I’ve been to two countries outside of the US besides Canada and Mexico. South Korea 30 years ago and now Argentina and the one thing that I have noticed is how very similar they are to the US. Yes, there are uncountable ways in which the US is different and do I day say better but the one real way in which they are similar is we, as in mankind, in general are very much the same. We want to for the most part go about our business with being bothered, first by other people and then by our governments.
Even though South Korea is closer to the US form of a Democratic Republic than Argentina, at least here in Argentina, the people that “work” for a living and earn most of what they get don’t like governmental intrusion into their lives; whereas there is still the contingent of people that seemly live off the government and are happy living their lives as follows getting handouts when and where they are delivered. Tell me what to do and when and they are happy.
As I write this I am reminder of the days before the US Revolutionary War and many of the people were complacent when it came to the British manner of dealing with the American colonies. It was only after shots were fired that more and more colonists themselves took up arms on the American side. And even then many colonists took off for Canada choosing not to fight for freedom and liberty.
Is it not the same today? If it does come to a revolt within our nation against a more and more demanding, intrusive and constraining government how many of our fellow Americas will be at the forefront in bring down a tyrannical government. I guess no one truly knows until they are called upon. My hope is that I am one that will be brave enough to stand up and fight.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Federal Reserve
We will have a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT someday and I really don't think it is such a bad idea as along as that one world government's policies and procedures where based on some facsimile to the US Constitution.
Ron Paul, I believe, is a great man and thinker. However, I also think he either starts or concludes too many of his arguments with "its not contained within the constitution". Yes, I know this is sacrilege to many people but I also believe that if our Founding Fathers were alive today our constitution wouldn't look exactly like it does. There is a saying that goes" "when the facts change, I'll change my mind." Well, if we try to compare the world today with the world in the years leading up to the constitution I think you'd see a great many differences.
Having said that, I also don't think there would be radical changes in it either. Nothing like what BHO and many of his predecessors have and are trying to do, which is to discard the entirety of it.
My thoughts arise from the comments by Ron Paul, Chuck Norris and others that the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and I couldn't agree more. But then they go further by stating it has no constitutional basis due to its intrusion upon state's rights. So let me get this right, Ron Paul and the like believe we would be better off with 50 different types of currencies? If anyone can help me understand that reasoning please do so. I seem to remember in early US history of a time when there was unknown numbers of different notes floating around which form one state to another was worthless. And we certainly don't and couldn't go back to a barter system of exchange.
So the natural evolution was to go to a single currency within the US and it follows that as we become more and more entangled with the world economy that we turn to a single currency for the world. The defacto currency now is US Dollar as it should be. Aren't we still greater than 25% of the world's economic output? Probably not for long though.
So I'm not really opposed to a "federal or world reserve" what I am opposed to is the non-transparency and ownership of the organization. It should be open to public scrutiny and never, never, never should be under private ownership.
How we get there is antibody's guess.
Ron Paul, I believe, is a great man and thinker. However, I also think he either starts or concludes too many of his arguments with "its not contained within the constitution". Yes, I know this is sacrilege to many people but I also believe that if our Founding Fathers were alive today our constitution wouldn't look exactly like it does. There is a saying that goes" "when the facts change, I'll change my mind." Well, if we try to compare the world today with the world in the years leading up to the constitution I think you'd see a great many differences.
Having said that, I also don't think there would be radical changes in it either. Nothing like what BHO and many of his predecessors have and are trying to do, which is to discard the entirety of it.
My thoughts arise from the comments by Ron Paul, Chuck Norris and others that the Federal Reserve needs to be audited and I couldn't agree more. But then they go further by stating it has no constitutional basis due to its intrusion upon state's rights. So let me get this right, Ron Paul and the like believe we would be better off with 50 different types of currencies? If anyone can help me understand that reasoning please do so. I seem to remember in early US history of a time when there was unknown numbers of different notes floating around which form one state to another was worthless. And we certainly don't and couldn't go back to a barter system of exchange.
So the natural evolution was to go to a single currency within the US and it follows that as we become more and more entangled with the world economy that we turn to a single currency for the world. The defacto currency now is US Dollar as it should be. Aren't we still greater than 25% of the world's economic output? Probably not for long though.
So I'm not really opposed to a "federal or world reserve" what I am opposed to is the non-transparency and ownership of the organization. It should be open to public scrutiny and never, never, never should be under private ownership.
How we get there is antibody's guess.
