Between Them Both

Pending a post on the Iowa GOP debate and the ensuing drama over the Ames poll, I got into a debate. Sort of. It's not a very strident debate, more like a discussion about the GOP's presidential field and the economics surrounding it. It's with Democrats, a portion of the population I don't get to talk to much. (I live in the Bible belt, and that's obviously synonymous with "Republican Country." Sometimes I wish I could move to California, but I'm sure I'd hate it there just as much, except for the weather around LA which is lovely. New Hampshire, here I come!)

Anyway. Democrats apparently frustrate me just as much as Republicans, mostly because of the inherent contradictions I see in their stances.

Republicans want government to stay out of their pocket and businesses, but it's just fine if the government comes into their bedrooms and tells them what to do.

Democrats want government to stay out of their bedrooms, but if it feels it needs to interfere in money and business matters to keep us "safe," that's just fine.

And it seems to me that, between the two, we're pretty much doomed. The only way those two can compromise is to mandate both sectors. All in the name of keeping us safe and/or righteous, of course. Hush, little citizen. Big government knows best.

In the Name of Safety

I'm sick of this subject. Which is why I'm going to proceed to rant about it for a minute. Or more.
I love how much is done in the name of "safety." We have to be "safe." After all, we wouldn't want to be...uh....unsafe, right?! It's for the children! So that they can...uh...well, be seen naked by creepy TSA people you can't see! Yeah! Save the children from...

Inept and slightly stupid terrorists. Who won't even blow up their own seats. I'm not sure why I should be scared of that. But okay.

Safety. What is safety? The absence from fear? Yeah, right. People are always afraid of something. It's practically a rule from the Human Handbook. And if there's nothing logical and concrete to be afraid of, our minds will make something up. Classic example: vengeful, angry ghosts. Throwing away billions of dollars and tons of privacy in the name of making people "feel safe" is absolutely silly from that standpoint.

If we define safety as merely being able to get on a plane without being blown up...well, since the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are pretty near non-existent, I think we have that all wrapped up. Mission accomplished. The TSA can go home now. Leave us alone. Buh-bye. Let us go back to regular fears, like possibly dying from heat stroke or electrocution.

There's also the logical hilarity of the arguments used to support these new measures. The "Underwear Bomber"? Please. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't even embark on a plane in the United States, but rather in Amsterdam. How was that a failure of our security services, and how could any heightened security measures here have stopped him in any way? (Except of course, for that little measure we could have taken of revoking his visa, but that would have been way too simple!)

The other two "major" terror attempts in the past few years have also not been connected to commercial flights departing from the US- the "Times Square Bomber" which was in no way connected to airplanes or airports, and the Terrible Cartridge Bombs of Death, that were sent through the cargo and baggage areas of the airport. On a FedEx plane. Tell FedEx they must submit to rigorous security protocols. FedEx can be used to initiate terror plots against the United States!

Yet despite all that, the government continues telling us that, in the pursuit of "safety", it is essential that we ignore every area of transportation and mail that might actually prove to be a threat, and instead focus on the civilians of America. In other words, us. Somewhere along the way, we became the enemy...if we ever even had a real enemy in the first place. Which I doubt. We created a phantasm in our minds, and now shy at it reflexively. But like nightmares, the danger is very real.

But only in our minds.

Marijuana & Social Security

Fun subjects, right? You bet.

First up, Eric Holder issued an announcement that the DoJ wouldn't back down on marijuana law enforcement even if California (a sovereign state, did I mention that?) legalized said drug. Holder seems to be conveniently forgetting, in his push to keep it illegal so the federal government can continue enforcing drug laws, that the federal government has pretty much failed at either containing drug use, drug proliferation, and violence related to drugs.

Of course, one of the most hilarious (or sickening) parts of this thing is that the Republican party is against it. A state can't pass a law like that! They'll imperil the ability of the federal government to enforce laws! While...uh....Arizona is doing the same thing. Yeah! .....Right.

In other news, the Social Security Administration is reporting that payments to beneficiaries are once again staying at the same place, instead of going up as they apparently should. I wonder why that could be? It couldn't be at all because costs are increasing in other parts of the government, and so there's less money to devote for Social Security? It couldn't be because the Social Security system is bankrupt?

Oh no, of course not. It's just the recession. Yeah.

So there's your depressing fix for today. ^.^

Life Goes On

Even in the middle of evil terrorists being tried. Well, well. Four trials prosecuting terror suspects were held in the past two weeks.

I'm sure some would like to say that there was mass rioting and much badness happened as the evil terrorists spouted anti-American rhetoric and thousands fell under their sway via their evil Sith mind tricks...

Unfortunately, nothing like that happened. People nearby, in the city, outside the city...were just fine. They didn't even hardly notice. It was a normal day. Birds singing, people talking, cars honking...

And the best part? It didn't cost New York City billions of dollars in security or trial fees. It didn't cost any more than any regular trial on any other regular case. 'Magine that. (H/T to SunTzu for this story. :) )

In other news, a Michigan judge ruled the health care law Constitutional yesterday. Oh, the joys. The judge's argument? He used the Commerce Clause, which is an innocuous line in the first article of the Constitution. It reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." (Emphasis added)

How, exactly, that gives the federal government the leeway to mandate people must buy health insurance I don't know. You might be able to say that would justify the government making health insurance companies cooperate and like, let their policies carry on over state lines, because that's just smart and all. But not to demand that private citizens must carry some form of insurance.

