Seth Hollist for Public Office.

Check out Seth's Latest News and Opinion editorials as the Collin County Independent Examiner.

---

Some day I hope to to run for office as a Moderately Conservative candidate that's more interested in doing what's right for his constituents, rather then selling out to special interest groups, behind closed doors dealings and a power hungry freedom grabs. Instead I find myself with a deep desire to defend the U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of trying to re-interpret based on what happens to be trendy for the day. I also don't find myself being particularly strong towards one party or another as they all seem to think they same type of government is good at all levels, as apposed to me, who believes that government has different rolls at different levels: for example, a Federal/National/World Government is there to set standards that insure the States work together as a single unified nation while protecting the nation as a whole from destructive outside influences; beyond this any Federal government should be very limited as to it's influences upon the States. The States should be more moderate in providing social services to it's people, and enabling the local and county governments to organize community efforts to look after each other.

This is in contrast to the Republicans who tend to like big government (even under Ronald Regan the size of the federal government grew in some ways) so long as it benefits free enterprise and their own "conservative" views of socially acceptable behaviors and morality. While I certainly think that a moral nation will be more prosperous with less social unrest, I believe more strongly in one's ability to chose for one's self, and do not believe any amount of government controls or laws can ultimately keep a society moral but should rather be focused on protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (but providing no guarantees to any).

My ideas also contrast the Democrats in that I do not believe it's the Federal governments roll to protect the individual, nor provide anything for them. Rather I believe these should provided on a limited basis by the States, and to a greater degree by local governments and communities. After all, it's not truly charity if you are forced into it, and I believe we would all be more generous, giving, and moral as a society if we had a bigger stake in taking care of our fellow neighbors, rather then paying someone else to do it for us.

If I could, I would be a member of the Constitution Party (they certainly think I am), on a national level if they didn't seem so self righteous about certain aspects of their party platform. However, on a State and local level, I would probably differ from them to some degree.

Libertarians have some good ideas, but they often take them too far and ignore the importance of some of the things that Federal government does to provide standards and order to the nation as a whole. They also ignore the importance of the Federal government being at least moderately involved in international affairs as part of it's efforts to promote world peace and protect the nation from destructive out-side forces.

The Green party is focused on things that I believe have been overly exaggerated. While I agree that having clean air and a clean environment improves quality of life for everyone, it has to be balanced with reality and a sense that Man is also a part of nature as the dominate creature on this earth. I believe we are meant to take care of this earth, and use it to our benefit while maintaining those uses and it's resources for the future.

Other parties just don't have enough of a presence in the political spectrum to have gotten my attention.

---

Check out some of my other posts on this blog:

The Clean Slate Amendment

Bad Gun Laws

Affirmative Action Abolished

Separation Church and State

The Importance of Self Governance

The Problem with Politics

Who's Rich Enough to Be Taxed

Bailouts R us vs. Inflation

My commentary on the 2009 Presidential Inauguration

Seth.Hollist.org Moves to Spaldam's Rants

- Posted by Seth Hollist

The Clean Slate Amendment

Pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, stating:

". . . on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . . by Conventions in three fourths thereof . . . of Ratification may be proposed . . . and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I call upon the Legislative bodies of the many States to demand a constitutional convention for the sole purpose of nullifying the following constitutional Amendments:

AMENDMENT XVII which states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the Legislature of any State may empower the Executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the Legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

AMENDMENT XXII SECTION 1. which states:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

And replace them with the following:

• Allow the members the Senate to be appointed by their respective State Legislatures, or elected at large by the citizens of the respective state, as to be determined threw passage of law by the respective state legislators.
• Disallowing the funds from any state, or citizen of one state, or entity of any state from funding or interfering with an election of any other state. Also preventing any Party, Faction, or Organization of any kind from one state from effecting the elections of another state threw funding, advertising, campaigning, or any other means to help insure those elected are elected solely by the efforts and funding of those they represent. It will be left up to the individual States to determine if such actions are also needed within their respective districts.
  
• Increasing the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives for the United States congress to at least double it's current number, of not more, so that the people they represent will have increased access to and familiarity with their representatives.
• Allow members of a Start Party to also be members of an unassociated National Party of their choosing without recourse or disadvantage.
  

Also, due to these constitutional changes, we must assume any and all laws passed in the last hundred years have not been done under a Congress with appropriate authority to represent the people of the United States that the Constitution clearly states are the true stewards of the government. Thus any Federal laws in affect or passed by congress, including bureaucratically created regulations and executive orders, before the passage of this amendment must be nullified four years following the ratification of this amendment, as would be demanded within the amendment (however, the enforcement of said laws shall not be affected for crimes committed while they were in affect). Also, said amendment must require that any new laws passed from that point forward must follow these guidelines:

• Each Bill must reference the specific clause(s) of the United States Constitution that grants the power of the Federal government to enact it into law.
• Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
• Every member of the House and Senate who votes in the affirmative for any bill will committed perjury if he or she has not attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
• Every bill to be voted on must be published for public display at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill. Exceptions must approved by both the Senate and House by a three fourths vote, and only in cases deemed a matter of national security.
• No Bill or Joint Resolution shall embrace more than one subject at a time, and that shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title.
• A Bill amending or revising a statute shall identify the statute to be amended by its Title or Number of Public Law, or Chapter or Section of the United States Code, and shall set forth completely each section or subsection as it would read if the amendment or revision to that section or subsection were adopted, noting clearly the proposed insertions or deletions to the existing statutory text.
• If an Act appropriating funds contains a provision outside of the jurisdiction of the relevant subcommittee of the House and Senate Appropriations committee, and therefore outside the subject of the bill, then such provision shall be void.
• All executive orders given by the President shall only be applicable to matters of national security, the armed forces, and the cabinet members of the President.
• Regulations produced by a regulatory body shall have no basis for criminal action if such regulations are not followed, unless they have been voted on an approved by the members of congress to make them official law.
  
• Passage of a bill, regulation, or executive order, that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court. Any person aggrieved by the enforcement of, or attempt or threat of enforcement of, an Act passed without having complied, or any member of Congress aggrieved by the failure of the house of which he is a member to comply with these requirements, shall, regardless of the amount in controversy, have a cause of action against the United States to seek appropriate relief, including an injunction against the enforcement of any law, the passage of which did not conform.

To insure judges are also held accountable to the people, congress shall have the authority to impeach Federal judges by the same manner and requirements for which they would impeach the president; on the basis as set forth in the constitution of "Good Behavior".

Shall we partake of the "ism"'s?

A video from 1948, that at time time seemed far fetched, but today it seems to be happening:

My Extremist Demands

Just as Glenn Beck did last week, I too am going to make a list of my "extremist" demands:

1. Pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Budget, except in times of war.
   Then give Congress some incentives to follow it, since they seem to have such a hard time with current constitutional law.
   
2. Revoke legal tender laws so that the treasury can once again coin real money, and give the Federal reserve the competition and incentive they need to control inflation.
   
3. READ THE BILLS
   And give the rest of us some time to do it as well, and give you some feedback on our opinions. After all we are the real employees of our representatives.
   
4. Stop trying to push socialized medicine down our throats - we cannot afford it, and don't want the government having that much control over our lives.
   Do we really want to reform Health Care, or is really about Insurance (or worse, is it really about control and power)?
   What we really need is for the Government to get out it's already heavy involvement in Health Insurance that artificially raises prices. Creating more government regulations will only make things worse.
5. Term limits and no more lifetime benefits for career politicians.
   Of course for this to truly work, you also have to revoke the 17th amendment, and then pass true campaign/party finance reform (not this McCain/Feingold crap that just makes it harder for everyone else to get involved).
   By real, I mean, you cannot allow California, New York and other "rich" states to influence the elections of other states, otherwise it doesn't matter who's elected because they will just continue the national parties objectives and continue to ignore what real people want.
   The only real reason for a National party is for the presidential election, so how about we disallow national parties from being affiliated with State parties, so states can actually elect people that represent the State; not the national party.
   
6. No New taxes! - this includes anything that will cause our energy, food, or other goods to go up in price (i.e. "Cap-and-Trade" and the hidden tax of inflation).
7. Return to the principles embedded by our "radical, extremist" Founding Fathers!
   Yes I do believe founding our government on the constitution is still a good idea, that is vital to the continued survival of our nation as we know it; but some people are more concerned about "Hope" and "Change". The only Hope I have is that enough people will wake up and realize that all the political change we've put our country threw of the last hundered years or so is going to destory this contry as we know it. It's way past due time to reverse course.
   
8. Stop the hand outs. If you work hard you should get reward for it, but if you're stupid with your reward, you deserve to fail and be poor so that you can benefit from learning from your own mistakes. The sooner we learn from our mistakes the sooner we can truly be prosperous once again.
   
9. Poor people deserves to survive on basic necessities threw real charity (not social programs forced on us by taxes) from their local neighbors and communities, but to truly thrive one must do something for one's self. After all is it really charity if it's forced upon you?
   
10. If someone does something criminal and destructive to society, they are NOT a good American, they are a criminal, and deserve to be treated as such.
    Why aren't they the one's rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure to "pay their debt to society"?

When will reality return to our nation, and allow realism to replace socialized fantasies of political correctness?

Universal Health Care Points to Consider.

This is a bit late, but I needed some time to think about it and compose it.... Here's my comments on what another political commentator provided to me as points for Government Run Health Care:



"1. No gov't control or gov't run health care system. I haven't seen the gov't run anything efficiently...including themselves for years now."

I totally agree. In fact we should lessen the amount of government involvement we already have in health care (and many other things). The Federal government already pays for the majority of all health care provided in this nation. This is the primary reason so many people want a reform, because it's getting increasingly more expensive for Government to continue paying for it. What the current proposals basically do, is take all the money insurance companies currently make to pay for a huge budget short fall that will happen in Medicare and Social Security over the next few decades.

From Dailykos.com:

"The old get Medicare, paid for by taxes. Those in the riskiest line of work, war, get the Veteran's Administration, paid for by taxes. The poor get Medicaid, paid for by taxes. Then we have those who are employed by the Federal Government, the States, the County, the towns. Their health insurance too, is paid for by taxes, although the tax money mostly goes towards the profits of the private health insurance companies. So tax money directly pays for medical care of the highest risk categories. We pay high profit to the insurance companies for the prime, low health risks of public employees. Put all the people together whose health care is paid by tax dollars already and we've got about 60% of the population covered."

Also watch the video of Congressman Mike Rogers posted here.

"2. Fed'l gov't eliminate the fraud that is in Medicare & Medicaid."

How? I agree, but it's not always that easy. From what I've heard it has been tried many times already, and I suspect it fails each time because of people playing politics. In fact my opinion is that a free society like ours will only survive so long as the majority of it's people are moral and honest, so I guess my answer would be more of a spiritual one then a secular or police state kind of answer. Having "leaders" in congress that don't show us good examples to follow certainly doesn't help.

"3. Tort reform. Put a cap on lawsuits, unless it is gross negligence by the doctor or hospital. Example, the soldier that went in to have his gall bladder remove and the surgeon removed his leg. Unfortunately, the soldier can't sue because his operation happen at a VA hospital.
4. Hold attorney (s) accountable for filing frivolous lawsuits. Disbar them after 2 frivolous lawsuits."

I think caps shouldn't be a set amount, but based on something like how the persons loss will affect their lively hood, or the livelihood of their family, plus reasonable lawyer fees.
Better yet, what I'd like to see is a broader reform of how lawsuits work in general. I've researched many situations (particularly around land usage - you know those dang ATV's, 4x4's, and speed boats. ;) ) were the plaintiff creates the situation that they then sue over, and since they have nothing to loose (especially when their lawyers are already paid for by the ACLU or the Sierra Club) they have no reservations about creating frivolous law suites. I'd like to see the defendants have a right to have a counter suit automatically entered as part of the same court hearings to pay for lawyer fees and time losses if the suite is shown to be frivolous, unwarranted, or possibly even for no other reason then the defendants win the case. It's easy to falsely blame someone else for something if you have nothing to loose yourself.

"5. Umbrella or co-op programs. There should be a regional, or on a national level a health insurance policy for Real-estate brokers, accounting field, retail, construction, IT, car repair shops, etc. It is getting to expensive for small businesses, to afford to provide health insurance for their employees."

Some would say co-ops are just another word for "government take-over". I need to understand them better myself, but I think the real answer is to get insurance for major medical, and then have a tax free health care savings account (similar to a 401k) that rolls over year after year, that your kids can inherit, to pay for everything else (and I'd use a broad definition of "medical use" that includes natural or alternative medicine if the person so chooses). Employers could simply be required to offer to contribute to the savings account in place of any other heath insurance they may offer (it's as simple as doing a direct deposit). It creates the same kind of competition that consumer driven spending has done for everything else to help keep costs down. If you decide to withdraw from it for non-medical use, you just have to pay taxes on it, and maybe some tax related fees.

"6. Allow insurance companies to cross state lines."

This is were the Federal government actually has power to get involved. If it stays within state borders, constitutionally it's NOT under Federal jurisdiction, but as soon as it crosses those invisible lines, it become inter-state commerce and is now up to congress to regulate and control it. Is that really what we want? More government involvement? This might be a good idea, but then again, it may no be.

