Herding Cats! – The Constitutional Crisis Continues

      Watching this administration and trying to put your finger on what is trying to accomplish is like herding cats.  Cats do not listen; they do not care what you think; they think you are an inferior being; they think your own purpose is to do their bidding…  I’ll have to hand one thing to the Obama administration, they have the “pedal to the metal” when it comes to their creation of executive orders, AG legal activities, and their legislative initiatives.  Their list of initiatives is almost endless and in every way TRANSFORMATIVE.  “We the people…” are trying to use constitutional methods to fight off this onslaught.  The problem is that the constitutional methods that we have at our lawful disposal are slow and deliberate by design.  The methods being used by the administration circumvent or ignore the constitutional safeguards and deliberations that the Founding Fathers set forth to protect “We the People…” from an obsessive government.  Below are just a few examples.

  • Interior Secretary Ken Salazar reinstates Drilling Moratorium with “new evidence” in spite of the fact that Judge Feldman held their arguments to be invalid twice before.  They know that if they keep pushing the moratoriums forward, the gulf oil interests will go elsewhere.  The demurrage costs for leaving rigs idle is prohibitive and the demand by other countries is high. 
  • Side bar to the Gulf crisis:  We loaned Brazil a few billion dollars and they said they were going to use it for offshore exploration.  The largest oil company in Brazil is Petrobras and the Soros (George Soros) Fund Management has invested $637,000,000 in the company.  Gee, Salazar poses a moratorium on our offshore drilling; we loan Brazil billions to invest in their own off shore drilling; Soros is a major stockholder in Brazil’s largest oil company.  Must be a coincidence?  
  • Obama’s Healthcare takeover is probably the #1 transformative act of his administration and if it stands the court challenges will probably go down as beginning of the end of the United States as we knew it.  (This will be the subject of another article this week)  It is amazing that we allow our politicians to come up with phony slogans that we swallow hook, line and sinker.  The line was basically that healthcare costs are out of control and are consuming one sixth of the economy.  SO WHAT!  We as a nation have the lowest food costs with the highest quality so we don’t spend much on food; our retailers such as Walmart are responsible for retail goods to be at zero price inflation or close to it for years; our oil and gas industry, in spite of government meddling and taxing, have kept energy costs down; our technology sector provides us with higher performing computers, phones etc at increasingly lower costs.   All of these factor in when calculating the percentage of our income we spend on healthcare.  We also have the longest life spans and the lowest mortality rates for most of the serious diseases.  The real bottom line is that Medicare/Medical are the driving forces behind increased healthcare costs and those programs are going to be the model for the national healthcare.  Once again, government creates the problem then rides in on their white horses and “fixes” the problem. 
  • Obama uses a recess appointment to insert Dr. Donald Berwick as the next Chief of Medicare and Medicaid.  Recess appointments are fine but Berwick has never been “presented” to the Senate for formal “Advise and Consent” approval.  This comes at a time when the New Healthcare Law’s regulations are being written.  Berwick will be instrumental in formulating health care policy for years to come for seniors and for our most needy.  (BTW, he loves the British Healcare Model.)  That is a lot of power for someone who has never been vetted…
  • The Financial Reform Bill seems to be sliding through Congress and will apparently be approved with 3 New England republicans caving in.  This is another give away to Wall Street and helps to insure perpetual bailouts.  Why else would it create a bail out “fund”?  (hope it is more secure than the Social Security Lockbox)  Further, when the esteemed Senator Chris Dodd admits that “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”  Wall Street and the large banks must, their stocks all went up.  This is from the same Senator who repeatedly said, along with the co-sponsor of the bill in the house, Barney Frank, that Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are sound and are not in danger of collapsing.  This is as late as 2008.  To make it worse, both Congressmen denigrated the regulators that were charged with overseeing both of these two organizations.  So when it comes to regulation reform, the “Chris and Barney” enterprise is not the one I would bet on as being a safe investment…  You can bet that Wall Street and the major banks are ecstatic, after all they help write most of the 2,000+ pages that no one will know how it works while our elected officials are voting on the bill.  Check out the YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg that basically lays out the timeline and the players in the current financial crisis.  SURPRISE, it is the same people who are now “fixing” the problems.
  • NASA director Charles Bolden’s revelation that Obama tasked him; “…to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering.”  Talk about transforming our space program.  Last I checked even the “Arabic Numerals” were invented by Indians (from India) so for those on the left who love to hyphenate everything we should at least say “Hindu-Arabic numerals”.   The former being the inventor and the latter being the marketer!  We should be proud of NASA and our accomplishments and also of the vision of John F. Kennedy who really jump started NASA, JPL etc.
  • The Arizona Immigration Law (1070) and the subsequent lawsuit by the Obama administration is a true piece of genius. (See prior article:  AZ 1070 – Holder Sues the Wrong Entity) Holder filed the lawsuit based on the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, against a border state trying to defend the boarder and help the US Government perform its duty to protect our borders, but neglects to file a lawsuit against all of the Sanctuary Cities and Counties in the US who are DEFINITELY violating the Supremacy Clause. 
  • Race relations have been dealt a serious blow under this administration.  The hope was that this president would be the “uniter” he promised to be but has turned out to be quite the opposite.   Their idea of transforming race relations is to pit one group against another.  As an activist for the Civil Rights movement in the 60’s, and a white male, I take exception to rhetoric that racism is rampant in the white communities.  This tactic is divisive, destructive, and one that will lead to nothing positive.  The administration is destroying race relations through a concerted and orchestrated effort.
    • Holder will  not criminally prosecute black defendants:
      • Black defendants against white or whatever non black victims in voter intimidation cases.
      • Black intimidation, by black SEIU members, against another black at a town hall meeting in St. Louis.
    • Obama does not come out and condemn hate speech by the New Black Panthers nor condemn speech by Reverend Wright or Louis Farrakhan.
    • Michelle Obama revved up the NAACP convention today and stated that:  “So I know that I stand here today, and I know that my husband stands where he is today, because of this organization (NAACP) and because of the struggles and the sacrifices of all those who came before us.”  She could have used this occasion to point out that the organization (NAACP) was founded by a group of African American and WHITE Americans; (many were Jewish Mr. Farrakhan and Mr. Shabaaz), but all were working together.  This organization became the starting point for the codifying of the Civil Rights movement that culminated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  African Americans did not accomplish this in a vacuum and especially were not aided overwhelmingly by the Democrat Party.  In the Senate, 69% of Democrats voted for the bill while 82% of the Republicans voted for the bill; in the house, 63% of the Democrats voted for the bill and 80% of the Republicans voted for the bill (Senate version voted on by the house).  The Senate filibuster was supported by Strom Thurmond, D-SC, who said: “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”  

