The Constitution on Homosexuals

This has always been a funny issue for me, namely because of my religious upbringing and schooling. It has always been preached that homosexuals are evil humans that are perverting them selves for their own pleasure. Whether that is true or not is up to debate in that arena – in the government arena we have different questions. These questions deal with rights and legal consequences.

I will address two major questions as a fan of small government and constitutional thinking would (not as a religiously focused individual person I am) because that is the only opinion that matters when dealing with laws.

First, can homosexuals get married?

In the present system, states define who can and cannot get married. Under the Constitution, they have that power: under amendment ten. Any powers not given to the federal government are given to the states, powers not used by the states are given to the people – that is simple constitutional thinking. Therefore, if Georgia wants it to be illegal for homosexuals to get married in their state, they have that right. If California wants it to be legal for homosexuals to get married in their state, more power to you.

Ideally, I would like to see states get out of the marriage business all together. Marriage is a religiously defined institution. God came up with the idea according to Judeo-Christian belief systems, and other belief systems. Why does anyone want the government to become a de facto leader and council for their religious organizations. In an ideal system, the individual churches, synagogues, and temples would choose according to their individual religious texts whether or not homosexuals can get married. All laws favoring (or in the present culture, not favoring) marriage should be taken off the books. Let the religious institution not be tampered by government.

Secondly, can homosexuals volunteer in the military?

I would like to begin with a quote from the 1964 Republican Presidential Nominee and Republican Senator from Arizona from 1953 until 1987, Barry M. Goldwater:

"After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it 'a bit of an old chestnut'"

Barry Goldwater is correct – homosexuals have served there country honorably and will continue to serve there country honorably. The root question lies, why does it really matter?

Does anyone honestly think that two American soldiers are going to get into a gun fight because another solider is gay?

Do they think a gay solider is going to rape another solider because they think they are attractive?

If these are really the case, than why do they allow women into the military – wait, because adultery is a punishable crime in the military. So, if a gay man cheated on his gay husband, he would be kicked out on the same charges.

It appears to me that this is type of thinking is designed for only one thing – to divide the American people from fighting the real social battles and the true problems facing this country: the rapid detraction of the liberties of the people, the enslavement of the youth of the country in military drafts, and a tax code that is stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars away from the working peoples of this country, and a Federal Reserve Board that is lining their pockets with our tax money.

As long as the people are divided, thought to think everyone is groups instead of as one American People, we will continue down the slipping slope down the road to serfdom until we can not remember, nor recognize the country we once lived in.

World War Two Economics? Really?

"Not since World War II has America spent so much money so quickly. In the last two years, the United States has run up deficits that amount to a combined $2.5 trillion dollars -- almost a fourth of all the debt the nation has taken on in its entire history."
America's Deficit-Spending Spree Raises Alarms - Fox News

As Fox News proclaimed today, the government is spending money as quickly as it had during World War II. This idea would trouble the conservative spenders, who dislike deficits and understand basic economic principles. The said fact is that most students learn that World War II led the United States out of the Great Depression. The logic then becomes that this is a good thing for the country. But is it really good?

Let take a good hard look at what the result of these policy will lead. The youth of America will owe China and other friendly countries big bucks. The American dollar will be depreciated, like during the 1930's and 40's to reflect the large amount of cash in circulation. I know we all can't wait until and Hersey's Chocolate bar is $2.50 and a Coca-Cola is $3.00 at the Dollar Tree! Why would this be?

Basic economic law states that the more a good (money for example) is in the market, the lower the value. So, American money is being increased while those with the powers to end the mess (the Republicans under Bush and the Democrats under Obama) have done absolutely nothing to stop the spending. Ben Bernanke, continues to give the US government unlimited IOU's.

The Economy will correct itself, the longer we delay the inevitable, the worse it will be. Example, the Great Depression. The Great Depression shows us the fruits of the Federal Reserves labor. Past Recessions pale in comparison to this bust because the powers that be understood that when the government has control of an economy, such things will happen. The modern American is so concerned with the comfort of TV and Radio and Video Games that they are not willing to allow the economy to work.