Before there was insurance, it was up to the local towns to provide a doctor for the town. The doctors often didn't get paid much, but people who went to see them would often try to give them something to supplement their income. Hospitals were originally run by states or counties, and today we still see hospitals that fall under that category. I don't have a problem with private doctors and hospitals, but for those who don't have health insurance for what ever reason, can still get health care from these state and county run facilities that we still have today. The only thing I would say is that if they can afford health insurance based on their income, but don't have it, they should get charged for the care or be given the option to not be treated.

"7. Hold insurance companies accountable for honoring their insurance policy. If the insurance company has been caught not honoring their policy 100 (or a percentage) times, place a big fine on them and put that money back into Medicare."

I've never had this problem, but I guess a lot of people have? It seems like it would be a breach of contract if they didn't honor their end of the policy, which is already illegal. Do we really need more laws in the area, or better enforcement?

"8. Do not tax health benefits that an employer provide for their employees."

I agree, No New Taxes... didn't Obama say that already??? or did I misunderstand...

"9. For a family that makes below X amount, give them a credit on their income tax of X amount for them to purchase health insurance in a co-op program. I don't think giving a person money to purchase health insurance is a good idea, because it does not guarentee that the individual will use that money to purchase health insurance.. example. 1 in 4 motorist in Texas does not have car insurance."

How about we just overhaul the income tax code. Simplify it. Give everyone a bigger standard deduction, put everyone into the same tax bracket or tax them at the same percentage (anything more is arguably unconstitutional due to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 that says ". . .all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"), and a few basic other deductions for things that truly require someone to need to keep more of their own money to pay for basic bills and necessities (like have kids/dependents, or for rent or taxes on a primary residence so long as the residence isn't excessive beyond the average home).

"10. Increase payment to doctors that take Medicare patients."

I though this was the problem.. Health care is getting too expensive. If you ask me Medicare, and other government payouts for medical bills are half the problem as to why it's getting more expensive. Do we really want the Federal Government having anything to do with setting prices; especially on Health Care, which is arguably one of the reasons heath care costs are going up.

"11. All hospitals require proof of citizenship before they can treat a patient."

Personally I don't think we want people dyeing in the streets for any reason. I'd rather see them get treated or at least stabilized to a point were they can be deported/transported to a hospital in their own country. Then send them the bill, or send the bill to their country. Not that it'll get paid, but you never know. If they ever try to return, or even think about trying to get citizenship, make them pay their bill first. Of course for this to work, we'd have to improve our boarder security.

"12. Pharmaceutical companies need to be held accountable."

Sounds good, but do we have any good ideas on how this should be done, or were the real problems are to begin with? Personally I think a lot of drugs out there are unnecessary, but I'm not a physician so I don't take my word for it. I do believe that a lot of our aliments could be avoided in the first place by taking care of our selves, but for those who choose not to, and want to the drugs instead, who are we to judge?

"13. A pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions."

If we change the way we pay for heath care or how we obtain our health insurance, as I've commented on already, this will no longer be an issue.

"14. Have your doctor discuss with you and your family members about quality of life and your wishes. This should be up to each individual and not the gov't to decide if you should live or not or what the gov't will or will not pay for."

We all die, sooner or later, it's just a matter of when. (and no I don't think death is the end of existence - see: ). I do think that it's important to have the care available to a person if they chose to fight off a disease, but it should be the patients choice to decide if they want to go threw the treatment, especially if it has horrible side affects, or if they just want to treat the symptoms and make the best of what time they have left.

"15. Is health care an entitlement?"

No more then health Insurance is. It's not up to the government to make sure we are all caring for one another. It's up to us, and our local communities to do that. This has religious beliefs tangled in with it for me. Personally I do not believe that forcing charity on us threw taxes is really charity. True charity is done out of love for our fellow humans, not threw laws and governance.

If we want to make Health Care into an entitlement (just as it is with Medicare and Social Security today) then we need to be talking about a constitutional amendment, not a 1000+ page bill. In fact, I would say that Medicare and Social Security need the same thing, as I cannot find anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to administer such programs. According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, it becomes a State issue, not a Federal issue.

"16. Allow a person to take their health insurance policy to another state, or to another job."

See comments to number 5.

"17. Fine a person if they don't purchase a health insurance policy?"

Isn't tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and interest charges on top of that, for not having insurance for an emergency room visit, a big enough fine? If someone doesn't have insurance, or can't pay for a life saving procedure, that's unfortunate, but that doesn't meant they have to be treated anyway. As I've already said, we all have to die sooner or latter anyway, right? That doesn't mean we can help them be as conformable as possible until they are gone.

"18. Define what essential care is. There should be different age groups. Like anyone from 0 to 21 years old, 22 to 40 years old, 41 to 60 years old, 60 to 100 years old."

This sounds like rationing to me. The only rationing I want to see is if the patient can pay for it or not (or someone can pay for it for them), and if they want it or not. It should be the patients choice, with their doctors advice, and what their choice of insurance coverage that decides what gets paid for or not, not their age, or some arbitrary definition of "essential care".

If we really want to go down this road of the Federal Government guaranteeing "essential care" as an entitlement, then we need a Constitutional Amendment stating what essential care is, and how the Federal, State, and Local governments are to work together to provide it.
Personally, I'd say that State governments should provide essential health care services for things like emergency room visits, child birth, hospice care for those in the late stages of a disease that is believed to take their life, and possibly a couple other things. Preventative care, diagnosis, and other such things are not what I would consider essential, and nothing under this new amendment should be considered as compulsory nor should the quality of the care be guaranteed. If people want high quality care, ore preventative care, they should expect to pay a premium for it.

"19. If an individual is 65 years old and is still working, don't force them to drop their private health insurance policy to be on Medicare. Let the individual choose. John McCain said that if 3% of individuals that were on Medicare opt out of this policy, the gov't could save a tremendous amount of money."

Agreed... Personal choice and responsibility is the key to solving this mess, not relying more and more on the government. It's called being self reliant, but those in Washington who are drunk with power, know that the more the people rely on the government, the more power they gain over the citizens of this country. It's way past due time that we took back some of our own self reliance, and took away a great deal of the power of the Federal government.

A stimulating letter to Senator John Cornyn

I got an e-mail from one of my Senators this week asking me to reply to the question, "How do you think the "stimulus" package has fallen short?" Here was my reply:

Senator Cornyn,

Thank you for you're question about the so called "stimulus bill and other failed initiatives that have passed threw congress recently. I hope you will take the time to personally read my thorough response.

It seems to me that you voted for a "stimulus" bill late last year. I urged you not to. Not because I didn't think there was a problem (there obviously was/is), not because I didn't think something needed to be done (I still think something does need to be done that isn't even being considered currently), but because I know it isn't wise to give people billions of dollars who mishandled a great deal of money in the first place. As we have since seen the money has not even gone to the very purpose it was meant to, but instead as gone to fill to coffers of those who came asking for the handout in the first place!

Now you've sent this request for comments, I can't help but say "I told you so", but you didn't listen. Apparently you are listening now, so let me tell you what should be happening. And I hope you can see it as I do, not as an opinion, but as a matter of constitutional law and authority.

I believe every single member of congress has violated his or her oath of office to uphold and defend The Constitution. I would love to get elected to congress myself so that I could start presenting cases as to why all of you (including President Obama, all of his zars, and at least half of the supreme court justices) should be removed from office, but as it is right now, I'm too busy working hard to do the right thing, and support my family; including my two 10 month old twins. Not to mention that the current election laws just make it too time consuming, expensive, and right down impossible to do so with out an army of bureaucrats and lobbyists assisting you. Perhaps you could pass a new "stimulus" bill to help "stimulate" more direct participation in government from you're constituents that employ you.

I would exhort you to spend some time reading and studying The Constitution as I have and especially pay attention to the 9th and 10th amendments. They used to be a valued part of the constitution, but today they might as well not exist. Also, try to find anything in The Constitution that authorizes federal bailouts or social programs of any kind.

I understand there are a lot of tough battles to be fought in Washington right now, which is all the more reason why we need strong people who will stand up to those who are violating our constitutional and God given rights (see the Declaration of Independence while you're at it, and pay attention to the part about our "Creator" and the rights he gave us). People of the highest integirty who will NOT compromise on doing what is best for their constituents, within the bounds set forth by The Constitution. Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy, and the majority cannot do anything they want just because they have the largest voice, rather they must follow the rules and laws as they are, and the foundation of those laws in this contry is The Constitution.

Please start fighting for a return to our core Constitutional foundations an give the people of this country and opportunity to make us a great nation once again.

- Seth Hollist

Is All "Fair" in socialized government?

While reading comments on my HOA's on-line discussion forum lately, I've noticed a lot of people have been complaining about getting notices because their garbage cans weren't in the correct location. Seems silly, I know, but from the HOA's standpoint, it's all about being fair and insuring nobody is devaluing the neighborhood with a trashy looking house.

It seems to me that they should be a bit more intelligent about it. If the real goal is to protect the value of the neighborhood, then is a trashcan being out of place really a problem? Shouldn't they really be looking for houses that have a number of violations; like lawns getting to long and full of weeds along with trashcans or cars on cinderblocks? On the other had, they need to be "fair" don't they? Or do they? Can't they just single out the obviously troubled homes, or would that be discriminatory?

Is it really about being fair when you go around and blanket the neighborhood with notices for people who claim they were just cleaning out the garage at the time, or mowing the lawn and need to move the trashcans so they weren't in the way? Is it really fair that Neighbor Joe Shmow is sick this month and can't take care of his lawn, so he gets a notice or two? To truly be fair, wouldn’t we have to go around and talked to every violator to see what the circumstances were related to the problem, and then determine if the deserve a violation notice or not?

This line of though may seem silly, but isn't that what the “Liberals” are all about? Making sure the rights of the people are fairly protected and properly analyzed? Is that even possible? When you start heading down this path, you start to see some crazy things happening; things like the appointment of Czars.

What you end up with when trying to be “fair” to everyone is an attempt to be all things to all people; and ultimately being fair to no one. That's exactly what our current U.S. government leaders are trying to be; the end-all-be-all of healthcare for all U.S. Citizens. "Let's make sure the poor and cared for," or "Lets make sure the rich don't have any un-fair advantages." How about the one were we say everyone had a "right" to proper health care, because it's only the fair thing to do, isn't it? Or is it? Where in the constitution does it say the Federal government even has the right or responsibility to provide health Care?

How do you think it is that our government has gotten so schizophrenic? Every time a spending bill comes along, every senator, congressmen, and even presidents seems to want something added to it for their constituents and supporters. What you end up with is a spending bill that tries to be all things for all the people. It gets very expensive that way, and sets a very "liberal" standard when it comes to our government's spending habits.

It always starts small. We need to do something for the poor people, or we need to so something for this or that minority. As one group gets something for nothing, another group decides to get in on the action and sets up a campaign. For the U.S.A. it kind of started with the Great Depression (although I’d argue it started a bit earlier then that) when we setup Social Security and later setup Medicare. Today that model of helping others has gotten out of control and is threatening to bankrupt the Republic. Now that we are supposedly fighting of another depression (I don’t know how less then 10% unemployment equals the 25-30% we saw during the great depression) and it’s being used as a tactic to once again allow the government to become increasingly more socialized. It’s taken almost a hundred years, but the Republic has almost been completely replaced with a socialistic government.

What if instead we stopped trying to be all things to all people, and allowed the people to decide for them selves what they need. Give them the freedom and ability to work for it, and obtain it on their own. Give them the freedom to give help to those in need, and ask for it when needed; instead setting an expectation that their taxes will force them to pay for someone else to do it for them (that’s a lot more expensive then just being helpful within your community). What if my HOA, instead of hounding everyone about ever little thing would instead coordinated help for those like Neighbor Joe Shmow? How much smaller would the government suddenly become as the need to pay out all this money in the future would disappear.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the U.S. federal government would stop trying to be all things to all people, and instead try to be the bearer of basic standards and national defense. Let the states worry about the more socialistic aspects of government in such a way that we encourage local communities to work together to make this world a better place.

Personally, I'd prefer to see my HOA stop nitpicking over trashcans, and focus more on the park bench that's been broken since last year, and the swimming pool that has a broken water fountain. Sure I want my property values protected, and troubled homes dealt with, but not in such a way that my neighbor get a notice about his trashcan just because he was trying to clean out his garage or mow his lawn.

Personally, I'd rather not have a health care plan pushed down my throat just because the Vice President thinks that spending more money will somehow save us from the future of an unaffordable status quo.

Death of a Republic, Long Live Socialism.

"Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry." -- Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Sure, the government will tell us they need to push this health care plan right on through because it's what we need. We can't have little kids without armpits running around uninsured now, can we? Poor little Sally Muckenfuch has no eyelids AND no insurance. It's horrifying. So quick! Pass this 1,000 page legislation before anyone can think about it! In the off chance you do want to think about it and find out what this plan really means --- and what it's really about -- see Glenn's review of the plan. ( Transcript)

If you're worried about how complicated a government run healthcare system will be -- don't worry, this handy flow chart should help.

Glenn reads through just a few of the thousands of personal stories regarding the new health care proposals, and the pattern is clear: this Health Care plan is a job killing machine. Read the stories from radio today. (Transcript)

The new Health Care plan will eventually force the sun setting of all private insurance.

