What Gun Owners Should Anticipate With a Democrat Administration

Right after the presidential elections, rumors of changes in leadership styles and policies have spawn across the country. The change that is anticipated to happen is a double-edged sword that will affect the country positively and negatively. Because of the partisan differences, the transition of the government from the conservative republican to the more lax but pro-life democrats is expected. Obama’s speeches during the campaign somehow gives insight that he will be crusading for gun-less America and will do all possible moves to refrain from engaging to wars. In a wide view and in the effect of the war on Afghanistan and Iraq, the sentiments of Obama are but an acceptable notion. However, there are some small things here that should not slip out of Obama’s eyes as this might cause a grim situation. Gun-less America is not an answer to peaceful America, rather it is synonymous to defenseless Americans.

Criminal rates across the country heightened as crisis has not yet been leveled and that unemployment rate rose worst than those 30 years ago. Violence is expected to even increase as this crisis continues to be in effect and that its rehabilitation is way projected for about 5 years. Aside from the crisis, the country is already suffering from lawlessness because of some factors affecting security policies and other legislations. This malady is rather sad but can even become sadder if no immediate intervention can be done with it.

Businessmen in America are usually armed with guns for defense and order in their premises. Small businesses in addition depend on their guns to foster and advance safety of the business without having to pay for a security. Too unfortunate as projected, the next president is pro on passing stricter laws on gun ownership and dealership. The reason behind this is the simple notion that the lesser the guns being issued, the lower the crime that may happen. However, criminals do not always use licensed and issued guns, most of the time; guns used in crimes are smuggled. This is what contradicts the stated notion.

According to a legislation passed in Florida, a new gun regulation is to be implemented with greater emphasis on gun ownership and dealership and focused mainly on the conduct of background checking of all applicants for gun ownership and renewing gun owners. The concern also affects gun dealers in the state including those selling at show rooms, etc. Background check of gun owners and applicants has been done for quite sometime already. But according to Florida legislators, there are flaws in the law that they needed to revise it and make it stricter.

There are resistances however from some factions that say the revising of the existing law and the implementation may contradict the Constitution under Human Rights clause. But it was clarified that said law is not necessarily intended for enforcement but for dealership only. The law suggests that gun owners be mentally checked to make sure that the intention for the ownership of the gun is not for a possible retaliation. A criminal background check will refrain from providing unlawful person to own deadly weapons publicly.

With this present issue on gun ownership, it is truly easy to say that the penny has really two faces. Though it may sound safer to have guns for defense, it cannot be assured when there is an existing law that prohibits one, in superficial sense, to own a gun. Well, it might not be that the law prohibits, but because of the strict clauses in there makes it look something not regulating but prohibiting.

Age of Authoritarian Democracy

Rule of the people means that the people of Pakistan have the right to rule their own country. According to the democratic idea, the people think for themselves and select officials to carry out their wishes. An election is a public affair. The people, exercising the right to select their officials and to decide upon the policies to be pursued, proceed to their several polling places on Election Day and register their will. The main process of democracy today revolves round a superficial election event: the system of selecting candidates for the top jobs in the country by allowing the electorate to stamp on ballot papers every five years. We can vote to choose our leaders.

Pakistan is a representative democracy, where people select their representatives once in five years to make laws and policies on their behalf. This is what a democracy is all about in Pakistan. In fact, western democracy is a tool of evil. Again it is a tool in the box used to keep us believing that we are free people. A true democracy is slightly different. In a democracy, the will of the people serves as the basis for collective decisions. The great fundamental issue now before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Are the Pakistani people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? My contention against prevailing democracy is this: is it the best mode of governing a country for every country of the world? It seems to work great for the west and developed countries but does it necessarily work for developing countries like Pakistan?

Does our democracy give access to fair play and justice? Well, perhaps: if you are rich, have all the necessary connections. The legal system in our so-called democracy is rotten to the core and a farce as far as the majority of the electorate is concerned. This democracy therefore is not working except for those who are even more evil than any tyrant the world ever had. Like all other institutions, the judiciary is there to protect the ruling elite and propagate and promote the “system”. Limiting the participation of the people merely to voting once in five years has significantly reduced the responsiveness of the representatives to the people. Further, representatives often make policies that are not aligned with the wishes of the people. We cannot reasonably ask for a change in administration; if, however, the voters feel that the people, as a whole, have no influence in shaping the policies of the Government.

Many people, it seems, vote out of a sense of moral obligation. Slogans of rule of law by PPP, as democracy, are to distract the people and to offer a wrong image of democracy, when the most important elements of democracy are hidden from the eyes. While people believe that the democratic process is limited to the act of giving a signed blank cheque to representatives to make decisions on their behalf, the chances of real change, any change, are minimal. The system is now used to obtain power, wealth and influence by a few who have also been using it to stay in power and preserve their advantages and hold onto the wealth and resources of the nation they claim to serve.

Lower voter turnout rate is another worry for democracy. In Pakistan voting is not compulsory -large numbers of voters choose not to exercise their right to vote. It’s not the people’s fault that they don’t vote; they don’t because they don’t have a choice and because they don’t have a choice they shouldn’t be pushed into voting. They think politicians are all alike, at least in their actions. Due to lack of confidence amongst majority of eligible voters about politicians, it can not be taken as a representative democracy. For instance in 2008 elections PPP got only 13% votes out of total eligible voters but formed the government. Such democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 13 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other eighty seven percent.

