In view of all the political ‘hoo-hah’ nowadays, and in regard to the barrage of hypothetical situations and theoretical positions we, as Americans, find ourselves in; I would like to present a few hypothetical situations and theoretical positions of my own that are not, necessarily, backed by experts or scare tactics, but instead are backed by common sense.
Hypothetical situation #1
The first amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are denied their broadcasting license renewals on the grounds that a group of people consider their ideas weak, their morals flawed, their politics skewed, and their information false.
- Sarah Palin is required to refrain from any rhetoric that uses gun references or could be interpreted by an individual, who might be listening, to commit a violent act against the government or representative thereof, under penalty of law.
- Fox and Sky news networks are denied the right to broadcast by the FCC based upon their partisan bias and misrepresentation of fact.
- New laws requiring that website content be both “politically” and “factually” correct are enacted and millions of individual, thousands of organizational, and hundreds of educational sites are denied IP addresses.
If any one of these hypothetical situations becomes a reality, you can be sure, the other three are sure to follow. So you should consider the following, carefully, before you decide to make a stand against free speech in America.
- Conservative talk show hosts are not the only “bearers of false information” who have access to huge audiences. Keith Olbermann, Rachael Madow, Chris Matthews, Laurence O’Donnell, Bill Mahr, Joy Behar, and a host of other people on the left will be, similarly, unemployed.
- Hosts of political candidates, from state legislators to federal politicians would be bound and held accountable, under penalty of law, for the actions of individuals who ‘misinterpret’ their political metaphors.
- Say goodbye to any kind of researched news and hello to a, very cautious and timid, press corps that get their political oriented stories from Washington and Washington only.
- I’m wondering how many of those millions of users, who own the websites that would still exist such as the Huffington Post, would have to begin to moderate the comments that are received, silencing many more individuals?
Messing with the first amendment, that was created to allow a person the right to speak their mind and document that speech, has consequences that are not fully apparent such as: the right to publish a book or produce a movie; to the freedom of having a website to state your own opinions on a matter or have your own comments published.
Hypothetical situation #2
The second amendment of the Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
- In recognition of the fact that this Amendment is old and that the United States has the finest military in the world, legislation is passed that prohibits the sale of guns to the public.
- Those that have guns, rifles, assault weapons, and etc, have the option to either trade them in for stun guns or another non-life threatening weapon of their choice.
- All guns are to be collected by local law enforcement and a strict ban on these type of weapons will be enforced on law enforcement, as well as the public.
- If you are found with a gun, you are fined and/or jailed depending upon the offense and/or [if a] crime was committed other than possession.
I find it utterly fascinating that, with just a few statistics and charts, I can convince people that an inanimate object is responsible for personal behavior. After all, if guns did not exist, then there would no problem, right?
Well…. consider this and you decide :
- A firearm is a piece of personal property that was bought, taxed, and licensed. In order to confiscate these pieces of personal property, law enforcement will have to address gun owners who are not keen on the idea of losing their firearm(s). Can you imagine the amount of civil unrest and armed revolts this would cause?
- Aside from the fact that hunting with a non-lethal weapon presents several challenges, what stops the criminal element from obtaining firearms through the black market? Further, how much safer will you be when criminals “know” that most law abiding citizens are unarmed while walking around and at home.
- As with the drug war, you will see a campaign launched against guns with aggressive action taken toward the “Gun Lords”… and just like the drug war, for every gun dealer that law enforcement removes from the street, another five will appear.
- Treating the possession of a gun as a crime would result in higher sentences for felonies and jail time for repeat offenders, overcrowding an already overcrowded penitentiary system. Then, there is the question of, “who will pay for all these new incarcerations”? Answer; the law abiding citizen.
