The term overweight, assumes there is some ideal and a person isn’t meeting it.  Obesity is also a term which seeks to pathologize an otherwise naturally occurring variation in human genetics.  The same thing has been done in times past; for example, the term Homosexuality.  Pathologizing people gives society the impression it is okay to do a couple of things: (1) blame them for their condition, (2) blame them for failing to change, and (3) ostracize them as outsiders.  The reason groups become disenfranchised is because groups of people with power single out smaller groups in an attempt to bring them into the mainstream.  We see this in our belief that foreigners would be better off to simply adopt the host culture of the US.

In the end, we cannot expect politicians to be the harbingers of peace, love, and prosperity.  If acceptance is to happen, it must come from the people – not the government.  We would all do well to extend love and friendship to everyone, regardless of our disagreements with how they live their life.  After all, in the 18^th century thousands of American’s gave their lives so everyone may enjoy the freedom to choose for themselves how they might live their life.

We also must stop painting political parties with such broad brushes.  It is obviously no longer useful to hold to outdated ideas like, “Democrats are for the minority.”  In the long run the policies of the left do not always work out for minority groups.  In California the left has consistently fought the Right in order to maintain the status quo with regards to immigration.  Has this helped illegal immigrants increase their quality of life?  It’s true some Democrats in California fight for legalizing undocumented workers; but they fail to make claims about the long term benefits it would actually have on said peoples.  Instead, it would appear to be nothing more than political wind to attract votes.

Perhaps our outdated notions of Left = Minority and Right = Wealthy & White come from the civil rights movement; when many conservative politicians argued for the status quo.  In the end, it was not the Left, but the Supreme Court, who broke down the tradition of segregation.  The Democratic politicians also fought for affirmative action.  However, instead of taking our focus away from racial differences, it instead caused people to be identified even more by the color of their skin.

In summary, being of heavier weight does not a bad person make; nor is there any justification for making war against such people.  It would appear Jung’s “shadow” at work – proposing philanthropic virtues in order to advance one’s own self-interests.

When charity is forced, it ceases to become charity.  Charity is the act of an individual, acting upon their own accord, as an agent to themselves, wherein they sacrifice something of value for the good of another.  Charity can be a sacrifice of food, money, time, talents, etc.  No matter how charity is performed, it cannot be forced.  When charity is forced, there will be resentment, jealousy, anger, and other negative feelings.  When these feelings exist in the giver not only will they be less likely to be charitable in the future, but the charity will not accomplish its own goals (i.e. the uplifting of both parties physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually).

“Charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things… if you have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth…”

The power of the human condition is to work, live, and suffer together.  When people come together to bear each other’s burdens there is love, kindness, growth, happiness, empathy, and essentially, charity.  People cannot be forced to love another; they cannot be forced to have charity – it must come from within.  Today governments all over the world are trying to force redistribution of resources from those who are wealthy to those who are less wealthy.  I truly believe this comes from a natural human desire to help those who can’t help themselves.  It is however, naïve.  It is naïve to think people will allow the governments of the world to strip them of their wealth without their consent.  It goes against all basic ideas of freedom and accountability.

Bill Gates started the Gates Foundation not out of requirement, but out of charity for his fellow human beings.  It is true he gets rewarded come tax time, but it’s not like he’s paying no taxes.  In fact, he pays more taxes in one year than most American’s will pay in their whole lifetime.  Yet he gives untold amounts of money away to those who have need of resources they are unable to get.  Imagine what he could do if the Government stopped taking so much of his money and allowed him the opportunity to choose where it would go.  When people are robbed to feed the poor they become angry, and desire to keep more.  Essentially, the government is creating individuals who don’t want to give money to charity because so much is already taken for social programs.

Not only that, there is no opportunity for the recipient to understand someone else is making a sacrifice so they can eat, have a home, have power, or have anything for that matter.  When those without receive charity from another they are able to witness the kindness of human beings, and understand that others are sacrificing for them.  However, when the government takes over for the charitable person there is no such understanding.  Those receiving the free resources don’t understand the sacrifice of others.  They don’t know about all the middle class people who sacrifice their income so they can receive health care, or food, or shelter.  Instead they are told people are supposed to do it; they are convinced such resources come from those who have greedily taken too much from a basket with limited amounts.