The problem is that people are so sick of the political corruption rampant and dynastic politics in Pakistan today that they’re turning the blame on elected representatives and the very institution of democracy. Political parties in Pakistan are not democratic. They are family legacies with the children inheriting the popular position of their fathers based on the ownership of land and status in the society. They keep an eye on the U.S response while playing havoc with their own people. Clearly, they regard themselves as accountable, not to the Pakistanis but to U.S.

Democracy (true democracy) can solve many of our chronic problems. Democracy need not be feared if the people are properly educated and if civic institutions and virtues are strongly embedded in the society. More social policies mean more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life. The current system has created a gradually worsening social structure void of any principles or morals and following a religion of greed, opportunism, and basic instinct culture. Democracy we try to practice is beyond our comprehension! Let’s not try to implement western designed systems that are detrimental to our cultures, values and respect. Who could have thought that our nation would one day go to such an extend of a divided people killing and turn against one another, brother against brother and children against parents, the government against its people and people against their leaders.

My opinion is that let us redesign our own democracy; a democracy that incorporates our values, beliefs and traditions. I believe entirely in the united, peaceful and economically vibrant nation of Pakistan, but we have to have a rethink of the constitution changing the face of our constitution which currently mimics the western styles of democracy. Democracy through party politics is very vulnerable to these western backed governments that can finance and ‘make sure’ their preferred government or leader gets into power in Pakistan. Social democracy is not a luxury but an absolute, essential necessity for forming welfare state. If democracy is really what everyone wants then they should realize that they need to have the appropriate systems in place for democracy to work. Otherwise, I don’t see anything changing in the way this country is running.

Removing A Failed President, Without Impeachment

We no longer can trust Congress to impeach and remove a terrible president. The Washington Post has published an op-ed piece by Robert Dallek that proposes a constitutional amendment to allow “ouster by the people” for removing a president other than by impeachment or because of incapacity. Considering the dismal performance of George W. Bush and his administration and the difficulty in obtaining impeachment, this is a fine idea.

Here are the main features of the amendment: The recall procedure would begin by obtaining a 60 percent vote in the Senate and House. Public pressure on Congress could help it shift decision making to the electorate. Congressional support would initiate a national referendum that would be open to all eligible voters in state elections. Clearly, it should be done fairly quickly. The ballot would simply offer the choice of voting “yes” or “no” to the option of removing the president and vice president from office immediately. If the majority votes in favor of removal, then the Speaker of the House would become president and choose a vice president who would have to be confirmed by majorities in the House and Senate.

These are solid ideas that would add a much needed dose of direct democracy that would hold presidencies more accountable to Congress and the general public than any constitutional mechanism now available.

There must be limits in a functional and fair representative democracy to what a president can do. Bush has more than demonstrated that the presidency has become much too powerful, able to undermine our Constitution and the rule of law, sell out our national sovereignty, put us in incredible debt, waste American lives, and walk all over Congress.

There are 18 states that have a recall process for sitting governors. So this notion is not absurd. Interestingly, in only two cases have governors been removed through citizen action: In North Dakota in 1921, and more recently in California in 2003. Recall works, but has not been used frivolously.

As Dallek correctly concluded: “The nation should be able to remove by an orderly constitutional process any president with an unyielding commitment to failed policies and an inability to renew the country’s hope.” Amen.

The removal process has the distinct advantage of not immobilizing Congress when it pursues impeachment. More important, removing a president through a national referendum that involves many millions of citizens, rather than simply through members of Congress, makes incredible sense. If we the people really are sovereign, then we should have the constitutional right to remove a president.

Sadly, Dallek did not also support using a mechanism already in our Constitution to propose amendments that are unlikely to come from Congress. Our Founders placed in Article V the option of having a national convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. Only one specific requirement is given and that has been met, but Congress has refused to call an Article V convention, though more than two-thirds of state legislatures have asked for one and even though Article V says that it “shall” do so.

If Congress has refused to honor Article V and give we the people what we have a constitutional right to – an amendment convention operating outside the control of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, then it seems unlikely to propose a new amendment that would give the nation a national referendum to remove a president and vice-president. Each of the two major parties will fear that someone of their party could be removed from office and that a Speaker from the other party might become president.

Pressure could be mounted now on Congress to obtain the new amendment for removing a president or it could be mounted on Congress to obey the current Constitution and give us an Article V convention. Choosing the second option has the huge advantage that by obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention we would also have the opportunity to consider other sensible amendments. Fears of an Article V convention have been nurtured over the decades by groups now wielding power over Congress through lobbying and campaign contributions. Such fears are nonsense. Whatever an Article V convention proposes must be ratified in exactly the same way that all proposals from Congress are ratified.

The second point, therefore, in favor of working in favor of an Article V convention is that Congress has also largely failed we the people. Making it obey Article V and give the nation an alternative means of national discussion of possible constitutional amendments that a corrupt Congress will never propose makes all the sense in the world. For example, there is serious attention being given to the idea of electing Supreme Court Justices, rather than continue allowing political considerations to choose them. But neither major party would want to lose its power to shape the court, so that amendment will not be proposed by Congress.