---

I wrote some letters to my U.S. Representatives in the house and the senate. Here's what I had to say:

Please introduce DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA). You can find the text of the legislation here:http://www.downsizedc.org/osta-legislation.shtml
When things like the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filing a hate crimes amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill come up, I can help but feel outraged by such underhanded idiocy. What does a Defense Authorization Bill have to do with Hate Crimes (Aren't all crimes hateful in some way already anyway)? If we could only find some way to keep such things from happening, such as requiring the title of a bill to actually describe it's contents, and forbid anything from being in the bill that doesn't match the title.

You don't need to redesign the American health care system in one giant step. Instead, please start by passing a law that would permit me or my employer to purchase health insurance regulated by other states. This would make major medical coverage affordable for millions of Americans, by allowing people to sidestep the special interest coverages mandated in many states. (Canned statement by DownsizeDC).
Less government involvement in Health care is the real answer, not total control. You can't fix a problem by making it bigger, any more then you can fix a blotted government by giving it more control and power over the people.

I am aware that the federal government has future unfunded liabilities estimated at $101 trillion. Please stop ignoring this problem. Please start reducing spending now. Balance the budget now. And start retiring the debt now so you can stop spending so much of my tax money on interest charges. (Canned Statement by DownsizeDC)
Replacing Medicare with "Universal Health Care" will not solve this problem. It will only make it much much worse. It will destroy our republic which I love so dearly.

Aren't all crimes hateful? They why do we need a separate law that tries to determine what we are thinking or feeling while committing a crime? Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed a hate crimes amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. Please don't let him get away with this underhanded backdoor dealing that messes with our Nations Heros ability to do their job.

Judicial Nominations

• Sonia Sotomayor has been giving lip service to make her self appear like a Justice that would truly uphold the constitution; however, her actions tell a different story:
• She claims to be opposed to using other countries' laws, however, just last April she stated that "nothing in the American legal system stops us from considering the ideas that (international) law can give us."
• She agreed with Chairman Pat Leahy that the 2nd Amendment was an "individual right"; however, she was part of a judicial panel that ruled the 2nd Amendment does not apply to states and that it is not a "fundamental right."
• Ms. Sotomayor said that judges should not "prejudge," despite her statement in 1994 that "prejudices are appropriate".
• Sen. Kohl falsely stated that Ms. Sotomayor was overturned by the Supreme Court only three times. In truth seven of her decisions have been overturned--three in this year alone!
• Justice Sotomayor is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. Please do not confirm her nomination.

I would encourage everyone to wright their representatives with their own thoughts and ideas. All this only took me a few hours to research compose and send. Doing that even just once a month, or even better, once a week, would make a big difference in letting our representatives know we are watching them, and make us much better educated voters so we can take our country back. It is after all a government, for, of and by the people. If We the People aren't involved then we have only ourselves to blame.

Proposition 8 hits home

Proposition 8 survived the courts, but new lawsuits have already been filed that may find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court (FRC comments) where a potentially new "empathetic" judge could be waiting.

And the Homosexual agenda is being pushed in other states as well:

"New Hampshire lawmakers unexpectedly rejected a bill on [Wed May 20, 2009] that would have made the state the sixth in the United States to authorize gay marriage.

The state's Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after its Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines. An earlier version of the bill passed the lower chamber on March 26."

- Thomson Reuters 2009

What ever happened to what I used to hear a decade or two ago; that they just wanted tolerance? It turned into a plea for so called "equal rights", and is now ending up in a demand that we give them our blessing. It's one thing to tolerate something you find contrary to your core beliefs while having empathy for those who struggle with it, but it's quite different to be required to approve of the behavior.

---

NARTH released a comprehensive overview of 125 years of scientific literature on this topic: "The evidence overwhelmingly refutes the claims . . . that change is impossible, attempting change is damaging, and there is no reason to change anyway, because homosexuality is harmless."

---

My previous comments on this issue:

---

The LDS Church just released a statement that It made no monitory contributions to the "ProtectMarriage.com Coalition", but did file a report showing "in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58".

Read the Full Press Release here...

Further, the LDS Church has posted commentary on it position over Proposition 8...

Also see this article showing that this is entirely about protecting Marriage and NOT about persecuting people because of their lifestyle choices.

---

I grew up in a less then idea family setting. My mother was sick, and wanted nothing to do with my father who wasted all of his savings and our livelihood to help her; only to later have no choice but to end the marriage. My brother and I were deeply affected by it. I went looking for love in all the wrong places, and my brother has had a great deal of struggles in his life; including his choice for a homosexual lifestyle. I can't say for certain if his choice is directly linked to our troubled childhoods, but I can say that he, and I, have had many difficulties in our lives that likely could have been avoided, or at least lessened, if we had been raised in a better home environment.

I've never agreed with my brothers lifestyle choice, but I have always called him my brother, and always wished I could help him in some way. I've even at times wondered if my childish behaviors towards him, when we were younger, were to blame for some of his problems, but he once told me that they didn't. I sometimes wonder if we fully understand how our childhood experiences might have affected us.

My brother has been part of a group that wants our commonly shared church to change its views on same-sex marriage; which is something our church would never do as the very idea goes against some deeply held church doctrines. It's been one of the hardest things for my brother to deal with and certainly one of the biggest areas that we disagree with each other on.

More recently I found out that one of my cousins also struggles with homosexuality, but seems to me to be dealing with it better then my brother has been (not that it's an easy thing for either of them to deal with). My cousin has an interesting statement about the issues surrounding California's Proposition 8:

While I'm certainly a supporter of traditional marriage, I've often wondered what business government has in an institution that I believe should be purely religious in nature; however, I also feel that without the few laws we currently have protecting and supporting traditional families, we would be much worse off then we already are.

In the LDS Church's publication "The Family:A Proclamation to the World" it also warns of problems that come to society when families are destoryed: ". . . we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

It's understandable to me why so many in my own and other churches see homosexuality as a great threat to traditional families and society in general, but I also hope that we don't get so caught up in any of the threats facing all of us today, that we loose sight of how important it is to have a Christ-like attitude towards our fellow men.

---

Was (s)he born that way? Was it environmental?

I don't know, and I don't believe focusing on those questions helps deal with the real issue. The truth is that we all have struggles in our lives; whether they are caused by environmental issues, physical traits, genetics, or even the personalities and desires of our spirits, we all have them (some more so then others).

I've heard of studies claiming to show that certain genetic traits "cause" people to be one way or another, but is that really an excuse for violent behaviors, serial killers, rapists, or even homosexual behaviors? Certainly it's clear to most of us that these things are big problems to a society trying to promote peace, tranquility, and good family values; however, is homosexuality really a problem and/or detriment to society?

In a secular society that tells us to "do what feels good" to be free and open with our sexuality and express ourselves freely, homosexuality certainly isn't going to be viewed as a problem, any more then fornication or "sleeping around" would be. So what's the problem with all of this, if everyone involved is a consenting adult?

I could argue about how more and more of our younger and younger children are being forced into knowing more and more about sex and so called "safe-sex" practices as they are bombarded by the sexual innuendos of our society as it tell us to "do what feels good", and I could talk about how pornography and disrespect for our bodies promotes many of the other socially destructive behaviors I mentioned before; however, I don't believe these arguments even being to tell the real story of what all this does to destroy our spirituality.

How does homosexuality play into all this? We'll any kind of sex out-side of marriage is called Fornication. It's a sin spelled out in black and white in the bible (see: Exodus 20:14; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20. Also see: Alma 38:12; 3 Nephi 12:27–30, and look up Chastity). So would allowing same-sex marriage fix that aspect of homosexuality so it's no longer a sin?

It might if it weren't for one other very important thing: the nature of Marrage as ordained by God (see: Gen. 2: 24, Matt. 19:4-5, 1 Cor. 11: 11, Eph. 5:31, and D&C 131:2). Marriage is clearly stated through out the bible, and other scriptures, to be between a Man and a Woman, but it's much more then that (or at least it should be). It is a convent that is also made with God. One that can lead to great happiness, not just in this life, but in the life to come. Two men together, or two women together, cannot obtain this level of exaltation. One must have a spouse of the opposite gender to truly enjoy the eternities. Why? Because this is the way families work. They will not endure the eternities in any other way.

In fact, when it really comes down it, it truly is all about family, and not just our families here on this earth, but our larger family that we are all a part of, resided over by our Father in Heaven. A family we were part of before this life as spirits, and one we will continue to be a part of after this life, if we chose so.

- We are not mere mortals trying to have spiritual experiences, rather we are spiritual beings having a mortal experience.

Department of Homeland Security warns of "rightwing extremist activity"

The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a report last week called "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" that paints with a very broad brush what a "rightwing extremist" is. In reading the report, it would seem that every person in this country could potentially be classified as being "rightwinged", or at least as far as most of the sane normal people I know are concerned.

A recent FRC "Washington Update" says:

"With more than 500 local tea parties scheduled for tomorrow's tax day, trouble really is brewing for this administration's economic policy. . . The revolt is sure to attract plenty of attention, including, it seems, that of Homeland Security. In a shockingly biased new report, the Department warned law enforcement officials to be on the lookout for "rightwing extremist activity" with particular focus on those who are "dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion..." Before long, taxes will be on that list too. Our Founding Fathers repeatedly warned Americans to resist government encroachment. An active citizenry is the best safeguard against tyranny. Conservative activism, including the brand on display tomorrow, may be a threat to current government officials--but not to Homeland Security."

Perhaps what Homeland Security really needs to put out is an analysis on how U.S. Government policies over the last few decades have created a situation were the average freedom loving Christian that made this country great, are being disenfranchised and villainized. These policies include things such as:

• Unconstitutional gun control and bans on self defense (usual made in the name of "safety")
• Tax laws so confusing that nobody can understand them let alone comply with them
• Laws that serve only to protect special interests and politicians
• National, state, and local government debts that will burden our grandchildren's children and is well beyond what we will be able to re-pay.
• Immorality and a lack of integrity in what little leadership we have left in government.
  
• "Activist Judges" more concerned with their agendas and personal opinions then about the rule of law and the constitution and undo our election processes
• Real ID's that proved the government with a crucial stepping stone towards further controlling our ever movement and socializing our economy.
• etc...

Every day I hope for a peaceful turn around in the U.S.A. that will bring us back to our Constitutional roots, and every day it looks more and more like we are instead headed for a the next revolution. I hope that the Tea Parties result in continuing, growing activism, but fear they will merely be another "Random Act of Liberty".

As Glen Beck put it on "Beck Talks - Episode 6" The Media will most likely paint the Tea Parties with a "rightwing extremist" view point. For that very reason I sincerely hope every one of the hunderends of Tea Parties planned for tomarrow are peaceful and otherwise uneventful.

I know some people are saying that this is just a warning about extremists, and perhaps that was it's original intent; however, be warned this is the exact kind of attitude that enables governments justify enslaving it's people. Much less has been used to justify Holocausts, Genocide, and totalitarian governments.

Washington Times Comments on the HS report

Explanation of Fourms of government

I always considered myself a Moderate, but when I first got involved in Politics, I was surprised to have so many people say I was a conservative. How could this be? Had the spectrum of liberal vs. conservative shifted so much that I was now a conservative? So I though for a while until my friend posted this on his blog:

The most important point this video makes is the one of Democracy vs. Republic. When I was in grade school I was told that our government was a Democratic-Republic. These days you hear everyone talking about the U.S,. is a Democracy. They're both wrong.

I've alway felt that we have the freedom to do as we please so long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights.  Government is a way to help define were the line is between one person's rights and anthers.  Were those lines are draw are typically determined by the governors, who in turn are typically elected by the people.  What the constitution does for us is setup rules for the governors to follow; regardless of what the people may want.  These are what we call representation and rule of law, and they are the essence of what a Republic is.

In a Democracy majority rules, that includes mob mentality and inevitably a government doing things its people don't have the right to authorize the government to do; such as unjust imprisonment of "undesirable" people, etc.  This is a big part of what the Bill of Rights are about. Making sure the U.S. Government, that is "Of the People",  does not pretend to be given authority from the People for which the People do not have to give to it in the first place.

In other words, if  I shouldn't do something that violates your rights, because I don't have just cause for doing so, then how can I authorize my government to do it for me?  Since the U.S. government is "Of the People" it cannot gain any authority or take away any rights, that it's people do not have the ability to give away themselves.

For example, I cannot take your money from you and give it to a poor person, no matter how worthy I feel the cause is.  Therefor I cannot authorize the government to forcefully take money from you and give it to some government "Charity" or bailout program.  I may give the money myself if I so chose, but you cannot. We may decide that in order for our government to function for the common good, we need to have a certain level of taxation, but beyond that does the government really have the right to use those taxes to benefit special interests, specific groups or even private entities?  Is it really even charity if it is forced upon you?

I say no, because charity isn't the act of giving alone, it's also requires a desire to give.

It didn't work for Japan, so why will it work for us?

Another "stimulus" bill is about to be passed, and once again I find myself wondering why they don't just give every tax payer in America a 4-6 thousand dollar bonus on their tax returns this year. That would likely do more to help the little people then a law laced with things like a government healthcare plan that lays the foundation for government controlled "Universal healthcare" that will instruct your doctor as to weather or not you're worth charging your insurance company for a much needed procedure. Not to mention it would give the money to the people who's children are going to have to eventually pay it back one way or another.