I abhor such naïve beliefs about charity.  True charity exists all throughout the world but no one stops to recognize it.  Instead bureaucrats tout their altruism as though they were personally sacrificing for the good of the poor.

Imagine what good could be done if the government got out of the way.  Communities could come together to take care of their own.  Families, neighborhoods, religious congregations, and other humanitarian groups would have many more resources to care for the poor, sick, and needy among us.  It is time we got government out of the philanthropy business because it is wrought with corruption.  I would have no problem giving money to such programs if they worked as they are supposed to.  If the government wasn’t the biggest money wasting organization in the US I would give more than I’m asked.  But instead I give as little as possible so I am able to donate to my church, and other local groups who actually support and assist those who truly need it.

The reason for this post comes in response to the two rallies held in Washington D.C. this past weekend.  One, the “Restoring Honor” rally organized by Glenn Beck; and another, the “Reclaim the Dream” march organized by Rev. Al Sharpton.  I personally watched the rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and have read articles from the media coverage of “Reclaim the Dream.”  I was truly praying that both rallies would honor the ideas of faith, hope, charity, love for our fellow man, and a unity of fellow Americans.  Unfortunately, only one rally truly upheld those values.  I will openly admit I am a conservative American, who is deeply religious, and one who is not in favor of progressive semi-socialist political agendas being touted in the Federal Government.  Nevertheless, the fruits of both rallies have definitely helped me understand the underlying feelings, motivations, and beliefs of the groups gathering in our nation’s capital.

Never during the “Restoring Honor” rally did a public speaker refer to the other group in any derogatory manner.  The rally was set up to remind American’s about the foundation upon which this nation was built.  There was talk of returning to God, having faith in God and each other, recognizing those who sacrificed for the freedoms we enjoy, standing up for what you believe, and nurturing the fundamental characteristics of faith, hope, and charity.  The speakers spoke of unity, trust, faith, God, and the wonderful speech of Martin Luther King Jr. in which he spoke of seeing each other by the content of character rather than such a ridiculous notion as skin color.

In contrast, I didn’t quite see the same nobility from the “Reclaiming the Dream” march.  Instead it’s entire purpose was to counteract, argue, and peacefully fight against the “Restoring Honor” rally.  Avis Jones DeWeaver, executive director of the National Council of Negro Women, was quoted by Politics Daily saying, “don’t let anyone tell you that they have the right to take their country back. It’s our country too. We will reclaim the dream. It was ours from the beginning.”  In speaking about the “Restoring Honor” rally she is essentially accusing them of attempting to ‘take back the country’ as well as claiming some kind of ownership to ‘the dream’ in reference to Dr. King’s speech advocating for a government which sees all of it’s citizens as equal under the law.  Perhaps it is important to remind the reader of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for the same thing but was forced to give in to other delegates in order to ratify the Constitution – the very document creating the possibility for Dr. King to give his speech, and fight for the dream of equality under the law.  D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton said, “… [Beck] doesn’t have a message worthy of the place.”  The Rev. Al Sharpton said, “People are clear in what Dr. King’s dream was about, and we will not react to those who try to distort that dream”

As can be seen, those who organized the “Reclaim the Dream” rally appeared to be targeting the “Restoring Honor” rally rather than gather under a united cause independent from it.  Rather than honoring the unity of all citizens, prominent individuals spoke as though someone had stolen the rights to Dr. King’s speech, and was using it to pervert the civil rights movement.  It is one thing to declare what you stand for, and the rights you claim are being trampled – it is another thing entirely to attack others for exercising their rights, speaking badly of individuals who have malice toward no one, and then claim them to be part of the reason your rights are somehow infringed.

To me, racial inequality comes from people who focus on the racial characteristics of any man and attempt to treat them different than any other person of a different race.  If a white person denies entrance to his store simply because the perspective patron is black, that is racism.  If a black person denies entrance to his store because the patron is white – this too is racism.  Any time we attempt to make anything more or less difficult for one class of people based solely on their racial origins it is racism.  I believe Martin Luther King Jr. did not advocate for laws forcing businesses to ensure a specific population of minority individuals because it takes no account for the content of their character – rather it focuses even more upon the color of their skin.

