liberals who continue to make noise simply because they think that they are right. Not because they have some deep-rooted conviction of their position, but because they have remained, for the most part, unchallanged on their views. They continue to go around making noise, such as shooting down Sara Palin, doing everything in their power to marginalize her and others, and when they are unchallenged by the general populace at large, they feel that their argument must be sound and that they’re right because no one has really challenged them on it. So, who’s responsible? True they are accountable for their own actions, but one could also make an argument that it is even we who are responsible. “The only thing that tyranny needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” Does this statement sound familiar?

To wrap up, I do not necessarilly mean to make this a Liberals against Conservatives argument, just as I do not mean to make this a partisan issue. What I do wish to discuss is that both parties are coming under fire, both of them subject to their issues and beliefs being marginalized, not by each other, but by the class of Liberals ’09. These are they who do not believe in the meaning of the Constitution as it was set down by our Founding Fathers. It must change, for we are in a different time. But their arguments fail; for what they want to change is not conditional truths only valid during a certain period of time or condition, but truths which are universal. Men must always be free. Mankind must always be promoted to act according to their own accountability. Reward for self-responsibility and hard work must always take priority over someone living off the sweat of another’s brow. You must be allowed to reap what you sew. Anything other than this, is simply a means for the government to place you under their control. Do not be fooled: their arguments will sound noble enough, but under it all are the ambitions of position-lusting men waiting to place you under their control. They don’t want you to do what you think is right; they want you to do what they know is right. Or worse: get you under their control so that they can exercise more dominion over the United States, one of the strongest nations in the world.

People of America, think for yourselves. Don’t let anyone ever take away your rights to do so. Don’t let the most obnoxious or loudest sound win. Speak out. Be vigilant. You don’t have to sound a trump all day long, but at least make a noise.

Several weeks ago, President Barack Obama agreed to go on all the major news networks—plus one (Univision)—to be interviewed and, of course, endorse Health Care Reform. They would all air on sunday. Except, . . . he left one out: The highest rated/most watched news station in the country . . . Fox News. Why? Well, before your assumptions run amuck with thoughts of opinion shows such as Glenn Beck, Hannity or O’Reily, don’t forget Chris Wallace’s show, “Fox News Sunday” which is every bit as credible as the other news shows. For those of you who may recognize this name, that is because Chris Wallace has been in the business for thirty years and has worked for ABC News for eleven of those. He’s a recognized name in the biz.

So, what is the problem here? Well, I won’t throw out a blanket statement like, “Oh, it’s the Democrats.” No! It has more to do with the new class of Liberals (a group that I have referred to before, in my first post “A Letter to the President of the Free World”), that I will refer to from now on as Liberals ’09. This group has every bit to do with all the radicals we see surfacing around Obama’s administration: the Van Jones’, the Cass Sunsteens’, and etc.

They are always right; they view anyone who disagrees with them as, “small-minded” and “stupid”; they’ll fit “racist” and “Nazi” in there anywhere that they can find the wiggle room. They will belittle you as being an “angry mob”, “uneducated rednecks”, all the while never expecting you to even flinch, because now is their time, and they will “show” you how to get it right, as they force you to it.

Librals ’09 do not see socialized Health Care as bad. Allowing the government to run things isn’t wrong because they’re the ones at the helm. Why should we trust them? “Because we’re not Republicans” is their clarion call, “we’re different”. But “different” does not translate directly to “better”; sometimes it’s simply means . . . different. Have we seen yet the “Change We Can Believe In” or is it simply “change” from one misbegotten scheme to another?

The point is, that Liberals 09″ will not be hassled with things like “the other side of the story.”

Their message and momentum will not be deterred by what you or I think—unless we agree with them. The only ones who have a say in the matter are those who are on board.

“Either get on the train, or get out of the way!”

But they don’t stop to think that in our country, it is the majority who rules. You don’t get to tell me what to think or how it will be. I am allowed to hear all sides and choose for myself, and if my group is larger than yours, then common sense dictates that the majority will decide, thereby, serving the most good.

Look, whether or not it is deemed right by Liberals 09, “We the People” is still valid.

Deafening Silence

It’s not just the blacklisting that concerns me; it’s the tactics: Nothing was addressed, at the time, in regards to the station; they were simply “phased out”. No reason given, nothing spoken. And yet, this should cause any conscientious citizen to give pause: not because Fox News is “so great”, but because they are the highest rated and most watched. One could make a very strong case that they reflect how the American people think, right now. Even if you don’t believe that, it still seems reckless to avoid the largest sounding board one has in America right now, on the basis of “principle”. Or is there more to it?   note

What about ignoring one of your generals in the field? General McKrystal, Obama’s own self appointed General over the war in Afghanistan, put in his report for more troops over eight months ago. This report stated that “We will fail” in Afghanistan, if reinforcements are not sent. This is Obama’s own General, telling him that the war will be lost, if we stay with the current number of troops, period—no suggestion, no “it would be nice”, flat out “we need them,”—or it’s over.

And how did the President respond? He didn’t. Instead he waited over six months and turned his attention to campaigning for the Olympics to be held in his hometown of Chicago. In fact, to add insult to injury, he declared that he was willing to take time out of his busy schedule to show up and petition for the Olympics.