      I don’t know how else to say what I am about to say except to just say it.  Whether we voted for Obama or not, most of us were at least somewhat gratified that we as a nation could elect a person of color to the highest office in our land.  However, it appears that his legacy will be fraught with failures, documented by a disdain for the core goodness of this nation, accentuated by a blatant policy of divisiveness, and for spearheading a total departure from our founding Judeo-Christian belief system.  I don’t think he will be known as a president who permanently damaged race relations in the US or the one who set back all of the historical civil rights gains that we have made.  I do think that his legacy will cause most voters to look beyond the color of the next African-American presidential candidate and really ask who this person is.  Maybe that is not a bad thing.  As Martin Luther King said in what is arguably one of the best known oratories of our time;

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

RD Pierini

AZ 1070 – Holder Sues the Wrong Entity

Arizona 1070 and the Supremacy Clause

A bit on the 14th Amendment as well…

               The Obama Administration has outdone themselves in their filing of a suit against the State of Arizona to stop Arizona from implementing their SB 1070 law on July 29th, 2010.  The law suit is NOT based on potential civil rights violations via “racial profiling” but rather on Article VI, Clause 21 of the US Constitution.  This clause basically asserts the following:

  • Federal Laws and Treaties are considered to be the “the Supreme Law of the Land“. 
  • Federal Laws and Treaties are the highest form of law in the American legal system.
  • Federal Laws and Treaties must be upheld in Federal and State courts.
  • Mandates that all State judges shall uphold Federal Laws and Treaties even if there are State laws or State constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government.

