Hello World

A Few Thoughts on Government, Morality, and Civility

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=63

What does it mean to be civil? Does that simply mean that we should act nice towards one another? Is letting a car cut in front of you count as your civic duty or "civil act of the day?" Take a moment and read the quotes from the link provided. Do you perceive the Founding Fathers as a group of religious nuts? Or were they enlightened to a degree that you nor will never understand? I believe the answer to be neither.

Regardless of your views on religion, morals, civility, and government, the concept of each are so ingrained with each other to a point of near dependence. But wait? Was government suppose to be on that list? Absolutely.

So many people have claimed that government is not here to legislate morals. But I believe many have missed the boat on this debate. When man began to see their own existence inherit with a set of unalienable rights, independent of social class, man began fighting back against forces that would usurp those rights. The founding of our USofA was reared from this train of thought. What were those rights? Those rights could be describe as the right to be unadulterated. These rights have often been described as negative rights. They are negative because they require no action on other's part to provide the rights. Let's consider the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. The right to reproach the government, the right to free practicing of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to personal security, and the right to enjoy personal property are all concepts enumerated in our Declaration and Constitution.

However, the protection of these rights calls on two entities; morals and government. Government is required to ensure no person or persons restrict the rights of a singular. Hence, we have laws, codes, and a justice system in place to protect and bring justice to those whose rights have been violated. Therefore, government's very essence is as a moral institution designed to protect our moral rights. The second entity required is a set of morals. Again, I refer to the link provided. If morals brought forth the idea of rights, then without morals, do we still have rights? I surmise we are to dedicate our lives to exercising our rights and living to a high moral standard. For as morals decline in influence, then government is forced to maintain the balance for the cause of civility.

I declare that we cannot maintain civility through government alone.

From morals is birthed our rights and through morals can we ensure civility.

Testing

This is a test from the iPhone.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A Once Self Governed Freeman

A Declaration to/of/against Federal Authorities

No man shall be a more fervent servant than I to the idea of civility and all that is associated with the creation, preservation, and benefits a civil society bestows upon its subjects. Notwithstanding, I also understand, stand behind, and stand for the inevitable violent means by which civility is so often birthed and reared. The infamous words of Patrick Henry, that great instigator of liberty, civility, and patriotism, ring vibrantly in every aspect of civility. So basic is the idea of civility through liberty that its very essence presents itself in the foundational declaration of the most free nation this great earth has ever had the honour of hosting. “We hold these truths to be self evident…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Those great founders who took upon their shoulders the creation of a more perfect union understood the Union’s perfection solely depends on those unalienable rights of individual man: rights which propels and encourages man to achieve happiness in whatsoever pursuit he chooses within the constraints of other’s unalienable rights. Thus created is the most profitable and free union on earth. Also created is the very fundamental role of any governing body over free men. To maintain these securities, men must be allowed election amongst themselves, a council to oversee, govern , and protect. It thus becomes apparent that communities of free men govern themselves to their needs. To a larger group such as a more perfect Union, communities must also be allowed to elect amongst themselves representatives for that Union. This union, whether a country, state, or nation, must still only consider the affairs of those it governs. How can one body of governance consider the affairs of all within? This question stands as trivial when considering small communities. The question naturally turns as “How can a local governance NOT represent the needs of that locale?” Thereto, any larger governing body must not broaden its scope for governing, but must focus on only protecting unalienable rights for all within its boundaries. For how can it fairly do anything other? Exhaustively explored is this concept in the documents “The Federalist” and “Anti Federalist” papers. Great danger for the free man looms with broad government. As such, the scope and power of the grand council must be and have been enumerated in our blessed Constitution of the United States of America. The source of all patriotism derives from the protection of unalienable rights by a federal body thus forming a “more perfect union.”

