Raise you hands if you know that the United States of America was not made to be a "true" democracy. No sirree, we are not. The United States Constitution sets us up to be a democratic republic.
For those who didn't pay attention in government class, a republic is governed by a constitution. Our republic is governed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
This is our "master" document. We are a land of law. Our laws, once set, stand alone. No individual stands above the law. No group stands above the law.
A "true" democracy is the majority rules. Period. if you get your gang to put up enough votes against the other gang and your gang has more votes, you win. The laws change with every gang that ends up with more voting members.
We see this enacted everyday by the contests between the Republicans and Democrats who keep trying to gain enough members to get the most votes.
Thankfully, the law of our land, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, isn't so easily changed as by a simple mob vote. Otherwise, our country would have ended up down the tubes long before now.
Why is that? Because at it's core, the most basic principles of our Constitution are spelled out to protect the individual American.
Did you ever read the Constitution? Did you notice how often it uses the word "person"? Take a look sometime and you will see that in every case, the wording is directed to effectively identify individual person's rights and abilities within the law. Do you know why? Because the Constitution recognized that we are all individual people here, not a collective.
The Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." What is a union, you ask? By definition a union is "a number of persons, states, etc., joined or associated together for some common purpose". (highlighting is my own).
We are individual persons who, on occasion, come together for the purpose of making sure our interests are represented and our votes are counted.
After this coming together, we go back on our separate ways. We go back to our own individual lives, making our own choices.
See, we "come together" not stay bonded together. Not meld with each other. We don't give up our individuality in order to share a common experience.
Our Constitution sees everyone under it as individuals sharing a common space and provides a framework so that we can continue with our lives as individuals but keeping respect to the fact that no one individual is entitled to more power or permission than any other individual.
One thing that those who would try to rule over others will say to try to be persuasive is that we must be willing to sacrifice for "The Greater Good".
Just what is this "Greater Good" though? By using that term, they refer to the whole of the group of us as opposed to the one. Ever heard the phrase "but we're doing it for the kids..."? They try to make you see yourself not as an individual but as already being "one of us", or part of the group and the only way to save yourself is to save the whole group.
Don't get me wrong, as Americans we do have at least one thing in common that is worth banding together to protect. The Constitution itself.
Our Constitution has already been embattled by gangs and mobs calling themselves parties who try to change the way things work in or country for "their team".
They use fraudulent tricks, misdirection and any other un-ethical tools, yet still "legal" at hand to "interpret" the meaning of the Constitution so as to convince others their behavior is condoned.
What is an "interpretation" anyway? it's enough people within the legal and government system who agree that one thing means or leads to another. Get enough members of a gang to have the most votes and you have successfully re-interpreted something in the Constitution.
We are a nation of independent people, as determined by the Constitution of the United States of America. Every time you give in and become just another member of a gang, a mob or a "party", you give that mob more authority over yourself and sadly, with enough mob votes, authority over others who did not want or need the gangs representation or control over their lives.
You who support and condone an America where a few should rule over the many, regardless of your excuse, are cowards and fascists.
You who work so that the many should rule over the few are just as bad. You are like the "Borg" of science fiction, where the individual doesn't exist except as cannon fodder for the whole.
I ask you to put aside false nationalism, lay down your party membership and your efforts to rule in the guise of the "Greater Good".
Stand on your own and think for yourself. Vote with your own one vote at every opportunity, based on each issue as it presents itself.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Talking and Do-ing, the problem with protesting in America.
I do believe protesting needs an upgrade.
If you want to make a dent in corporate America's wallet, then you have to do it first, then talk about it.
For example, the people moaning and groaning about not being able to carry protest signs and cameras in groups into a business shouldn't be surprised.
As much as you have a right to communicate your position, people have a right to not have their business cluttered or have their property transgressed on.
Leaving ethics out of the discussion for the moment, legally speaking, your right to communicate ends where my right to defend my property and well being begin. If you came into my store with protest signs, cameras and making a fuss, I'd kick you out to. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and I am a sole proprietor, not incorporated.