For our nation to move beyond race we must accept all people for who they are and their ethnic origins.  We cannot allow minority classes to accuse majority ones of being racist simply because they are the majority, or they disagree with political policy.  I believe people can move beyond race, and we can move beyond racism.  In order to do that though, we must give truly equal opportunities – instead of vain attempts at equal results.  Rather than attempt to right some obscure wrongs from our past we must ensure a fair present and future.

1. Institute a flat tax rate of 10%.  I think a Federal Government which operates on 10% of the personal and business income of its citizens is a fair trade.  This flat tax would affect EVERYONE.  There would be no difference between what Bill Gates pays, and what I pay (in percent that is).  As of a few months ago someone from the CATO institute said a flat tax of 13% would cover the entire current Federal budget, including social security, welfare, and payments to the national debt.  Well, I think the Federal Government should cut their spending by 3% in an effort to demonstrate that they too can tighten the spending belt – since just about everyone else has had to.

2. Increase interest rates.  This one probably wouldn’t make anyone popular, but I think it should be done.  Here’s the deal, when you increase interest rates it removes money from the economy (if borrowing 50 means paying 100 – you remove 50 from the system).  This is why it is important – inflation.  Right now we’ve got a falling dollar value, which means your money is getting less valuable all the time.  While this may not mean much to you at first, remember that when the value of your dollar falls the cost of goods and services rises.  In the end, your money doesn’t go as far as it used to.  I know there are tons of reports saying inflation is at record lows, but this really doesn’t make a lot of sense because it should be exploding out of control.  Remember how the President swindled Congress to pour obscene amounts of money into our economy?  Well this has the effect of decreasing the value of a dollar, since there are now more of them to go around.  Think Babe Ruth baseball cards; if every citizen had one, they wouldn’t be worth the paper they’re printed on.  By increasing interest rates we slow the inflation, or better yet cause deflation).

3. Repeal the Health Care Bill.  I have two reasons for doing this.  First to send a message to the President that the people are in control, not him.  Second, there is so much spending and power grabbing in that bill no one will ever fully understand it.  I’ve read portions of it, and it awards obscene amounts of power to the Federal Government (Secretary of Health and Human Services is a Presidential appointee).

4. Cut funding to the EPA and Department of Education by 50%.  Ronald Regan once tried to eliminate the Department of Education (a decision I would have really loved), but was unable to do so.  However, when you cut their funding in half they would be forced to make drastic reductions.  Do it once your on the right road; do it twice and they’ll die themselves.  Neither of these two organizations are helping our economy or our country.  Environmental protection should be handled on the state level unless whatever is happening crosses state boundaries.  These types of organizations are ways presidents in the past have given more power to the executive branch (since these organizations have executive power and it’s heads are presidential appointees).

Right now I don’t think anyone is running with this drastic of a campaign but if someone out there was, I would vote for them in a heartbeat.

Essentially, we as a nation have racked up a credit card debt so large, it’s getting dangerously close to the point where our income won’t be able to cover the minimum payments (let alone the rest of our bills).  This is, simply put, what happened in Greece.  Americans, this is what socialism brings us.  Socialism, Communism, Progressivism… no matter what you label it, all it does is bring debt and bankruptcy to nations.

I was talking to a friend of mine about our Federal Government being “spend happy” and he likened it to venture capitalists who spend large amounts of money on new companies because of the potential payoff reward.  I think that’s bad because venture capitalists also risk losing everything when they go into it.  They accept those risks and assume they will be able to deal with a complete loss in the event things don’t work out.  It doesn’t quite work that way with a State though.  If the investment doesn’t work out, we can’t pay our debts, and the collectors come-a-knockin’.

Here’s the hard truth of the matter.  The government can’t take care of it’s citizens.  It can little more than pass laws to keep citizens safe from each other (robbery, murder, extortion, etc.).  Nevertheless, the government cannot sustain taking care of it’s citizens needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and health care.  Those are not in the Constitution because the Federal Government wasn’t designed to take care of people in that way.

