Loss of Patriotism

I have been experiencing the longest period of writers block ever. I can usually put my finger on why I go through these phases rather quickly and then the gates open soon after. This time I have knowingly been in denial as to why, I have lost my patriotism and it has left me speechless.

This loss of patriotism didn’t happen overnight.  In my lifetime I have seen the assassination of a President that to this day has never been conclusively solved and the people have been fed story after story none of which would be believed by anyone of sound mind. I have seen the Viet Nam war and all the crimes against humanity committed by our own military and government leaders. I have seen the Civil Rights movement and the assassinations of its leaders, the shameful and criminal treatment of black people in this country that is still there today that has brought no action from our Congressional leaders. I have seen a mass shooting practically every day for years and years with no action from our Congressional leaders. I have seen the discrimination against women that has still not brought action from our Congressional leaders. I have seen Watergate. I have heard the lies and conspiracy theories about 9/11. I also grew up in Los Alamos N.M. where the atomic bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of people; and the hydrogen bombs that were tested for decades were built. I know the atrocities committed by human beings against our own kind. 

All these things and my knowledge of history chipped away at my patriotism all my life, but I still had a hint of pride in the country I lived in.

I had an idea of what we as a nation could be and it gave me reason to keep up my activism. Sometimes with a fervor.

When I went to D.C. and stood before the Lincoln Memorial; on the spot where MLK gave his famous speech my eyes welled up.  I felt a sense of awe at the majesty of the Capitol Building and felt inspired at the engraved words on the walls of the Library of Congress. Standing in front of the White House I felt humbled. 

Then I walked up to the Jefferson Memorial. And though I had formed my opinions of Jefferson long ago, written many words expressing my anger at his hypocrisy, it wasn’t until I saw the larger than life marble statue of the man and his words engraved in stone that stood dozens of feet high that my anger made me question my patriotism.

Martin Luther King Jr. was memorialized by a square block the size of a doormat that one could walk over without even noticing it was any different than the ones around it; you had to be looking down as you walked to see it and it was in front of a magnificently large figure of Lincoln that one couldn’t help but be looking up at as you walked across the stone of the peaceful black preacher who influenced our country as much as the man who freed his ancestors from slavery.

And there was Thomas Jefferson. The size of mythical giant. An entire building dedicated to a man who owned hundreds of slaves when he wrote the words ‘all men are created equal’. A man who refused to free his own slaves. I have heard all the defenses of why he would not do so; the loss of income would have left him poor, he would lose his plantation. That is what great men do. Great men deserving of such a monument sacrifice fortunes and even their own lives to do the right thing especially over something like slavery.  And this glorified slave owner is known to have fathered many illegitimate children through the rape of his female slaves. Thomas Jefferson was a serial rapist and there he is larger than life in front of the words that immortalize him and prove his hypocrisy at the same time.

Those words are hollow. Those words are an insult to my intelligence. Those words were also very carefully chosen.

Many days and many hours were spent at conventions with debates over those words. Each and every word was considered as was it’s placement. Those words were meant to be the bond between the people and their representatives. Those words dictate our very lives and the rights we have to them. Those words define what patriotism in America is. 

Patriotism is learned. Patriotism is taught in the lessons of the founding of America. Lessons that are taught through the words of the founding fathers and those documents that are encased in glass, preserved as if they were sacrosanct. The words ‘endowed by their creator’ bring the reverence of scripture to those words. It also makes a belief in god part of the doctrine of American patriotism. 

I still felt a sense of patriotism, maybe diminished but it was there.

Then Trump became president.

My patriotism turned to cynicism. Cynicism turned to poco-curantism. 

All that has happened in this presidency has done more to erode my patriotism than everything up to his being elected. Not just because he was elected but because Trump has brought to light all the many many many flaws in our Constitution. Trump has not made a mockery of it he has merely shown what a mockery it already was.

There is no uniting this country. The Constitution itself sets up the divide that has always been there. The Constitution is the perfect script for a reality show and America finally cast the perfect man for the leading role.

