Adjudication and Legislation

Editor's note. This post was original written in May of this year, but was never published. Enjoy.

Perhaps a better title for the post would have been "why we need judges who won't legislate from the bench", but that just seemed a little too winded. This is an intense subject, full of confusing rhetoric and legal subtleties. Now, as we once again debate of the worthiness of Obama's next supreme court appointee, it is important that we understand what's at stake. True to form, Obama has tapped someone with an elite education and very little experience (sound familiar?). But instead of trying to debate the merits of Elena Kagan's qualifications, I would rather get to the heart of what's important here.

We all learned in middle school that our founding fathers wisely created three distinct branches of government, each having built in checks and balances to ensure none ever get too powerful. The Supreme Court's main purpose in all of this is to provide a final judgement for any case that arises under the Constitution. In a sense, they are the protectors of all the laws of the land, with the highest being the Constitution itself. We need good men and women who love the Constitution and are willing to impartially make judgements, void of any ideological premise, with the sole intent to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of the people. Unfortunately, such men and women are hard to come by.

Instead of impartial judgement, we tend to see ideological decisions that set precedents for future law. This has turned our high court into a legislative body itself, capable of making rulings that fall outside the text of the Constitution. This is a huge problem. The balance of power has shifted to the courts, and the checks put in place have started to erode. The high courts are appointed, not elected. They serve for life. They can't be voted out. All this was done to ensure impartiality, but none of it works if they start stepping outside the boundary of power they were meant to be limited to.

Take, for example, the proposition 8 in California. This is a textbook example of court decided legislation. The people of California decided by majority vote that marriage is not a right, but rather a privilege which is defined as only one type of unity, that between one man and one woman. The courts of California, however, decided that such a law would be unconstitutional. And while the court has the right to do that, the only way that they can make such a ruling is if the rights of an individual or group of people, under the constitution, have been violated. In this case, the courts were declaring that marriage is indeed a fundamental, constitutionally protected right. The problem is that no where in the constitution does it say that. They effectively changed the law, denied the will of the people, and created a new set of rights outside the constitution. Doesn't that scare you?

Now, fortunately, this was not the Supreme Court. And in the end, the will of the people was confirmed (only after a 2nd vote, however). But the Supreme Court has a long history of making decisions that set precedents for future law. Some people are fine with this. To others, it is troubling. The difference boils down to how you interpret the constitution. It is pretty easy to pick it apart and warp in a way that justifies whatever position you want to take. But I don't think it is a good idea to take such a relativistic approach. The question shouldn't be: what do I think that means to me? Instead, it should be: what did this mean to the men who wrote it? A lot of people will disagree with me on that, but it is the only sure fire way we can look at the Constitution impartially and come to a mutual agreement despite our ideological differences.

If we let the courts get away with too much power, we will be sacrificing our rights and as a people our voice will be lost. We can't let this happen. We can't passively watch Obama or any other President appoint activist judges who are determined to impose their ideology upon the country. The fine line between adjudication and legislation is becoming thinner and more vague each year. And it is not just at the national level either. It starts with local judges abusing their power. Judges that we elect. Of course, if totalitarianism is your thing, then by all means stay the course.

Founding Father Quote of the Day

If [the legislature] will positively enact a thing to be done, the judges are not at liberty to reject it, for that were to set the judicial power above that of the legislature, which should be subversive of all government.

Sir William Blackstone
(Recognized authority on the establishment of American common law)

The Rich Man and His Money

A current hot button issue right now is the impending expiration of the Bush era tax cuts. The tax cuts in question were passed in two acts, one in 2001 and one in 2003, and both acts are to expire this year unless congress votes to extend them. The acts unilaterally lowered income tax rates for all Americans at all income brackets and simplified much of the tax code. President Obama, along with the majority of democratic lawmakers, has argued in favor of extending those tax cuts... that is to everyone except the wealthy.

And so we return to that old, tired argument that goes something like this: The wealthy have more money than they know what do with, so they can afford to pay higher taxes. Other variants of this argument include: It just isn't fair that they make that much more money than everyone else so raising their taxes is the right thing to do, and: All that extra money they have isn't benefiting anyone but themselves, let's use to help those in need.

