The Welfare Elephant in the Room

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

Phil Robertson (GQ Interview)

This is a quote from the now infamous GQ interview. It has not received much if any attention. I don't know what to think about this quote. I am not black and I have never been poor.  I don't know what it's like to live in a society as the outcast. Other than that time in high school when I said one of my hobbies was playing video games. To that Spanish Class that laughed at me, looks like I was the one leading the societal evolution in that area. Seriously though, I have never lived in a society where laws were made to exclude me. I have also never worked so hard for so little in return. So for me to make a judgment call on this quote would not be appropriate. I would leave that to the people who lived that struggle and continue to fight everyday to create a more equal world in regards to race and class.

However, this quote did make me think about a subject that I have strong yet mixed emotions, welfare. I am not one that thinks evil people came up with the system in order to control the masses. I do think it could be used for that one day.   I believe well intentioned people want to make the world a better place. To fill in the gaps where private charity misses. Now it is the opposite. Private charity fills in the gap that government misses. I also would not want to abolish government assistance. It is needed, whether those of us libertarian minded people want to admit to it or not. What has happened though is that welfare has started running out of control. More and more tax dollars go to more and more things for the poor while not helping the poor with their underlying problem. That is education. We have a society that use to believe it was better to teach a man to fish rather than give him the fish. What we need to be doing is feeding him the fish while we show him how to get the fish and teach his own family to fish. What we have today is a system that gives a fish, medical supplies (which are needed very much so as well), candy, donuts, pizza, a cellphone, a place to live (once again, a needed item) and some spending cash. All in return for nothing. 

We were made to work. From the beginning, we were workers. Whether you believe that to be in a garden or in the wilderness hunting wild game. Every job creates order out of chaos. Whether you are the stoke broker, hair stylist or janitor. While society may look down on some jobs, they are all vital to society. They are part of our reflection of God's image. To take away a person's ability to work is to take away part of their self-worth. That is a true travesty. 

Let's be honest about something else in the current welfare system. It does not hurt the rich and corporations. This has become a great system for them to drum up business. The extra money taken from my paycheck for higher taxes, goes to those corporations because they are willing to "help" the poor by accepting EBT and SNAP. Pizza places now take them. When I go into a store, SNAP signs are next to candy. How does this help the poor? By giving them heart problems and diabetes?  If you're one of those people pissed at the poor for receiving assistance from the government be more pissed at corporate America for taking that money in the name of compassion. 

As for Robertson's quote, I am pretty sure 1950s America was much worse on blacks that 21st century America. Twenty-first century America is much less godly overall in some areas (greed, arrogance and indifference). This is not a black community problem. Americans across the board are more dependent on the government. We are less charitable.  It's an American problem.    

U.S. At War

I always find it interesting that when I read about WWII, our Congress (the good guys) declared war and our president (another of the good guys) ran the war. While Germany and Japan (the bad guys) gave their Führer and Emperor the power to declare and run the war unilaterally.

Fast forward not so many years to 1950 and the Korean "conflict". The Truman administration committed U.S. forces to aid the South Koreans without a deceleration of war from Congress. This was not the first or last time. One can go a far back as Jefferson to find U.S. military forces being sent to fight foreign conflicts without declaring war. The difference is that since WWII, the U.S. has accepted the president making the decision on his own to go to war as status quo. In fact when President Obama went to Congress for approval to take military action in Syria this past year, many looked at him as weak. I say it was a good decision that showed some backbone not to take the easy route.

The Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war and the President is the commander-in-chief of the military. Many think this means the President can still use military forces even without a declaration of war.  There is even the War Powers Act which states the rules by which the President must follow once he has committed U.S. troops to a conflict. The ability of one person to declare war, I mean commit troops to conflicts, has many consequences. As we have seen over the past 12 1/2 years, giving one person the power to make the unilateral decisions to invade countries costs lots of money. When one person decides where to invade, they are likely to invade as many countries as possible. The conflicts rarely have specific goals and if they do, those goals can be changed at the desecration of the one who authorized the invasion in the first place. When there is a vote, the wars have specified enemies and goals. It's more difficult to change either.  There are also less wars due to a higher standard to either start them or to get involved in the them.

I am not saying having a vote on a war makes the conflict more noble than a conflict that is started by the decision of one person. In fact, many times presidents have had good intentions committing forces to an area without Congress. What I am saying is that we would have less conflicts, shorter conflicts and more reassurance that the war is necessary. 

Like I stated earlier, the Constitution calls for Congress to declare war. Why an amendment? It is to settle the debate if the President needs Congress. Also, there are now nukes, CIA and drones. The amendment needs to state that the President can use military forces in case of invasion by a foreign government but he must seek a deceleration of war immediately. It must also state that Congress must declare war before U.S. forces can be deployed to active combat areas or take any kind of hostile action against a foreign nation that has not already declared war on the U.S. We need an amendment before we find our nation in another decade plus long war. 

Limit the Power

Above are two of the longest serving members of Congress. The top picture is John Dingell who has been in the House of Representatives since 1955. That's two years before my mother was born. The bottom picture is of Patrick Leahy who has been a senator since 1975. That's four years before I was born. 

After FDR was elected president four times; the American people, the states and Congress decided it was time to put term limits on the presidency with the 22nd Amendment. It's time to do the same with Congress.

We need an amendment to the Constitution that states how many terms a person can be elected to each house and a total amount of years they could serve in both houses. Perhaps it should put a limit of two terms for a senator, six terms for a representative and a limit of twelve years to serve total in Congress.