Is this stimulous package really even needed? Obama says we are as bad off as it was in during the Great Depression, yet today we have less then a third the unemployment rate as was seen during the 1930s. Though that's still close to as many people (a difference of about 2 million people), it's still only up a few percentage points over what it was a year ago, and still much less then it was in the 1980's. Certainly it's hard for those who have lost their jobs, but its a far cry from the days of the Great Depression; but that information doesn't seem to have reach President Obama's ears as is evident with all his negativity towards the economy.

The vast majority of us are still working hard, doing our jobs, and still wishing the government would, stay out of our lives and let us keep more of our hard earned money to pay for the rising costs of energy, education, and overall general costs of living. This recession we are in, is actually helpful to those of us who are now in a good position to go buy that heavily discounted new car, or to enjoy the bargain shopping we saw at Christmas time.

Will this so called "stimulus" package really help? The New York Times recently published a piece called "Japan’s Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson" by Martin Fackler who states:

"In total, Japan spent $6.3 trillion on construction-related public investment between 1991 and September of last year, according to the Cabinet Office. The spending peaked in 1995 and remained high until the early 2000s, when it was cut amid growing concerns about ballooning budget deficits. More recently, the governing Liberal Democratic Party has increased spending again to revive the economy and the party’s own flagging popularity.
In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations."

I agree... Spending money on government social programs will not fix the economic situation we are in, and may actually make it worse via huge government debts and potential inflation if all that money the Federal Reserver is "printing" eventually gets pumped out into the economy.

What will help? How about re-instating may of the Banking regulations un-done under the watch of the Clinton and Bush administrations, and cleaning up the financial mess that de-regulation caused (for which we've already passed a huge spending bill to do - and yet they still haven't used it to do what they originally said they would use it for).

If you gave someone a lot of money to do something you felt would help you, and they went and spent it on something else, would you give them more money just a few months later when they came asking for it? And yet, we the people voted to keep the Democrats in control of Congress (that's right, they have been in control of congress for the last 2 years). Go figure...

- Posted by Seth Hollist

Enumerated Powers Act & The 10th Amendment

Arizona State Legislature HCR2024 - sovereignty; tenth amendment.

New Hanpshire State House Concurrent Resolution 6.

The 10th Amendment is the most over looked amendment in the U.S. Constitution based on laws passed by the U.S. Congress over the last century.  Arizona and New Hampshire appear to have started figuring it out, how soon before the rest of the country does too?  Well, actually an number of ther states have already passed such resolutions.  According to the New Hampshire resolution this includes: Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia.  Places I find to usually be more accepting of larger and more liberal government.

Both resolutions point out that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

Basically this means that in order for the U.S. Congress to pass a law, there must be something within the U.S. Constitution that allows them to do so.  This is why I'm in favor of John Shadegg's 'Enumerated Powers Act'.

What laws have been passed over the last century that violate the constitution?

Let's start with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  It forced people to accept a private entities bank notes as legal tender, going against what the constitution says in article ?? section ?? that it's the job of Congress to coin money and set standards.  I don't think the Federal Reserver would be unconstitutional if it wasn't for the Legal Tender laws surrounding it.  Of course we'd have a very different financial structure in this country if that were true.  I'm not sure the Federal Reserver, nor the U.S. Governments current money creation and spending sprees would survive under that kind of a structure.  On the other hand would the even be necessary at that point?

Where in the constitution does it give the U.S. government the right to administer social services such as Social Security, Medicare, or educational bills like No Child Left Behind? Simply put, it doesn't.  Although it does give the power to congress to set standards and provide oversight, it certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate to the states how to go about providing those services.  Not to mention the $53 Trillion dollars those services are projected to cost over the next few decades (could this by why the Fed want's to inflate the money supply - so they can out grow the problem threw inflation).

And these are just a few examples...

- Posted by Seth Hollist

U.S. Presidential Inauguration 2009

I've always considered myself to be someone of a moderate and yet still rather conservative in many ways. Despite the supposed liberalness of Obama, while listening to the Presidential inauguration this last week, I found many of his words to be particularly inspiring and truthful.

In particular he said, ". . . our economy is badly weakened - a consequence of . . . our collective failure to make hard choices . . . the challenges we face are real.  They are serious and they are many . . . but know this America, they will be met.  On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear.  Unity of purpose over conflict and discord . . . the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to re-affirm our enduring spirit, to chose our better history, to cary forward that precious gift, that nobel idea . . . that God given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness . . . greatness is never a given.  It must be earned . . . it has been the risk takers, the doers, the makers of things . . . who have carried us up the log rugged path towards prosperity and freedom . . .  these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked until their hands were raw, so that we might have a better life . . . this is the journey we continue today.  We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth . . . but our time of standing pat, and protecting narrow interests and putt off unpleasant decision, that time has surly past. Starting today we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begging again the work of re-making America.  For everywhere we look, there is work to be done . . . some question the scale of our ambitions . . . there memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done. What free men and women can achieved when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage . . . Our challenges may be new, the instruments with witch we meet them, may be new, but those values upon which our success depends: honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism; These things are old.  These things are true. They have been the quite force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility . . . we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world. Duties that we . . . seaze glady.  Firm in . . .  giving our all to a difficult task . . . God bless the United Stats of America."

He stressed a need for unity within our nation to help fight off rumors and threats of our downfall.  I found a glimmer of hope that our federal government might get back to the things it's done best over the last century, and away from things it has done poorly.  Certainly many of the ideas he mentioned in his speech were debatable as to how effective or appropriate they will be, but I hope that he will have an objective and constitutionally sound view of what will work, and what is appropriate.

I still have a great deal of concern for many of the things I've heard are in Obama's agenda, but the more I get to know him, the more I find myself hopeful that he will make the right decisions to enable our country to stay hard at work; keeping it the greatest country on this earth.  He even talked about staying true to the values our founding fathers tried to instill into our government, and the hope that staying true to those values will allow America to once again be good example to other nations; ultimately making the world a safer place.

Leaders from my own church were present at the inauguration and expressed similar sentiments:

Church Leaders Attend President Obama’s Inauguration - LDS Newsroom

I was particularly pleased that Obama allowed God to be present at this event, and showed respect to the Almighty in many way; even though not as strongly as other presidents have in the past.

I'm sure as the next four years carry on, I'll find plenty to disagree with Obama on, but I also pray that we see this country make great progress down the right paths.  I find myself agreeing with Obama, that it will not happen without hard work from all of us, which reminds me of the famous words of JFK:  "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country".

- Posted by Seth Hollist

My letter to Obama

Although I do worry about some of the things Obama has on his agenda, that most Democrats (who now have majority control of congress) will likely support, I actually have found myself felling better about him then Mr. McCain. I never liked McCain (even being a moderately-conservative republican-leaning voter) as a presidential Candidate and never thought he had a chance at wining.

I actually ended up doing a protest vote for Baldwin (Constitution party) to express my dislike for the options (and wish more people would do this instead of voting out of "fear of the other guy" or simply not voting) as I fell my voice is heard more clearly this way.

I think Obama will actually turn out to be more moderate then some are painting him to be, but I'm also sure I'll find plenty to disagree with him on.

My suggestion is to all of you is to go to his website http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory and tell him your story. Be polite and honest, and you may be surprised at the kind of influence you can have towards affecting the kind of change you want to see. You likely won’t get exactly what you want but you’ll be much closer to it then what you'll get just sitting around and complaining about it.

Here is the letter I wrote:

---

I've always believed that life is hard. By this I don't mean malicious, but rather challenging. I've also learned that the things that are most worth living for are the things we must work hardest to archive, or that require the most work; such as faith, family, good friendships, and a prosperous career (yes in order of importance). For this nation to be great, the people in it need to be great, and that means a willingness to work hard to earn the things that are most worth having. Our society today feels too entitled to things they need to learn to work harder for, and then get rewarded generously for their hard work. The greatest generation in the country (40's & 60s), came out of the hardest times this country has ever seen; because they learned to work hard for what they had.

The roll I'd like my federal government to play in this, is simple yet effective regulation to insure that not only corporations are prevented from taking advantage and usurping power from the people, but that governments are also prevented from interfering with our ability to work hard to earn and keep the tings we work for.

I'd also like my government to focus more on the nations infrastructure, national defense (not necessarily foreign defense) and basic standards related to commerce and business; in such a way that it enables the individual to do a better job at archiving the goals they see best for themselves. I believe that as our government steps back, leaving behind opportunity, the people of this nation will find their ability to stand up and fill those opportunities; while having minimal government assistance to insure the people can take those opportunities they are not taken advantage of, through simple but affective regulations.

I believe the constitution of this great country has enabled this country to be great, so long as the people in it are willing to be great; however, it has been walked all over in the last few decades by both sides of the isle, judges who misinterpret it based on their own agendas, and the people who have willingly accepted laws that aspire to regulate and control our freedoms. From this has come some of the biggest problems this country faces today. Basically I see the main problem as an oversize federal government controlled by bureaucrats, special interests, and over-sized monopolistic corporations, that usurps powers that according to the 10th amendment belong to the individual states and the people. I believe our gun regulations and criminal laws are already stricter then is necessary to discourage criminal activity and may even contribute to the delinquency of otherwise law abiding people. This not to diminish the federal governments responsibility towards oversight, but certainly this oversight needs to not be so overly intrusive. The real answer to our social problems is not more regulations and laws, but to untie our hands and enable the people to step up and do what's right for their families and their communities.

Fiscal responsibility is also a big concern of mine, and I strongly disagree with the "Bailout" loans that have been given over the last few months; especially because it's causing a nearly 1 trillion dollar spending deficit - the highest in history - even when accounting for inflation. If there's one thing that I believe will dis-stabilize an economy and cause increasingly larger fluctuations in inflation/deflation and prosperity/poverty it is an economy fueled by debt with the unreasonable expectation of consistent future inflation; usually forced upon us by huge increases in the money supply through deficit spending, international borrowing, and printing of new money. This benefits the rich and the large corporations, but tends to only hurts the people this government is supposed to protect.

I must admit, President-Elect Obama, I did not vote for you, but I also did not vote for McCain, as I feel both parties have lost touch with the "average Joe". I truly hope that the change you endeavor to bring to this country will help enable an improvement in the life and livelihood of the "average Joe".

- Posted By Seth Hollist

The end of the world as we know it?

I don't know about you, but I feel fine...

Elections are over and the people appear to have spoken in this certainly historic event, but how historic is it really? Certainly the U.S.A. has overcome a very dark chapter in it's history, and helped to realize the dream of Martin Luther King Jr., or so one would think that Affirmative Action no longer needs to be compelled upon us.

In the first few days after the election, signs of racism reared its ugly head, as a few hateful people vandalized and protested over President-Elect Obama, just because of his skin color. Others have also shown fear towards Obama's expected agenda that is expected to be very liberal and socialistic, as illustrated by a drop in stock prices the day after the elections. Many in the largely conservative state where I live have been out buying guns and ammo for fear that Obama will support initiatives to make them much harder to get; or possibly even try to take them away. Many also fear his socialistic programs and how they will affect the economy. I've even heard people go so far as to call Obama some kind of Anti-Christ. Of course I have a slightly different view of what/who is the ultimate Anti-Christ.

The big question I have is what can we really expect to change? Will we see the government stop spending billions more then it takes in? Will we see it become smaller, simpler, and more in favor of the people, rather then special interests? I don't see how with Obama's promised "Universal Health care" and the already 50+ Trillion in future obligations thanks to Medicare and Social Security; not to mention the friends he keeps that would cause anyone else to fail a top security FBI background check.

The last 8 years, with one of the most liberal Presidents we've probably seen since FDR's "New Deal" (especially for a supposedly conservative Republican) we've seen:

* The largest new entitlement in decades -- the prescription drug program
* Social engineering like "No Child Left Behind"
* Gutting of constitutional liberties in the name of "Homeland Security"
* Running-up vast deficits

Will Obama undo any of these? I doubt it. In fact I expect these things to only get further reinforced and promoted under Obama, and the now even more dominantly controlled Democratic Congress (they've had control for the last two years). Maybe we should have elected McCain? We'll actually he supported most of these things too. In fact most politicians support the same thing: bigger and more intrusive government as promoted by the special interests that pay for their election campaigns.

Who really voted for Obama? Out of about 300 million U.S. citizens, about 2/3 are eligible to vote, but only about 65 million of them actually voted for Obama. Is that true representation, with only about 1/3 of eligible voters actually voting for the new President-Elect? Is Obama really what most people in the U.S.A. want, or is he just the guy who convinced 7 million more people to vote for him then the next closet Candidate? My question has always been, "How do you get the 1/3 of the population that rarely votes to come put in a protest vote for an alternative party, so that their voice may at least be measured in some way?" I really don't care who they vote for, so long as they vote, even in protest so that we'd have some way to measure their discontent.

Despite all the doom and gloom that so many seem to think is just around the corner, and the fact that my vote for President sat along side just over 100 thousand others (less then 1% of the overall vote), I really don't feel a need for panic (I also voted for a handful of republicans, and for the first time a Democrat - because I was too upset with the 700+ Billion bailout to vote for the republican incumbent who won anyway).