I would like to propose a simple thought exercise. Ask yourself this, what do people who have more money than they need spend it on? I think we could create three broad categories. First, luxury items. This category could include anything from a fancy car to expensive art to a golf club membership. Second, charity. And third, investments. Now, let's suppose that we raise taxes on the ultra wealthy. While they will surely still be wealthy, the tax increases will inevitably leave them with some measure of less wealth, right? So where would the money (that now goes to Uncle Sam) have gone?

First, let's suppose the that wealthy cut back on their luxury item spending. Maybe they can only afford two Ferrari's instead of three now. Who suffers because of this? Surely not the wealthy person. They can survive just fine with two Ferrari's, right? But what about the factory workers who assemble the Ferrari's? What if all of a sudden fewer orders are coming in? Either lay-offs or pay cuts would have to result. What about the truck driver who transports the car? What about the people who collect the raw materials that make up the car? All of a sudden we start to see the big picture and realize how many non wealthy people depend on that the one wealthy person being willing to buy their third Ferrari. And so the little guy on the bottom ends up getting crushed because Uncle Sam robs the wealthy guy on top.

Ok, now let's suppose instead that the wealthy cut back on their charitable donations. After all, they are greedy and evil, right? It shouldn't take much to understand how this could potentially effect the little guy. We absolutely need non-profit organizations. They are the epitome of everything that is great about this country. They are more efficient and effective than the bureaucratic nightmare that is government welfare. They are nimble and responsive to emergencies and the changing needs of society. They are dynamic and forward thinking, pushing to solve tomorrow's problems today. I couldn't think of a more direct way to hurt those who are at the bottom than buy reducing charitable donations.

Finally, let's assume that the wealthy aren't that evil and would still be as generous as ever. Let's also assume that they just couldn't survive with out all three of those Ferrari's. What ends up suffering, then? Investment. Historically, this is the category that is impacted the most by a weak economy and high tax rates. Believe it or not, wealthy people don't sleep on beds made of their cash. Instead they invest all that extra money. Where does that invested cash go? Maybe to start a new venture that has the possibility of creating hundreds of jobs. Maybe to fund research that has the possibility of radically improving our lives. Maybe to support a company that puts out products that you use and love everyday. You see, when investment goes down jobs are harder to create, research is harder to fund, and innovation becomes just too risky. So yes, the wealthy may be fine, but the rest of certainly won't be.

What is the point of all of this? To point out that all the money the ultra wealthy have isn't just statically collecting in their pockets. It's doing something. And that something may be to provide you with a job, let you get a mortgage on your first home, or even make it possible for your loved one to get the life saving treatment they need. Remember that the next time you are tempted to fall into the philosophical trap perpetuated by Obama and the liberals that the wealthy can afford higher taxes.

I know, I know. You have one more argument to make: but the money that gets taxed from the wealthy ends up helping the little guy anyway. Does it? Are you sure? To me that is like saying that shunting perfectly good oil out of a running car engine, processing it through a colossal factory that does nothing but corrode and waste it, and then injecting it back into that same car engine is somehow going to help the car perform better than if you just left it alone in the first place. Trust me, it won't.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

The Constitution and an old piece of paper

I had a conversation with a friend about the importance of our Constitution the other day. It didn't take long for him to begin to criticize our founding fathers for their character flaws and moral shortcomings. It wasn't that he thought the Constitution wasn't important, he simply reasoned that we shouldn't be so grounded in something so out of date and potentially incapable of solving today's problems. We should be willing to progress beyond the Constitution, he said. He then used his criticism of our founding fathers to scoff at the notion that we should revere the Constitution as something sacred.

Somewhere, a progressive liberal smiled.