Also, for those of you have been following the story of the soldiers who repeatedly staged combat deaths of multiple Afghanis for some strange, demented reason, court-martials have now been "recommended" for them. Really, now? You mean we might now want to court-martial them?

Meh. The military's inner workings will probably remain a mystery to me far into the future, and I really don't mind that. I don't want to know.

So, from terrorists...and back to terrorists. Peace.

Sharia

Thanks goes to Megan of "The Mom and Wife Life" for her hard work and research on this article, originally posted on her blog. This subject is one that should be spoken about more often, but without the hysteria often provoked by conservative talking heads. So without further ado:

Sharia. It seems to be the new "buzz word" that people, particularly conservatives, keep getting all up in arms about. I am not going to say other people do or do not do their own "homework" because honestly I don't know, but as a Magic 8 Ball would say, "signs point to no." Why do I think that? Because it seems while this word is thrown around so much, largely as a scare tactic and a way to oppose anything having to do with the Muslim religion and culture in America, nobody I've come across personally can actually correctly define Sharia law. And so, to better grasp what it is in the first place, and why people are so opposed to it, I went in search of answers. And after hours upon hours of research, I still barely understand it. But here's my feeble attempt anyway, for whatever its worth.

The argument I hear by conservatives is that Sharia law is leaking into both American culture and her courts, and that the powers that be are allowing it, and that pretty soon Sharia "law" is going to basically take over America as we know it.

First of all, from my understanding, there is moral/personal Sharia - the moral, ethical, religious, and highly personal governance of one's own life by Sharia law. And there is legal Sharia - Sharia as it applies to legal matters. Yes, they are intertwined somewhat, but that doesn't mean they share the same function. The way I compare it to make it relevant to myself is the differentiation between Christianity being the framework by which I govern my own personal life, and the Constitution being the framework by which I abide by my country/culture's laws.

Secondly, Sharia itself is largely hard to define - both personal and court Sharia - because so much of it isn't "nailed down." Some comes straight from the Koran or other esteemed Muslim writings. But a lot of it also comes from.... Honestly, nobody knows where. It is based in large part on tradition and things accepted as "Muslim," however much of it appears nowhere in print. At least Christian Americans can say their convictions come from written sources - morally/personally from the Bible, and legally from the Constitution.

Read -here- for excellent information about this, including passages taken from the Koran and other Muslim writings. (Just be forewarned, some pop ups may come up when you click on the page...annoying and detracting, but I promise, the article is well worth the read.)

Now maybe its just bacause I am a Christian American, but I find the whole idea of a moral and legal code that isn't in written form unsettling. A code of any kind that isn't defined is one that is open to biases, corruption, usage for personal power and/or notariety, personal gain, manipulation, inaccurate translation and application...and the list is endless. Therein lies the fundamental flaw, in my eyes, within Sharia, and why I don't believe it will EVER be tolerated by or used for legal purposes within our courts. Even in matters pertaining to one's personal ethics. And here's why.

NO citizen in America, regardless of their religion, gets a free pass on murder (honor killings) or spousal or child abuse. Pre-meditated murder = life imprisonment or death sentence - end of story. People make the argument that honor killings have been permitted in America. This is absolutely untrue to the best of my knowledge. There is one case I know of where a man has been convicted and is on the run, but once caught, that man WILL be brought to justice for his heinous crime. Further, as for "eye for an eye retribution," that is also shot down hard by the Eighth Amendment's guideline for fair trials and justice to be carried out. "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." A court would never allow someone to enact retribution on another that is "cruel and unusual," such as, for example, crashing their car into someone because they killed their relative in a drunk driving accident.

In other countries, yes, some heinous acts of Sharia have been permitted or "swept under the rug" based on what I can only define as "religious exemptions." However, in America, that would be unconstitutional. It would be showing religious favortism, which is contrary to the Constitution's First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This protects our rights to our religion, but it also protects one religion from being esteemed over another. To make an exception/exemption on a moral or legal matter which violates Constitutional law, would be in and of itself unconstitutional. So to permit or downplay honor killings, spousal abuse, child abuse, eye for an eye retribution, or anything else that is prosecuted by the law of the Constitution based on one's religion would be unconstitutional.

Still not convinced? Think of it this way... This is America. In America, regardless of whether or not you're a citizen of this country, if you're on our soil and commit a crime, you answer to our laws and legal process - NOT that of the country from which you immigrated or are visiting. And most, if not all, countries around the world have that same structure. Most other countries' legal processes/customs are a lot more harsh and their systems are a lot more corrupt and biased, but ultimately, you are to answer to the legal process of the country in which you commit the crime. It may not seem right, and it may not seem fair, but that's how it works. To ask that your own legal process be used in another country's courts is ludicrous to begin with! You would be laughed at for even asking!

But for the sake of argument, let's look at what would happen if we even tried to allow Sharia in our courts.

To cross-reference, here's the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And here's the Sharia. These references are taken from -Wikipedia- but have been collaborated by a number of other sources. I am going to break it down with my own comments/dissections.

-- Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

So a Muslim wants to use Sharia. Great, then they waive their right to legal representation. In my opinion, that is a really stupid legal move, but okay, fine, that's their right. It probably won't work very well in their favor - it will make for a VERY weak case, since an "Average Joe" doesn't know the court system the way an attorney does - but whatever, that's their choice. If they want to waive the right and have little to no strong case and probably therefore lose their legal battle, then fine. No skin of my nose.

-- Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

So much for a "public trial, by an impartial jury." The Sixth Amendment pretty much shoots that down to begin with, which is enough right there. But for the sake of argument, even if it was decided that a jury not be present, that is putting your fate in the hands of one person - one person who may have missed things, has biases, etc. In my opinion, not wise.

-- There is no pre-trial discovery process...

This would not lead to a fair trial AT ALL! Things would be VERY skewed! Without a pre-trial discovery process, crucial evidence isn't obtained, so never entered into court. This could cause a guilty person to go free, or an innocent person to be charged. It is crucial to the process in order to maintain an "unbiased" trial! I just cannot foresee our courts, under constitutional law, EVER conducting a legal proceeding without it.

-- ...no cross-examination of witnesses...

Again, this is integral to the Sixth Amendment's guidelines "to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." And without cross-examination, you are only hearing one side of the story. This could either exhonerate a guilty party, or convict an innocent one.

-- ...and no penalty of perjury.

No penalty for lying?!? Well, if lying is permitted without penalty, then you know there will be a LOT more liars in court than there already are! Wow, can we say corruption of justice?? If this were ever to happen, then yes, that would be a scary thing, because it would undermine the entire legal fundamentals of American justice!

-- Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist's manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

Non-binding opinions? Issued by religious scholars? Made binding at the discretion of a judge? Did these stick out like sore thumbs to anyone beside me?!? This would mean an ever-changing, ever-open-for-discussion, nothing-set-in-stone legal system. The Constitution IS set in stone! It cannot be changed on the whim of one judge or religious leader, and is hard to misinterpret, especially since our legal guidelines are pretty airtight. I take comfort in knowing what (hypothetically) would be facing me BEFORE I stand trial, and not be at the mercy of the judge, based on what the religious "scholars" are telling him/her! And fortunately, with the Constitution, I can go into any court knowing what to expect, and knowing its not subject to change based on the "gospel" of any religious leader or the discretion of any judge. Shot down by the Sixth Amendment once again!

-- Sharia courts' rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged, or possibly due to low levels of literacy in premodern Islamic society. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e. notaries. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

Sorry for such a big chunk on this one, but it all makes pretty much the same points over and over, but better than I can, so there ya go. Basically, with Sharia law, any evidence other than verbal testimony is rejected. No forensics, no circumstantial, no written, nada. However, the majority of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, rape, etc., HAVE NO WITNESSES!! So we're supposed to reject forensics, physical evidence, cirumstantial evidence, and written evidence in favor of the testimony of a suspected murderer or rapist?!? Are you kidding me?!? Basically, all the evidence says the perp is guilty, but he gets off scott free because, well, he says he's innocent?!! Oh, and I'm sure his cronies testifying on his behalf are all credible witnesses who are telling the truth and were there to witness him raping some poor woman. Yeah...of course they were. And obviously, their testimony is better and stronger than the victim's because, well, they're men, and men are always so much more honest and credible. Of course they are. (That was sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.) Sarcasm aside, this would NEVER fly in an American court of law! NEVER! We find the evidence, process it, and USE it, and let the EVIDENCE have a voice. To silence the evidence is to silence the most credible witness.

-- Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men, and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim). Non-Muslim minorities, however, could and did use Sharia courts, even amongst themselves.

Yeah, that'll make for an impartial trial. Mm hmm. And besides, I'm sure all the women's rights activists will just roll over and let that happen! (Sarcasm again.)

-- Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se (self) representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir dire (oath of honesty and honor) proceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.

This is Wiki's summary, so I'll offer mine. (Oh goody. As if you haven't read enough of my mumble jumble already, right?!) Basically, by my interpretation, their system is one entirely of "he said, she said." Nothing is concrete, and its highly biased and wishy-washy. It is open to interpretation, changes, corruption, selfish usages, and therefore, I'm sure, results in many (if not mostly) false convictions and exhonerations.

By contrast, the US Constitution is concrete. It doesn't change, it doesn't bend, and if implemented properly, cannot be penetrated by corruption or used for ones' own personal motives. Each person walking into a court knows what to expect. They know its going to allow them a speedy, fair, public trial by an unbiased jury. They know there will be witnesses who will be cross-examined, and forensic, physical, circumstantial, and written evidence will be allowed to speak for itself and for the victim.

Ultimately, Sharia itself - moral and legal - is different from person to person. Each person defines it differently, and since there is no concrete governing document (for either facet, but especially legal) by which to base, well, anything really, then I cannot believe it will ever come to pass here in America. How can something undefined overrule and overthrow the defined?

Bottom line, as long as the Sixth Amendment stands, then Sharia never will. And based on that, I don't live in fear of Sharia. Do I like it? No. Would I ever use it to live by in my own life? Never. Would I (given the choice) want to use it in a court of law? No way. But because of my Constitution, and the court system in my America, I don't live in fear of it. Sure, its an interesting time and world in which we live. But this is America. Its Constitution is POWERFUL, and I have faith in it and in my country, that it will never be torn down in favor of a system that is so fundamentally flawed, ineffective, and biased. That's not what America is about - not when the Constitution was written, not now, and (hopefully) not ever. I think we'd have to get both really stupid and really lazy before we'd ever practice Sharia in our courts, or permit the aspects of it which violate constitutional and human rights in our culture. And I like to believe we're smarter than that. ;)

Taking Away Your Rights...