The actual language of Article VI, Clause 2 is footnoted below.

There is also precedent In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation that helps to clarify this section of the Constitution.  The ruling on this case simply clarified the application of this section:

  • A State law should be deemed to be unconstitutional if:
    • If it is not possible for both a Federal Law and the State Law to be in compliance at the same time.
    • State Law impedes or is an obstacle to the execution of the Federal Law including the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

Arizona 1070, actually insures that the state nor any of its political subdivisions can impede the Federal Immigration statues.  The law reads: (my emphasis in bold)

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS

14               11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

15               immigration laws; indemnification

16               A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR

17               OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

18               RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

19               EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

It goes on to say in Paragraph F.:

40               F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS

41               STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS

42               STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,

43               RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF

44               ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE

45               OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

         Basically 1070 makes it ILLEGAL for the State of Arizona or any of its Political Subdivisions to enact laws or ordinances to limit the execution of the Federal Immigration Laws.  In short, it makes it illegal for any of it political subdivisions to CREATE SANCTUARY COUNTIES/CITIES. 

If this provision of the Constitution is the basis of the suit, Obama should be filing this law suit against SANCTUARY CITIES, not the state of ARIZONA 

Since Sanctuary Cities began cropping more than 40 years ago,

NO PRESIDENT OR GOVERNOR HAS TAKEN STEPS TO DECLARE THIS DESIGNATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TAKE ANY STEPS TO INSURE THAT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION STATUTES ARE BEING ENFORCED BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Arizona’s 1070 does not IMPEDE the execution of Federal Immigration Law; it does support, not detract from, the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress when the Immigration laws were passed. 

               Even if our esteemed AG (i.e. Obama) wanted to hang his tattered hat on the 14th Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“, Arizona 1070 only further supports the Federal Immigration Statutes and the 14th Amendment protections for US citizens as it does not “abridge any privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States…

In order to be consistent with the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, and to carry out the intent as well as the letter of the Immigration Law, Eric Holder should have Sued OBAMA, not Arizona!

Alas, I am not a graduate of Harvard Law School.  I have actually read the constitution and believe it means what it says…

RD Pierini

1 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The Gift from our Founding Fathers, Our Future!

Happy 4th of July to All

                I was reminded today of a quote by our 20th President, James A. Garfield, who said in 1877,

“The people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”

The reminder came while I was watching one of the greatest sermons ever given regarding our liberty, freedom, and our slide into socialism.  The sermon, Turning the Tide, was by a truly gifted man of God, Dr. Charles Stanley, of In Touch Ministries of Atlanta, Georgia. 

               This quotation was by a President, that most Americans do not even remember or have never heard of, should cause us to engage in serious introspection.  We often comment when we hear of a Senator having an extramarital affair or worse, “those in Washington have no morals”.  Or when we hear of the President bribing congressmen and women to get their vote;  or when we hear of campaign contribution corruption; or when we hear of a congressman being caught with $90,000 in cash in his freezer; or, or or…  We need to stop, look in the mirror and ask ourselves, “How did these people get elected”?  The answer is obvious, “We elected them”.  You can take the high road and say that you did not vote for a particular individual but that is an excuse and not a reason for not being engaged to the point where we stop sending the same kinds of people to Washington, to our state capitals, to our County Seats, and to our local town/city council and school boards. 