Is the Constitution really just an old piece of paper, drafted for a different people in a different time? For those of us who do revere it, are we really being held back from some better future, one that has evolved past our founding father's vision? Should we view the Constitution as a timeless anchor, rooted in unchangeable principles or a breathable document, open to free interpretation? These are important questions. It is abundantly clear that our country's education system believes it has an answer to those questions. For a long time now our schools have worked very hard to destroy the reputation of our founding fathers. You see, the educators understand that if you can discredit the messenger, you can discredit the message. And if you can discredit the message, you can replace it with whatever one you want.

(But it's a one way street. Don't believe me? Just try to discredit Martin Luther King Jr's accomplishments by pointing out his moral shortcomings. See how far that gets you.)

The larger picture here, the one that extends beyond our schools, is progressivism. It is a plague that has destroyed more than one society over the course of human history, and it has been actively working towards our destruction for some time. Progressives understand that the biggest obstacle standing in the way of them achieving their radical transformation of this country is our Constitution. So, they have devised a very strategic plan. It involves a subtle attack, a slow whittling away of the reputation of everyone involved in its conception. It involves asking questions that attempt to out date the Constitution, seeking to prove its irrelevancy and inability to hold timeless value.

Here is a classic argument: The Constitution was drafted in a time where the problems of today's society would have been impossible to foresee, and therefore impossible to solve. We have to understand that the Constitution serves a purpose but we can't expect it to always be relevant. And here is another, very common one: The Constitution was designed to evolve and change over the years. A process for amendments was specifically included, and this proves that it should be seen as a breathable document, open for interpretation.

The problem is that both of these arguments (and others like them) fail to recognize that you can hold to a constant set of principles and yet apply them in very different ways depending on the situation. But progressives aren't interested in the core principles that create the foundation for the Constitution (you know, like personal liberty and limited government). That is why you will never see them try to amend the Constitution. Adding amendments could never serve their purposes because it would be admitting that the constitution is relevant and it would reaffirm the principles upon which the Constitution rests.

In the end, the Constitution isn't about dealing with events, it is about dealing with human nature. It isn't a handbook for solving problems, it is a guide that lays forth a specific set of principles. The scary thing is, we used to be fairly united as a country around those principles and disagreements would come only with their application, but now we are now fighting against an enemy that wants nothing to do with anything the Constitution stands for.

So returning to my friend, I say that the very fact that so many imperfect men with differing opinions were able to come together and draft a document that has withstood the test of time, become a standard by which all other countries' constitutions are compared to, and allowed thirteen poor colonies to become the greatest and most prosperous country in the planet means something. I think the fact that it has survived civil war, world war, the threat of nuclear destruction and the ongoing threat of terrorism means something. I think the fact that it has survived the industrial revolution, the high tech revolution, and multiple civil movements that have redefined our society means something. I think the fact that is has survived all of this and still stands strong is a pretty good indicator that founding fathers had a little outside help and perhaps a wider vision than we realize. To presume that we somehow know better is naive and arrogant. The Constitution is not just an old piece of paper, it is the very secret to our success. To revere it as anything less than sacred, and the principles for which it stands as anything less than constant and immovable, would be to simply pave the path to our own destruction.

Founding Father quote of the day

I join cordially in admiring and revering the Constitution of the United States, the result of the collected wisdom of our country. That wisdom has committed to us the important task of proving by example that a government, if organized in all its parts on the Representative principle unadulterated by the infusion of spurious elements, if founded, not in the fears & follies of man, but on his reason, on his sense of right, on the predominance of the social over his dissocial passions, may be so free as to restrain him in no moral right, and so firm as to protect him from every moral wrong.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Amos Marsh, November 20, 1801

Illegal Immigration and Citizenship

Arizona just passed one of the most controversial immigration laws our country has ever seen. A few are outraged, most are relieved. At the heart of this law, and the larger debate which it addresses, is a simple question: where do we draw the line? Arizona is the nation's kidnapping capital. The drug, weapon, and human smuggling cartels are becoming increasingly bold and dangerous. And while we could debate over the economic impact (good or bad) of illegal immigrants, the reality is they are enjoying freedoms and protections that they have not earned while countless others wait patiently in line for their chance to legally enter this great country. These are real problems. They are not going away and they are not getting better. These problems are also difficult to tackle because it would seem that our desire to be a compassionate people is being pitted against principles of justice.

