American Territory

With my AM radio still on the blitz due to the repair being a low priority, I have been obtaining my morning new stories from NPR, listening with a scrutinous ear. This morning, a featured story was on a Puerto Rican town who has lost three hometown service members to the Iraq War. The particular slant on this story had to do with the fact that Puerto Ricans can sign up for military duty but cannot vote for president, nor do they have representation in Congress.

While I am sympathetic to those who lost family members, regardless of the reason, I cannot be sympathetic to the fact that they do not vote for president or have representation in Congress. First of all, Puerto Rico is not a state, but a territory. Territories are not on par with states when it comes to representation in Congress. This is a well established fact that should not be changed for any reason. If Puerto Rico wishes, they can petition for statehood, just like every state has since the original 13 colonies were established as states in the union.

Second of all, and this is the major thing for me, is that individuals who sign up for military service know the risks. The purpose of the military is to establish defense and to participate in armed conflicts that are found by Congress to be pertitent enough to American interests to declare war. The inherent risks involved in military service is injury or death.

And so Puerto Ricans who volunteer for military service have no illusions that they are exempt from risk. Unfortunately for the Puerto Ricans whose relatives have been killed in action, they paid the ultimate price for their committment.

These volunteers knew that they could be killed or maimed in an armed conflict, and yet they still volunteered even though they also knew that they could not vote for president and had no representation in Congress.

The relationship of the United States with its territories is a symbiotic relationship. Although the slant of this piece this morning was that the U.S. military rapes and pillages the Puerto Rican people for their young men to serve, as if they had no choice, the fact of the matter is that Puerto Rico benefits from being a U.S. territory.

Puerto Rico itself has the backing of the full U.S. military for its protection, and this was the flip side of the story that was conveniently left out. The citizens of Puerto Rico who sign up for military service may have the opportunity of protecting their island home one day, just as much as they have the opportunity to fight on foreign soil under the command of a president that they do not elect.

Any life lost in battle is worthy of grief. Every man is someone's child, father, or husband. And in an all-volunteer army, all serve willingly despite the risks. Even if they are citizens of U.S. territories.

Fairy Dreams In New Jersey

Since the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the New Jersey state constitution holds a "right" for gays and lesbians to marry, liberals have been wetting their pants with excitement, projecting futuristic scenerios of "Can you believe a time existed when gays couldn't marry?" with hypothetical children, as in this piece. And of course, we have the age-old comparison of the so-called gay "rights" movement to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

First of all, if one can find a right to marry in any legal constitution, state or otherwise, then people have the right to enter into any contract without qualification. And since marriage is a right, then all legal age of consent laws are invalid. And all laws against incest and bigamy are also unconstitutional.

In regards to the state, marriage law is nothing more than contract law. Under this archaic patriarchical concept, when a man takes a wife, he is obligated morally to provide for her. This was written into law for the protection of women and children, so that if a man decided to break his marriage contract with his wife, she could recover for herself and her children. It does not take a legal scholar to figure this one out. Furthermore, if you have ever witnessed an ugly divorce, you will see just which direction the presumption of innocence leans toward.

And so, again we must again re-state that marriage is not a civil right, but a matter of contract law. Under state laws, one must obtain a license for marriage. At last account, any obtaining of licenses from the state connote priviledge that can be revoked by the state if certain conditions and qualifications are not met. Other examples of licenses are business licenses, driver's licenses, building permits, etc. The above activities are rights denoted nowhere in any constitution. Contract law, plain and simple.

But if I were black, I believe I would get tired of everyone comparing their plight to the plight of black people in the years leading up to the 1960's. Blacks were denied their civil rights for years. Blacks could not even congregate for church in the south for years without white supervision. One custom that still exists in some black churches today has its roots in pre-civil rights struggles, as black preachers were required to hold on to a chair set in the middle of the room while preaching. Blacks were not treated as competent people, but were believed to be inferior, needing white supervision and help in all things. In the early census statistics, blacks were treated only as 3/5 of a person if they were held as slaves. Blacks were not allowed to meet the gaze of their white betters, or risk physical harm.

