Monday, December 25, 2006

Responsibility

I recently came across this excellent passage in Macauley's History of England. I've read it before, but this time it stood out particularly to me. If only the American people had possessed this kind of foresight for the past century and a half, we might still live in a free country.

Macauley here is discussing the frequent departures from constitutional government on the part of the early Kings of England, particularly the Plantagenets and Tudors. The emphasis is mine.


"Our forefathers might indeed safely tolerate a king in a few excesses; for they had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest king to reason, the check of physical force. It is difficult for an Englishman of the nineteenth century to imagine to himself the facility and rapidity with which, four hundred years ago, this check was applied. The people have long unlearned the use of arms. The art of war has been carried to a perfection unknown to former ages; and the knowledge of that art is confined to a particular class. A hundred thousand soldiers, well disciplined and commanded, will keep down ten millions of ploughmen and artisans. A few regiments of household troops are sufficient to overawe all the discontented spirits of a large capital. In the meantime the effect of the constant progress of wealth has been to make insurrection far more terrible to thinking men than maladministration. Immense sums have been expended on works which, if a rebellion broke out, might perish in a few hours. The mass of movable wealth collected in the shops and warehouses of London alone exceeds five hundredfold that which the whole island contained in the days of the Plantagenets; and, if the government were subverted by physical force, all this movable wealth would be exposed to imminent risk of spoliation and destruction.... In such a state of society resistance must be regarded as a cure more desperate than almost any malady which can afflict the state. In the middle ages, on the contrary, resistance was an ordinary remedy for political distempers, a remedy which was always at hand, and which, though doubtless sharp at the moment, produced no deep or lasting ill effects. If a popular chief raised his standard in a popular cause, an irregular army could be assembled in a day. Regular army there was none. Every man had a slight tincture of soldiership, and scarcely any man more than a slight tincture. The national wealth consisted chiefly in flocks and herds, in the harvest of the year, and in the simple buildings inhabited by the people. All the furniture, the stock of shops, the machinery which could be found in the realm was of less value than the property which some single parishes now contain. Manufactures were rude; credit was almost unknown. Society, therefore, recovered from the shock as soon as the actual conflict was over. The calamities of civil war were confined to the slaughter on the field of battle, and to a few subsequent executions and confiscations. In a week the peasant was driving his team and the esquire flying his hawks over the field of Towton or of Bosworth, as if no extraordinary event had interrupted the regular course of human life.


"More than a hundred and sixty years have now elapsed since the English people have by force subverted a government. During the hundred and sixty years which preceded the union of the Roses, nine Kings reigned in England. Six of these nine Kings were deposed. Five lost their lives as well as their crowns. It is evident, therefore, that any comparison between our ancient and our modern polity must lead to most erroneous conclusions, unless large allowance be made for the effect of that restraint which resistance and the fear of resistance constantly imposed on the Plantagenets. As our ancestors had against tyranny a most important security which we want, they might safely dispense with some securities to which we justly attach the highest importance. As we cannot, without the risk of evils from which the imagination recoils, employ physical force as a check on misgovernment, it is evidently our wisdom to keep all the constitutional checks on misgovernment in the highest state of efficiency, to watch with jealousy the first beginnings of encroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, even when harmless in themselves, to pass unchallenged, lest they acquire the force of precedents. Four hundred years ago such minute vigilance might well seem unnecessary. A nation of hardy archers and spearmen might, with small risk to its liberties, connive at some illegal acts on the part of a prince whose general administration was good, and whose throne was not defended by a single company of regular soldiers."

America today furnishes an excellent illustration of the Baron's point.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Bill Of Rights Lecture

In response to numerous requests, I'm posting the main body of my comments at the Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet last week.

(Warning: very long.)

Bill of Rights Lecture – Dec. 15, 2006

How does it feel to live in the freest country in the world? There are folks all over this planet that would give up everything for a chance to enjoy the freedom that America stands for. It’s easy to take things for granted when we are accustomed to them. Maybe we could profit from taking a fresh look at freedom in the land of the free.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] of acquiring, possessing and protecting property…”

“No person shall … be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law.”

“[No man] can … be deprived of his Life, Liberty, or Property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.”

America is a nation where property rights are respected. Are you a landowner? Then as long as no endangered animal or plant species or wetlands can be found on your property, as long as your local government cannot think of a more lucrative use for your property, and as long as you pay your property taxes on time, no one can take that land from you! If you wish to build on it, all you have to do is make sure there are no conservation easements on your land, and submit a land development plan to the township. Once they approve it, simply apply for the necessary permits, plan your project in accordance with applicable building and fire codes, hire a licensed builder, (and keep paying those property taxes). If you want to raise livestock on your land, have USDA issue you a premises ID number, and make sure you report every thing your animals do within 48 hours. That’s all! It’s your land.

America is a nation where liberty is inviolable. If you wish to travel from one place to another, you are free to travel, (provided you have been issued a National ID card from your state Department of Transportation). If you wish to carry a weapon to defend yourself or your family from harm, you have the freedom to do so, (provided you have been issued a Social Security Number and a Concealed Carry Permit,) as long as you stay out of the post office and away from schools. If you are a law-abiding citizen who has not been charged with a crime, you cannot be detained against your will unless you are deemed to be an enemy combatant or an evil person by the President or the Secretary of Defense.

America is a nation where life is sacred. If you are a law-abiding citizen your life is protected by the full force of the law, unless you are one of the 4000 babies murdered every day.


What is wrong with this picture?

Does this sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave?