It has recently become apparent that through several decades of incremental borrowing of unenumerated or misinterpreted powers, the great council of our Union now only represents themselves and the shallow name of the Union rather than those unalienable rights for which they swore to protect. History now finds a repeating of itself with a governing body thrusting agendas neither enumerated nor desired through and by the freeman. Letters, cries, please, protests, and violent acts have been ignored and even mocked for decades. What choice is left to the free men of this great Union, I ask? Is it necessary to “dissolve the political bands” and “declare the causes which impel them to the separation?” When left without appropriate representation in a governing body, when left prostrate and unable to drive back tyrannical taxation through peaceful means, when left with empty pockets while facing a fat governing body, what choice is left to the free man? Let this letter precede the inevitable to you sitting on your temporary congressional thrones. The relentless desire to govern where governance is neither wanted, needed, nor enumerated will end you. The free men and women of this glorious Union will squirm, kick, and bring terrible pain to those holding them in this womb of governmental prison. Only so far will a free man be coaxed to remain in that dark womb with false pretenses of a greater good and lasting security. And I promise that when the natural course of man leads to its bursting from this false womb, no army or force will hold back the tide of liberty. The very essence of this incredible Republic resides in individual freedom: freedom of self governance. The current virus of thought that a federal government can broadly legislate for the greater good will eventually bring about death to the host unless the virus is irradiated. My fellow Americans, when you place yourself between the unstoppable force that is freedom and the immovable object that is unalienable rights, you are in dire jeopardy of exhaling your final legislating breath.

Let this letter serve as foresight. Treading in areas neither allowed nor wanted will only cause the deadly snake to sink its fangs deep into the calf of tyranny.

Give me Liberty or give me death!

Michael Cory Hendrick

To Answer Some Untimely Questions

Here is a link where Chet Edwards, of the 17th US District in Texas, was asked a series of questions by the Waco Tribune. I thought I would share the link and give what would have been my answers at the time included just below.

http://www.chetedwards.com/node/349

Enjoy.

Q What will you do to create jobs in Central Texas, if elected?

I am more interested in ensuring those that live in Central Texas have jobs. The unemployment rate has remained essentially constant over a 20 year period, give or take. Yet, this has been in an environment of population growth and job creation. Therefore, I cannot conclude creation of jobs is essential to Texans. Too often, the government’s plan to increase jobs is to create tax funded government jobs. While this may have had a place in a New Deal era, it will undermine a long-term growth of an area by putting the burden on the taxpayers and therefore cannot be expected to grow indefinitely. At some point, the taxable base will not be able to fund the additional growth, resulting in a mass exodus of that tax base, and killing the economics of that area. A constituent only wants to feel secure and comfortable in the area they call home. A better question for a potential representative might be, “What will you do to protect the people/jobs in Central Texas, if elected?”

Q What do you consider an earmark? How do you define whether it’s pork or a worthy project?

Earmarks are simply appropriations directed by US legislation and thus are effected as law. These appropriations generally apply to a particular legislative district such as the 17th district of Texas. Although pork is a bad word and considered that which is directed towards a small set of constituents, indicating some form of special treatment for a particular small sect, earmarks can and should be considered just as bad if the constituents and district does not in majority agree with those earmarks. In other words, an earmark’s (federal spending) worthiness can only be determined by the constituents. Anything otherwise should be considered pork. It is the responsibility of their representative to respond to his/her constituent’s wishes. Therefore, it behooves the representative to work closer with his constituents than other members of his/her party or even with other members of congress.

Q How would you describe the state of the economy in Central Texas?

I believe the economy is strong in this district. Census records indicate a higher percentage of the labor force draw a much higher salary than the state average. This indicates a stronger healthier workforce than the state as a whole. In addition, these same records indicate the increase to higher income has grown faster than the state average. This indicates a stable workforce. Also, the cost of living in the district is relatively low. However, unemployment rate in the 17th district is higher than the state average. And as the major indicator on economic health, this rate does put this district in a slightly sickly light. However, I question these numbers as the Work Force is defined as persons age 16 and over however no indication is made on the inclusion of secondary school enrollments. As we know, there are a couple of major secondary schools in this district. However, let’s take the worst case scenario and assume the secondary school enrollment has already been removed from the labor force number, and that the unemployment rate IS higher than the state average. Certainly, this is an indication this district’s state of economy may be worse than the state average. I would like these Texans to work. Another indication to me on the healthiness of the area’s economics is how many jobs are tax burden (government) jobs. US 2000 Census records indicate that of the 72K employed workers in Brazos county, 22K or 31% of them are considered government workers and is much higher than the state average. As mentioned in the initial question, ideally, workers should work for themselves, paid by consumers, not by taxes unless the general public agrees or votes to allow tax money be applied to those workers. Otherwise, there is undesired burden on taxpayers. And as far as the government is concerned, if the burden in these cases is unwanted, the burden is unneeded (assuming it does not interfere with the government’s responsibility to protects its borders.)