In a true democracy where the majority rules, only the majority rules. The minority is not considered what so ever. Their voices are not heard, their wants, needs or demands are ignored, they have no right to be protected from injustice resulting from the majority rule. A Constitutional Republic is meant to be more ‘fair’ than a true democracy.  Here we have representatives that speak for us. We have representatives that fight for rights of the minority; to protect us from injustice of the majority rule.

Our government is meant to assure that not one person or office has absolute power over any other. Three separate offices of equal power; a balance of powers. All these offices are made up of the representatives we the people put there by the process of elections. Every vote counted.

Sounds fair right?

Read the fine print.

Let’s break it down. The Legislative Office. These are all elected officials. Congress which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate consists of representatives from each state. The House consists of representatives from every district within each state. Though both are one office they are separate bodies of power. Both bodies have representatives from both parties. Both bodies have ranking members that come from the majority party within each body.  The House must vote first and what passes then goes to the Senate for a vote.

A vote that will only be taken if the Senate majority leader brings it to the floor. The Senate majority leader has absolute power of what gets a vote and what doesn’t.

The Executive Office. These are elected officials. Every citizen gets to vote for this office. However we do not get to directly elect who holds this office. The Electoral College does. The Electoral College is made up of people who are voted in by party committees. These committees consist of members of the House and Senate. So the House majority party and the Senate majority party get more votes resulting in their party having the majority of electorates. In short if Republicans are the the majority party in the House or the Senate then the Republican party gets more electorates. Which means the Republican candidate will most likely win the electoral vote and become president.

The Judicial Office. The Supreme Court. This office is made up of judges appointed by the president. These are lifetime appointments. The must be confirmed by Congress. If the president is a Democrat and nominates a judge, and Congress has a Democrat majority the nominated judge who will most likely also be a Democrat will most likely be approved. However is the president is a Democrat and nominates a Democrat judge but Republicans are the majority the judge most likely won’t be approved.

Now, judges that are approved hold a seat on the court that are there to rule on laws that are passed and whether or not they infringe upon our god given rights. (No there is no separation of church and state when behind the bench of the highest court in the land it says In God We Trust underneath the sculpted face of Moses who is also engraved in the wooden doors to the court room holding the tablets containing the Ten Commandments.) They are there to interpret the Constitution as it applies to we the people and to the other two offices of power, one of which appointed them and the other of which approved them.

Then we have the other offices of the administration. The Department of Justice for one whose head is the Attorney General who is appointed by the president. The AG goes through the same process of Congressional approval. The AG has the absolute power over what will be brought before the Supreme Court. The AG has the say of what if any charges will be brought against the United States of America which includes the offices of power.

Where is there any balance of power?

Trump is proving every day that the joke is really on us. Because that is how I see those words now, as a joke.

And not a very funny one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Is This Democratic?

Our government is supposed to be a Democratic Republic. The founding fathers drafted all those documents to assure this. Either they failed miserably or they had a different idea of what democracy means.

There has been a lot of finger pointing as to who is dividing this country. There isn’t much dispute about the fact that the country is divided, the dispute is who is dividing us. Truth is the founding fathers did from the get go.

The Constitution is the foundation for how our government is structured. It is supposed to be a system of checks and balances, at least the founding fathers said it was yet they set it up to be anything but. The president who is an elected official, only needs to be a natural born citizen, over 35 years of age and must have resided in the country for a certain number of years. That’s it. Those are all the qualifications necessary to occupy the office of the most powerful person in the free world. A high school equivalency is not even required. There is no application to fill out, no resume’ submitted. There isn’t even a basic quiz to demonstrate literacy on any level. Now I get that the founders were all wrapped up in this new found freedom, that they wanted to start a new world where anyone could achieve anything they wished; anyone could obtain the American Dream. I don’t think they put anymore thought into it than that.