We all know our freedoms aren’t what they used to be. I want to take some time this evening to analyze how this erosion has occurred. The Constitution that established the United States of America two hundred and seventeen years ago was short and to the point. But it contained and embodied the most astonishing collection of sound, republican principles of government that has ever been written.

I initially intended to spend some time examining the Federalist / Antifederalist debate as it applied to the Bill of Rights. That has proven to be an … interesting … undertaking and one that would take up a tremendous amount of time! The VA convention saw this subject debated for four solid weeks by some of the most brilliant minds ever to assist in forming a system of government. I highly recommend the study of Elliot’s Debates to anyone who can spare the time. It will be an incredible education and open an entirely new series of perspectives on our federal government.

For now it is sufficient to say that in virtually every case, our founders agreed that the principles represented in the Bill of Rights were essential to freedom and to the survival of the United States of America. They disagreed on the question of whether the codification in the Constitution of those principles would ultimately strengthen or weaken them, but they were unanimous in their belief that they could not be subjected to governmental tampering without destroying the entire foundation of American freedom. In the end, a compromise was reached whereby the most significant of these principles were added to the Constitution by amendment and became the Bill of Rights.

So what do these rights mean to us? Well, in case you couldn’t tell, this Constitution is still supposed to be the Supreme law of the land. If politicians ignore it, they do so because … they can.

Whose fault is that?

We’ll get to that later.

So what we have is a Constitution that is supposed to define the limits of the federal government, and just in case a misunderstanding should arise regarding implied powers, the Bill of Rights is a list of specific areas that the federal government may not touch, and specific things that the federal government may not do. Period. Of course, this creates a problem for politicians who wish to extend their own authority or that of the federal government in general, as indeed it was intended to. In the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, these politicians come up against what many of our founders believed would be an impassable obstacle to their ambitions.

The fact that, two centuries and seventeen amendments later, the Constitution still stands in the way of these politicians is a tribute to the wisdom of our founders and to the blessing of Almighty God on their efforts. But while it still poses an obstacle to unrestrained federal power, its usefulness has been vastly diminished. While politicians have been embarrassed, thwarted and annoyed by the Constitution’s unflinching protection of individual freedom, this freedom is even more dependent on another entity – we the people!

Let’s face it; a piece of paper is only binding while those bound by it respect it. And those who believe that you are incompetent to live your life without legislative assistance have taken full advantage of this weakness. There are several ways that politicians in this country have found to sidestep or evade the restrictions on them resultant from the Bill of Rights. In many cases they have effectively destroyed the rights in question. Let’s take a close look at a few of them.

1)------------------------------------------------------

The first method for stealing your rights that we’ll talk about is redefinition. The chief culprit in this one is the judicial system, although the entertainment industry and the news media have both made significant contributions in this area as well.

Perhaps the best-known example of redefinition is the 1st amendment protection of freedom of religion. The founders were very clear what they meant by freedom of religion. There is a fascinating exchange in the Annals of the House of Representatives in August of 1789, when this issue was under consideration. A gentleman by the name of Mr. Sylvester expressed a fear that the proposed amendment might be taken as an abolishment of religion from government. Mr. Madison replied that he understood the words to mean that Congress could not establish a national religion, nor (and I quote) “compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” (You will notice he assumed they had a conscience.) Mr. Huntington responded that he understood that to be the correct meaning, “but, (he said,) others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it.” He went on to say that he hoped the amendment would be written so as to secure the rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion.

Hmm.

Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama State Supreme Court was recently removed from the bench for violating a federal court order. The federal judge argued that the presence of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom was in conflict with the first amendment.

Students all over this country have been suspended from school for bringing Bibles into school. Principals and teachers claim that the presence of a Bible in a public school is a violation of the first amendment.

Folks, “freedom of religion” has been redefined as freedom from God! The American court system has been taken over by humanist thinkers who conceive it to be their duty to protect society from the God of the Bible. It’s a dangerous job, but so far they haven’t realized that. Their message to American Christians is simple: “if you want to worship God, that’s fine, but do it in the closet. Don’t let your God get in our way.”

By the way, Biblical Christianity cannot comfortably exist alongside blatant immorality. So when the church capitulated to the world and went to the closet with their religion … did you notice what came out of the closet?

Another case in point is the 5th amendment restriction on the exercise of eminent domain. Without going extensively into the legal background of eminent domain, it is safe to say that our founders had a very limited definition of the phrase “public use.” Currently, however, the courts have implied that any significant financial benefit to the local government may be considered public use for eminent domain purposes. The concept of taking has also been redefined to exclude all but a complete loss of title to property. In other words, a landowner may be completely deprived of the use of his property without compensation, so long as he retains legal title to it.

Many more examples could be cited, but the crowning achievement of the redefinition movement is the shift from inherent, unalienable rights given us by our Creator, to civil rights granted by the State. My brother and I had the opportunity to hear a debate on the USA PATRIOT Act a few years ago in Media, hosted by the Delaware County Bar Association. Federal district attorney Linda Dale Hoffa undertook to defend the Act against Peter Goldberg of the Atheist & Communist Lawyer’s Union.

The debate focused on whether or not the Patriot Act violated essential civil rights. (I am not sure why they felt it necessary to debate about it.) At any rate, Judah and I decided to put them on the spot when the time for questions came. So we asked the panel to address the difference as they perceived it between civil (or constitutional) rights, and natural (or inalienable) rights such as the founders spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. We pointed out that Article 1 Sec.25 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states clearly that the rights codified in that Article are (quote) “excepted out of the general powers of government and shall for ever remain inviolate.”

Mr. Goldberg replied that since the 1920s the courts have operated under the assumption that rights are granted by the Constitution, not by a higher power. He did have the honesty to add that the founders would not have agreed with that position. I’d call that redefinition.