Indian Influences – Origin of Equality

Native Lesson in Democracy: Rarely will one witness an elementary student stand in front of his or her classmates and credit Native American influence in the founding ideals of our government or constitution. Why should any student do such, when our curriculums clearly ignore historical truths of Indian Influences in order to protect our “comfort” in knowing our white forefathers and their incredible vision was born of white experience and education, and certainly not of observations of Native American societies and ideals. After all, categorization of Indian Peoples in the Euro-American world was that of inferior and uneducated populations, with nothing more to offer a young United States than lands, or so this is what most Americans learn today.

And yet, democratic governments were not a carryover from Europe, and nothing more than a Greek hypothetical that our educated forefathers only read about, in other words, a fairytale. It was Native American communities, the most famous being the Iroquois, who actually provided a practicing model of democracy for Europeans looking for representation in government, social power, and equality.

“It would be a very strange thing if six nations of ignorant savages should be able t form a scheme for such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner as it has subsisted for ages and appears indissoluble and yet a like union should be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies (1).” – Benjamin Franklin to James Parker, 1751.

It was the Iroquois who exemplified democracy at its greatest: a democracy created before European contact, a democracy with representation and systems of voting, a democracy with checks and balances, a democracy that practiced universal human rights and autonomy for all including women, and even adopted captives. Our Forefathers had to look no further than their Native neighbors to witness a civilized government that answered the needs of colonists tired of Monarchy.

“Our wise forefathers established union and amity between the Five Nations.” “We are a powerful Confederacy, and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken, you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with one another (2).” -Canassatego (Iroquois Spokesman to Colonist Delegates at Lancaster PA, 1744.)

“…the advice that was given about thirty years ago by your wise forefathers, in a great council that was held at Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, when Canassatego spoke to us, the white people…” “Brothers, our forefathers rejoiced to hear Canassatego speak these words. They sank deep into our hearts. The advice was good. It was kind. They said to one another: The Six Nations are a wise people. Let us hearken to them, and take their counsel, and teach our children to follow it…(3)” -Colonial Commissioner to Iroquois Leaders in Philadelphia, 1775.

In fact, Native American life-ways may also be partially responsible for colonists craving independence from England. Almost no Euro-American witness of Woodland Indian societies could deny a more rewarding way of life with freedom and equality, which was not enjoyed by themselves under their current white laws. This could have been quite possibly the seed of American Independence, or at least the water that nourished the movement.

“I am convinced that these societies of Indians enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments (4).” – Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.

100th Congression, 1st Session

S. Con. Res.76

In the Senate of the United States

September 16, 1987

Concurrent Resolution

To acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the development of the United States Constitution…”

Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts, principles and governmental practices of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy…”

Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was explicitly modeled upon the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself;…”

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring) That- 1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges the historical debt which the Republic of the United States owes to the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations for their demonstration of enlightened, democratic principles of Government…”

(From Indian Roots of American Democracy published by the Northeast Indian Quarterly, 1988, pages 74-75)

Native Lesson: Women’s Rights. The Women’s Suffrage Movement owes part of its victory to Native influences. In a time when Euro-American women had less rights in her home and her government, and forced to be dependent on male relations, Woodland Indian women provided a model of female independence and power, while still in balance with communal reliance, collective responsibilities, and family ties. It was our late Native mothers who possessed the freedoms our white mothers were denied.

Indian women have said, “As an Indian woman I was free. I owned by home, my person, the work of my own hands, and my children could never forget me. I was better as an Indian woman than under white law…” Indian men have said (in regards to white laws), “Your laws show how little your men care for their women (5).” – Alice Fletcher, Ethnographer and noted suffragist.

Our Native mothers owned property – her home and furnishing, and her garden and produce. She controlled the food supply. Her property was to do with as she pleased, and needed no male authority for receiving property or disposing of it. She had the right to vote and be represented in her government by a women’s council, and elect a spokesperson. She had the right to ask for war or peace, to voice her opinions as any man would under the same conditions, and never be disrespected in any manner, as being a woman was honorable in itself. She had the right to divorce, and she knew her children would never be taken away from her. She was a person with individual rights, and never the property of her father or husband, or a “thing.” to be owned and transacted. Native women were full citizens with protected freedoms as any man. These rights of most Native women in the Northeast were all unknown to Euro-American women of the same period, only fueling the drive of women’s rights sympathizers and giving them a basis to argue current women’s issues.

Illustrating History: An Indian Woman Gives Her Horse Away – The Indian “wife is as independent in the use of her possessions as is the most independent man in our midst. If she chooses to give away or sell all her property, there is no one to gainsay her…When I was living with the Indians, my hostess…one day gave away a very fine horse. I was surprised, for I knew there had been no family talk on the subject, so I asked: “Will your husband like to have you give the horse away?” Her eyes danced, and, breaking into a peal of laughter, she hastened to tell the story to the other women gathered in the tent, and I became the target of merry eyes. I tried to explain how white women would act, but laughter and contempt met my explanation of the white man’s hold upon his wife’s property (6).”