Though I have never had to exercise the right to bear arms, I have the common sense to realize why it was written as an amendment to the Constitution. If the State starts confiscating the personal property that an individual uses to hunt and/or protect themselves, their families, and their property with, law enforcement will start running into entire communities that are armed to the teeth and will fight back as hard as any nation on Earth to retain their property. The resulting bloodshed and possible civil war that could occur within the United States would leave the original purpose of the law unfulfilled, which was to make America a safer place to live.
Hypothetical situation #3
This hypothetical situation is a bit different than the other two and deals with many fallacies that have been preached by politicians in order to win elections, push agendas, become rich and famous, and be treated as royalty for the rest of their lives at the expense of the tax payer.
- You, as an adult citizen of the United States, are unable to keep up with the skyrocketing prices of health care and you can not save, sufficiently, for your own retirement. Therefore, the government will tax you for, and regulate payment along with the options available to you in regards to health and retirement services.
- You, as an adult citizen of the United States, are unable to understand the intricacies behind climate change, the pollution caused by drilling for oil and burning of coal, and the need to keep every species of animal on the planet from going extinct. Therefore, the government will tax you and businesses for your carbon footprint, seize land from States where animals or scenery could potentially be damaged or change, and offer more expensive, “green” alternatives.
- You, as an adult citizen of the United States, are unable to comprehend basic economics, invest wisely and securely, or sufficiently control your debt; let alone own a home. Therefore the government will tax you and create jobs, regulate the banks, regulate the market, print money, and give you some of your tax money back for buying a house.
- You, as an adult citizen of the United States, are [as a whole] fat, lazy, and willfully ignorant of the world you live in. Your children have become a reflection of this because you, as parents, do not care about your child’s education. Therefore, the government will tax you to feed and educate your children for you. We will even assist with college tuition funding (where applicable), for those who need it. New laws regulating the availability of certain ingredients, or amounts of ingredients, will be instituted to create a new generation of “healthy” and “energetic” Americans.
- You, as an adult citizen of the United States, are incapable of discerning the complexities behind government politics unless you have participated as a representative. The disbursement of finances among the various governmental departments and agencies is critical to YOU, the people. Therefore, the government will tax both privately and publicly employed citizens to continue to provide you with the things you desire.
Okay, relax and laugh… take a deep breath and remember, this is all hypothetical… no matter how “real” these situations may seem to you, they are only “real” because we keep giving them credence. Look – the government is full of people, some with good ideas, some with not-so-good ideas; but ultimately, they are like the currency we spend, they only have the power we give them. So I have one final series of related topics for you to consider when you take your own theoretical position.
- Both the subjects of health care and retirement security are issues that, for decades, have been both heavily argued and politicized. But if you think about this using nothing but common sense, you would realize that as the population of the United States waxes and wanes; the funding, similarly, waxes and wanes with tax revenues available for disbursement. Consider that, in the baby-boomer generation, there were more Americans employed in the private sector than there currently are, therefore, either the disbursement of entitlements wane or adjustments must be made in the taxation of the current working generation to make up for the shortfall. The opposite ‘should’ be true when the current retirement generation is smaller than the current working generation. Taxes ‘should’ decrease on the current working generation to adjust for smaller retiring generation. Even while social securities are invested by the federal government, the ever increasing cost of living offsets any gain. This has been the result of Social Security and is destined to be the result of the Affordable Health Care Act of 2008 for the exact same reasons.
- Two subjects that bring instant turmoil, between those of good conscience and those of practicality, are energy and the environment. On November 23, 2009, World News Daily reported that over 1,000 hacked emails were released to the public that proved global warming was a hoax. These same people, today, including the President of the United States, himself, are calling it ‘climate change’ and continuing in their motives through the EPA and several bureaucratic departments. They have seized state land in the name of the environment and ‘preservation’, demonized the fossil fuels and companies that excavate the very energy we depend on, and continue to fund costly ‘green movement’ projects at the taxpayers expense. To governments around the world, this has been nothing but an excessive tax excuse. Further, common sense reveals that there are many different energy sources to choose from in the market place. Alternative fossil fuel sources, however, they are expensive and prone to geographic boundaries or, simply, unaffordable to implement due to required national infrastructure changes. In a capitalist society, such as the United States, why would a person or company NOT compete with oil or coal if they could offer an alternative with better results? What would be the gain? Unless… you are involved in ‘Climategate’.
