MISSOURI'S AMENDMENTS 1 AND 5: WHOSE INTEREST ARE THEY IN?

Boy, but it's been a long time since I've written anything on this blog. I just haven't wanted to spend the time. But we have a couple local issues that I feel compelled to weigh in on and this seems like the best place to do it.

For some reason, here in my fair state of Missouri, we love our Constitutional amendments. We always seem to have one or two on just about every ballot. The August elections this year are no different. Amendment 1 and Amendment 5 are both waiting for our decision. Amendment 1 is titled "Right to Farm" while Amendment 5 is going by the moniker "Right to Keep and Bear Arms".

I'm not so concerned about the intent of the amendments, at least directly. I'm all for farming and carrying guns. It's the language and the specificity of it that concerns me. One seems to be well written and thought out while the other just seems designed to keep a whole bunch of lawyers busy...at the taxpayers expenses.

First, the text from Amendment 1:

 "Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri."

Now, for Amendment 5:

"Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction"

Amendment 5 does a good job of defining the nature of the right and exactly who it applies to. The right is defined as inalienable, meaning that it is part of our nature and given to us by our creator (Declaration of Independence). This amendment appeals to Natural Law. It goes on to describe the right and to codify and explain the justifiable ways that the state might infringe upon it. In other words, just like the United States Constitution, it does not confer a right but instead recognizes that the right exists apart from government and only attempts to clearly limit the government in its ability to hamper the free exercise of that right.

Amendment 1 is a whole different fish. The language is vague. One has to wonder if this is intentional. Because of this, it is open to a wide variation in interpretation. And that will mean plenty of time in court.

Let's take a look at some of the areas I see as problematic. To begin with there's the problem of who confers the right. Is it the state? It appears to be since it is "...subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri." The state is not subject to the right because the right does not supercede the state. It is not a natural law right but instead a civil right. It is subject to political and judicial whim.

What the state gives the state can take away. This is not a right but a privilege granted by the state. In affect it is no different than a drivers license.

Secondly, to whom does it apply? According to the text it only protects "...the right of farmers and ranchers...". So, it's a civil right and it has been written narrowly, protecting a certain class of business. It doesn't protect the guy with a few chickens or a garden in his yard. It doesn't protect the right to feed one's self from one's own property as an extension of the natural law right to life. This amendment is designed to protect a special interest group. No more, no less.

Unless farmers and ranchers is defined very broadly. But then the only way we'll know how to define it is after the lawyers line their pockets in court.

Thirdly, there's this line, "...engage in farming and ranching practices...". Which practices? Subsistence farming on a small scale or giant agricultural operations with arguably destructive practices. Can a massive feed lot or egg operation move in next to my property, claim a right to farm and destroy the value of my land without me even being able to raise an objection? Or, as is more likely, can that operation just say, "Take me to court and we'll argue it there!", knowing full well that I don't have the resources to fight them?

Comparing these two amendments, one well written, the other a sloppy and open ended piece of sophistry, I have to ask myself, is the author of Amendment 1 really that incompetent? Or, was this amendment written as it was to open the door to special interests running roughshod over rural communities.

I tend to think it was the latter.

So, I can't support it. As much as I despise the groups that are backing the opposition.

NEW BLOG

Hey guys. I haven't posted over here for quite awhile. I got tired of all the work involved and all the arguments. I just ran out of time.

Anyway, I've got another blog up and running and it has nothing to do with politics or religion. And I'm going to do my best to keep it that way.

It's more focused on my ham radio stuff and other things going on around here. Fairly mundane but I miss writing, so there you have it. If anyone wants to stop by I'd be more than happy to see you. The adress is as follows:  http://kd0qkk.blogspot.com/.  It's titled simply KDØQKK. That's my amateur radio call sign.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

And in the words of "The Prisoner", "I'll be seeing you."

ARE GOVERNMENT WORKERS OVERPAID?

Are government workers overpaid? Maybe they are, at least their pension plans are way outside the bounds of reality. But I still have to wonder, besides pensions, are government workers overcompensated? Or, is it more accurate to say that private workers are undercompensated?

When I was a kid most tradespeople, hell, most skilled blue collar workers, could live a decent middle class lifestyle on one income. My parents did and so did the families of a large number of my friends. But now, after 40 years of inflation, competition with slave labor and lack of regulation from foreign countries and wages that have declined in real terms, a blue collar guy can't do that anymore.

A government worker, on the other hand, just might be able to because his wages have in part kept up with inflation.

So is that government guy overpaid? Or is he being paid a wage more in line with economic reality? One that hasn't been depressed by the greed and manipulation that is part and parcel of our hyper-competitive, winner take all, debt based capitalism?

And if he's not overcompensated then I have to wonder why it is that so many, apart from the pension crap, think he is? Or do they? I wonder how many of my conservative brothers and sisters have thought this one through? Is it possible that capitalism, at least as it's understood in today's economy, really isn't the best way? I'm not saying Marxism is good. It's not. In fact, I'd argue that it's intrinsically evil, something that you can't say about capitalism.