-Alice Fletcher, Recounting Her Observations at the International Council of Women in 1888.

Further than just property rights and representation in government, the important fact was that these Indian women had equal status and human rights, a large reflection on the social attitude of women and the female realm, which was obviously very positive in the Native worldview. This only highlighted the faults of the so-called “equality” based American society, including the unchecked treatment of American women by men, or lack of laws protecting women from attack and abuse, especially within their own household.

We almost see no physical abuse and other forms of violation of Indian women by Indian men before European influences. According to Native Peoples, misogyny (hatred of women) was more than rare, it was almost non-existent. The thought of what white men were able to get away with toward white women, or the fact that there were those who would abuse women to begin with, was absolutely horrifying to both Native men and women, and became a reason for some Native populations to reject both the introduction of Westernization and Christianity, which they associated with this behavior. However, most could not fit it off long enough, and Indian Peoples fell victim to the white “gender hierarchy,” and Woodland Indian women began losing their status of equality during much of the historic period.

“…my women, they to whom we owe everything, what is there for them to do? I see nothing! You are a woman; have pity on my women when everything is taken from them (7).” -Indian Man to Alice Fletcher, in Regards to Indian Women Losing Their Livelihoods and Status

Suggested Books and Further Reading:

Iroquois Women: An Anthology

Parker on the Iroquois: The Constitution of the Five Nations

Iroquois Culture and Commentary

Indian Roots of American Democracy

Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution

Direct Quotes in This Article:

(1) Johansen, Bruce. Forgotten Founders: Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution. 1982, p. 56.

(2) Barreiro, Jose, Indian Roots of American Democracy, Article: “Indian Thought Was Often In Their Minds.” By Bruce Johansen, 1988, p. 41.

(3) ibid p. 42

(4) ibid p. 42

(5) Spittal, W.G. Iroquois Women: An Anthology. Article: “The Root of Oppression Is the Loss of Memory: The Iroquois and the Early Feminist Vision.” By Sally Roesch Wagner, Ph.D. 1996, p. 225.

(6) ibid p. 225

(7) ibid p. 225

Time to Declare Hate Crimes Laws Unconstitutional

Well, the “big” case of “Fat Nick” Minucci was finally decided. Guilty of hate crimes and assault charges, he was sentenced to 15 years in jail by a judge who could have given him 25 years. Minucci is the 20-year-old from Howard Beach, New York convicted of attacking a young black man looking to rob cars in the predominantly white neighborhood. In New York, this was headline news.

All the usual suspects were there like “Reverend” Al Sharpton( yeah, the term is used lightly here) and all the assorted “civil-wrongs” players. But even a guy like Sharpton knows a place like New York is easy territory for a conviction against a white man in a “racial” case. It has become as predictable as the sun coming up. Years of hyping up some crimes and totally downplaying others( the majority) have led to a “crackdown” on the safe, politically incorrect case and a shrug at the more common and usually more violent ones without the racial/religious hype. Yelling out anti-black slurs, anti-gay slurs or anti-Semitic slurs accompanied by even the slightest of action can get someone thrown in jail for longer than someone brutally beating down another person of any race or religion but saying very little. This is where we are at and it is happening all over.

Some will say this is no big deal since it is just so wrong and damaging to do something along racial and religious lines. First, it is punishing someone based on a thought which is scary and secondly( and most importantly) it is becoming very obvious “hate crimes laws” are an outrageous lie and huge violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Simply put: white males are the target in too many cases. This is certainly true in diverse cities all throughout this nation.

Despite all the hype surrounding hate crimes- it makes up less than one percent of all crimes- the leveling of the charges are often political. In Minucci’s case, some type of confrontation occurred and the word “nigger” was used. He chased after the young blacks and caught up to one and proceeded to hit him in the head with a baseball bat. Not nice stuff, indeed. Little was given to his story of an attempted chain-snatching of a friend. He received the usual tongue-lashing by a judge in the case whom could have sentenced him to a fascist-like 25 years in prison. He received 15 and could be out in about 12.

Meantime, a little after this case occurred, a young white man named Thomas Whitney got into some sort of argument with several Muslim men near a nightclub in Manhattan. Yelling “white mother!@#$,” they proceeded to beat him and killed him. They then robbed him. All were eventually caught and charged with robbery and murder. No hate crimes. Police mentioned something about race not being the main motive. And that was that. No pressure groups. No politicians. No media. Nothing. That is the norm in countless cases.

And New York is far from being the only city like this. When white tourists were being murdered in Miami wandering into majority black neighborhoods, race was hardly mentioned. The savage murder of three-year-old Stephanie Kuhen in Los Angeles where a driver named Tim Stone made a “wrong turn” in a gang-riddled, non-white area. The animals in the area proceeded to run up on the car, block it in, and started shooting. Mr. Stone was shot in the back. The child was killed and her two-year-old brother, Joe, was shot in the foot. Arrests were made with race becoming a rare mention. Imagine the other way around? The examples for any city are too numerous to list here.

Most condemning are the government statistics. The National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports are the standard used to observe crime trends. Of the roughly 770,000 interracial crimes observed in the most recent study, a whopping 85% were black-on-white. Also shown was the fact more crime is committed on whites by blacks than the “vaunted” black-on-black crime newspapers, politicians and academia speak about because it is safe to do so.

