CyberBlog

Is it not great that we live in a country where I can write of my disagreements with my government and my fellow Americans without fear of retributions? We all hold up our first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as a fundamental protection from a tyrannical government.

Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms and Voting Rights are all vehicles for the people to protect themselves by setting themselves up as a check and balance to the powers of the three branches of government. Without free speech the voters cannot be properly informed on the actions of their political leaders and in turn cannot make corrections by way of the election process.

While one man with a gun cannot act as a check and balance to the government an armed general public can act as a deterrent to a tyrant who might consider bypassing the elections process. Together these powers give the public the power to control their government from the designs of those who might wish to enhance their own position through government control.

But we must keep in mind that the goal of this arrangement is for each individual to be sovereign over his own life to the greatest extent possible without violating that same individual sovereignty of another person.

When our government was founded our forefathers were most afraid of government tyranny and created a constitution to limit the powers of that government while at the same time giving it enough power to ensure our national defense. I would contend that while our federal government has encroached on our individual sovereignty through creative interpretation of the constitution, we must also fear other internal forces that would use our constitution as a tool for their follies. They will use the Constitution, as a shield to protect their activities while their very goal is to destroy the concept of individual sovereignty.

Islamic Fascists are one group that are willing to use any means necessary to undermine our freedoms while using our own laws against us, but the more disturbing trend is the advancement of socialists that proclaim to be the arbiters of freedom and rights while their intention is to promote collective control over individual sovereignty. Others believe that we should be a democratic, majority rules society where rights change at the whims of the electorate.

We are faced with the dilemma of designing a government with the strength to protect us against those who would violate our individual sovereignty while at the same time we must limit that government so it does not itself become a tool of tyrants.

One example of American’s weakening us from within is how the press has been undermining our government’s efforts against Islamic terrorists.

We as Americans have lost our resolve and we are letting our country be destroyed from within. In the misguided notion that we must protect ourselves from our own government at all costs, we have failed to recognize that tyranny can come in the form of treasonous individual and groups within our country. We MUST protect ourselves from a tyrannical government but equally we MUST stand against those who fight against our individual rights while using the constitution as their shield.

The following is just one example of American’s loss of resolve. The New York Times and reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen published a series of articles in 2005 concerning the U.S. government wiretapping of foreign phone calls to and from phones inside the United States in relation to the war on terror. When published these articles would obviously alert those who were being wiretapped to use alternate forms of communication as the U.S. government might be listening to them. These article resulted in decreased security for U.S. citizens by degrading our intelligence gathering ability. The New York Times and these two reporters decided that the U.S. government was more of a threat to the American people and their liberties than the Islamic extremist that we were trying to track down.

But instead of being charged with treason like they would have been if they had done this same thing during World War II, they were awarded a Pulitzer Prize. Here is a link to the Pulitzer Prize website where their series of articles are Honored:

Pulitzer Prize 2006

Some may justify what the New York Times did as protecting the rights of American citizens from a tyrannical government and tyrannical voices such as mine. But in context of the terror inflicted on our country on 9/11 and the limits of these wiretaps to suspected terrorist calls to foreign phones, I would contend that the New York Times is not looking out for our individual rights, they are looking to use their first amendment protection of freedom of the press to advance their own socialistic secular progressive agenda. Do you feel free and safe with the New York Times looking out for you? Or do you think the New York Times is trying to lead us to socialism and the loss of individual freedom? Do you think the New York Times would have published these articles if a Democrat was the President?

Our forefathers set up a constitution with the emphasis on controlling the tyranny of the government. This is understandable as they just emerged from the tyranny of a monarchy to form their own new government. They did not design the government to protect against a tyranny from within. Why would an electorate of free individuals vote away their own newly found freedoms? I suspect our founding fathers could not even contemplate this possibility.

My contention is that there should be no Bill of Rights in the Constitution. All rights, including free speech rights, start with individual people. Remember this passage from the Declaration of Independence:

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We all have freedom of speech rights under a constitution that only allows the government limited specific powers that are granted to it from the governed. But individual sovereignty is only possible amongst those who respect that same right in others. Your right to individual sovereignty and free speech does not extend to treasonous speech that endangers the safety and sovereignty of your fellow Americans. With the first amendment of our constitution many feel that anyone can say anything no matter how dangerous or offensive it is. How is it logical for a person to discuss instituting a form of government that restricts most rights while using his free speech rights to engage in that discussion?

You have the right to speak your mind when your discussion in turn respects the sovereign rights of others. You can discuss openly opposing views on how we can best reach the goal of maximizing the sovereignty of each person. But if you show that you wish to infringe on the Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of your fellow man through your words and your actions then you show a distain for the concept of rights and should not expect recognition of your own rights in return.

The Ku Klux Klan is given free reign to spew their hate and they are free to parade their message of intolerance under the protection of the first amendment. Under a form of government where individual sovereignty is balanced by the effect of that exercise on the sovereignty of others, the rights of the Klan would not be recognized as they do not recognize the rights of others.

Islamic Sects that wish to live in our country but at the same time enforce their Sharia Law amongst their followers can also find protection under the establishment clause of the first amendment. Under a form of government where the individual sovereignty of all is the law of the highest order, enforcement of Sharia Law would not be tolerated as this would violate the sovereignty of the individual.

Newspapers and writers can reveal wartime secrets that endanger American lives under the guise of the first amendment. They should be charged with treason as their words and acts have endangered the Life and Liberty of Americans.

The New York Times could have written an opinion article that wiretapping by our government on citizens in the U.S. is not a good policy even during a time of war as this gives our government too much power over our lives. This opinion article could have been a jumping off point for the people of this country to debate the issue and then use the results of this debate to form their basis for voting in the next election. Although I would strongly disagree with the Times on their stance I could at least see that they were striving to extend American’s freedoms by protecting us from a tyrannical government.

If the Times had revealed this program after the war on terror was over and the program had run its coarse then we could all view this as an exercise of free speech rights in a quest to control tyranny in our government. But to unilaterally decide to reveal this program rendering it useless during a time of war is Treason.

All rights have limits as your rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to sovereignty over your own life as long as you do not infringe on the sovereignty of others. You have the right to keep and bear Arms, but you do not have the right to point your gun at your neighbor. You have the right to believe in the God of your choice, but you do not have the right to force that God on your community. You have the right to speak freely to discuss the best way to achieve Liberty for all, but you do not have the right to commit treason.

I ran for county office several times and as part of the process I received a questionnaire from the local gay-rights organization.  Below you can read the preamble of my response to that questionnaire.  As someone who believes in individual sovereignty, I believe that each American must be afforded the freedom to decide his own path in life.  We must join together to support the principles of individual sovereignty and freedom.  Hyphenating our designation as American only emphasizes our differences instead of uniting us around common principles.  You might think that the local gay rights organization would be pleased with my stance as equal rights for all is my objective.

But you would be wrong, as this group is not looking for equal rights they are looking for equal outcome brought about through special rights.  They are looking for special programs and special protections designed specifically for the gay community.  With equal rights gays can choose their path in life and those who believe that this lifestyle is immoral can also choose their path in life.  Both can co-exist if mutual respect for the right to individual sovereignty is followed.  Under the equal outcome, special rights stand of the hyphenated gay rights organization those who choose to believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral must be punished through government intervention and forced compliance / education.  The freedom and individual sovereignty of one person must be violated to provide an equal outcome for another person.  In your personal life freedom allows you to be a hyphenated American as you choose.  As the protector of rights we must unite together as Americans, not Hyphenated Americans.

The following is my response to the Gay Rights Questionnaire during one of my runs for office:

I believe that County positions should be filled by the candidate with the best experience and qualifications. Sexual orientation is not a criterion for or against filling positions. As an American, I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all. See the link to “Why I am a Republican” to see these values expressed. Although I believe in the first amendment rights of freedom of speech, I believe that sexual preferences are best discussed in private. I am also leery of those who want to label and separate Americans. We are not African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Irish-Americans, or Gay-Americans, we are Americans. Separated we will emphasize our differences. Together as Americans we will prosper and grow.

Also while running for county commissioner I met with the local Republican Party recruitment committee.  They decided to endorse four candidates for county commissioners as a way to increase the influence of the Republican Committee.  When I appeared they focused on question concerning my support for other Republicans and in particular the current Republican County Executive.  I refocused my presentation to the Statement of Principles Adopted by their Republican State Committee.  I handed each of the members of the recruitment committee a copy of the Statement of Principles listed below and went through these principles showing that this current executive had raised county expenditures an average of 7% per year over her tenure and vowed to aggressively seek every grant and program available from the state and federal government.  Under her leadership we could expect the largest county government that was possible as the Democrat candidate could not grow the county any faster than she could.  I could not endorse that county executive.  I showed them how her philosophy violated the Statement of Principles that their Republican State Committee adopted.