So the terrorists can't destroy them!

It works. It's awesome. We should try it.

Of course...we are.

Under a measure currently being discussed around the White House Round Table, Miranda RIghts might be, shall we say...modified. Or rather, the mode of administering them will be. You see, in the ten seconds it will take to tell a suspect he has the right to silence and a fair trial, we might be in imminent danger of a terror attack.

Oh, and don't forget the fact that they might actually like, take advantage of those rights. And that would be bad.

According to Eric Holder, we need more "flexibility" to deal with terror suspects. Which, of course, naturally means being able to delay the ritual reading of the rights. (Not that that would pose a problem to someone informed of American law- all you have to do if arrested is demand your rights as a prisoner. Quite simple, but I digress.)

This springs, I believe from a misconception that the reading of Miranda Rights automatically means that the suspect will stop talking to us- which is a pretty serious error. History is full of people who had their Miranda Rights read to them, then proceeded to talk. Like, it happens every day.

Of course, precedent is somewhat established...from the article-
"Under the current public safety exception, statements obtained before issuing the Miranda warning may be used in court -- including to charge suspects -- if it is determined that police needed to obtain information quickly to prevent further crimes. Once an immediate threat is ruled out, the Miranda warning must be read, under current law."

Oh goodie. So if there's a suspicion you might be on the verge of a terrorist attack (or any other kind of crime) they can delay reading you your rights because of it. (Even though, technically, you still have the right to remain silent. I wonder, what would they do if some terror suspect refused to talk under such auspices?)

In any case, this seems silly. Let's say we catch a suspect on the verge of blowing up a bomb, as in the case of the Pakistani-American bomb suspect we caught last weekend. The threat is easily seen (not that his bomb was much threat). So do we delay reading rights under this exception with the excuse that there might be other threats?

"The goal of revisions would be to give law enforcement officials greater latitude to hold suspects within the criminal justice system and interrogate them for long periods of time -- without having to transfer them to a military system or designate them as enemy combatants, officials said. "

Oh nice. And once again, the Obama admin pulls a Bush- instead of following the rule of law, we'll do what's convenient, circumvent the Constitution, all in the name of safety for La People. (Do they ever ask us if we want to be kept safe in such a manner? Of course not.)

According to the Washington Post, the changes may take a different form- instead of changing the public safety exception, the statute limiting how long a prisoner can be interrogated without coming to trial.

Which isn't any better.

Maybe (and here's a novel idea) we should just leave the system like it is and instead like, work within it. And do things right- in other words, Constitutionally. If you don't want to try terror suspects in civil court, put them in military tribunals. Of course, we can't do that because they're not part of a uniformed military. So hence, they are civilians and should be tried so.

What are we afraid of that we can't do that? That we've detained a bunch of innocent people?

Maybe we should examine that just a little...

State Power vs. Federal

So, federal government, what do you do when a state goes over your head and passes some bill that intimately impacts their own economy, police, etc.? Why, of course, the only logical thing is to pass your own bill so you can reassert your superiority! Right?

Uh...maybe.

Now, I'll admit. I have some problems with the Arizona immigration law. What I don't have a problem with is a state taking care of problems in its own sphere of influence. For instance...state boundaries. That's their job. No harm, no foul.

Of course, in today's climate of federal-government-first-cuz-we're-awesome, it isn't hard to find beauties like this: "Mr. Obama said it was vital that Congress address the immigration issue, lest more state measures like the tough new law in Arizona sprout up."

....Oh no. Constitution forbid the states actually, like...exercise their power! That would be just way unconstitutional....

Oh. Wait. What's this you say? Tenth Amendment?
"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."

Huh. Fancy that.

Now, I don't see anything in the Constitution about immigration. Except this:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight..."

And this in the powers of Congress:
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."

Now in the first- the States decide who comes in, and when. Hence, Arizona's law is arguably not unconstitutional.

The second sets Congress' role in the immigration/nationalization process. Which is the last part. Congress decides the process whereby someone becomes an American citizen. Don't you love it how the Founders balanced everything out...and how everybody has to work together?

Sorry, Congress. Immigration is not Constitutionally your job.

Get over it.

Smoking Bans

Let me name you one thing that's absolutely ludicrous- smoking bans.

"But smoking is dangerous! Haven't you ever heard of the dangers of second-hand smoking?! It can give you lung cancer!"

Yeah. And that asphalt truck driving five miles an hour down the road in front of me won't do a thing to harm my lungs. That diesel-guzzling, exhaust-belching truck won't do a single thing to my lungs.

Okay. I see the logic we're operating on now.

Alice in Wonderland logic. Ain't it fun?

Lots of people operate on this logic. Like the New York City health committee, seeking to ban smoking. Outdoors.

Okay.

Heaven help us if some smoke were to get into the atmosphere. I mean, it might tip the delicate balance between global warming and global alrightness and global cooling, sending us into a catastrophe of unknown proportions, making the world hotter than even we can send it at an astronomically high rate, even higher than now, even though the effects right now are really negligible, but besides that, we might get lung cancer cuz dont'cha know only SHS gives you lung cancer, and it's not at all due to the smell coming off that tar over there!!

