Month: April 2019

Some people in The United States’ Congress are proposing “Medicare for all.” Now THINK! How many supplemental Medicare Insurance plans are advertised on television? Now just imagine how bad it would be if EVERYBODY was on Medicare. Furthermore…and this is critical…are those people in Congress proposing to get Medicare for themselves? Or will WE be stuck with some cut-rate plan while THEY get THE BEST care OUR money can buy???!!!

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At the time our Constitution was written, much of the world was controlled by religious leaders.  The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church had enormous powers at the time and no King or Queen of the day dare make a major political move without the Pope’s blessing.  Of course by then, King Henry XIII of England had broken ties with the Catholic Church and established the Church of England which he (and subsequent rulers of the Kingdom) would oversee.  It is no wonder, especially having such a diversity of religious sects (albeit mostly Christian), the “Founding Fathers” would put this into the First Amendment.  [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion] This has, since the early 1960s become known (I think erroneously) as the “establishment clause.”  Others simply refer to this clause or phrase as “separation of Church and State” which I think the intent has been subverted.

But why do I say erroneously?  Because it goes on to say: [or prohibiting the free exercise thereof]. There is nothing that states a person – politicians included – may not express their faith in their everyday business.  To those of us who are spiritual, and I don’t mean just Christian, our Faith is not something we put on to go to Church, or Synagogue or Mosque or whatever.  Then take it off after and behave as secular society dictates.  It is something that is interwoven into everything we do.  Every decision we make.  There is nothing, Constitutionally speaking, that says we have to put this aside and think in terms of there being no God, in order to make fair decisions in all of our affairs.  People who don’t believe in God or any deity well, that belief system plays a part of in every decision they make, in everything they do.  So what is the difference?

That brings us to: [or abridging the freedom of speech]..  Remember this long sentence begins with: “Congress shall make no law”… abridging the freedom of speech.  So Congress does not have the right to say you cannot pray in schools – it may be able to restrict it from being mandatory – but it can’t say you can’t pray in school.  At the same time, opposing points of view may be expressed and should be encouraged.  This is true freedom of speech.  I’ve opposed Christian hard-liners who want to censor secular points of view.  And I find myself now – more and more – opposing secular points of view who want to censor Christian points of view.  So what about other religions?  Ironically, these neo-secularists points of view have allied themselves with Islam, which my observation, research, and interview has shown to be more hard-line than the hardest Christian points of view.

And not just religion, but freedom of differing political points of view.  I don’t mean Democrats vs Republicans, but Socialism, Fascism, Communism (all variants of one another) attacking our Federal Republic or representative democracy. Progressivism, which openly opposes our Constitution, I remain particularly wary since it attempts to use the very system it opposes (our Constitution) to subvert and/or degrade the Constitution.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From the beginning of our nation until about 90 years ago, this amendment pretty much went unopposed.  There were of course local laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms.  But now, firearms are regulated on the local, state, and federal level.  A false narrative I have heard put out which basically suggests that we currently have unrestricted access to firearms is completely false!  We have background checks and it doesn’t matter if you buy a firearm in a gun store, a gun show, or on the internet.  They all require a background check.  If you’ve found a dealer anywhere who is selling firearms for profit without a Federal Firearms License (FFL), They are breaking the law.  And as licensed dealers they are required to do background checks on ALL firearm sales.  There are state and local laws as well.  Some states have more restrictions than others, but there are restrictions in every state.

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Well I believe we all understand this one.  It was derived from the very real practice of British Soldiers commandeering peoples homes without the homeowner’s permission.  It hasn’t been a real problem or issue in modern times in this country…but never say never.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is one of the rights which have been consistently trampled from the beginning.  Two more recent cases, or sets of cases, on both a national and local level.  I won’t discuss the national cases just now.  And there currently is a lawsuit against the City of Little Rock, Arkansas regarding their “no-knock” warrants.  But as to “unreasonable searched and seizures…”, there is the issue of confiscating property of suspected drug dealers.  Of course the premise of this law is that dealers’ property was purchased with illegally obtained funds.  Seems reasonable, but here’s the rub: 1. they are innocent until proven guilty; and 2. if acquitted, their property IS NOT returned.  The State or law enforcement agency just keeps it.  Is that fair? I personally think not.

I will continue to “amend” this article and/or add others.  Please note excerpts from the Constitution were copied and pasted from another author’s web site to which the link is indicated by blue letters.