No decent human being can look upon the pitiful plight of a desperate family risking everything to cross the border, even illegally, in the hopes of finding something better than what was left behind without feeling sympathetic. And yet, by failing to secure our border and intentionally turning a blind eye to those who manage to make their way over illegally, we have created a black market culture that shortchanges these families. Families, who would otherwise become industrious, law abiding Americans, have found a short cut they don't believe they can afford not to take. But this short cut, one that we have willing provided, never allows them to fully assimilate into our country. It doesn't encourage them to diligently learn our language and adapt to our culture. And it rarely provides the opportunity for a real American dream.

This new law passed in Arizona, contrary to what some think, is not racist. It is not draconian, oppressive, heartless or inhumane. It is not "misguided", as President Obama called it. It simply takes a federal law and reaffirms it as a state law, thus giving the local authorities the ability to enforce the same laws that our federal government has ignored. Let's get some facts straight. The law specifically prohibits officers from stopping any one on the sole bases of race or origin. Officers must have a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an illegal immigrant using established patterns of behavior before they can ask for proof of citizenship. The idea that Hispanic Americans will be randomly harassed and therefore will now live in a perpetual state fear is absurd. If asked, almost ANY form of ID will be accepted to prove citizenship. This includes drivers licences and social security cards. On top of that, even if you can't provide proof of citizenship, the officer has an obligation to first look you up on computer records that would potentially indicate that you are, indeed, American. Anyone arrested for a crime will now need to prove they are American citizens before being released, simple. This new law isn't harsh, it is undiluted common sense!

One of the most interesting developments with this new law has been the extreme reaction from those who oppose the law, mainly coming from the liberal left. Violence, vandalism, and hatred have defined protests large and small. And the main stream media, which has relentlessly hounded the overwhelmingly peaceful tea parties, looking for any trace of hate or violence so they could fabricate images of unhinged, hateful loons has all but ignored the outrageous antics of these, apparently justified, protesters. The double standard is glaringly obvious and terribly disturbing. It would seem that violence and hate are acceptable to the liberal left as long as you are standing up for what they believe in.

Having family in Arizona, I am keenly aware of the legitimate fears they have of an unprotected border and a law enforcement completely incapable of doing anything about it. Perhaps more than anything this new law sends a clear and unmistakable message to our federal government from the people of Arizona: if you don't take care of these problems, we will. Good for them. I don't believe that adhering to justice requires a sacrifice of compassion. Where we have laws, they must be enforced! Is it not the very principle purpose of government to protect us? If we aren't able to control who enters our country, and if we aren't able to do anything about those who are here uninvited, what is purpose of having sovereignty in the first place? And maybe if we do things right, if we enforce the laws and protect our borders, just maybe those desperate families will skip the shortcuts, make the necessary effort to get here the right way, and find an American dream waiting for them to enjoy. And when they do, we will be here with arms wide open to accept them.

Found Father quote of the day

…It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours ... and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.

James Madison

Pot and Paradigm Shifts

I wish to comment on a debate that seems to even have conservatives split down the middle. That is, the legalization of marijuana. Let me say straight up that I do not believe it should be legalized. I recognize, however, that this is a heated issue because on one hand you have children involved and a dangerous substance that can destroy lives and on the other hand you have principles of freedom that tell you we should all be allowed to do what we want. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you sacrifice certain freedoms in order to preserve even greater ones?

There are a lot arguments that need to be considered in this debate. One, you can argue that the health effects from marijuana are no worse the alcohol and cigarettes, and you would have a lot of medical evidence to support that. Two, you could argue the economics of the issue, saying that there is a lot of tax revenue to be gained and money to be saved by loosening the war on drugs. Three, you could argue the social aspects of the issue, that kids already have access to it anyways and the stuff they get their hands on is dirty compared to a legally manufactured kind. Finally, you could care less about any of these arguments but believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, even if it is pot. All of these arguments make valid points, and I do not wish to argue economics or health. I would rather talk about our society and our children.