2)----------------------------------------------------

Another common technique for taking away freedoms is distraction. This one involves incremental attacks at a time when the people are distracted by other issues to the point where they may not notice the encroachment. With the frantic pace of life in America today, that’s not hard to do. Many think that the enumeration of a given right in the Bill of Rights should be sufficient protection against such an attempt; that while the state may succeed in individual cases to deny a citizen certain rights, it could not become standard practice while those rights are protected by the Constitution. But the chief danger in this case lies in the precedent formed. When a right has been repeatedly denied without repercussions, the denial of that right takes on the color, and in many cases, the force, of law.

Perhaps the best example of this is the current state of property rights in America. You know, for years my parents were regular attendees at meetings of the Concord Township Board of Supervisors. Every time it was the same. More landowners asking permission to subdivide, or build, or you name it. Every so often my mom’s American blood would reach boiling temperature, and she’d stand up and remind the Board that the property in question didn’t belong to them. Do you know something? Not once can I recall another person in the audience agreeing with her. Not once! Why? They were too busy, too distracted, to consider the danger of a community taking a “proactive position” on land development. “What’s the big deal?”

Last year Concord Township hired a planning firm to design a town center overlay. The purpose of this district was to “preserve” a bunch of run-down homes from the 1940’s and to prevent the “ugly” kind of commercial development from occurring in Concordville. Of course, property values dropped over the affected area. Two landowners lost potential commercial buyers when the new zoning proposal was announced. Guess what?

Two landowners suddenly discovered that it was a violation of their rights for the township to tell them what they could do with their property. Two landowners suddenly were advocating individual property rights instead of community rights. Problem was, they were too late. The time to speak up was thirty years ago! These men had been in meetings before when mom told the Supervisors they were out of order. Did they ever speak up and agree with her? No. And by the time their property rights were attacked, the precedent had been firmly established.

The current frontier of this issue is National Heritage Areas. All over the country huge corridors of land are being invisibly annexed by the Federal Government under the pretext of historic and environmental preservation. The Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area. The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail. The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. The Land Between the Rivers Southern Illinois National Heritage Area. The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area. The St. Croix National Heritage Area. The Northern Neck National Heritage Area. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area. You know, I initially intended to list all the National Heritage Areas that are being considered in the last days of this Congress, but there are 31 of them! And don’t think they’re insignificant. So far over a dozen have been established around the country. One of them, the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area, is Tennessee. Not in Tennessee, it actually encompasses the entire state.

If you take the time to read any one of the acts establishing these Heritage Areas, you will find that it amounts to federal zoning. How many of you have paid any attention to this development? How many of your neighbors know or care? Or is this a case of we the people being too distracted to notice that yet another layer is being added to the control of our property?

3)----------------------------------------------------

Another way rights may be evaded by politicians involves the invention of a bogus “right” that effectively cancels the original right. This occurs in Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Sec. 1 of that article states that “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property … etc.”

Sec. 27 of the same article declares: “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” This beautiful sentiment directly contradicts the right of the owner of a given piece of the environment to possess and protect his property without interference.

How about “compassionate conservatism?” Consider the “right” of every child to have a first class education. There is hardly one politician in five hundred who would dare to question this “right.” It has become almost an icon of America. But consider: if you decline to fund this process out of your own pocket, you lose your home? There is a conflict between the two rights, and one of them has to give. Consequently, you no longer own your castle; you lease it from the state.

We can’t even scratch the surface of this problem tonight. Americans feel … notice they don’t believe any more … they feel that they have a right to health insurance, inexpensive drugs, and world class medical care. They have a right to free public preschools, healthy fast food, and a home to live in. They have a right to their job, even if they refuse to work for the wages offered. They have a right to express their feelings in whatever way strikes their fancy, no matter how offensive or corrupt those feelings are. They have a right to your wages to fund their retirement. They have a right to a beautiful, quiet neighborhood to retire in. In short, they feel entitled to enjoy all the things that our forefathers worked for, and much more, only without the work. They even have a right to be warned of every possible mishap that could occur in the course of their lives, just in case they should forget to think for themselves.

Yet these same Americans cheerfully submit to the violation of their 2nd and 4th amendment rights every time they walk into the county courthouse. Like good citizens, they throw away their water bottles before boarding a plane, or bring their dad’s gun to the police in exchange for a hundred dollars and the firm conviction that their street just got a little bit safer. And all along, they thank their lucky stars they were born in America!

4)----------------------------------------------------

So far we’ve discussed three approaches that have been effective in nullifying or destroying our inalienable rights: redefinition, distraction and cancellation through the invention of other, bogus “rights.” But the favorite tactic of recent administrations is perhaps the most insidious. It involves linking a particular right in the public perception to some imminent danger that can be used to justify curtailing the right in question.

It is hardly necessary to go into detail with this one. Examples are literally everywhere. The right to financial privacy has been trumped by the risk of tax evasion. The right to privacy in our possessions has been trumped by the risk of food-borne disease. The right to keep and bear arms has been abridged for fear … we might exercise it! The right to a speedy and public trial by jury has given way to the urgent need to stop evil people before they kill us all. The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures has succumbed to the risk of disorder in the event of a natural disaster. Our right to personal security has been subordinated to the risk of bio-terrorism.

If you think any of this is exaggerated, you need to go back and look at what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. You need to read the laws and executive orders regarding the National Animal Identification System and the National ID Card. You need to pay attention when Newt Gingrich says the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism. And you need to read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, both signed into law by our dear leader on October 17 of this year.