This would get some new blood in these bodies of law making. While you may agree with the politics of these two gentlemen, I think we all agree that someone in a position of power for too long can be corrupted and once an institution becomes full of corrupted people, it will no longer work for the people. Time in positions of power should be measured in years and not generations. 

Representin

This may look like a drawing done by a four year old. It's not. It's the most gerrymandered congressional district in America. For those who do not know, gerrymandering is the drawing of congressional districts in order to effect (or affect, still can never remember which one to use) the result of the election. Not sure if that is the real definition but it's how I would define it. 

There is also the problem in the country of the two major parties sharing almost all of the power. Our government was designed to disperse power. The two parties have consolidated the power and now share it. We were warned of parties and groups gaining too much power in the Federalist Papers. 

One of the ways in which the two parties have created this two party system is by using the single member district system to elect representatives. This means a district is drawn on the map, the people in this district vote for one representative to congress. The districts are drawn by state legislatures. Some states are required to submit their district plans to the Department of Justice due to the fact that that state has not let certain folks vote in the past based on race. This single district approach to voting has made it so the legislatures draw up these districts to ensure a majority of a states' representatives are from the party that is in power in that state. This has led to two things. One, really strange looking districts and two, the two major parties making sure no other party can get into power or to even have a share of power. 

Another issue with single district elections is that people who do not vote for the winner, get no representation in the House of Representatives. Technically they do because the winner still represents them but in reality, they do not represent all in their district. This is one reason why congress approval as a whole hovers around a lofty ten percent and their incumbency rate hovers around a slim rate of 90 percent. As John Oliver once put it, our house is the Time Warner Cable of elected bodies of government. 

There is a simple solution to this problem. We amend the Constitution to end single district elections and to create a system based on proportional representation within each state. Proportional representation could be used for the country as a whole but that would hurt federalism. That would not be a good thing in my humble opinion. 

Proportional representation in a nutshell is people going into the booth and voting for a party. Then the number of representatives assigned to that state would be divided among the parties based on what percentage of the population voted for them. Using Texas as an example, there are 32 representatives in the House. If Republicans won 50 percent of the vote, they would get 16 representatives. If the Democrats received 40 percent of the vote, they would get 13 representatives. If Libertarians received 10 percent of the vote, they would get 3 representatives. While minority parties would not have a huge voice, they would have some. 

This would only apply to the House and not the Senate. Senators would still be elected on a state level. This would also not apply to states that have only one representative in the House. 

This system seems counter-intuitive to democracy for some but if someone looks at the pro and cons of it, they will see that it is a far better way of representing the individual and breaking up the power monopoly in this country. 

Taxes and More Taxes

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

I am no tax expert so much of this is stuff that feels right or wrong.  For a quick history of what I do know about taxes in America. Part of our reason for war with Britain was taxation without representation. During the Articles of Confederation, the central government could not collect taxes. Before the 16th Amendment, the current constitution allowed each state to be taxed. In the years before the 16th Amendment many people advocated an income tax as early as 1812. There was an income tax on anyone making about $800 a year during the Civil War. Then in 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified.

Here are my issues with this amendment. While taxes are an important and necessary evil of society, imposing them on what a person earns does not seem fair. I understand the argument that the rich can afford to pay more than the poor.  That argument always assumed that the rich are sitting around doing nothing while watching their money grow on the backs of the hard work of the poor. So what is fair for the hardworking rich guy? Yes Virgina, they do exist. On that same note, what is fair for the sit at home and do nothing poor guy? Yes Virgina, you already knew they exist. I am not saying there aren't plenty of people living off daddy's money. Paris Hilton. I am also not saying there aren't plenty of poor people cutting your grass for near nothing an hour. But let's just admit one thing, an income tax and a progressive income tax such as ours creates this idea that all the rich are lazy and all the poor are busting it all day. We are constantly being told by one side of politics that the rich need to pay a higher percentage in taxes. 

The other thing that I hate about an income tax is that it gives the two major parties a campaign issue every year. D's say the rich need to pay more and the R's claim that the poor don't pay any taxes at all. Both statements are inaccurate.

The final thing that I hate about the income tax is that it does tax many without representation. Follow this just for a second. In the old days, states could choose how they picked Senators. Election by the citizens of a state or selection by the legislators. This created a house of Congress that represented the states. Then in turn the states were taxed by the federal government. This was taxation with representation. Individuals were not taxed directly by the federal government. So if a person could not vote for federal government representatives, it did not matter. The federal government was not taxing them directly. In our current system, the states have no representation. Another argument for another time. The individual citizen is taxed directly by the federal government if they earn income. There are plenty of people that are taxed directly by the federal government that do not get to choose those who represent them in the federal government. Two examples that pop into my head are those under 18 years old and non-citizens. This seems to violate one of our founding principles. 

I have no idea what is the best solution for our tax problems. Many favor a flat tax on income. Some favor a national sales tax. While others favor going back to pre-16th Amendment days.

Freedom and Gun Regulation

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

Amendment II of The United States Constitution

This is one of the most confusing and most highly debated amendments in the Bill of Rights. Those who favor gun rights for individuals point out the amendment states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those who favor gun control point out the amendment talks about a well regulated militia. It is time to decide as a nation how we keep people free from government tyranny while at the same time keeping them free from fear of their neighbor. 