“Oh, the people of Chicago must be so honored”. . . not really. Actually, many of them protested. The Olympics has proven for decades to be a cash guzzler, not a cash maker. With corruption running rampant in the city, the last thing that they want is yet another irresponsible move on the part of the city’s leaders.

I’m still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why Obama waited so long to address his General. It never really was explained; it just sort of “happened.” In fact, it didn’t seem he cared at all until General McKrystal went to Great Britain to plead for reinforcements from them. It seems the British Prime Minister listens to McKrystal more than the President does. Though Obama has finally spoken to his General, a decision still hasn’t been made. Meanwhile, more American troops die and are put in perilous situations, while the President focuses on the Olympic bid, Obamacare, and gaining the praise of dictators (see Chavez’s praise of Obama at the U.N. Senate). I’m not going to mention the Nobel Peace Prize, at this time.

Follow the Trail of “Misinformation”

I’ll mention just one more example of this “silence”. Early on in the Healthcare debate, the White House launched a section on its website, dedicated to “misinformation” regarding the Senate’s Healthcare Bill. There was a lot of controversy surrounding this move, and . . . well, then the webpage simply went away. It was no more. Nothing was said; it simply disappeared.

I actually have another concern here, as well. While Townhall meeting after Townhall meeting were chanting, “Read the bill, read the bill,” one particular Democratic Senator, Sen. John Conyers, said in response to these chants, “Well, what good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill.”

. . . but . . . he is a lawyer. Wait, I’m confused. It almost seems like the only ones that really know what was in the bill were average, diligent, american citizens. Ya know, the ones commisioned with catching and reporting “misinformation”? It seems that even the White House was acknowledging that you know more about what’s going on out there than they do. But don’t lose sight of the real issue here; that, of controlling the message. This is not “clarifying” or protecting the “integrity” of the message; but “controlling” the message. This is a crucial distinction to make, here. Notice that Liberals ’09 will not, “will not” lose control, of their message.

Silence is control. The silent treatment is a disingenuous mode of communication; it is a tactic which one deploys in order to gain the upper hand in an argument; to let the other party know, “I disapprove of your behavior, your opinion, or your posture with me.” No one seeking sincere discourse and genuine communication would employ such a tactic. It is juvenile; it is passive aggressive; it is not beneficial to cultivating an environment of equality. But, then, that’s not their aim. They don’t view you as equal, if you disagree with them. It is the highest form of aggression: belittling the other party; diminishing their faculties of reason; ignoring their concerns; and whatever you do, don’t acknowledge their equality.

Wow, if I didn’t know any better, I would swear that that sounds like slavery.

Note: Fox News is not only the highest rated, but any one of their primetime shows has higher ratings than all of the network stations ratings, if combined. Bottom line: “Mainstream news” is floundering, while Fox News is setting records. That should tell you something.   go back

Official “Thank You”
First Impressions
Premonitions
The Vote
The Best Advisor You Have is Yourself

Thank You

I want to “thank you” Obama. You have awakened the involved citizen within me. You have “scared” me into action. I extend my gratitude to you for making me care enough to become informed about what’s going on and what’s behind your motivations as President of the United States of America. Now, for the first time, I want to really find out and understand what’s going on, and not just sit by, “complacently curious”. If it wasn’t for your ambitious and arrogantly confident insistence that any opposition to your legislation and plans in office are misinformed, unfair, and just plain “stupid”, then I wouldn’t be so ignited into action.

My First Impression

It all began way back in 2006: this is when Obama first made it on my radar. There was something about the way he kept popping up here and there and the level of attention given to his opinions. I felt something coming.
“Hmmm, I need to know more about this fellow,” I thought.
So when I found an audiobook on iTunes called “The Audacity of Hope,” written by the man himself, I had to check it out.

My conclusion?

It was a very reasonable book. My interest in what would become of this man’s career increased. Would he run for President? This was something that I asked myself even back in 2006, long before he had announced any intentions of running. Quite the opposite: he was very careful not to say anything of the sort—without denying it completely.

Premonitions

I remember clearly walking into work after finishing the book [The Audacity of Hope] and asking my boss, “Have you heard of Barak Obama before?” He said “no” and asked me to tell him a little about the man. So I told him what I knew and some of the things that I had learned from his book—which were all very positive at the time. Then—and without me even saying anything that alluded to the fact—my boss asked, “Do you think he’s going to run for President?” I flatly said, “I honestly don’t know, but I wonder.” Saying that now is obviously not very ground-breaking or surprising, what with him already being elected to the Presidency, and all. But back then, It seemed a little prophetic, as there was no evidence that he would even run. Couple that with his youth and experience, and it would have been almost impossible to predict.

You could say, then, that my first impressions of Mr. Obama were good ones. I saw in his book a man very capable of putting himself in other peoples’ shoes. He didn’t just speak of the inequality had by minorities, but he also demonstrated an understanding for the other side, as well: How hard working individuals are concerned, and rightly so, about being overlooked for that promotion due to a policy of affirmative action—where one less-qualified would get his/her position simply based on race. This was a more obvious example, but there were many others demonstrating his ability to see both sides. From this, I saw in Mr. Obama one who could just possibly unite the two political parties in Washington and break down the barriers of disagreement. That was then.