I think the Founding Fathers put it best when they wrote:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,^[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This is the Preamble to the United States Constitution.  It’s sort of like a mission statement; a way to say “here’s what we’re trying to accomplish by writing this document.  Notice it says “establish justice.”  What could that mean?  Well, I think they’re saying the US Constitution makes it possible to establish a government which will in turn create laws to establish a Just society.  It also says, “provide for the common defence.”  I’m pretty sure this means the Constitution will create a government able to defend it’s people from enemies at home and abroad.

Let us now turn to the phrase, “promote the general welfare.”  This is interesting to me because it doesn’t nearly come close to the wording used previously (Establish, Provide, Insure).  This word, “promote” is much less powerful, almost as though they wanted to say “create a government that won’t get in the way of the people providing for their own welfare.”

Our government was never supposed to PROVIDE for the general welfare of its people; only to make sure they didn’t screw it up.  What is the result of bigger government, more regulation, and a Federal government trying very hard to control how money is made and spent in the country?  Larger financial divisions.  In the last few decades we’ve had a federal government trying to control the way our economy and populace works, rather than simply staying out of the way.  George W. Bush was not a conservative president.  He was something I call a Progressive Hybrid.  Essentially, he pushes the so-called conservative agenda through Federal Regulation (which is decidedly non-conservative).  The last time a conservative was in office his name was Ronald Regan.

The result of all this… sorry, I got off on a tangent.  This article by Yahoo demonstrates the shrinking middle class in America (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/the-u.s.-middle-class-is-being-wiped-out-here%27s-the-stats-to-prove-it-520657.html?tickers=^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA).  While I don’t believe the middle class is being “wiped out,” and this article is hardly “proof” it does convey the idea that Federal Regulation isn’t the way to go.  The way to go is for the government to stop, and reverse what it’s been doing for the past decade.

First, let’s talk about error.  Error is inherent in scientific testing and is something that will always be there.  There is error in data collection, error in examinations of tree rings, and error in establishing surface temperatures as they were during the times of Christ.  Anyone who states that they have “found,” “proven,” or “established” some fact, is trying to sell you a bridge.  All they can do is say, “My hypothesis is supported by this data.”  They have not proven what the temperature was in Italy when Columbus set out for the new world any more than they can say global temperature has caused increased hurricanes.  **A little note about that, there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed**

I am always increasingly skeptical when scientists present data and say that their interpretation is truth.  All they have done is collected data which is then examined.  The results of the examination of their data are littered with biases.  I could look at that data and say, “WOW, obviously the sun is heating up so we might want to be worried about the possibility of a supernova soon.”  My conclusion would fit logically based on the data showing that surface temperatures are increasing wouldn’t it?  Yes, yes it would.  Interpretation can go multiple ways, and I can’t say that their interpretation is wrong any more than they can say that mine is.  When disagreements come up over global warming it is so difficult to settle because very similar data are being interpreted two different ways.

As a side note, I want to direct you to Professor Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT.  You can read some of his thoughts about global warming here http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

On Glenn Beck there was an Englishman who appeared to discuss global warming.  He described how the theories of global warming should not be met with public policy because even if we turned off every carbon emission on the planet we would only save 1 degree of warming every 33 years.  That is, only if our humanity and carbon emissions actually WERE creating the warming of the earth.  So, by governments creating policies to slow down, or reduce, emissions is completely worthless because it will have almost NO EFFECT on the actual warming of the earth, according to the Global Warming Scientists.

Global Warming is a scare tactic.  It’s interesting that the more liberal nations of the earth have reacted so much more fiercely than conservative nations have.  Why?  Because it is being used to elicit more power into the government.  If the government can create an emergency, then they will use it to pass legislation giving them more power.  The same is happening with the economy right now.  Obama and the Democrats say that if we don’t allow our government to do “something” then things will get even worse.  I wonder if there’s a reason they always talk in such general terms… Something to think about.

I think it’s funny that they even refer to them as entitlement programs, don’t you?  To be entitled to something is to assume that you deserve it simply for your very existence.  It just makes me think of the government as some spoiled rich kid who thinks that because their parents have all the money in their world deserve a car for their birthday that costs more than my parents house.  Has anyone ever seen the show “My super sweet 16” on MTV?  That’s our government, the spoiled brat of a 15-16 year old.

