Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Take a Knee, Everyone, Take a Knee… What are We Protesting??

September 24, 2017



Colin Kaepernick started it last year, this taking a knee during the anthem before an NFL game and it created quite a ruckus. Seems everyone has a side on the issue, one way or the other.

But now, a year later, it has finally reached the pinnacle of all protests… Yes, President Trump has tweeted his displeasure. Naturally, Roger Goodell contends that the NFL has a right to make their own rules and, as long as the owners permit it (and until the advertisers suspend their ads [spoiler: AIN’T gonna happen!]), they will let the players take a knee.

The owners are now tweeting replies to the President’s tweets that owners and fans should protest the protesters and Keith Olbermann has tweeted that everyone, including the fans in the seats, should “take a knee” in protest of Trump’s demands.

Meanwhile, Army Chaplain Captain Sonny Hernandez thinks the Constitution should always play second fiddle to his own personal religious beliefs. He states that anyone in the Armed Forces who supports the Constitutional Rights of OTHER religions to practice their own beliefs is serving none other than Satan himself.

Now, the Chaplain did not conclusively state his religious convictions implied taking a knee at an NFL game was tantamount to selling one’s soul to the Master Menace from the Netherworld, it certainly seems to be what he has implied.

Meanwhile, the head of Black Lives Matter tweeted to say he has talked to 75 other NFL players who plan to take a knee as well come this weekend’s games.

And, in case this somehow got missed with all the genuflecting going on, Colin’s protest started with the incident that gave birth to the BLM movement.

So, once again, a quiet and personal protest on one issue alone has become an immense flack about protesting Trump, or religions, or the Constitution, or any other freaking thing you might want it to mean. Protesting Trump? Take a knee! Protesting Clinton’s stealing the nomination from Bernie? Take a knee! Protesting the high cost of bananas this week? Take a knee! Think Elon Musk should make Tesla’s more affordable? Take a freakin’ knee!

I think if anyone has anything, and I really DO mean ANYTHING to protest… Take the knee!

I know I will. These damned new shoes are killing me!

I’m taking the knee.


Advertisements

We are a Christian Nation? NOT!

April 29, 2010

There has been a lot of press recently concerning the Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Many people see allowing gay marriage as a threat to our national survival. That is LUDICROUS!

I remember people saying the same thing about allowing freed slaves the vote. I remember they said the same about allowing women the vote. I remember they said the same about allowing 18 year olds the vote. Who are these stupid people who keep seeing the demise of America by allowing the freedoms we have supposedly extended to ALL people in our society?

Well, Christians, of course.

I am a Christian, as well as a heterosexual white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but I also happen to be an American. And that implies a belief in equality under the law to ALL people regardless of race, creed, et cetera. Restrictions to any group segregated by some ethnic or cultural belief is unConstitutional. States that have passed laws making same-sex marriages illegal are in violation of Federal law as encoded in the Constitution.

That is why the Christians of this country want a Constitutional Amendment to legalize their prejudices — yes, let’s make another BIGOTTED LAW. Let’s show the world what a bunch of hypocrites we are. Christian? HA! These “Christians” do not show any of the qualities of understanding or forgiveness or charity that Christ was so famous for.

This has always been a country famed for its diversification and universality. This Amendment could do more to stop immigration than the much-touted Immigration Bills in Congress. Who would want to come to a country where religious freedom no longer exists, where the once embraced diversification of peoples around the world is shunned and replaced by a narrow-minded medieval culture?

The further problem with allowing such demented legislature to be passed, is what it would open the door for in the future. Are we ready to join Iraq, Iran, and the countries whose Islamic tyrannies we so abhor, by becoming another theocracy? And what if the particular brand of Christian ethic codified happens to be a brand of Christianity not exactly your own? Will we devolve into the same religious wars we see in the Middle East, the same wars we fought in Europe in the Reformation? Methodist against Baptist, Evangelical against Catholic, a religious civil war taken to the streets all across America.

The Founding Fathers instituted religious FREEDOM for a good reason. Let’s not subvert any more of our freedoms to the terrorists in Washington OR in pulpits across the nation.

Gay marriage will NOT destroy the family or the nation. But this Amendment WILL.

Flaws in the Constitution

March 28, 2010

Believe it or not, I find the Constitution to be flawed and if a New Republic were to be formed, I would suggest several alterations.

First, and foremost, the “Bill of Rights” was attached as amendments to the Constitution and seem to many people to be just ‘another add-on’ to be treated as lightly as other ‘amendments’. The rights outlined in the first ten amendments should be included in a preamble statement to the Constitution and made un-amendable so that no one in the future could even think of infringing on the rights of the citizenry.

Currently, the Bill of Rights have been trampled and maimed almost to the point of unrecognizability. The freedom of speech has been infringed in many ways, such as outlawing nudity as “indecent exposure”. The “indecent” was added by ‘Christians’ and in the strict separation of church and state should never have been put into law. Freedom of religion is great but needs to be reminded to keep it OUT OF LEGISLATION. Period!