Of coarse I was not picked by the recruitment committee as pragmatic politics and winning takes precedence over principles.  If you need to give the electorate some bribes in the form of government programs in order to win elections while sacrificing the principle of smaller less intrusive government then that is what is required.  In today’s world politics is the art of compromise. But when you support candidates that run while supporting positions that undermine most of the Statement of Principles that your own party adopted then why are you playing the game in the first place.

Today the Republican Party is struggling because they have alienated their base by placing more emphasis on winning and their own power over advancing the principle listed below.

Here is the Statement of Principles adopted by the Pennsylvania State Committee. I believe Halley Barbour who was the RNC chairman at the time authored these principles:

Statement of Principles

Adopted by the Republican State Committee on November 23, 1991

We, the members of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, believe that our Commonwealth and its citizens will secure and sustain the blessings of liberty and well-being as a society based upon these principles:

American world leadership has been built upon and will continue to depend upon a willingness to defend and promote freedom. Support and recognition must be afforded to those men and women who have served in the defense of this Country. A strong national defense secures the blessings of liberty to our posterity.

A form of intolerance occurs when one group of people, in a quest to force others to conform to their views, labels their opposition with a derogatory term.  If you are opposed to Homosexual marriage, the militant homosexual community will label you a Homophobe.  I am against same sex marriage and even civil unions, but instead of cowering in fear of this label I embrace this title as a Badge of Honor in the fight against the intolerance coming from those who wish to win the debate through intimidation and aggression, instead of through the substance of their ideas.

I believe in smaller less intrusive government.  I believe in individual freedom and sovereignty.  Government power is granted to the government from the people and any power not granted to the government remains with the people.

One of the elements of this form of government, where each person is conceived with individual rights, is the recognition that minors need to learn honor, responsibility, and respect for the rights and sovereignty of other people.  Only through mutual respect can rights be protected.  Marriage between one man and one woman is the best institution to raise minors to the point where they can respect the rights and sovereignty of others.  Without this mechanism to pass this lesson on to the next generation, a form of government based on rights is destined to fail.

As one of the elements required in promoting a system of government where individuals are created with individual rights and sovereignty, marriage must be afforded special recognition through laws and protections by the government.  The best way to provide a stable environment for minors to learn to respect the rights of others and to learn that their rights are in turn only protected by this mutual respect is to provide special government protections for the institute of marriage.

As a believer in individual sovereignty and limited government, I feel that each person has the rights to decide the path of his own life to the point of not interfering with the sovereignty of other individuals.  If two people of the same sex want to enter into a relationship with each other they should be afforded that liberty as they retain sovereignty over their own lives.  If they want to swear allegiance to each other in a ceremony of affection toward each other, then that is their individual sovereign right to do so.  Why do they need the blessing of the government and the forced blessing of the public to exercise this sovereignty over their own lives?  They can draft and sign a contract if financial arrangements are a concern.  The freedom they desire is available to them without the blessing of the government.

Marriage has evolved through centuries of the history of mankind.  A commitment of one man and one woman to each other fosters a sense of trust and security.  Without this commitment the relationship can be undermined by jealousy and insecurity.  A secure relationship allows a couple the opportunities to unite together to raise their children with respect for the rights of others.  Each person is born with the yearning for liberty and freedom.  They must be taught to respect the liberty and freedoms of others.  Marriage is the institution that best supports this learning process.

As you can see, I have logical reasonable arguments for why I am against same sex marriage.  As Civil Unions are nothing more than marriage called by a different name, I am also against government sponsored civil unions.  But instead of providing logical reasoned arguments countering my points and defending a form of government that is consistent with their views, militant same sex marriage defenders will contemplate where the hate in my heart is coming from.  They will call me a homophobe at the top of their lungs and in unison, as the passion of their presentation will be viewed as proof of their righteousness.  They may provide segmented arguments that, when separated from the context of an overall view of society, seem reasonable to justify their vitriol.  But, when considered in the context of a form of government, their arguments require the imposition of their segment of society’s view, through government power, on a less vigilant segment of society.

Many may read my views above and agree in principle with these ideas.  But as this issue might have little personal effect on their lives and the threat of being labeled with a derogatory name would cause great effect on their lives, many will find themselves cowering in silence or even proclaiming that homophobic hate speech is not appropriate in today’s society.  Giving in to this intolerance will only allow for the inability to discuss issues in a reasoned logical manor and will lead to the slow advancement of the loss of freedom.  It is time to disarm those who use the homophobic label as a tool to intimidate those who are opposed to same sex marriage.  Stand proudly for the institute of marriage.  When you are labeled for proclaiming that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, respond in kind, “Yes, I am a Homophobe.”  The arrows directed your way will soon lose their effectiveness and then maybe we can have a civilized debate on this issue, as political correctness will have been neutralized.

The truth is that the rights of a person to choose the path of his own life (including the choice of sexuality) is best protected by a form of government that is limited while the sovereignty of each person over his own life is maximized.  The best economic model to provide our country the maximum prosperity to facilitate that sovereignty is a capitalistic model.  The best way to raise minor children to the point of becoming responsible sovereign individuals, who in turn respect the sovereignty of others, is the institution of marriage.

A form of government where the prevailing political power can impose its views as a group over the sovereignty of the individual is not the best form of government to protect the rights of those who wish to engage in an alternate lifestyle.  While currently the homosexual community is a protected class in our society this status could easily change.  As the homosexual population is a small minority in this country (less than 10%) and the majority of the religious population (greater than 50% of the country) feels that homosexuality is a sin, the majority could at any time decide through democracy and majority rule to restrict homosexuality.  Currently this group is showing restraint by respecting individual choice over their own preferences.  As militant groups attack their lifestyle they might someday use their majority population position in this country to retaliate through government mandates.

While the same sex marriage crowd may think they are advancing the cause of the homosexual community through the support of gay marriages they might actually be weakening an institution that is an integral part of the freedoms that they enjoy.

If you currently profess to be gay you can also be against same sex marriage.  Your freedom and the freedom of all American’s as individuals might depend on it.

The abortion debate is divisive and the defining issue of the feminist movement as reproductive freedom is required in the feminist’s mind to put women on equal footing with men in their careers if they choose this path in life. This truly is a Pro-Choice issue to them, as they want women to be able to choose the path for their lives free from the moral judgments of society. They also want women to be free from the imposition of the religious values of other. Women should have the freedom to decide their own religious leanings.

Those who are Religious Pro-Life believe that God has created man in his own image and at conception a fetus is a Person. Feminist sees this view as the religious right imposing their religion on everyone else and this cannot be tolerated.

We could debate how people can believe in God and also be Pro-Choice. How can you believe that men have souls but only once they are born, not when they are in the womb. Once you justify the destruction of another soul doesn’t that nullify your belief in God as the Almighty, reigning over mankind? And what if a women, having an abortion on a spur of the moment decision, is currently searching for her beliefs only to latter in life find Her God. Would she not face great struggles in her earlier decision? Or maybe she will never find Her God because the decision to abort her child prevents her from considering this avenue. But as religious belief should be an individual’s issue this debate will never be resolved as each person’s beliefs are different. One can only ask those who are Pro-Choice to consider the consistency of their individual stand on this issue with their own belief in God.

Let’s visit this issue from another angle. If you are a Pro-Choice Feminist, I would ask you to consider this issue from a non-religious Pro-Life, Pro-Sovereignty view. As women it is your lead that will be followed on this issue. Men do not have to carry children and will subjugate their position to you. It is up to you to provide the leadership on this issue. I ask you as feminist to consider the source of the advancement in freedoms that women today enjoy.

The best way to protect all women’s freedom is to protect the sovereignty of all people, including unborn children. Only by protecting the rights of all people can a system of government exist that protects any person’s rights. What justification is there for protecting the rights of only women and not the rights of the weakest amongst us?

You might say that our current system of government does protect our rights while at the same time allowing for the Pro-Choice position. I would ask you to consider the logic of that position.

You might argue that there is protection for the right to privacy (and thus abortion) contained in the constitution. But this right was not always recognized in our country’s history, and in the future, through the same process of Supreme Court Politics, this right could be taken away again.

I believe that our current government has evolved into a majority rules government in contrast to the republic form of government that our forefather’s set up. In a majority rules form of government, your rights only exist as determined by the whims of the majority of the population through their elected officials. A politically appointed Supreme Court could just as easily rule that the words “Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity” in the preamble of the Constitution gives protections to unborn children. Then not only would the federal right to an abortion be lost but the states could not allow abortions either.