Okay. I see how this works.

Healthcare Article

Has anyone else read this article by Michael Connelly? It is a well-written article, if a bit lacking in citation for his allegations against the disputed healthcare reform bill. Some of his conclusions are also a bit lacking, in my opinion.

"This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures."

That was taken care of quite well by the PATRIOT act- which was some eight years ago during the reign of Bush. There is nothing here that has not already been violated, years ago. Also, this charge lacks citation. This may be broadly implied throughout the bill, but if some such thing as a database for our personal information (which is already contained in an insurance building, if you have ins., and at the government, if you use Medicaid, anyway) exists, there will be a section one could cite.

I will agree that this bill, no matter its individual points, has much too broad a power grab focus by Congress. It inordinately adds to the power given to that body and to the executive branch.

But we must face the fact that we have a problem with our healthcare system. No amount of ignoring this will make it go away. At least our lawmakers are attempting to fix the problem. The way to get them to change it differently is not to resort to outright fabrication. It is to approach them in a credible manner and give them your ideas. Make it clear that your vote depends on their reception of your ideas.

Resorting to supposition and fabrication does not make our cause look credible. It makes it look worse. It makes us look like desperate nobodies who are insisting on making Obama look bad, no matter what he does. That is not a good thing. The kind of rabid hate that I see filling talk shows like The Savage Nation and Hannity & Colmes is astounding. And it is all aimed towards Obama. Why? He is a democrat, and has Communist leanings. Both are true, but do not justify the acrimony I see.

That is not the way to accomplish our goals. The way to accomplish our goals is through earnest, sincere, truthful debate and discussion, not through mindless vitriol and accusations.

This has turned into a rant against the entirety of the anti-healthcare crowd. :P

Anyway, back to our subject- I would more than happy to believe anything bad about this bill. But I cannot when the only thing I have heard posed against it are baseless, unverified rumors. I cannot take someone's word for it. I must see for myself. It is perhaps a failing of mine, but it is important to me that I be able to verify what I am told. (It's the same reason I read The Audacity of Hope, in case you were wondering. ;) )

If anyone could point me towards the individual parts of HR 3200 that carry out some of the accusations against it, it would be greatly appreciated.

9/9/09 Healthcare Speech

As many of you know, President Obama gave a speech concerning the proposed healthcare reform. Besides the many flaws I see in the actual bill, there were also a couple of interesting things in the speech.

Right off the bat, I see some things I don't like about Obama's conclusions. Need I say this again? It is not the government's job to make sure companies can get credit and capital. I see nothing about that in the Constitution. I do see something about how Congress is supposed to regulate the value of our money, but other than that, not much- and it is certainly not the President's job to do so!! This proposed healthcare plan- and what Obama summarily proposed in his speech- is so outside the bounds of Presidential and Congressional power, that it's not even funny.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure we're still quite a bit aways from the 'brink'- and we're on the wrong side of things. I know, I know- "Obama can't fix eight years of damage in six months!" Why not? He promised he would. I merely want him to stand up for what he said. Is that so terrible? People are still losing jobs at a fantastic rate. Our unemployment rate hit 9.6 in August. That's up significantly from what it was in 2008! (Before the bailouts started, by the way.)

The problem is not, I think, with a lack of governmental oversight. The problem is that the insurance companies are messing the people of America over, and driving costs up, and the people are more than happy to let them. The solution is not governmental power-grabbing, but education of the American people.

"We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people."

Firstly- we're not a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. The only Constitutional Republic, might I add, on the face of the planet. Hence, we are the only one that supposedly lets that happen. Which we don't. Like I said before, the problem is not lack of governmental oversight; it is a lack of objective thinking and education by the American people.

I think one of the reasons healthcare costs, collectively, are so high in the US is because people here go into the doctor for the smallest things, and then get the worst-case scenario treatment for it. People go into the doctor because they have a simple stopped-up nose, or a fever, and get high-falutin' medication for it. The costs for this kind of thing go into the averages, and drive it up.

I'll tell you a major reason people can't start a business, and I'll give you a hint- it doesn't have a single thing to do with the insurance companies. It has to do with the insanity of the government regulations that are imposed on people that want to start up a business. Business owners have to pay hundreds of dollars simply to hire an employee. They have to pay yet more to get licensed, then to keep on going. It's crazy, and that is the reason they are going under, not because healthcare costs so much. I love how Obama professes to want to help small business when in fact, the regulations he is proposing will do more to stop small business than to help it grow. The only thing these regulations help is the government's pocketbook.

Obama did make an ardent effort in his speech to smooth out some of the misconceptions about the bill, including the so-called 'death panels', the allegation that the bill will provide for illegal immigrants, and that people will be forced to change insurance.

A little 'side-note' here- why is healthcare considered a right? I thought it was one of those things that if you want it, you've got to foot the bill. So why is it considered a right?

At this point in the speech, one of the Congressmen called out "You lie!" to President Obama as he was talking about whether or no illegals would get coverage. (They will not, for the record. Page 143, section 246 of HR 3200.) I personally think this was waayyy over the top- President Obama is still our President, no matter your personal feelings on the subject, and should be afforded the proper amount of respect due that position. (President Obama handled this with quite a bit of grace, which was quite exemplary on his part.) For the record, Rep. Wilson did apologize to President Obama (quite properly), and the President accepted the apology with a great deal of tact.