Q Do you support the health care plan of the presidential nominee of your party? How, specifically, do you see it benefitting this district?

As I do not claim a party, other than the constituents of the district, I cannot effect an answer to this question. Health care is a benefit. However, most constituents of any region would agree that caring and provision of health care for all is important. Both major parties should also agree with that. The question is, how to manage a system like this. County hospitals are known for providing emergency care to the uninsured, at the cost of taxpayers. Some believe universal health care would further this concept and give all the ability for all to get proper health care. Some believe mandating health insurance, similar to mandated car insurance, is the answer. Under this plan, those that could not afford insurance, could get supplements from the taxpayers. In order to burden the taxpayers to provide any additional funds, whether it be for universal health care access or for supplemental monies for the poor to pay for some government required insurance mandate, there has to be a transparency with the insurance companies and the care providers. Most people distrust these relationships and find it as confusing as the US income tax code. Taxpayers simply want to know that their money is being provided justly and to a worthy system. A very large study recently found Denmark as the happiest country in the world, yet they have one of the highest tax burdens in the world. The study concluded that the tax system was very transparent and gave the residents the feeling that they knew their money was taking care of their own. If the US government is to provide health care, it better ensure the taxpayers agree and can see where the money flows.

Q Name one issue that your party’s presidential candidate and you disagree on.

Again, not truly applicable to me. I disagree with McCain’s insistence that we MUST WIN in Iraq. This train of thought does not allow for the conceding idea that perhaps we should have never invaded. Any military leader must be honest enough with himself to know when troops have to be drawn back for lack of a ultimate goal or the inability to reach the ultimate goal. Of all people, I would hope McCain would understand that. I disagree with Obama’s taxation ideas. In no way should any person who is eligible to be in labor force, be given income tax credit/money when they do not pay income taxes under the current tax code. I believe that government has overstepped its role with the public in numerous ways, by providing government building projects, by issuing unworthy grants, and by providing money to failing businesses, to name some general examples. And as a result, our government takes on more responsibility than it should. These fiscal responsibilities ought to be removed, and would remove some of the tax burden on the public.

Q What would be your plan for the war in Iraq? How will it affect us?

The US government has some very fundamental responsibilities. One is to protect the citizens of the US. Another is to do the will of the people. If the war in Iraq cannot be proven to be one of national security, we should not expose American lives and should not dump American money over there. I understand national security is a bit ambiguous. McCain believes that Iraq will breed terrorists should we pull out without democracy in place first. I say we let Iraqi’s deal with Iraqi problems. Should Iraq prove to be a threat to the US, then the US will deal with Iraq. We deal with countries first by putting economic sanctions on them, and then putting political pressure and them, and should aggression be imminent, then bring that county to their knees with our military. We then sometimes will simply have to pull back and wait. The people of a county have to determine whether democracy is worth fighting for in their county, not an outside country like the US. We bring the military and political threat to its knees and then let the general population determine how to rebuild the government. Should they want our help, we should provide that help to the extent that taxpayers are willing to provide. One problem with our presence in Iraq is that it has no real affect on the security of the US other than the tax burden.

Trans-Fat Food

Here is a picture of my daughter, Audrey, eating some fried taters. This is from a couple of years ago at our old house. If some Texas Legislators could have their way, my family would no longer be able to enjoy food like this.

There are two bills that just recently hit the Texas State Senate and House floors that call for the prohibition of trans fat in Texas privately owned restaurants.

Holy cow, I do not need the state government telling me what I can and can't eat. I am not a restaurant owner, but if I was, I sure would be doubly opposed to these bills. It is not the government's job to police your diet. And let me assure you that there is no other reason for this legislation other than the restriction of diet. The problem arises from certain individual's lack of self control; and in the case of minors, the lack of parental control. Overeating afflicts several people in our society but we DO NOT NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE OUR HAND.