Under this system of government, where the meaning of the constitution can be changed to meet the requirements of a demanding electorate through their elected politicians, we can have no set rights as all rights can be modified through interpretation and manipulation.

A system of government that protects all people’s rights, because each person is born with those rights, not granted those rights from the government, is the only way for the people to protect their rights against the tyranny of that government and the tyranny of the majority. The majority of the electorate should not be allowed to vote away rights that you alone posses. All those who believe in a system of rights must stand against any tyranny that infringes on those rights, as the support of patriots is the only protection for those rights.

As feminists, protecting the rights of women and unborn children, you can lead society to great changes and advancements. We could unite as a nation to advance the cause of repressed women throughout the world instead of wasting our efforts battling each other. We could unite about the principle of individual sovereignty along with individual responsibility. We could unite around the issue of preventing unplanned pregnancy and work together to support women when an unwanted pregnancy does occur.

But to reach this point you must first understand that true believers in God believe that an abortion is a murder just the same as if a mother had killed her two-month-old baby and they will never abandon this stance. They are NOT trying to impose their religion on the mother; they are trying to protect the rights of an innocent person. You too should take this stand to protect the rights of all people because this is the only philosophical stand that guarantees the rights of all people. If a person does not have rights upon conception then rights are an arbitrary concept only available through force and power. If you were not created with rights then any rights that you have will only be determined by the majority political power of the society in which you were born. These rights, being arbitrary, can change as the will of the society changes. Only when each person is created with individual rights can each of us be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Each of us must do our utmost to stand for each other’s individual rights as only through this philosophy can any of us claim any rights as our own.

As you can see from this, the feminism that you strive for and the rights of women will never be secure as no rights can exist, including women’s rights, without the acknowledgment and devotion of all to the rights of all persons, including the unborn. This is not a stand based on any particular religion, this is a stand that recognizes that humans are born different than animals and are born with a yearning for freedom and liberty unlike any other creature on earth. This is a recognition that we must all fight for the rights of all people or our own rights do not exist as a principle, they only exist in arbitrary political power.

You became a feminist because, in your heart, you had that yearning for freedom that exists in all people but as a woman you did not have an equal opportunity to strive for that freedom.

You can be Pro-Life and also be a Feminist. As a feminist you can fight for the independence of women, as a mother you can feel the humanity of the unborn child, as a person and a patriot you must guard the rights of all people.

I call for all who cherish freedom to join in the quest to extend the Legacy of Liberty started by our founding fathers. We too can live up to the great standards of our forefathers by leaving our own legacy of liberty to future generations. United together we can overcome the ills of men who strive for their own power, over the natural yearning of freedom that each of us is born with.

Through ignorance and apathy we allow those who are motivated by their own ambitions to degrade the freedom that was won with the blood of our forefathers. Only through a commitment to the principles behind individual freedom can we leave this same legacy for our Posterity.

Let’s work together to draft a new Constitution. The constitution our founding fathers left us with was originally designed for a republic, not a democracy. Over the years men, more interested in their own power, have eroded the true meaning and design of our constitution, enriching their own lives at the cost of our liberty. The only way to overcome this tyranny is to take on the challenge of drafting a new constitution.

The first step required in this journey is to recognize the greatness in all of us. We put our founding fathers on a pedestal while judging ourselves to be unworthy of their accomplishments. But they were just ordinary men who had the courage to do extraordinary feats. We too can be extraordinary, as we to are born with the same yearning for freedom that our founding fathers and all men are born with. Our individual rights come to us from God. Government shall only have those powers that are given to it from the people as Individuals. Government must be limited to only those powers and functions necessary to enhance the freedom and liberty of each person. A government that intrudes on an individual’s rights and sovereignty, for the good of that individual, is more of an invader on the soul than a protector of the physical being. Together we can restore our government to a secondary role behind individual freedom.

Next we have to look to our history and acknowledge the wrong turns that changed our government from a republic, that protected the rights of individuals, to a democracy, where the collective good took precedent over individual rights. This change can be traced backed to the time when those who wished to expand their power redefined the meaning of the words “General Welfare” in our constitution. Previously this term was a catchall phrase so that Congress would have the power to fund functions necessary to support specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution such as National Defense. Our modern Supreme Court ruled “General Welfare” is not limited to specifically enumerated functions. They ruled that this was an unlimited clause allowing Congress unlimited powers to tax our money away and return it in the form of mandates on our lives and on our souls. Before this, the people had the power in a Republic form of government, after this we became a democracy, and any power taken was only a function of whom or what issue could garner the majority of the votes.

We have to recognize that the original design of our constitution has been corrupted. We have to correct the error that allowed this to occur or we will burden our children with the curse of tyranny, instead of blessing them with Legacy of Liberty.

In designing a new Constitution, I first call on you to consider eliminating a part of our original constitution that most of you would consider sacred. The Bill of Rights must not be included in a Constitution that recognizes that all rights emanate from individual people as given by God. Rights are not granted back to the people from the government. A Bill of Rights is not necessary because any power not given to the government by default remains with the people as individuals. Providing enumeration of the rights of the people in the constitution gives rise to government tyranny and assumption of power to any situation not specifically enumerated. The Government through its tyrants will take the people’s God given rights. Could you ever craft a “Bill of Rights” complete enough to thwart the designs of those bent on enhancing their own position?

A new Constitution must be clear in its design to limit the inevitable overreaching ambitions of those who seek power for themselves, but also must limit the majority of the people when their wishes for conformity violates your rights as an individual. We are not to be a majority rules society. We must be a society of sovereign individuals with agreed upon rules governing our individual quest to support each other in prosperity and freedom. This can only happen by crafting a constitution that sets strict procedures for the use of limited government powers along with effective checks on that power.

To design a proper constitution that acts as a guide rail for a society of free individuals we must identify the elements to be considered in the design.

The first element is the Individual with whom all rights emanate. Each person must have the maximum sovereignty over his own life that is possible without infringing on the sovereignty of his neighbor. As the individual’s power is limited by lack of resources, his sovereignty over his decisions during the course of his life should be maximized. As the government’s collective power is unlimited by the availability of collective resources, the government’s sovereignty must be limited to actions that enhance freedom and liberty. The majority of the people should not collectively be able to infringe on the sovereignty of each individual. Thus our constitution should be designed to a Balance of Sovereignty. The Sovereignty of the individual is great as his power is limited and the power of government is great but its sovereignty over our lives must be limited to those functions necessary to enhance our freedom.

Unlike animals and other creatures on this earth, God gave us free will to choose the path of fulfillment that we see fit. If a government that believes it is looking out for our own interests limits our decisions in life, then isn’t that government defeating the very purpose that is its mission, supporting individuals following our God given free will in our quest through life. Short of our free will, are we any different than animals? But we must have a strong government to protect the sovereignty of the individual from other individuals who wish us harm. So the second element in the design of a new constitution is a strong government that has the required checks and balances to insure people can control the tyranny of those who would use this institution for their own designs.

The third element required in the design of a constitution based on freedom and power granted by the people is responsibility. With the sovereignty that each individual retains for himself, they must respect that same sovereignty that each of his fellow citizens also yearns for. The new constitution must be a contract between men protecting the freedoms and liberties of each individual for the benefit of the individual. Those who do not respect the sovereignty of their fellow countrymen should in turn not expect protection of a contract that they have no intention of honoring. They should lose their standing and protection as a citizen. An opposite danger exists in that the government could use false breaches as an excuse to gain power over honorable men. The loss of citizen in good standing status must be afforded the highest standards and checks, while at the same time demanding that all those who expect protection of their own personal sovereignty swear allegiance to that same standard for their neighbor.

The fourth element to consider is that a well functioning economy provides the resources that make our freedom possible. What good is freedom if we cannot feed our family or provide for a roof over their head. The greatest constitution in the world is useless with out the means to live our lives. In recognition of this basic fact, the new constitution should support a capitalistic economic model as the best model to balance individual freedoms along with economic prosperity. Socialistic models must be specifically rejected in any area where the same product or service can be provided by the private sector. Only through a capitalistic model can individuals maximize their own personal sovereignty.

Then of coarse we have to recognize thousands of years of history and natural design in planning our new government. When we design our new constitution around individual sovereignty we must recognize that people are not able to except the responsibility of their own sovereignty until they are of age. The traditional family must be given special consideration in the new design as the best way to raise and teach our children to the point where they can assume the position of a responsible, sovereign adult. While tolerance for non-traditional families would naturally occur under a system of government where individual sovereignty is the design, the traditional family should be given special treatment as the best design to raise children.