You want to come in and do business, fine come in, sensibly, respectfully and let's do business. You want to close your account with my business because you don't like my policies? Fine, go right ahead. It's a free country we're still told, so close you're accounts. It's part of the business world to lose customers and get more customers. I shouldn't be shocked.
You want to go outside on public property and crow to your buddies and anyone who'll listen about your accomplishment and your problem, nothing I can do there, but in my shop, on my time, you will follow my rules as long as they are within the law.
Now personally and ethically, I am so far distanced from their so called "one percent" it's not funny.
I can tell you this though, if I am in a conflict and I want to get what's mine, I just go get it.
I have had a problem with a bank before, a few of them, and wanted to close my accounts because I thought they treated customers like crap.
You know what I did? I walked in, by myself, stood in line, got to the clerk and said "I need a complete withdrawal, I am closing my account." When they asked me why, I said I didn't like my experience with their business and I was going to another bank. I wouldn't elaborate, I wouldn't argue, I wouldn't allow them to do anything more than complete the transaction. Then I left.
After the fact, I told everyone I knew and even a few others within earshot what I did and what I thought of those banks.
I do believe that a few of the people I told did also close their accounts as well.
Now, if you want to coordinate with a large group of others and really make a statement, what I would do is get online and coordinate as many people as I could to form a single, quiet line at the bank on the same day at the same time. no posters, no noise and chatter. then one by one, go to the clerk and close the account in full. Next person, same thing. Next person, same thing, etc..etc...etc...
Go down a block or wherever I got my permit for a public gathering on public property and stage a "Survivors Site" where people could go to share their stories of dis-satisfaction and ad their name to a lareg board or wall counting the number of people who have just closed their accounts at that bank.
Make a celebration of it. A victory party. Don't sit there and be negative and harass people. Give concrete examples and present what you did as a positive, successful thing. Invite the press, pass out cookies or something else that seems celebratory, as well as flyers and such.
That will get a lot more attention and recruits and make the publicity go a mile further at the same time.
That's what I would do if I wanted to get back what was mine and stick it to "da man" at the same time.
Get the job done first and brag about it afterward, not the other way around.
If you want to make a dent in corporate America's wallet, then you have to do it first, then talk about it.
For example, the people moaning and groaning about not being able to carry protest signs and cameras in groups into a business shouldn't be surprised.
As much as you have a right to communicate your position, people have a right to not have their business cluttered or have their property transgressed on.
Leaving ethics out of the discussion for the moment, legally speaking, your right to communicate ends where my right to defend my property and well being begin. If you came into my store with protest signs, cameras and making a fuss, I'd kick you out to. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and I am a sole proprietor, not incorporated.
You want to come in and do business, fine come in, sensibly, respectfully and let's do business. You want to close your account with my business because you don't like my policies? Fine, go right ahead. It's a free country we're still told, so close you're accounts. It's part of the business world to lose customers and get more customers. I shouldn't be shocked.
You want to go outside on public property and crow to your buddies and anyone who'll listen about your accomplishment and your problem, nothing I can do there, but in my shop, on my time, you will follow my rules as long as they are within the law.
Now personally and ethically, I am so far distanced from their so called "one percent" it's not funny.
I can tell you this though, if I am in a conflict and I want to get what's mine, I just go get it.
I have had a problem with a bank before, a few of them, and wanted to close my accounts because I thought they treated customers like crap.
You know what I did? I walked in, by myself, stood in line, got to the clerk and said "I need a complete withdrawal, I am closing my account." When they asked me why, I said I didn't like my experience with their business and I was going to another bank. I wouldn't elaborate, I wouldn't argue, I wouldn't allow them to do anything more than complete the transaction. Then I left.
After the fact, I told everyone I knew and even a few others within earshot what I did and what I thought of those banks.
I do believe that a few of the people I told did also close their accounts as well.
Now, if you want to coordinate with a large group of others and really make a statement, what I would do is get online and coordinate as many people as I could to form a single, quiet line at the bank on the same day at the same time. no posters, no noise and chatter. then one by one, go to the clerk and close the account in full. Next person, same thing. Next person, same thing, etc..etc...etc...