I survived the Clinton gun bans (it really didn't ban guns, but rather cosmetic appearances and insignificant features), and bought my first guns when the ban was still in force. I live in an area that is booming economically, and were housing prices have actually gone up about 1% in the last six months. Why is all this? It's called stability. We didn't have unruly housing price increases fueled by risky government programs, we didn't have a work force entirely dependent on a single industry that has been hit very hard, and we have a truly conservative grass roots base. Not to say we don't have problems, but I get calls almost every week, off a nine month old resume posting, from recruiters asking me if I want to leave me cushy job for one that's out of state.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly have seen the signs that the economy has been weakening over the last couple of years (since the Democrats took majority control of Congress), and I do believe things could get much worse, especially depending on what Obama decides to do with his first priority of the economy.

The truth of it all is that the world is always changing, and often times that means some people have to find new jobs or even new careers. Other times is due to the constant threats of "wars, and rumors of wars" (JST Matthew 23-28). Despite what might go wrong, I try to remember the words of Christ that run rampant through the scriptures: "Fear not" for "the triumphing of the wicked is short". Personally, I am not afraid.

We should be more focused on the positive things in this world, such as: even with Democrats having majority control of Congress, they still don't have a supper majority that would allow for filibuster proof control; also, this control is only guaranteed for the next two years, when the people of this country - who after a long drawn out and highly televised election cycle have a much better idea of how to get involved early enough that they can truly make a difference - will have a chance to elect someone who truly supports them, instead of being left to choose between the lesser of evils.

On another positive note, at least as far as us traditional family supporters are concerned, the made up need for "gay rights" has had a very definite line draw in front of it. California for the second time has spoken out against same sex marriages, this time with an amendment to the states constitution, as dozens of other states have also done in the last few years.

Gas prices are down to their lowest this year, interest rates are once again at their lowest in history (although I don't think that's really such a good thing), stock prices are no longer over-inflated and some are even bargain priced. We can expect other prices to also come down as shipping and transportation costs also drop, and people lean up on their spending to hopefully start paying off all their debt. Some companies may even start making a prophet again as their expenses drop, and help with unemployment (although it still has a ways to go to hit the high of the mid 80's and much further to hit that of the Great Depression). Many of the financial companies have also hopefully learned their lessons about risky lending practices which should also help them to become stronger in the long run (if the government doesn't screw it up again).

". . . see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." - Matthew 24:6.

- Posted By Seth Hollist

---

"Left Protests the Church's Winning Ways" by Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council - Nov. 7th 2008:

". . . The [LDS] Church's donations, estimated at roughly $22 million, fueled the hundreds of ad placements across the state that ultimately tipped the scales in the amendment's favor. Yesterday, 2,000 homosexual activists vilified the church, huddling outside the gate of an L.A. temple with profane signs and rainbow flags . . . At LDS headquarters in Utah, leaders called for a ceasefire with gay activists and "goodwill" on both sides. Unfortunately, that message has yet to stick with the "No on 8" crowd, which has lashed out with unprecedented aggression against the faith community . . . Once again, the Left is proving its unwillingness to practice the very "tolerance" they preach. FRC is proud of the example that the interfaith community has set on marriage. . ."

The LDS Church also Issued a statement on Proposition 8 protests

As well as a fallow up askingfor civility.

- Posted By S.J. Hollist

Who will I vote for?

A couple of weeks ago our bishop read a statement about voting in the upcoming elections.  It reiterated the neutrality of the church in regards to political parties, while urging everyone to "to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government."  The LDS Church also affirmed its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues (i.e. Apposing Same Sex Marriage).

So who am I going to vote for?  Obviously I can vote for the arguably most popular candidate among Mormons to appear in this years presidential election, Mitt Romney, and unfortunately for me, he was the only candidate from both major parties that I personally could stand to stomach.  Mitt certainly wasn't my perfect candidate, but then who is?  Probably nobody, until I miraculously get enough experience to feel qualified for the position myself.

So who will I vote for.  Certainly not Barack Hussein Obama as I don't believe the federal government is the right place for all the socialistic ideas he has in mind (maybe he'd be better for Governor of a highly socialized state on the East cost or California).  Does that leave me with John McCain as my only alternative, despite his disregard for truly conservative values?

What about everyone else?  My congressmen voted against the $700 Billion bailout, but I've found myself disappointed with his leadership in so many other ways. Most of the Senators voted for it too. To make a long story short, I don't feel like the current government functionality, nor the two major parities, truly represent me or the kind of government I would like to see (i.e. a much more conservative federal government that does a better job of controlling spending and inflation, while putting the responsibility for social and welfare programs onto the States and local governments with minimal over-sight).  I also see a lot of parallels between our country today, and the Roman Empire before it started it's decline.

The only cure I see for this problem is to let Obama win.  Not because he gets a huge majority of the vote, but rather because McCain looses the conservative vote to alternative parties, proving the distaste the true conservatives now have for the way the Republican party has conducted itself over the last seven years.  This will either destroy the Republican party, making way for a new and truly conservative party, or force the Republican party to come back to it's roots within the truly conservative base.

I feel left having to vote for an alternative party.  The Libertarians will be on the ballot in my area, but I don't feel they really represent my views either.  The Constitution party has been my alternate for many years now, but they were not able to get enough signatures to get on the ballot this year in my state.  Chuck Baldwin will have to be done as a write in, but how does that work in this electronic voting age?  Last time I used the new electronic machines, it didn't give me a place to do a write in, nor did I even have a simple piece of paper to write on.

The only thing I know for sure is that I refuse to vote for any incumbents, that includes Senators McCain and Obama.  I might vote for Sarah Palin, but doing so will not allow my voice to truly be heard as it will actually show up as a vote for McCain.  In other races, I'll have democrats to vote for, giving me an excellent way to vote against the incumbent, but I've never voted for a democrat before, and I don't feel like this is the best time to start.

What I'll probably do is ask them when I show up at the polls how to do a write in.  I'm sure they give me some rhetoric about write-ins having to be registered, so that they show up on the machine anyway (what's the point to doing a write in at that point? - I guess we'll see).  Next, it'll be up to the Libertarians, and possibly writing myself in somewhere if possible.  What's left I might leave blank or perhaps I'll swallow the harsh pill and vote for a democrat in this highly republican controlled state.  Finally I'm voting no on all proposals (especially if it increases my taxes) and no on all judges to make my protest complete.

Am I throwing my vote away?  I don't think so.  I'm trying to get my voice heard, and that is the most important thing we can do when we vote.  Voting for the lesser of two evils will not accomplish this, but rather cause your vice to be drowned out. Both of the major parties will try to scare you out of voting for anyone else.  "A 'third party' or independent vote will only cause the worst of the choices to get elected," is what they will tell you.  I'm sure you've heard it all yourself; I know I have. The truth is that making a decision based on fear is never a good way to make up your mind. Jesus himself said to "Fear not, believe only" (Luke 8: 50). If you believe in having your voice heard, you MUST vote for the person who best represents you; not necessarily the one who has the best chance at winning. To truly "throw you vote away", means you have not had your voice heard the best way it can be.

Near the end of the 1700's being dedicated to a party was equated to loyalty to a private selfish faction that stood in conflict with the public good. These Parties today continue to drive division between Americans, and the last time a major party was replaced by a newer one was when Abraham Lincoln was elected to President as the First Republican Party President. Civil war followed. George Washing himself warned of such loyalties has he voluntarily left office after his second term as President. He easily would have won another term, but he knew of one other truth; absolute power in the hands of imperfect men will certainly corrupt them.

Today we have two parties that hold the vast majority of the political power in the USA, a notion contrary to the principle of separation of powers that the US constitution was designed to prevent. This countries loyalty to these factions has undermined this very principle, and that is the real problem with this country today.  Its time to vote against them, and clean out the corruption in Washington.

Here's is another interesting article on the subject.

- Posted By Seth Hollist

The Answer to Financial Problems, the Banks, and Everything

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power." -- Benjamin Franklin

Thanks to U.S. Citizens speaking out against the purposed 700 Billion dollar bailout for banks stuck with bad mortgages, at the cost of the tax payers, the bill has failed. Unfortunately, Congress is at it again thanks to the fear and hast that some in the financial world are trying to poor out into the minds our representatives and leaders. Congress is now trying for a 850 Billion dollar bill full of pork belly spending and once again making the taxpayers reasonable for all the risky mortgages that banks were all but forced into, thanks to bad laws.

Is a 700 or 850 Billion in new liabilities to the already trillions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer liabilities really the answer?

That is basically the equivalent of around $6,000 dollars per U.S. income-tax payer.

I think I have a better answer. One that will cost the U.S. tax payer a lot less, directly help every U.S. tax-payer, and give the people who are hurting the most the most help. Not to mention this is a simple four point plan with no pork, nor complex long term obligations requiring a new bureaucratic entity to manage it for us.

1. U.S. treasury to send out tax vouchers to every U.S. taxpayer according to 2007 tax returns. These vouchers would not be directly redeemable by the tax payers them selves, but would essentially be a blank check with a maximum value of $6,000 payable to their mortgage lender. If the tax payer has not mortgage, they can get some benefit from it as described in section 4.

2. The Voucher would be filled out by the person it was issued to (non-transferable) for an amount of either:
a) 1 months mortgage payment for one mortgage (most likely their highest monthly payment),
b) if they are two or more months behind on their payments, for the amount required to become current on their mortgage payments (up to $6,000).
c) Those with adjustable rate mortgages can use it towards the cost of refinancing to a fixed rate mortgage (up to $6,000).

3. These vouchers would be required to be accepted by their mortgage lenders as payment towards the respective mortgage, as described in section 2. The payee would then attach these vouchers to supporting documentation that proves the amount the voucher was filled out for is accurate, or showing why it is not accurate and what the correct amount should be.

4. The vouchers and the supporting documents would then be filed as an addendum to the mortgage lenders 2008 tax returns, and counted towards an equal amount in tax credits; up to an amount not exceeding their total tax liability. If Voucher was not eligible to be given to a mortgage lender, it could instead be used by the tax-payer as an addendum to their 2008 tax returns for a tax credit of $300 per person listed on the tax return (i.e. dependants or married persons filing jointly).

This plan would help lenders get payment for mortgages that are behind, allow those who are behind on their mortgages to catch up, and free up some spending money for everyone else to help boost the economy. The poorly managed mortgage companies who truly deserve to go under still would because of liquidity problems (but the Federal Reserve could certainly provide them with short term low interest loans to cover them until they file their tax returns), as this is not an instant fix (any more so than the 850 billion dollar bailout). It however would bring some added relief to the concerns of many big bankers who have tightened up on lending thus allowing the money to start flowing once again between banks and financial institutions.

To follow up on this, congress would also have to cut back on spending, and get rid of a lot of non-critical programs so they can balance the budget and make up for the loss in tax revenues that would inevitably follow. As I tried to point out in my last post, a balanced budget, for the federal government, state government, local governments, and personal households, is essential to a fighting inflation and stabilizing the economy.

---

P.S.:
Congress also needs to re-instate the regulations that had been in place since the passage of the Banking Act of 1933; as they were undone with the financial reformation law in 1999 (no thanks to Clinton and the members of congress that passed the bill). We also need to rethink the "Community Reinvestment Act" (passed in 1977 and revised in 1995, and 2005) as it promotes risky lending practices.

I also received an e-mail from a relative of mine with another interesting solution to the financial problems that really doesn't require much of a bailout at all, and has some good ideas in it; however, but I am a little skeptical of the math and some of the claims presented with this idea:

I. INSURANCE
a. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:

1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.

a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.

2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps under performing executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.

c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.

II. MARK TO MARKET
a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.

III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stockmarket in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down.

I have a few problems with this plan, but I also like a few things about it:

1. Government backed insurance would most likely cost less then a full on bailout, then but it's also part of the problem that created this whole mess, and insurance companies (like AIG) are hurting too. On the other hand, if this doesn't help, the insurance could end up costing even more then the bailout would, with no assets to recover any of the cost.

2. I agree with the two points that mortgage companies need to do. I would hope they would do them without any government incentives, as they would help these company avoid a lot of losses through foreclosures and high payrolls for employees that aren't giving much back in return.

3. Mark To Market needs to be done away with permanently, not temporarily.

4. Removing the capital gains tax completely would save some tax payer some money, but it would reduce the income tax revenue, making it harder for congress to balance the budget, especially if they have to come up with $50 to $850 Billion to insure bad loans. What we really need are better and simpler regulations on wall street to better insure that company stocks are actually worth something, and not just another way of creating funny money for companies that don't really produce anything worthwhile.

---

P.S.S:

“True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late.”
-- Ludwig von Mises (HT: Matt Kibbe)

Right after the bailout passed, they finally told the truth about it...

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday that the financial rescue package is a "tourniquet,"

On Friday, Obama called it "culmination of a sorry period in our history."

Yet even today, Obama seems to be ignorant as to how his own parties leaders were greatly responsible for creating the environment that allow all this to happen.

Hold on to your wallets folks, inflation is on it's way up again, maybe not today, but certainly sometime soon in the future.

Find out who the primary benefactors of this huge bail out are by clicking here.