Americans as a whole seem to love their guns. That transcends race, social status, financial status and even religion (provided your religion allows for shooting people, animals or targets). Americans also see stories about gun violence on the news just about everyday.  It seems one side says the best way to stop the violence is to take away all the guns. The other side says the best way to stop the violence is to arm as many law abiding citizens as possible. 

The first option would lead to a population that cannot defend itself if need be from a government that one day could become tyrannical. The second option would lead to a society full of people will shoot first and ask questions later if the citizenry stops valuing life. 

A new amendment concerning weapons needs to be drafted and passed. While the right to bear arms is a God-given right, there must still be some common sense used. Do citizens need access to small arms? Yes they do. Do they need access to tanks? No they don't. Do individual states need to have their own nuclear arsenal? Not at all. The Federal government will always have the biggest and best weapons. A good check on that power is the people being able to have an armed resistance. Even if that resistance is not proportional to the federal military.

The states need to be the ones that regulate weapons and not the federal government. The original second amendment was put in place to limit the federal government's control on weapons.  It was there for the states and people to resist the government if need be. The only way in which the federal government should be involved in the regulation of weapons is to intervene when two states have a dispute about weapons crossing each other's boundaries. The states need to decide the best way to regulate its citizens and their weapons. This amendment would need to make it clear that incorporation does not apply to the states when regulating arms and militias. Each state would vary in that regulation. Texas would probably have many less regulations than Illinois.  As a Texan, I would want to see those with guns have to pass background checks by the state government, have a registry maintained by the state government and have state mandated training for every gun owner. I would not want to see these powers in the hands of a central government who already has an overwhelming amount of military strength if they need it to maintain their power and order. 

The new amendment would read:

The regulation of weapons and militias will rest entirely in the hands of the states. The Congress, President and Supreme Court will make no laws, orders or regulations concerning small arms other than disputes between states over their transportation across state lines.

Life

 The Declaration of Independence states that as a nation we value three things above all else. Those are the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I always find it interesting that the first mentioned is life. Maybe it is just coincidence. Maybe it just had a better flow to it. To me, life seems to be the most important of the three. It all starts with life. Once life is taken from an individual, the rest are impossible (obviously). 

Most everyone knows about Roe v Wade. It is probably the most well known Supreme Court decision ever. Some, if not most probably think this was when abortion started. The opposite is true. It is not new to mankind and was legal in about forty percent of America before 1973. What Roe v Wade did was end the prohibition of abortion in the rest of the nation. Since then there have been rulings that have decided how states could regulate abortions. 

It is time to end abortion. How do we end it? We need an amendment to the Constituion. Why? As it stands now, abortion is Constitutional. The Constituion does provide that the government stays out of an individual's life unless there is some kind of cause. It does not differentiate between a mother and the fetus. In fact, based on the 14th Amendment the fetus has no Constitutional rights. That would make Roe v Wade the correct ruling under our current Constitution. 

What is life? Many say that pro-lifers base their view of life on religion. I would agree with them. I, however do not. My view of life is based on science. The following are the criteria for life.

    Growth

    Stimulus Response

    Metabolism

    Homeostasis 

    Reproduction

    Mutation

    Autonomous Motion

A fetus either has all of these qualities or the potential to develop them all. If one says that they do not deserve the same rights to life as a person that has been born because they are not fully developed then I ask what about a five year old child? They do not posses the criteria of reproduction yet. Is it ok to eliminate their life? What about the person who is too old to reproduce? Should the decision to end their life be another's to make? What about a person who has chosen to stop their body from reproducing?  Is it ok to kill them? Are any of these people less human? Any reasonable person would say no.

I also believe that every individual has a soul. That is based on the philosophers that I have read. The only place religion plays in it is that killing without cause is a sin.

Why then do we believe the fetus does not have the right to life? Because they are still inside the mother? Many say they are apart of the mother's body and it is the mother's decision to choose what to do with that life. I say that the fetus is a seperate human life. While the child is dependent on the mother to stay alive this doesn't diminish their individuality. Does the mother control the fetus' movements? When the fetus is hungry? When the fetus sleeps? 

Many bring up the subject of children conceived as a result of rape or incest. I can't say that I have any answers on this subject. I can only ask questions. If I believe that all life begins at conception and all life deserves to keep life until there is due process taking that life, how can I say it is ok to end one but not another? If a man rapes a woman then is ok to punish a child? Do we punish for the sins of the father? What about the psychological effects on the mother? Would it be ok to abort the child that was conceived during consensual sex, if the father killed someone during the pregnancy and the mother does not want to be reminded of him via his child? Does having an abortion help the woman psychologically? Does she suddenly forget the rape? I have never had to face the tramua of sexual assualt. I don't even pretend to know what someone who has had to endure such a terrible act feels like. I have no clue what I would say to my daughters if one went through it. I think I would just ask them these same questions. 

For my pro-choice friends, I do not believe you are evil. I do believe abortion is an evil act. I do not wish for you to go to Hell. We have a difference of opinion on the subject. You are trying to protect the liberty of the woman. That is a noble cause. Having two daughters, I never want someone taking away their God-given rights. I also want all life to be protected. Innocent life needs the most protection of all. We must amend the constitution to protect life from the beginning and that is conception. 