- Economics, especially macroeconomics, and ‘investment strategies’ are subjects that people spend an entire lifetime studying and still wind up stumped by the reaction of the market place.This fact has caused governments, businesses, and individuals, alike, to attempt to manipulate the market, in various and rather unscrupulous ways, in order to avoid risk… and while they manipulate the market, the average investor loses their savings. More importantly, these subjects have been used by politicians around the world, for as long as government has existed, for one purpose; support. It is pure rhetoric that is designed to make you vulnerable and emotional so you, hopefully, can not think clearly… and it works. If you detach your emotions and look at the subject of economics with common sense, you would begin to realize what you are being spoon fed, such as: “the wealthiest Americans are the only ones who do not pay their fair share of taxes”,”government is responsible for private sector job growth”,”unemployment benefits should last for two or more years”,”printing money that is not backed by the funds in treasury does not cause inflation”,and “entitlement programs do not create dependents”, are all fallacies created to make you believe something that is, quite simply, not true.
- The effect of the television, on an impressionable person, is quite startling when you stop and think about it. This “box” that is located in, almost, every home in America has been responsible for shaping the way the people think, act, feel, and dress for decades. From the political media that peddle their animosities to those willing to listen, to the teenage celebrities that set the next fashion trends; the television has become a powerful influence in the lives of Americans. It is through this form of mass communication that we have been told that Americans are fat, lazy, willfully ignorant in comparison with the rest of the world, and need our collective hands held by ‘experts’. However, if you remove the rhetoric and look at the facts, food is plentiful in the United States in comparison to MANY countries around the world. The United States has four times the highest gross domestic product export than the second highest leading country in the world and this does not even account for the standards, regulations, and costs that businesses must pay/adhere to in order to operate within the country. So to say that Americans are fat, yet, productive, would be a more accurate description. With regards to the assertion that Americans are stupid; if this true, who has controlled the education system in America that produced these “stupid people”? Who has passed legislation that has failed, time and again, to produce children who are interested in learning, and teachers who are interested in teaching? Finally, who is continuing to tax people for a service, while, simultaneously, telling people that it’s a bad service?
- You do not need to understand the complexities of politics to recognize when you are being forced to pay for something that you do not support or receive any benefit from. Further, you do not need to be a genius to figure out that, not only do rich people dodge income taxes, but that the poor are not required to pay income taxes and many receive addition “unearned” tax money. As a result, the middle-class are, unfairly, burdened with the cost of entitlement programs. These programs are a bane to every industry they touch and cause economic chaos within the marketplace. For example, Medicare is the #1 medical claim insurance denier in America. The demand, by government owned Medicare, that doctors accept Medicare patients at a discounted fee, that is far lower than the average insurance carrier, and that they see X amount of patients a day, has the same effect on the market place as uninsured patients who are treated and can not pay. It drives the cost of the paying customer up, and the amount of time allowed to spend with a patient down. As you can quickly see, putting millions of people on Medicare will skyrocket the price of private insurance carriers that are not backed by the power of the United States federal government and cause non-Medicare insurances to become unaffordable to the middle-class. And this is just ONE government agency that continues to wreak havok in it’s wake.
In summary, before you go believin’ that a politician can “fix yer woes”, you need to sit back and detach your emotions from the situation and ask yourself, is this common sense or am I being promised something that is “too good to be true”? Before you go believin’ that a news station is presenting you with ‘expert opinion’, ask yourself, “who is this person” and treat the stories you are fed with the phrase that Ronald Reagan adopted.
“Trust, but verify”.