Finally, as men of free will, the ultimate decision a sovereign man must make is what God, if any, does that sovereign man have faith in. The best way for each man to have the maximum sovereignty over his own life is to have the choice of which religious teachings to follow. This is best accomplished by allowing all religions the maximum access to public life and to the public square as possible without allowing religion to interfere with each sovereign individuals rights. Separation of church and state is a destructive concept as the whole purpose of the government is to allow each person the most access to religion possible so that they have a Free Will Choice. Religion itself must be restricted, not separated, from the constitution as all rights begin with the Sovereign individual. Religion can be limited to rules that only have the consequence of removal from that religion. Any rules that require punishment greater than this shall be considered a breach of an individual’s sovereignty. This would give the individuals protection from the tyranny of a theocracy while allowing exposure to varied teachings.

We can design a new government in a logical systematic way just as our forefathers did. What is required is the courage to recognize that our current system has been corrupted from its original design. We must then fight for a new design that respects individual sovereignty. Here is my vision of how the Preamble to this new constitution might read:

We the Sovereign People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, defend our God given rights as individuals, and to secure the blessings of prosperity and Liberty to ourselves, our families, and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of American and between sovereign citizens of good standing.

I have taken the first step here in establishing a dialog toward a new Constitution. I have put forward the concept of a “Balance of Sovereignty” where individual freedom is favored over collective freedom. The elements of this concept are:

All rights belong to the people as individuals. Each person shall be afforded his sovereignty.

Government is only to have only those powers required to promote Freedom and Liberty.

With sovereignty comes responsibility. Those who do not respect the sovereignty of their neighbors will lose their protections as an individual under the constitution.

The traditional family shall be afforded special consideration as the best way to raise children to the point of adulthood and personal sovereignty.

Religious institutions shall be limited in power over the sovereignty of the individual but shall be allowed access to promote freedom of choice of the individual.

The next step is to address the issues that are prominent in today’s society and test these issues against the concepts listed. Come back to my blog as I address the issue of today, one by one and together we can see if my concept of a Sovereignty Constitution is feasible. Of coarse freedom and liberty is always the ultimate goal in the quest to a more perfect union.

After the issues are tested the next step is to draft the concepts into a constitution that reflects these issues. We can live up to the standards of our founding fathers. The future of our children should drive us to this task. The quest for freedom must start with the first step.

The Supreme Court is set to take up a case concerning restrictions on owning a gun in Washington D.C. Washington banned handguns in 1976 in a hope to reduce violent crime. Rifles and shotguns are legal for residence to own if they are kept locked or if they are disassembled. The city council claims they are in compliance with the constitution because they are regulating guns not banning them or preventing residence from owning rifles or shotguns.

A group of Washington D.C. gun owners sued to restore their right as individuals to own guns and to restore this basic freedom. Below is a link to Supreme Court news documenting their consideration of this case.

Fox News Story on Supreme Court D.C. Handgun Ban

Those of you, who see the possible restoration of gun rights in D.C. as a restoration of the rule of law as it pertains to the Constitution, keep in mind that all the members of the Supreme Court are lawyers. This reminds me of the following joke: If a boat full of lawyers in the middle of the ocean sinks what do you call it. A GOOD START!

Now before you accuse me of wanting to drown all lawyers know that one of my brothers and many of my relatives are lawyers and I wish no harm to them. My point is that lawyers have a vested interest in the present system of government and even if the Supreme Court restores gun rights, they will do so in such a way to protect government control over such rights. They will point to previous precedent to allow what you and I see as a clear right enumerated in the constitution to be limited. They will stretch the words and pick out the combination that suite their need to protect the institution of the judiciary over their responsibility to protect our right as emphasized in the Bill of Rights.

If the Supreme Court was truly interested in following the original intent of the Constitution as crafted by our forefathers than I would find myself not having to pay social security tax tomorrow or I would not find the federal government meddling in my kid’s education, and so on. A constitution must be written in such a way that all men who live under its rules can understand the meaning. If only the elite of society are said to have the knowledge required to understand its meaning then the average man is destined to be ruled by the elite as these justices can shape the meaning of law to fit their vision of society. The average man will then be subject to the tyranny of the elite as the average man no longer has the standing to question their interpretation of the law.

I believe the Constitution was written as a simple document that all men of the time could understand and the Second Amendment is clearly added to the Constitution as a protection of individuals, not militias, to own functioning (not locked or disassembled) guns. Don’t let the elites or the lawyers or even a majority of the people take away your rights by saying you are too dumb to understand the clear meaning of the Constitution.

In Federalist Paper #84 by Alexander Hamilton, the issue of the Bill of Rights is addressed. The Federalist papers were written as issues papers trying to convince the people of different states to adopt the Constitution. Hamilton argues in Federalist Paper #84 that a bill of rights is not required because the Constitution itself is a Bill of Rights. Below is an exert from Hamilton’s writings:

It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they (bill of rights) have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved”? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

Below is a link to the entire text for you to read.

Federalist Paper #84 by Alexander Hamilton

This paper was published before the Bill of Rights was adopted. The Bill of Rights was added latter because some were afraid of the overreaching power of the Federal Government and they demanded a Bill of Rights before ratifying the Constitution.

Hamilton advised against a Bill of Rights as you can see from the exert above because in this constitutional form of government, all powers given to the government comes from the people and any powers not given to the government are retained by the people. A bill of rights would imply that the government would have the power and the Bill of Rights restores specific powers back to the people.

Do not listen to the lawyers and the elites as they try to explain to you the complex meaning of the constitution. It is only complex when you are trying to invent government power and you need to twist the words of the constitution to suite your objectives and magnify your own power and status.

Hamilton is saying that the second amendment protecting your right to keep and bear arms is not necessary because there is nothing in the constitution allowing the government to take that right away from you the people. There is no need for freedom of the press because nowhere in the constitution is the government granted power to regulate the press. No bill of rights is required because the government only has limited powers granted by the people and specifically enumerated in the constitution.

Imagine if Hamilton had gotten his way and there was no Bill of Rights. Re-read his Federalist Paper #84 above. Even if there was no first amendment protecting our free speech rights, from his writings above you can tell that he envisioned that this right would have been protected, not by its inclusion in the constitution, but by the lack of authority granted by the people in the constitution to the federal government.

This thought pattern would also apply to the second amendment. If there was no Bill of Rights, as Hamilton argued for, where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate this right retained by the people. The simple answer for simple folks like you and me is that the government does not have the power to infringe on our right to own guns.

If you would like to investigate the intent of our founding fathers and the constitution regarding this issue, the National Rifle Association has a section of their web site dedicated to addressing the second amendment. On their website they give many quotes by founding fathers making it clear that they intended for the right to keep and bear arms to belong to the people, and this right was not limited to the militia.

Here is an example of a quote from a founding father:

Samuel Adams warned that: “The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

Here is a link to the NRA second amendment web page for your further review:

NRA Second Amendment Right to Arm

Of coarse those for gun control and those who interpret the second amendment as only a right of the militia, not a right of the people, will not show you quotes from the founding fathers supporting their position because the founding fathers clearly intended for the people’s right to keep and bear arms to be honored.

The issue of contrary evidence by the founding fathers and many other second amendment issues are well documented on the Gun Cite website. Below is a link if you need to investigate pro-second amendment issues further.

Gun Cite – Second Amendment/Gun Control

If you want to read the Gun Control side of this issue, the ACLU has a page on their website dedicated to addressing their opposition to controlling or limiting government in respect to the second amendment.

American Civil Liberties Union – Gun Control

I will now address each of the issues brought up by the ACLU in defense of their stance supporting gun control. Their first argument is that they believe the right to bear arms is a collective (think socialist) right not an individual right. They believe the second amendment is basically a right of the state to arm its militia to protect its freedoms against an overreaching central government.

Lets look at the second amendment and in context see if it could be referring to collective not individual rights.

Second Amendment:

“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.”

The word “people” is used other places in the Constitution, not just in the second amendment. In the first amendment if you isolate the word people, you would get the following statement. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The fourth amendment starts out with the word people in it also. The right of the people to be secure in their persons… The Constitution starts out with a reference to People. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Is the first amendment referring to the people in a collective sense? Does the right to peaceably assemble or to speak freely only exist as a collective right? Do we need permission from our state government to speak of our displeasures with the federal government? The fourth amendment refers to persons in an individual context. “We the People”, does our government get its power from us as individuals, or is this power granted from a collection of people through their state governments? If this were true then why does each individual state also have a constitution?

The obvious answer is that “people” refers to individuals not a collection of people.

The second amendment can be separated into three parts to understand it more fully.

Part One - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Part Two – the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed.

