As did religious leaders of the Dark Ages, so too do politicians today pretend that only they can understand the sacred writings. Politicians today attempt to write in a manner incomprehensible to the Citizenry, but the Constitution was written in plain English.
In some places, the progressive movement to increase the ruling authority (and hence power of the ruling elites), invents phrases not found in the Constitution at all, such as "separation of church and state" to replace the 1st Amendment which prevents both the establishment of a state religion, as well as ANY measure to prevent the free exercise of religion, including prayer in public places.
It has relied on emotion, rather than logic, to overcome a basic tenet of the Founding Fathers' beliefs: that the individual Citizen should be given the greatest degree of Freedom to achieve or fail in his own endeavors, without the force of interference of others, including that of the government they have established.
The basic tenet of communism was "to spread the wealth around," that regardless of what parents had attained, students had learned, or work that was achieved, an equal share of the reward would be rationed out. The rulers of communism could dictate this, as they controlled the Wealth of Nations.
The tenets of communism and capitalism were economically opposed and the tenets of the Communist Manifesto and US Constitution were direct opposites. The Constitution and Capitalism were based in Individual Freedom, Rights, and Responsibilities, while Communism was the slogan of the Collective, forced into compliance by the rule of "the people's" government, where government could force the individual to behave as it saw fit. Where the US Constitution limited the government to the least necessary, Communism afforded government all authority, property, and money, rationing out what it found necessary.
In today's world, we often hear of the evils of corporations, with the insinuation or outright slogan that the government itself should control that aspect of the economy. But the Founders did not authorize the Federal Government or anyone else to force you to buy anything. Many of the sloganeers will point out that nearly everyone with a car is required to buy some form of automobile insurance. This is NOT a Federal Law, nor would it be Constitutional for the Federal Government to write such a law. Car Insurance laws are instituted at the State government level and even at that, there exist exceptions for those entities that are not required to purchase it. The US Postal Service, as well as many private corporations are "self-insured," i.e. they have set aside sufficient financial resources to pay the liability claims that their operators might inflict in an accident.
The State governments are within their authority to require Citizens to be able to cover such liabilities they may inflict with their property, just as banks are within their authority to require home insurance on the properties they loan individuals money to buy.
And there are bad corporations out there. There are people and companies that are more interested in padding their own bank accounts than in serving their customers, or treating their employees in a manner that is sufficiently fair that the employees want the company itself to succeed. The beauty of capitalism is that you are not forced to purchase from them. When capitalism is allowed to run its course, companies that take shortcuts to profits will find themselves out of business for lack of customers. If a new market opens, people can and will step in to produce the goods demanded by consumers. If a market becomes too crowded, the least responsive, least efficient companies will be forced out of the market.
Often heard in protests of today is a cry for corporations to be regulated or replaced by the Federal Government. The concept of such public outcry is that if the means of the industry are controlled by the government, i.e. "the people," which has no "profit motive," it will be more benevolent and "fair." The problem is that it creates a monopoly, with no incentive to respond to the concerns or complaints of the individual, i.e. customer. Monopoly of any type, whether corporate or government breeds apathy towards the end user and corruption on the part of the ruler.
And that is another benefit of strong State Governments as opposed to Federal power. The people of Massachusetts can vote for a larger government without inflicting their will on the people of Texas. The people of Tennessee can maintain their Freedoms and low taxes, while the people of New York can vote in 500% more of their money to the State. It is clear that the people of New York City need a different set of government services than do the people of Liberty, TN.
If you live on 10 acres, it's not difficult to find a place to compost the vegetables you didn't eat before they turned, but if you live in 1000 square foot apartment in the Bronx, you're going to need a way to dispose of that rotten food. The septic system that fertilizes your lawn in the country isn't a possibility in a Queens apartment. The people of Liberty should not pay for the sewage of New York.
Keeping government local not only maintains a more responsive elected government, but also a competition of governments for the Citizenry and tax dollars that feeds the government. Usurping the Constitutional limitations on the Federal Government creates governmental monopoly, leading to unresponsive, uncaring government, and lack of choice to the individual. The ruling elites of a monopoly need not bend to the will of the people, as they are the only option. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Corporations are not the problem. They are composed of people, who are attempting to attain the resources to live and get ahead in life, from the janitor to the CEO, as well as the shareholders. If they are too greedy, you, as an American, have the right to take your business, your investment, or your services elsewhere. You even have the right to start your own competing business, if you find the market is not properly served by those that are in it. As Donald Trump & Bill Gates demonstrate, where you begin in life does not determine how successful you will be in life.