Still, there's something really wrong with our system. Capitalism, left to it's own devices, will always result in the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. And as wealth accumulates so does power. Over time the majority of the people end up as wage slaves carrying crushing debt, owning no property and left to beg at the feet of the wealthy for jobs, loans to rent houses (mortgages) and little or no real ability to change much of that. The best most of us can hope for is to work all our lives to pay off our mortgage so that we can live at least a couple years on property of our own, which in reality still isn't ours. Just don't pay the real estate tax and see what happens.

Sure, some few break out and make a success of themselves and gain some level of independence but even they, the small business owners, are still chasing dollars to service debt in one form or another. Because unless a person is independently wealthy (free) they will at some point borrow money to grow their business. And generally that debt isn't dependent on the success or failure of the business. It isn't an investment by a third party willing to take a risk. It's a noose around your throat supplied by a friendly banker, all smiles and handshakes. Your business succeeds and you share the profit. It fails and the bank still profits- you take the loss.

Pretty much the same way the banks have worked us over in the public sector, too. They make themselves too big to fail, or at least they sell that lie to the public, so they can privatize their gains and socialize their loses. They always win, we always take the risk.

And now the people with the wealth and the power have been busy selling a new meme, the one that is meant to convince us that it's right and proper to take an ever decreasing wage for the same work while the price of everything we buy goes up. And they're doing it by stirring up jealousy and resentment towards government employees. Really, isn't this the same game the Marxists always play with their eat the rich crap. Looks to me like in the end there's very little difference between the strategy of the left and the right. Which makes me wonder just how different their end goals are, too.

While there are some very legitimate questions to ask about government employee compensation there's no reason for us to get all pitch forky on 'em.

We're being played by the same people that are stripping us of our own freedom and we're too blinded by ideology to see it.

I TORE 'EM UP

I stole this from my wife's blog Moving On To The Past. She writes better than I do so why I figure why not just steal her stuff?

I pushed off from shore, stepping into the khaki green jon boat at the last minute, completely unaware of the struggle that would shortly ensue.  The jet skipped us over the rocks and barely submerged logs in mere inches of Meremac river water, glistening as the early evening sun reflected images of trees and sheer bluffs on its banks.

I sit at the bow facing the stern, hair tentatively pinned atop my head, loosening strands whipping in the wind.  I shut my eyes as the boat approaches the most shallow areas.  I can see the pebbles on the bottom.  If we stop, we're stuck.  Finally we reach Fish Trap Rapids where we meet up with neighbors also enjoying the quiet evening.  The girls are innocently playing on the gravel beach, swim suits damp from water play.  We're going fishing, slowly following the banks rich with grassy vegetation, fallen boulders and trees, bark peeling and sun bleached.

I am trying artificial bait, using something tiny and white with a treble hook.  It has a nickname, which I won't mention in polite company-or impolite for that matter.  At any rate, I don't typically use anything but worms so I'm not optimistic but I like to cast, particularly with a spinning  reel. It's light, you can feel everything, even the smallest nibble and control is much better.  I seem to have pretty good hand-eye coordination.  I can usually put it exactly where I am aiming (as long as I don't have a moving target)!  

Suddenly I have a hit.

I'm fighting it.  The rod is bending and my husband is yelling, "Keep the rod tip up" to keep the tension tight. I'm thinking, "Don't lose him!"  as I reel and pull.  I'm wishing our boat had those deep sea fishing straps,what if this guy starts pulling me in!   My brow is full of sweat, I'm bracing myself against the side of the boat.  I'm winning.

The river is pretty clear, aside from the mystery foam, seeds and occasional leaves that float down with the current,  I can start to see the beast beneath, struggling as much as I am.  I am confident now, I can do this. He breaks the water, caught solidly through the lip. I yell to get the camera, I can't let this opportunity go undocumented. 

I'll warn you, scroll down to see the photo.  I'm a mess by this time.  My hair is trashed and I'm exhausted.  I look like crap. 

S

C

R

O

L

L

I hope you enjoyed my Big Fish Story!  LOL  :)

I did catch the first, in fact four of them.  We would be lucky to have popcorn fish bites from this but it was fun!  A bald Eagle flew overhead.  He must live here because the guys tell me he is there every time they go fishing, which is often.  A beautiful heron was posing on the beach as we passed, watching us as much as we were marveling at him.

Neighbor's boat 

One of the many beaches

Have a wonderful weekend.

OUR PROBLEM IS NOT IMMIGRANTS

"And why should Hispanics vote Republican? 

The majority of Hispanics are among that half of the population that pays no income tax. Why should they vote for a party whose major plank is that it will cut income taxes? 

Hispanics benefit disproportionately from government programs." 

Has The Bell Begun To Toll For The GOP?