Part Three – the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Part One is one description of why this right is necessary. It makes no claim to be the only reason required, and if keeping and bearing arms is a right, as suggested in the second amendment, then why is any reason other than it is a right required. This description makes perfect sense as the one given when you consider the situation that the founding fathers just came from. They came from the mindset of just defeating a monarchy under which their rights were limited. This war was won with the help of militia and probably would have been lost without the militia. This description only recognizes this one reason that was on their minds but by no means limits the reasons for the people to retain this right.

Keep in mind Hamilton’s warning in Federalist Paper #84 above when he suggested that a bill of rights is, not only not necessary, but dangerous. He suggested that no matter how well you wrote the bill of rights it would come under the scrutiny of men who wish to usurp that right. Why should a description of rights retained by the people be required when the government has no powers over those rights in the first place?

Part Two when separated out makes it perfectly clear that the founding fathers intended individuals to have the right to own guns. If the founding fathers thought the second amendment was only required as a way for state militias to protect themselves from a tyrannical central government then they would have only needed the words “bear arms” in the amendment, not keep and bear arms. The state militias could have armed themselves without the word “keep” in the second amendment.

Part Three is important in that it give the people the right to bear arms. This is applicable to the Washington D.C. case. What good is keeping a weapon that you can not bear because it is either disassembled or otherwise disabled and not functioning.

You can find many quotes from the founding fathers supporting the concept of individuals owning their own arms as a deterrent to tyrannical government. You will not find quotes where the founding fathers found gun ownership to be a threat to the newly formed government.

The next argument by they ACLU puts them in a very bad light in my opinion. There second argument is that the second amendment is archaic in today’s world with the advent of modern day weapons and it would take more than a handgun or rifle to defeat such modern weaponry.

So if we find a requirement in the constitution that does not fit into the ACLU’s view of what is proper in today’s society we should pretend that requirement does not exist and use that as an excuse to violate people’s rights protected by that requirement? Who gets to decide what portions of the constitution are archaic and out of date? If the courts decided that freedom of speech is an archaic requirement would we all agree and let the tyranny occur? If the ACLU or gun control advocates believe the second amendment is archaic then there is an amendment process to change the constitution. You don’t just decide to eliminate people’s rights by declaration.

As to the argument that it would take more than a handgun or a rifle to defeat today’s federal government. I would agree that one man or a dozen men with guns and rifles could not defeat or cause a change in today’s federal government, as it should be. But the pressure of three hundred million people united against tyranny could effect change in government even if only armed with guns and rifles. In contrast, as history has shown us, millions of unarmed people would be much less of an obstacle for a tyrannical government.

The ACLU makes the point that if the second amendment is interpreted to allow individuals the right to own arms then individuals would be allowed to own bazookas or even nuclear weapons.

This is a straw man set up by the ACLU. They set up a weak argument for the pro second amendment crowd to defend and then they knock down that argument and win the debate. The truth is that at the time the second amendment was written into the bill of rights there were no bazookas or uzis or nuclear weapons. Arms at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights were weapons for one man to engage another man one at a time in conflict. The second amendment did not give the people the right to keep and bear cannons. Those in favor of gun rights are not demanding the right to bear bazookas.

The last argument by the ACLU is true. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court did rule that the second amendment was intended to “guarantee the states’ rights to maintain and train a militia” in the 1939 case U.S. vs. Miller. In 1983 a lower court ruled in the case Quilici v. Morton Grove that Morton Grove, Illinois could ban the possession of handguns within its borders. The Supreme Court let that decision stand.

My answer to this is that Alexander Hamilton was right when he commented on the bill of rights, “but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.” The 1939 Supreme Court ruling has combined the words of the second amendment in a way to justify their need to regulate our right to keep and bear arms to suit their requirements while ignoring the words in the writings of our founding fathers indicating otherwise. Tyranny has come in the form of 9 men in black robes.

Keep this in mind as you wait in anticipation of a favorable ruling from a court that has shifted toward original intent in its makeup. In a perfect world the Supreme Court would read the constitution and rule that the government has only those specific powers granted to it by the people, even if that ruling does not fit society’s present requirements. A just Supreme Court would read the second amendment and consider historical quotes from the signers of the Constitution and then would rule that law abiding individuals retain their right to own functioning guns. Do you really expect a simple ruling like this is going to happen?

If your whole professional career was first spent as a lawyer and then as a judge in the judicial system, would you not have great sympathies and prejudices in favor of that system? If you made the simple ruling suggested above would it not undermine the very system that you as a Supreme Court Justice are a part of? If this ruling extended not only to gun rights but lead to the re-examination of all powers that the government has taken from the people, would you, as a Supreme Court Justice, rule in favor of the original intent of the constitution, or would you find a way to combine and complicate the words of the constitution to protect the status-quo? I suspect the best that we can hope for is a compromise ruling as the current Supreme Court will not cause a constitutional crisis by ruling for the original intent of our founding fathers. To act otherwise would first require the acknowledgement of the tyranny of the 1939 ruling by the current Supreme Courts’ predecessors and the tyranny of the judicial system itself. It would be like asking a son to be on the jury at his own mother’s trail for murder.

We can always hope for the best, but don’t hold your breath.

The sovereignty of the states and the people has been taken from us by our own federal government. The intent of our founding fathers is best seen in the 10th Amendment to our Constitution in the Bill of Rights. However, these words ring hollow as our modern era leaders have found ways to circumvent our sovereignty and render the 10th Amendment meaningless.

When this country was formed by our founding fathers, they had a great debate over the form of our government and if power should be concentrated in the state government or the federal government. These great men decided that our country shall consist of united but sovereign states free to govern as they see fit as long as they did not violate the rights of their citizens as enumerated in the constitution.

This concept was reinforced with the release of the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment in particular which reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, or the people.

The federal government has gotten around the true form of our government and the true intention of the constitution by the following Section of the Constitution

SECTION 8. - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

Provide for the general welfare of the United States is the catch phrase for our current federal government. General welfare has been defined to mean all aspects of our lives. With this phrase and definition there may well have been no limits put on the federal government. As long as they are looking out for our general welfare they can do anything thru taxation.

Education is a prime example of how the federal government taxes away our rights and freedoms. Say the federal government taxes an average of 10% of all American’s income for education. Then they tell us if we want our money back we must educate our kids to their standards. We need that 10% to properly educate our kids so the states and the people must give up their sovereignty to get the funds. The federal government hasn’t required us to give up our powers but thru taxation has effectively taken away our freedom to educate our kids as we see fit.

Reread the 10th Amendment printed above. Do you believe the intent was to limit the role of the federal government in our lives? Or do you believe our founding fathers wanted the federal government to overtax our incomes and return our own money in the form of bribes for acting in a way that the federal government sees as proper?
Use your common sense. If the words and intent in the Bill of Rights are subverted thru loop holes contradictory to its intent, then have we not lost the meaning of the words which govern our lives?

Our leaders hold up the Constitution and proclaim its virtues as they redefine the words and intents to their goals. They are using the constitution as a tool for their own follies.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution of the United States of America
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers
The Magna Carta

Kathleen Willey was on the Hannity and Colmes show promoting her book “Target”

Target by Kathleen Willey at Amazon.com

a book about the intimidation and threats inflicted on her, to keep her silent concerning Bill Clinton’s misdeeds. You can view this interview by linking here:

Part 1 Hannity and Colmes Willey interview

Part 2 Hannity and Colmes Willey interview

Transcript Hannity and Colmes Willey interview

Before I get into the allegations against Bill and Hillary I would first like to answer some of the questions from those of you who want to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt in this matter. Some of the women involved in this article gave contradictory testimony or stories regarding the events involved. However, I would like you to put yourself in their situation before you use this as an excuse to enable the Clintons. If you had an affair with someone or if you were sexually assaulted by someone and you were embarrassed by the situation, is it not possible that you would initially hide your embarrassment, sometime even when under oath? If a powerful person had caused you some minor harm, such as grouping, and then engaged in intimidating action against you, would you have the guts to speak out or would you just forget the whole issue?

If you want to find excuses to give Bill and Hillary the benefit of the doubt, because you want Hillary to be the next President, then I am sure you can find those excuses. Just because there is not enough evidence to convict someone in a court of law doesn’t mean that a reasonable person can make a character judgment based on that same evidence and decide whether or not someone is fit to receive your vote as President.

First let us review the allegations by Kathleen Willey:

Kathleen Willey and her husband were having financial trouble and as a Clinton supporter she went to see President Clinton in the Oval office to ask for a regular position (not a volunteer position) so she and her husband could work their way out of their financial mess. When Mrs. Willey went into the Oval office to speak with the President, he fondled her sexually and tried to take advantage of her. Remember that Willey is a committed Democrat and worked for “Virginian’s for Clinton” in his first election for President.

You can get a sense of Mrs. Willey’s desperation in going to President Clinton as her husband latter killed himself over their financial woes.

