This week we celebrate the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I am going to quote what I wrote as an introduction to the Town of Selma’s ceremonial reading of the Declaration. Hopefully, some of you got to hear it and the Declaration read Wednesday night.
“The American Revolution against Great Britain began in 1775. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a resolution to declare colonial independence in the Second Continental Congress. The vote on that resolution was delayed for several weeks. On June 11, 1776, the congress appointed a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence from Great Britain. One June 28th, a draft of that declaration was presented to Congress. On July 2nd, Lee’s Resolution was partially passed by Congress, declaring, “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” The declaration document was debated and revised, and on July 4th, the Second Continental Congress approved the final draft of the American Declaration of Independence”.
I consider July 2nd to be our actual Independence Day, not July 4th. This is not just because July 2nd is my birthday, but because the actual vote for American independence came on that day. John Adams thought much the same way. He wrote to his wife on July 3rd, 1776, “The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more”.
The Second Continental Congress voted for independence to escape the tyranny they had been experiencing, which was enumerated in the Declaration, point by point. Tyranny can come in various forms. The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this. Samuel Adams, cousin to John Adams (and not just one of my favorite beers), said “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words.” Never has this quote been as poignant as it is today.
North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue has vetoed the state budget so that she can look magnanimous in her stance for increased funding for public schools. This is nothing more than a ploy to build her legacy as someone who allegedly cares about children and education. However, discerning people realize that it’s nothing more than political showboating. The plain meaning of adequate funding is being perverted.
The recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States on both the State of Arizona’s immigration law (SB1070) and on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) show that the quote by Samuel Adams to be glaring accurate. To declare that states no longer have the ability to control immigration to their respective sovereign jurisdictions (as originally intended) is federal tyranny over states. The Arizona decision along with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce immigration laws cause states to shoulder the burden of educating illegal immigrant children, requiring large state education budgets. The fact that Obamacare was ruled as constitutional as a form of taxation has forced the single largest tax increase in American history. It takes away your freedom of choice over whether or not to carry health care coverage, and requires you to participate in commerce, whether you choose to do so or not. That, my friends, is a form or tyranny.
The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare was a surprise to me, since I figured that even a high school civics student could have figured out that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was highly unconstitutional. Sure, there were some provisions I liked in the bill, but they were small ones. Sure, the health care laws could use revision, but this gigantic bureaucracy was not the way to go, nor is it the American way of doing things. If the law is an exercise in tyranny, limits freedom, and is a major financial burden, then the parts I like are irrelevant and not worth the government’s interference and tyrannical power.
In the first paragraph, I quoted the brief narrative on the Declaration of Independence for a reason. Folks, we started a revolution for far less than we are putting up with now. When will we have had enough?
Showing posts with label declaration of independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label declaration of independence. Show all posts
Friday, July 06, 2012
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Column for April 14, 2011
There is an old saying, “Follow the money”. It does not take much to do so in the obvious financial and political shenanigans we are tolerating nowadays. We had people tarred and feathered, run out on a rail, and tossed tea into a harbor for less than we are putting up with today.
In looking at the federal budget battles, the budget is obviously about money. However, money is a means of gaining and keeping power. I grow tired of the argument that there is “non-discretionary spending” in the federal budget. That is, that there are entitlement spending obligations that can not be touched. Sorry, but if Congress set up a program with a law, Congress can change or abolish the law, thereby changing what is discretionary and what is not. This is why we read in the Declaration of Independence that people “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and not by Congress. If Congress can grant the right, Congress can change that right. Then again, most of today’s actions and spending by Congress are prohibited by the Constitution.
I take issue with those who believe that we need the government to take care of people. I have no problem with helping others. I find it to be the Christian and just plain humanitarian thing to do. I do not, however, believe in making people into total dependents upon the government for their substance.
As I recall, we are supposed to rely upon our “Creator”, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence rather than government for our dependence. I take issue with those who state that it is only “Christian” to provide for people and that is why we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, which is a euphemistic way of saying taxation.
A great example is Harry Reid, United States Senator from Nevada. In a 2001 interview he said, "I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican." He went on to say that the Democrats' emphasis on helping others, as opposed to what he considers Republican dogma to the contrary, is the reason he's a Democrat. Reid is a convert to Mormonism. Of course the vast majority of his stances run contrary to not only the doctrines of The Church of Latter Day Saints, but to Christianity.