A Job for All Americans

In the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton supporters began to question if then Senator Obama was born in Kenya. This would mean he would not be eligible to become president of the United States. Since then many on the right have taken up the cause. Even after documents have been produced showing the president was born in Hawaii, many still question if these were fake. To me, it's a stupid topic to dwell on for his opponents. First of all, there is documentation. Maybe you believe they could have had someone in the Hawaii government make up a birth certificate. Why has nobody come out and said they have proof that it was faked? It is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I once heard heard Rush Limbaugh say that he does not argue with conspiracy theorist because the conspiracy never stops. Second of all, Obama did not choose where he was born. If somehow the birthers were correct, would being born in another country make him less American? 

Then there are immigrants who come to this country and work hard, become  citizens, in doing so they become way more knowledgable of our country than those who were born here and they never have a chance to become president. Not that I really have a chance either but a different topic for a different time. 

Here is my solution. Amend the constitution to allow for any person who has been an American citizen for at least thirty-five years to be eligible to become president. Keep the fourteen year residency requirement. 

This would end people bickering over crazy theories about where someone was or was not born because they could not use that as a reason to try and disqualify someone from being president. It would also give those who would do a great job as president, a chance to become president no matter where they were born in this world. What is more American than that?

The Renewal Amendments: Electoral College

Something crazy happened on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 2000. Al "Global Warming is at Fault for Everything" Gore received more votes for president than his opponent George W. "If You're Not with Me then You're My Enemy" Bush but lost the election. How did this happen? Well, Al couldn't win the correct states. That and G.W.'s attorneys argued better in court. I voted for G.W. So, I was happy with the results. It was my first presidential election that could vote and I was batting 1.000. 

After that election, people figured out that the election of the president is not as it seems. Well at least those who are not into politics. When I was in high school government class, we learned in order to win a candidate only needs to win the 11 most populated states by just one vote. I think it's still eleven, give or take a state. 

How does the electoral college work? Currently, the winner must recieve 270 electoral votes to win. Each state is assigned a number of electors based on how many representatives in the House of Representatives plus two for the number of senators for each state. D.C. which is not a state and does not have any voting representation in congress, has three electors. The electors though are not the actual reps or senators. When you go in and waste your vote on a Republican or Democrat (my third party rant for today), you are actually voting for the electors who agree to vote for the guy that recieved your vote. There are those out there that believe we should amend the Constituion to eliminate the electoral college. Others want to keep it. They are both wrong.

Our government is designed to distribute power. We are not a democracy. We are not a republic. We are not a monarch. We are not an oligarchy. We are all of those combined. So to those who want a direct vote for a president, I'd say that we already have democratic elements in our government. For those who want to keep the college the same, I'd say that it seems stupid that one person could become president because they could get one more vote in just a little more than 1/5 of the states.

 What is the solution? I look to Maine and Nebraska. While all other states and D.C. are winner take all states, these two will split their electors. They use the congressional districts and then give the two "senator" electors to the winner of the state. 

This is a good system to keep the presidential election as an indirect vote. It also gives the individual more power. There is also the option of giving the electors based on proportional representation. This means if one candidate gets 51% in a state that has three electors, they would get 2 votes and the "loser" would get 1 elector vote. The one problem with an amendment that takes away the power of states to make election rules is that hurts federalism. 

To lessen the blow to federalism, the amendment needs to allow for the states to decide how to allow its citizens to choose the electors as long as it is not a winner take all state.

The framers quickly devised the electoral plan. This has left it to us to fix the system. It is not difficult but it won't be easy.

The Renewal Amendments: 29

Everyday Americans pay taxes in some way, shape or form. The nation was founded on the notion if that a person is taxed then they must be represented. Well recently many that did not remember the government shutdown in the 90s found out that at times the government can be shutdown. I am not here to point fingers or place blame. Republicans started the fight and Democrats punched right back. Of course both sides claimed to be fighting for a worthy cause. One for liberty. The other for social justice. Both I believe to be worthy causes that can coexist. The problem is that at the end of the day R's and D's are fighting to maintain power. 

How can someone be respresented if the government is shutdown? Or technically a government slowdown. I favor a government slowdown as long as it is not taking away useful government services just to spite the other guys. Of course that is a different topic for a different time.  Back to the representation when there is no government. To answer that question, one is not represented. Yet, they are still expected to pay taxes to the Feds when very little is being done. Well except when cameras are around and they can treat park employees like common criminals. Or tell stories of people going without paychecks while the politician speaking is still getting theirs. 

So what is the solution? A new amendment. An amendment that states that those in power must earn their paychecks. They must have a budget outlined and the government must be fully functional.

I am not sure how the exact wording should go but it should ensure those elected to federal office do not get paid if the government shuts down. The budgets that are passed must keep spending below the projected tax revenue for that year. If a budget cannot be reached then congress cannot go into recess. Also for everyday of a shutdown, each taxpayer will recieve a certain percentage of their taxes refunded.

The solution seems to be simple yet not easy to accomplish. I understand that creating a government budget is not the same as creating a family budget. For one families don't have money making machines. Not legally at least. We currently have a government that is full of people who have no insentive to compromise. A punch in the wallet would be small for many of those in power but it would annoy them enough for some kind of action.  

The Renewal Amendments: 28

Lately in the news we are finding out more and more that our elected representatives along with the special interest groups that support them are receiving special treatment when it comes to laws. This has been highlighted by the Affordable Healthcare Act. Even before it was passed there were deals being made to ensure that certain people would be exempt in order to get a senator or representative to vote for it. Since it has taken effect (or affect, I never know which one to use), we have learned of different groups that will be exempt from it to include our law passers. Let me be clear, while I use this law as a reason for a new amendment to the United States Constitution (probably because I think it is terrible law) this is not something new to our nation or mankind and both of the two major parties are guilty of it.