According to Downsize D.C. 91 (out of 199 - or 45%) of Republicans in the house and 172 (out of 235 or 73%) of Democrats in the house voted for the bill dubbed as the "Wall-Street Bailout"  (The Democratically controlled Senate was about 3/4 in favor of the bill over all). However, according to Hillary Clinton, you'd think the Republicans were somehow entirely responsible for it, despite Democrats having a majority in congress for the last two years. (I heard her say it myself on the radio - I'm looking for an actual link to her speech and will post it if I can find it - which I can't because nobody in the mainstream media will publish it).

- Posted By Seth Hollist

Bailouts R us vs. Inflation

“At this point, Congress is being asked to support an uncertain entity, costing an uncertain amount of dollars, for an uncertain duration – a decision that will have implications for generations to come and requires absolute certainty.”
– Congressman Jeb Hensarling, TX, and Chair of the House Republican Study Committee

To truly understand what is going on with the financial problems of the U.S., you must first have an understanding of where it all started. Hopefully I will do justice to this complex problem in such a relatively short explanation. Be sure to follow the links for more detailed information. The most important factor to help determine where it started requires a lesson on how the value of the U.S. monetary system has changed over the years; which can easily be seen by looking at inflation trends.

According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/:

What cost $1 in 1800 would cost $0.58 in 1913.
If you were to buy exactly the same products in 1913 and 1800,
they would cost you $1 and $1.76 respectively.
That's an average of -0.51% inflation per year.

Money at this time was based on precious metals, so a dollar in gold was by definition, a dollar in gold, according to Congressional standards (see the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5). The negative inflation was due to technological advancements that allow products to be made more efficiently.

Historic Gold value was at or near $19.3939 from 1800-1833 and $20.67 from 1879-1932.

What cost $1 in 1913 would cost $4.09 in 1971.
If you were to buy exactly the same products in 1971 and 1913,
they would cost you $1 and $0.25 respectively.
That's an average of 7.05% inflation per year.

Historic Gold value was at $35 in 1934 and 44.2 in 1971.

What cost $1 in 1971 would cost $5.07 in 2007.
If you were to buy exactly the same products in 2007 and 1971,
they would cost you $1 and $0.19 respectively.
That's an average of 14.08% inflation per year.

Historic Gold value was at $126.3 in 1973 dollars and over $900 in 2008 dollars.

So what happened in 1913 and 1971?

In 1913 U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, on the heels of the 16th and 17th amendments. All three of these go hand in hand, but those who may have orchestrated this would have made sure history only thought it was the latter of the two that go together (along with the 18th and 19th amendments as part of the "progressive area"). In fact most people I've talked to, think the Federal Reserve wasn't created until the Great Depression possibly as part of the Banking Act of 1933. This is simply not true. The U.S. Congress even investigated the Federal Reserve for causing Black Tuesday, which stared the Great Depression; Instead of admitting guilt, and blaming government intervention, for flooding the market with paper money (ultimately causing artificial inflating stock values), the leaders of the Federal Reserve took the opportunity to grab more power through additional legislation and regulations that they hoped would allow them to stabilize this new system of paper money. For more information on this I suggest a book called The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Before 1971, the U.S. dollar had for the majority of its existence, been backed by precious metals, with only a few brief periods when this policy was suspend. After WWII, the U.S. had the largest gold reserves in the world thanks to European nations being highly in debt and transferring large amounts of gold into the United States. From that time on, the U.S. treasury would give one ounce of Gold for every $35 dollars as a foreign exchange rate to other nations, (as part of the Bretton Woods Agreements). Private ownership of Gold, in the U.S., was also outlawed during this time. On August 15, 1971 President Nixon, because The Federal Reserve had printed too many dollars for which there was not enough gold - at $35 per ounce - to back it up with, Nixon put an end to the Gold Standard. Of course the reasons given had to do with the Vietnam war that was currently going on, and the need to raise funds for the war; however, with Gold reserves down to 22% of the outstanding dollars (the dollar was tremendously overvalued with respect to gold), and Nixon wanting more dollar bills printed, one or the other had to be done away with.

For more information on this history and why it caused inflation rates to dramatically increase, see:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

(please note: I'm not a die-hard "Ron Paul supporter", but he has some good information and ideas).

In the 1970's the cost of oil skyrocketed, most likely because the U.S. dollar was no longer backed by Gold. The overseas oil producers obviously wanted more dollars for their oil since they could no longer get gold in exchange. The Federal Reserve had printed too much paper money, and as we all know, thanks to natural laws of supply and demand, the more you have of something the less it's valued. This, according to some, has forced the U.S. government into doing drastic things to protect its supply of Oil, as well as to hide the true cost of inflation. Technological advancements have made some things much less expensive, but real commodities, like those made with real metals and other natural resources continue to become increasingly more expensive as inflation goes up.

If it wasn't for trade deficits sending much of the newly printed U.S. Dollars overseas were it gets saved up and taken out of circulation, the inflation within the U.S. would definitely be much higher, due to more money saturating the U.S. economy.

Over the last few decades, the Federal Reserve has simply printed more money every time the U.S. government runs a deficit on spending. This all works by the U.S. congress authorizing the creation of Bonds, which are then sold to investors, many of whom are overseas, but many of the bonds are given to the Federal Reserve as a way to back the dollars they print for the government. In other words, our monetary system, since 1971, has no longer been based on something of real value, but rather on the future obligations of Taxpayers (thanks to the 16th amendment) to pay back those debts. In short, our monetary system is based on usury.

This new ability to more freely print money allowed our government to more easily pay for all sorts of things, including wars, and huge bailouts of failing financial institution, corporations, pork belly spending, earmarks, and even foreign entities; essentially making the government for the government and for the corporations who get the bailout and make money off the wars. If it was truly for the people, they wouldn't be putting financial obligations on us as tax payers and would be providing laws and policies that help us keep our individual wealth instead of having it confiscated through taxation and inflation.

Here are some examples that help further explain our current "crisis":

Congress passed something called the "Community Reinvestment Act" in 1977, resulting in the creation of bureaucratic regulations designed to encourage, or even compel, financial institutions to make loans to people with lower incomes. In the 1980's, thanks to the massive devaluation of the dollar, and past deregulation that allowed Savings and Loans to make consumer and commercial loans and to issue transaction accounts, the savings and loan crisis occurred. This essentially ended up in a bailout by the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve to the tune of about $124.6 billion (more then twice that when adjusted for inflation) directly paid for by the U.S. government (meaning tax payers), which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. Proponents advocated that without these bailouts the U.S. monetary system and economy would have collapsed, but what it did instead was put more money into the money supply, creating more inflation; and it did nothing to stop the recession of the 1980's).

Unfortunately we didn't learn our lesson, and the 1977 lending regulations were amended in 1995 to encourage further lending. Then in 1999 Clinton signed into law what essentially equated to a deregulation on banks and financial institutions that undid much of the Banking Act of 1933; allowing banks to own other financial companies including insurance and investment firms (Practices that had been outlawed because they were believed to be big contributors to the stock market crash on Black Tuesday). This, along with the ability to greatly inflate the money supply, setup the beginnings of the financial crisis the U.S. is facing today.

In the early 2000's, after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. bailed out the Airlines with justification that it was necessary to maintain our ability to move goods and people throughout the nation, so that our economy could keep moving, and we could keep paying our debts. Once again this money came primarily from the government in the form of more budget deficits, and the inflation of the money supply. Other corporations, like Bowing, were also bailed out in the process. However, the airlines still haven't fully recovered, and we likely would be better off with lower inflation, and having the poorly run airlines go out of business; allowing the stronger airline companies to be much better off than they are today.

In efforts to further boost the economy and simulate growth (code for inflation), once again in 2005, the 1977 mortgage regulations were amended to create different rules for institutions of different sizes, so that various kinds of institutions would be better able to meet the government's goals for fostering home ownership in lower income communities. To make it easier, the Federal Reserve starting making loans available to the banking systems at extremely low interest rates which also encouraged inflation due to the easy at which money can be re-let, essentially creating more money (and inflation) based on the "assets" these loans created for the banks.

Over the last few years, the U.S. Federal Government has been spending money as if it was going out of style, and incurring the highest deficits in history. This of course has caused more inflation that almost everyone is now starting to notice in a big way. Just as in the 1970s, oil prices are skyrocketing, gold prices are rising fast (and have hit historic highs - not adjusted for inflation), and are expected to go higher. Food and other commodities have also been affected, and it's become increasingly harder for families and businesses alike to balance their budgets and to pay their mortgages. Of course this trend has been going on in a big way since the 1970's when a single family income was the norm. Today it takes most families two income to live the same lifestyle their parents did, and we could certainly debate the effect that has on the kinds.

With cheap housing loans available, financial institutions had been lending money to people who couldn't afford it. It caused an increased demand for housing that sent home prices spiraling upward. The Fed's policy of easy money, and laws forcing lending institutions into risky loans, falsely inflated the value of all real estate, especially in places like California, Nevada, Florida and others, were the housing problems are extremely difficult. This means that good mortgages could not be used to manage the risk involved in questionable mortgages, because the value of all homes are falsely inflated. All of this is coupled with banks spreading their investments too thin, artificially inflating stock prices, and a booming economy based primarily on an unsustainable housing boom. With banks also involved in insurance and financial dealings, other financial sectors have also made risky investments while competitively pushing insurance prices down thanks to the cheap loans; greatly reducing the companies cash flows. This has once again forced tax payers to bailout even more financial institutions or the economy would supposedly crash and burn like it did on Black Tuesday.

"It started with the $60 billion Bear Stearns bailout, followed quickly by the $300 billion bailout of government’s big mortgage/banker buddies last month. September started with the massive Freddie/Fannie bailout that will end up costing taxpayers somewhere between $500 billion to $1 trillion. On Monday, the Federal Reserve brokered the Bank of America buyout of Merrill Lynch. Then just the other night, the fed announced the $85 billion bailout of AIG insurance" - Chuck Baldwin

In the mean time Congress snuck through an additional $25 billion bailout of Detroit automakers, and today Washington Mutual was just ceased by the government to then be sold off, seemingly in the same day, with the likelihood of more government expenditures threw the FDIC. Today we are talking about another huge bailout to the tune of 700 Billion Dollars threw the creation of a new government entity control by the U.S. treasury to buy up bad debts. Sure they are making promises today that they will eventually regain much of the dept this would incur on the Taxpayers, but even if we do get the money back, will it really do anything to fix an economic problem that has been around for decades? All the other bailouts don't seem to have helped prevent this, so why should we believe that another bailout will?

For more information on how got here, into this mess, see: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/what_you%27re_not_being_told_918


Will this "crisis" destroy the U.S. Economy? In the Great Depression 40% of homes went into foreclosure. Today the foreclosure rate is only 6%, and the trend is toward fewer foreclosures not more. The fact is that some politicians, bureaucrats, and various hysteria mongers, are misleading us. They tell us that the market is frozen, but the fact is that commercial loans are at an all-time high, and even the number of real estate loans may be higher than they were last year! Further expanding the money supply (creating more inflation) through all these bailout "loans" - causing the largest spending deficient in U.S. history - will only make it more difficult, in the long run, to get the whole situation under control. Sure they might help in the short term, but what’s the real solution to "fixing" this "crisis"?

From http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/this-would-be-simpler-than-a-bailout:

Financial Accounting Standard 157 is a regulation imposed on businesses by the quasi-private Financial Accounting Standards Board (FAS). This rule is also incorporated into the regulations of the IRS and is further enforced by the SEC and the FDIC. FAS 157 requires businesses to mark down assets to the lowest price for which similar assets have been sold in the market. The jargon term for this regulation is "mark-to-market." Mark-to-market forces good securities to be valued at the same price as bad securities.

Another solution might be for the greedy banking system to accept some losses and work with the lendees they allowed to barrow more than they could afford, to reduce their rates, put some of the interest already paid towards lowering the principle owed on the loan, and essentially giving them an affordable mortgage payment.

Others have suggested that we simply let these banks go under or rely on already existing mortgage insurances that were required in the first place on many of these high risk loans. Or are those insurance companies failing as well because they invested all their reserves into these high risk loans? Certainly the Insurance companies have some responsibility in this matter. They've made billions from people who have been forced by law to pay them. AIG just got an $85 billion bailout loan, hopefully so they could cover their obligations in this matter. Has it helped? It doesn't seem to have. On the other hand, the banks can't really make an insurance claim until they've foreclosed and auctioned off the property, and know what their actual losses are. Also many of these loans didn't even have PMI to begin with as they got around it with 80/20 loans. In the mean time the bank's and mortgage lender's cash flow has becomes limited, and the whole banking system in the U.S. relies heavily on the ability for banks to barrow from each other all day long, "keeping the cash flowing" so to speak; because they don't have enough reserves on hand to pay their expenses. It all comes back to being spread to thin while at the same time getting involved in risky business.


Do I want us to give up our current economic system and go back to a gold or precious metals standard? Not necessarily, as I don't think it's the tools we use that matters, but how we use them that counts. However, I do believe our current monetary system in the U.S. (and many throughout the world) is very susceptible to greed and corruption much more so then gold would be. On the other hand using a gold standard has been proven to have its problems as well; especially when one country is able to hoard all of the precious metals through trade surpluses. The real problem that I see is one of failing integrity and moral values throughout the world, and government leaders who don't understand the consequences that deficit spending and poor regulations have on our economy; particularly with how inflation creates instability.