I firmly believe that taking care of people is an obligation to be shouldered by the Church and families first and government last. The Church family has an obligation to look after people both because of Scriptural command as well as the precept of loving your neighbor as yourself. As I assured one old classmate from high school, “You will never have to eat dog food as long as you know me.” She was lamenting her fear that she would become a poverty stricken old lady who could only afford to eat Alpo.
Political gamesmanship happens at all levels. It is just more visible at the federal level because we are talking about trillions of dollars and a constant national media presence rather than billions or millions and state and regional media. Senior citizens are often the volleyball batted about by political gamers. Every action, however, has an equal and opposite reaction, according to Isaac Newton. Local governments and the federal government alike are struggling with the idea of Baby Boomers retiring. My own mother just retired about six weeks ago from her job of 35 years. I will be picking her up at the airport withing a 24 hour window of this column being on news stands and enjoying her newly found freedom.
As millions of such people are retiring, counties and towns will be struggling with revenue losses from the boomers taking advantage of property tax exemptions. Politicians used the promise of such exemptions in an effort to lure voters with money to gain power via votes. Now the bill for these exemptions is going to require payment (or lack thereof, as the case may be). It is all about power and money.
I have run across many such examples in the news this week, but I only have so much space in which to rant. Just remember, follow the money and associated power, and most of your questions about politics, whether they be in government, business, or even in churches will be answered.
In looking at the federal budget battles, the budget is obviously about money. However, money is a means of gaining and keeping power. I grow tired of the argument that there is “non-discretionary spending” in the federal budget. That is, that there are entitlement spending obligations that can not be touched. Sorry, but if Congress set up a program with a law, Congress can change or abolish the law, thereby changing what is discretionary and what is not. This is why we read in the Declaration of Independence that people “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and not by Congress. If Congress can grant the right, Congress can change that right. Then again, most of today’s actions and spending by Congress are prohibited by the Constitution.
I take issue with those who believe that we need the government to take care of people. I have no problem with helping others. I find it to be the Christian and just plain humanitarian thing to do. I do not, however, believe in making people into total dependents upon the government for their substance.
As I recall, we are supposed to rely upon our “Creator”, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence rather than government for our dependence. I take issue with those who state that it is only “Christian” to provide for people and that is why we render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, which is a euphemistic way of saying taxation.
A great example is Harry Reid, United States Senator from Nevada. In a 2001 interview he said, "I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican." He went on to say that the Democrats' emphasis on helping others, as opposed to what he considers Republican dogma to the contrary, is the reason he's a Democrat. Reid is a convert to Mormonism. Of course the vast majority of his stances run contrary to not only the doctrines of The Church of Latter Day Saints, but to Christianity.
I firmly believe that taking care of people is an obligation to be shouldered by the Church and families first and government last. The Church family has an obligation to look after people both because of Scriptural command as well as the precept of loving your neighbor as yourself. As I assured one old classmate from high school, “You will never have to eat dog food as long as you know me.” She was lamenting her fear that she would become a poverty stricken old lady who could only afford to eat Alpo.
Political gamesmanship happens at all levels. It is just more visible at the federal level because we are talking about trillions of dollars and a constant national media presence rather than billions or millions and state and regional media. Senior citizens are often the volleyball batted about by political gamers. Every action, however, has an equal and opposite reaction, according to Isaac Newton. Local governments and the federal government alike are struggling with the idea of Baby Boomers retiring. My own mother just retired about six weeks ago from her job of 35 years. I will be picking her up at the airport withing a 24 hour window of this column being on news stands and enjoying her newly found freedom.
As millions of such people are retiring, counties and towns will be struggling with revenue losses from the boomers taking advantage of property tax exemptions. Politicians used the promise of such exemptions in an effort to lure voters with money to gain power via votes. Now the bill for these exemptions is going to require payment (or lack thereof, as the case may be). It is all about power and money.
I have run across many such examples in the news this week, but I only have so much space in which to rant. Just remember, follow the money and associated power, and most of your questions about politics, whether they be in government, business, or even in churches will be answered.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Column for Jan. 7, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do these words sound familiar? Of course they do. They are from one of the founding documents here in America, the Declaration of Independence. This premise is the basis for our freedoms and later the Bill of Rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