We need to stand up and take back our rights.  Tell Washington to knock it off.  End the gluttony of the “emergency” powers.  Us, the American People, will get through this recession ourselves without your handouts, without giving you our freedom.  I’m not saying it’s going to be easy, and I’m not saying that people aren’t going to suffer, but we’ll get through it.  We are mostly the ones that caused it, so we’ll be the ones that fix it.  Quite hurting us more by sending our government into a debt that we’ll never be able to pay back.

Okay, so let’s look at this from an economics standpoint, since the big worry on the minds of Americans is the economy.  When the government puts money IN to the economy through things such “stimulus” spending causes an interesting effect known as inflation.  So what happens when inflation goes up?  Good question, and the simple answer is that prices for goods and services go up, and when that happens your income is shot to hell.  How that works is this, let’s say you have $1000 leftover from paying your mortgage and other bills.  Well, when you used to spend $300 on food, you’re now spending $400.  And when you used to spend $100 on various fun things, you’re now spending $200.  Well, now you’ve only got $200 left when you used to have $600 left.  You’re LOSING money when inflation goes up because it’s all based on percentages.  Inflation causes costs to eat up a larger percent of your income.

Oh but the government is SAVING our economy by saving jobs and preventing companies from going bankrupt.  This is why you’re buying in to it.  The White House even says that the increases in GDP are a direct result of the stimulus spending and other federal maneuvers from the last year.   That’s hogwash!  Why? Because the GDP increased as a direct comparison from where it was the previous quarter – and where was it?  Oh that’s right it had fallen 14.5% before this 3.5% increase.  That’s right for three consecutive quarters after and throughout all the billions of stimulus spending the GDP continued to fall, the stock market didn’t make significant movements, and the unemployment continued going down.  Obama said himself unemployment wouldn’t go lower than 8%, but now it’s at 10%.  Besides that, where did the stimulus money go?  Well, it mostly went to the financial sector and business that were in trouble of going bankrupt.  WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!  WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO SEE A DOLLAR!  If you ask me, the only reason the economy is coming back to life is because the American people never gave up.  They looked for work, they still spent money, and they took their lumps and kept on going.

That’s right Mr. President, and the rest of you government communists – it was us, not you!

These businesses, the ones that got the stimulus money… they were going under, and were doing so because of foolish business practices and faulty investments.  When I lost money in the stock market no one from the White House said, “Oh, you didn’t know that was going to happen so here’s your money back.”  In fact, if I decided to invest in someone’s new business and it went under then it’s my fault isn’t it?  Take the car companies for example; is it the taxpayer’s fault that their foreign competition was producing products that Americans wanted more?  Why is the government throwing money into a broken system?  It would be so much better to let them fail, because then other Americans would come forward, with new businesses and better products that would succeed where the others failed.  I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be hard for all the jobs that get lost – but again, it’s their own faults.  In fact, I wonder if the labor unions were created so much cost that the businesses couldn’t compensate with sales and therefore adding to the problem.  Something to… think about.

This Health Care Bill will INCREASE our federal debt.  There’s no doubt about it, it will increase taxes, fees, and the costs of healthcare.  When the healthcare industry is unable to compete with the government they will have to decrease their monetary output to doctors, hospitals, and what they are willing to pay for your care.  The White House keeps calling it the “competitive” option, but that’s not true because the government can make their rates whatever they want, and as low as they want.  How you ask?  TAXES!

I don’t even know why Congress is even working so hard to pass this bill.  Because the President said so?  Last I heard the congressmen were supposed to answer to the people, not the president.  In fact, in my first posting about the US Constitution I talked about their responsibility to keep the president in check, not follow him blindly over a cliff.  What do the American people have to say about the bill?  Gallup reports that only 25% of Americans support the health care bill, 33% oppose it, and another 39% say that it depends on the details of the bill.  Well, how do Americans see the details working out?  49% of Americans think their personal costs of health care will get worse.  77% say that health care coverage will either not improve, or get worse.  Finally, 79% think that the quality of insurance will either not improve or get worse.