I also have a short term solution of my own, but what I believe will truly make a different - not immediately but in the long run - would be for people to be more responsible, for corporations and financial institutions to not be so greedy, and for simple yet effective government regulations to be in place and enforced. The real issues I have are with the politicians who allowed laws to be changed to encourage irresponsible lending and investment practices. We need to vote every one of them out, even the "good ones" because they too have been tainted by association with the greed, corruption, and convoluted practices of our current government officials (The truly good ones that truly love this country will support us in this effort by resigning and helping us find replacements who have high values and integrity).

The best thing that Bill Clinton ever did for the U.S. was to balance the Federal Government's budget. The worst thing he did was to sign the financial reformation law in 1999; allowing the same kinds of activities to occur that greatly contributed to Black Tuesday. His indiscretions also created an attitude of non-enforcement of laws (i.e. immigration laws) to permeate the country and prevent good regulations form being enforced.

The best thing that George Bush did for this country was to stand up to a man that Bill Clinton failed to imprison despite having the opportunity to do so (Osama Ben Laden). The worst thing he's done for the U.S. is created the biggest U.S. government entity in history in the name of "homeland security", and incur the highest deficit spending in U.S. history, which of course creates a great deal of inflation; further endangering the integrity and stability of the financial markets.

I also believe the Federal Reserve's monopoly on the monetary systems in America today is unconstitutional, because of the laws that force us to accept Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender violating the fact that congress is constitutionally responsible for setting standards and coining money, not the Federal Reserve. I don't have a problem with Federal Reserve Notes (i.e. dollars), but I'd like to see the U.S. treasury also creating coins that contain real Gold, Silver, and copper that would then be allowed to also be used as legal tender based on intrinsic value; off-setting the monopoly of the Federal Reserve (after all competition is essential to a truly capitalistic economy). Ron Paul introduced a bill that would do just that.

The real problem, when it comes right down to it, is really all about integrity and stability. If we want a stable financial system, we have to expect slower growth, more moderate interest rates, and to have basic but effective regulations that actually get enforced. We also need leaders who have the highest levels of integrity and knowhow. We need everyone to be careful, wise and thrifty with their money (which was the law of the land before the 1970s). We have to save up for the things we want to buy, not buy them with fake money called "credit", which increases the money supply and causes inflation. We need to expect borrowers to put down 10-20% of the cost of what ever they are borrowing to insure that the lenders can easily get their money back should the borrower default on the loan. In the end, however, it's all about the moral behavior of all those involved in the system that makes the system behave in a manor full of integrity and stability.

For a more "entertaining" perspective on this issue see:

http://www.jimdemint.com/blog/2008/09/what-caused-the-economic-crisis-watch-this/

- Posted By Seth Hollist

The State of the Nation

With almost everyone who was running for president this year talking about socialized medicine, I thought this video from over 40 years ago, warning about the political tides in the US, was very interesting:



We have become too numb to our government programs and bailouts that we have forgotten what this country went through during the cold war, while trying to defeat a country deeply involved in the worst kind of socialism, better known as communism. Yet today we are well on our way to a socialistic government that will continue to tell us more and more of what we can’t do. Or even worse, that we must do things that are morally wrong.

What can we do about it? I'll tell you what I'm going to do about it. I'm going to vote for Chuck Baldwin and anyone else who hasn't yet been tainted by the corruption of Washington Bureaucracies. I believe the USA needs, more then anything a strong message that we have fallen far from our Constitutional roots, and have forgotten how this country came to be thanks to Christian settlers seeking religious freedom. Am I throwing my vote away? I don't think so and here's why:

Why do we keep re-electing people who have an extremely low approval rating? I'll tell you why. It's a matter of fear. I see it every election cycle. Both side trying to scare you out of voting for anyone else. A "third party" or independent vote will only cause the worst choose to get elected, right? Maybe, and I'm sure you've heard all of this before yourself. The truth is that making a decision based on fear is never a good way to live your life. Jesus himself said to "Fear not, believe only" (Luke 8: 50). If you believe in having your voice heard, you MUST vote for the person who best represents you; not necessarily the one who has the best chance at winning. To truly "throw you vote away", means you have not had your voice heard the best way it can be.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you'll find yourself getting more evil, but if you vote you conscience, your true beliefs, and even if you don't win, people will take notice when Chuck gets enough votes that his constituents could have given the the person with the second most votes the official win. That party will either slowly fade away while a new party emerges, or they will realize they need to pull back to the Constitutional roots of this country or never win another election.

- Posted by Seth Hollist

Who's Rich enough to be taxed?

I was listening to talk radio the other day about how McCain and Obama were debating the "rich" mark for tax rates, in regards to were you draw the line for determining who deserves a higher tax rate. Apparently Obama said 250K a year was the line, and McCain replied with a sarcastic remark about "five million" being rich. Interestingly enough, Obama would latter criticize McCain for having 7 houses (including investment properties), shortly after he himself had returned from an expensive vacation in Hawaii, and made about four million himself the year before. But enough of that... What is rich? Where do we draw the line?

First of all let me say, I'm not in favor of a "Federal" income tax, but I also recognize that the alternatives in today’s world, with today’s financial mentality, probably aren't much better. Personally I think the 16th & 17th amendments have some serious conflicts of interest with Article 1, section 9, clauses 4 & 5 of the US Constitution; and possibly the 9th and 10th amendments as well. Not to mention how the IRS's poor sense of due process violates the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, but that’s another subject.

When you start talking about drawing a line on who's rich and who's not, I think you start to pinpoint the major problem with our income tax laws today. Personally I would look to the bible for an answer. Anyone who's read the bible knows that God expects us to Tithe, which by definition means one tenth. God essentially puts us all into the exact same "tax bracket", if you can call it that. Why can't our government do the same? Sure we all want our standard deduction, and other tax saving deductions, but when you get down to how much your "Taxable Income" is (after all the deductions) why can't we all pay the same percentage, or in other words, have everyone be in the same tax bracket? That I think is the only fair and easy way to settle the matter.

- Posted by Seth Hollist

The Problem with Politics

I wrote the following in response to a post made on a Political discussion board meant for use by residents of my HOA. The original poster felt there was a need for term limits on Congressmen just as there is for the President.

----

What needs to happen is that we need to vote them out, and stop letting Political Parties scar us into not voting for anyone else.

Unfortunately to truly vote someone out and still get a person from the same Political Party that you like means you must get involved in the Primaries and Caucuses. For a country were less then half the population votes regularly, this is asking a lot. Yet when we are offered an alternate choice we get scared of choosing that alternate with ideas such as "throwing your vote away", or letting the worst person win by not voting for the "lesser of two evils".

The real problem with our political system, in my opinion, are the national parties. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for national parties. Yes I know they are not Constitutionally banned, but they are not necessary either. George Washington, in his fairway address did warn of giving our loyalties to Factions (A word he used to describe a Political Party - see: http://www.liberty1.org/farewell.htm):

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests."

What we have today, is the very thing the Constitution of our Country was supposed to prevent, a concentration of power. We have one Faction that has almost complete control over the government, so that it no longer matters that the government is split up in to three branches that are supposed to balance one-another. This one Faction has enough control of all three branches to the point were they can push forward what ever agenda they wish; despite what the Constitution or "Rule of Law" may say. If you think I'm picking on the Democrats, we had the same problem not too long ago with the Republicans too. In both cases, things got done that I found abhorrent, and that allowed the Federal Government to gain power were it has no right.

One reason I believe the two National Parties are so powerful today, is because we have term limits on the President. Instead of voting for the person we fill is best fit for the job, we end up voting for the Political Party that will try to replace the last person we liked that they got elected to that same position.

---

I received an e-mail from one of my state’s Political Parties inviting me to participate in their national convention as an at-large delegate. Something in that e-mail shocked me, and I realized the true problem with the current political parties.

The e-mail had a list of requirements to be considered for either an at-large or an alternate delegate position. The one requirement that made me realize the true problem with having the average person’s voice heard in a nation party was what I would call “the wealth factor”. To even be considered, you had to give them your credit card information, so they could be certain you could afford to attend the convention. The one week long national delegate process was going to cost anyone who went thousands of dollars in fees, travel, and hotel expenses.

For me, taking a week off work, and spending thousands of dollars in expenses is not something I can easily do without careful planning and saving. I can’t see anyone as middle class as myself going to because it's cost prohibitive; let along someone in the poor house. It became clear to me that the people truly running our national parties are either very dedicated to their party or rich enough, with a flexible enough schedule, to be able to take such a trip. The average person’s voice would never be heard in such a venue, and thus I don’t see how we will ever have a presidential nominee from either of the major national parties that truly understands the average person.

What can we do about this? How can the average person ever expect to be heard when it is clear that the well to do have a monopoly on our national elections process? Who can speak loud enough so that the average person can be heard? Perhaps National Parties are not the best way to elect our most powerful public servant after all?

Near the end of the 1700's being dedicated to a party was equated by some to having loyalty to a private selfish faction that stood to conflict with the public good. George Washing himself warned of such loyalties has he left office after his second term as President. He easily would have won a third term (which was allowed at that time), but he knew of one other truth: That absolute power, in the hands of imperfect men, will thoroughly corrupt anyone. Today we have two parties that hold the vast majority of the political power in the USA, a notion contrary to the principle of separation of powers the USA's constitution sought to prevent. This countries loyalty to these factions has undermined this very principle, and that is the real problem with politics in this country today.

These two parties today continue to drive divisions between Americans, and the last time a major party was replaced by a new one was when Abraham Lincoln was elected as the First Republican Party President. Civil war shortly followed. Perhaps the best thing to do is outlaw national party affiliations all together.

Why do we need national parties anyway? The only political office that has any kind of national vote is the one for the executive office, better know as the President. However, the vote of the people isn't really want elects the president, as it really only determines who the individual states will chose to participate in the electoral collage that actually elects the president. Perhaps what we really need is to have people focus on who they are electing to the electoral collage, and let them do the work the way it was intended to be done; without undue national influence from political parties.

---

I got an e-mail from the CEO of the company I work for. He was supporting a proposition the local city government was pushing that would get the city into a position of competition with other businesses. I don't want to give to much detail on the specifics of this issue, but what's more important was his reasons for supporting the proposition. He sighted what benefits it would have to the company and how it would help the company save money. he didn't care about the unfair competition it would create, or the tax payers that would likely end up paying for a big portion of if. It gave me another reason to believe that there's a big problem with our political system in America today. Big business and Big government are too eager to scratch each others backs, and help each other out, that they forget that they are stepping on you an me in the process.

That same company also keeps telling us employees how a week dollar is good for the companies bottom line. Another good example why our politicians need to pay more attention to the people who actually elect them, and not the companies who can afford to send lobbyists to Washington D.C. and/or Capitol hill go get their own agendas pushed forward. I've been tool after all that it's the small businesses that make up most of the economy.

Separation of Church and State

When people think of the First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America they often think of words such as, “separation of church and state”, or “Freedom of Speech”, or of the press, or of religion; however one of these phrases doesn't actually show up on the First Amendment, or anywhere else in The Constitution. What it does say is:

“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.”

You can only find one other statement regarding religion within The U.S. Constitution, in Article Six, Third Clause:

“ . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Does all of this really equate to a “separation of church and state?”

On the one hand, we have a statement basically saying we cannot allow religion to be a qualifier for becoming a public servant. On the other hand, we have a statement saying we have to allow people to exercise their religion freely. They can almost be seen as contradictory to each other, but if we really look at them in context, we find that they are in fact completely unrelated.

The one that was part of the original constitution, in Article Six, is actually only in relation to the election of public officers; which it clearly says in the beginning of the Third clause, saying it relates to:

“. . . Senators and Representatives . . . Members of the several State Legislatures . . . all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the United States and of the several States . . . “

This means this clause has no relation or influence upon what goes on in our public schools, or even local city governments. In fact it is only meant to protect the election of State and Federal officers from exclusion from office due to religious understanding, religious knowledge, or even religious affiliations. It also protects them from having to prove an absence of religious beliefs, and does nothing to bar them from allowing their religious beliefs from influencing the way they deal with their position as a public officer. This is actually were The Bill of Rights comes in.

When it comes to The Bill of Rights, people often like to interpret it by quoting the “founding fathers”; however, this is inappropriate because the Bill of Rights was actually passed many years after the founding fathers had written The U.S. Constitution and established The United States of America. In fact many of the founding fathers were in opposition to the Bill of Rights because they didn’t like how it limited the powers of the federal government. That’s right, some of the founding fathers wanted a stronger federal government with weaker states rights; however the Bill of Rights won out to become a protection for the rights of the States and the people (see Amendment 9 and 10 specifically).

As part of this protection of state and personally freedoms, we were actually guaranteed (or at least we should be) protection from the Federal government from passing any laws that would either favor or discourage any specific religion. It also insures the individual the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Just as important, in this same amendment, you’ll find the insurance of our freedom to speak; including about our religious beliefs, so if someone says they are offended by what you are saying, I suggest telling them you are offended by their lack of respect for your right to speech. After all, your right to speech is protected, and you actually have no constitutional protection from being offended.