While not all whites abused blacks, and not all blacks were abused, the general stigmas of the days prior to the Civil Rights movement held that blacks were not fully equal people to whites. A fairer comparison to the struggles of the Civil Rights movement may be drawn from Jews or Irish immigrants in at the turn of the century.

But gays? First of all, gays have been assembling for years now without reprisal from the government, unlike blacks of the civil rights era who were hosed. We've had to put up with the incessant carping about being second class citizens, when in fact we are just tired of their whining about their self-inflicted demotion. Blacks were in fact treated as inferior to whites. Gays can obtain all the benefits of marriage without being married. Blacks could obtain no benefits for themselves at all unless whites allowed it at the time. Gays have always had equal protection under the law. Blacks had to have two amendments passed before such rights were even recognized.

The only reason why gay people want marriage is to legitimize their lifestyle, and to force society to accept as a normal condition one that has been regarded as deviant by most every society of history. Those societies that embraced deviance such as this no longer exist.

Dirty Politics, Georgia-Style

As another saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" (and no, QD, I am not talking about anyone in your family), and I don't know what
Mike Wiggins did to make Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia Carol Hunstein angry, but it seems her recent campaign ad gets downright dirty. She claims that Wiggins is not fit to sit on the high bench of Georgia because: a)he is not a judge; b)his mom sued him; and c) he threatened to kill his sister.

Now whether any of the above is actually true is anyone's guess unless one actually cares to research the truth behind this apparent smear. Wiggins of course denies that his mother sued him out of malice, and that the disagreement with the sister had to do with the mother's healthcare, not a death threat. This disagreement apparently led to a lawsuit against the sister, which then led to a court order that they never initiate contact with one another again.

A quick reality check would lead one to realize that most lawyers have been involved in personal lawsuits, whether they be the plaintiff or the defendent. Suing people in a court of law is what they do. For some lawyers, it's a benefit to be able to sue people for financial gain, even if they have little or no stake in the outcome, just because they can. They see it as a benefit, kind of like a mechanic being able to fix his own car, or a plumber unclogging his own toilet.
After all, the law is for lawyers, or at least the way in which the system of litigation is structured.

But what really strikes my attention about this ad is the charge many other political ads mount against their opponents, regardless of party affiliation. The charge is lack of experience. This little jab has always bugged me.

By way of the structure of the bicameral legislature, the Founders did not seem to intend for politicians, especially in the House, to have a lot of governmental "experience". They anticipated that since originally being a member of Congress was not a lucrative job, that serious citizen statesmen, who held positions in the community, would serve as a civic duty for two years in the House, then go home. Most if not all states are patterned after the federal legislatures. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote, but were meant to be senior statesmen who would review the mounds of legislation that would ensue from the many House members, compromise the legislation, weighing the bests interests of the nation as a whole, and acting as a balance to the Congress, whose sentiments would lie with the interests of their own state.

In short, someone with experience in government is not necessarily the best candidate for a popularly elected office under our representative republic.

I also believe that those who have served as lawyers of judges are not necessarily the best candidates for judgeships, based solely on the fact that they have "experience". Especially in courts today, I had rather see citizens other than lawyers filling the benches. Incumbent judges should be voted out every term, just to keep the court system with a semblance of freshness.

A local candidate for a judgeship called my home to solicit my vote. His name not being familiar, I asked who he was up against. When he told me that it was an incumbent judge, I told him that he had my vote. When he asked why, I simply told him that considering that the office is judge, you not being the incumbent is a good enough reason for me.

Children Are Children, And So Are Liberals

I may have earned my first "banning" from a blog site. QuakerDave is upset with me now when I commented on his blog, in which he describes a reaction his 14 year old child had to a Keith Olbermann tirade. He called his child his "liberal-in-training". Here is the comment that set QD's ire against me.

"An old saying goes like this: If you aren't a liberal when you are young, you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative when you grow up, you don't have a brain. Here's hoping that your liberal-in-training grows up."

If anyone can see any maliciousness in that comment, or can construe this as a personal attack on his child (besides QD), then feel free to comment about it.

This further compelled QD to write an entire section on posting rules for his site. Ah, the liberty of liberals. I am assuming that he is also calling me a bully, since with this post he included a picture of a "ban bullies" sign.