Friday, July 17, 2009
MLK
Just got out of the Martin Luther King Jr. Historic Center on Auburn Street in Atlanta and I must say as a white man that I felt guilty walking through the memorial. maybe its because I was a white dot among many blacks but I think its more because of how whites treated blacks in our history.
And I don't mean to apologize for our history because what happened in the US was no different and in many cases better that that happening in other areas of the world. But its also not to excuse it. I'm sure many, many blacks would take what had happened in the US in past years to what is happening in some of the African countries at present. At least we never had systematic genocide; I'd venture that blacks have done worst against their own race throughout history that whites have done. But that's just a guess.
What all of this boils down to is what is right and wrong. I personally believe right is an eternal principle and not one that changes from age to age, era to era. We live in an era of relativistic morality; selfish desires remaking the world into a world in which the less moral can feel comfortable out in the open. A brave New World if you will?!?!?!?
Thomas Jefferson believed that morality and religion should be taught in the schools. With the Congress and the Courts removing all semblance of religion from our schools it no wonder why we are on the path towards a changing morality.
If anyone knows me I am not a very religious man, more spiritual in my nature than anything else. Thomas Jefferson believed you could find common beliefs in all religions and it was those common precepts that should be taught; not the core tenets of a particular religion. An example would be the Golden Rule. Most if not all religions would agree with this tenet - thus it would be taught. Rights are innate and come from a high power. Okay, atheists may object but you could still state that there are rights that exist naturally and are not governmentally given.
We've moved a far cry from where our Founding Fathers thought we should be; its time for us as a people if we want to remain a free people to start building the bridge back to our Founding Father's constitution's original intent.
And I don't mean to apologize for our history because what happened in the US was no different and in many cases better that that happening in other areas of the world. But its also not to excuse it. I'm sure many, many blacks would take what had happened in the US in past years to what is happening in some of the African countries at present. At least we never had systematic genocide; I'd venture that blacks have done worst against their own race throughout history that whites have done. But that's just a guess.
What all of this boils down to is what is right and wrong. I personally believe right is an eternal principle and not one that changes from age to age, era to era. We live in an era of relativistic morality; selfish desires remaking the world into a world in which the less moral can feel comfortable out in the open. A brave New World if you will?!?!?!?
Thomas Jefferson believed that morality and religion should be taught in the schools. With the Congress and the Courts removing all semblance of religion from our schools it no wonder why we are on the path towards a changing morality.
If anyone knows me I am not a very religious man, more spiritual in my nature than anything else. Thomas Jefferson believed you could find common beliefs in all religions and it was those common precepts that should be taught; not the core tenets of a particular religion. An example would be the Golden Rule. Most if not all religions would agree with this tenet - thus it would be taught. Rights are innate and come from a high power. Okay, atheists may object but you could still state that there are rights that exist naturally and are not governmentally given.
We've moved a far cry from where our Founding Fathers thought we should be; its time for us as a people if we want to remain a free people to start building the bridge back to our Founding Father's constitution's original intent.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Continued Dumbing Down of America
The confirmation hearing for the appointment to the US Supreme Court is now underway for Sonia Sotomayor, special needs case for the supreme court. Yeah, I know that may sound harsh but if one looks into her past you will find several instances of times that she would not be where she were if it were not for the stepping over of more qualified candidates simple for the fact that she was not only female but also Hispanic.
Now I don't wish to imply that I am against neither females nor Hispanics nor any other minority, I am simply for what is right. And what is right is for the best person to get whatever job is applied for. I could care less about what gender or race the most well qualified candidate is from as long as they are well qualified.
Just the fact that one of her most controversial rulings (RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO) just got overturned by the US Supreme Court and that her justification for that original decision be enough to disqualify her.
Now it is complete, from kindergarten all the way up to the US Supreme Court, we pass people into the next grade so as not to hurt someones or some minority groups feelings. If we choose not to allow people, starting with children, to fail then we ultimately take away their innate ability to rise from future failures. Now with the soon-to-be confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, cases will be decided not based on law but on "how others might feel" about the outcome. Her own words laid out in various statements she has made over the years.
Our only savings grace is that she replaces another liberal. As such, the make up of the court remains the same. Heaven help us if on of the few constitutional scholars on the court retires or dies while BHO is still our president.
Now I don't wish to imply that I am against neither females nor Hispanics nor any other minority, I am simply for what is right. And what is right is for the best person to get whatever job is applied for. I could care less about what gender or race the most well qualified candidate is from as long as they are well qualified.