Government spending does not promote economic growth, and the growth that does happen is short term if at all.  The only way they can stimulate growth is by providing motivation for the people to spend, rather than government.  When people purchase goods and services they promote business spending, job growth, and more people able to spend and contribute to the cycle.  Preventing further job loss doesn’t necessarily create job growth.  Why doesn’t the President realize this?  Oh that’s right, he has no education in finance, economics, or accounting.  He’s a public planner.

AMERICA… say no to bigger government, government spending, and laws that hand your freedoms over to them.  Vote against the socialists and communist reformers currently in Washington.  It’s time to tell politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we’re done with their unethical rule of OUR nation.

At the time of the Constitution the major political structure around the globe was that of unilaterally held power by monarchs and dictators.  The Founding Fathers knew that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” or that, in essence, when power is held by a single person then those which are governed by that person have little to no rights.  In England during the 1700’s, and prior, the King could make a decision no  matter how many of his citizens opposed it, and that decision was law without discussion.  Therefore, the Founding Fathers created a governmental system where power is derived from the people, or, the “consent of the governed.”  Not only was the power held mostly by the people, but what federal power there was would be split up into three groups, each responsible for monitoring the activities of the other, termed the “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances.”

These three groups, known as the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch, make up the federal government, with all federal powers separated between them.  They also are responsible for “checking” the other two groups such that each group is not able to execute power over the citizens of the nation individually.  The Legislative Branch, also known as Congress, is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  There job is essentially to create laws regulating the United States, but their powers are specifically spelled out, and limited, in the Constitution.

1. Collect taxes to pay the debts of the nation, provide a common defense, and provide for the general welfare of the US.  The taxes must also be uniform throughout the nation

2. Borrow money on the credit of the US

3. Regulate commerce with foreign nations, and from state to state

4. Coin money, regulate its value, fix the standard of weights and measures

5. Provide punishment for counterfeiting

6. Establish (regulate) Post Offices

7. Promote the progress of science and art by issuing exclusive rights to their respective works & discoveries

8. Constitute tribunals inferior to the Superior Court

9. Define and punish felonies on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations

10. Declare war, grant letters of marque or reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water

11. To raise and support armies with money appropriated for no longer than two years

12. To provide and maintain a Navy

13. Govern and regulate land and naval forces

14. Provide for calling forth of the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrection and repel invasions

15. Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia

16. Govern any places owned or purchased by the federal government

17. Make laws necessary to carry out the afore mentioned powers

18. Admit new states into the Union

19. Allow the appointment of inferior federal positions to be performed by the President, the Courts, or the Heads of Departments as long as the position is not explicitly appointed by someone otherwise stated in the Constitution

That’s it folks, other than that, they’ve got nothing.  In fact, the 10^th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government in the constitution are expressly reserved for the states, and the people.  THE PEOPLE!  Let us remember that the Constitution’s sole purpose was not to create the powers of the government, which was only a byproduct, it was to limit the powers of the government such that the people would be able to govern themselves in their respective States.  That is why Democracy is so powerful, and so successful, because the people are granted freedoms that are naturally due to them.

The Executive Branch is composed of the President, and the Vice President (Who is also the President of the Senate and only votes when there is a 50/50 exact split).  His powers are as follows:

1. Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States

2. Act as Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Militia when called into service

3. Require the opinion of the principle officer in each of the executive (military) departments for any subject relating to their duties (the Joint Chiefs)

4. Grant pardons for offenses against the US except Impeachment

5. Make treatise with nations as long as he has the advice, consent, and 2/3 concurrence with the Senate

6. Appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Supreme court judges, and other officers of the US whose positions are appointed by law, with the advice and consent of the Senate

7. Fill vacancies in the Senate, during recess, which expire at the end of their next session

8. Give a State of the Union Address

Well, that’s it for the President, seems like a short list but then again there is a lot of power in that list.

The Judicial Branch is a little easier to conceptualize but a bit more difficult to simply list.  Essentially they have jurisdiction immediately if a crime involves ambassadors, public officers, and crimes which involve a state is a party (the state is accused of some crime).  In all other cases, they have jurisdiction only in the form of appeals, meaning that someone has appealed a previous ruling from a lower court.  Usually this happens when the case involves some constitutional right someone feels is being violated, such as Roe v. Wade upholding a constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

So how do the checks and balances work?  Well if congress passes a law forcing all citizens to support a member of the military in their home, at cost to them, then the President can veto the law to prevent it from taking effect.  However, let’s say he agrees and it becomes law.  Some person who is prosecuted will appeal up to the Supreme Court and they will overturn the law based on the Constitutional protections it violates.