Now then. Obama got into the financial side of this plan a little later on. It was, needless to say, rather interesting. I quote in the interest of accuracy.
"And here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future."
"And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be."

Oh okay. I see now- we don't want any more of those nasty deficits hanging over our heads. It's so wonderful you thought of that before the stimulus plan.

And if the taxpayer is not going to be paying for this, then who is? We're going to be using governmental funds to pay for the public option. If not the taxpayer, then who? I wasn't aware the government could pluck money out of thin air. No matter where you get the money- from individuals, from companies, you're still getting it from taxpayers, and you're still taking away money that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Period.

All in all, a nice speech. If he weren't trying to force his policy on Congress. The President is not the policy maker, that would be Congress. Constitutionally, the President can suggest things he wants Congress to do; he cannot tell them what to do.
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"

Telling us what's good...

President Obama is instituting a new reform related to the banking industry! These new regulations will make sure that "[banks] become smaller, more stable and less likely to need the sort of massive federal bailouts that have defined the current economic crisis."

Nice.

Furthermore- "Regulators would require all financial firms to hold larger capital reserves against unexpected losses. The largest firms would be forced to set aside even greater reserves, the rough equivalent of requiring a racehorse to carry more weight."

Oh wonderful.

Let's just let the government tell the banks how to manage their money. Oh yeah, that makes sense. The government that is ELEVEN TRILLION in debt. If the banks got that far into the hole, their CEOs would be in jail.

"Administration officials say that large financial firms can offer important benefits to customers, such as the convenience of a one-stop shop for multiple services..."

Oh. They 'can'. "We're allowing you to run your business in such-and-such a way! But you don't have the freedom to be stupid. Because that would be...stupid."

"Unlike other key parts of the president's reform agenda, the new standards would not require approval by Congress. "

Oh nice. Let's just bypass the checks-and-balances here...that sounds smart.

The Right of the People to Bear Arms...

Gun rights. Do the American people have the right to carry a gun according to the Constitution? Are guns dangerous? Is the second amendment outdated? Are guns needed now, in the twenty-first century?

Yes. No. Yes.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States-

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [Emphasis mine]

This amendment states, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt, that Constitutionally, the American people are granted the right to own and carry guns. Yes, this amendment also mentions a militia. But at the time this was written, every man (males 14 and older) who could tote a gun were considered the 'militia'. Women were also counted into the 'militia' if some catastrophe happened and there were no able bodied men left.

Hence, the American people can carry guns anytime they please. This right cannot be infringed. Infringed means violated, encroached. Things like gun laws are, in my opinion, infringing the right to carry a gun, as it adds unnecessary legal process and bureaucracy to the simple act of owning a gun.

"But the Constitution is outdated!"

An argument I have heard manymany times- more times than I would like to count. So, our system of government is outdated. Our Congressional election style is outdated? Our Presidential veto is outdated? Our government for the people, by the people is outdated?

Okay.

"But guns are....dangerous!"

Yeah. That's what makes them so fun!

No, not really. In experienced, practiced hands that have been trained in the use of a firearm, they aren't all that dangerous. Yes, accidents can happen. Yes, some people have gotten killed by accidental discharge.

But when handled properly, guns are no more dangerous than a glass of water. I know of a family who has guns. Many guns. They had young children, and now grandchildren. Their guns stay out. The kids know not to touch the guns, because they have been trained that guns are dangerous, since before they were old enough to understand. It is no problem.

"Guns kill people!"

No. People kill people. If guns kill people, why don't we put the gun in jail?

If someone wants to kill another, they will do it. They don't need a gun. In your household, you have plenty of items that could potentially kill someone.

Scissors.
Knives.
Pillows.
Blankets.
Rocks.
Bricks.
Books.
Glass.
Pens.
Pencils.
Cars.
Swimming pool.
And oh yeah, what was that other one...oh yeah- Humans!!

The list of items that can be used to kill someone goes on. And on. And on and on and on. There is no end to it. If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, regardless of if they have a gun or not.

"Without strict gun laws, the criminals will get guns."

They get guns anyway. The only thing gun laws do is deprive law abiding citizens of protection they are legally allowed to have, making them more susceptible to a homicide or a robbery in which a gun is used.

"But guns are just fundamentally bad. There isn't any real reason we should have them."

The Constitution, ladies and gentlemen. Go read it, it will do you good.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. That means that any gun laws that prohibit or hamper the keeping of firearms are unconstitutional. (Side note- that does not mean I think that every citizen should have a tank in their backyard. Those are military weapons, which I am not sure about. There may be some other hamper to that. I don't know.)

The Constitutional Bill of Rights was intended to make sure that the people's rights were not infringed. That means that the entirety of the Constitution is intended to keep the government in check.

Using this line of reasoning, we can conclude that the reason the American people are allowed to keep guns is to keep the government in check.

Governments have a history of going astray. England did it. Spain did it. Rome did it. Every single government in the history of the world has slipped up and started going the wrong way- becoming more totalitarian, etc. This kind of government is the polar opposite of a democratic republic.

So, the founders instituted some very interesting clauses in the Constitution. For starters, the representatives are, in a rather indirect way (at that time), elected by the people. If the people do not, for some reason, like the job their congressman is doing, they can recall him with various processes that are outlined in the states, and then elect another.