What comes next? Hell, I probably drink too much coffee and cokes. These empty calories and over abundance of caffeine probably have adverse affects on me. Do I need the government to restrict my diet? Do I need the government to restrict food service providers so that I won't consume these products. No, and no.

Folks, do not let your government tell you that you cannot eat trans fat in restaurants. Restaurant owners, do not let your government tell you that you cannot preapre food with trans fat simply because someone may over eat in your restaurant.

Frankly, the argument for this legislation is ridiculous, restrictive, and stomping on our freedom.

I welcome comments.

Cory

Is America Being Hijacked?

Maybe the better question is "does America still exist?"

Does it exist with the same premise as it did 200 years ago? Should it?

The US Constitution was rigorously defended in a set of essays by James Madison called the Federalist Papers. I am in the process of reading our US Constitution (really a short read) and a commentary that goes with it. I am also in process of reading the Federalist Papers. I believe this ought to be required reading by every American.

POLARIZATION

I believe that the policies that are being passed by our current Congress are starting to polarize America. But I'm not talking about Democrat vs. Republican. I think it is more basic than that. I believe we are polarizing into foundationalists vs. progressives. (I leave these titles uncapitalized because I am coining the words and not referring to any party or existing meaning that may already be in use.)

FOUNDATIONALIST

The foundationalist viewpoint would be based on the principals of which this country was founded. The US Constitution was in part a result of intense debate over the powers of a federal government. Most of the founding father's believed that some powers must be allowed to a federal system. It must have the ability to defend, provide justice, tax, and perhaps provide a couple of other key services fundamental to the preamble of the US Constitution. All remaining powers would be retained by the sovereign State governments. Or to quote the Constitution, Amendment 10 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution strictly points out the how power is to be delegated, added, or removed from the government. With "absolute authority" over all. The founding father's thus created a form of government forming a "more perfect union." Countless authoritarians have proposed our government the closest to perfection as can be attained. A government of self governing through a democratically elected representative consequently acting as a republic.

Those I label as foundationalists would hold on to the idea of limited government, free capitalism, and still hold that all ideas, laws, and governance be passed through the Constitutional test.

PROGRESSIVE

Somewhere in the course of the last 200 years or so, the idea was realized that government not only has the power to provide for the "pursuit of happiness" and the "general welfare," it has the obligation to provide this. Somehow, the idea was born that the clause "all men are created equal" equivocates to that 'all men should live equally.'

Thus when in the course of providing this equality, certain aspects of the constitution should be interpreted or all together ignored for the sake of governing and providing for the people. Those that are able, are taxed to provide for those that are not able. The government, for lack of adequate charity, sets up the ultimate charity. Additionally, the government sets up other programs such as a national board of education for the sake of the people.

THE PROBLEM

The problem with the progressive mindset is that first and foremost, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority for many of these oversights. By interpreting the Constitution, for instance the Commerce Clause, the federal government begins to restrict and regulate certain aspects of AMERICAN life....of ALL American lives. Certainly, the intent is good. The questions is if the results reflect the intention.

Secondly, our federal government now is an Extortionist with a capital E. Now, with the power to tax all of America for (unconstitutional?) programs, it holds those tax dollars in front of our sovereign states until the states comply with the provisions required to use the funds. Let me tell you readers, our government has been doing this for some time now.

CURRENT EVENTS

The boldness of our government to step into the progressive role has never been as obvious as it is now. Agree or disagree, our government has decided to first, bailout business (not a new concept), buy up businesses, control those businesses, and then tax the populace to do it. In perhaps the boldest move of all, it is now retroactively taxing certain individuals on money already rendered. My friends, this completely flies in the face of Section 9 of Article I of our Constitution.

THE RESULT

It is coming to a point to where you must decide if you are for the foundation the Constitution gives and the ideas therein or if you are for the progressive idea that the Constitution can be interpreted and is thus an organic document to match the current whims of the federal government. With new American tea parties, State reassertion of the 10th Amendment, and a public awareness of Constitutionality, lines are being drawn.

For the sake of you future generations, do not, any longer, idly stand by and spectate your government. Inform yourself, make bold decisions and statements, take a stand, write letters to your congressman, demand response, start a blog, spread your message. Most of all, let it be known how you feel. Know where you stand, and let others know.

If you don't, someone will do it for you, without your consent.

Cory Hendrick