The president who doesn’t have to have a minute of experience in anything, who can literally have zero knowledge of or even a fundamental understanding of government operations, policies, procedures or laws. No military experience is required for the president who is also the Commander in Chief of all 4 branches of the Military. The president doesn’t have to have a clue about the  cabinets and departments under his command; what they do, how they do it or who is supposed to answer to who. The president is the one who appoints people to head the Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. The president can nominate anyone for any position regardless of there expertise or experience in that particular office or in public service of any kind.

The president also appoints the Attorney General and Supreme Court Justices the former is the office that is suppose to represent the government and the latter is supposed to be part of the system of checks and balances. Given just that fact right there the system is doomed to fail. The president has hire and fire authority over the offices that are responsible for keeping the executive office in check. The president is the only one who has that authority.  The president also appoints  the heads of the FBI, the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff and circuit court judges. The presidents authority to fill all these position absolutely undermines the idea of democracy, how is this a fair system when only one party has the right to control everything unchecked?

And these positions are filled and vacated with each presidential term, which means that the fundamental administrative procedures can be completely different every four years. Procedures like environmental protection which includes laws on emissions and industrial pollution, control over educational standards and budgeting, health insurance laws, women’s rights, rules for financial institutions, tax rates, gun laws, marriage laws. This  is absolute instability and chaos, especially when the person in charge has no idea of how things he is in charge of operate.

Now lets look at Congress. This whole idea is anything but democratic. The Speaker of the House has the absolute authority over what comes up for or vote; and what doesn’t. How is it democratic to refuse to let something like gun control law proposals to be voted on? And when the speaker is from one party and members of the other party know that a bill they don’t want passed is up for a vote they have the option to take advantage of  this wonderfully brilliant idea called filibuster. A filibuster is when a member of Congress uses their right to debate a bill on the floor to simply run out the clock, like a quarterback taking a knee and running the clock out. Ted Cruz a republican actually spent over 12 hours reading Dr. Seuss books. Seriously. The clock ran out and the bill didn’t get voted on so it was just simply filed away and that was that. Better yet is the right that one party has to just change the rules when they know a bill they want passed is not going to get the votes needed to pass by lowering that number. For any individual bill they can just decide that only 51 votes is needed instead of the standard 61. Very democratic.

There are many other things that upset this system of checks and balances as well as the democratic process like the president meeting with members of his own party within Congress without the other party members of Congress there. The current administration is currently under investigation for collusion with Russians. Those in question seem to be very indiscreet and bold in their actions and attitude about the whole thing. Why shouldn’t they be? If they are indicted or found guilty the president can just pardon them. Sweet deal if you are someone who is willing to commit crimes to benefit the president. This not only allows room for criminal activity it practically guarantees it.

The simple fact that there can be, or always is a house majority negates any hope of democracy. When one party ‘controls’ the Congress and one party is represented by the highest office in the land how is that a democratic government?

 

.

No Representation Without Taxation

The Revolutionary war began when Americans refused to pay taxes without being represented. They coined the phrase ‘No Taxation Without Representation’.

Well I think it is high time and equally valid to state that there should be No Representation Without Taxation.

 

To argue that religious institutions aren’t represented is absolutely not true. To use as an argument for this that we have a separation of church and state due to the First Amendment is equally false. There is no separation. And the First Amendment was written to protect religion from government not to protect government from religion.

Let me give you a good example;

Congress has a Congressional Prayer Caucus, a Chaplain of Congress (with an office in the Capitol) elected by Congress and paid with tax payers money. Military Chaplains are also paid with federal tax dollars. How again is this the separation of Church and State? How is this not a violation of the First Amendment? It isn’t.

Congress has had a Chaplain since 1774, no that is not a typo, the office of House and Senate Chaplain came to be before the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration Independence was written.

Here are the requirements for Tax Exempt Status per the IRS

Tax-Exempt Status

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

•  the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
•  net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
•  no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
•  the organization may not intervene in political campaigns;
• and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

IRC Section 501(c)(3)

All organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:  

• their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
•  they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
•  they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
•  they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;
• and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

 

Congress even wrote special legislation regarding the IRS’ right to audit churches and religious institutions;

Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church

Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches

Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may begin a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that an organization claiming to be a church or convention or association of churches may not qualify for exemption, may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of IRC § 513), may otherwise be engaged in taxable activities or may have entered into an IRC § 4958 excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person.