Go down a block or wherever I got my permit for a public gathering on public property and stage a "Survivors Site" where people could go to share their stories of dis-satisfaction and ad their name to a lareg board or wall counting the number of people who have just closed their accounts at that bank.
Make a celebration of it. A victory party. Don't sit there and be negative and harass people. Give concrete examples and present what you did as a positive, successful thing. Invite the press, pass out cookies or something else that seems celebratory, as well as flyers and such.
That will get a lot more attention and recruits and make the publicity go a mile further at the same time.
That's what I would do if I wanted to get back what was mine and stick it to "da man" at the same time.
Get the job done first and brag about it afterward, not the other way around.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The fine line between law and ethics
This recent "movement" called "Occupy Wall Street" has people talking.
True, most of it is partisan rhetoric on all sides, as is typical. Let's focus on a few things here though.
First of all, it is not a crime to be "rich" in the united States. How much money one does or does not have should have no bearing at all as to their protection under the Constitution.
One of the big questions here though is, "How did some of these people become rich?"
There are gaps and loopholes in the tax system that allow deductions and opportunities to "hide" income from taxation that only some are able to take advantage of. They are not equally accessible by anyone and everyone. That is one problem right there.
Another problem is that so called "Wall Street" or as I like to refer to them as the "Corporate Crony Capitalism" bunch, have established a culture of 'money first'.
Here is where some things that are done by the big money folks are often considered un-ethical but are not necessarily illegal.
For example, no matter how you try to justify it, preventing fair and open competition in the marketplace is not considered "fair play" by most individual's standards. Yet, our colleges and top business people teach exactly that as "professional business" behavior.
It's been pretty well acknowledged by most folks that our elected representatives are on the take form corporations and millionaires. They have been for many years now and it seems that they won't be changing that any time soon.
Obviously, our government bureaucracy finds it ok that if one has enough money, bribery and extortion of our elected representatives is just something that has to be tolerated because none of them will have the fortitude to stand up to and put an end to the practice.
No, I will never say that just because someone has chosen to make money the most important thing in their life and dedicate themselves to the accumulation of it, they have every right to not be unfairly taxed or unduly pressed by the government because of it.
I might disagree with the notion that accumulation of money is the most important thing in one's life, but hey, we're all different people.
However, the infamous "they" say that everyone/everything has a price tag on it. There are people with the financial resources out there who apparently take every opportunity to test that theory out.
However, our government and our elected representatives must be taken off the auction block. Steps need to be in place that removes those temptations and prevents that atmosphere of greed from reaching our duly elected.
By all means, hunt and convict everyone who made their riches illegally. Yes, I applaud the effort to shame every rascal who used immoral and unethical means to make their money.
At the same time, there is another phrase I think is just as important.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
When are we going to stop allowing these charlatans and crooks who make their money mischievously to keep playing their same games and treating people, us, the same way over and over again?
I think we are all as much to blame for the financial woes of the world because we keep going back to the bankers and the con men and the day traders and the investment brokers who we allow to herd us through a never ending chute that inevitably leads us to our own financial demise.
When will we demand the government stop getting into bed with corporations and forcing people to do business and make purchases in the name of bureaucracy and back door dealings. The government has no ethical or legal right to make people buy something. Yet they continue to finagle and "interpret" with their rooms full of lawyers what the Constitution says.
No, in the long run, it's our own dang fault that the government and rich folk are in bed together. As long as we they threaten that our air conditioning and microwave ovens will keep going, no one wants to rock the boat. The larger population keeps falling back into line.
When we want to blame someone for the decline of our great country, point first to the person in the mirror.
True, most of it is partisan rhetoric on all sides, as is typical. Let's focus on a few things here though.
First of all, it is not a crime to be "rich" in the united States. How much money one does or does not have should have no bearing at all as to their protection under the Constitution.
One of the big questions here though is, "How did some of these people become rich?"
There are gaps and loopholes in the tax system that allow deductions and opportunities to "hide" income from taxation that only some are able to take advantage of. They are not equally accessible by anyone and everyone. That is one problem right there.