Many people proclaim we are a Christian nation… WRONG! We are a free religious nation. Besides, about half of what the so-called Christian majority espouse would be repugnant to the Christ they worship. But don’t let me get off on a different rant here…

The right to bears arms meant citizenry could keep a musket handy if case of insurrection (whether stopping one or starting one), but I don’t think the founding fathers meant to include pistols. But times have changed and pistols are handier today than before – but especially so for criminals. Still, I think they should be allowed. But, I would stand with the founding fathers in the right to bear automatic and semi-automatic weapons, grenades, howitzers, cannon, mortars, and rocket launchers. I guess it’s what you define as the arms we can rightfully bear. Automatic weapons are good for one thing only, and that would be mayhem. Many sportsmen claim their right to own them for sport, such as target shooting. And I can see some logic in that and think there should be places to go and have fun with those toys. But I cannot see extending that right to allowing them in neighborhoods. (But I could be wrong on this and someone may have some logical reasons why they should be allowed to own them – and I will show you that would lead to people owning WMDs, which I certainly don’t want on my block!)

Part of the rights should be expanded to allow people to be of different age, race, religion, culture, creed, social stature, intelligence level, and sexual preference without any prejudice allowed, nor infringement permitted. (Let me know if I left something out.)

Part of the Constitution originally had the President and Vice-President elected separately but this was altered when political parties were established to create a leveraged advantage in the Senate for the President’s political party. I would like to see it returned to the original setup. Not all the head stooges should be from the same party, to my mind.

Originally, the President was elected by a College of Electors and amendments were given several years to be ratified by the states. These parts were designed in an era when transportation was by horseback and the transference of data communications was extremely slow (although the Post Office seemed to work faster then than now). The Electoral College should be eliminated and the time for the ratification of amendments by the states should be reduced.

Representation in the House was by population, but that was later changed to freeze the number of representatives (otherwise it would keep going up and up as the population grew… and they would have to enlarge the Representative Hall in the Capitol Building). But the representation was supposed to keep growing, that was the purpose of designing it that way. Someone seemed to have forgotten what that provision was for. I think the founding fathers would have preferred enlarging the building rather than trimming the representation!!

As for allowing the party in power in state legislatures to reapportion districts to give them political advantage, the practice is illegal, immoral, and a travesty of the purpose of the division of representation. Shame!

The age limitation and birthplace limitation should both be abolished. This has tended to make people a little elitist. There is no special aura that attaches itself to being native born… many of the most patriotic people in America were not born here. I see no reason to exclude them for the accident of birthplace.

Any voting apparatus used had better have a verifiable paper trail.

The Middle Ages had their courtiers and courtesans, hangers-on at court who would peddle influence and offer gifts and sexual favors to those in power in return for benefits. Today we have lobbyists. They are not mentioned in the Constitution but should be: as outlawed!

There are no term limits mentioned in the document, but I do not think the Founding Fathers envisioned livelong politicians – statesmen, yes, politicians, no. And the continuing rise in their salaries is ridiculous! Politics is not supposed to be a “fastrack to wealth” but rather a ‘public service’ and should returned to that status. There should be some remuneration, but not for lifelong tenure. Limit the terms to one, or two at the max.

Electioneering has to be changed and included in the document. As it now stands, usually only the wealthy can run for office. I don’t know about you but I feel that the wealthy are NOT the “natural leaders” of the masses. Likewise I do not think allowing the intelligensia rule is a good idea either – I’ve been to mensa meetings and I would not want those people organizing a block party much less running the country. I would prefer more open elections (and would like to see political parties bite the dust – or increase the number to a helluva lot more than two).

Our capitalistic society is a good thing, but does anyone really need fifty billion dollars? That is more wealth than many countries of the world. About the only thing you can really use that sort of riches is political – which I would not like to see continued. People should have the avenues open to make a profit from their ideas and talent, but where would you draw the line? The wealthy should be footing more of the governmental bill rather than less than the middle class. Equal representation should be the law, not some convenience.

The court system should be changed and Justices of the Supreme Court rotated OUT, not seated for life. And they should be publicly elected positions, not the spoils of the ruling executive.

And the Executive Branch! Talk about needing a change! 98% of the government is under the Executive Branch. The fat needs to be trimmed here the most. The vast amounts of fiduciary waste can be laid at the steps of the Executive Branch and most of the trouble we are currently in. I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned such a massive Federal Structure; they were building a ‘republic’ after all.

And, by the way, in a republic, the separate contracting parties have a legal right to secede from the union any time they want, contrary to what the dictator Lincoln said. That was the form of government the states agreed to; had there been a clause saying “once signed, you cannot back out” would have ensured that not one state would have ratified the document. Why, that would be tantamount to signing away their citizenry into perpetual slavery to the federal government.

After two hundred thirty years of usage (and abusage) of the Constitution, we can see where it was a little rough in the operation, and we have seen the weak spots where the really, really bad people could get their feet in the door. We can remedy the flaws which have surfaced and get the country back on its original path.