               The gift given to us by our founding fathers was Freedom and Liberty based on their own Judeo-Christian beliefs.  They knew that if we could hold true to those beliefs that our future would be secure.  They hoped that we would not let the government take over our lives and replace liberty with tyranny.  James Garfield also said:

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”

Our government is on the march to nationalize our economy and thus centralize the very sources of our freedom into the government itself.  The Founding Fathers vested Freedom and Liberty in the people, not the government.  We have allowed our government to create one financial crisis after another, blame everyone else, and then charge in to rescue us with further tyranny

This is July 4th, 2010.  Do we still have the will to take back our heritage, our legacy, our freedoms and our liberties?  Or, will we abide “ignorant, reckless, and corrupt” politicians to rule us and ruin this nation?  It is our choice.

R.D. Pierini

The President, Incompetent or Ideologue

I2

 Incompetent – Ideologue

                These two words, Incompetent and Ideologue, are often used by the President’s detractors to categorize his actions, or his lack of action.  The two different adjectives, however, would lead one to two very different ultimate assessments of the legacy for this President at the end of his first term.   For the sake of this article, assume that the major issues facing America are, an economic recession with rapidly increasing deficits; high unemployment hovering around 10%; increasing medical costs driven primarily by Medicare/Medicaid; the Gulf of Mexico Oil spill; high levels of illegal immigration; and increased instability in the Middle East (Iranian nuclear arms, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc), to pick just the top 6.  The list could be a lot longer and everyone’s priorities may differ..

Fast forward to the end of his first term in office, January, 2013.

Incompetent:  According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Incompetent is defined as ; 1) Not Legally Qualified (probably does not fit if he was born in Hawaii); (2) inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose: (might fit their definition) (3) a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action b : unable to function properly (probably closer to their option of the President)    If those that describe the President as incompetent are correct, the negative outcomes for these 6 challenges would only be mitigated to any degree by luck! 

Economic Recession & Increasing Deficits:  If the President is incompetent, he may actually stumble into a solution, or not take any actions at all, that may allow the economy to begin to rebound and create positive growth in the private sector.  These same actions/inactions, if coupled with a change in his current propensity to spend, could actually slow the growth in the deficits through decreased spending and increased revenue do to private section growth.  If his incompetence drives him to raise taxes and continue to spend at the same rate we are today, then the current recession will continue indefinitely and the deficit as a percentage of GDP will rapidly escalate to 100%. 

High Unemployment at 10% or above:  This is obviously tied to some degree to the Economic Recession and to some degree the deficit levels.  However, it is very susceptible to changes in public policy as well.  If the President is incompetent, and thus takes no action or cannot decide on any course of action, and thus does not add more jobs in the public sector or do anything to further exacerbate private sector jobs, the jobs number could see sustainable growth in the private sector as long as the recession subsides and real growth occurs.  If the President is incompetent and continues to push spending that only sustains or increases public sector jobs, like the current “stimulus plan”, the private sector unemployment could increase dramatically and not improve for a very long period of time.  A further downturn in private sector employment will also drive federal, state and local tax revenues down while unemployment and other safety net program costs up at all levels of government.  The result is a long term sustained recession.

 Increased Medical Costs:  The most rapid cost increase in healthcare is currently being driven by Medicare and Medicaid.  With the passage of the heath care bill, we will soon be able to include the costs of this program, one trillion dollars plus, to the increases in medical costs.  If the President is incompetent, and he and his administration cannot create the bureaucracy and the infrastructure needed to administrate the health care programs, we may see a postponement of the cost of this program in the near term which may provide some spending relief and slow the growth of the deficit.  This lack of competence could, however, cause serious confusion in health care delivery to the providers and to the consumers.  If he is incompetent and keeps adding programs, union perks, etc to the current health care bill, then medical costs could increase at a faster rate with even more pressure on the economy.