Another problem is that so called "Wall Street" or as I like to refer to them as the "Corporate Crony Capitalism" bunch, have established a culture of 'money first'.
Here is where some things that are done by the big money folks are often considered un-ethical but are not necessarily illegal.
For example, no matter how you try to justify it, preventing fair and open competition in the marketplace is not considered "fair play" by most individual's standards. Yet, our colleges and top business people teach exactly that as "professional business" behavior.
It's been pretty well acknowledged by most folks that our elected representatives are on the take form corporations and millionaires. They have been for many years now and it seems that they won't be changing that any time soon.
Obviously, our government bureaucracy finds it ok that if one has enough money, bribery and extortion of our elected representatives is just something that has to be tolerated because none of them will have the fortitude to stand up to and put an end to the practice.
No, I will never say that just because someone has chosen to make money the most important thing in their life and dedicate themselves to the accumulation of it, they have every right to not be unfairly taxed or unduly pressed by the government because of it.
I might disagree with the notion that accumulation of money is the most important thing in one's life, but hey, we're all different people.
However, the infamous "they" say that everyone/everything has a price tag on it. There are people with the financial resources out there who apparently take every opportunity to test that theory out.
However, our government and our elected representatives must be taken off the auction block. Steps need to be in place that removes those temptations and prevents that atmosphere of greed from reaching our duly elected.
By all means, hunt and convict everyone who made their riches illegally. Yes, I applaud the effort to shame every rascal who used immoral and unethical means to make their money.
At the same time, there is another phrase I think is just as important.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
When are we going to stop allowing these charlatans and crooks who make their money mischievously to keep playing their same games and treating people, us, the same way over and over again?
I think we are all as much to blame for the financial woes of the world because we keep going back to the bankers and the con men and the day traders and the investment brokers who we allow to herd us through a never ending chute that inevitably leads us to our own financial demise.
When will we demand the government stop getting into bed with corporations and forcing people to do business and make purchases in the name of bureaucracy and back door dealings. The government has no ethical or legal right to make people buy something. Yet they continue to finagle and "interpret" with their rooms full of lawyers what the Constitution says.
No, in the long run, it's our own dang fault that the government and rich folk are in bed together. As long as we they threaten that our air conditioning and microwave ovens will keep going, no one wants to rock the boat. The larger population keeps falling back into line.
When we want to blame someone for the decline of our great country, point first to the person in the mirror.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Constitution has treason covered, Can't Obama read?
In the U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 3, it says...
For all the emotional, revenge seekers in the crowd out there, if you value the Constitution at all, you will respect that it is bigger than one lame brain terrorist wannabee.
The process to have had Anwar al-Awlaki declared as having committed treason is as important as any court trial of any common suspect of a crime.
We are a nation of laws, not lynch mobs, even if the President himself leads the lynch mob and that's exactly what he did.
This President, Barrack Obama, is guilty of murdering a U.S. citizen without due process of law or adhering to Constitutional guidelines.
It doesn't matter that the citizen was a low life treacherous scumbag. If they had practiced due diligence, dotted their i's and crossed their t's, they would have presented facts in court from at least 2 witnesses and having been found a traitor, Congress could have easily stripped his citizenship and there wouldn't even be a debate constitutionally on the matter.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
For all the emotional, revenge seekers in the crowd out there, if you value the Constitution at all, you will respect that it is bigger than one lame brain terrorist wannabee.
The process to have had Anwar al-Awlaki declared as having committed treason is as important as any court trial of any common suspect of a crime.
We are a nation of laws, not lynch mobs, even if the President himself leads the lynch mob and that's exactly what he did.
This President, Barrack Obama, is guilty of murdering a U.S. citizen without due process of law or adhering to Constitutional guidelines.
It doesn't matter that the citizen was a low life treacherous scumbag. If they had practiced due diligence, dotted their i's and crossed their t's, they would have presented facts in court from at least 2 witnesses and having been found a traitor, Congress could have easily stripped his citizenship and there wouldn't even be a debate constitutionally on the matter.