Representative Ron Paul apparently read these two pieces of legislation, unlike his colleagues. His assessment is that together they (and I quote) “officially allow for citizen concentration camp facilities …[and]… essentially wipe out Habeas Corpus.” Folks, that did not come from James Lloyd or some conspiracy theorist’s blog, nor did it come from a bleeding heart ACLU lawyer. That statement is the honest opinion of a Republican member of Congress.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the rights your Creator has given you, without exception, down to the most sacred rights of property, liberty, and life itself, are being denied by the state in the name of security. In their place you have been graciously allowed privileges; great privileges indeed when contrasted with those enjoyed by other nations, but privileges still! They may seem perfectly sufficient to a nation of zombies lounging in front of their entertainment centers, but they are useless for the protection of a free people.

So back to my earlier question: whose fault is this? Back in the Clinton years everyone knew: it was the Democrats’ fault! Of course! Well, we’ve had six years to learn how foolish that idea was. Conservatives are split these days. Some of them have, inexplicably, discovered a new level of trust in their leaders, and no longer see the harm in “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” Others blame the Republican Party for selling out. Some blame F.D.R., or Woodrow Wilson, or Abraham Lincoln. Some throw the blame all the way back to our founding fathers. They have made the astonishing discovery that this nation was founded on a conspiracy; that the very founders who gave us the least intrusive government in modern history were secretly plotting to facilitate the establishment of an oligarchy of international bankers a century later.

And while we argue about who started it, our enemies are finishing it. There was a time when they might have feared to be exposed, but not anymore. They are confident, insolent, and arrogant, and not without cause. What reason do they have to fear an electorate that has consistently exhibited all the characteristics of sheep? The sense of the American people has been taken every two years for the past five decades, with surprisingly consistent results. Keep the economy booming and don’t let anyone hurt us. That is the sum total of what we expect from our government. Financial and national security.

It’s our fault.

Friends, the courts could not have succeeded in redefining our rights had we known what they were in the first place. Politicians could not have incrementally stolen our rights had we valued them enough to pay attention. They could not have foisted on us the benefits of welfare in exchange for the opportunities of freedom had we not been greedy enough to be tempted by our neighbor’s wealth. And they could not have induced a nation of free and brave men and women to surrender their liberty in exchange for the fleeting illusion of safety.

Abraham Lincoln once remarked that “you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Evidently he did not envision the future of the American people. A wise man once observed, “The trouble with lying is that you have to remember what you said.” Folks, that is no longer true in America. Our politicians no longer need to remember what they said. They simply need to say what their audience wants to hear. Why is it that a President can portray himself as a moderate conservative to win an election, drive forward with a socialist agenda for four years, remake himself into an extreme conservative to win the next election, and continue with the same socialist agenda without being universally cried down as a lying hypocrite? Simply because the American people don’t pay attention and/or don’t care. Granted, only about half of the voters spent their voice on him, but look who the other half voted for! Not much comfort there.

Yes, it’s our fault. We have turned our backs on God, forgotten or despised our forefathers, and sold our votes to the enemies of liberty for the promise of prosperity. Other generations have done their part to squander the blessings of liberty, but I believe the legal history of the last six years will some day be recognized as the end of the end of freedom in America. Unless God directly intervenes on our behalf, it’s over.

And why should that surprise us? Our Constitution was built on the foundation of self-government. Self-government requires discipline, and more importantly, it requires godliness. William Penn said, “Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants.” Just go to the mall this weekend. Take a moment to sit down and watch the crowd. Do they look capable of self-government? If you’re not convinced try a football game.

Does it sound desperate? Good. Maybe when we recognize the impossible nature of our situation we will finally ask God to name His conditions instead of trying to negotiate with Him. He’s done that already: “If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Christian, the responsibility is yours. Do you love America enough to shut off the TV and call the family together for prayer? Do you love your children enough to do your part to give them a free country to live in? To hand this nation to our children as is, without a struggle, is murder! Don’t kid yourself. The Brave New World does not include room for faith in Jesus Christ and liberty and justice for all mankind.

Please don’t misunderstand me; God will take care of His Church. But we would do well to heed the warning of Mordecai to Queen Esther. Think not that you will escape. If you will not do your part, God will deliver His people another way. But do not expect to be included in that deliverance. As the German minister told Adolph Hitler, our concern is not for the church, but for the soul of our country. It is that concern that I pray God every one of you takes home tonight.

In closing: Repentance and prayer are the keys. If you won’t do that you might as well go home. Beyond that, I believe there are a few specific, practical things we can do as well.

First one is pay attention.

Second: (and only do this one if you are paying attention!) Vote! And as Howard Phillips so eloquently has said, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, cast your vote in a way that honors God and let Him determine the outcome

Third: do stop telling everyone else to get out and vote. I’m serious. Very few people that I meet and talk to have a level of understanding that will be useful on Election Day. My sister told me one of her co-workers was so upset after the GOP got spanked last month that she openly advocated giving the President the authority to reject elected representatives that obstructed his agenda! Asked why she would support such a plan, she complained: “It’s obvious the checks and balances aren’t working anymore, so it’s time to do something different.” Excuse me? Seems to me the checks and balances worked surprisingly well last election, given all the tampering they’ve received. Do you really want folks like that voting?

Number four: educate yourself and others at every opportunity. Encourage others to pay close attention and analyze what they hear rather than simply believing it. This you can do all the time; there’s nothing to lose by having your greenie neighbor equally ticked off at the friendly face who’s lying to him.

Those of you who are parents, teach your children to wash their own brains. Fill their minds with the history of freedom and help them to appreciate it. Your children are already facing a tremendous surge of rank wickedness on one hand, and a multitude of counterfeit solutions to that wickedness on the other hand. It’s not going to get easier. Give them what they need to counter the attack.