This incident then became part of the Paula Jones investigation as Kathleen Willey was subpoenaed to testify in that case.

Target is not a book about the groping though, it is a book about the intimidation and the smear campaign launched against her to try to protect Bill Clinton. Kathleen Willey alleges that Hillary Clinton was behind this campaign.

Hillary claims to be a feminist but Willey’s book documents 30 years of Hillary being an enabler for Bill Clinton’s sexcapades. She should have held him accountable for his bad behavior.

Willey says that Jack Palladino was hired to investigate, harass, and intimidate her after the scandal to try to discredit her and keep her quit. A friend of Mrs. Willey, Melanie Morgan, asked Palladino if he was embarrassed by what he did to Kathleen, but he responded no he was only upset that Mrs. Clinton did not pay him in a timely manner.

Two days after Willey’s deposition in the Jones case an animal skull was placed on her front porch facing the door.

One day before her testimony in the Jones case her cat disappeared. Latter a stranger approached Mrs. Willey and referenced the cat in past tense while knowing the cat’s name was Bullseye. This reference to the cat was followed by “how are your children” and he knew the names of her children. Then he asked if she ever got her tires fixed. Kathleen Willey had recently had three of her four tires flattened with a nail gun. How many of you would have testified against the Clintons under this pressure.

Mrs. Willey finally goes on to state that 10 to 12 women have since called her anonymously to tell her stories of their encounters with Bill Clinton.

Even though Willey is a staunch Democrat, one could still give Hillary and Bill the benefit of the doubt if this was the only such incident. The word of one person against the Clinton’s might not change your view on their integrity. The problem is that you have to ignore a pattern of evidence to believe the Clinton’s are people of high standards.

Lisa Meyers interviews Broderick Transcript

Hannity and Colmes Broderick - Hillary Knew Interview

Juanita Broderick was Jane Doe number 5 in the Paula Jones case. Above is a link to the transcript of her interview with Lisa Meyers where she accuses Bill Clinton of inviting her up to his room, on the false premise of campaign business, only to force himself upon her. I saw the interview when it first came out and I found Juanita to be sincere and genuine. If you can find a video of the interview, you will be convinced that she is telling the truth. It is much more compelling than the transcripts.

The second link is a video of Juanita Broderick claiming that two weeks after the rape, Mrs. Clinton approached Juanita and in generic terms made it clear that she was aware of the incident and wanted to insure Juanita’s silence on the issue.

If you believe Juanita Broderick, then you support a rapist and his enabling wife who knew of the rape, if you vote for Hillary Clinton.

Wikipedia article on Paula Jones

Paula Jones filed the now famous case against Bill Clinton. This is the case where Bill Clinton had Paula Jones brought up to his room by a state trooper. While in the room, Bill Clinton exposed himself and demanded sex from Paula Jones at which time she left the room. Later false reports that Paula actually had sex with Clinton are what caused Jones to file her lawsuit to protect her name.

Wikipedia article on Gennifer Flowers

CBS story on Flowers Lawsuit

Gennifer Flowers claimed she had a twelve year affair with Bill Clinton while he was Arkansas governor. She also claims that she had a son by Bill Clinton who she gave up for adoption. She filed a lawsuit that includes Hillary Clinton as a defendant. The lawsuit claims that Hillary sent out George Stephanopoulos and James Carville to defame her on news shows claiming that she is a liar and that she doctored tapes showing proof of her affair.

Wikipedia article on Monica Lewinsky

Monica Lewinsky actually had consensual sex with Bill Clinton, but before you forgive him for this, look in the mirror and ask yourself the following question. If you sent your 18 year old daughter to intern at a corporate business and the president of that business had sex with your daughter, would you consider that person to be of good character? And if his wife blamed the incident on a right wing conspiracy instead of recognizing the overwhelming evidence to such indiscretions, would you consider that person to be of good character?

Elizabeth Ward Gracen IRS article

Elizabeth Ward Gracen also had consensual sex with Bill Clinton but claims the IRS has been hounding her because she did not keep quit about her affair with him.

Wikipedia article on Sally Perdue

Sally Perdue was another willing participant in Bill Clinton’s sexcapades and she claims that two men threatened to break her legs if she spoke out.

Capitol Hill Blue article on Bill Clinton’s Affairs

You can visit the website above if you would like to do more research yourself and you need more names to investigate.

Slate.com article on Clinton Sex Addiction

Of coarse recently there have been reports that Bill Clinton has been under treatment for sex addiction. If you believe all these women are liars and Bill Clinton is the one telling the truth, then why would he need to have treatment for sex addiction. What would you consider sex addiction? One possibility would be “When the need for sex overrides doing what is right and proper.”

Dick Morris Secret Police Allegations at Real Clear Politics

Dick Morris Secret Police Allegations at DartReview

Dick Morris Secret Police Allegations on Townhall

Dick Morris, who worked for the Clintons, details how Hillary Clinton was in charge of the Secret Police, damage control, and the bimbo eruptions. If you want to do your own research on the Secret Police Morris is referring to, you might want to look up the names Terry Lenzner, Jack Palladino, and Anthony Pellicano.

Now you can do internet searches on all the information above yourself. A reasonable person can look at all the evidence above and believe that the evidence does not reach the level required to convict the Clintons in a court of law. At the same time a reasonable person can view this evidence and judge for themselves if the evidence, while not reaching the level of criminal conviction, is compelling enough for you to judge if the Clintons are of good character and worthy of occupying the office of President. To believe that the Clinton’s are of good character you have to believe Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick are making up stories on the intimidation that they faced. You would have to believe that Bill Clinton had affairs throughout his marriage without Hillary ever finding out till then end. You would have to believe that Dick Morris is inventing fantasies of secret police that he could have witnessed as a close confident of the Clintons.

This article is not really about the Clintons but about the voters that support the Clintons. If you believe in bigger government controlling all aspects of our lives then why not elect one of the more honorable members of your party to carry your banner. Governor Richardson or Senator Obama do not have a history of mistreating others.

I would have to guess that you would support Hillary because you think she is the best candidate to beat the Republicans in November 2008. The reason you might think she is the best candidate for this is because she is willing to do what it takes to win. The very reason that the stories of secrete police and animal skulls on front porches are believable is the same reason that you believe Hillary is the best candidate to beat the Republicans.

This should cause you to look in the mirror and inside your own soul. How can the rule of law exist when you are willing to elect someone to the office of President that will intimidate women whose only crime is to catch the eye of Bill Clinton. I can hear you yelling at the screen now about how President Bush has violated civil liberties, tortured prisoners, and uses government to benefit his oil buddies. Here comes the rant on how Bush sacrificed our young men’s lives for the benefit of Haliburton. Why would Hillary be Evil for intimidating women into silence while George in not Evil you might ask?

The answer is that President Bush believes he is protecting our way of life by fighting the war in Iraq. If you can give one first hand account of a witness that was in a meeting where Bush stated that we have to sacrifice our sons and daughters, not to liberate a country and fight terrorists, but to enrich his special interest friends then show me these first hand accounts so I can view them and decide who I believe. If you believe that President Bush is of such low character without any more evidence then he once knew some oil guys so it must be true, then you will be able to find an excuse to impugn the reputation of any President you disagree with. The process will be as simple as this. A President has a policy that you disagree with. You find someone that the President has associated himself with or some mistake he has made in his life and you use that as evidence that he is the worst scoundrel of all time. You then say that all candidates are crooked and you are voting for the lesser of two evils. As all candidates are human and Presidential candidates have had many people in their lives, you can find an excuse to justify your emotional based assessment instead of facing the lack of substance in your accusation.

As you can see, with the above formula, any candidate for President will be evil if they do not agree with you on the issues, and voting for any candidate that does support your issues (and can also beat your Evil Enemy) is a vote for the lesser of two evils. So it boils down to if a candidate does not agree with you on the issues, he is Evil.

I am not a big George Bush supporter because I don’t like how he has increased the size of government at a rate that would make any Democrat jealous. I do not like how he has dropped the ball on our southern border and immigration. I do not even think he did a good job as a leader on the War on Iraq. But I do not think he is evil. I believe all the moves he has made are done because he thought he was doing the right thing for the country even though I might disagree with those moves. If I were using the formula above, I would find a shady character in the President’s past and then proclaim him evil.

Real Evil is using the resources and powers of government to intimidate and threaten those who stand in the way, for your own benefit. If you believe Kathleen Willey then you must believe Hillary Clinton is an Evil person. If you vote for President Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils by using the formula above then you will get an Evil President.

Maybe you might want to go look in that mirror again.