We citizens are "the people of the United States."
In the U.S. Constitution. it begins by saying, "We the People of the United States,.."
That line right there sets the tone, the language as to whom and for whom the Constitution and furthermore, the Bill of Rights, etc... refers to.
They didn't use "voters" and they didn't use "citizens" because the very first sentence already established that. We are the people of the United States.
It didn't refer to people of Mexico, it didn't refer to the people of Germany nor to just people in general. It specified the people of the United States and no one else.
As it enumerates rights, rules, provisions further on in the Constitution and in the amendments to the Constitution, it continues using that same reference, abbreviated to "the people" as it had already been established what people it is referring to. That's right, the people of the United States.
Is everyone in the world a person of the United States? Noooo. They have other places in which they were born that they are a person of.
If they were not born here, to people who were born here or to people who had been legally nationalized, then they are not a person of the united States. Also, if they have had their citizenship revoked, they are not a person of the united States anymore.
That very first sentence established who is a citizen. A person of the united States. Further amendments clarified that further by saying (14th Amendment, Section 1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is called being taken "in context".To see and understand the pattern and framework of language during the course of the discussion.
There are those who would try to argue that the Constitution holds vagueries such as "any person" and "no person" in respect to certain rights and/or privileges of the Constitution. Which of course, is taking the terms out of context.
That argument doesn't hold up though in terms of trying to be all inclusive in respect to people who are not citizens of the United States. This is because those generalizations are referring frequently, to that first statement of "people of the United States".
For example, in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, it says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because of this, some people want to say that this means that non-citizens are extended this privilege.
However, in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President..." If we were to construe that the same way as those who want to extend liberties to non-citizens in the previous example, then in this example, they would insinuate that "no person" would also include non-citizens as well. Which of course would be ludicrous as it had already been established earlier in the Constitution that only a citizen could hold those positions in the first place.
It then holds up that in the Constitution and Amendments, "people" has been established as a shortened reference to "people of the United States." and a "person", would be a person "of the United States".
People who are not citizens may be extended courtesies, but they are not due rights and privileges reserved for people of the United States.
That line right there sets the tone, the language as to whom and for whom the Constitution and furthermore, the Bill of Rights, etc... refers to.
They didn't use "voters" and they didn't use "citizens" because the very first sentence already established that. We are the people of the United States.
It didn't refer to people of Mexico, it didn't refer to the people of Germany nor to just people in general. It specified the people of the United States and no one else.
As it enumerates rights, rules, provisions further on in the Constitution and in the amendments to the Constitution, it continues using that same reference, abbreviated to "the people" as it had already been established what people it is referring to. That's right, the people of the United States.
Is everyone in the world a person of the United States? Noooo. They have other places in which they were born that they are a person of.
If they were not born here, to people who were born here or to people who had been legally nationalized, then they are not a person of the united States. Also, if they have had their citizenship revoked, they are not a person of the united States anymore.
That very first sentence established who is a citizen. A person of the united States. Further amendments clarified that further by saying (14th Amendment, Section 1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is called being taken "in context".To see and understand the pattern and framework of language during the course of the discussion.
There are those who would try to argue that the Constitution holds vagueries such as "any person" and "no person" in respect to certain rights and/or privileges of the Constitution. Which of course, is taking the terms out of context.
That argument doesn't hold up though in terms of trying to be all inclusive in respect to people who are not citizens of the United States. This is because those generalizations are referring frequently, to that first statement of "people of the United States".
For example, in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, it says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because of this, some people want to say that this means that non-citizens are extended this privilege.
However, in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President..." If we were to construe that the same way as those who want to extend liberties to non-citizens in the previous example, then in this example, they would insinuate that "no person" would also include non-citizens as well. Which of course would be ludicrous as it had already been established earlier in the Constitution that only a citizen could hold those positions in the first place.
It then holds up that in the Constitution and Amendments, "people" has been established as a shortened reference to "people of the United States." and a "person", would be a person "of the United States".
People who are not citizens may be extended courtesies, but they are not due rights and privileges reserved for people of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)