http://www.ziggytv.com/miniplayer/?mode=tv&genre=entertainment&id=11209

Retroactive Legislation

I've been reading reports about the ongoing deliberation about the warrantless wiretapping that took place after 9/11. Am I mistaken, or is it explicit in the United States Constitution that there can be no such thing as retroactive legislation? Another issue I have is with George W. Bush's validation of his violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He does not even deny that he has violated FISA, but rather argues that it was within his wartime powers. Did I miss something or has Mr. Bush declared marshall law? Wartime powers do not include warrantless violation of the rights of American citizens. Am I going crazy or is this country simply watching itself be pillaged by its own "government." The federal government's jurisdiction has become so ambiguous that it is able to pull almost abstract amounts of money out of the citizens of this country and use that money to intimidate, confuse, and alienate view that may raise any opposition to their own. Examples of this can be seen in the Bush Administration's active suppression of reports from its own departments when they are contradictory to the desires of Bush's camp. The environmental report that was to be released every four years was released for the first time under this administration this year (thats eight years rather than four), and only after it was forced to do so. What about the contracts being issued to oil companies in Iraq now? The Iraq war was not about oil? Then why is it that western companies are the only companies that received 'non-bid' contracts and the advantage of having the opportunity to meet any bids that may be placed in the future. I simply fear that we reap what we sow. We have become placid and to lazy to sow much, and wonder why the benefits being reaped have plummetted. Issues are still to come. People haven't discussed much about the troubles being seen on the horizon for our own trucking industry as in other countries. Bush is attempting to intimidate congress into allowing off-shore drilling... Great idea. We've been wreaking havoc on our environment already, now lets start wreaking havoc on a more fragile, and less understood environment in our deep oceans. What happened to his consideration of creating massive areas of national protection of many marine ecosystems? Now that I have pointed the finger so harshly at Bush, I must also point out that we are very simple-minded if we believe that Bush is so heavily to blame for all this. He is simply the figurehead, the fall guy, and a stooge-king. The real problem lies in the amorphous entities that lurk behind the scenes of our political systems and maintain lasting influences beyond those of the short-lived occupancies of the individuals we vote for.

HMDA: A Perfect Example of Regulation

The HMDA, or the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, is the act implemented for the regulation of the mortgage market. Enacted in 1975, it has been applauded for the increase of lending to low-income families and a decrease in the racial disparities. These are good reasons for applause, but as a cynical skeptic, I must raise concern of its presence in context to the current credit crisis that has gripped out country. Right now, there is a great deal of pressure on the insurance industries to adopt similar regulation at the federal level. I am a strong supporter of deregulation and free markets. Not only do I support deregulation, but I would like to use the same example pro-regulation supporters use to support their cause. HMDA is a perfect example of regulation at the federal level not being effective. There are far more factors involved in these markets than can be regulated, and regulation at the federal level interferes with the local and global market interactions. As we tweak different pieces of our economic world in the hopes of being able to control it, I can't help but feel like it is just an attempt to validate and secure another job for somebody as a middle-man. As middle-men get squeezed out of the marketplace, they seem to end up before the federal government, and then proceed to interfere in the functions of the economic world because they think something is wrong with it when they are not able to find the success they assume is their justifiable due. Regulation of markets produce complications. Then, when these complications arise, pro-regulation supporters cry for more regulation as an example of it. What an odd world we live in.

Seriously, What About The Constitution?

Watching all the media coverage of the political environment in our country, I can't help but find it amazing that there is no talk of correspondence between platforms and their constitutional relativity. Would it not seem a very good expose to look at the working of our government, the projected workings of government under the current candidates, and those processes in context to their constitutional legitimacy? We do live in a constitutional republic right? So what happened to that? I'm not even trying to assert any party of any kind, I'm simply trying to see what kind of accountability exists within our government in relation to the Constitution. Are we officially becoming socialist? If so, then why isn't that being discussed? As the dollar continues to lose value, and more services are transferred to government control, does it not become apparent that socialism is taking incremental control? The development of black markets in the United States is a very strong indicator of that. Yet the government, in its infinite wisdom associates the development of gangs with drugs. Gangs flourish because they provide services and goods that cannot be provided by the American economy, but government still pushes commercial campaigns that associate these gangs with drugs. What about organized crime that took place long before the "problem of drugs"? They want people to contribute to the government's efforts so that they can continue to do nothing of significance against these black markets. These markets are not just about drugs, they are also about the control of weapons. As we continue to limit the ability of our citizens to own guns, they will continue to expand their successful expansion in black markets. This has already been seen in other parts of the world, and yet here we are trying to do the same here and seeing the same results and allowing our government to take more of our money to do nothing about it. It's amusing. All I can do is observe and comment. Perhaps one day, people will see things for what they are, and after the United States of America is long gone, another attempt at the experiment that the colonials worked so hard to bring about will be made. It is a shame that we have so willingly given up on the experiment that they tried to give us, and allowed so many parts of our lives to be controlled. An interesting thought to leave you with... If the Democratic party is allowed to bring about this universal health care, it will become a criminal offense not to pay insurance. You will be a criminal just because you wish to choose not to participate in insurance. Does that not seem like it is in the interest of the insurance company rather than in the interest of the people? Yet there are so many people out there pushing so very hard for these people...