The GOP legislature has come up with a plan to repeal tax incentives for oil companies and rebate taxpayers $100 to offset the high price of gasoline. This measure is seen as political posturing in an election year since this proposal will not produce one additional gallon of gasoline to offset demand. Reducing incentives and artificially keeping gas prices low would hurt supplies under normal economic models.

The Senate Finance committee headed by Republican Senator Charles Grassley is going to investigate the finances of the top 15 oil companies in response to public demand to the rising cost of gasoline. Grassely wanted to make sure that oil companies were not avoiding taxes while making record profits. The likelyhood that reducing oil company profits will reduce the pain to the American consumer is insignificant as oil profits on gas work out to 9 cents per gallon while taxes per gallon are around 50 cents. But the American people need to see action taken in light of the increase in gas prices.

The Democrats, with Senator Charles Schummer in the lead, have been blaming the oil companies for the problems of rising prices. Senator Schummer is proposing to break up the major oil companies that he considers monopolistic. The Republicans are responding to Democrat attacks by proposing their rebate idea and also by investigations into the oil companies. The Republicans are also proposing an amendment which would allow for drilling for oil in Anwar Alaska while most Democrats are opposed to drilling in Anwar.

Other moves being considered include halting purchases of oil for the strategic oil reserves until after the summer driving season and reduction in the number of gas formulas required by the federal government in different regions of the U.S.

Since the only purpose of the politicians is to get re-elected, and not to solve the energy needs of the public, the real issues involved in energy policy are being glossed over. The first issue is that the majority of American voters only care about the bottom line and are ignorant of the issues effecting energy policy. This ignorance has made it possible for politicians to fool the voters by shifting their anger toward the oil companies and away from federal policies that cause disincentives to oil exploration and nuclear energy.

The issue that is taboo for taxpayers to consider, and politicians to mention, is that rising prices as set by the market might be necessary to make exploration for oil feasible on American soil under the strict environmental conditions that we demand. American’s demand high environmental standards while at the same time they demand inexpensive gas all the while demanding energy independence.

Oil drilled in other countries, with less strict environmental laws and easier forms of energy to remove from the ground, has made it possible for Americans to have their cake and eat it too. We avoid the environmental issues by letting other countries deal with the mess, which allows us to also have cheap oil. Many of these other countries have second rate economies making them as dependent on us to buy their oil as we are dependent on them to supply us the oil.

The choice is ours if we are informed on the issue. The U.S. has one half the worlds supply of shale oil. The Gulf of Mexico off of Florida has the potential for meeting our energy needs, but oil rigs off Florida’s coasts are considered unacceptable. The Anwar wildlife preserve in Alaska could provide a supplement to our needs with little effect on the environment. Higher gas prices would be an incentive for American consumers to drive more economical vehicles. Higher gas prices would make more expensive ethanol fuel profitable and more prevalent. Research into other forms of automobiles would become feasible such as cars that run on hydrogen.

But it is easier to blame the 9 cents a gallon profits of the oil companies for our energy problems then it is to look in the mirror of our Hummers and ask what level of energy independence, energy conservation, environmental standards and gas prices is right to meet the requirements of our daily lives balanced with our national security. We have the resources and American ingenuity to meet our energy needs. Do we have the integrity and political will to honestly debate this issue and reach a balance between cost, environmental standards, and national security. Judging from the debate coming out of the U.S. senate, we do not!

Despite the Iraq war being in the news just about every day, a new poll out recently found that 60% of young Americans, 18 to 24, can not find Iraq on a map. And with all the news on Hurricane Katrina last year, a third of this same group could not find Louisiana on a map of the United States, while one half could not find Mississippi according to a Roper poll conducted by National Geographic.

“Geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from the world”, said National Geographic Society President John Fahey. The statement was part of a 5 year National Geographic media campaign called “My Wonderful World.”
President Bush introduced the “No Child Left Behind” initiative at the federal level as a response to the voters displeasure with the state of American education, even though education is a state responsibility. This program sets student achievement standards in reading, language arts, math and science with periodic testing to see if these standards are being met. Federal funding is withheld for failure to meet testing goals.
The “No Child Left Behind” federal program shows that American’s are willing to throw more money at education problems instead of addressing the core problem with our education system. Our education system is currently based on socialistic principles that have been shown to be a failure as practiced throughout the world by many governments. Socialism as an economic principle sounds better than capitalism on paper, but does not recognize the incentives of rewards, responsibility, and freedom in increasing productivity, at the same time lifting all to a higher level.

This same comparison can be made in our education system as can be made to an economic model. Providing each and every child the best possible education by taxing all Americans for the good of all Americans sounds great on paper. All children are born innocent and each must have an equal chance and education as inferred by the phrase “No Child Left Behind”. The problem with this idealistic approach is that standards are lowered to meet the level of the lowest performing students and the students that achieve at a level above this end up being undereducated.

The American education system has been operating under a socialistic model for so long now that it is unlikely that solving the education problem is possible. Most parents and voters believe that the best way to solve our education problem is to spend more money on our public education system, bringing it up to higher standards. The politicians, looking to get re-elected are only more than happy to oblige. Many other parents are of two income families or single parent families and are more interested in using K-12 schooling as a form of daycare. They are apathetic to the philosophical implications involved and are just trying to get through life, subjugating their responsibilities to the government.

The currency in a capitalistic based school program would be grades and achievement not money. The student that works hard and achieves more could cash in their achievement with the reward of a better quality of education. Students and parents would choose the best courses as required to meet their educational goals. Students that are disruptive or under achieving would have limited options as their currency (achievement) would be limited. Educational standards would follow the needs of the most responsible students instead of being pared down to the lowest common denominator.

To honestly discuss the problems with education today you must also address the whole institution of K-12 education in a capitalistic model. Of coarse as we are becoming more and more a socialistic society, this becomes more difficult to do and almost politically impossible. In a capitalistic model, each child would be considered developing capital that can produce to a certain level if properly trained. In a capitalistic model we should invest more money in the highest level of child as this will result in the highest level of return on our investment. A child whose potential return is not increased by providing training should be directed into a different career path.

Education should be evaluated as a return on investment. A students earning potential with a lower cost education must be compared to the students earning potential with a higher cost education. If the increase in earning potential is not increased by more than the increased cost of the higher education, then the increased capital expenditure in that education was a net loss.

You must honestly consider the goals of education to address our educational problems today. Look at your current job. If you were educated to read and write by your parents and had two years of schooling in math and science, would you be able to perform your current job? How many of you could do your current job if you had never gone to K-12 school and were taught to read and write by your parents and were given two years of training in math and science. At $8000 per student per year, your K-12 education cost $100,000. For probably over 60% of graduates, their current job could be performed just as well if they only had two years of education and the knowledge given by their parents.

How might a capitalistic model work in education. Here is one possibility. All children would be given an elementary school education. During this elementary school education, students would earn currency through achievement and hard work. Students with higher achievement would have more options to higher education. Disruptive or underachieving students would have less options. After grade 5, students and parents would choose the schooling that is best to fit their educational needs. Schools would compete to attract students. Public schools over grade 5 would become non-profit entities that would have to compete for students, including competition against private schools, cyber schools, and religious schools.

The size of student scholarships would be based on achievement of the student established through ongoing standardized testing and on school performance. Teacher pay would be based on market forces. Teachers that attract higher achieving students would also receive higher compensation. Schools that overspend on school buildings and facilities would not be competitive and would fall by the wayside.

This is just on model that would bring competition to our education system. This would increase the quality of the education system while at the same time significantly reduce the cost of education. This idea is impossible to implement because the powerful teacher’s unions would spend millions in a media blitz to protect their interests. Parents that use school as a daycare for their kids would form another block against change. And most of the rest of us have been brought up with a socialistic model of schooling and consider this the norm.

So instead we will keep throwing money at the problem and keep wondering why our kids can’t find Louisiana on a map.

More than 500,000 protesters marched through Los Angeles in opposition to proposed legislation in the U.S. House that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally and would also impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Many states provide schooling, free health care and other benefits to illegal immigrants sending a mixed message to those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally. It is estimated that 12 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. This large number of lawbreakers has made it impractical to deport all those who are here illegally.

For years both political parties have been courting the Hispanic vote, ignoring public sentiment that enforcement of immigration laws is a necessary part of an orderly society. The Democrats see illegal immigration as a way to boost their liberal voting base. The Republicans are pressured by businesses that need a cheap reliable work force. Lower wage U.S. citizens increasingly have lost their work ethic and feel they are entitled to less menial employment. Mexican workers are seen as hard workers that are grateful for any opportunity.

President Bush addressed the issue last Saturday and called for legislation that does not force America to choose between being a welcoming society and a lawful one. “America is a nation of immigrants, and we’re also a nation of laws.” This statement seems inconsistent with policy since the President has done little to secure the border since being elected. 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in this country would seem to indicate that increasingly the U.S. is willing to ignore its laws in return for expediency and convenience.