There has been a push for a 28th Amendment that would require laws to apply equally to everyone in the United States. I believe this to be a good idea. Laws for the most part should apply to all who are apart of a nation. 

The amendment should read along the lines of the following:

No law can be written as to exempt any person based on their position, membership in a group or social status unless there is a protection of that exemption in any article, previous amendment or future amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Examples of exemptions that should be allowed are those that would protect religious freedoms laid out in the 1st Amendment and protection of racial minorities that are laid out in Article I and Amendments 13, 14 and 15. There could be more reasons to exempt someone found in the Constituion. 

It also needs to be written to allow for people to challenge the law in courts if they have standing in order to receive an exemption. It also cannot be written as to limit the executive branch from being able to enforce laws as they see to be fit.

We have to ensure that laws are not used to oppress or to unfairly burden any segment of the population. This would be a step in the right direction. There will always be times when those in power help those who got them to where they are but that type of corruption can be contained.

The Renewal Amendments

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

United States Constitution Article V

In this country we have many arguments about whether the United States Constituion is a living document. Meaning, does it mean different things at different times? Yes and no.

For starters there are items that are vague and interpretive. Example, the right to free speech. What is speech? Is it only the words that come out of one's mouth? Does speech include wearing a tshirt with a message on it? Does it include stripping? And what if that speech causes harm to someone else? What if someone yells fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire and causes mass panic that injures someone? Can students exercise their freedom of speech at school or school related events? As you can see, one part of one amendment can create tons of questions. Yet even with these parts that can have some subjectivity there are still absolutes. It does not change from generation to generation that speech is protected. 

There is another way the Constituion is a living document in a sense. It is the amendments process. This is how we can make needed changes. Of course, it is a process that ensures very few amendments are added. As you can see, it takes much approving. And once the changes are made, the changes cannot be taken back without the same process. Just look at the 18th and 21st Amendments. 

While it's a difficult process, it is time to make amendments and changes. We have a government that is not working for the good of The People. It had sold out for power. When politicians only highlight their opponents weaknesses and not their own positives then we know they have found loopholes in the system. Why do something positive that might give someone else a little bit of  credit? It's just easier to obstruct and then blame it on the other side. 

The first proposal needs to be that laws are applied equally. No one can be exempt based on position, group or social status. 

The second needs to be that elected (autocorrect made this work "wrecked" the first time I typed it) officials do not receive pay in times that no budget has been passed. That includes the House, Senate, Vice President and President. 

The third needs to be to reform the electoral college. It needs to be decided if it is time to abolish it or to revamp it. 

The fourth needs to change the rule that someone must be born in the United States or to U.S. citizens in order to become president.

The fifth must be to define life. We as a nation need to start a discussion on when a person's right to life begins. Is that at conception, birth or somewhere in between?

The sixth needs to clarify the 2nd Anendment. The extremes have hi-jacked this amendment and we are all losing.

The seventh needs to be to abolish the 16th Amendment and come up with a new tax system or go back to the original system.

The eighth needs to change the way in which we elect both houses of Congress. 

The ninth needs to set term limits on elected officials along with their retirement pay.

The tenth needs to clearly define when the executive can and cannot use military force.

It is understandable that these amendments will be open to interpretation. They will not be simple. They will need to be carefully written. And they will need to be written in a way as not to stifle freedom but expand it for ourselves as well as future generations. It is time to renew our freedom and get a fresh start.

Top 9 Rangers

With the recent developments of the last week or so with Nolan Ryan and the Rangers, I started thinking about who are the greatest Texas Rangers of all-time. When it comes to who is the greatest Rangers of all-time they need to have made a contribution to the organizations history and have been great in their role on the team or front office or in the dugout.

9. Cliff Lee

He was only a rental for a half a season and the playoffs but did he ever make an impact? Upset cause he left? Didn't think he was that great in the regular season? He played like a champ and was one of the biggest reasons the Rangers made it to their first World Series While his ERA for the Rangers in the regular season was 3.98, it could have been considerably lower had he not been pitching the day he stepped off the plane. He had 96 strikeouts and 12 walks.  His 4-6 record had more to do with the fact that the Rangers offense shutdown when they watched him. In the 15 regular season games he pitched, the offense scored 3 or less runs seven times. Then look at his post season numbers and it looks like me playing Triple Play 2005 on rookie mode. His strikeout to walk ratio was 23.50 to 1.   Compared to Colby Lewis who's was 1.85 to 1 and CJ Wilson who's was 1.70 to 1. The closest competition was Cole Hammels with 17 to 1 which would be impressive considering third place was at 9 to 1. Then his ERA was 2.78 which was messed up by a bad game in the World Series at the hands of a smoking hot Giants team. He had over 11 strikeouts per nine innings. His WHIP was 0.81. He pitched and won key games in the Tampa series including the series' fifth game. Then he dominated the Yankees to the point there is a well verified rumor that they threw game six of the ALCS just to avoid game seven against Cliff. 

