I am occasionally reminded that there are people in the world who are willing to do the right thing at any cost. I don't have the time nor mental wherewithal right now to write a full post on this, but it's something i've been planning for a while, and this seems to be a wonderful introduction. Read and think. http://mississippistate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=983337
More to come.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A Brief Salute.....
To William Kostric, the peaceful protester in New Hampshire who openly carried a firearm to the town hall meeting, not for purposes of violence, but to provide a demonstration of our rights. "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.... shall not be infringed," and "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," both rights exercised by this man. Additionally, he consented to be interviewed on Hardball with Chris Matthews afterwards, and made calm, informed arguments about what he did, why he did it, and the current state of our country. The full interview can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA
Thank you Mr. Kostric. You have done the people of this country a service. Continue the good fight in peace.
Thank you Mr. Kostric. You have done the people of this country a service. Continue the good fight in peace.
Monday, August 10, 2009
I wrote this piece, and have sent it to flag@whitehouse.gov. I think it speaks for itself. For those not familiar with the address above, it was created for individuals to report 'fishy' information on health care reform, gathered from individual sources. It is, in essence, a Snitch Line. Please read.
I would like to submit a report of a very dangerous and very influential source of misinformation on the current status of the Health Care Reform. This man has gone on public record stating that the new health care bill would not eliminate private insurance. However, on page 16 of the bill, sec. 102, subsection a1,
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
11
this paragraph, the individual health insurance
12
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
13
any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
14
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
15
day of Y1.
16
Many were doubtful of the true meaning of this statement, as it seemed to mean that if this bill were to be enacted, after Y1, no new individual insurance policies could be written. The editorial writers of the Investors Business Daily decided to fact check before publishing, and so went to the House Ways and Means Committee for verification of intent. They did indeed verify that that was the intent of that clause. However, Barack Hussein Obama and his staff have consistently denied that private, individual insurance would be made illegal. In a publicized speech on June 15, 2009, stated “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.” This is simply not true. In the case of layoffs or other causes for a change in health care, you cannot keep your old plan. You must switch over to government service. I expect a full inquiry will be made into this dangerous misinformant.
This is a farcical piece. I wrote this piece for two reasons. First off, I wished to register a complaint against the new bill. It represents a serious invasion into the private lives of American citizens, in the name of helping the 15% of our population which is not insured. Both my parents are doctors, one a private concierge pediatrician and internist still trying to get his practice on it's feet, and the other a pediatrician at a reputable Chicagoland practice. Both the small practice and the large realize that this new bill would destroy them. Being in a family of doctors, I have come to know a great many. Not one of the people whose services are required by this legislation likes what it says. All of them, Republican and Democrat alike, are terrified that this bill will go through. They all realize what this will do.
My second reason was the very existance of this email adress. Classic science-fiction totalitarianism features the government urging the population to report suspicious or dissident behavior. Seeing such a policy actively in place is deeply disturbing. In the search for misinformation on Health Care, we need look no further than the chief proponent of the same. Yet he has much more credibility among the populace than people who, like myself and the Investors Business Daily, went to the source documentation for verification. As an American citizen, protected by the Constitution, I must ask that this address be permanently terminated. Amendment 4 of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Setting up a direct line for reporting of suspected dissidence goes against that, as well as all the core values of America NOT listed in the constitution, and guaranteed to us by the 9th amendment. Thank you for your time in reading this, if indeed this ever reaches a human being. Your country is deeply divided on this issue.
Most sincerely,
The Scribbler,
Student at the Illinois Math and Science Academy, class of 2011
All views expressed above are my own, or belonging to those credited. I am not assosciated with any political group or organization. I wrote this of my own volition.
I welcome any and all comments.
I would like to submit a report of a very dangerous and very influential source of misinformation on the current status of the Health Care Reform. This man has gone on public record stating that the new health care bill would not eliminate private insurance. However, on page 16 of the bill, sec. 102, subsection a1,
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
11
this paragraph, the individual health insurance
12
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
13
any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
14
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
15
day of Y1.
16
Many were doubtful of the true meaning of this statement, as it seemed to mean that if this bill were to be enacted, after Y1, no new individual insurance policies could be written. The editorial writers of the Investors Business Daily decided to fact check before publishing, and so went to the House Ways and Means Committee for verification of intent. They did indeed verify that that was the intent of that clause. However, Barack Hussein Obama and his staff have consistently denied that private, individual insurance would be made illegal. In a publicized speech on June 15, 2009, stated “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.” This is simply not true. In the case of layoffs or other causes for a change in health care, you cannot keep your old plan. You must switch over to government service. I expect a full inquiry will be made into this dangerous misinformant.
