Search This Blog

Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

All STATES Matter!

    If you want to piss someone off simply tell them: "You don't matter!"   Instantly you will have a fight on your hands.  We saw this when the whole "Black Lives Matter" movement came out and was met with "All Lives Matter" as a response.  Later this was followed with "Blue Lives Matter".  We all want to MATTER.  We all want to be heard and listened to and our needs met.

    The purpose of the Electoral College is very simple: To preserve the UNION.  We are the the United STATES of America and not the United Peoples of America.  That is really what is at issue here.   The states elect the President and not the PEOPLE.   The States created the Federal Government by coming together and writing the Constitution and ratifying it in their state legislatures back in 1791.   Our Constitution is about preserving our UNION of STATES pure and simple.  Our founding father recognized that not all our states are the same.   Some are more rural and some are more urban in nature.  They each have unique needs and wants that need to be balanced.   They saw the growth of the urban states.  They knew that the urban states would have a majority vote over the rural states without any care of their needs.  If left unchecked, this would eventually lead to civil war and a dissolving of our union.  In a sense, it's purpose to say to the Federal government: ALL STATES MATTER!

    To illustrate this, imagine family of five: a mother, a father, two boys and girl.  Imagine that to make decisions in the family they use a purely democratic system of voting.   It is a true statement that women have unique needs and wants that are many times different from that of men.   Let's say in our hypothetical family,  they want to decide where to go on vacation.  The males may want to go camping and fishing whereas the females may want to go to the city and see museums.   In their democratic system, the males would always out vote the females and get their way.   Year after year the women would be subjected to camping outdoors and smelly fish.  Other decisions as well during the year would not go their way.  Where they eat, what they do, what movies they see, what TV shows they watch etc would all be ruled by the men because they are in the MAJORITY.   Our Founding Fathers referred to this as the "tyranny of the majority".   The majority isn't always right and shouldn't always get their way.    In our family example, it would be better for the sake of harmony (and to prevent divorce) that the men give up their majority rights and do what the women in the family want to do.    It too is about preserving the UNION.  The union of the family in this case.

    Our country is much like this family in that the majority is not always right. All voices, like those of the rural states need to be listened to as much as those of the large urban communities.   Just like the men in the our family example aren't always right and it wouldn't hurt them to go to the city and see some museums from time to time.  So also, our country needs to listen to the right and do things their way from time to time.   It's all about preserving our UNION of STATES so we don't resort to separation because a large group of states no longer matters anymore.   Just look at the state of California.   While they are talking about seceding from the union (over an election), at the same time several northern counties in their own state are talking about seceding from the state of California to become their own state because they no longer matter either.

Friday, February 21, 2014

99 bottles of beer on the wall

    99 bottles of beer.  Take one down pass it around... 98 bottles of beer on the wall.    Who doesn't remember singing that song on a long car ride with the family?   Most of us never got past 90 as by that time we were usually to hoarse to sing another note. (That was probably the goal our parents had in mind in teaching us that song so they could have some peace and quiet in the car)

    I have a new take on that song we should probably be teaching our kids and here it goes...

   99 freedoms of speech we all have.
   99 freedoms of speech 
   Take one down, trample it down...
   98 freedoms of speech we all have

  Okay, so it doesn't roll off the tongue like original ... but you get the point.

    Last year we witnessed the IRS going after conservative groups applying for tax-exempt-free status as a 501c3 to limit their free speech (and enhance others they do like).   The leaders of these groups were targeted by our government by the FBI, ATF, HSA, and even by OSHA.   They were also harassed by requests from the IRS for things like: lists of the their members (address, phone# and even SS#), 90-page questionnaires detailing their thoughts on the Constitution and the role of government in peoples lives.  Many saw their businesses dry up because their customers were often harassed as well by the same organizations.   Now we have learned that rather than stop this abuse, the IRS has instead decided to make it all perfectly legal by "clarifying its rules" and making it the requirement (saying that the reason for the earlier abuse was that the rules weren't clear enough before).  And even though the President said he was "angered" by the events that led up to the investigation (heard it on the news) and promised the American people that those who instigated them would be held responsible, no one... repeat no one.. has been fired for their actions.  Instead the person at the center of the crime was allowed to plead the 5th (they cherish that personal right a lot) and take early retirement. 

     Now we have learned that the FCC wants to get into the same game by doing a "study" of media outlets by placing government officials in TV newsrooms across the nation to see how decisions are made as to what information is brought to the American public and why.   From this study, the FCC maintains, they will be able to better serve the "national interest" by incentivize-ing media outlets.

    Hmmm....What could go wrong here?

    Of course many will say that the FCC study is not mandatory and TV stations can "opt out" if they desire.   But given that these same TV stations get their license to be on the airwaves from the same organization doing the study, it is highly unlikely that they will say "no thanks" to the request.  Anyone who has read (and I urge you to if you haven't) "Atlas Shrugged" will immediately recognize the similarity to the government agents that were placed inside of corporations to make sure these companies were complying with the government and were serving the "national interest and public good".    These agents were there mostly to "rat" on the companies and give the government inside information on what the company was doing so they could best strong-arm them when needed.   This will be the same job of these agents as well.... especially at conservative news outlets.

    Will Fox News be the first to be studied?   Not sure.  Given that Fox News lives on cable and not on the airwaves (so FCC does not license them) it would not be likely unless they use some other controlling tactic such as the IRS, FBI or HSA to do their dirty work.   But Fox also has many TV news stations dotted across the country that do live on the air-waves so they might see an FCC agents shadow darkening their doorway in the near future.   Listening in on their editorial and programming decisions while at the same time taking notes and providing important "feedback" to them as to what their FCC bosses consider important and newsworthy.

     Like a 100 foot wall separating two countries,  the best way to remove that wall is not all at once with a tank or a missile, but instead 1 layer of brick every year.  In doing so, each generation will think the wall has always been 100ft, 99ft, 98ft,...10ft,9ft,8ft,7ft tall until nothing is left to stop the invading hordes from taking over.

   We are witnessing the bricks disappearing now at an alarming rate and we better wake up and tell them to put them back before its too late. I believe to allow ANY government agent in the media will set a dangerous precedent for future generations as they will undoubtedly be told that "This has been a long held tradition in our news agencies etc... and we are just adding to that tradition by ...."

  Question left for us now is... how far are we into the song  "99 Freedoms of Speech"  and are there enough left to  make a difference.