Why is this mentioned? Because anyone with a brain would know some, if not many, of these crimes had a racial component to it but were simply brushed away. A serial rapist targeting women of a certain race will usually receive no hate crime violations. A murder where money was stolen suddenly becomes a “murder-robbery” like the unfortunate Mr. Whitney from New York and it ends there. The rare white-on-black or white-on-Asian rape, murder or assault starts out as an assumption race was part of it and an epithet thrown in becomes grounds for a hate crimes charge. The other way around the use of race must be overwhelming.

Challenges to the constitutionality of hate crimes laws have been made in the past and defeated. However, the challenges were regarding the vague nature of the law. Also, challenges occurred years ago. Increasing data and a challenge based on a failure to protect citizens on an equal basis should be the direction here.

While saying something to hurt someone’s feelings based on the very make-up of a person is nasty and low, it should not lead to increased penalties if accompanied by action. Why not simply punish the action itself? This is particularly true with something that can become so political. Because if words become the basis for a prison sentence even the most ardent defenders of hate crimes laws may wind up the victim to it.

Congress Pimp Game

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (Centennial Edition (1891-1991) the definition of the word “Pimp” is; one who obtains customers. Then I was referred to the word “Pander” which means to pimp; to cater to the gratification of the lust of another. To entice or procure a female, by promises, threats, fraud, or artifice, to enter any place in which prostitution is practiced, for the purpose of prostitution. “Pander” is established when evidence shows that accused has succeeded in inducing his victim to become engaged in prostitution. The definition of Prostitution: to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes, debase debasement. To debase: To lower in status, esteem quality, or character, to reduce the intrinsic value of (a coin) by increasing the base metal content, to reduce or exchange value of. According to Black’s Law dictionary the word in its most general sense means the act of setting ones’ self to sale, or of devoting to infamous purpose what is in ones’ power: as the prostitution of talent or abilities; the prostitution of the press etc.

By replacing the word pimp and pander with the word Congress and the words prostitute and prostitution with the word American Citizen and citizenship. You will be able to notice that there is no difference in definition between the two occupations. “Congress” is; one who obtains customers. Congress: to cater to the gratification of the lust of another. To entice or procure an American Citizen by promises, treats, fraud, artifice, to enter any place in which American Citizenship is practiced, for the purpose of citizenship. Citizenship is established when evidence shows that accused has succeeded in inducing his victim to become engaged in American Citizenship. So as you can see Congress caters to the American Citizens through our lust and gratification. Lust: according to Webster’s dictionary is pleasure, wanton, delight, personal inclination, wish, an intense longing craving, enthusiasms, eagerness, and lasciviousness and; Gratification: according to Black’s Law dictionary is a gratuity: a recompense or reward for services or benefits, given voluntarily, without solicitation or promise. The same four tactics promise, treats, fraud, and artifice a pimp would use to get a prostitute to be a customer are the same tactics our elected public servant use to get our vote.

These tactics according to Black’s Law Dictionary Centennial Edition (1891-1991) and Webster’s dictionary, that the candidates use to influence the American Citizens to vote for them are no different that the tactics that a pimp/pander would use to get a prostitute. Promises: according to Blacks Law dictionary; a declaration which binds the person who makes it, either in honor, conscience, or law, to do or forbear a certain specific act, and which gives to the person to whom made a right to expect or claim the performance of some particular thing. Treats: according to Webster’s dictionary is an entertainment given without expense to the invited; the unexpected source of joy, delight, or amusement. Fraud: according to Black’s Law dictionary a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. And finally the word Artifice: according to Black laws dictionary is an ingenious contrivance or device of some kind, and when used in a bad sense, it corresponds with trick or fraud. It implies craftiness and deceit, and imports some element of moral obliquity. (scheme)

Please keep in mind the definition of a pimp as you read the following. On March 28th 2007 on C-SPAN, which is the window, we the American Citizens, watch our elected representatives spending taxpayers’ earnings; there standing on the floor of the House of Representatives a Democrat and a Republican representative trying to convince us, the American Citizens, that they know how to spend the earnings we work so hard for everyday. I was reminded of a scripture I read in the Bible “He that do not work do not eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3-v-10) It appears to me that the House and the Senate believes that the American Citizens who do not work should eat by the hands of American Citizens who do work. Our Congress members are not working, but receive a living wage plus more from the American Citizen earnings, yet they get nothing done in favor of the American Citizens. Then they sneak in a pay raise for themselves and then try to convince us, the American Citizens, that if we are paid a living wage we will put business people out of business. This reminds me of another scripture in the Bible. “I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against…………. those that oppress the hireling in his wages…………., saith the Lord of hosts.” (Malachi 3-v-5) My perspective concerning the House members and the Senate members is that they are acting like they are pimps and treating the American Citizens like prostitutes.