So there it is, the Constitution, amazing in its creation, enables us citizens of this great nation to live protected from a government of potentially corrupt individuals who may attempt to use their influence to gain power over us.

Again, I respect, revere, and love the Constitution because it is centered on the idea that governments do not control the people, the people give the government certain rights so that they may be protected and safeguarded; but not so many rights as to give up those they feel governments have no justifiable reason to control.

Now its not my intention to paint the Democratic party as having any fault with the recession, because they don’t.  In fact, I don’t believe any politician is at fault for the recession.  The recession, in my opinion, was a specific mixture of unethical business practice, stupid investing, and poor individual decision making.  I strongly believe that gas was the primary driving force behind the recession, followed closely by people’s desire to get rich quick through quickly increasing property values, compounded by the stupid decisions of banks to approve those mortgages without proper risk assessment.

Let’s take a jump back a couple years and watch the gas prices.  Gas had such a strong involvement in inflation throughout the US that recession was almost inevitable.  We should all remember that inflation is a dangerous beast which must be closely monitored so that its growth is controlled in some way.  Gas however, started increasing rapidly and in 2007 hit record highs almost every day of the summer.  Some of you may be asking, “what in the world does that have to do with anything?”  Good question, and the answer is: gas is tied to EVERYTHING.  When prices go up they generally are the result of inflation, the cost of goods gets raised slightly and then that cost is divided up among all the products and services sold on a daily basis.  Rarely however, does it work in reverse.  Gas went up radically fast, and the result was increasing the cost of pretty much everything.  Farmers buy gas, and their produce goes up.  UPS needs gas so shipping goes up.  Trucking companies have to increase their cost to accommodate increasing gas prices.  Airlines have to increase their flights… and the list goes on and on.  Suddenly everyone’s paycheck was stretched less and less as the price of living in the US shot up.  I was watching CNN last year and they did a small inflation study showing that the cost of some everyday items had gone up about 23%.  If you know your history then you remember the economy scares of the 1970′s involved an inflation only just above 10%.

Just when I thought we would forever be at the mercy of the gas companies, I heard on the news that in Q1 of 2008 there was actually a decrease in the demand for gas.  I thought I was going to have a heart attack, but we finally did it.  The consumer fought back and forced them to drop the prices.  The damage, however, had already been done because all those prices that went up – well they stayed up because companies figured that gas would come back and until then they’ll just keep making higher profit, and when gas comes up again they won’t have to increase their prices again.  Of course, we all know they’ll become used to the higher income and their prices are just going to go up again anyways.

As for the poor mortgage decisions, since when did it become a good idea to buy a house that one couldn’t afford?  When I learned that people purchased houses on an adjustable rate mortgage, planning on the house increasing in worth over the next few years, and then being able to afford the house as a result.  If you can’t afford a house when you buy it, you have no business doing it.  Get rich quick ideas have been around for as long as money has been – and they’ve always been a bad idea.  I’m not opposed to getting rich, it’s everyone’s dream; but I believe that it should be done through hard work and ingenuity.  Then again, people aren’t all to blame, because banks are supposed to protect themselves from the risk that a loan they guarantee won’t end up being paid.  In short, banks should say to people “you really can’t afford this house on your current income and expenses.”  Instead, they get distracted by the dollar signs and say “if you get this variable rate mortgage then in a few years we’ll re-work your loan and it’ll be within your range.”  The risks were high in all of those situations because the people, and the banks, were riding on the faulty thinking that property values would never go anywhere but up.

Do people deserve to lose their houses?  Some of them do.  Do banks deserve to lose millions of dollars on those foreclosures?  That’s what we call a bad investment decision, so yes.  Is it my responsability to pay for the banks to stay in business should they lose so much money that they can’t stay in business?  Well, since they’re not paying me to keep them in business… nope.  And last but not least, is it my responsability to pay for those people who made bad decisions and purchased houses they couldn’t afford?  In short, no.