Last, please don’t think that everything is OK. I said it earlier; I’ll say it again: every single right you think you have does not exist as far as your leaders are concerned. To surrender your rights willingly is stupidity, and to trust the leaders you give them up to is double stupidity. Trustworthy leaders don’t want your rights. Take the time to go online and scan the titles of legislation on the Thomas website. Legally speaking, you are not free and you are not safe.

I close with a quote from Patrick Henry.

“It is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and to listen to the song of that siren until she transforms us into beasts. [But] is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

Friday, November 10, 2006

You Asked!

You know those canned surveys that politicians send out to better serve you (ie: to make sure they are going with the flow of public opinion)? I like to answer them in detail when possible. It is good mental exercise and helps one to think positively about a subject that is often quite negative.

Here is an example. I received this survey in the spring from a State legislator. It was simply a list of boxes to check off if the voter thought the corresponding issue was important. Results obtained in this way can be misleading, however. For example, if one selects education as an important issue, that gives no indication of what the intended solution should be. One voter might feel that the teacher's pay needs to be increased to attract more professional or capable educators, while another might feel that the teachers should be fired en masse and the high school students should take over the elementary teaching positions, perhaps learning something themselves in the process.

Anyway...

----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Rep. _____,

I received the enclosed survey yesterday... Please accept my thanks for giving your constituents the opportunity to weigh in on the issues addressed. I think that several of these questions deserve more than a simple check, so with your permission I would like to address them specifically here.

On your question regarding funding sources for public schools, my only concern is that the income tax is too invasive of privacy. I realize that it is widely accepted , but I would view either a property tax or sales tax as preferable. Obviously, there is also the issue of tremendous waste within the public school system, so any increase in funding at the present would merely fuel the problem.

Regarding the reform efforts mentioned, I support all of them.


State government ought to be treated like a business where spending is concerned, although I recognize that this is not current wisdom. The pay raise scandal earlier this year is a perfect example. By the way, I appreciate your opposition to that job.


Election law is desperately in need of reform. I especially encourage you to lend your support to the Voter’s Choice Act proposed legislation you received from the PA Ballot Access Coalition. I would be delighted to see you as a sponsor of that legislation.


Gambling is a plague and a cancer on our society and the sooner this Commonwealth withdraws its support and involvement in it, the better for all of us.


The use of eminent domain is currently seeing shameful abuse around the nation and here in PA. The meaning of “public use” seriously needs definition, and it seems to me that the best way to control abuse of this power is to limit it to actual, direct and necessary public use, rather than simply anything that might improve revenue, view shed or property values.


And regarding Social Security Numbers, the dangerous rate of increase in identity theft alone should prompt a reconsideration of the widespread use of the SSN for identification. It is an extremely insecure form of ID; it is easily stolen and provides the criminal with almost limitless access to other private information. In addition, it is not really an identifier anyway, but rather an account number. And finally, the requirement of SSNs for state issued licenses discriminates against those who have religious objections to the Social Security System by denying them reasonable privileges as citizens of PA. Why would not the same ID required for a U.S. passport be sufficient for state licenses?


I also mentioned property tax reform: this is minor compared to the other points but I strongly believe that failure to pay property taxes ought not to result in the loss of the home. It could appropriately be tied to voting privileges without giving the state a default title to private property, which I believe is patently unjust.

On the issues you listed as potential focal points for state officials, I added Constitutional government, which I firmly believe ought to be the number one priority for every elected official in the Commonwealth. The fact that it has not been for some time only makes the need more urgent.

Overall tax burden – The waste and excessive spending that has characterized Harrisburg for years will have to be addressed before any true tax relief can be considered.


Property taxes – Above


Direction of the economy – This should not be the direct concern of the legislature.


Energy prices – Everyone would certainly like to see lower energy prices, but further interference by any level of government would only serve to exacerbate the problem. Free markets only work if they are free.


Crime/violence/drugs – These very serious problems are simply the logical result of our public school system, which has made the removal of moral inhibitions its number one priority.


Education/schools – They are precisely what one would expect from the lack of moral teaching and the emphasis on selfishness that they promote. If Pennsylvania would take a stand against the Federal courts, and be willing to lose federal funding in exchange for local control and real education, our school system would quickly surpass every other state in the nation, and this could be accomplished with only a fraction of the current level of expenditures. (Homeshoolers have proven this to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.)


Environment/pollution – This is a real problem in the cities, but has been so abused that I honestly don’t know how it should be approached at present.


Morality/Traditional family values – Tradition isn’t enough, sir. Until Pennsylvania is ready to allow God out of the closet, we will unfortunately be forced to deal with whatever else comes out in the best way we can.


Sanctity of life/Abortion – Every human being, regardless of age, is endowed by his or her Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life. Unless their right to life is forfeited by a capital crime, it is the first duty of all government to protect it. I believe abortion on demand is murder. Death as the result of a medical condition, however, is not. Medical technology should never be employed for the express purpose of taking life, but a person ought to have the right to determine to what extent it should be employed to keep them alive.


Traffic/roads/development and Farmland preservation - I support whatever can be done within constitutional limits.


Growth of government – Stop it!


Quality of life issues – Our government has enough to do within its proper sphere to take on such a vague and all-encompassing area of life beyond it.


Medicare/Medicaid programs – These programs are a drain on the state and a classic example of bureaucratic inefficiency, besides being socialistic and un-American in nature.