There were two members that got my attention as they spoke on the floor of the House. Barbara Lee of California, one of many voices of the Democrats; stated in so many words, that the Democrats needed to take a bigger percentage of the American Citizens earnings because they needed to take care of the needy American Citizens and fund the war that President George W. Bush started with their (Congress) permission. Then the Democrats said Congress passed the Patriot Act to protect the American Citizen from terrorists. Well all I know is that the Patriot Act has caused our elected public servants to legislate laws that take away American Citizens Constitutional Rights, The American Citizens Bill of Rights, and the American Citizens Declaration of Independence. All three of these contracts have been violated and ignored because of the Patriot Act. Yet Congress said this Act is keeping American Citizens safe from terrorist acts. Now when a pimp says to the prostitutes that they are keeping them safe that means give him all of their earning and he, the pimp, will supply their needs. Well our Congress is telling American Citizens when you go to work we want a bigger percentage of your earnings too and if we, the Citizens, need anything Congress will take care of us using social programs they set up for those who no longer have earnings and are now entitled to benefits promised by elected public servants. (Proverbs 22-v-22) “Rob not the poor, because he is poor: nether oppress the afflicted in the gates.”

Then there were Jab Hansarling of Texas a Republican on the floor saying the same thing but in a different way. You see the Republican pimps say we will raise taxes too; but not too fast. He had no words of his own so he just read a letter from one of his constituents, which stated: “Congress please leave our earnings alone so that we can afford to take care of ourselves.” I found that; the American Citizen who wrote that letter was saying what every prostitute would say to their pimp. However, we the American Citizens do not want to believe that our elected public servants think of us as prostitutes when it comes to our earnings. The Republicans on the floor of the House of Representatives continued to say in so many words “Our pimp game is better than the Democrats pimp game” because we want a smaller percentage of your earning over a longer period of time to keep you safe in the United States. The Republicans and the Democrats also state since we both know that Iraq was not Americas’ enemy we will continue to fight the war on terror in their land and you, the American Citizens, will have to pay for it whether you like it or not. And as far as the Patriot Act is concerned we, the Congress, will keep that Act just in case there is an up-rising among you; the American Citizen.

Yes! Congress took an oath to protect the Constitution, however, because the elected public servants are full of fear all bets are off!! Instead of interning terrorist, who can be anybody who might cause harm to the United States; Congress will intern every American Citizen because of their fear of the unidentified terrorist. I refer to Congress behavior as the Lucifer Effect, which is a novel written by Psychologist Philip Zimbardo about how good people turn evil. (Romans 1-v-26, 32) “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge Gove gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whispers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

To summarize this; there are two types of pimps in Congress the Democrats and the Republicans. They both want a percentage of our earnings; earnings they did not work for personally. They also believe they can keep American Citizens safe. They believe they know what we need and that we elected them to ignore our wishes; which is just what a pimp, who is chosen by the prostitute would do. Ignoring the prostitutes’ personal wishes and needs is one of the pimp main jobs. It is all about the money!! Every candidate running for office now is raising money for their political party, and their party is now pimping/pandering the candidate. Now I understand why the rap group Three Six Mafia won an Oscar for their song “It’s Hard Out Here For A PIMP!” America I believe we need new people in Congress every two years no matter what they do during their first two years. The job of Congress should not be a career for any American Citizen if we want our voices heard. All the elected public servants say the same thing; “Congress is going to help the American Citizens by taking more of our earnings” (2 Thessalonians 3-v-12). “Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread.”

My suggestion is that whenever we, as citizens’ start to complain about what is going on in our personal lives, we need to send a message of complaint or concern to our representatives. American Citizens would rather believe our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ lied about His free Salvation to mankind; before they believe George W. Bush lied about WMDs’ being in Iraq. I have three questions to ask the American Citizens and Congress. Why has the Constitution of the United States of America become such an enemy of all the candidates? Why do police officers get higher wages, respect and benefits than our military troops, who serve on the front line of war? And why do American Citizens believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ lied about His free Salvation to mankind, but believe George W. Bush did not lie about WMDs’ being in Iraq?

Ms. Fox Speaks!!!

Japan Celebrates Constitution Memorial Day

Japan’s Constitution Memorial Day: May 3, 2010 Constitution Memorial Day is a public holiday in Japan.

Japan commemorates the coming into effect of its new 1947 constitution. Japan’s constitution reflects Japan’s total abolition of war and military armament. Japan’s Constitution Memorial Day is one of the four public holidays in the Golden Week which also includes Emperor’s Birthday, Greenery Day, and Showa Day on April 29, Greenery Day on May 3, and Children’s Day on May 4.

History of Japan’s Constitution Memorial Day

Two years after the end of World War II, Japan promulgated a new constitution. It was recognized as a holiday since the passing of the new constitution on May 3, 1947. The renouncement of war is considered as Japan’s sovereign right and using war as an instrument to settle international dispute is forever banned. Article 9 of the Japanese constitutions states that:

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

A number of known personalities, writers, and members of media in Japan have long been criticizing the above law such as the 2003 editorials in some major newspaper publications in the country.

Japan’s Constitution Memorial Day: Traditions, Customs and Activities

During this day, the National Diet Building, housing Japan’s upper house, the House of Councillors and lower house which is the House of Representatives (National Diet of Japan), becomes open to the public.

Also, the Japanese government calls for a nationwide reflection on the meaning of democracy in Japan and its forever renouncement of war as stated in the controversial and criticized Article 9 of the 1947 Japanese constitution.

