The Problem with Politicians

The headline of the Sun-Times today (Feb. 24) highlights perfectly what is wrong with politicians.  The state and the city of Chicago are deeply in debt, but they have no problem with spending (correction: borrowing) $175 million to change streets and parks to help a private project, the Obama Library.  Then they’ll turn around the next day and talk about how they have to lay off teachers or close mental health facilities if they don’t have a tax increase right away.

guns and voting

I don’t have a problem with raising the legal age for a person to buy guns to 21, just like I don’t mind having the legal age for drinking or smoking to be 21 either.  I do have a problem when we consider that smoking, drinking, and buying guns requires more maturity than voting.

We gave 18 year olds the right to vote because we were drafting them and sending them to war.  That is no longer the case.  

The age of voting should never be lower than the lowest age that we require for any of these socially minded behaviors.  If you want to raise the legal age for any of these, then you should raise the legal age for voting.

Change the Second Amendment?

A reader (Chicago Tribune Feb. 18) suggested that the Second Amendment needs to be changed, because, well, times have changed.  He didn’t actually say what needed to be changed or how it should read.

I think what is important here is to understand the different kinds of laws.  There are laws that our government makes, like how fast you can drive on a highway or the age for voting.  And these change as circumstances change.

But the Declaration of Independence talks about unalienable rights that come from our Creator.  When the Constitution was written, there was debate over whether the Constitution should spell out these rights.

There were two main reasons why they didn’t want to make a list.  The first is that they were concerned that people might think that only those rights that were spelled out were all the rights that belonged to them.  The second was that they were concerned that people would think that these rights were given to them by their government and therefore subject to change.

They decided to make a list.

It’s interesting that the First Amendment had to do with freedom of speech and religious exercise.  Two freedoms that a lot of people today want to curtail: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech.

And the Second, the right to keep and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. 

When our Founders decided to start naming the natural rights that people have, the first two had to do with religion, speech, and guns.

They also stated in numerous other contexts the importance of religion and morality for the success of our country.  You can read some of George Washington’s speeches or those of John Adams, the second President.  The First Congress even had Bibles printed to be used in the public schools.

The reader talked about how changes in our society require changes in our laws.  I contend the changes in our society were caused by our government, starting with our courts, that demanded the removal of God from our public life and schools, replacing the Ten Commandments with a secular code of ethics that no longer teaches love for our neighbors but only tolerance.  They have stripped the country of its moral foundations in the names of diversity and secularism.

We used to have gun clubs in our schools.  It’s not the guns.  We have changed the entire moral compass of our nation.

We are all complicit in murder: a Sun-times editorial

The Sun-Times editorial today (Feb. 16) asserted that we are all complicit in murder by failing to enact stricter gun laws.

Nope.  I’m not buying it.

We have always been a nation of guns.  Our Founders thought that was a good thing to help preserve our liberties.

Al Capone had machine guns, so automatic or semi-automatic have always been around.

So NOW we need more gun laws? 

The guns haven’t changed.  The people changed.

You take God and religion and the Ten Commandment out of public life and education, and you don’t think that will have an effect on our society?  That was what taught us to love our neighbors and not just tolerate them.  That’s what taught us to do good and right things and that we are accountable to God for our lives.

I

t was in 1962, almost 200 years after our nation’s founding that prayer and the Bible in the public schools were deemed unconstitutional.  Why would it take this long, unless our governmental leaders changed and now want to pass it along to the rest of us?

Schools can no longer teach that we were created by God, but accidents of nature that eventually made us a little higher than apes and that the survival of the fittest is the law of life.

I contend this is the bigger problem behind gun abuse.  This is where we need to have our public discussion.

Gun Carnage in America: a response to a newspaper article

The Tribune had an article today (Feb. 16) called Gun Carnage in America.  But the accompanying picture told a better story.  It had a picture of Uncle Sam looking at a news story on his cell phone, and thinking: I miss the old normal.  