You have a vast spectrum to consider here. On one end you have extremism in the form of Obama trying to tell us we shouldn't even drink (a.k.a. taxing) sugar soda and on the other you have morphine available in every candy isle. I think ALL of us agree that we would not support either extreme. So, in an admittedly illogical attempt to find some sort of middle ground we have decided that we should have the right to consume certain substances but not others. We have even had to go through some trial and error (prohibition) in order to find a medium that seems to work. In truth, the line we have drawn doesn't make a lot of sense. Since marijuana is illegal, you could make an excellent argument that nicotine and alcohol should be as well. Conversely, since alcohol and nicotine are legal you could make an excellent argument that marijuana should be as well. It seems like a conundrum, and in reality it is. (cont.)

My point of all of this is that since we have drawn a line, that for decades has gone unchanged, to move that line in either direction at this point would require no less than a paradigm shift for our entire society. It would cause us to re-evaluate every other substance we have deemed illegal and one thing we have learned over time is that if you give an extremist an inch, they will take a mile. You would have to restructure our entire education programs that discourage kids from doing drugs. And soon, you will see the extremists want to shift the line a little more (and since it had already been done once, it will be even easier next time). And then again, and again. And then all of a sudden we are experiencing the absolute disaster that European countries have already experienced having traveled down this road. And that is not the America I want my children growing up in. So I say, let's leave the line where it is.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Taxes and the Taxed

Confusing title, I know. So here is the basic point I want to make (that liberals seem unable to comprehend): there is a huge difference between who gets taxed and who actually pays for the tax.

For example, a tax levied on a company never actual gets paid by the company (what?! you say). Who pays it? The consumers and the employees. You see, a company exists to make a profit. That means revenue must be greater than expenses. Taxes are considered an expense. If you increase taxes on the company, they are forced to either decrease expenses elsewhere or increase revenue. What is the easiest way to accomplish this? Either by raising the prices of the goods or services they provide or cutting back on payroll (either by layoffs, compensation reduction, or reduced benefits). So who ends up getting hurt? The very people that were told they shouldn't have to pay taxes to begin with. The very people that liberals claim to represent.

While this is the most concrete example, there are others. Suppose you want to increase taxes on luxury items. Your thinking goes like this: the rich, who buy most luxury items, can afford to pay a little more for something they don't even necessarily need. The problem is that in reality when you tax a luxury item and thus force it to become more expensive, demand goes down for that item no matter how rich the consumer is. So the rich person will find an alternative luxury item or way to spend their money. And who ends up paying the price for the tax and suffering because of it? The industries and the (non-rich) workers that make the luxury goods, the one that are supposed to benefit from this whole plan to begin with.

The pattern that begins to emerge is that no matter what, or who, you tax it is always the people on the bottom who end up paying for it. Do you see the paradox here? The very tax system that is supposed to help the little guy is the same system that keeps him little and therefore makes him dependent. And that is exactly what liberalism needs to survive. It is a catch 22. It is a sham and we need to wake up and break the cycle.

What do you think?

Quote of the day

Excerpt from "An open letter to our nation's leadership":

...Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Janet Contreras

Read the whole letter here.

If you agree, sign the petition here.

Progressivism and Relativism

The subtitle to this blog reads "A look into the heart of political philosophy" and that is what I would like to do. I know that not everyone looks at politics in the way I am going to outline, but I think it is important. There are deep philosophical assumptions that lay the foundations of both conservatism and liberalism. If we don't understand these roots, we won't really understand what means to be a conservative or a liberal, and furthermore we won't understand where these political philosophies will ultimately lead us.

Put as simply as I know how, liberalism is rooted in progressivism which is rooted in relativism. Relativism denies absolute truth which therefore makes it the enemy of all religion. Our founding fathers explicitly stated that religion was absolutely necessary to the success of this country. Following this train of thought, one can only conclude that liberalism, left unchecked, will ultimately destroy this country.