8. Josh Hamilton

This pains me. Josh is now the number 1 baseball enemy of Rangers fans. He says stupid stuff and was very injury prone but for those years here in Texas until the last part of 2012 when he did play he was spectfreakingtavular. In five seasons he had 771 hit, 156 doubles, 142 homers and 506 RBIs. He was an All-Star every season that he played for the Rangers. Who could forget his 2008 homerun derby? He didn't win but set the record of 28 homeruns in a single round. Then there was May 8, 2012. It was probably the last good memory of JHam. He hit four homers in one game against the O's. He also had a magical series against the Yanks in the 2012 ALCS. He hit .350 with 4 homeruns and an OBP of .536 in six games. He was also intentionally walked five times in that series. He might not feel the Texas love anymore but there was a time when he was our favorite athlete in this town.

7. Buddy Bell

He was a solid hitter for the Rangers. He hit .300 or better in two of the full six seasons he played the with the Rangers and hit below .290 only once. He had 200 hits, 42 doubles and 101 RBI in 1979. Of course his offense is not what made him a spectacular player and a four time all-star as a Ranger. It was his defense. He won six Gold Gloves as a Ranger.

6. Fergie Jenkins

When you think Rangers and pitchers of old, you think Nolan Ryan but while Nolan was still an Angel there was a guy named Fergie winning for the Rangers. While he would come back and pitch later for the Rangers, the 1974 season was his best. Combine that with his 1975 season and one could conclude that he was the greatest Rangers pitcher until Nolan and still maybe to this day. In 74, he won 25 games. That makes him only one of three Rangers pitchers to have a 20 win season and still the all-time Rangers' leader in wins for a single season. He is also tied for 6th with 18 in the 1978 season. He is also the Rangers career leader in innings pitched.  He had 29 complete games in 1974, 22 in 1975 and 16 in 1978. That puts him 1, 2 and 6 in that category for Rangers all-time. Just off those seasons alone, he has more complete games than Roy Halladay who is the active MLB leader in complete games with 67. Most don't remember this Ranger but that Canadian could throw.

5. Ron Washington

In the seven years that he has been manager, the Rangers have only had two losing seasons. They are currently on a streak of five straight winning seasons and four straight 90 win seasons. He is the Rangers all-time winningest manager. He has led them to back to back World Series in 2010 and 2011. They have played in more than 162 games four straight years. He seems like a down to earth guy. Just show up to work and do your job kind of guy. Plus he is great for Washisms. Sometimes that's how baseball go. 

4. Nolan Ryan

His career started before the Rangers were even around. He has become the face of the organization. In the 90s, he was in the twilight of his career. Yet, he threw his 6th and 7th no-no's during this time. He also reached the 5,000 strikeout  plateau and won his 300th game. Then he came back in the late 2000s and early 2010s as team president then part owner. During that time the team became winners and ALCS champions. While I believe Wash was more instrumental to this success, Nolan cannot be forgotten and combine that with his playing career and he edges out Wash for now.

3. Adrian Beltre

When you look up baseball stud in the dictionary, you will see this guy. He came to this club in 2011 and has become a leader. The type that teaches the young guys and then shows them on the field. He has hit at least 30 homers in each of his three seasons in Texas. He is currently number 2 on the Rangers' list for all-time batting average. He has hit 98 homers and 98 doubles. He is only one of seven Rangers to have a slugging percentage above .500 all-time. And what about that fielding? He won a Gold Glove in 2011 and 2012 but wait, there's more. Ever heard of a Platinum Glove? Well he has because he has won two of them. Turns out they have only been giving it out for two years now. It is awarded to the best defensive player in each league as voted on by the fans. Then in Game 4 of the 2011 ALDS against Tampa, he smacked three homeruns out of the park. You can put him up there with the likes of Reggie and The Babe and Brooks Robinson. However, never, ever touch his head.

2. Michael Young

He is number one in Rangers history in games played (1823), at bats (7399), runs scored (1085), hits (2230), doubles (415), and triples (55). He is top 10 in homers (177), RBI (984), walks (532) and average (.310).  He was not the greatest fielder in Rangers history but could be plugged into any infield position. He accepted roles that he did not choose just for the good of the team. He was with this team when they were no good and was able to know what it was like to finally make it to a World Series, two times. He is a guy who is just a grinder. He had five straight seasons of 200 hits and a total of six. He hit .300 or better in seven seasons. If there is no Ichrio and the Rangers are a better team earlier in his career then Michael Young would be a household name.

1. Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez

One the best catchers of all-time. He is top ten in Rangers history for games played (1507), at bats (5754), runs scored (866), hits (1747), doubles (352), triples (28), homeruns (217), RBI (842) and average (.304). He is number because of his great offense and even better defense. He won ten straight Gold Gloves. He was selected to the all-star team ten straight years. He even won the MVP in 1999. At the height of his career, nobody wanted to run against him because they were going to be thrown out at second.

The New America

So in America today we have a large segment of the population that is worried the nation is headed towards socialism. There is a constant barrage of Fox News and other right leaning media forums screaming this mantra. This is causing a defensive reaction from the Left. They are defending things such as social security, food stamps and The Affordable Healthcare Act. So we have R's out there defending freedoms and the free market while we have D's out defending the little man and social justice. What if neither were defending the causes they claim to defend? 

What is the biggest threat to our Republic? Is it Obamacare? Is it ongoing wars and conflicts around the world? Is it big oil companies getting tax shelters? Is it unions that are exempt from certain laws because of their political ties? Is it big bank bailouts? A large military industrial complex that ensures we are lapping the competition when it comes military spending? The answer is yes. 

Ever heard of the word fascism? Probably have when hearing about World War II and Hitler. It probably brings up images of Jews and anyone else thought to be less than human being enslaved and then killed. While these were atrocities committed by Hitler, that is only one version of fascism. 