Just the fact that one of her most controversial rulings (RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO) just got overturned by the US Supreme Court and that her justification for that original decision be enough to disqualify her.
Now it is complete, from kindergarten all the way up to the US Supreme Court, we pass people into the next grade so as not to hurt someones or some minority groups feelings. If we choose not to allow people, starting with children, to fail then we ultimately take away their innate ability to rise from future failures. Now with the soon-to-be confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor, cases will be decided not based on law but on "how others might feel" about the outcome. Her own words laid out in various statements she has made over the years.
Our only savings grace is that she replaces another liberal. As such, the make up of the court remains the same. Heaven help us if on of the few constitutional scholars on the court retires or dies while BHO is still our president.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Comments are always welcome!
Comments on my blogs are always welcome. I just recently received an email commenting n my blog. I can only guess that the commenter was attempting to save face as she slammed stating that I was telling everyone what they thought. Not sure where she got that idea but just so everyone else is clear on the subject; what I write is my own thoughts and mine alone. If I happen to emphasize a point of how I think others may feel or think, it is only that - my best guess.
I don't pretend to know what other people or thinking and I certainly don't want t leave that impression. What I wont do however is guard my words so as not to offend someone or anyone. My blog is here for me to voice my thoughts and opinions and if one doesn't like what is being written, the answer is simple - don't read it.
Enjoy!
I don't pretend to know what other people or thinking and I certainly don't want t leave that impression. What I wont do however is guard my words so as not to offend someone or anyone. My blog is here for me to voice my thoughts and opinions and if one doesn't like what is being written, the answer is simple - don't read it.
Enjoy!
Beginnings
Hello All,
The following political posts will be the simple musings of this Not So Common man ( an oxymoron in that I firmly believe we are all more common than we would all like to believe). I invite all to post their comments as I'm sure I have mush to learn from everyone out there.
First, who am I: I was raised in a family with little monetary means. My youth was spent in the back woods of Salem, Alabama and in Lawton, Oklahoma. What I know of my family we are a mishmash of just about everything: patriotic, conservative, liberal, druggies, hippies, flower child, smokers, non-smokers, drinkers, non-drinkers, deep thinkers and not-so-deep thinkers, agnostics and what some might call religious fanatics. And that's just my four brothers and one sister. So you can see I come from a not-so-stilted rearing. A microcosm of American life and thought. And through it all I would say our family has done quite well as far as families go in the wild and crazy time in which we live.
How I came to be who I am I credit much to the writings of Sterling W. Sill. His compendium on character taught me much of what I know about the word as I don't believe I was raised with much of one - except to cause mischief in my wake. And to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of which I was an active member much of my adult life.
As to how well I turned out I leave to those who know me best.
Who did I turn out to be - a conservative with a libertarian bent. Now that can mean many things to many people but I can only define it in my own manner and through the many future posting I will be making. Suffice it now to mean these two things: Live by the Golden Rule and Government, stay out of my private life.
And from the above I shall begin....................
The following political posts will be the simple musings of this Not So Common man ( an oxymoron in that I firmly believe we are all more common than we would all like to believe). I invite all to post their comments as I'm sure I have mush to learn from everyone out there.
First, who am I: I was raised in a family with little monetary means. My youth was spent in the back woods of Salem, Alabama and in Lawton, Oklahoma. What I know of my family we are a mishmash of just about everything: patriotic, conservative, liberal, druggies, hippies, flower child, smokers, non-smokers, drinkers, non-drinkers, deep thinkers and not-so-deep thinkers, agnostics and what some might call religious fanatics. And that's just my four brothers and one sister. So you can see I come from a not-so-stilted rearing. A microcosm of American life and thought. And through it all I would say our family has done quite well as far as families go in the wild and crazy time in which we live.
How I came to be who I am I credit much to the writings of Sterling W. Sill. His compendium on character taught me much of what I know about the word as I don't believe I was raised with much of one - except to cause mischief in my wake. And to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of which I was an active member much of my adult life.
As to how well I turned out I leave to those who know me best.
Who did I turn out to be - a conservative with a libertarian bent. Now that can mean many things to many people but I can only define it in my own manner and through the many future posting I will be making. Suffice it now to mean these two things: Live by the Golden Rule and Government, stay out of my private life.
And from the above I shall begin....................
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)