Let me explain. Modern liberalism is a branch of progressivism. Progressivism believes that a society can only improve by evolving and changing into something better. This has nothing to do with productivity and technology. Instead, it refers to economic policy, morality, political structure, and the definition of rights. It defines successful progress based on equality of outcome and not on equality of opportunity. It for this reason that collectivism and progressivism go hand in hand. The only way to improve our society is to make everyone equal, regardless of individual input. The individual is second to the collective, and therefore individual rights may be sacrificed for the greater good. It is easy to understand why the extreme version of liberalism is socialism. Progressivism ascertains that change is inevitably a good thing and that the "old" ways of doing things go quickly out of date and become detrimental to the development of a society.

All of these philosophies require a fundamental belief in relativism. Relativism proclaims that there is no absolute right and wrong. Instead, right and wrong must always be framed in the context of a specific perspective and in a specific time. What's right for you may not be right for me. And what was right for me yesterday may not be right for me tomorrow. The obvious danger of this is that we are all left to make up our own rules. This is why liberalism constantly challenges the moral status quo and even supports the moral decay of our society. Since everything is relative, we can't look to the past for any sort of guidance and we certainly can't encourage any one particular brand of morality. With relativism, we must simply live in the moment and tackle today's problems with whatever feels right today.

Now, it doesn't matter which religion you are associated with, if you are religious in any way, shape, or form you are immediately offended by such thinking. Our founding fathers understood that religion would be the glue that holds our society together because there is an absolute right and wrong. And even if you don't believe in any religion, there is an undeniable natural law that holds everything together. Nature teaches us that there are consequences to every action and that those consequences are universal. Gravity works the same for every person, from every perspective, and across all time. Shouldn't that mean something to us?

I believe I have sufficiently digressed into the realms of philosophical thought that it is time to sum things up in terms that relate to the real world. You see, the beauty of conservatism is that it is so simple. It is founded on principles and values that are held as self-evident and universal. It Is rooted in natural law and a belief in an absolute right and wrong. Change is not always a good thing, and progress doesn't always mean improvement. The individual will always be more important than the collective.

Conservatism is the belief that our founding fathers got it right, and that to stray from what they established will inevitably destroy what they built. I truly believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are conservative in they way the live their lives, in the fundamental political and social philosophies that they subscribe to, and in the principles and values that they hold dear. Unfortunately, too many have been successful tricked by a power hungry government and a corrupted media.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

Torture and Waterboarding

This is one hot topic. It seems like everyone wants to chime in, so of course I will too. There are so many problems with this debate that it is hard to know where to start. First, is the problem of defining torture. Second, is defining the rationale behind these interrogation techniques. Is the only question really whether or not we extracted useful information from suspected terrorists? Finally, we are seeing a fundamental debate whether or not constitutional privileges should be extended to non-US citizens. Of course, the main stream media sets the premise of the debate, as they always do, as if some of these issues are not debatable. I disagree.

When you imagine some of the most horrific means of torture human beings have been subjected to, ask yourself these questions- is it possible to to endure any of them without long-term physical repercussions? It it possible to endure any of them repeatedly without dying? Most probably the answer is no.

Encarta dictionary defines torture as the "infliction of extreme physical pain." The issue with waterboarding, and other similar techniques, is that there is no extreme physical pain nor lasting damage. They are, in fact, means of inflicting psychological pain rather than physical pain. Reports of suspected terrorists being waterboarded several times a day for weeks on end (and living to tell about it) proves that it really isn't dangerous nor fall under the text book definition of torture. I argue, therefore, that waterboarding is not torture in the terms that were enunciated by our founding fathers. Surely, having tasted the brutality of the British Empire, they understood real torture in a way that we can only imagine. I even think they would laugh at the idea of waterboarding being torture.

The FBI and the CIA seem to contradict each other in terms of the effectiveness of waterboarding. The question of whether or not we are getting good information through the implication of these techniques is important and should be asked. I argue, however, that we should be asking more. Every manager knows that sometimes you have to fire an employee for even a small infraction in order to send an important message to his/her organization. What type of message do we want to send to people all over the world who would seek to destroy us? These people would kill our friends, our spouses, and even our children if they had the chance. When they watch us debate over whether or not splashing water in their faces is OK, I think they too must be laughing at us. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to cut our heads off if they could. And they have, at least to our brave soldiers.

Finally, are we obligated to offer constitutional privileges to every human being on the planet? I don't think so. Here is my reasoning. The United States stands as a beacon of hope to the world and an example to all other nations. Since this country was formed, we have extended welcoming arms to people everywhere. We ask very little from those who seek our country to provide a better life for their families. We ask that they learn English, that they be prepared to work hard and embrace our values, and that they enter this country legally. And by doing so we seek to extend our constitutional privileges to everyone, but those privileges have always come with a price. What rights do those who have done nothing to earn those privileges, and in fact seek to destroy those very privileges for the rest of have? None. It seems to me that those who believe that breaking the law is the same as trying to destroy the institution that creates the law are very naive.

In short, I don't have a problem with waterboarding. I know there are those who think we should all experience it before we say that, but here is the thing: I am not a suspected terrorist involved with evil organizations. Have we ever asked those who support capital punishment to experience it themselves? Do we force supporters of new prisons to spend a few years in jail? No! So don't be ridiculous. It is so easy for some to stand up and proclaim moral superiority by attacking the people who try to make us safe, but when that day comes that we have legitimate evidence that the next September 11 is on the verge of happening and we have in custody someone with suspected information, what wouldn't you do to get that information? It's time we start using some common sense.

Founding Father quote of the day

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Debate and Respect

What type of country are we turning America into when we refuse to civilly tolerate disagreeing opinions? How long can we give any validation to people who claim to fight for what they perceive as tolerance when they openly and spitefully hate those with opposing viewpoints? The notion that you can fight intolerance with intolerance is about a juvenile as Kindergarten.

What the media has allowed to happen to Miss California is so amazingly appalling that I have been left literally speechless. And that does not happen very often. The sad thing of it all is that they so completely misunderstand why Miss California (and the majority of Americans) believe in traditional marriage. For those of us who believe that marriage should be between a man and women, it has everything to do with principle. It is about preserving the institution of marriage and the sanctity thereof, and has absolutely nothing to do with gay people. It isn't about hating anyone or denying anyone rights. In fact, we don't believe that marriage is a right at all, rather that it is a supreme privilege.

Of course, those who disagree turn it completely personal. To them, it all about hate, bigotry, and some type of vendetta. And because they refuse to meet us on the same intellectual playing field, they will never understand why we believe what we believe. So while they preach tolerance out of one corner of their mouths, they spit hate out of the other. Of course, the main stream media plays right along and intentionally lets them misrepresent our position. Oh, and is there any wonder that so many main stream news sources are tanking right now?

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, and from what Miss California has said neither does she. What I do have a problem with is when other people establish inaccurate premises which put forth untrue assumptions about what I believe, think, or feel. These types of debates are pointless and destructive. Americans have to rise above this. Our founding fathers fought tooth and nail against one another, but they understood that they were fighting on the same side. Their debates were intellectual, intelligent, and philosophical. They weren't personal, slanderous, and petty.

The example with Miss California simply highlights one of the most hypocritical hallmarks of liberalism. With liberals, you can believe in whatever you want, but if you disagree with them then you are immediately a hateful bigot (and probably insane). You can say whatever you want, but if you aren't politically correct then you are an insensitive pig. You can do whatever you want, but if you aren't environmentally conscious, then you are an irresponsible killer. Being bi-partisan means agreeing with them and being tolerant means accepting their viewpoints. They tote democracy, but leave no room for any debate.