Ron Paul

Liberty. A concept that has been so dear to this country. Why is it never brought up in the debates for government policy? The leverage always seems to fall in the hands of controlled government policy for protection. "Give me liberty, or give me death." Yet so many are swayed by the argument that we must "protect" ourselves. Give up your liberties to "protect" against drugs. Give up your liberties to "protect" against terrorists. It has historical precedent to give up our liberties for protection so why fight it? I argue that it also shows historical precedent that our country has progressively lost effectiveness, strength, and foundation. The Constitution isn't seen as the foundation anymore, it is an obstacle that government attempts to circumvent. So why is it that Ron Paul is the only one that is arguing that government should get out of people's lives, and we should operate in a strict constitutionalism? Why is Ron Paul the only person questioning the Federal Reserve while our economy begins to plummet as the dollar (a currency based on belief in the American economy, rather than on any real commodity) weakens. I am completely amazed at the suppression of Ron Paul's objectives in mass media. How could the idea of a national health care system even be discussed? Have we not learned our lessons with the social security debacle, or the experiences of veterans in VA hospitals? How do they plan on generating these systems? More taxes? Taxing the American people even more than they already are? Just for kicks, check out the taxes that the British government was trying to implement on the American colonists when the American Revolution took place. I must say, I am very impressed by ability of media, and the federal government to keep such a historically strong people quelled. However, there is a point when people will say, enough. I don't get to say when that is, but personally, Ron Paul is the only person that I can see helping to bring about the change that REALLY needs to happen.

Liberty

What happened to the idea of people being able to practice as they please in this country? I thought that people had the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yet the fears of a few have been spread to many for the comfort of some, and brought about the demise of such an important aspect of this country. If people wish to do something to themselves then they should have that right. These "campaigns" against drugs are the epitome of the forces poisoning what makes this country unique just to allow the few that have their fears to feel better about their lack of faith in their fellow Americans. I'm not arguing against the damages of any drug (although I find it shameful to make many of the assertions being claimed as accredited social science. They are simply the opinions of groups with motivated interests and we can all find what we seek through enough distortion, but that is an entirely different discussion). I am simply arguing that, for better or worse, this is supposed to be the land of the free. To me, that means that a crime is committed when rights are being infringed upon. For that reason, a person ingesting a chemical is far less of a crime than what these "campaigns" are trying to commit. These campaigns are not alone. The campaigns for the control of information distribution have a strong potential to develop into similar enemies of the state. Beyond either of these cases, although somehow far less popular amongst discussion is the methods being used in this "War on Terror". This "war" has no defined enemies, in fact, the targets of this fight are simply called "enemy combatants". An enemy combatant can be anyone from anywhere that is implicated in an act of terror, but what can be listed as an act of terror? I have confidence that those responsible for the safety of this country will not use the precedent set by this act to suppress people with different beliefs without actual threat from them, but it leaves the door open for others in the future to abuse. What scares me is the potential for anyone to be deemed an enemy combatant, and the nightmare then begins. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended for those deemed enemy combatants, and that gives those who are in control of targeting the power to be above the law. It is true that Habeas Corpus has been suspended before in this country's history, but every time before this has been under strongly defined and far more pressing conditions. The desperate pride of crusaders seeking vindication for their personal judgments is their own beast of burden. I will not make anyone out to be a bad guy for doing what they believe is right, and so I will not wish ill will upon them. I simply find it sad that this country is being defaced in such a way and the freedoms of the world are being abolished in the so-called, "land of the free".

Senator Mitchell: A Danger to the United States?

William Randolph Hearst was a man who was instrumental in the criminalizing of marijuana. Hearst set the precedent for the annexation of the individual liberties of Americans to the Federal Government. In his selfish and prideful crusade to garner fame and prestige, he destroyed one of the most important characteristics of being an American. Now, Senator George J. Mitchell is attempting to do the same for performance enhancing drugs. The talks are not only about steroids, but about amphetamines that are used by individuals with disabilities to be able to maintain focus and attention. These McCarthyism-like actions are a travesty and yet we sit here and watch helplessly as they set yet another precedent. It was not enough to attack the threat of performance inhibiting substances, now they want to attack performance enhancing substances. What scares me is that there is the implications that regulation could extend to all substances that an individual can ingest, and if that is the case, then American freedom truly will die as we watch our dear sports on television. Can we not stand and make our voices loud enough to let those high up on Capitol Hill hear us. In unison, we must scream with the desperation of American patriotism's threatened livelihood to stop. Their insatiable need to regulate all aspects of life are destroying that which we stand for, and are doing no service to this country, but are truly committing the most threatening acts of treason ever presented to this great union of states known as the United States of America. Please, silence those who proliferate fear and limitation towards the most important aspects of our nation, and allow all to hear the bells of freedom ring.