Now let’s look at how much this elected office pays;

Total Salary Expenditures

04/01/2015 – 09/30/2015	$216,350
10/01/2014 – 03/31/2015	$205,244
04/01/2014 – 09/30/2014	$212,496
10/01/2013 – 03/31/2014	$198,363
04/01/2013 – 09/30/2013	$191,600
10/01/2012 – 03/31/2013	$192,975
04/01/2012 – 09/30/2012	$201,350
10/01/2011 – 03/31/2012	$204,350
04/01/2011 – 09/30/2011	$215,275
10/01/2010 – 03/31/2011	$198,850
04/01/2010 – 09/30/2010	$219,961
10/01/2009 – 03/31/2010	$195,031
04/01/2009 – 09/30/2009	$214,355
10/01/2008 – 03/31/2009	$182,598
04/01/2008 – 09/30/2008	$202,270
10/01/2007 – 03/31/2008	$176,690
04/01/2007 – 09/30/2007	$181,961
10/01/2006 – 03/31/2007	$175,017
04/01/2006 – 09/30/2006	$179,606
10/01/2005 – 03/31/2006	$174,390
04/01/2005 – 09/30/2005	$174,682
10/01/2004 – 03/31/2005	$166,317
04/01/2004 – 09/30/2004	$172,362
10/01/2003 – 03/31/2004	$154,027
04/01/2003 – 09/30/2003	$121,243
10/01/2002 – 03/31/2003	$148,773
04/01/2002 – 09/30/2002	$153,907
10/01/2001 – 03/31/2002	$140,841
04/01/2001 – 09/30/2001	$147,848
10/01/2000 – 03/31/2001	$139,57

These figures do include the Chaplain’s staff;

Chaplain: $150,698
Chief of Staff: $129,223
Director of Communications: $86,056
Executive Assistant: $52,828

 

I fail to see how being an elected member of Congress does not influence legislation.

From an article by Paul Singer, USA Today;

“We do what we can to make sure that legislation emerges with what we believe to be American, Christian values,” said caucus member John Fleming, R-La. “We believe that a democracy is only functional if there is a certain level of virtuousness among the nation. Freedom also requires a certain responsibility and that requires a certain moral code. The moral code that we as Americans have lived by for over 200 years is based on what? The Ten Commandments.” 

Rep Randy Forbes VA  and a dozen other Prayer Caucus members traveled to North Carolina in March to launch an initiative called PrayUSA, asking government officials and other to sign a resolution calling for prayer. The initiative is part of “a tactical strategy to effectively challenge the growing anti-faith movement in our Country,” the foundation says.

And the foundation blog advocates strongly for the defense of conservative Christians like Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was briefly jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.

“Criminalizing Christianity is not the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers,” reads a blog post on the foundation website about the Kim Davis saga. “Sadly, the balance of power in our country is being undermined within the legislative branch and increasingly supplanted by both executive fiat and judicial tyranny. The government was never designed to replace God and therefore, does not have the authority or right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God…..  We are fighting for our freedoms—silence and inactivity will leave us vulnerable and open to further attack. Christian…it is time for us to wake up and be engaged!”

How is this not influencing legislation?

 

 

While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the a House and Senate Office of the Chaplain stating that it is a tradition and should be respected it is important to remember that slavery was considered a ‘tradition’ as well.

MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.(1)

 A statute providing for the payment of these chaplains was enacted into law on September 22, 1789.

Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

It can hardly be thought that in the same week Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment** for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret that Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government.

This unique history leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from a practice of prayer similar to that now challenged. We conclude that legislative prayer presents no more potential for establishment than the provision of school transportation, beneficial grants for higher education, or tax exemptions for religious organizations.