In fact your rights to free speech only ends when it starts to endanger the life or livelihood of another, so before you go off and start yelling and screaming threw the streets all kind of profanities in the middle of the night, keep in mind that the ability to speak does not require yelling and screaming or even offensive language. It also doesn’t mean you have a right to disturbed the peace, say things that prevent others from exercising their rights, nor does it give you a free pass to cause panic or tyranny within or towards others.

The real question at this point is were did the words “separation of church and state” come from in the first place, and why it is becoming so easily used today to prevent our kids from having a religious influence on them within our public schools; while at the same time it’s becoming so much harder to keep kids in public schools in line and under control. That phrase has been used to prevent praying in schools, talking about the social and historical significance of many religious influences and texts within our schools, from exploring alternate theories to many scientific ideas, and even to prevent our kids from taking part in reciting a pledge that helps instill a sense of national unity and pride.

So where did it actually come from? It’s not in The Constitution, it’s not in any laws that I’m aware of, and if it were, I would consider it to be an unconstitutional law. The truth is that those words were actually derived from, though not actually a part of, of a United States Supreme Court ruling made in 1947 In the case of Everson v. Board of Education. As part of the ruling, Justice Hugo Black gave his interpretation of the First Amendment, saying:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Although this statement is very strongly worded, much more so then I can agree with, the actual ruling was only meant to prevent any aid or benefit to a religion from governmental actions, a sentiment that I actually agree with; unless the benefit is equally and easily available to all religions, such as allowing tax exemption for religious establishments based on their non-profit status.

Unfortunately this statement has since been abbreviated into the phrase “Separation of Church and State” and taken to also mean that government cannot get any aid or benefit from any religious actions; which is something I completely disagree with, and for which there is no supporting evidence of within The Constitution. In fact I believe the constitution says just the opposite, as preventing a religious action from taking place within government would actually be preventing the free exercise of religion; something very specifically protected within the First Amendment.

Please note, I said “religious action”, not “religious organization”. While I see no problem with personal religious actions within government, and have shown how those actions are constitutionally protected, there however is no place for any organization, religious or otherwise, to be taking actions within the government. Such actions are the soul responsibility of the officials who were elected by the people they represent, and relinquishing those responsibilities to any organization or unelected persons, I would see as being a treasonous act.

If religion truly was not allowed to be involved in government, then why have so many presidents sworn the oath of office, to protect The Constitution, while laying their hand on a copy of The Bible? Why then does The Constitution actually have references to religious beliefs? The Constitution even acknowledges Sunday as a day of rest in the Article One, Section Seven:

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law . . .”

The Constitution also has a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ as found in Article Seven just prior to the signatures:

“ . . . in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven . . ."

The Declaration of Independence is even more obvious in it’s declaration of a God, especially in the first and second paragraphs where it says:

“ . . . to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. . .”
“ . . . [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .”

[For full text see: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html]

Certainly without the declaration of independence there would be no Constitution, and as such it is vitally important to acknowledge The Declaration of Independence as a sort of moral code of The United States of America. It is in fact the very justification for the very existence of The United States of America.

While it is important that we do not allow our government to get involved in our religions, it is important that we acknowledge the roll God should have within our government. It certainly shouldn’t be an overbearing roll, but we are a nation based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, with many laws based on the ten commandments, and the further we get away from those values, the closer we get to a divided and dysfunctional nation.

We do, however, need to be fair in our public dealing with religion. As such I do not believe it is appropriate for any organization, including religious, to be heavily involved in a public school system. On the other hand I certainly wouldn’t turn down any charitable donations meant to help enhance the educational experience, such as a donation of supplies or equipment, but I would probably turn down a truckload of books or manuals that were specific only to religious teachings. I wouldn’t turn down volunteers just because of their religious affiliations, and would allow students to take a regularly designated class period off for religious reasons.

More importantly, however, is that students should be allowed to pray, mediate, or recite their favorite list of beliefs while in school if they choose to do so at appropriate times; such expressions are after all protected by the First Amendments “Freedom of Speech” clause. What I wouldn’t allow is for such practices to interfere with the classroom instruction, but I would like to see public schools teaching theories of Creationism when theories of Evolution are presented; as well as seeing Social Studies and History classes including factual information on all major religions and their roles in society and history.

I would like to see Congress and other governing bodies, offering a prayer before every meeting so that they may lead in ways that will best benefit us the people, allow us to prosper, along with helping other nations to do the same. But most importantly I would like to see the increasing pattern of religious bigotry and hatred stopped. If you are offended by it, then I suggest you try remembering that the Constitution does not protect you from offense, but it does protect your right to talk about it, just as it protects the right of those offensive words to be said.

- Posted By Seth Hollist

Seth.Hollist.org Moves to Spaldam's Rants

I've found myself unable to keep my seth.hollist.org web-page up to date, so I've decided to re-direct it here and help contribute to "Spaldam's Rants". If I find anything special that I want to draw particular attention to, I'll try to add a link to it on the side-bar from the main page; but be sure to check out all of the great information on this blog. I also have a couple of items I'll be keeping on my web-page that you can see listed bellow. What is bellow is a similitude as to what my web-pages home page used to look like. I chose to publish this post as September of 2005 because that's probably the last time I really updated my main web-page.

---

The best government is self-government or in other words, freedom to chose for ourselves, and understanding the natural laws that God has set forth. I regularly check up on my elected officials to see what they're doing with our freedoms, and write them letters regularly. I'm a very big support of The Constitution, and strongly believe to fully understand it one must study our forefathers and understand the language and word meanings used at the time. I also believe the Declaration of Independence is the moral foundation for the Constitution, and to understand The Constitution, one must understand this declaration. These two documents are the foundation of our country, and if we allow it to be left open to interpretation it will only serve to make for an unstable foundation. Any house built on an unstable foundation is doomed to fall.

One Mormon's View of World history

My dissertation on the United States Constitution.

Will I ever run for public office? Very much probably. As for now I have a young family to provide for and enjoy as I watch my kids grow up. Maybe once the kids are old enough to be on their own, and I get frustrated enough with the state of our government (sometimes I think I'm there) then I will. In the mean time I'll do what I can to learn about and watch history unfold while helping others, through this blog, to understand how our governments meddling affects our lives in ways I know I'd much rather not have.

---

Check out some of my other posts on this blog:

Seth Hollist for Public Office

Bad Gun Laws

Affirmative Action Abolished

Separation Church and State

The Importance of Self Governance

The Problem with Politics

Who's Rich Enough to Be Taxed

Bailouts R us vs. Inflation

My commentary on the 2009 Presidential Inauguration

- Posted by Seth Hollist

2001 Freemen Party Platform

We believe that a people who are free to govern themselves, and are properly educated in the matters of science religion and family, are more capable of knowing how best to run their respective societies then a single central government. We recognize the purpose and need for a central government, but believe it is to only involve itself were it's needs are greatest.

We believe that universal laws grant us inalienable rights that no government has power or authority to control, and an attempt to control such rights will only lead to contention and the destruction of good moral and social values. We believe that these rights are protected within the constitution on the United States, but are in many cases controlled and regulated to a point were the constitution becomes weakened. We believe many of these regulations are unconstitutional and unnecessary.

We believe the family to be the most basic and important unit of society, and that families primarily, but not always, consist of the nuclear type. We believe that the local society in which we live to be an extension of our families, and that this society is primarily responsible for the opportunities for self improvement, discipline, education, and nurturing of the individual. We urge all citizens to serve and honor each other, and to support leaders who do best at serving, helping, honoring and protecting their society.

We believe an individual has the freedom to do and believe as s/he may as long as the individual does not infringe upon the freedom of another. We believe that strong families and well educated individuals create strength within the society. We believe all men to be created equal in spirit, and that all life is valuable. We believe that the taking of life is only warranted to protect life and liberty. We defend and protect the right of the individual, society, and government to protect themselves from influences that would seek to destroy there freedoms and lives, or other wise seek to oppress or terrorize.

We allow the government to organize support and structure for social programs as long as such programs have been shown to be needed. They must also help to uphold and support the aforementioned beliefs and ideologies. In such, we also believe the government to have a responsibility towards the social and economic stability of the nation, and in such grant them the right to regulate and control business for the protection and benefit of the people; however, we also believe the people to have the right to check the government in such that businesses may be allowed to operate according to the needs and desires of the people. We believe that such checks are only one of many that keep the government accountable for it's actions as set forth in the constitution. We also believe the central government has the right and responsibility to protect it's societies from foreign governments, and in such we also require that it maintains, were possibly, good relations with other governments to help maintain peace and economic stability within the world.

We strive to review all laws current and new, past and present, to determine there validity and effectiveness in accomplishing our goals as a political party. We strive to rid all governments, both local and national, of any law that shows itself, in practice, to do little more then restrict the freedoms of the people. We also strive to stop any new laws that would do the same, including laws which attempt to control and regulate the constitutions of the national and local governments. We strive to give the people the ability to chose for themselves, and in doing so we suggest that they chose wisely towards the betterment of their societies.

- Posted by Seth Hollist

Should Affirmative Action be Abolished?

I have a dream, that one day our world will rise up and live out the true meaning of liberty and equality. I have a dream that one day we will longer no label each other by our race or ethnic background, but rather by our merits and culture. I have a dream that one day this world full of disrespect, unfair advantages, and pre-justice will become one united world full of respect and helpful hands.

Two score years ago, this great country of America had fallen short on its promise of inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, towards a specific group of people. These people were labeled because of the color of their skin, and were looked down on as a lower class of human being. These people were still looked down upon, just as their ancestors were, even a hundred years after their emancipation from slavery. These views were evident in the inequality of "Separate but Equal", and "Jim Crow". These people were oppressed, and many were determined to see that they remained a lower class citizen within this very country which declared freedom and equality to all.

Affirmative action was a much needed crutch for a people who were oppressed, and given little opportunity to succeed within their own communities. These were people who were fighting for a fair chance at life, and many even felt as though some retribution was needed for past transgressions. There were many who needed incentive to stop to the oppression, segregation, and hatred towards these people. Affirmative action was a means to give these people the opportunities they deserved, and reward their hardships and long fought battles for equality.

Today, this crutch has become a dependancy for many people, and they use it not for equality, but for a free ride of sorts. Many people today threaten to cry racism every time they are threatened by their own lack of personal quality and merit. Today this crutch has made the legs of those who have used it for decades weak. It is time for them to learn to stand on their own once more, and fight equally for opportunities present it today's competitive market.

Affirmative action has had its time. Additionally, I believe that racism and other forms of inequality will never disappear until we no longer label people based on race. We are ready to take to next step towards true equality and equal opportunity, based on personal merit, with no points for being part of a minority group. We must teach the next generation that such labels are meaningless, and how giving meaning to such labels is detrimental to the inalienable rights of those who thereby become the minority.

I still have a dream, and for this dream to come true, we must rid ourselves of any value placed on labels of race. Affirmative action must be declared un-constitutional, because as supporters of the constitution, we must believe that all men are created equal, and none must be given advantage over another simply based on their ancestry. This would be a major step forward towards overcoming racism.

- Posted By Seth Hollist

Bad Gun Laws

Concealed weapons' permit holders should be the least of our worries when it comes to those who threaten our kids. It is the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens, we should fear. I heard about a poll on the news the other day which showed that 80% of Utahns are in favor of this act. I have to question the error of this poll, and wonder if it is somehow biased. I have to do this not because I don't believe it, but because I fear it's truth. The problem I see is that most people have been programmed to associate guns with criminals, and are oblivious to the truth. The truth that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives of honest citizens then to take lives. 92% of the time the guns are only brandished, or a warning shot fired. These statistics can be found in HR 347 (106 Congress 1st Session); a bill "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right," that would have reinforced our right to bear arms and protect law-abiding citizens from legal action if the fire arms are used in self defense. Unfortunately this bill did not pass. Why then is it that I have never heard of any such happenings on the news even though these happenings occur 60 times more often than the criminal shootings we hear on the news from time to time? People fear what they don't understand, especially when only the bad is shown without any of the good. Is it no wonder that the general public is afraid of guns? Is it therefor no wonder why the public is in favor of laws that do nothing to stop criminals, but hurt the law?abiding citizens? Tougher restrictions on guns will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves - and those around them - from criminals who already don't care about the laws. Such laws will only help the criminals, and make stubborn, law-abiding citizens, into criminals. Out of all the highly publicized highschool shootings, NONE of the shooters had gotten or possessed their weapons legally, that I am aware of. They had already broken plenty of laws, and it wouldn't have mattered if guns were illegal inside of schools. Have we forgotten the days when kids would bring their rifles to school because they were part of the gun club? We didn't have these problems back then, so what makes us think that guns have anything to do with the problem? The only defense against this frightening possibility is to educate the general public. I used to think banning guns was a good idea, until I educated myself and discovered what that would really mean (more criminals, and less ability to defend oneself against crime). As a law-abiding citizen who has gone through the expense and time-consuming steps it takes to get a concealed weapons permit, I can guarantee you that no criminal will take the time to do any such thing just so they can sneak a gun into a school. I fear the day when I cannot protect myself, my loved ones, and other innocent lives from a criminal, simply because I chose to follow a law that the criminal didn't. I pray this day never comes, just as much as I pray I will never have to use such force even though I would with no regret. I'm not asking you to believe me, or anyone else for that matter. All I'm asking is that you do what I did, and find out for yourself, and once you've found the truth as I have, help others to find it for themselves.