This is a farcical piece. I wrote this piece for two reasons. First off, I wished to register a complaint against the new bill. It represents a serious invasion into the private lives of American citizens, in the name of helping the 15% of our population which is not insured. Both my parents are doctors, one a private concierge pediatrician and internist still trying to get his practice on it's feet, and the other a pediatrician at a reputable Chicagoland practice. Both the small practice and the large realize that this new bill would destroy them. Being in a family of doctors, I have come to know a great many. Not one of the people whose services are required by this legislation likes what it says. All of them, Republican and Democrat alike, are terrified that this bill will go through. They all realize what this will do.
My second reason was the very existance of this email adress. Classic science-fiction totalitarianism features the government urging the population to report suspicious or dissident behavior. Seeing such a policy actively in place is deeply disturbing. In the search for misinformation on Health Care, we need look no further than the chief proponent of the same. Yet he has much more credibility among the populace than people who, like myself and the Investors Business Daily, went to the source documentation for verification. As an American citizen, protected by the Constitution, I must ask that this address be permanently terminated. Amendment 4 of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Setting up a direct line for reporting of suspected dissidence goes against that, as well as all the core values of America NOT listed in the constitution, and guaranteed to us by the 9th amendment. Thank you for your time in reading this, if indeed this ever reaches a human being. Your country is deeply divided on this issue.
Most sincerely,
The Scribbler,
Student at the Illinois Math and Science Academy, class of 2011
All views expressed above are my own, or belonging to those credited. I am not assosciated with any political group or organization. I wrote this of my own volition.
I welcome any and all comments.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Meditations on this day
I know it's been a while since my last post. School work and social trauma of the sort to be expected in high school led to a brief hiatus, and I just didn't feel like writing anything new. The events of today led to some thoughts that I'd like to share briefly.
This day often brings out the best in out country. I served in a color guard at the Chicago History Museum, and did my best to give our flag the same respect that those who died for it gave it. The entire audience stood for the presentation, and gave a rousing round of applause to the veterans among our audience. The speeches were respectful, and there was a reading of the Declaration of Independance. All too often, people forget that that declaration is the reason not only for a day to hold barbecues and shoot fireworks, but for the very existence of this nation. On that note, it was also a condemnation. The signers knew that they were condemning this fledgling nation to years of war and hardship. The flag of our nation was paid for in the blood of our soldiers, and the tears of torn families. To show respect to the flag is to show respect to those who sacrificed to bring it, and the freedoms this nation guarantees are given by those who have given up their own. The flag is a piece of cloth. It stand for much more.
It was one of our unit's more successful presentations, and was received very well. Except by one man. This man came up to my scoutmaster (it's a boy scout color guard unit) and complained that we had asked the audience to join in the pledge to the flag we had carried. His complain was that it was a military flag, and he did not want to pledge allegiance to it. To me, this shows that this man has no respect for the military blood that was spilled to create that flag. The American Flag is the symbol of our nation, regardless of it's particular affiliation. And so, I would like to end with a few words to those who share this man's anti-military leanings. first. You don't have to support the war. Please support our troops. They gave you your barbecues and parades and fireworks. Second. That Flag is the symbol of our nation. Naturalized citizens must take the pledge. I daresay that those people understand this country better than you do. You are entitled to your opinion of our nation. But if you are unwilling to make that pledge, then you do not deserve US citizenship. Government constituent relations must go two ways. They can serve this nation best when the populace is loyal. Third. Enjoy the trappings of liberty today and every day. But always remember that that liberty is paid for in the blood of Americans. Respect them, and the ideals they died to protect.
This day often brings out the best in out country. I served in a color guard at the Chicago History Museum, and did my best to give our flag the same respect that those who died for it gave it. The entire audience stood for the presentation, and gave a rousing round of applause to the veterans among our audience. The speeches were respectful, and there was a reading of the Declaration of Independance. All too often, people forget that that declaration is the reason not only for a day to hold barbecues and shoot fireworks, but for the very existence of this nation. On that note, it was also a condemnation. The signers knew that they were condemning this fledgling nation to years of war and hardship. The flag of our nation was paid for in the blood of our soldiers, and the tears of torn families. To show respect to the flag is to show respect to those who sacrificed to bring it, and the freedoms this nation guarantees are given by those who have given up their own. The flag is a piece of cloth. It stand for much more.