Prescription drugs – Given the abuse and danger of many of these drugs, their high cost may well be a blessing in disguise. Regardless, the people of this state will benefit more from a truly free market than from any amount of well-intentioned government intervention.


Thank you again for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple! Well ... ok. What's amazing is the fact that the Rep. I sent this particular response to actually read it! I've never had that happen before.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Dictatorship (almost)

A few days ago I forwarded an email received from _____ claiming that the defense appropriations bill signed by George the Third on Oct. 17 revised the Insurrection Act to expand the power of the Executive to impose martial law without State cooperation. (Read article here: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732834.php ) I looked through the ponderous "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" to confirm the information in that article. Here is a summary of the changes I found.

A) 10 USC Chapter 15, previously titled "Insurrections," is retitled "Enforcement of Laws to Restore Public Order."

B) 10 USC 333, "Interference with State and Federal Law," previously authorized the President to use "the militia or armed forces ... to supress ... any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy," if it hinders or obstructs the execution of the law so far that the citizens are "denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution." Under the new law Sec. 333 is retitled "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law." Under the revised law, the President may also use the armed forces or the National Guard (militia is not mentioned) to restore public order and enforce federal laws following "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" which results in the breakdown of public order.

C) 10 USC 334, "Proclamation to disperse," requires the President, when using the armed forces in a law enforcement capacity under Chapter 15, to issue a "proclamation ... order[ing] the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time." The new law reads "... the insurgents, or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws, to disperse..."

While the author of the previously mentioned article reverts to hyperbole in his claim that Bush has, in effect, declared himself dictator, there is certainly a significant pattern of consolidation of power in these changes. It is worth noting that 10 USC Chapter 15 has already been widely abused by previous administrations without judicial or legislative interference. And while the sincerity of Senator Leahy is worthy of doubt, his statements are undoubtedly correct and should make all of us take a realistic look at how we have allowed the current climate of fear to excuse the discarding of our liberties.

Echoooooes

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Military Commisions Act of 2006

Warning: material contained in this post may be detrimental to your state of denial.

I’ve just finished reading the final compromise version of Senate Bill 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which establishes military commissions for trial of “unlawful enemy combatants” under Chapter 47A of title 10 U.S.C. A close study of the bill reveals a power grab of astonishing proportions. To detail even the most important points would be an extensive task, but a few key concerns are presented here. Please take the time to read the legislation for yourself to verify these statements. A link is provided here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109fZSPZH:e0:

(If it doesn’t work go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type “Military Commissions Act of 2006” into the text search box. Select the version enrolled as agreed to or passed by both House and Senate.)

The most prominent concern on a first reading of this legislation is the sheer magnitude of the powers given to the President and Secretary of Defense. They include:

Unlimited authority to arbitrarily determine whether any person is an unlawful enemy combatant … - Sec. 948a(1)(ii) and Sec. 948d( c)
Sole authority to convene military commissions … - Sec. 948h
Sole authority to limit the unprecedented blanket power of Chapter 47A military commissions to “adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter…” - Sec. 948d(d)
Sole authority to prescribe all “procedures and rules of evidence … including elements and modes of proof, for cases triable by military commission…” as long as they are consistent with Chapter 47A U.S.C. - Sec. 949a
These are only a few of the powers reserved exclusively to the Executive branch under this legislation. Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the unlimited nature of the authority granted, SEC. 3 (950j) prohibits any court from hearing any challenge to the lawfulness of Chapter 47A military commissions generally, or to any of their proceedings, no exceptions. SEC.7 prohibits any court from hearing any action “relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” of any alien who has been or may be determined to be an enemy combatant. The only exceptions to the Sec. 7 prohibition are the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the appeals process under this Act. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the only court which may hear appeals from Chapter 47A commissions,) may only consider whether the military commission followed its own rules and procedures, not questions of fact or evidence. - Sec. 950g

While the final version of this Act does prohibit torture and bans statements or confessions obtained by torture, it permits hearsay evidence and “coerced evidence” to be admitted at the discretion of the military judge. - Sec. 948r Combined with the limitations on the scope of review by the appellate court, this provision all but guarantees the conviction of any person the prosecution wants convicted.

But the most frightening aspect of this legislation is the apparently intentional failure to define the phrase “any person subject to this chapter …” as it occurs in Subchapter VII, Punitive Matters. While the stated purpose of the Act is to provide for the trial of “alien unlawful enemy combatants,” there are three clauses that call that purpose into question.

Sec. 948a - Definitions: Combatant Status Review Tribunals are not restricted by this Act to consideration of aliens.
Sec. 950q – Principals: In specifying persons punishable under this chapter, no mention is made of alien, national or citizenship status.
"Sec. 950v(b)(26) – WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” (emphasis added)


It is difficult to understand how an alien could be guilty of “breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,” which clearly indicates that American Citizens may indeed be subjected to trial by military commission. If that is the case, an examination of Sec. 950v suggests that any common criminal could potentially be charged with terrorism, thereby losing his constitutional rights. Which, of course, means that the bill is unconstitutional. Don't let it shock you.

All in all, the bill is dangerously vague even if applied only to alien combatants, and could easily be interpreted to include foreigners engaged in the defense of their own country against the U.S. or its allies. While the injustice of such an interpretation is evident, it is worth noting that when this administration prematurely declared victory in Iraq, they endeavored to cover up their mistake by labeling as terrorists the indigenous Iraqi insurgency rather than admit that the demise of the Hussein regime was not equivalent to the restoration of peace. I make no objection to the label as applied to the Islamic jihadists who have selected Iraq as a battleground against the west, but a native Iraqi engaging in guerilla warfare against the invaders of his homeland hardly deserves to be accused of terrorism, regardless of the good intentions of the invading forces. I mention this only to highlight the fact that this law, through its extreme lack of clarity, lends a color of legality to such unjust sophistry.