Here is one Merriam-Webster definition of the word:

Date: 1921

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized government headed by a leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Looking at the definition, the first thing that pops out at me is exalting of nation above the individual. Could that not be more apparent than in modern America? It comes from both the Right and Left. The Right for the longest time has said that if you don't agree with America going to war then you hate the country and military. If one has a different opinion of American foreign policy then that person is an apologist and blames America first. Never despair though, the Left does the same just with different issues. They tell you that if you are against the federal government increasing regulations that you hate your fellow countryman. If you are for a different type of tax structure then you want to see the country fail. They also play the foreigner card. If you buy foreign then you hate American workers. If American companies employee people in other countries they do not want to improve the lives of the American worker. I could go on and on, so I will. Both sides favor bailouts for too big to fail companies. When it comes to war, the Right wants to take the fight to other countries as if the civilians in those countries are inferior to our civilians.  The Left's idea that the community is more important than the individual is dogma and if one disagrees they are greedy and self-centered.

While promoting race in America is not always in your face, it's still there. Saying that anti-black and anti-white stereotypes are accurate is taboo. There is still no problem stereotyping Arabs and Hispanics. There are those in government trying to paint every Hispanic as someone here illegally trying to take jobs from hardworking Americans and commit crime. Then Arabs (which inaccurately includes Persians and Indians) are cast as those who are here to impose Islamic Law and blow everyone up. Hispanics are expected to show documentation at the drop of a hat. Nobody ever questions if I am an American. Arabs or those who appear to be Arab are expected to deal with more checks at the airport and to be on terrorist watch lists. Of course, they should just rollover and accept this because it's for the good of the country. This is mainly a problem on the Right but on the Left if anyone disagrees with President Obama, they are automatically racist. 

Both tactics of using national pride and race are meant to shame the free thinker.

Then let's look at the centralization of power. No matter your political leanings you have to admit that power is centralizing in DC. Now at least the Left usually owns up that they like that view. And with a past of states abusing civil liberties, they have a valid point of view. The Right however will not admit they enjoy the federal government getting more power. They will never admit it but they want the Feds to regulate personal behavior. The Right more than the Left seems to favor going to war without Congress declaring it. However, the Left seems to be warming up to the idea. Until the latest near war experience with Syria, President Obama seemed to think he could order wars just like he was the new G.W. Bush. It is also well documented that the current president loves his drone strikes much more than any of the former presidents. He uses them with no approval by congress. Then again that's what the American people want, a strong executive that "fights" on their behalf.

As for our economics, the central government does pick and choose winners. They will bailout huge companies. The recent Affordable Healthcare Act is an example of winners being picked. The corporations win again. They will get to extend their market due to people being forced to buy health insurance. Then they can increase premiums as high as they can with the excuse that they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. My prediction is that in twenty years the profits gained by insurance companies will make oil company profits look like chump change and America will still have a healthcare "crisis". 

I could keep going but I think the point is made. We have thrown power the DC and DC married corporations. Nobody is using forcible suppression and I don't think it will ever come to that. The citizens of this nation will just learn to conform because it is easiest. Just keep us entertained. I am sure there are those who will read this and think that I hate America. I will not waste my time or yours proving my love for this nation and it's ideals. One of those ideals is that the individual is valuable. We are not living up to that ideal. It is more important to beg our politicians for their protection and then worship them in exchange.

Top 10 Shows of the 90s That I Have Watched at Some Point in My Life

Title long enough for you? Well I had to do that to feel that I was being honest. For one, these will only be shows that I watched. They are from the 90s but I may not have watched them in the 90s. They also needed a 90s feel to me. Not sure what that means but I knew it when I saw it.

10. Martin

I don't remember much of this show but I do remember laughing at it all the time. Martin Lawrence was awesome with all the characters that he played in the show besides his main character. Who didn't love them some Sheneneh?

9. Full House

It was cheesy but it would tug at your heart strings sometimes. Thanks DJ for teaching me that I need to eat. Especially if I'm going to the gym. Fitting into that two-piece bathing suit is not more important than my health. The fake family was much more together and functional than the real people. Bob Saget was not the wholesome dad. Atlantis Morrissette wrote a song about Joey. Stephanie became a meth addict. And the Michelles should have watched the DJ eating episode.

8. Walker, Texas Ranger

Chuck Norris and 1990s

7. The Simpsons

The show that just keeps on showing. The first time I saw this show, the NES was the best out there with its 8 bit graphics. It maybe a show that has been a part of four different decades but I will always think of it as the 1990s. This is a show that has undertones that most people do not get.

6. Coach

This was a show that I watched as a kid and understood very little of it. However, I loved it. I laughed and laughed. Craig T. Nelson's dry sense of humor mixed great with Jerry Van Dyke's slapstick humor that complimented Bill Fagerbakke's goofiness. Plus it was a comedy about football mixed in with some serious times and lessons learned.

5. Fresh Prince 

A really funny and smart show that took an interesting look at lots of social issues of the time. The characters were fun. Uncle Phil the grumpy overweight guy. Carlton the over-achieving nerd who thinks the best of the world. Will being the rags to riches guy. Plus it had the catchiest theme song. West Philadelphia born and raised...