Gulf of Mexico Spill:  If the President is incompetent, we could see the cleanup efforts prolonged to the end of this decade.  The only mitigating factor to counteract incompetence in this disaster is Mother Nature.  Given enough time, she will eventually clean up our mess herself!  The long term ecological/economical impacts on the gulf would be fairly dramatic but she does not need to ask the EPA’s permission to do what she needs to do.  If he is incompetent and throws up barriers to the cleanup process, or tries to come up with untried methodologies, he will prolong the cleanup.

Illegal Immigration:  If his is incompetent, and does not take any federal action to secure the boarder nor engineer changes to our current immigration laws, chaos will ensue at the borders and could lead to a border war, between individual states and the government of Mexico, or at the very least the arming of private citizen militias to protect persons and property along the border.  If he is incompetent and “pardons” the current illegal immigrants in this country, then this policy could provide further incentive for increased illegal immigration.  This action would also create a very deep animosity between US citizens and pardoned illegal immigrants.  Incompetence in dealing with this problem could create a whole host of new problems that would make our current illegal immigration problem seem trite.

Middle East Instability:  If the President is incompetent, he may think that to create peace in the region that Israel must be weakened with a corresponding strengthening of Hamas, Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah.  If he is incompetent, he may continue to take ineffective action or no action against Iran’s nuclear program as we did under the Bush Administration.  There is no upside to incompetence when dealing with this region.  A weak Israel opens the door to Hamas, Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah and will cause the moderate Arab countries to arm to counteract the threat from these entities.  The end result could be a very unstable and dangerous region that controls a large amount of the world’s energy supply.

Incompetence does have the potential for being mitigated by external forces, or if it causes the President not to take any action at all, inaction can actually be stabilizing

Ideologue:  According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, an Ideologue is defined as (1) an impractical idealist : theorist; (2) an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.  For the purposes of this article we will need to frame out a possible ideology that may be applied to the President.  Since there are a whole range of ideologies that have been attributed to the President’s policy behavior, rather than try to use labels, we will ascribe to him the beliefs that big government is good; big business must be rigidly controlled; that people are not innately good and cannot be trusted with their own welfare; and that the US Constitution is a “flawed” document (his words) and needs to be made to conform to more perfect governing document.  An ideologue’s actions are controlled by his set of beliefs and his decisions will be dictated, not guided, by these beliefs.  Anyone who departs from these beliefs either does not understand them or is a person or thing that needs to be dealt with.  There is no gray area with an ideologue and there is no room for negotiation.  The ideologue will even limit his own personal well being or success to sustain the ideology.  The following describes how an ideologue would view and react to the same set of major events discussed above.

Economic Recession & Increasing Deficits:  This type of ideologue will hold tightly to Keynesian economic principals advocating that the government enact fiscal and monetary policy to increase employment and spending.  They view that the only way to stimulate economic growth is through growth in the public sector and government controlled growth in the private sector.  This type of ideologue will push for more and more spending if their current levels of spending are not generating positive results on the economy.  With an ideologue, there is no room for luck.  They will follow their beliefs to the grave and take everyone along with them. 

If the President is an ideologue, he will continue to increase spending, suspend published budgets to curb public outcry, and try to create more and more public sector jobs as the catalyst for economic growth in the overall economy.  This will result in a rapid acceleration towards the deficit becoming 100% of GDP; very likely inflation will increase to 8-10% as the currency is expanded without a corresponding good or service being created; interest rates will follow inflation due to the expanded public debt which will compete with private borrowing.  These impacts will stifle growth in the private sector causing GDP to stagnate or drop further exacerbating the GDP:Deficit ratio.

High Unemployment at 10% or above:  Since the ideologue is committed to the actions in the prior section, private companies will not expand in the US and small businesses will not be able to sustain themselves.  This will cause the ideologue to spend more and create more public sector jobs.  Overall this will drive unemployment up which could hit 16-20% in the next 3 years.

