How about Responsibilities?

I've been totally immersed in politics for a while.

I have always been interested in politics, modern and historical, but during the last three years of the Bush administration I began to become more and more...outraged...at the blatant abuses of power and the apparent disregard for the Constitution.

And so I began to study, to be more aware of the past and to compare it with the present.

I've read quite a bit of political thought, especially in the time of the founders. One thing that I've picked up from my readings is that the founders had a great sense of responsibility, and while we always talk about our Rights, we very seldom hear about our Responsibilities.

Here's some thoughts.

Our Responsibilities as Citizens

1.) Support yourself and your family.
2.) Read your Constitution.
3.) Protect your neighbor's Rights.
4.) Give to Charity.
5.) Practice Compassion.
6.) Educate yourself, know what is going on in the world.
7.) Be watchful of the government, even if your party is the one in power.
8.) Question Authority.
9.) Be eager to Speak Out.
10.) Be ready to Listen.
11.) Exercise your Right to Vote.

Oh the Hypocricy!

Share this Cartoon

On General McChristal's firing...

Share this Cartoon

If it's good enough for Brazil...

This comes from the Wall Street Journal from August, 2009.

(T)he Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? From the Wall Street Journal, 8.18.09

Why does the Administration favor boosting Brazilian oil production while at the same time restricting American? Surely there is as much potential for a negative environmental impact from drilling off of the coast of Brazil as there is from drilling off the coast of the US.

Checks and Balances

Some good news for those who believe that the present administration is overstepping its Constitutional limits :

"A federal judge in New Orleans halted President Obama's deepwater drilling moratorium on Tuesday, saying the government never justified the ban and appeared to mislead the public in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Judge Martin L.C. Feldman issued an injunction, saying that the moratorium will hurt drilling-rig operators and suppliers and that the government has not proved an outright ban is needed, rather than a more limited moratorium.

He also said the Interior Department also misstated the opinion of the experts it consulted. Those experts from the National Academy of Engineering have said they don't support the blanket ban.

"Much to the government's discomfort and this Court's uneasiness, the summary also states that 'the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.' As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading," Judge Feldman said in his 22-page ruling." Quoted from The Washington Times

The administration misleads the American people and tries to take political advantage of the situation in the Gulf.

The Judicial Branch reins in the Executive on legal grounds.

It is good to see that the Constitutional checks and balances still work.

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com

One man, Six votes?

In an effort to be more "fair" in the representation of Hispanics on the Port Chester NY Board of Trustees, a Federal judge ordered an election be held in which each voter receive six votes.

You see, even though the population of Port Chester is about half Hispanic, the voters are predominantly white (this fact is very important as you will see), and the six person Board of Trustees has always been white.

Since a Hispanic has never been on the Board, in the eyes of the judge something must be done. Apparently, there is no way that a white person could possible empathize with a Hispanic person or do anything to further the interests of the Hispanic population.

Now, common sense would say: "We must do something to increase Hispanic voter registration and participation! We must find qualified Hispanics and encourage them to run for the Board of Trustees! And if a Hispanic does not win this time around, hopefully the Board would work to address the needs of ALL of its citizens, as all such bodies in our Republic should do."

If only common sense were truly common.

The Federal judge ruled that instead it would be more "fair" if each voter received six votes. Of course this would favor the minority candidates.

Let's assume that the Hispanic voters are just as racist as the white voters are portrayed as being. Now, on the ballot in Port Chester, of the thirteen people on the ballot, two were Hispanic.

The article doesn't mention the race of the other candidates, for our argument lets say that they are crackers like me.

Now, all the white voters have 11 people to use their six votes on, while the Hispanic voters have only two, and lets say that each person uses all their votes to vote for just one candidate. It will take 11 white voters to give each white candidate six votes, but only two Hispanic voters to give the both Hispanic candidates six votes. Now, lets say that three hundred people show up at the polls, two hundred whites and one hundred Hispanics. Say, for the sake of our discussion, that the two hundred whites whites use their one thousand two hundred votes to vote evenly for the eleven white candidates, each candidate receives 109 votes (yes, I know there is a decimal, lets say that those are hanging chads.) Now, each of the one hundred Hispanics uses their six hundred votes evenly for the two Hispanic candidates, each candidate receiving 300 votes!

In my little illustration each individual Hispanic voter has as much voting power as (nearly) three white voters. If the races of the voters were reversed, people would be protesting this racist policy.

While I personally applaud the desire to have more equal representation of minorities in government, the way that this is done is by motivating the electorate and those who could potentially serve, not by subverting the electoral processes of the Republic.

The appearance of rightness does not mean that it is right, just as the appearance of constitutionality does not mean that it is constitutional.

One voter. One Vote.

It's just Common Sense.

Here's the article, read it for yourself.