"The Republican need to save us!" In the election year, the Republicans under Bush were willing to bail out anyone (unless you were the competitor for the Secretary of the Treasury's company!) and everyone. They lost, because the policy were going to fail! (and did)

"The Democrats need to save us!" After the Republicans failed by increasing speeding, the Democrats attempt to try the same thing! It like they actually wanted the Republicans to loose in order to do the exact same thing. The Democrats mixed it up a bit, they increased internal government spending along with giving the Banking and Auto industry money.

I guess we need to give up on the Democrats and Republicans, because they can't seem to figure out what every American family facing foreclosure has discovered – when a person, company, government, increases their spending without increasing their revenue they will face bankruptcy, other forms economic failure, or a combination of the two.

So, what does this have to do with Constitutional Thinking?
It is impossible for the Constitution to function properly if the people do not hold their elected officials accountable. The only way a person can hold an elected official accountable, is by threatening them with lose of office. But, as this situation has shown, the Democrat and Republican Parties show very little difference in policy choices. The only way we can get into their head that we, the People, do not want this spending, do not want this lifestyle, that we do not want to pay for the education of the Chinese and Iranian children with our tax dollars is by voting for third parties.

Libertarians, Constitutionalists, etc. They have not yet been corrupted by politics, and might be a way out politically.

Sources
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/20/americas-deficit-spending-spree-raises-alarms/
Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism written by Robert P. Murphy
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History written by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

My Message to Our President

We the People have been watching,
After you have finished talking,
And waving to the people,
That might as be sheeple.
Yes we can permute.

And after the time is done,
And rhetoric opens from
The pain of lost complacency,
And the country will be angry.
Yes we can endure.

When public opinion falters
Will the face change alter,
Or will you be the Sumter
And face the enemy without slumber.
Yes we can live on.

Will you drive out the elite,
And take out the deceit.
Or will you an equivalent,
And increase their benevolence.
Yes we can struggle.

In the end, your oratory
Must be backed by activity.
Not leading the sheep away,
But through the straight and narrow way.
Yes we can resolve.

------------------------------------------------------------

You have one strike against you, Mr. President Obama.

You are destroying the lives of children by supporting and immoral and uncivil practice that will murder the lives of hundreds of children, everyday.

Not only in our country, but around the world.

Veto your own illegal legislation, on government sponsored abortions!

Barrack Obama isn't a Fascist.

Obama has been labeled a fascist incorrectly. Many Americans believe, after the strange youtube videos that have been popping up of an "Obama Youth" that he is the next Hitler.

I would have to argue that he isn't a Fascist. State Socialism (lets not forget that Hitlers political party was a State Socialist Party) emphasizes the state as supreme, even above all foreign powers. They view themselves as superiors in every way.

Why?

Simply because they are Germans, or they are Americans, or they are Spanish, or they are Italians. There is little rationale other than there ethnicity or state.

Obama is different.

He want's the nation to be proud that America is apart of the Global Community. Remember his speech in Germany. Obama is for Germany as much as he is for America. That is not Fascism. It is International Socialism, or Communism.

The only thing standing in his, and others like-minded, way is a few (possibly only one) Senators and Reps (And no: John McCain is not the Senator I am referring to).

The fact of the matter is, there is few choices. The Republicans have became increasingly Liberal, the Democrats have switch there position as a party so much that the people that have worked and founded it (Jefferson and Jackson among others) would be shocked by it.

I would have to say that Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr are the best choices. I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.

Economics: The Most Important Subject

Economics is the most important subject one can study. It alone controls the amount of personal freedoms, monetary freedoms, and extramundane freedoms the populous shall possess. The more economic freedom the more other freedoms. This is the great irony of the American political sphere for, those that promote personal freedoms in the Congress and election rhetoric are also the ones that promote less economic freedoms. Over the following posts I will be discussing the most accurate school of economics:

THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS



I will be using several resources in these posts including:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
by Robert P. Murphy Ph.D.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D

The Revolution: A Manifesto
by Dr. Ron Paul

The FairTax Book*
by Neal Bortz and Congressman John Linder

I will add books to this list and when quoted or referced I will give full credit to these authors on that blog.

*I do not think we should have federal taxes in the United States, but this book does a great job showing the American people what economics we are moving towards/using in our everyday life.