What happened to the ‘old normal’?  This is the question that needs to be asked and talked about today.

We have always had millions of guns in our country.  When the country was founded, it was described as “armed” in the Federalist Papers, which preceded our Constitution.  Four million people, at least a million guns.

Al Capone had machine guns, but it’s only recently there is all this clamor for banning semi-automatic weapons and smaller gun magazines. 

So we’ve always had millions of guns, but now we need stricter gun laws.

What changed?  It’s not the guns.  It’s the people who use them.

Our government has tried its hardest to eliminate any mention of God out of our country.  They forget it was the Bible that taught us to love our neighbors, follow the Ten Commandments, and remember that we are accountable to God for our lives. 

Now God is wiped clean out of our public lives, and we are taught in our schools that we are life created by blind chance, an elevated monkey, where survival of the fittest is the law of life. 

It was only in 1962, almost 200 years after our country’s founding that Bible and prayer were found to be unconstitutional in our public schools.  

If that was unconstitutional, why did it take almost 200 years to see that?  Because nobody believed that, and they believed it was necessary for the moral strength of our nation.  The First Congress had Bibles printed to be used in our public schools.  The McGuffey Readers, used for more than a hundred years in our public schools to teach reading and provide literature, are replete with references to God.  They could be used in Church Sunday School classes.  They are that religious.

Remove God out of public life and education, and you grow a nation that is indifferent to other people.  Life is cheap, and nobody cares.

a letter to the editor about guns and gun rights

The Sun-Times printed a letter today (Feb. 16) with the heading “Second Amendment or inalienable rights?”  I know the writer doesn’t choose his captions. but I think it captured the thought well.

The Founders debated whether to include a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.  They had two main concerns: one was that people would read them and think that their rights were limited by only those specifically mentioned.  And, secondly, they were concerned that people might think that these rights came from the government rather than being natural rights given by their Creator.

It’s interesting to note that the First Amendment had to do with freedom of religious expression and free speech.  Two matters that people are trying very hard to limit today.  And then the Second Amendment has to do with the right to own and bear (carry) arms.  It sounds like these two matters were very important in the minds of those who wrote our Constitution to put them first.

Remember, they fought a war in order to be able to establish this Constitution. I contend that the two amendments are related.  John Adams, our second President, made the remark in a speech that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” 

A people cannot be trusted to be free if they don’t share a common value system and the will to live by it.  Our country has rejected the Ten Commandments which have been the basic moral code of our country since before its founding and has been trying to create a new one built on tolerance, equality, fairness, and diversity, a code that is requiring the government to enforce it rather than seeing its people willingly live a life of self-discipline and love for one’s neighbor. 

They called our nation an “armed people” in the Federalist Papers and considered that a good thing.  They thought it was essential to preserve their freedom.   

The solid foundation of a people who recognized their responsibilities toward God were also considered responsible as well to possess and carry guns.  Take away the one, and you might find problems with the other.

the high cost of free trade

The Trib had an article (Feb. 7) on NAFTA which was misleading, because it didn’t give the whole story.

You can always make something cheaper somewhere in the world.  So free trade can bring consumers the lowest prices possible; and, we are told, this will help American jobs by helping our export business.

There are two problems here that nobody wants to talk about.

When a country loses jobs because we are buying something cheaper from Somewhere, not only do we lose the tax revenues from unemployed workers, we are also paying them while they are not working.  This becomes a hidden tax where the cost of running government becomes higher, both through higher interest payments on government debt and the added expenses of more government assistance.  Calls for higher taxes are then not associated with the costs to our society from lost jobs.

Relying on exports for jobs is foolish, because we are relying on other countries to do well so they can buy our good before we can prosper.

Any increase in cost by taxing imports will in the long run be cheaper than the cost of lost jobs and increased government spending to compensate for it.

Oh, and don’t forget.  Taxes on imports go to the government, and so this should relieve the pressure of the government getting all its revenue from income taxes, as in, they can lower them.