Increased Medical Costs:  The ideologue will tightly control the health care industry and actually nationalize this industry in the end.  A single payer system is the end game.  This expansion into health care services will provide the perfect platform to drive controls over individual behavior as everything we do can impact our heath.  What types of foods we eat; what manufacturers use to produce food products; how much we should eat; a whole new sets of regulations for fast food restaurants and other forms of food service establishments; and the list will go on.  The result may be a health care delivery system that becomes too expensive rapidly that leads to a prioritization of services by the government with increased government oversight.  Bans on fast foods, salts, meat with more than X% fat and so on.  Since the programs will be for the common good, there should not be any limits on how much “good” we are provided.

Gulf of Mexico Spill:  If the President is an ideologue from am anti fossil fuel/environmental perspective, the oil spill will not cleaned up any time soon.  Maximum damage will be allowed to impact the Gulf until bans on off shore drilling are in place permanently.  This could even extend to land based drilling.  The ideologue would also push programs such as Cap and Trade to limit the consumption of fossil fuels and create other environmental “safeguards” to limit how much, when and if we are allowed to even use fossil fuels.  The ideologue would see the sacrifice of the Gulf as worth it in the end if resulted in no more drilling and increased regulation on fossil fuels and the enactment of Cap and Trade types of legislation.

Illegal Immigration:  If the President is an ideologue in the sense that he sees the US as inherently bad and in need of transformation, he would use illegal immigrants as a source of new votes to sustain the ideologue and the administration in office.   With an overnight block of 13+ million minority supporters, he would use this group to further lessen the grip of the “majority” on this country.  He would unite other minorities behind this cause for the overall good of minorities even though it may be a bad choice for the individuals who make up the minority.  For example, if the African-American community joins to make illegal immigrants citizens and encourages more of this type of unfettered immigration, then the job pool is filled with more applicants at a time when African-Americans are among the highest unemployed group in the US.  The ideologue also sees a need to bring American down to the level of other less fortunate countries.  By placing increased public sector pressure on the economy by having to expand welfare and other taxpayer paid services for poorer immigrants, the redistribution of wealth/property can be accelerated.

Middle East Instability:  If the President is an ideologue, and believes that the US is too powerful and should be made to be on a more level playing field with the rest of the world, he would view Israel in the same light.  He would view Iran’s nuclear program as a counterbalance in the region and also to EUROPE.  He may even lower the defensive capabilities of our allies in the middle east and Europe to insure that everyone is equal and mutually threatened in order to eliminate any one country or group of countries from becoming dominant.  The end result is a very dangerous world.  The ideologue is naïve in his thinking as what was created was not a counterbalance at all.  A counterbalance could only exist if both parties in a dispute are equally NOT disposed to use nuclear weapons.  Iran has already stated that Israel is their first target and they will have capabilities to launch on Europe when needed.  The ideologue will also push for disarmament of the leading nuclear powers and will do it unilaterally if necessary to prove his point…

So, those critics of the President who thinks he is incompetent are actually the optimists among his detractors.  Incompetence can be overcome by luck to some degree as well as by the inability of the incompetent person to act.  The lack of action can provide some breathing room for a situation to take care of itself to some degree.  The other possibility for hope with an incompetent person is that they may listen to someone who can actually help to rectify a situation.  The incompetent will make the right decision part of the time by mere chance! 

The critics that think he is an ideologue are the pessimists.  You cannot change an ideologue in the long term.  You can try to contain them, try to circumvent them, or try to stop them altogether.  But, remember, the ideologue does not play by the same rules as you do.  The end ALWAYS justifies the means.  The means can be ignoring the US Constitution and all of the checks and balances that were built into the three branches of the government.  The Constitution does not matter as it should be “subservient to the needs of the people”.