The bottom line: get ready for the Brave New World, coming soon to a city near you. But remember:

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.”

Friday, August 04, 2006

NAIS: Big Brother, Big Farmer?

On July 17 I attended a town hall meeting sponsored by the Berks Equine Council to discuss the National Animal Identification System. The USDA’s NAIS coordinator, Neil E. Hammerschmidt, gave a glowing presentation on the benefits of the new system, emphasizing the need for a timely response to potential disease outbreaks in livestock. He outlined the components of the system as a 7 character Premises ID# to be assigned to every premises where livestock are housed, managed or exhibited; and a15 digit Animal ID# to be assigned to each animal. (In the case of poultry or swine, a Group/Lot ID# could take the place of the AID#.) The AID# would be permanently attached to each animal with either a visual tag or an RFID microchip tag/implant. All livestock movements between premises, as well as births, deaths, and ownership transfers, would be reported via these two numbers to a massive Animal Tracking Database to be stored for future reference in case of a disease outbreak.

Mr. Hammerschmidt was careful to point out that premises registration is free and voluntary. He warned, however, that the USDA is prepared to pursue “development of regulations through normal rule making procedures” if full voluntary participation is not achieved by January of 2009.

Hmmmm. Sounds like a plan. Can anyone think of a good reason why we shouldn’t tag people too? Just imagine how much more efficiently our benevolent masters could respond if the dreaded avian flu should break out among us! How can we sleep at night knowing that if there was a sudden epidemic, federal health officials would be unable to determine whether we had been in company with an infected person or not? It’s a wonder that bovine spongiform encephalopathy hasn’t already depopulated half of the country in the absence of such critical disease fighting tools as the NAIS provides.

On second thought, maybe there are a few drawbacks. I would never want to be misunderstood as suggesting that the warmhearted do-gooders in Washington D.C. might use our personal information to harm us, but maybe, just maybe some terrorist could gain access to the wealth of information they are assembling. Then what?

Dr. Mary Zanoni of Farm for Life took issue with the characterization of the program as voluntary, pointing out that in at least two states the departments of Agriculture have submitted large blocks of information regarding premises locations to the NAIS database without the consent of the property owners affected. These owners then received notice that they had been assigned Premises ID#s, in spite of the fact that they were not even notified of the submission of their information to the federal government.

One lady in the audience commented that the entire program smacked of George Orwell’s 1984. An interesting observation, especially when one considers the fact that if anyone had predicted in 1990 that within a decade the USDA would be developing a serious plan to number and track every single significant movement of every privately owned livestock animal in the country, they would have been laughed out of town as a raving, paranoid conspiracy theorist. Now many folks are seriously wondering, not if, but when the next logical step will be taken and they will be subjected to similar surveillance.

Another attendee questioned whether the program would eventually be farmed out to private companies, and worried that such a move could lead to increased cost for livestock owners. His question failed to recognize that the program isn’t actually free. The concern was partially merited, however: since stockholders would not likely allow a private company to borrow into the trillions and still run an annual deficit, privatization could potentially force producers to pay for the program directly in addition to their tax bill.

Several members of the audience asked whether the program was constitutional. Hammerschmidt studiously avoided answering the question; in fact he avoided most of the questions asked during the meeting. He and Dr. John Weimer, also of the USDA, displayed an exceptional level of caution in their responses, rarely making statements that could be assigned definite meanings. An interesting feature of the meeting was the inability of Hammerschmidt or his colleagues to specify precisely what affected livestock owners would be required to do, or what action would be taken if they failed to do it. The USDA appears to have taken it for granted that livestock owners will be standing in line to receive further instructions regarding the disclosure of their private information to the federal government as they are made available. I sincerely question whether that will be the case.

While such a deep concern for the safety of the American people surely is commendable, there is one more point that ought to be considered. In order to understand the impact this program could have, it may be helpful to consider the results of other regulatory solutions to safety concerns. Forty years ago, it was the unquestioned right of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for defensive purposes. Since the imposition of the Concealed Carry Permit (which purported to increase public safety by requiring periodic background checks for armed citizens), a number of formerly law-abiding individuals have found themselves imprisoned for no other crime than doing what Pennsylvania citizens had always done: carrying a weapon. Thirty years ago everyone owned a dog. Today, in this state, a fine of three hundred dollars per dog is imposed for failure to first obtain a dog license. Twenty years ago, seatbelts were merely required to be in vehicles for the safety of passengers. Today one can be fined for failing to wear a seatbelt; an act which endangers no one but themselves.

There was a time when a man was free to build an addition on his home whenever he chose; to build a useful product and sell it to his neighbors; to offer a service to the neighborhood and profit from his work; when even the profits he made were his own business and no one else’s. Today he cannot legally replace the shingles on his roof without a building permit; build a product without the proper zoning and use permits; offer a service for profit without a business license; and if he should fail to meticulously report to Big Brother the details of his personal finances, he finds himself jailed as a dishonest cheat. And what are the benefits we receive from each of these new limitations on our personal freedom? Roofs leak just as they always have; only now we have to call a licensed and insured contractor to fix them. We don’t have to put up with our neighbor working in his shop late at night, because for the most part, our neighbors don’t make anything; China does that for us. We have been so dehumanized that we seriously assume that an unlicensed businessman is an incompetent one. And we don’t even mind giving personal information to our bloated and bankrupt government, because it’s what all good Americans do, and after all, we don’t have anything to hide!