Some protesters made references to civil rights protests of Martin Luther King and hinted that now is the time for their revolution. One protest sign reads “I didn’t cross the Border, the Border crossed Me.”

Protests in other cities were also surprisingly large including 50000 in Denver , 20000 in Phoenix and more than 10000 in Milwaukee. More demonstrations are expected in a “National Day of Action” organized by labor unions, immigration groups, civil rights organizations and religious groups. Those supporting tougher enforcement of immigration laws will probably stay home and watch a movie.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland that the U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners captured during war including those held at Guantanamo Bay. ‘War is war, and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,’ Newsweek quoted Scalia as saying. ‘Give me a break’

Scalia’s view reflects common sense as many example of how a fair trial would not be possible during a time of war can be given. Imagine if a soldier had captured an enemy combatant and then when that soldier returned to battle he was killed in action. Would our side have to release the captured combatant because the witness is now deceased?

But an even more fundamental argument can be made. If we are bound by the rules set forth in our constitution, would we be able to engage a person that is armed but has not yet fired at our soldiers? Could we break into homes to search for combatants? If combatants have the right to a civil trial under our constitution, then why wouldn’t that same combatant have other rights listed in the constitution?

When asked by an audience member about whether Guantanamo detainees have protection under the Geneva or Human Rights Conventions Scalia replied, ‘If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy,’ reported Newsweek. Scalia’s son served in Iraq.

Justice Breyer and other progressive justices on the court have expressed the willingness to consider precedents and laws of other countries in deciding matters before the Supreme Court. Justices Scalia and Thomas believe in interpreting the constitution by the original intent at the time it was enacted.

In other news, Scalia hand jestered a reporter in reference to questioning over his integrity and impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state. He was in Boston as the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers’ Guild luncheon and was also there to attend a lawyers and politicians mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. It appears Justice Scalia did not take kindly to the implications in that line of questioning.

Despite barriers from Democrats and Environmentalist to drilling for oil in 2000 acres out of 1.5 million total acres at Anwar Alaskan Animal Wildlife preserve, Americans are almost worried as much about our foreign dependence on oil as they are concerned over the war in Iraq. This is according to a poll released Thursday by the magazine Foreign Affairs.

Almost half of the respondents surveyed for the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index gave U.S. policymakers a failing grade in weaning the country from foreign oil. Viewing the magazines web site, however, might lead one to believe the poll is part of an agenda the magazine has on foreign oil importation and energy consumption. Public Agenda is touted as a nonpartisan group and conducted the poll in early January. But funding for the poll came from the Ford foundation which has supported partisan causes in the past.

While Americans are giving their government a failing grade for reducing their dependence on foreign oil, they are overlooking their own role in reducing our need for foreign oil. Exploration off Florida has been all but banned because of Americans concern for the tourism industry there. Drilling for oil in Anwar would have little effect on the environment by any reasonable measure, but politics continues to plaque any hope for drilling. SUV and minivan sales account for about 1/2 the sales of new cars even as newspaper headlines animate SUV’s by blaming the vehicle for accidents instead of poor driving.

Private industry could also reduce our dependency on foreign oil as new communication technology could be used to allow many workers to perform their duties from home, telecommuting to work.

Americans used to understand the principles that made this country great. Freedom afforded by a capitalistic society coupled with personal responsibility and pride of country used to guide the country. More and more, Americans are looking to the government instead of the markets to control their interests. Personal responsibility and common sense are abandoned for personal satisfaction. Divisions of the country into special interest groups by political forces has paralyzed our ability to logically tackle issues of concern.

85 percent of respondents said the U.S. government could do something about energy independence if it tried. Nearly 90 percent said that the lack of energy independence jeopardizes national security. The poll did not ask if respondents wanted to shift the country to socialism to accomplish energy independence.

Actor Charlie Sheen has questioned what caused the fall of the Twin Towers and is calling for a new independent investigation of the attack. Sheen has a problem believing the government version of events, suggesting that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government. Some internet conspiracy theorist suggest that the Bush administration might have been responsible for the attacks on 9/11 to create a reason to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq with the goal of helping Bush administration friends in the oil industry.

Don’t believe your eyes! We all watched video of jetliners hitting each of the Twin Towers and then we watched in horror as 56 minutes latter the second tower fell only to be followed by the first tower falling soon after. Sheen stated that 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners feels like a conspiracy theory. So I guess you were watching fake video of the planes crashing into the Towers. Or, maybe the government placed the hijackers on the plane and then used remote controls such as those used in predator drones to crash the planes into the intended targets.

The conspiracy nuts tried to involve me in this story. Cyber Gazette is a side profession for me. I am a self employed structural engineer and my name matches a professional who worked at Underwriters Laboratory named Kevin Ryan who was questioning if the heat produced by burning jet fuel could have brought down the Twin Towers. Two conspiracy theorists and a journalist contacted me through my Ryan Design Group Structural Engineering Consultant website thinking that I was the same Kevin Ryan that was questioning the governments version of events.

They praised me in their e-mails for my courage to blow the whistle on the government conspiracy and they were anxious to talk to me to discuss my findings that jet-fuel combustion would not melt steel and there must be some other cause of the collapse. The reporter called me directly and I explained to him that I was not the Kevin Ryan that works for Underwriters Laboratory. I did let him know that I was a structural engineer and although I had nothing to do with the WTC investigation, I felt that he should be careful not to align himself or write a story based on information gathered in conjunction with these two conspiracy theorists.

The reporter asked me what my concerns were and I explained to him that even though steel melts at temperatures of around 3000 degF, the strength of steel is greatly reduced at lower temperatures. For example at only 800 degF the yield strength is reduced to 77% while at 1200 degF yield strength is reduced to 37%. I also explained to the reporter that the damage caused to the building by the jet impact could have redistributed the loads to the point of bringing some of the undamaged member close to 100% of their capacity and any small reduction of strength from elevated temperatures could have brought on failure of those members.

Then I explained that since I was not part of the investigation, we could just use logic to understand what happened at the Twin Towers without having any engineering knowledge, just common sense. The visual facts are that both Towers were hit by jet airliners that caused extensive damage but did not cause the Towers to collapse. Since both Towers survived the impact, common sense would tell you that they would have continued to stand indefinitely even in their damaged condition until some other condition or loading worsened their situation. It might be possible for one tower to be damaged by impact to just within 99% of its capacity and then randomly collapse a short while later. But to expect two towers to be hit just right so that they both were damaged to 99% of capacity is not logical. Therefore an outside factor must have increased the loading or decreased the capacity of the damaged towers to cause the collapse.

I noted that the smoke rising from the towers was for the most part going vertically indicating that the wind was light on that day, so wind could be ruled out as causing the collapse. There were no reports of earthquakes on that day. But what we could see were raging fires on both towers. Knowing that steel strength is reduced with increasing temperatures and seeing no other outside source of loading to cause the collapse, it only takes common sense to realize that the fires were the final straw that caused the collapse of the Twin Towers.

To believe otherwise would require one to believe that some nefarious conspiracy was concocted to set off explosives in both buildings to finish the job. I told the reporter that this theory is nutty and he should reconsider writing a story suggesting such a thing.

I also sent an e-mail to Underwriters Laboratory warning them how their name was being used in a conspiracy theory but never heard from them in return. Finally I sent an e-mail to the conspiracy theorist explaining that I was not the hero that they were searching for. I also let them know that steel strength is greatly reduced at temperatures much lower than the point at which it melts. They were very disappointed in my response to their inquiries but dismissed my information outright since I was not the Kevin Ryan that was a part of the investigation.

In doing research for this article, I have since learned more information of interest. I previously did not even know if there was a Kevin Ryan that worked at Underwriters Laboratory as the e-mailers could have been making up their story. But as you can see from the reference links to the right, Kevin Ryan did publish a letter of concern on the issue of jet-fuel causing collapse of the Towers.

However, his finding is not inconsistent with the events of the collapse. In the latter report by NIST (also linked to on the right) jet-fuel is not attributed as the source of the ongoing fire. The jet-fuel would have burned off in a short amount of time. The ongoing fire is attributed to the flammable contents of the Twin Towers and to a lesser extent the contents of the jetliner.

The bottom line is that we all watched on TV that day and we all saw the fires that raged up to the point of the building collapse. So Kevin Ryan�s test at Underwriters Laboratory could have shown that the jet-fuel did not cause the collapse while at the same time the Twin Towers collapse was caused by fire. Of coarse the conspiracy theorist only pick the facts that support their theories and ignore what the rest of us understood by just using our common sense.

Let�s look at some of the other claims