Civilized Nation vs. America

What is CIVILIZATION? It is an advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, a culture of a specific group of human-beings. What is DEMOCRACY? A Government by the people. What is a CONSTITUTION? The make up or composition; fundamental principles of government body physique. What is the meaning of CIVILIZED? Change from savage existence to refined.

Now the reason I put these four words at the beginning of my article is so that I, Mrs. Fox will make sure I stay focused on the following issues that are going on in America. When I hear our government officials who are public servants continue to say they are protecting the American citizens from the terrorist, I am not impressed; I am concerned with the following:

If we in the United States are supposed to be a civilized nation, then tell me as a refined nation of citizens why are we legally killing the unborn, killing the elderly, not educating our children? Why did the Supreme Court take prayer out of schools and out of all public places? Why is our legislators over taxing the middle class, ignoring the sick, passing laws that allow the government to take away the middle-class homes, allowing evil government leaders to break the laws that govern this nation, and calling good evil and evil good? It is written “If you refuse the truth, God will let you believe a lie.” (2nd Thessalonians Ch 2v11). I could go on but I guess you understand what I am talking about.

Civilization: America is more of a savage nation than a refined nation. If we as a nation are suppose to be an advanced state of society then why are we as a nation doing things like torturing our enemies and using our weapons of mass destruction on a small nation? Why did our intelligence lie about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Why is President Bush ignoring the laws that are in place; then states that what he is doing is legal? He also stated that if his administration tells anybody outside of his administration the truth, the terrorist would find out. President Bush claims that he doesn’t want the law to be written down because the terrorist would read it and find out what he is doing to catch terrorist; therefore he would not be able to protect the American citizens. Yet he states he is not breaking the law by spying on Americans. President Bush is breaking the (FISA) Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Agency law according to our legislators. Our Nations protection is in the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ. “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (Proverbs 1:v33. Proverbs 17:v13)

Now whose culture is American suppose to be embracing? I will tell you right now without any hesitation; the European culture. Where does that leave the other cultures in America? I will tell you; sometimes in court. If you notice other cultures do things differently. I am talking about spanking, teaching, cooking, relationships, religion, etc. When other cultures discipline their children differently they will end up in court. Other cultures are labeled with ADHD because they learn differently. If they work differently they are considered unprofessional. If they dress different they are considered an outcast. If their music is different they are considered uncultured by the Europeans.

Finally, their food is different because they have to be more creative in the kitchen with less. (Ecclesiastes 5v8-10) If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still. 9 The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields. Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.

Now please let us talk about what Democracy looks like in America. Our government should be by the people and for the people. However, it appears our government representatives are running their own agenda. The public servants that we the citizens vote into office are supposed to uphold the oath of office. They are supposed to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America. However, we see they are busy passing laws that will keep the American citizens in court fighting for the fundamental principle of our government. As long as Congress continues to pass legislation that dishonors their oath of office, we as Americans will continue to loose our ability to enjoy our lives as Americans. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 expressed peoples yearning to be free and to develop the talents given them by their Creator. Does the following quote from the Declaration of Independence of 1776 sound like President George W. Bush and the British Crown have something in common? “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.” (Appendix of the Declaration of Independence of 1776)

I, Mrs. Fox, suggest to all my readers to please pay attention to your Local, State, and Federal representatives by watching C-SPAN. If you are not enjoying being an American then vote the public servant out of office on the next election. If you are the only one enjoying your life in your community vote the public servant out and elect a new servant. America is a nation of communities. Until your whole community is represented why should you be happy by your self? The protection we need is already in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. There is no technology, weapons, or man on earth that can protect us by violating our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Luke 11v21-22) If we all as American Citizens realize this; together we can and will live in a nation that will be protected first by God and second by our Constitution. “Without God we cannot do anything” (John 15v5)

So! For our Executive branch to order wiretapping Americans phones is not Civilized, Constitutional, and it sure doesn’t look like Democracy. However, it is part of the European culture. Well who else can I blame? America is governed by a majority of white European men and women. Remember today Martin Luther King Jr would be considered an insurgent because he stated publicly in words; and by his deeds; the only way to destroy the laws that divide American citizens is by boycotting products and businesses. We as Americans must be united for the good of our nation so that we will be respected nationally. “We the people” means: “With limits on our government representatives; to protect our Freedoms.”

Remember it was the Europeans who came over to this land to get away from the British Crown. Upon arriving on the continent they saw that the Indians were living on the land we now call the United States of America. Later the Indians shared their knowledge with the Europeans concerning working the land for food. Once the knowledge was tested by the Europeans to be true; the Europeans shared their knowledge of wine, strong drink and guns with the Indians. The Europeans made treaties with the Indians. However, they broke every treaty they made with the Indians. The breaking of the treaties caused the Indians to question the Europeans ability to speak truth. Then guns and alcohol were sold to the Indians in the name of business. Then war broke out between the Europeans and the Indians. (Proverbs 31 v 5-6) Who were the terrorist at the beginning of our nation history?

Hear me when I speak!!!!!

America’s Two-Party Political System – A Two-Headed Snake

Here in Georgia, the gubernatorial race is about to get moving towards the election of 2010. The reason I bring this up is that Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal has just announced his intention to run for Governor. He makes a good example for this essay.