It was one of our unit's more successful presentations, and was received very well. Except by one man. This man came up to my scoutmaster (it's a boy scout color guard unit) and complained that we had asked the audience to join in the pledge to the flag we had carried. His complain was that it was a military flag, and he did not want to pledge allegiance to it. To me, this shows that this man has no respect for the military blood that was spilled to create that flag. The American Flag is the symbol of our nation, regardless of it's particular affiliation. And so, I would like to end with a few words to those who share this man's anti-military leanings. first. You don't have to support the war. Please support our troops. They gave you your barbecues and parades and fireworks. Second. That Flag is the symbol of our nation. Naturalized citizens must take the pledge. I daresay that those people understand this country better than you do. You are entitled to your opinion of our nation. But if you are unwilling to make that pledge, then you do not deserve US citizenship. Government constituent relations must go two ways. They can serve this nation best when the populace is loyal. Third. Enjoy the trappings of liberty today and every day. But always remember that that liberty is paid for in the blood of Americans. Respect them, and the ideals they died to protect.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Latest and Greatest
I'm not really sure what to say for my first post, especially because at this point I'm the only one who knows this blog exists. I started this blog to get my thoughts out on various issues, so i suppose I should start with the issue on my mind right now. I just wrote a letter to President Obama concerning HR 1022 and HR 45. For those of you unfamiliar with these two pieces of legislation, they are the newest in a long string of attempts by the government to control the trade and ownership of guns. HR 45 is a blanket mandate to all who wish to own guns, concerning licensing and police tracking. HR 1022 is an 'assault weapons' ban. my problem with the term 'assault weapon' is that the definitions cover how the weapon looks, as separate from the functionality of the piece. with current definitions, if you take any semi-automatic, detachable magazine rifle, you can turn it into an assault weapon by adding: a pistol grip, as defined by a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip, a barrel shroud, (a covering for the barrel, protecting the shooter's hand from the heat of the barrel), a forward grip, or a telescoping or folding stock. None of these aspects change the way the gun functions. They do make it scary looking. A Bushmaster semi-auto AR-15 looks scary, even though it's functionality is no different than the majority of semi-automatic rifles. The Bushmaster AR-15 is specifically banned in HR 1022.
My point in writing this is not to cover each aspect of these bills. There are many others with a better understanding of them who have beat me to it. Instead, I wish to look at the idea of gun control as a whole. First and foremost in this debate is the second amendment. "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." Simple and plain, yet full of meaning. It doesn't say that the people can have guns. It says that the government can't prevent them from having guns. The bill of rights is not a set of rights that you have as a citizen, it is a set of limitations on government. The government cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. There are people who dither about what defines an arm, what is reasonable for people to own, and many more irrelevancies. The government IS NOT ALLOWED to prevent you from owning a firearm.
To understand the second amendment, you need to understand why it was written. The founding fathers could never have dreamed that the government would attempt to prevent people from owning weapons for hunting. Hunting was the primary way of life in that time. If you wanted meat, then you went out and you shot it yourself. No, they put in the second amendment as a check against tyranny. These men had just freed themselves from the tyranny of the British through the use of the musket. They knew that power corrupts. Indeed, Jefferson intended for there to be a revolution every 100 years. 70 years later, the South took up arms against the economic tyranny of the North. Keep the people of this country free of tyranny. Bear arms. Understand arms. Be responsible for yourself. Stay free.
Please comment respectfully.
My point in writing this is not to cover each aspect of these bills. There are many others with a better understanding of them who have beat me to it. Instead, I wish to look at the idea of gun control as a whole. First and foremost in this debate is the second amendment. "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." Simple and plain, yet full of meaning. It doesn't say that the people can have guns. It says that the government can't prevent them from having guns. The bill of rights is not a set of rights that you have as a citizen, it is a set of limitations on government. The government cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. There are people who dither about what defines an arm, what is reasonable for people to own, and many more irrelevancies. The government IS NOT ALLOWED to prevent you from owning a firearm.
To understand the second amendment, you need to understand why it was written. The founding fathers could never have dreamed that the government would attempt to prevent people from owning weapons for hunting. Hunting was the primary way of life in that time. If you wanted meat, then you went out and you shot it yourself. No, they put in the second amendment as a check against tyranny. These men had just freed themselves from the tyranny of the British through the use of the musket. They knew that power corrupts. Indeed, Jefferson intended for there to be a revolution every 100 years. 70 years later, the South took up arms against the economic tyranny of the North. Keep the people of this country free of tyranny. Bear arms. Understand arms. Be responsible for yourself. Stay free.
Please comment respectfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)