So what does this have to do with the National Animal Identification System? Simply this: when the NAIS becomes mandatory, those small, backyard livestock owners who don’t report every time their daughter’s pony goes to a 4-H show, every time they butcher a steer, or every time their neighbor’s billy comes over to freshen their milk goat, will become criminals. That’s right, criminals. And for what? Once again in the name of safety, a new class of law-breakers will have been created where none existed before. Can you imagine buying organic meat on the black market? If the past is any indication, that may soon be a reality.

How much is too much?

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Operation Valiant Shield

Well, with all the din created by the news media reassuring us that the FBI just made our lives a little safer by shutting down a group of Islamic “online martyrs,” I wonder how many folks missed the little blurb about Operation Valiant Shield. An annual joint exercise of the US military in the Pacific ocean, this year’s Valiant Shield pitted Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force elements in the Pacific against a fictional enemy capable of air, sea, undersea and nuclear warfare. While it was a great opportunity to stick a not-so-diplomatic elbow in Kim Jong Il’s padded ribs, I couldn’t keep the word “idiocy” out of my mind at the cordial invitation extended to Communist China to sit in on such a pointed dress rehearsal. Less difficult to understand was the smiling, almost smug, acceptance of the offer by the keepers of the dragon. “Sure, yoo geev us all technology, why no queek show us how use? Throw in week of wining and dining too, yes?”

Sure, we’ll be there.

Check it out here:
www.pacom.mil/exercises/vs2006/

Monday, April 03, 2006

The Bill of Rights: New International Version

The Bill of Rights (NIV):

Amendment 1 -
Congress shall not impeach Judges who make law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor make any law abridging the freedom of politically correct speech, or press, or any form of immoral, unpatriotic, or distasteful expression, or the right of minorities to violently assemble, and to demand of the government a reimbursement for their ancestor’s grievances.

Amendment 2 -
A well-regulated group of duck hunters being necessary to the appearance of a free state, the right of some people to keep and bear arms shall not be entirely abolished.

Amendment 3 -
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, national emergency, or civil unrest, but in a manner to be prescribed by Executive Order; but these restrictions shall not apply to government officers, agents, or hired thugs, in the discharge of their orders.

Amendment 4 -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be construed to obstruct any government officer, agent or hired thug in the discharge of his/her instructions, but no warrants, when desired, shall issue, but upon potential for possible cause, supported by oath, affirmation, or anonymous tip, and generally describing the region to be searched, and any persons or things not subject to detention or seizure.

Amendment 5 -
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, or the classification or representation of such person as evil by the President or Attorney General, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the National Guard, when in actual service in time of war, public danger, or the declaration of a potential threat by the President; but persons may be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, or be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against him/herself, or be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, when the public safety shall require it; and the absence of just compensation shall not prevent private property from being appropriated for public use, when such action may be deemed necessary for the public pleasure or political agenda.

Amendment 6 -
In all criminal prosecutions, if the accused is a minority, he/she shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by a minority jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, unless he/she desires to be tried in another district; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her; to have the charges dismissed if his/her rights were not read at the time of arrest; to have assistance in obtaining witnesses in his/her favor, and in prosecuting the officer, agent or hired thug which shall have arrested him/her, and to have the best counsel in the nation for his/her defense; in all other cases, the rights of the accused shall be determined by the Court, unless the accused shall have been classified as evil by the President or Attorney General, or have been charged with any political incorrectness, in which case he/she shall have no rights.

Amendment 7 -
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed a reasonable amount, the right of trial by jury may be granted, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, unless sufficient financial incentives be provided, or the public safety shall require it.

Amendment 8 -
Excessive bail may be required, and excessive fines imposed, but cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted except in cases of politically incorrect persons.

Amendment 9 -
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to limit or restrict any powers retained by the government.

Amendment 10 -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the entity with the most money and power.

Have a nice day!
Echooooooooooooooes

Thursday, March 02, 2006

No Kidding?

Two days ago I was riding with a friend and, for lack of anything better to do, picked up his copy of Monday's USA Today. As I glanced through the stale assortment of canned political "analysis," irrelevant stories, bad reporting and worse entertainment, a list of "facts" about a monster black hole known as Saggitarius A* caught my eye. Apparently this weighty object has been the focus of recent "studies" by astronomers. Impressed by the specific nature of the information given (which included Saggitarius A*'s mass, distance from earth, age, etc., all expressed in numbers far beyond the comprehension of the writer), and curious how a few paltry tax dollars in the hands of professional students could have yielded such astounding results, I turned to the beginning of the article to learn more about this discovery.

The author began with a brief treatment of black holes in general, as well as the various theories regarding their formation and the part they play in the universe. He admitted that scientists know relatively little about black holes, and he drew heavily on science fiction to hold the attention of the reader. It would seem this information regarding Saggitarius A* must have been quite a breakthrough! I read on, anxious to hear how this impressive detail was achieved.

Halfway through the article, the author informed me that "Saggitarius A* is thought to exist near the center of a galaxy by the same name." ... Wait just a minute ... "thought to exist" ... ? You just finished telling me that its mass is equivalent to 350 million suns, that it is 10 billion years old and 25 million light years away. Now you tell me you don't quite know if it exists or not?

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

While we're on the subject of humorous news reporting: a few days ago NPR reported that "some lawmakers worry that the escalating violence in Iraq could plunge the country into civil war." Oh my, what an awful idea! I never thought of that before!

All I can say is that homeschooling looks better every day.

I read a great essay by George Orwell on Politics and the English Language. I highly recommend it to all of you who prefer to know when you are being brainwashed. Copy this link into your browser's address bar: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/