The next is contained in the first amendment- we the people have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Unfortunately, our current government has stopped listening to such petitions, as We The People and other organizations have discovered.

From there, we go on to guns. The entire idea of keeping and bearing arms was to have them in case of an emergency. An emergency would include the idea of a non-responsive government. (Note- I am not advocating going and assassinating all the members of Congress. That would be wrong. Nor am I advocating assassinating President Obama. That, too would be wrong.)

But we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

Up in arms over Guns

Did you know that there is a loophole in the NY gun laws that allow for the possession (without a license) of an 'antique' firearm? There is. Antique is defined as any gun that has to be loaded in a multi-step process- powder, then ball, and the whole thing rammed home with a rod.

Michael Littlejohn has one such gun that he requested from a blacksmith. But now, the Bloomberg administration is trying to seize the gun...as well as Mr. Littlejohn's gun rights.

I think they missed that passage in the Constitution- y'know, the second amendment. "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed...' all that?

The NYPD are trying to force him to get a license- despite the fact that, under the law, he can keep a gun. Besides, who cares? He claims he doesn't have ammunition. And even if he did, his rights under the Constitution are clearly spelled out.

Unfortunately, the NYPD hasn't gotten the memo. Somebody needs to send them (and the maker of the gun laws in this country) a copy of the second amendment.

Healthcare Reform '09

Don't you just love the epic-sounding title?!

This is probably going to be short. I am just going to present what I think of what I have heard about the healthcare plan that is currently being foisted on the American people by an overeager president and his cronies.

1) I do not think our situation is as dire as many people would like us to believe. The frantic "46,000,000 people without healthcare" isn't as bad as Mrs. Clinton likes it to sound. Because, after all, the 46,000,000 are just people without insurance. Counted in that 46,000,000 are illegal immigrants, the rich, and those that just don't need it. Just because one does not have insurance does not mean that one cannot get healthcare- you can, and you will if you need it.

2) I do not think we need coverage for everyday visits. A well visit? No coverage needed. A checkup? No coverage needed. An MRI? Coverage needed. Brain surgery? Coverage needed. It should be subjective to the case. But simple, everyday visits do not need coverage.


3) I do, however, think alternative medicines should be covered. For instance, a midwife should be covered in the same way an OB is covered. A chiropractor should be covered in the same way an intensive therapist is covered. There are many people who like alternative medicine, and they should be covered.

4) The government should have no control over my healthcare. I have no desire to have treatment denied for my foot because I smoke.

I admit that our current system is broken. I concede that the insurance companies are corrupt, and something needs to be done about it. But that something is not that the government get involved yet more. What is needed is that the American people wake up and stop being duped.

Tightened Airport Security

(Yes, I know, it's been forever since I posted. But, I'm trying. XD)

The TSA has announced its intention to tighten up airport security. If you make a reservation for a flight, don't be surprised if they ask for your sex and age. It's just 'routine.'

Pro: it will probably help them streamline the no fly list.

Con: We're still spooked about terrorist attacks that happened 8 years ago.

(And yes, this is short. I'll try again tomorrow ^.^)

Gun Bill Passed

I know you're all tired of gloom-and-doom me, so here's some good news!

The House passed a bill yesterday that will allow gun owners to carry concealed, loaded guns into national parks. It passed 279-147, with the support of the Republicans (of course), and some Democrats.

The only bad thing? It was added as some twisted sort of pork into the credit card bill.

Beef to get unwilling senators to vote 'aye'.

So, there's some good news, and a little bit of doom-gloom at the end, just to show that I'm still here. ;)

Read the original story here.

Credit Cards and Emissions

Credit Card Regulations

Now the government is putting caps on how the credit card companies can punish the people who don't pay them.

Oh beautiful.

And, since the companies can't go after those who they should be going after- those that don't pay, and hence cost them money- they're going to raise everyone's interest rates.

Wow. I like it.

Now, I don't like credit cards. I am not going to get a credit card if at all possible, since I think it's dumb to put yourself in that much debt for something you could just as easily buy outright. But it's wrong to go after credit card companies, and in turn pass on more costs to the consumer.

Furthermore, it's unconstitutional. It's wrong to go after a market force like credit cards or the companies that give them out, even if what they're doing is kind of unethical. It's the consumer's fault for getting the credit card in the first place, then filling it up with thousands of dollars of debt.

Regulations on Car Exhaust Emissions

Yes, you read that right.

Our wonderful President Obama wants to put regulations on how much exhaust can come out of your tailpipe, to reduce greenhouse gases, y'know. This will go wonderfully with Cap and Trade, since CAT will discourage people from driving period, and this will just reinforce that!

Next, they propose to increase the fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 mpg for passenger cars and pickups by 2016.

Oh joy. Let's just burden the car companies even more.

Fuel efficiency ratings are rising. Without the government's help. You know why? Because the market wants it. It's the same reason why McDonalds has started selling apples and salads- the consumer wants it, those products are popular, and so they are sold.

That is the way things are supposed to be. It's the most perfect system ever conceived. Except, possibly, Communism, but that's because the government controls everything. And it would work great except for the fact that, oh, everyone's poor, except for those that control everything. Which would be about .000001% of the population.

These regulations will increase the cost of cars by almost $1,300. $600 of that would be purely from the increase cited above. The rest? The result of previous energy policy. (Bush, Clinton, etc.)