If the Republicans want to get the Hispanic vote there's one sure way to do it; embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church instead of Ayn Rand. Unlike many Americans, for the most part Mexicans are very serious about faith and that faith is Catholicism. If the GOP would only stop playing games with the faith issue and embrace it they'd get the Mexican vote. Paul Ryan has been explicit in how his Catholic faith influenced his budget plan. The leader of the house, also a Catholic, should take that ball and run with it. The GOP needs to understand Catholic social teaching and how government properly exercises it's responsibilities. If it can both talk the talk and walk the walk it'll get the Mexican vote and make America a far better country.

Buchanan is right. America is no longer the white Protestant stronghold it was and it'll never be that again. But that doesn't mean it should lose it's soul, it's historic Christian nature, the thing that has allowed it to prosper. In fact, I'd argue that to embrace Catholicism is to embrace true Christian thought and the philosophical muscle that tore down the pagan world.

Our real problems today are of a spiritual nature, not a material one. The material problem derives from the breakdown of Christendom. We've moved away from God and towards mammon. We've thrown aside the traditions that supported our society. And with them we've thrown away any chance of an ordered and productive world.

It doesn't make any difference whether America is white, black or brown. What does matter is that the ideals that America was founded on are preserved and applied. And those ideals are the ideals of Christendom, the ideals of the Catholic Church. Sure, they may have been brought here by Protestants but those Protestants were the beneficiaries of the 1500 years of Western thought that was developed by the Church and before her by the Greeks and the Jews, all the way back to Abraham.

Our system and the parties that benefit from it are corrupt. They've been corrupted by materialism - power and profit taking the front while the people and their God given rights and responsibilities are trod into the dust. The problem isn't the Mexicans or any other group that comes here. The problem is us. We've bought into the promise of material salvation and now we're going to reap the results of that decision in collapse and misery. America has become a hollow shell. We're no better than all the material wonders we advertise, all glitter and promise but nothing of substance.

We've gladly traded the transcendence and freedom of Christendom for the rot and decay of materialism. We follow Rand or Marx, both promising happiness through the material world. One holds up the corporation and the other the state, like a priest raising the Blessed Sacrament above the altar.

So get ready because like the Jewish people in the Old Testament we're about to reap the fruits of our disobedience and disbelief. We have free will and we can choose our own path. But there are consequences for choosing poorly. Salvation doesn't come from a material choice, from politics, power or wealth. It comes from a spiritual choice, choosing truth over lies.

We've made our choice and we're about to get what we asked for.

FOLLOWING THE LOGIC

Republican Security Council

STOP PLAYING THEIR GAME - FIGHTING THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE

It's time our side stops engaging these people on the left in this way and here's the reason why. We're playing into their strength, just as they want us to. We need to make our case, which we have, inform the government that we will not follow their dictate, which we have, move on and prepare for the arrests and other persecutions that will come.

By continuing to have these arguments, both in the Congressional hearings and on news outlets, we're allowing the administration to keep every one focused on social issues and away from the economic issues they fear most. In the end, I believe this is the real reason, or at least the primary reason at this point in time, for this attack on the First Amendment. It's mostly about re-election and getting us to watch the one hand while the other hand does the magic. Classic misdirection.

The best argument against the administration is to stand quietly against them. Just refuse to move. Now, they've tried to sidestep this tactic by making sure enforcement of their dictates won't happen until after the election. That's why they gave the Church a year to fall in line. So the way around that is to force the issue of government over reach but from different directions. Begin to exercise REAL freedom of religion. Speak directly against the administration from the pulpit. Draw the ire of the IRS and all the other dogs of government that will be set lose. Jab and punch but stay on our toes, bob and weave, don't let 'em rest.

Make them follow their nature and open the door to the real beast that they've kept bottled and in the closet. Let the people see what we've put into power. Not the sugar coated "social justice" - kumbya lie of Progressivism but the dark Hitler/Stalin reality. We'll never remove the cancer if we don't know it's there.

UPDATE ON GINGRICH AND WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Lifenews.com posted an article today with this clarification of the implantation issue by Gingrich:

"“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception,” Gingrich said in the statement. “I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.”

“That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life,” Gingrich continued."

I have to wonder if the most brilliant man in the room is really capable of being so clear and unambiguous in his comments regarding implantation only to turn around, and doing his best Emily Latilla, say, "Never mind!"

Something's just not right here. Either he was caught with his pants down and let the truth show or he's really not as brilliant as he'd like us all to believe. That the implantation remark could be just a simple foul up is impossible for me to believe, at least if he has any real convictions or principles regarding life issues.

And that's why I don't trust him. He's just another politician looking for votes and he'll say anything he has to or sit next to Pelosi on any couch he needs to if it'll help him get those votes.

In the end, all of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses. All I'm looking for is the one that is honest, that shows true character and that says what they believe and believes what they say. Gingrich isn't the one.