Your decision…

RD Pierini

Our Founding Fathers – Freedom and Morality

Freedom and Morality

 

               Our Founding Fathers understood freedom because they had experienced tyranny, both in the colonies under George III and others previously in their home countries.  Their understanding was also deeply grounded in their Christian Faith.  From Galatians 5:13, their Bible taught them that;

For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters.

But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh;

 Rather, serve one another through love.”

They took this and other simple teachings, learnings and concepts and built a Nation.  Their belief that freedom was the most sacred gift we had drove them to create a document to protect this gift, our Constitution.  (Their reverence for freedom included the abolition of slavery but this will be discussed in another post)

               We do not often associate freedom with morality in our day to day thinking but they are intricately linked and co-dependent.  The more we seek “opportunities for the flesh”, i.e., commit crimes against our neighbors, against our cities, our counties, and our country, the more the governing classes, (“statists”, politicians, the government, etc.) seek to restrict individual freedoms for the “common good”.  The more we allow societal morality to become relative, the faster we lose our freedoms as the ruling class uses this decline as a catalyst to further erode our freedoms.  The governing class does not believe that we the people can “serve one another through love”.  Their never ending quest for control then translates into a constant erosion of our freedoms.   The Constitution has many safeguards to defend against the encroachments in our freedoms but it is simply a document that we must choose to live by, or not.  The ruling classes will constantly strive to ignore Constitutional constraints and it is only our vigilance and our ACTIONS that will stop this from happening.  We were “…called for freedom…” but it up to us to ensure that we hold onto those freedoms.

               How are freedom, absolute morality, societal relative morality, and the loss of freedom linked and exhibited in our day to day lives?  Just stop and think, is there anything you do in your lives that is not regulated, controlled or restricted in some way by the governing class today?  You say, oh, I can pick my own church, synagogue, mosque etc to attend.  Yes but those entities have to register with the government; their activities are regulated and restricted by the government; and their public demonstrations of faith more limited by the government.  Some would even argue that one belief system may be tolerated by the ruling class more to the exclusion of another.

               Take smoking…  Most of us baby boomers engaged in smoking in one form or another in the past.  This was a freedom we took for granted and smoked everywhere any anytime.  Smoking could definitely fall under the category of “an opportunity of the flesh…” and its practice would probably not fall under our ability to “…serve one another through love.”  A great many people did quit on their own when they learned of the health risks to themselves and to OTHERS.  This was the pure application of Galatians 5:13.  But, the government could not wait for us to seek and find our own moral high ground and seized the opportunity created by this “opportunity of the flesh” and codified the elimination of smoking through high taxes and other limitations on where, when and how the individuals could engage in smoking.  Of course the governing class was doing this for our well being and not for the treasure they extract from those still addicted to this drug.

               Take abortion…  Obviously this is a highly politicized issue today.  What are the guiding principles?  The “Freedom” was the right or the opportunity to engage in sexual activity.  The “Opportunities of the flesh” was the sexual activity itself, within or outside of the bounds of marriage.  The other “opportunity” was the inconvenience of the outcome, pregnancy.  The failure to “serve one another through love” was the abortion itself and the resulting elimination of life, whether you believe it to be potential or actual.  If love had been present, we could not have eliminated the life or even the potential for life.  We would have sought a much more acceptable form of birth control beforehand.  The ruling class so far has not viewed abortion as a bilateral issue.  The government only protects the freedom of the mother, and not the child.  In this instance, the child has no opportunity to exercise its right to its own freedom and is certainly denied any service by another in love.

               Take Illegal Immigration…  Another highly politicized issue today.  Once again we have a conflict between two freedoms.  On the one hand, the freedom of one person to violate the sovereignty of another and on the other hand the forcing of the aggrieved person to pay for the actions of the violator.  The rights of the aggrieved party to be protected from the actions of the violator are ignored and resulting in the exposure to increased crime and having to pay more for taxes,  goods and services to offset the unpaid costs caused by the violator’s action.  The illegal immigrant used their freedom as “an opportunity of the flesh” and violated another’s sovereignty that they had no right to do.  They also failed to “serve one another with love” as they caused actual or the potential of harm to those that were violated, our citizens.  The irony is that the proponents of illegal immigration have turned this around and claim, in effect, that those who oppose illegal immigration are failing to “serve one another with love”.  This is a very effective campaign against people who have deep seated love of freedom and who strive to live a life as their creator intended.  It is truly a “cheap shot” and one that law abiding citizens should ignore. 