There seems to be a serious lack of respect in this country, and the truth is that it comes primarily from the left. Go listen to what Miss California said. She said she glad she lived in a country where we can have our own opinions, she asked for forgiveness from those who would be offended by her opinion, and she honestly and sincerely stated what she personally believed. There was no hate, no intolerance, and no evil in her answer to that question. Now, go listen to Perez Hilton and others call her a stupid b***, degrade her physical appearance, and say other things that are so offensive that I won't even elude to them. The only good thing to come from this is that these hateful gay activists are shooting themselves in the foot. No one feels any sort of sympathy for them or their cause after hearing their terrible comments. And quite frankly, no one should.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Health Care and Nationalization

With the dangerous swine flu causing a lot of unrest around the globe, it can be assured that health care will take a front row seat in the minds of the people and the government. As the Obama administration pretends to look for solutions, while masking their true power-trip agenda, they will no doubt continue to push harder and harder for some type of nationalized health care. They will push for said plan by masquerading the idea that health care is a universal right, that it is unacceptable that not every American have access to treatments, doctors, prescriptions, etc... It will sound noble, descent, and desirable. But there is a grave problem with this philosophical notion. Here I attempt to argue against the nationalization of health care on the basis that health care is, quite frankly, not a right. Furthermore, by declaring it as a right and subsequently nationalizing the industry, we end up sacrificing an incredible amount of liberty.

Some argue that health care should be no different than fire or police departments. Here is the problem. Fire departments and police departments help protect us from situations that are beyond our control, usually caused by the actions or decisions of others. Our rights our violated when a burglar enters our home, and there is little we can do to prevent our neighbors from letting their home go up in flames (and risk having those flames jump over to our property). When it comes to our health, however, much of it has to do with the choices that we make. Of course their are genetic diseases that have very little to do with our own choices, and we all catch the cold every once in a while, but it there is no way to completely diagnose any health related problem as being a function of lifestyle or any other variable.

So we come to fat Albert. Fat Albert wants nothing more than to live out his life eating potato chips, smoking cigs, and downing cheap beer. Is it a lifestyle that he has the right to live? Of course. Is it healthy? Of course not. So what happens when his liver starts failing, he develops lung cancer, and his heart starts giving out? In a free society, with private health care, he must pay the consequences for his own actions. He can either pay for the costs himself, or sadly, die young. The point is that you and I aren't forced to pay for his medical bill.

But if we are to declare that health care is a universal right, than by necessity he should get all the treatment available, at our expense. Bypass surgery, lung and liver transplants, all on our tab. But no one is going to want to do that. It would outrage even the most extreme liberal. So what would happen? We would start being told how to live our lives. Regulations and government interventions would seek to do everything possible to force us to adopt certain, "approved" lifestyles. No longer would we have the freedom to eat potato chips and sit on our couch all day long. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not praising that type of lifestyle, but I am defending the right to live it if one should decide that it fulfills their pursuit of happiness.

You see, health care is a privilege, not a right. Because it is a privilege, it must be something we work for and the consequences thereof must be our own to endure. Can you even imagine the wreckless abuse that will take place if you convince people that health care is a fundamental right on par with the freedom of speech and religion? Chaos would ensue and American health care would begin a long spiral downwards towards the failure that has become of other countries that have nationalized their own health care industries.

Long lines, overworked doctors, sub-par equipment, and inadequate treatments would only be the beginning. Important decisions regarding treatment would be made by bureaucrats, not doctors. And those who worked hard and who could afford top quality health care? Sure, they would be taxed to high heaven, but they would be ushered to the back of the long lines like everyone else. And that doesn't even begin to describe the enormous deficit increases that would befall an inefficient and irresponsible government trying to manage something that they literally have no idea how to do.

There are no doubt problems with our current health care situation. There are unfortunate tragedies that befall good, hard working individuals who simply cannot afford the right treatments. Health care is too tied up with corporate benefits, and at times even those who can afford it are still denied by unscrupulous health care companies. But nationalization is not the answer. Fortunately, we do have government subsidized health care programs for those who truly need it. Unfortunately, even those programs get abused far too much. In the end, I believe the difference between people believing that health care is a privilege that must be earned and a right that can be abused will make a tremendous difference in the effectiveness of any plan to improve our current situation.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

As on the one hand, the necessity for borrowing in particular emergencies cannot be doubted, so on the other, it is equally evident that to be able to borrow upon good terms, it is essential that the credit of a nation should be well established.

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Public Credit, January 9, 1790