I am certain that two hundred years from now there will be more changes found that need adjustment, but at least there would still be a United States and a Constitution that needed changing. At the rate we’re going now, on this present course, it will be completely gone before the next two hundred years pass.

the Need for a Revolution

March 10, 2010

“A little revolution, every now and then, is a good thing.” — Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States 1801-1809

When you mention the word “revolution”, people think of armed mobs storming government buildings, like the French did to the Bastille. And when people hear Jefferson’s quote (above), they think he was speaking of armed insurrection.

Both ideas could not be further from the truth. I figure if Jefferson meant to say “an armed insurrection is a good thing” he would have said it. What he meant was that abrupt changes are sometimes needed in a government.

Before you think that we’ve already had such change, remember most changes we have had over the past 225 or so years is “evolutionary” rather than revolutionary. The government has changed and modified slowly, in very small increments, from what it originally was to what we have today. Some of the changes have been good, most have not.

There were so many things that have happened through the years that the founding fathers could not have foreseen, could not have anticipated have happened to the nation they founded. So change was anticipated and allowed for in the Constitution itself, especially the portion relating to amendment. They saw that problems with the operations of government would naturally bring about changes for making the whole continue operating efficiently. But they would never have foreseen a time when the people would cause the document itself to be shredded or disregarded for some expediency. The underlying features of the document are still workable today, though it is not longer being used as it should.

“Executive Orders” can become law and “signing statements” can have the force of law and yet neither of the two are to be found in the Constitution nor in any Amendment to the document. Some laws passed by Congress have allowed Executive Orders to become law by their inactions… just like their inaction gives them a raise every year.

It is time to strip all the chaff away and return to the basics of the document itself. Congress is the body that is supposed to issue legislation, not the Executive branch or bureaucrats within the various Executive Departments. Congress proclaimed the Executive branch had breached the balance of powers clause in the Constitution when the FBI raided an office there with a search warrant. That kind of slipshod interpretation of the Constitution has got to be stopped. The Founding Fathers would not have liked to see such a ludicrous debate: the Constitution being used to circumvent due process of investigation in a criminal case.

Perhaps the Congress would be better off if these worthies would bother to read and understand the document which each of them has sworn to uphold.

Another Illegal Administration

January 7, 2010

I heard a lot of groans about how the 2004 election was “stolen”. After looking over the evidence, it is obvious it was stolen. But so what? That is only the tip of the iceberg in the illegal actions taken by the previous administration… and condoned by a Democrat-controlled Congress. And five years after that travesty of a mock election, the now Democratic White House does not seem to be anxious to change anything.

America has proudly been the staunch defender of human rights worldwide, for generations… until now.

We have steadfastly denounced offensive military actions by the dictators of the world… until now.

Torture of captives and political prisoners has always been denounced by our leaders… until now.

Detaining political prisoners without due process has been declaimed from on high… until now.

The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and pays dearly when he slips… until now.

And the American people, as guaranteed, have always been the ultimate decider… until now.

Practically any one of these should have been enough to have Bush removed, and yet he continued his blithe captaincy of the ship of state in very rocky and shark-infested waters until the bitter end of his term. And it is sad that the Democrats under the questionable abilities of Speaker Pelosi have fought off all attempts to have the man impeached (why? I suppose so their man could continue the same abuse off powers when he came to the office in 2008). But the saddest part of all, perhaps the most frightening of all, is that these huge crimes are only the tip of the iceberg, and I am certain we will be discovering for years to come the crimes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have committed while in office.

And how has this been allowed to happen? Fear! When 9/11 occurred, our wonderful leaders pointed the finger and claimed Al Qaeda done it! Bin Laden denied any involvement in the action (and further investigations point the finger more squarely on this administration having done it themselves!), but we declared “war on terror” and advanced into Afghanistan to grab Bin Laden. Now we have gone into Iraq to fight terror but have succeeded only in spreading it further!

Whenever Bush needed something more from the American people, we heard more of the fear message. And the will of Congress and the people bow before the fear. One by one, we allowed the government (Republican President and Democratic Congress) to infringe on our freedoms. Once the power has been given away, do we really expect these people to give us back the power? Are you nuts?! Of course they won’t!

Human Rights commissions in Europe and those attached to the U.N. have denounced the governments of two countries in recent months for “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity”, and “human rights violations”: the United States and Israel. And that does not bode well for a universal form of democracy, does it? It seems more like a highly polarized political agenda. (The announcement of either should not surprise anyone. For more on Israel, see my previous post… same ol’ same ol’.)

Just like Lincoln’s goal of “ending slavery” only expanded it, Bush’s reported goal of “spreading democracy” will in actuality end it. I’m afraid that establishing “puppet governments” in the Middle East and refusing to recognize democratically elected governments (like Hamas) points to the extinction of democracy rather than its spreading.

Telling others how to govern is not democracy. It is creating a “territorial status” for these foreign nations under the guise of independent operations.

Its time for this nation to wake up, don’t you think?

Or our grandchildren will have to live without the freedoms we have so easily relinquished. Future generations will pay for our crimes of omission.