The Myth of Free Speech

Whether it's democrat or republican, you will hear free speech often addressed. I'm not sure if either side truly believes in free speech. In Charlottesville, Virginia a small group of about 200, made up of neo-Nazis and average citizens, marched in protest to the removal of Confederate monuments honoring past war heroes. Many on the left believe those monuments represent traitors and slavers. I'm not going to debate that topic at this time.

The most concerning aspect, aside from those hurt, is the violence that happened because many on the left and some on the right didn't like the speech. It's hard to say who threw the first punch, but AntiFa and BLM were involved and both have a history of violence. When the police allowed the leftists to make contact with protesters, the outcome of violence was inevitable. Some believe the police encouraged this violence. We may never know exactly what happened.

Common Ground

I recently had a conversation about opposing ideologies finding common ground and willing to view problems facing both sides. Unless we are willing to open our minds to problems facing both sides, then we can never find common ground. No matter if people are left or right, they are still citizens and the Constitution and all laws apply to them equally.

We can take this to an extreme and point to the Civil War. There were two differences of opinion and neither side could find common ground. Because the country had a weak leader who couldn't find a resolution to problems, he resorted to guns. Unless something changes, the USA is once more on that same course.

The USA has two major ideologies and both have been conditioned to hate one another. Most of the time, each side wants all or nothing, whether it's gay marriage or drug legalization. Let's take a moment and revisit history and see what happens when both sides become immovable objects that refuse to change.

The mistake of government controlled morality

Belle Knox Duke student

I've written often about the word moral. I've talked about how it is too often used to support an argument. The definition of moral changes along with ideology and regional location. If you ask a leftist to to give an example they will likely tell you that that it is immoral for someone to be obese. If you ask a conservative about sex outside of marriage they will tell you it is immoral, even if that marriage was sanctified by a government representative versus a minister.

Morality has always been a social institution. In the USA, what is considered immoral in the south is often more accepted in the north – or west. In America's past it wasn't immoral to marry a 12 year old girl, while in today’s society that is absolutely unacceptable. In those times life was about surviving. Male children were thought to be more capable at cutting firewood and plowing fields, while too often the female child was seen as simply another mouth to feed.

Female children were married off at or near puberty. Sometimes much older males would pay a diary for the right to marry that child. Arranged marriages are still happening around the world. Some of it might be for the same reasons as in our past, while in many cases it happens simply because it is now a tradition – just the way things are done.

Social standards evolve for a variety of reasons. In the modern American society arranged marriages are seen as barbaric. In today’s world sex outside of marriage is much more common. In the not so distant past sex for women outside of marriage was forbidden while for men it was simply frowned upon. This is likely because it is the female that often bore the consequences for these liaisons. Out of wed births often stigmatized the woman and was too often a financial burden that was impossible to overcome. These pregnancies were also a barrier to future relationships. In short, the price for sex outside of marriage was too high. Because of science out of wedlock births are less likely to occur. While the financial burden for out of wedlock births are still a problem, it doesn't carry the social stigma of the past.

Do Nothing Congress – A Good Thing?

I have to begin by asking – are we worse off if congress never showed up for work? The 113^th Congress is being touted as the least productive in history. If that is the case then I declare a partial victory for America. A good year for congress would be if no new laws were passed and many were repealed. Speaker Boehner said much the same thing, but his actions tell us otherwise.

The Constitution requires only that each house of Congress meet once per year. Congress was never intended to be in session for most of the year. Being a Senator or Representative was never intended to be a full time job. It is because governing has become a full time job that they become corrupt. Politicians spend more time in Washington, DC than they do in their home districts. This is why they lose touch with the people for whom they were elected to represent.

Because they continuously live and work in DC, the Lobbyist become their friends and a part of social groups. It has reached the point that Congress is judged by how long they are in session and and by the number of new laws passed. With each Congress government grows. For those who want central planning this is a good thing. For those of us who want more power reserved for the states as designed by the Constitution – more Congress is a bad thing.

Duck Phil Platypus

Duck Phil Platypus is the perfect title for this article because the Phil Robertson story is one of the ugliest I have seen in a very long time. I'm not sure if by the time this fades into the twilight of news that anyone will have been correct. For the most part this is much ado about nothing. But since it has become something there is a lot that needs to be said.

Let's start by quoting some of his comments:

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Phil is referring to the days of share croppers and where blacks lived on the farms where they worked. Farms varied greatly, as did the houses in which the black workers lived. Some houses were relatively nice, while some were no more than roughly built shacks. This sounds to also be during the days of Jim Crow laws. Were southern blacks happy? Likely for the most part, but we must ask – Were they equal? Not even close.

A Look at The Gettysburg Address

Today is the anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Many see this speech as a great day in history, but every story has two sides. President Obama is being slammed for not mentioning God in his recitation. The reason could be simple, be chose one of the versions that didn't include the word 'God.'

I'd like to add a little commentary before listing the different versions below. Some of us don't see the Gettysburg Address as something great. Some of us in the south never saw this as a civil war. From the southern perspective it was an attack from another nation. I bring this up because either by force or choice we are today all Americans and we must always remember this period in history isn't always seen with the northern perspective.

Some might ask why this is important. The very words of Lincoln tell us why this is a topic that needs discussion, especially in today’s turbulent political environment. He said, “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, “ We must understand the meaning of liberty. True liberty is the right to secede. If states lose the right to secede there can never be true liberty. For a state held at the point of a gun there is no true liberty. This was no different than attacking nations in order to force our brand of democracy on them.

Today we have states threatening to divide, at least one seceding and joining Canada. There are others with threats of secession. If any of these secessions come about, will more people die while trying to achieve true liberty? Will the heavy hand of the US government use armed force to stop the will of the people?

"The government always has"

Frequently we hear people say, “The government has always done it this way.” when we hear that we should stop and take pause. That statement alone exemplifies the problems in this country. We have reached a time when the Constitution no longer matters and government picks and chooses which laws to enforce.

I was recently told that we should support flawed Bills and that the Executive Branch has always picked and chosen which laws they enforced. The argument to the latter was there are only so many resources and they must be allocated according to need.

Click to enlarge

If we have more laws than can be enforced, then that should tell us one thing—we need less laws or more enforcement. Enforcement is expensive, so that leaves only one thing, which is to have less laws to enforce. The chart shows we imprison more people than almost any country in the world. Many of these incarcerations are drug related. Too often violent criminals are freed through early parole in order to make room for drug offenders.

No matter whether you are for drug legalization or not, the country has reached a crisis point. Enforcement doesn't have the manpower to sometimes go after potential terrorists who entered the country illegally. We have Justice Department officials deciding which laws to enforce, and too often that decision is guided by political and ideological beliefs.

31st Amendment (Freedom tax)

This is in continuation of my article Eliminate the Tax Scam. The only way to solve the problem of runaway central power is take the one thing needed to support power, the right to collect taxes from the masses. The central government can force individuals at gun point to pay any amount of taxes they decide appropriate. I believe that gun would have less effect on state government.

I believe this is something people of all political persuasions might like. This doesn't eliminate many things the progressives like. A progressive state would be free to operate as they always have. This also goes for libertarian and conservative leaning states. If this country is to survive as a whole, power must be taken away from the central government.

Some are talking about opening an Article IV Constitutional convention. If states are to take that route, the 16^th and 17^th Amendments are at the top of the list to be repealed. I'm not sure that enough states would agree with the repeal of those amendments. I do believe that if the 16^th is repealed with my 31^st Amendment, then more states might be agreeable.

If you want to help refine and support this amendment, join the 31st Amendment Group.