Mr. Deal was a lifelong Democrat…that is, until 1995. He had been elected to the Congress as a Democrat in 1992. Then, when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1994, Deal had some kind of epiphany. He switched parties and became a Republican. I cannot say whether his switch was for political expediency or whether it was truly philosophical. However, a look at his voting record would show that political expediency seems to be the leading indicator of his motives.

Actions speak louder than words.

Now, he will run for Governor as a Republican in a heavily Republican state.

Politics is defined by negotiation and compromise. As an insurance adjuster, I have been a professional negotiator for many years. The negotiations that I undertook were based upon the premise accepted by both parties that there was coverage under the terms and conditions of the policy. We were simply negotiating the settlement.

But, when it came to matters of coverage, there was no compromise. Either coverage existed or it didn’t. If there was a dispute on coverage between the policyholder and insurer, it had to be settled in a court of law.

American politics is comprised of a political party system. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitution are all names for political parties in America. The two biggest parties, the Republican and Democrat, ignore the others for the most part, as the other parties have little power.

Republicans and Democrats are negotiators and compromisers, just like in insurance claims. They have already accepted the reality of politics, which is that government will grow and tax revenues will be spent. Sessions of Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, are simply the negotiations and compromises about where the money goes.

Rarely does the “coverage issue” arise for today’s politician. What I mean is that politicians seldom if ever take a position that government should not grow, that laws should not be passed, and that tax revenues should not be spent. The debate in Congress and state legislatures is customarily only WHERE the money is spent.

In the USA, there are only two real philosophical positions that can be taken. The first is the position that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that all Federal Government action must be controlled by it. Lawmakers guided and governed by loyalty to the US Constitution would concentrate on Constitutional issues. In the parlance of insurance, they might say “Is this legislation covered…by the Constitution?” If authorization could not be found, the action would die before enactment.

These lawmakers would NEVER negotiate or compromise the Constitution. This first philosophical position guarantees maximum freedom for US citizens.

The second position is every other belief system that runs contrary to the first.

The US Constitution was enacted as the supreme law of the land. ALL actions of the three branches of US Federal Government should be bound by the strictures in the Constitution. But reality is that almost no one in the three branches of US Government recognize the authority of the Constitution anymore.

Curiously, every elected official must swear an oath of office in which he or she vows to support, protect and defend the Constitution. For most politicians, the oath is simply a formality with no force of law.

But actions ALWAYS speak louder than words.

This second position, taken to its natural conclusion, guarantees the greatest governmental burden and least freedom for US citizens.

Therefore, I contend that the two-party-dominant political system in America is in essence only one party…with two main heads. Both heads of the snake agree in principle on the foundation of negotiation and compromise. They mostly reject the constraints of the Constitution upon their actions.

The ONLY way to save this nation is to return to the Constitution at the state level and force the Federal Government to obey the law.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

The Specter Spectacle

The Specter spectacle is the epitome of why our government is failing. Senator Arlen Specter’s announcement that he was switching to the Democratic Party was strictly in his own interest. There was no mention that it was for the benefit of his constituents or his country, which are, after all, the primary responsibilities of his public office. The politicized media characterized his announcement as a “defection,” continuing the self destructive, divisive battle between conservatives and liberals.

He began his remarks by saying that the Republican Party had moved too far to the right. Even in his excuse, the rationalization was strictly political, nothing about an opportunity to better serve the state of Pennsylvania. No “of the people, by the people, and for the people” sentiment there. To quote a surprisingly candid part of his statement: “I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.” His statement was a clear admission that he was only motivated by the fear of losing his seat in the United States Senate. He admitted that he was determined to win a sixth term. Note too, that he used public opinion, not his principles, to change political parties. This is his attempt to bypass the will of the Republicans in the state primary. First, he negotiated with the Democrats to keep his powerful chairmanship before he changed sides. These glaring, as well as the less apparent, self-serving actions of members of Congress are a travesty of their duties as prescribed in the Constitution.

There have been several other legislators in the past, all of whom changed political parties purely for their own interests: Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, Democrat to Independent; Jim Jeffords, Vermont, Republican to Independent; Bob Smith, New Hampshire, Republican to Independent;  Ben Nighthorse, Colorado, Democrat to Republican; Harry Byrd, Jr., South Carolina, Democrat to Independent; Throm Thurmond, South Carolina, Democrat to Republican. Most of these men served many years in Congress by doing everything that was necessary to insure their re-election at the expense of this nation’s best interests. Career politicians repay their large contributors with special favors, pass popular but fiscally unsound legislation, disrespect taxpayers’ money by wasting it on frivolous earmarks, and raise their salaries during economic down turns or recessions.

It’s time for Americans to realize that legislators don’t represent them; their main concern is to preserve their careers in Congress. They manage to politicize everything to continue the charade that the country’s difficulties are the fault of the opposing party’s members of Congress not them. Career politicians have divided this nation by duping us into accepting the other party as the scapegoat. Instead of fighting among ourselves, we should focus our efforts on removing the bad guys. Throw the bums out. In the next election, vote for anybody except the incumbents so that we regain our constitutional-given right of representation.