My response was that he could ban if he pleased, it was his site. But do not say it is because I am bullying his child or talking down about him. Children are children, and eventually if the Good Lord lets them live, they grow up. My personal hope is that his child grows up to be a conservative. If he does, he will still respect his dad for his liberal, misguided views, because that is what true conservatives do, that is respect their dads and people with liberal, misguided views.

Nevertheless, I would like to thank QD for proving the wisdom in the anecdote.

(Re)Defining Journalism

I heard about this piece on the radio this morning. Apparently, Josh Wolf, a self-proclaimed anarchist, videotaped some protestors at a rally-turned-violent, resulting in the injury of a police officer. A federal grand jury has subpoened the videotape. Wolf claims that the government is fishing for information concerning the protesters, some of whom gave their names and showed their faces to the camera after being masked at the protest rally. Mr. Wolf is further claiming that his work is protected under the first amendment, since he claims his work is journalistic in nature and that since he is a self-proclaimed member of the press, he should not be forced to turn over any work that would reveal sources.

This brings about a couple of questions that I do not readily have the answers to: 1)What is a qualified member of the press under the first amendment; and 2)Is it the revealing of sources that is protected or the work itself that is protected.

The first question I cannot answer. The government-school educated part of me says that some guidelines should be met before one can be considered a press journalist, in line with the thinking that the government should have a hand in defining that, but my libertarian tendencies push those thoughts aside with the nagging question of what article gives the government that right. Then, who would set the guidelines? Perhaps the industry itself. But the guidelines could be manipulated to stretch protection of the press to unreasonable bounds, so maybe some outside influence should be met. Should that outside influence be the government? I do not find where the Fed has any power to do such. But the question still remains that until some clear boundries are drawn as to what constitutes legitimate press, in the age of the internet, anyone could claim press priveledge.

Now to answer the second question. The nature of journalism is to pass information from one source to another. I am all in favor of protecting sources of information and press priveledge, but ordinary citizens who refuse to testify in a criminal trial are held in contempt of court. Those who answer dishonestly are charged with perjury. Why should a member of the press be any different? And by nature in this case, was not the video in question recorded to be shared with the public if it were truly journalistic work? The sources on this tape identified themselves voluntarily. If they did not realize that they were identified on tape, then as a journalist, Mr. Wolf failed in his fiduciary duties to his sources, and is therefore not much of a journalist to begin with. So is the work protected from subpoena itself, or does press priveledge only apply to sources who have taken measures to reasonably protect themselves from identification, whether it be Mr. Wolf or Bob Novak?

I don't have the answers, but these questions are definitely relevant for debate. Who knows, since I maintain this blog, I may be considered a journalist, although I do not claim to be one.

What I Wish The Republicans Would Do

The words "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi" evokes a cringe, almost gut-wrenching, reaction from me. Although I know for a fact that very little would be different with a Democrat congress or presidential administration (except for the speed at which our country is going down, 35 mph for Republicans versus 70 mph with Democrats), I still have that reaction of hearing the words "Democrat control".

Confession time.

The year was 1992. I was a college sophomore who had never voted in an election, since I did not turn 18 until after the 1990 midterms. But I knew I wanted to vote. And I knew I was a democrat. After all, my grandfather was a democrat. Everyone else in Canton, GA, was a democrat if they wanted to win an election. Although I was a Reagan supporter, I knew George H.W. Bush was the wrong man after his first four years. Looking back, I can't really remember why I thought that, but I just knew it was time for change, and by George, or Bill, I was going to help exact that change. And Bill Clinton was just the guy who would set things straight in D.C. He was a southerner, a Washington outsider, and a democrat. And he was getting a lot of favorable press attention.

So when I went to the polls, I voted for Bill Clinton. And thanks to Bill Clinton, I realized that I was not a democrat.

Not only did I realize this by his less-than-stellar character that was now surfacing since the election, but by his policy positions. One of the only things he accomplished while he had a democrat-controlled congress was the Family Medical Leave Act, which forced companies by law to give employees up to 12 weeks out of work for family-related issues and still hold their job. The leave would be unpaid, which was probably a compromise in the bill. More than Bill, though, Hillary and her scandals and attempted transformation of the U.S. healthcare system into a giant government program helped me to realize that I was not a democrat. I found out that conservative democrats such as Sam Nunn were the minority, and under the Clinton administration, the inmates were running the asylum.

