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???!!!
Author: Rick
Native of Arkansas
Licensed Professional Electrical Engineer
Thoughts for the Day
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???!!!
The Bill of Rights, US Constitution – Part 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.
M*A*S*H
We the People
The primary reason for my point of view is that there are some liberal beliefs and political positions with which I agree. Then there are obviously conservative beliefs and political positions with which I agree.
This is a difficult topic to approach; however, I chose this to be my first blog to perhaps add some clarity to my position. For one, it deals with politics – a sensitive topic which has become even more sensitive in recent days. However, to clarify my position on politics and perhaps convince others that “We the People” can take a different approach to our political views rather than depending on party politics for our personal opinions.
Conservative in my political views as is it may be, I am not a member of any political party. Many of our founding fathers did not believe in political parties, though it seems to have degenerated into that situation almost immediately. The primary reason for my point of view is that there are some liberal beliefs and political positions with which I agree. Then there are obviously conservative beliefs and political positions with which I agree. But by and large what I believe is that if it is supposed to be “we the people”, then we should do as much for ourselves as we possibly can; both individually and as a community.
Take for example ecology, that was the 1970’s term for the conservation of our natural world/environment. We made great advances in technology in the 20th Century. So far as to take the dream of exploring beyond the confines of earth to making space exploration a reality. But unless we make a true “quantum leap” in technology in this century, we will still be confined to this planet; regardless of its suitability as a habitat. Therefore, it is only logical that we must conserve our natural resources and environment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with “authorized” states[1], regulates industry in terms of the waste that industry generates and how it disposes of its wastes. But the EPA and State governments do not regulate individuals and we the people are the largest generator, collectively speaking, of waste in this and every other country. Now this would be the liberal in me.
Now as for the more conservative side, I am in favor of a smaller Federal government. That doesn’t just mean less people on the Federal payroll, but less control of our lives out of Washington, D.C. and more state and local control. The cities and states of this collective of semi-autonomous states known as the United States of America were, in the beginning, just that. Only during and after the Civil War did the Federal government begin to assert more control over the states as a whole. While broadened powers are necessary during wartime; that is, a war of the scale of the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc., it is not necessary during peacetime. Trouble is: after the peace is made, agencies have been formed, people have jobs in these agencies and they want to keep their jobs. But federal oversight is not only: not necessary in every situation, it isn’t efficient or effective. People in their own localities know best what it is they need; not people thousands of miles away in D.C.
The scope of this essay is way too broad to complete – with the exception of spending another month or two or twelve or thirty-six or… This is just a start to a topic which will be an ongoing conversation with many subtopics to come.
[1] States are authorized by the EPA when they write their own environmental regulations, approved by the EPA, which are at least as stringent as the federal regulations and they may be more stringent.