A paragraph from writings by James Madison point out that Madison was concerned about respecting the religious rights of all religious sects;

JAMES MADISON: The tenets of the chaplains elected by the majority shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Though Madison did see the payment of the Chaplain by the National Treasury as unconstitutional, what he deemed a violation of the First Amendment was the appointment of a Protestant, not the appointment of a Chaplain.

 

Is The Supreme Court Ruling On Hobby Lobby Right Or Wrong?

I know that my readers and those that know me will assume they know which side of this issue I am on. But they will be wrong.  I have never been shy about my contempt for religion and though this Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the company insurance covering 4 kinds of  ‘contraception’ on grounds of protecting their religious freedom I don’t necessarily see this as a religious issue; and the Supreme Court doesn’t see it as only a religious issue, it is a moral one.

It is important to understand that the objection is not against all contraception, it is against Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which works up to 5 days after sex) and 2 different IUD’s (Intra Uterine Devices). The argument is that these are aborticides and not contraception. Though I can see their view on Plan B and Ella I do not agree that IUD’s are aborticides, none the less this is the argument.

Here is the section of the ruling that I find to be the most important;
(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Let’s pull out this sentence and look at it on it’s own; The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. From that sentence let’s pull out the words moral philosophy. 

I will say that my own personal views on abortion are very conflictive. I think that morally abortion is wrong except in cases of incest and rape. However I do agree with a woman’s right to choose, to a point. This all boils down to ‘when life begins’ dilemma. I am of the opinion that an embryo is not ‘alive’ but a fetus is, this means that after 8 weeks I think abortion is murder. I also feel that by 8 weeks there is no reason why a woman would not have made the decision to have a baby or not. That being said the difficulty lies in what is moral and what is immoral. I find it rather hypocritical of Christians to preach morality given the immoral acts of God throughout the Bible. However we happen to agree on the immorality of abortion, but disagree on when life begins. I admittedly commend the owners of Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

BUT; when I pull out this sentence It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. I have to say hold on. It is this stance of the Court that enables acts like female genital mutilation to not be illegal. Morality must be judged when it is inflicted on another human being. I a woman wants to cut off her own clitoris that is her business, but when she cuts of the clitoris of another female this is immorality at it’s peak. The same applies to circumstances involving keeping someone alive by artificial means and a loved one wants to pull the plug but another loved one cries it is against their religion to do so. If the person being kept alive would not want to be kept alive that way then pull the plug, in turn if the person being kept alive had the religious belief that it would be wrong then don’t do it. This goes for acts of rape and incest as well as any oppression of any other human being or acts of violence against them. One cannot commit an immoral act upon ones self.

 

 

Supreme Court Rules Town Council Prayer Constitutional

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the Town Council in Greece N.Y. to continue their practice of prayer before their monthly Town Council meetings, ruling it was not unconstitutional. It was the opinion of the justices that because the council welcomed all faiths who wanted to invoke prayer at the meetings they weren’t violating the First Amendment. It was their opinion that it wasn’t the fault of the council that the town was predominantly Christian and that they should not be expected to extend the invitation to clergy outside the county. The council was more than willing to welcome and in fact encouraged  Buddhists, Hindu’s, Jews, Muslims and even Atheists who wished to invoke prayer before council meetings to do so, I guess the fact that Atheists don’t pray escaped them.

It was also the opinion of the courts that they would uphold the long-standing tradition of seeking guidance from our creator when making political decisions that was started by our founding fathers over 200 years ago. They actually applauded those who were wise enough to seek this divine wisdom that would help them to uphold our countries morals and values that have shaped our political system from the beginning.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that deny a womans access to birth control and to legal and safe abortions. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools while prohibiting the teaching of evolution. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that weren’t passed concerning the violence against women. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that keep effective pain relieving drug marijuana away from those with cancer and other chronic pain patients.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect the religious practice of female genital mutilation. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect the religious practice of polygamy involving underage girls that are denied education past the eighth grade. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect priests found guilty of raping children. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect commanding officers who don’t prosecute  rapists in the military.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that don’t provide freedom from religion.