And so I did the most logical thing, and that was switch my party affiliated to Republican. And I have voted republican in every election since and including 1994. And unfortunately, I find myself in the same position, discovering that the neo-con, "compassionate conservative" (read liberals who believe that cutting taxes will give the government enough increased revenue to fund big government) inmates again are running the asylum.

So here are some hot button issues, and how I think Republicans should stand on those issues.

1) War in Iraq: One sign of character is admitting when one is wrong about something. The goal of a democratic Middle East is a pipe dream. The belief was that Iraq and Afganistan would become Middle Eastern democratic pardigms, and that the rest of the Middle East would see just how good democracy is and join the party. Unfortunately, the flaw in this logic involves the peaceful religion of Islam and its ambivalence toward free will. Let's help establish the interior security of Iraq and Afganistan, while simulataneously sizing our presence down. We got in, found the weapons of mass destruction, and toppled Sadam. Now let's leave and call the hope of a democratic Middle East what it really is: fantasy.

2) Minimum Wage: Call for the repeal of all minimum wage laws while calling it what it really is: artificial inflation through wage price control. No one gains anything by increasing the minimum wage, since costs increase, thus forcing business to increase pricing. A vicious cycle it is. Let the market dictate pricing through competition.

3) Taxes: Call for the immediate dismantling of the Federal tax structure and the passing of the Fair Tax. Compliance costs would decrease, as well as maintain the current revenue stream on the federal level. And, since taxes would be determined by a percentage of consumption, one would only conclude that higher income citizens would shoulder the brunt of the tax burden. A win for small government conservatives and also for class-envying liberals.

4) Stem-cell research: The Federal government has no business in this business. Leave this regulation to the states. No federal funding.

5) Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, education, energy and other issues of the like: None of these issues have any relation to the power enumerated to the Federal government. Although I personally find abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage repugnant and immoral, other people do not and some choose the above to be their lifestyle ( or lack of lifestyle). If people in Massachusetts want to have legally binding homosexual marriage, let their people vote it into law. If Georgia does not want to recognize any homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin, the let the voters have the say. The tenth amendment should be applied to these issues.

6) Border Security: This is probably the most important issue of our time. The issue is not whether or not we are viewed as anti-immigrant or not, but rather this is the most important issue of national security, and perhaps the only issue that the Federal government has enumerated powers to affect. We should first secure the borders, minimizing the number of migrants crossing our borders illegally. Let those coming across legally come, welcoming them with open arms. Next we should focus on deporting those whom we find here illegally. Pourous borders are not good for anyone. Bombs smuggled by Al qada masquarading as migrant Mexican fruit pickers kill both democrats and republicans.

7) Social Security and Medicare: Begin a phase-out for all citizens under the age of 35, stepping down benefits from 35, ending the complete phase out for workers age 18. Cease withholding payroll taxes from workers 18 and younger immediately, and step withholding down for those workers under 35 years of age. But, of course, the Fair Tax would make that a moot point anyway, since it would do away with all taxes on individuals anyway.

8) Become the Champion of Individualism: We hear much about the "common good" these days, a throwback to a Marxist concept that democrats are hoping that the electorate will not associate with our old foe, the Soviet Union, since that would be a bad signal of the concept. Individualism has almost become a taboo word in Washington. The republicans should become the champions of this concept of the individual is the owner of his own destiny in relation to other humans, and that the law exists to protect the individual from other individuals who would infringe upon his rights.

9) The Activist Judiciary: I would like to see republicans make examples of activist judges on either side of the aisle by beginning impeachment procedings. The measure of activism would be determined by how many new "tests" these judges come up with to determine constitutional muster, or rather, if they can make the Constitution evolve to the new standard they wish to set. The text of the Constitution is test enough.

These are just a few issues that I wish would be addressed. But, like a democratic Middle East, a republican party who would take these issues and stand on them as conservatives is a pipe dream.