And who are those shareholders of those corporations? Chances are that you are. If you have invested in a 401k, an IRA, a mutual fund, or nearly any other form of investment, you are likely the owner of some form of stocks, i.e. shares, though you have relegated the decision making of which and how to run those companies to others. Shareholders are no more evil than are you.
While you are better served learning how the Stock Market works and investing your own money into the individual corporations you choose, than in allowing others to make those choices for you, your retirement years likely rest on your success as shareholders. Owning the shares of corporations is an effective means to be a business owner, and will bring you far greater wealth than if you have only a "share" of all government property. As it stands, you own a share of all government debt, which is likely greater than the value of all your private property.
There are more financially rewarding investments, such as Real Estate, Business Ownership, and others, but these often require greater financial investment and hence risk, as well as greater knowledge and personal involvement. There are more financially safe investments such as Bonds, i.e. loans, or CD's, i.e. loans to the bank, but they afford lesser returns. And any investment that pays less back than the rate of inflation, is in effect a loss of money. It's better to get 1% interest in a 2% inflation market, than to hide the money under mattress, but you're stilling losing 1% purchasing power as the government continues to print money.
And have no doubt, inflation is rising. Currently, the United States is experiencing somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% inflation, as we enter the leading edge of the effects of "Quantitative Easing-1." Quantitative Easing created more dollars in the world, but did so in a very un-transparent manner. Basically, with the push of a computer button, the number of "dollars" in the world were increased, making each dollar worth less. But the Fed played a magical shell game, whereby these new computer dollars were "loaned" to banks, which then loaned money to the government, at a higher interest rate than it was paying. This shell game has slowed the implementation of inflation.
Quantitative Easing, or the creation of new dollars in cyberspace, isn't the only inflationary pressure. Though gasoline and oil prices have soared, they aren't included in official inflation rates. Still, the higher cost of transporting goods to market is reflected in the prices in the grocery store. Lagging inflation, should be pay increases, but we've only seen wages decrease on average.
Do I love my country? Yes, but my country is not defined by the land upon which it is situated, nor the government which has been elected. My countrymen are not beyond being fooled by politicians and political parties. My Country is defined by the US Constitution, and the Individual Freedoms it guarantees. This Nation was built on these concepts, and the ideology that the government must remain limited, and Capitalism is the best means of allowing the Individual to attain that which he earns in life.
My Country was built upon the concept that each Citizen has a Right to express displeasure with those elected by others, but no matter how popular an idea, the government has no authority to infringe the rights of Individuals. It was built on the hard work and sweat of Citizens that strove for more because their efforts were rewarded. It was built on allegiance to the Constitution, and hence those Freedoms, not an allegiance to a ruler, or a ruling elite, or even a political party. And when I swore to protect my Country, my oath was to the Constitution, not a politician, though it included following the lawful orders of the Officers appointed over me, and the President the Citizens elected.
While it did not grant me the authority to pick and choose the Orders I would follow, neither did it remove my Right to speak against those politicians that were elected. Conversely, those wearing the Uniform are Constitutionally & Legally restricted from speaking in a manner that would imply a political position of the Military. From Private to General, Soldiers are forbidden from endorsing or opposing politicians or politics while wearing the uniform, or using military owned equipment to do so.
Hence, it is the Constitutional Right of CJ Grisham to give his opinion on the state of politics in the Nation, but it is not for a Specialist in Iowa to put his Uniform on and endorse or oppose a politician on TV or on Stage. And it is the responsibility of Veterans to speak out in those gray areas, where the Troops are either poorly served in speaking on their own behalf, or could cross the line of propriety in doing so. Our Troops, have sworn to uphold the Constitution, but must entrust Our Citizens to elect politicians that will do so. Our Citizens must be afforded the opinions of the Experienced, i.e. Veterans, to make choices of Military matters.
Stumble It!