4. Saved By the Bell

It's the first Saturday morning show that I watched that wasn't a cartoon. I'm sure there were others but it was the first that I remember watching. The cheese factor was off the scale. The jocks, nerds, dorks and geeks were over the top. It had a G rated ongoing love triangle with Zack, Kelly and Slater. It had a pretty girl being chased by the guy that could never have her. They would confront issues for teens of the time. Where else would we have learned to say nope to dope?

3. Star Trek: The Next Generation

I hear ya. Nerdy sci-fi show. I bet you didn't even watch it. Well, you should have watched it. You rarely walk away from any Star Trek episode without learning something. It was almost always a fun adventure with a moral issue mixed into it. Oh and I bet you have seen the latest Star Trek movies. Guess what, they are not made if Star Trek had not been revived in the late 80s and took off in the 90s.

2. Friends

This is the show that created the rule that I did not have to watch the show in the 90s in order to make the list. I just started watching it this past summer. It is hilarious. I constantly laugh when I see it. Who wouldn't want to be those guys? Living in NYC in your 20s and 30s. Its the show that makes you miss the 90s. Plus it gave us that good Greek girl, Jennifer Aniston. I really wish I had watched this show during its original run.

1. Seinfeld

The show about nothing. The more I watch this show, the more I love it. It never gets old. I think I have seen every episode at least three times. Yet the more I watch it, the more I realize how rude and arrogant the characters are on the show and I still love the show. George is so worried about getting recognized for things, getting out of working and breaking up with women who are way out of his league. Elaine is insensitive. Kramer is the slacker's dream. Never has a job yet still has money and knows how to freeload off any and everyone. Jerry is the glue of the group. He is all about himself. Must be why it was named Seinfeld. 

The People Shutdown

What is wrong with the United States Federal Government? This body which has never been perfect seems to be getting worse and worse by the day. We are currently in a government shutdown. This is over the Affordable Healthcare Act. One side wants to ensure it is not funded and will fund very little to make its point. The other side wants it funded and seems to have the same attitude towards funding other things. 

So what is the cause of this problem? Most blame the politicians themselves. Some blame the 24 hour news media. Others blame the rich while others blame the poor. I blame us, the people. 

We have become lazy when it comes to politics. Most will say, "I hate politics and want nothing to do with it." Others thinks it is boring. Some just have no faith that the system can be changed. This has led to many not participating. As for those who do participate, they do so every four years and forget about the rest of the time. They do not vote in non-presidential elections. When they do vote in presidential elections, they choose the R or the D. 

Want to see a change in our government? It is a three part solution. 

First, start voting in state and local elections. I understand they are not glamorous. Who cares who becomes the next comptroller, right? These elections are a way to start getting good folks involved and recognized in the political game. You know way more about Susan running for city council than you ever will about Obama or Cruz. 

Second, don't just wait for the presidential elections every four years. Vote in "off year" elections. Every two years we get to change the entire House and one-third of the Senate. This is a chance to send a message to politicians that is much louder than the latest Fox or MSNBC polls.

Third and what I think is most important, vote for the person, not the party. Even if it is a third party candidate. Many say that a third party vote is a wasted vote. I say voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil and giving your say so to evil. Our government was designed to disperse power yet the parties have figured out how to consolidate most of it and share it. 

I understand that you may just be one voice and may not count very much but go out and make your small voice as loud as possible. I promise you that it will make a difference one day. While you may feel that politics is not your problem, you will find out that the loss of freedoms will be your children's problem.

American Christianity: The Ultimate Persecuted

The past few days I have read a couple of articles on the killing of Christians around the world. This got me to thinking about Christians in America and all of our daily strife and struggles. Let's face it, we have it rough. 

First, we have those who are constantly attacking us by not saying Merry Christmas during the Holiday Season. This really gets to the heart of what that season means to us. How else am I suppose to celebrate the birth of Christ when I am buying the latest video games for my kids on a soon to be maxed out credit card? If I can't get a Merry Christmas from someone then I know that that person or the business they work for has not only declared a war on Christianity but has the nuke ready to fire it.

Second, we have to constantly worry that our kids are not going to schools teaching religion and interrupting the Bible for them. I mean of course we cannot go out and be expected to teach our children the Be Attitudes. That might mean they would figure out that we don't live them at all or at least when it's only convenient. On top of that the schools do such an awesome job of teaching everything else, why shouldn't we expect that they could teach theology just as well. We should be outraged that our children have to be in a secular environment because we know they will never be in one as adults.

Third, we have to constantly deal with other religions living around us. We are the first Christians to ever have to deal with such conditions. The Roman Empire instantly converted and Christians were welcomed with open arms. The unbelievers need to stay on their side of the planet and wait for us to come to them and know that we will get out of their hair as soon as we preach to them and give them a little food. We want to make sure that we do not develop any relationships with them. We know that Christ never did such a thing with people who were lesser than Him.

Yes, I'm being a little over the top. And yes, I can already hear some people calling me a liberal and a non-believer. Here is what it comes down to, I wish that I could live in an environment in which we all believe the same thing and we all worshipped Jesus. Turns out, we don't and we won't in the present condition of the world. What we do need to remember as Americans is that we have it 100 percent times better than most of our brothers and sisters around the world. I wish the person at the mall said Merry Christmas but I also wished that I focused more on Christ than worrying if my kids will like their gifts. I wish that my children could learn some theology in a school but I also wish they could learn more about Christ though my actions which are rarely if at all good. I do wish that everyone was a follower of The Way but I also wish that I was bolder about my faith because in my heart I know He is our only hope even if I don't always speak it with my lips.