"Consumers can retain choice but for more fuel-efficient cars. Every single category of car will be more efficient." (Unnamed official in Washington)

Oh great!!! Just the choice I always wanted!

Now, it isn't that I don't mind fuel efficient vehicles. It's that I dislike being forced to choose one. It's wrong. The government has no right to determine what I can and cannot choose. Period.

Cap-and-Trade

Has anyone else heard anything concerning this? Basically, President Obama's plan is to put limits on those pesky carbon emissions. Companies will have to buy carbon credits at an auction- and individuals and businesses will have to pay a tax for their 'emissions'.

Let me explain this- a quick economics lesson. When businesses are forced to pay thousands- or millions- of dollar per unit of 'carbon emissions', that will impair their ability to make money. They'll have to divert yet more of their profits to taxes. Hence, they will pass on the cost to the consumer- via higher prices- and workers- via layoffs.

What happened to the 'unemployment crisis' or 'easing the burden of the working man'?

Hundreds of people will end up without jobs. This will also hit my area hard, which relies on coal a lot, especially for our electricity. If those plants shut down- and they will- at least a few thousand people will be out of work. If we don't have electricity, a lot of the other businesses will shut down- places like Best Buy and the mall. That will throw thousands more out of work. When that's gone, more businesses will go out.

It will continue to escalate so, until our town begins to look like a ghost town.

But Obama and his cohorts- er, I mean, Congress- don't seem to realize this. All they see is the revenue they will garner. Either that, or the new world dollar they'll have when our economy comes crashing down, and they can blame it on 'capitalism'.

Now, I'm a bit curious to see how they're going to spin this. "We've reached our goal of reducing carbon emissions by 15%....but people are starving!"

More Nationalization!

Our lovely administration is going to outline a new plan for keeping this recession at bay!!

The solution?

Let the government take over all the banks, and make sure that none of them collapse. After all, they're so much better at handling debt than you are!!

Everyone involved with money in Washington should be required to sit down and read Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover. Seriously. That book would help them. A lot.

Anyway- the plan would make it so that larger banks ('To big to fail' banks!!) will be required to submit stricter records to the government, and make sure they're lending to the right people.

This plan will also put stricter regulation on things like hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds. The people who manage these funds would be required to submit records about who, what, and where they're investing.

The records given to the government would be reviewed by a 'systemic risk regulator.' And who is this 'systemic risk regulator' going to be? Well, they aren't sure yet. Let's just eliminate the job before it's created, how 'bout that?

These hedge funds haven't been hurt by the recession (maybe that's why people have one?!). Apparently, that automatically makes them a bad thing. (Remember, the owners of the funds aren't 'sharing' their hard earned money! Oh no!)

From the page- I quote- " Now, a growing number of lawmakers and policy makers are worried that hedge funds have become too big a part of the financial market to operate without government monitoring."

This. Is. Not. The. Government's. Job. Period, end of story.

So why do they think it is? Why do they think that 'monitoring' the economy is their job, not ours, the people's?

I don't know. But they need to get their act together. This is not their job. It doesn't matter how much of a mess Wall Street has made of things. Wall Street will fix it- we hope- and if it doesn't, it still isn't the government's place to get involved!

That is what capitalism is. It rises, it falls, it ebbs, but it always recovers by itself.

In fact, what has caused this recession is government intervention! We would never have had this recession if they had just let the free market take it's own road. Instead, they had to get involved in every minute area of the market- monitoring jobs, finances, lending...

When will it stop? Where will it stop?

Not even the Food is Safe...

A bill is now before the house, proposing the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. (Incidentally, the lady who proposed the bill is married to a worker for Monsanto...a huge producer of seeds and the like. Can we say 'conflict of interests' anyone?)

What the bill does is mandate the creation of a 'Food Safety Administration' (like we don't already have enough agencies!!), allow the government to control food production, and let them fine anyone who is breaking the rules...up to $1,000,000. Per offense.

The purpose of the bill- according to the people who drafted it- is "to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes."

The government would go and inspect every food production facility. Which basically, is anywhere where people grow and sell food. Which include gardens and local farmers who sell their surplus on their front lawn or in a farmer's market.

These farmers would also have to give up all records they had held, about production, taxes, and selling. Yeah. This sounds so...American. Already. I love it.

Every farm/garden must abide by "minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water."

OK first off. This bill really, really sounds like it's just trying to get rid of family farms and organic farms. Why? Well, for one thing, these farms are generally small. They don't have a lot of money, and they don't have a lot of workers. So, they won't be able to pay for the changes they'd have to do to adhere to the guidelines.

Second, they would probably still fail the guidelines on some technicality. They will then be pushed out of business by the exorbitant fines they will be hit with.

Of course, none of these fines or charges will come crashing down upon the heads of big businesses. Why? Because those same big farms have lobbyists. They have lawyers, lawyers strictly on the job of finding loopholes in the laws mandating them. They can pay to get out of trouble.

Small farms cannot.

This is such a stupid, unAmerican, anti-liberty law, it isn't even disgusting. It's gone back around the circle and borders on hilarious. It's hilariously disgusting. It's hilarious because I'm left wondering if this is really true; if the government is really trying to do this.

Then, it's disgusting because I know this really is real, that our Congress really is contemplating this.

I'm so proud of my elected officials.