America is THE most loving and generous nation on the face of this earth.  Its citizens as a whole believe in serving one another through love and extending this love to any of the peoples on this earth who are in need.  Why are we the ones contributing the most to Haiti since it was a French colony?  Why were we the largest contributor to rebuilding the Tsunami stricken countries?  The list goes on and on. 

The why is our inherent recognition of and engrained living of;

For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters.

But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh;

 Rather, serve one another through love.”

RD Pierini

Meg, “Say is isn’t so!”

             On page 37 of Meg Whitman’s “Meg 2010, Building a New California, Meg Whitman’s Policy Agenda”, her campaign magazine, under the topic of “Eliminate Sanctuary Cities”, the magazine states that, Meg will seek a legislative solution to prevent cities, such as San Francisco, from shielding undocumented immigrants from federal immigration laws.”  Then just two weeks following the June 2nd primary, she publically opposed Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, aka Arizona’s Immigration Law.  As an Ex-Mayor of a California City, and one who has read SB 1070 in its entirety, this law is specifically written to prohibit sanctuary cities and does contain specific language to guard against “racial profiling”. 

 When I attended the League of California Cities meetings and conventions the topic of sanctuary cities was discussed quite often starting as early as the 1970’s.  The same arguments waged then as they do now regarding the need for immigration reform, racial profiling, the rights of illegal aliens etc.  I suppose what startled me as an elected official was the cavalier nature of the arguments in support of ignoring federal immigration law that was affirmed in 1976 in a Supreme Court decision, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, where the court stated that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate naturalization which includes the power to regulate immigration.  I am sure the same City, County and State Governments who advocated the policy of sanctuaries for illegal immigrants would have been appalled if one or more of their citizens would have refused to obey a city/county ordinance because those citizens did not agree with the ordinance or they felt the ordinance was unconstitutional.  How about, the city has no right to make me accept and pay for garbage collection.  Sound silly?  So is disobedience by a local law enforcement officer who knowingly fails to follow federal law.  How about federal income taxes?   

We have to determine what core principals our elected officials believe in and whether our elected officials live by those core set of principals in their everyday life.  Too often we find and are disappointed to learn that our elected officials live by the law of “political expediency”.  This law basically means that a politician will do anything to get elected and anything to stay in power.  Sound familiar.  The problem is that we have ended up with a ruling class whose long term planning for our nation, our states, our counties and our cities only spans the current election cycle.  Elizabeth Sidiropoulos and Lyal White coined the phrase;  “Political expediency means that a lot of planning is still short term.”Politicians believe that the electorate has a short memory and if enough pork can be packed back home before the election then no harm no foul.  In this age of the internet, instant communications and 24-7 news, the electorate is wide awake, watching, and keeping score.

 Meg, I can only ask that you personally come out and state your true policies regarding not only illegal immigration but the other core principals you campaigned on.  We do not want to read, “Meg believes…..”  We want to hear it from you from your soul.  California cannot afford another “Arnold” and certainly cannot survive the second coming of “Brown”.  That said, many people who truly care for this state, and pay a lot of taxes, need to know if we should start packing now because the November election is irrelevant or if you are truly principled.  You owe this to your constituents and those who voted for you.

RD Pierini

 1Elizabeth Sidiropoulos & Lyal White; How Brazil Beats Poverty Trap; Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg, South Africa); Aug 25, 2009

Saving our Nation through Vigilance

%d bloggers like this: