President Obama’s Truth about the Debt Ceiling

Almost three years into Obama’s term, my opinion about him has changed. He’s one of our better Presidents because he has told the truth and exposed all of the myths about our monetary policy from each side of his mouth.

For the past several weeks, I have listened to the smoke and mirrors game being played regarding the debt ceiling. Republicans are pretending to act like fiscal warriors…never mind the fact that size of our debt doubled in President Bush’s 8 years, and MANY Republicans voted to RAISE the debt ceiling during their reign in Congress. Their recent “heroic” acts certainly do not cut any ice with me, especially because spending has still been escalating since their 2010 takeover.

Let us now return to President Obama since the man has been telling the truth since 2006. It’s too bad that we do not have Senator Obama’s ideas from 2006. This particular Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling; and he had this to say about the fiscal status of our nation:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck’ stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

This side of Obama is one who may have engaged in a libertarian acid trip…yet another reason to end the war on drugs! On a more serious note, let’s give him kudos for confessing the fact that the United States has been engaged in reckless monetary policy. Now, shall we examine his recent rhetoric?

Obama claims that if we do not raise the debt ceiling, the U.S. will not be able to pay the interest on its loans which would result in default. Our debt rating will be downgraded. Disaster will ensue! How many of you would like to raise your debt ceiling when you cannot pay your bills? Being fiscally responsible isn’t any fun! Why cut spending when you can just borrow more? So…what truth has Obama revealed? He is saying that the United States does not have the desire nor does it have to engage in fiscal responsibility since it owns a printing press. What the President should be doing is assuring our creditors that the United States will meet its obligations; however, if he doesn’t SCARE people and the markets into believing disaster will occur, then he cannot carry on the same reckless fiscal policies.

Obama must be convinced that the real disaster will not come during his watch. The day will come where our creditors will create a debt ceiling for us. After all, Obama’s recent confession shows just how close we are to being capped. He’s basically confessed that we cannot pay our bills without having to borrow more money. The printing press cannot print forever either for those of you who are naïve enough to think inflation has been averted.

When the going gets tough, the tough don’t have to get going in Washington. All they simply need to do is scare the daylights out of old people. It works like a charm every time, and it has political clout since our seniors comprise a major voting bloc. If President Obama is telling the truth that money will run out by August 3rd to issue social security checks, then he has admitted that there are no social security trust funds! Furthermore, this proves that social security is nothing more than a government-run Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff went to jail – he should have worked for the government.

As always, it’s up to the American people to change things. The U.S. government is in this predicament because so many people have become dependent on government programs. Politicians do not care about the future of the country. They care about staying in office; and they are not going to cut programs that their constituents depend upon unless people decide to cut the government umbilical cord themselves.

For a new nation, thing have changed awfully fast – especially over the past 100 years. We’ve allowed the monopoly. We have sold out. We now want government to make the decisions for us, even for the most critical things in life like medical care and retirement planning. We also protect the world by offering free security at the taxpayers’ expense. The endless foreign wars we have been engaged in both now and in the past have reached astronomical costs. We have successfully surrendered our freedoms, and as a result, we have an out-of-control tyrannical government that has weakened our status as a nation.

We have traded a free market for a sickening version of statism with regulatory policy to “protect us” being written by the very lobbyists who are publically despised. This has allowed several big corporations (our large banking institutions and General Electric among them) and major universities that corrupt our young adults to become nothing more than another extension of government.

History does not lie. Countries have been down this road before. The fiat currency system is failing. Ireland needs another bailout, and the Eurozone, as a whole, is becoming increasingly unstable. America cannot pay its bills without plunging further into debt.

Maybe it’s time for people to abandon the TV remote and pay more attention to the major loss of freedoms we as a nation have endured. I say this because there are still a vast amount of politically challenged people out there. For example, those who still believe there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans simply because they focus only on meaningless rhetoric.

How many people believe what President Obama is saying about the debt ceiling, when he had the opposite position four years ago? How many knew his position four years ago? How many seniors are scared to death that their social security will stop? The majority of the American population doesn’t know what constitutes the left and right wing since most will say the “evil right wing” is taking away their social security. In America, social authoritarians and war hawks are called right wing. Amazing! For a better understanding of the political spectrum, give this video seven minutes of your time:

The Political Spectrum Explained

On the brink of the 2012 election, the GOP’s top priority comes from a radical Christian group in Iowa asking candidates to sign a pledge which is not only horribly discriminatory, but it is the antithesis of the principles in which this country was founded. If that’s not bad enough, I am at a loss for words to explain how Mitt Romney, the father of universal healthcare, could be one of the top contenders. Also at the top is Michele Bachmann who seems to think homosexual couples are more dangerous than the power of the Federal Reserve.

Politicians could never get away with such lies and treachery if the ‘masses’ were a bit more educated; yet some people believe that libertarians like me are the ones who lack insight. Libertarians who stand for social and economic liberalism are the true champions and defenders of freedom.

Wisconsin’s Feud with Public Unions: A Dangerous War on Statism

Folks on the left don’t handle their cage being rattled very well. However, threats to the largest collusion in America – an alliance between government and labor unions are an act of war. The gloves come off, and things get very ugly.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) points out that Stalin, Mubarak and Hitler all opposed independent labor unions. His “mini-rant” basically imposes the idea that if one is opposed to collective bargaining rights, then they espouse the ideology of the aforementioned tyrannical leaders. After all, opposing people’s rights to collectively bargain is a major assault on freedom!

On the surface, if one opposes people’s right to collectively bargain and believes the government should impose such a restriction, then Senator Brown is not off the mark with his assertion. Granting the government this type of power would indeed be very anti-libertarian and anti-freedom. Unfortunately for Senator Brown, his assessment of the reality of the situation is far off the mark.

Leftists really should proceed with caution when they invoke historical elements into their arguments, as they almost always backfire. The ease of access to information allows people to debunk the rewriting of history much faster. Therefore, let us journey back in time to Adolph Hitler’s very own Mein Kampf. While it is true that Hitler abolished trade unions, we must first understand his ulterior motive before we run with an empty talking point. Hitler wasn’t anti-union. He was simply against any union that wasn’t the National Socialist Union. “A National Socialist union side by side with other unions is senseless. For it, too, must feel itself permeated by its philosophical task and the resultant obligation to be intolerant of other similar, let alone hostile, formations and to emphasize the exclusive necessity of its own ego. Here, too, there is no understanding and no compromise with related efforts, but only the maintenance of our absolute sole right.” The same is true for Stalin’s ‘Union’ of Soviet Socialist Republics! As long as said unions supported the state, they were just fine.

Before we return to the present time, let us visit the viewpoint of one more famous person in history – Franklin Delano Roosevelt – arguably the founding father of modern-day socialism in America. Surely, he can substantiate Senator Brown’s claim. Unfortunately, for the Senator, FDR’s position makes Brown’s ignorance gleam. President Roosevelt actually opposed public sector unions.

An excerpt from his letter to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, written on August 16, 1937 states:

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." (The entire letter can be viewed here.)

The parallel is very obvious, so let’s tie it into the current situation. It has been established that ruthless dictators only support unions that support their cause – the state. FDR was certainly not anti-union; however he opposed any union that threatened the functionality of the government.

Things have changed quite a bit since the days of FDR. Unions have lost a vast amount of power in the private sector. Membership has steadily declined over the years and continues to slide down to a mere 11.9 percent. Conversely, union membership has a significant upward trend in the public sector as many state and local government jobs are unionized. In 2010, the union membership rate for public sector workers stood at 36.2 percent.(1)

Rather than public sector unions being at odds with government, as FDR feared, they joined forces instead. It is comical to read the rants of angry leftists blogging about anything from the Koch brothers’ influence to the accusations of war on the middle class. One would think with all of this concern about collusion and influence, we would discuss the biggest one of them all – the alliance between labor unions and members of Congress!

This is a website everyone should bookmark, as it tracks donations made to political candidates as well as Congressional lobbying. Interestingly enough, we find that SEVEN out of TEN of the organizations that have the deepest pockets are labor unions or organizations that act in the interest of labor unions. ActBlue is the number one seed with over $51 million in contributions. This organization is essentially the online clearing house for the Democratic Party as it has funneled over $134 million through mid-2010 to existing and potential candidates for the Democrat Party. The original page does not reflect donations below the $200,000 mark, which is why total contributions are substantially higher. Ironically, the non-union “heavy hitters” are organizations for realtors, lawyers and the firm Goldman Sachs – none of whom had anything to do with the latest market bubble that burst!

Ten of the top 15 all time donors contribute solidly to the Democratic Party. FDR need not turn in his grave, as the alliance to the state is stronger than ever. (2) What was that about Hitler and Stalin again?

Now that we have corrected the record on history, Sherrod Brown and demonstrated the glaring statism that exists between unions and the government; we can now articulate the differences between interfering with worker’s rights to organize, the difference between public and private sector unions as well as the role of collusion between labor unions and the government that effectively expands the voting bloc of the Democratic Party along with the welfare state.

No true believer in the ideology of a free market would ever impose a restriction on workers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain with organizations in the PRIVATE sector. A move that prohibits workers’ rights would be just as statist as the current collusion between “big labor” and government. The key is for workers and employers to have to ability to negotiate freely without influence from any political party. The problem with today’s labor unions is they are aligned with the Democratic Party, which is ANTI-freedom in the sense where workers’ union dues go primarily to fund the campaigns of politicians.

One may ask how there could be public support for Wisconsin Governor, Scott Brown if part of economic freedom is allowing workers the right to organize. The difference is simply the public sector versus the private sector. In the public sector, public sector employees are compensated via taxpayer dollars. If there is a budget shortfall in meeting workers’ compensation obligations, government has the power to raise taxes to meet these obligations – hence the redistribution of wealth. If unions negotiate with private sector businesses, and the company agrees to meet the union’s demand for higher pay; then the people have the FREEDOM to pass on a product that is too expensive due to the passed on cost of expensive labor. People don’t have the option to pass on paying their taxes. Higher taxes lead to private sector workers’ compensation and benefits being severely reduced. For instance, how many workers in the private sector enjoy a 100 percent employer contribution to their healthcare? In addition, “pension” seems to be a foreign word in the private sector. It is safe to say that workers in the private sector contribute a minimum of 15 percent of their salaries towards their healthcare and retirement.

The argument has been made by some on the left that public sector workers are not rich, and their wages are not substantially higher than workers in the private sector. This is incredibly disingenuous in the sense that wages are only PART of a worker’s total compensation. The issue is not wages is much as it is BENEFITS. Illinois just invoked one of the largest tax hikes in history in order to meet state worker’s pension obligations. Workers in the private sector saw their pensions shrink, and younger workers were not even eligible; yet, no one threatened to burn down the state capitol. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey recently asked state workers to contribute a measly one and a half percent to their OWN retirement plan to avert a tax increase, and he receives death threats.

There is no reason why public sector workers cannot be fairly compensated for the work they perform. However, this cannot come at the expense of others, nor can it be a motive to expand the voting bloc of the Democratic Party or be in the form of welfare. It is indeed welfare for workers to receive wages and/or benefits that are higher than what the free market is willing to pay. People then become trapped in the job and married to the union, as they cannot find alternate positions that will compensate them in the same manner. Therefore, there is no incentive for people to better their skills. Is this really the precedent we wish to set for our police officers, firefighters and teachers? Those jobs are sort of important, which also nullifies the notion that these workers would work for pennies on the dollar if labor unions did not exist. How are these positions any different than other skilled positions? The truth is employers would like a worker to work for free. People are compensated because their skills add value to the organization which makes it necessary for an organization to properly compensate said worker. The worker then has the power to take their skills to the highest bidder.

America is at a crossroads, and the cleaning of its fiscal house will not begin at the top…surprise, surprise! Rather it will begin at the state and local level. It is my hope that Governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Chris Christie of New Jersey and John Kasich of Ohio remain strong in a war more difficult than any overseas. It’s not easy to unravel the most powerful political machine in America, as their pockets are deep; and they have the power of the media to fill the airwaves up with nonsensical propaganda.

We’ll need more governors to fight the good fight because someone needs to find the political courage to tell public sector workers the very harsh truth that has been hidden for decades.

(1) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

(2) http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=A

Government Gone Wild: Teenagers Banned from Trick-or-Treating in an Illinois Town

Mayor Mark Eckhert of Belleville Illinois believes the long arm of government should enact his father’s views regarding the age when kids are too old to trick-or-treat. The Mayor told ABC News “When I was a kid my father said to me, 'You're too damn big to be going trick-or-treating. You're done.’ When that doesn’t happen, then that’s the reason for the city governments to intervene.”(*) Therefore, if you are over the age of 12 and trick-or-treat in Belleville Illinois, you will be fined $100. It seems that other townships in several states are quickly following suit.

I understand the position of single mothers and senior citizens. It can be very frightening to have obnoxious teenagers ringing your doorbell, especially when it is dark outside. They could also be adults who can force their way in to rob the person’s home. It is often very difficult to tell just who it is underneath the costume.

Halloween never did much for me as a child and as an adult. I always ended up wrestling the shaving cream out of some punk kid’s hands who thought it was comical to douse people in shaving cream. My kids do not share my view; they absolutely love it, although they are rapidly approaching that “cut-off” age.

Nevertheless, in spite of my views and those who agree that high school kids are too old to be trick-or-treating; I absolutely abhor the idea of the government robbing people of their freedoms. In my neighborhood, there are subdivisions that get so into the day, the intensity of the decorations rivals Christmas. Adults dress in costumes to greet the trick-or-treaters. There are mobs of kids of all ages having a good time and not causing any trouble.

When the long arm of government reaches in, there is great loss of individual freedom. If you detest Halloween; then close up your house, and don’t answer the door. It might be a good day to catch up on all of those errands in which you’ve been procrastinating. It is one’s right to dismiss the day. Nervous single mothers and senior citizens may decide who they open their door to on an individual basis. Those who love the day can go all out. The bottom line is FREEDOM.

Why do some people’s viewpoints trump others and prevail because one is in a position of power to make their views law? The argument always goes back to safety. The news will report on the poor old lady who was robbed for opening her door to who she thought were innocent trick-or-treaters. Playing on the people’s raw emotions of outrage, the knee-jerk reaction is to support such a ban. The truth is people’s homes are robbed every single day. Therefore, people who never outgrow Halloween and wish to do no harm have to surrender their right to celebrate.

I quote Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” The magnitude of the erosion of people’s liberties ranges from minor incidents such as Halloween ordinances all the way up to the Patriot Act.

*http://shine.yahoo.com/event/momentsofmotherhood/how-old-is-too-old-for-trick-or-treating-2403664/

Hats off to Andrew Breitbart!

Like most people who are attuned to our nation’s economic ills, I’ve been in a rather apprehensive mood about politics lately. I’m concerned that establishment Republicans may prevail this November over some of the new, energized faces who are challenging these dinosaurs. What I find even more troublesome, is what I witnessed in this video.

Andrew Breitbart Confronts Hateful Protesters At Right Nation 2010

How can a protest that has a clear ambition of “stopping the hate” be filled with people who hold hateful signs and spew hateful rhetoric? Beyond that point is something even more disturbing; these people were planted by unions that have strong ties to the Democratic Party. If that’s not enough, NONE of these people could defend their position when asked.

People’s ideologies, as much as they differ from mine, have never bothered me so long as they can articulate and defend what they believe. Dissent is what makes America thrive because it flaunts an individualistic manner of thinking as well as a system of checks and balances. I host a multi-viewpoint discussion group, Liberty Café, on Facebook because everyone should have a place where they can persuade people as well as defend their point of view. However, if a person is told to go somewhere and protest an event, and they don’t have the slightest idea why (or they are basing their dissent off misinformation), then this is part of the herdish mentality that poses a direct threat to our individual freedom in America.

Besides no one being able to answer Brietbart’s simple questions, notice how the people disbursed when they were told to disburse. There wasn’t even a hint of individual thinking present in this group – the only exception being ONE woman who came on her own free will. She was briefly interviewed at the end of the clip.

Most the signs being held were very unoriginal. I have plenty of my own criticisms concerning Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement; and as creatively challenged as I am, I could have come up with something better. But then again, I do own my mind.

One sign that did stand out to me was the gentleman who held the sign that said “Tea Baggers - Corporate Dupes.” This was very comical and disturbing at the same time. I wonder if this gentleman, who proudly pays his union dues, ever questions the manner in which his donations are used. Does he mind being told how to vote, told how to think, being trapped in permanent dependency; and does he question the role, the fringe benefits, as well as the salaries the people in the top of his union receive?

Is he concerned at all about their political ties? Does he mind that the dues that he pays directly funds the campaigns of connected politicians? In fact, if he is part of the SEIU, over $65 million of his and his fellow members’ union dues went to fund the campaigns of politicians in 2004. These are candidates that he doesn’t know about and may not have supported.

I wonder if he supported the corporate bailouts, which almost anyone who aligns themselves with the tea party strongly opposed. After all, wouldn’t a corporate dupe support such a thing? In fact, the politicians who benefitted from his union dues voted not only in favor of these bailouts, but also directly contributed to the housing market monopoly (vis a vis Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that crashed the market in 2008. As Breitbart rightly pointed out, these people will be the last to find out that they are the ones being duped.

This is the kind of mind-numbed idiocy that boggles me. The protesters in this group, who cannot think for themselves, wait for their marching orders from a corporate hierarchy, and put their entire future into the hands of the most greedy and controlling people in America have the nerve to say that people who advocate limited government, free market principles – the very principles in which America was founded, are duped. These are the people who contribute to the EXACT kind of corporatism in which they claim they oppose. The sad irony is they don’t even realize this truth.

Kudos to Mr. Breitbart for his bravery in coming to my city of Chicago, which I firmly attest has a leftist stranglehold, and confronting this crowd full of mindless sheep. I don’t believe anyone has successfully broken up a union-organized crowd in this manner.

Defending the Indefensible – Bob Etheridge Assaults Student

Over the weekend, a group of students confronted North Carolina Congressman, Bob Etheridge (Democrat – Lillington), regarding the Obama agenda. He asked the group of students who they were, and before they could realistically respond, the Congressman assaulted one of the students.

Watch Video Here

It would be reasonable for one to think that an incident as serious as this would be above partisan politics, but sadly it is not. Although the Congressman did apologize for his absurd behavior, there are several Democrats who are defending his actions. Etheridge issued the following statement:

“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.”

It would have been smart for Democrats to leave it alone after the Congressman apologized, but instead DNC spokesman, Brad Woodhouse, said: “Motives matter, and I think you can see who was behind this." "This was a Republican party tracking operation. “If it wasn't a party tracker or intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden?”

In addition, a national Democratic Party official e-mailed around a set of talking points, under the subject heading, "Etheridge Gotcha Video Background."

1. There is always the part of the story that you can’t see in these gotcha style videos — what were these folks doing, how did they approach him, how were the cameraman and/or others off camera acting?
2. Why would any legitimate student doing a project or a journalist shagging a story not identify themselves? Motives matter — what was the motivation here? To incite this very type of reaction?
3. This is clearly the work of the Republican Party and the “interviewer” is clearly a low level staffer or intern. That’s what explains blurring the face of the “interviewer” and refusing to identify the entity this was done for. The Republicans know if they were caught engaging in this type of gotcha tactic it would undermine their own credibility — yet if it was an individual acting on his own there is no reason that person would have blurred themselves out of the video — and if it was the work of a right wing blog they would have their logo on the video and be shouting their involvement from the roof top.
4. This was a purposefully partisan hit job designed to incite a reaction for political reasons — but it is a tactic so low — the parties involved are remaining anonymous.
5. The fact that no one wants to take credit for this should raise real questions in the minds of voters and the press.
6. Push hard w/ blogs the lack of credibility inherent to anything Breitbart does/posts, given its role in the debunked ACORN videos.

Are these people SERIOUS? There is so much wrong with this, one would have difficulty finding a starting point, but we’ll make an attempt. First, why would the student identify himself? If “Joe the Plumber’s” fifteen minutes of fame gone bad doesn’t give you a clue, then you’ve been too far removed from the political arena to continue reading. It’s safe to say that the folks running the Republican Party may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, but I’m certain they can devise a better “hatchet” job than this student popping the million dollar “gotcha” question “Do you fully support the Obama Agenda?” They must have spent weeks coming up with that one…

Second, it is completely irrelevant what these kids’ motives were, who they were, and if they were part of a group with a political agenda. So what if they were? It doesn’t matter if they devised this wicked little scheme up on Friday night; regardless, they have a right to QUESTION an ELECTED OFFICIAL. They did so in a manner that was not threatening to Etheridge. They approached him politely, and asked a very simple question. Etheridge assaulted the student when he posed absolutely no threat. To be clear, Etheridge did have the right to ask the students to identify themselves, and it was his right to decline an interview; however, he had no right whatsoever to break the law. Why is it that elected officials feel they are above the law? Any civilian could be arrested for this type of behavior.

Lastly, and most important, is the fact that any defense of Etheridge’s behavior is a move against free speech, and the FREEDOM to question the people who work for the citizens of this country. If people are not allowed to politely question their elected officials, then this is a country without freedom, and those in Congress are rulers instead of representatives elected to carry out the people’s business. Why can no one question not only the Obama Administration, but folks in Congress who staunchly approve of the Administration’s agenda? From the continual nonsensical bashing of FOX News to the attempts to denigrate any writer or organization that disagrees with this Administration smacks of the very ideology that they try so desperately to deny. Everyone who reads my columns on a regular basis knows I did not vote for George W. Bush for either of his terms, and while I spent eight years sharply criticizing his Administration – especially economic policies, I never saw these kinds of attempts to silence people regardless of how vile the attacks became. If this video of Etheridge doesn’t offend you, then you are part of the problem.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/Dems_defed_Etheridge_attack_Breitbart.html?showall

The United States Constitution vs. the European Constitution

By: Jordan and Michelle


Part I: The Structure of American Government

America has always looked to Europe for guidance. During the Revolutionary Era, faction vied for power by claiming to look to Revolutionary France or Great Britain for ideas. In the early 1900s, various Old Progressives were influenced or directly taught by German Idealists and British Historicists. In fact, before he became President, Woodrow Wilson wrote volumes on the superiority of the British parliamentary system while lamenting the flaws of the American Constitution. Today, the New Progressives look to Europe's growing unity (and growing government) and feel envy. The European Union (EU) has passed sweeping environmental laws, has a large welfare system, and in most nations, state-run universal health care. To a leftist, Europe is the future. To most Americans, however, transplanting the EU's system to the U.S. would be a nightmare beyond words. To understand why, we must understand the history of the American structure of government.

The Confederation

The United States of America began under a much smaller and much weaker Constitution. The Second Continental Congress took the role of a provisional national government during the Revolutionary War and presented the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union to the states in 1777. After years of haggling and dealing, Maryland, the final state, ratified the Constitution, and the first permanent structured government of the United States was established.

Thirteen articles made up the first Constitution, and recognized the following:

• The name of the United States of America
• The equality between the thirteen states
• The assurance that the United States of America is a free and independent nation
• The union between the states is perpetual
• The freedom of movement between the states except for criminals
• The establishment of a Congress with each state having one delegation and one vote per delegation
• The central government can conduct foreign relations and war, and that no individual state can declare war nor have a state navy
• When an army is raised, all officers ranked Colonel and below are named by state legislatures
• The United States expenditures will be paid by funds raised by the states
• The job of the central government encompassed war, weights and measures, and mediation
• A Committee of the States was to be established to act as the government for when Congress is not in session
• Nine states are needed to ratify new states
• The war debt incurred by the previous Congress is now owned by the Confederacy
• The declaration that the Articles are perpetual and can only be altered by Congress with the approval of all state legislatures

While this document is quite the read, one can see the emphasis on decentralization. Each state had vast amounts of power over its own destiny. The central government was essentially a mediator and a very weak commerce regulator, as the states each had their own trade policy. There was no executive branch, no judiciary and no bureaucratic regulatory commissions. In fact, the Congress had no way to force the states to submit troops or supplies which made it difficult to prosecute the war. Many people such as John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton saw the weakness of the Articles during and after the war. Congress had no power to tax; and, therefore, it had no power to pay debts, fund roads or any other kind of basic national infrastructure. Congress had to ask the individual states for money. Unsurprisingly, the states, without having any mandatory reason to give money, were reluctant to work outside their own self-interest. A slightly similar, but more centralized version of this structure can be seen in Canada where the provinces are forced to give money to the federal government who then distributes that money back to the provinces. The rich provinces receive very little of what they gave, and the poorer provinces receive far more than their contribution. This system creates a lot of ire between the individual provinces as well as between the provinces and the federal government.

The Union

Due to the compounding problems of the Confederation, a call was made to amend the Articles to create a stronger central government that could levy taxes, create domestic and international trade policy, conduct foreign policy and war with more coordination. This process began with Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (the Virginia Legislature at the time). Following a recommendation by James Madison, the states were invited to Maryland to talk about how to simmer inter-state conflict. That convention endorsed a motion that called for the states to meet in Philadelphia to discuss ways to amend the Articles of Confederation, which became the historic Constitutional Convention of 1787. On its face, the “Grand Convention” was about amending, not replacing, the Articles; however, the delegates in Philadelphia began closed-door meetings and hashed out a new constitution.

There were several proposals on the structure of the new government. The Virginia Plan, drafted by James Madison, proposed a bicameral (two chamber) legislature (seats distributed by population or taxes) with the lower branch being elected by the people and the upper branch elected by nominations from the thirteen state legislatures. The upper house would be able to veto laws of the states if it conflicted with the national union. The executive branch would be elected by the national legislature. Both branches would be limited to one term. A national judiciary was also proposed. With the Virginia Plan and a similar plan proposed by Charles Pinckney, the smaller states were under threat of losing influence in the national government. The New Jersey Plan, or the Small State Plan, proposed a single legislature with each state having one vote. Similar to the Virginia Plan, there was a judicial branch and the single house electing the executive branch. A fourth plan, called Hamilton's Plan after Alexander Hamilton, proposed the abolishment of the states in a government based on the British government. It wasn't seriously considered.

On July 16, 1787, a compromise was proposed by Connecticut that combined the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. There would be a bicameral legislature in which the lower house (House of Representatives) would be elected by the people, and the seats would be distributed by population. The upper house of the legislature (the Senate) would be elected by state legislatures. Instead of the Congress electing the executive branch, the President would be elected by electors who in turn would be elected by the people of each state. Out of all these plans, the only consistent branch was the independent judiciary appointed to life terms. There had been a call for a bill of rights before the Constitutional Convention as a protection against government tyranny. During the ratification of the Constitution, many states added recommendations to amend the Constitution. When the First Congress met, it wrote and proposed the Bill of Rights, which was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Why It Works

The key to understanding why the United States government is shaped the way it is in its current manner is to understand why the Revolution happened in the first place. It wasn't simply about taxes, but about representation and rights of citizens of the British Empire. During the Revolutionary Era, colonists were treated as second-class citizens with their natural and legal rights under the British Bill of Rights being violated. After the victory over Great Britain, the founders had it in their mind to prevent an overbearing, centralized government from forming. The way they came to do this was to pit the government against itself while leaving room for it to progress and function.

Unlike a number of other nations who have a parliamentary model based on that of Great Britain (my second home of Canada being one); the lawmakers and the law executers are not of the same cloth. The powers of the executive branch and the legislative branch are specifically appointed to the former or the latter. This allows each branch to try to outmaneuver each other in their mutual attempts to gain more power. However, it was written not only with checks on both the legislative and executive branches, but with an originally established check on both houses of Congress. Before the Progressive push and victory for the popular election of Senators, those of the upper house were elected by state legislatures. This kept a check on the populism of the lower house with the interest of the state governments. The removal of this check has had drastic consequences, as seen with the alliance of both Senators and Representatives on many, many questionable bills that took more power away from the individual states. This would never happen if the state government had its own representation in Congress. In spite of the loss of that check, the short but dramatic history of the United States has shown that the system still works - both before and after the removal of certain checks. During the Civil War, civil rights were suspended, but reestablished quickly after its end. During the First World War, a proto-fascist state was established. However, the President that created it was voted out of office; and the government's powers were reigned in by a rightly fearful judiciary, Congress and public. The policies of the New Deal and Second World War had a similar fate with the slow dismantling of many of Franklin D. Roosevelt's giant government programs and the repeal of questionable war-time laws.

The philosophy behind our entire system, at least at the time it was created, was the idea that human nature will not change. Politicians will grasp for power, national leaders will attempt glory and have grand ambition, and the citizen mob will be moody and prone to frenzy. The founders knew of the history of republics and saw the abuses of a powerful, unchecked government in their own cities and towns. There are millions of Americans today who think we have progressed beyond what the founders deemed an eternal constant. They believe humanity is progressing towards an endgame, a final state of bliss, utopia or some kind of better world. This leads these Americans to promote or defend structural changes that do not fit into the original design and purpose of the American government (popular election of Senators being one example - judicial “first among equal branches” being another). The Declaration of Independence says "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It does not talk about progressing or advancing. It doesn't talk about modifying our views for a new age. The first document of principles by the United States talked about taking back rights from those who did not believe they existed.


Part II: An Analysis of the European Constitution

Contrasts to the U.S. Constitution

First of all, one must ask if it is possible to unite nations as opposed to individual states. Nations have different cultures, different economic structures and different ideologies. When the founders built the United States government, the nation had just been born. The attempts made by the EU to devise a constitution to bind nations that have long histories of standing on their own is a far more difficult and dangerous task. The caveat here is to question the intentions of such a document. Will such a document preserve individual freedom, or will it be used as a mechanism for regulatory control over multiple nations?

The idea of the constitution has been sold under the guise of unity and that is necessary for better trade between nations, a stronger international market presence and job growth. The Founders of the United States created the Constitution not to strengthen international presence, but to PRESERVE individual liberty and freedom from an overbearing government. Over the past century, the United States has seen power become more centralized in spite of the efforts of the framers of the Constitution to keep power decentralized. An EU constitution does not seek preserve the identity of nations, but to blend nations into one and establish a centralized law-making bureaucracy. Centralized power does not preserve freedom, and for this reason, Europeans should fear an EU Constitution.

In addition to the original intent for a constitution being dissimilar, another stark difference is voting power. The EU constitution seeks population based voting power (Article I-25), which means that nations with the largest populations would have the most control over policy making. A population-based law would violate the classical principle of local control and state equality. The founders in America realized the importance of state and local power – hence the New Jersey Plan. If a population-based policy were implemented in the U.S., then populous states such as New York and California would be making Federal policy while less populous states would have no influence. In addition, as long as there is collusion between the populous states, laws would be passed with ease and little debate.

The Dangers of Centralized Economic and Monetary Policy

Article I-13 of the Constitution gives the EU exclusive legal power to decide policy in regards to trade tariffs, quotas, monetary policy, competition rules for the international market and trade agreements to name but a few. The issue of the Federal Reserve being “constitutional” in United States is a widely debated topic. The idea of a centralized body having total control over monetary policy obviously conflicts with the idea of decentralized power. The powers of the Federal Reserve can essentially make or break the economic stability of the United States. The reasoning behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve was to reduce systemic risk; however, many have argued that such authority and the history of monetary policy have actually increased systemic risk. The Federal Reserve shares the blame for the creation and bursting of the housing market bubble.

If the EU wishes to implement their own “Federal Reserve,” it can be far more dangerous in the sense where the ultimate goal could be to abolish the currencies of individual nations. Such a move would place one institution in charge of the economic fate of several nations.

The corporatist traditions of countries such as Germany and France, whose population size would give them disproportionate influence on monetary policy under the voting system, could make “crony capitalism” the norm for all of Europe in spite of countries that wish to pursue a more classical liberal approach. Article I-4 states that Laissez-faire and economic competition based on the unobstructed movement of goods, capital and labor throughout the EU countries are constitutionally mandatory, however, this motive serves no purpose in a constitution that would bind nations together. Decentralized power seeks to preserve the principles of a free market. A binding document that would determine “fair” economic and social policy for multiple nations would have the opposite outcome.

The Power of the Lobby

The process of European integration has stemmed from socialist parties, trade unions and big business. These tenants remove freedom and give large bodies the power to impose policy with little resistance. Socialists who have not been able to transform society to their liking through the ballot box, can now have socialist policies imposed through an EU Constitution. In addition, multi-national corporate conglomerates have only one legislative body in which to lobby and negotiate. Compromise and voice from the opposition have only been possible because groups had to deal with the elected democratic governments of each nation. The difference between American framers and their European counterparts is the former sought to protect America from those who have no faith in the democratic process while the latter holds such beliefs.

Summary

If a constitution is not devised as a mechanism to preserve individual freedom and reign in the powers of government, then the creation of such a document serves no purpose. Constitutions should not be devised to band nations together to create a super-power rival to other powerful nations with the “power-elite” in control. Constitutions written with such motives lead to oppression and tyranny. If the EU wishes to follow the footsteps of America’s Founding Fathers, then the framers of the EU Constitution must recognize the importance of localized power, and adhere to the rights of the individual nations’ liberty.

Existing Rights, Protected Rights

Oh deary me. Someone needs an education in the difference between rights existing and rights protected.

First off, the government does provide the right to free-speech in nearly the same manner it might provide the right to healthcare. In the pre-governmental or natural state that Goldberg seems to refer to, anybody can silence anybody else. It is only through government regulation (i.e. the First Amendment and its interpretations) and civilization that people can have free speech. Similarly, people would have healthcare before the existence of government regulation, but maybe not as much as they deserve.

The lack of protection on the pre-existing right to free speech DOES NOT mean it was not already there. During pre-civilized times, the right to free speech was anarchistic. Like the blogger says, "anyone can silence anybody else", but you could also say anything you wanted.

The Left has the problem of seeing individual rights as, in a sense, physical objects. They see rights having proportions and weight and, of course, the ability to be manipulated. And, with our legal system, LEGAL rights have the ability to be modified or destroyed. But, moral rights, the same rights the blogger and the Left are both professing to believe in (when it comes to UHC) and trying to destroy (when it comes to everything else), are untouchable and eternal. They are the rights that we have as natural beings. They are not dreamy democratic positive rights, like right to a home and all that jazz, but the basic things all humans have at birth: speech, life, self-defense, etc. They can exist within protection, like our Constitution, but they also exist outside protection and be suppressed at will.

The key to understand natural rights is to understand the power of force. At its most basic, government is an institution based on the mass use of force to achieve ends. A nation like ours, born of a philosophy respecting natural rights, has many protections, as well as our culture having these rights sown into it. The government, while slowly chipping away at them, has only at the most chaotic of times attempted to outright remove the protections on these rights with its massive force. In other countries, like Germany, respect for natural rights have been minimal. Only in the last 50 years have any of the German people had any real cultural experience with natural rights. Today's democratic German government has strict laws various things we take for granted today, like free association and speech. The citizenry's ability to resist this force and to assert its own force, best shown through decentralized democratic government, is how America has lasted over 200 years without any of the destructive political upheaval that the rest of the world has experienced.

Speech and Uniting

When George Tiller, the late term abortionist, was murdered, the Left cried foul on conservative commentators. When a mentally ill, racist World War II vet shot up the Holocaust Museum, they declared that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly were dangerous and conservative speech that criticized controversial issues was a safety risk (in so many terms). Scum like David Neiwert and his blogging allies, some who go so far as to believe that radio hosts are out to murder liberals, are not looking out for the safety of abortionists or museum security guards. They're out to smear the conservative movement with an image of radical violence and seething hate.

Then came the “victory” by Iran's incumbent president. The the riots that have gone on for three straight days are the collective anger and frustration of an entire generation waking up to the reality of the Mullahs and their Islamic “republic”. For years, the conservative movement and foreign policy hawks have pushed for support of Iranian reformers and democracy activists. The Left and so-called “realists” has opined that we should not provoke Iran, lest they do something bad, like support terrorists in Lebanon (which they've done since day one), or attack our troops (which they've done since day one), or work on a secret nuclear weapons program (which they started under the guise of conforming to non-proliferation). They called President Bush's tough words “cowboy diplomacy” and condemned them, blaming his words for everything from terrorism to North Korea's belligerence.

Now, three days into the riots and a potential major challenge to the Mullahs, the importance of words comes back into play, but all we have is silence. The White House said that it wants to work with Iran DESPITE the fact the nation is burning, the election was a sham and democracy activists are being beaten in the streets or disappeared into Iran's horrific prison system. My fellow conservatives didn't find this surprising from Mr. Obama, nor do we find the silence of the Left surprising either. Despite talk of freedom and democracy at home, when it happens abroad, we must be cautious as not to anger petty tyrants with dreams of regional or global hegemony.

Words are not just words on the international stage, unlike at home when it's by TV personalties or bloggers. Rachel Maddow can say “teabaggers” all she wants. Olby can claim fascism one year and become a fascist the next year. The NYT can whine about conservative hate. The National Review can defend marriage. Free speech in the press and in journals is just that, free. It is under no obligation to conform to the government because, for the most part, it does no harm, despite the fantasies of David Neiwert.

But when it comes to critical times in the world, like that of the Iranian riots, words mean a lot. The Left had a point about Bush's words, even if we disagreed with their assessment. Churchill's soild belief in victory helped win a war. Carter's words on the Shah brought him down and brought about the Mullahs. Reagan's “tear down this wall” energized an already kinetic Soviet dissent movement. H.W. Bush's words about rising up against Saddam ended up getting thousands of Shia killed when he didn't back them up. Clinton's appeasement of North Korea and words of support ended up biting us in the ass when it exploded it's first atomic weapon. What our leaders say on the stage affect outcomes, push our friends or provoke our enemies. And in the case of Iran, we could really use the Left's feverish support of direct democracy and liberal freedom. This is a time to support a people repressed by a regime both the Left and Right despises. Let their paranoia and sarcasm quiet for a moment to help Iran achieve some freedom.

America should stand together on this...even if the Left thinks of us as radical individualist Nazi Christianist racist capitalists (and all the universe ending contractions that creates).

Religious Liberty and Gay Marriage

Unsurprisingly, the gay community is throwing a huge fit over the victory of Prop 8 (no mention of Prop 101 and Prop 2, though), and they're taking it out on the only minorities deserving of intolerance: Mormons and Utahns. According to AP, the advocates are calling for a boycott of Utah tourism and for investigations into the tax-exempt status of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. From the AP:

Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don't do that and get away with it."

In their fight to attain the rights they think they have, the gay marriage advocates have forgotten two very important actual rights: freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Enshrined in the First Amendment, frees speech and religious liberty are a cornerstone to the foundation to our republic. Our ancestors fled religious persecution in England and soon after the mother country was at war with itself over religious and political matters. The Founding Fathers saw the stability of allowing people to believe in whatever faith they wished and it has done us well for 230 years. Free speech is inherent in the protection of religious freedoms.

Mormons weren't the only religious group involved with the pro-Prop 8 campaign, but their singling out is an example of what may happen when fanatical advocates get full reign on their causes. The calls for the revocation of the LDS's tax exempt status is based on a very lazy invocation of the separation of church and state. The advocates believe that because the Church encouraged its members to support Prop 8 means that the church violated that wildly cited, but rarely understood principle of our government. The separation of church and state is to prevent the church from becoming the state, as it so often did in medieval and Elizabethan times in Europe. The principle has nothing to do with preventing the faithful from getting in to political campaigns or from churches from encouraging their members to. The Mormons weren't stupid with their call. As far as I know, no church money ever went into Prop 8 coffers; even the leadership refused to donate. Mormon investment into Yes on Prop 8 was by individuals who have every legal right to donate or not to donate. There were even LDS members who were against Prop 8 and made sure the church knew it. If gay marriage advocates in their current form get their way in a court-friendly state, the tax exempt status of churches and the religious freedoms of its members may be in jeopardy.

I'm an atheist, but I am also an American. My views on God (or lack of a god) are irrelevant when it comes to violations of religious liberty and free speech by political zealots. I'd just as soon defend gays against the LDS if the LDS was attempting to silence them through the legal system. What people need to understand is that gay marriage is not a civil rights issues, as there is no civil right being violated as it was during Jim Crow. Marriage is a privilege regulated by the state as the state deems necessary for the public good. It is not having your right to vote blocked by a poll tax, or having cops force you out of a public area because you are black. This issues is an issue for each state to decide on its own and through its voting populace. Anything else would just fan the flames of the gay marriage zealotry and force the traditionalist and religious factions to entrench further.

That's the last thing we need.the last thing we need.

Cross-posted at Conservative Underground

Gay Marriage and Federalism

With gay marriage bans passing in three states (Prop 8 passing in California, Prop 102 in Arizona and Prop 2 in Florida), the issue of gay marriage seems to have taken a new turn. Surprisingly, California voters defied the California Supreme Court and overruled their ruling from earlier this year, even with the Governor supporting the decision. The question this and the other voter-backed propositions bring up is how are we to reconcile a very motivated gay movement with the will of the voters of 41 states? The answer has always been there: federalism.

The US Constitution gives the federal government certain powers and delegates all other powers to the states through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. For the most part. social issues have been a state matter. Abortion and gay marriage have put major pressure on federalism and its advocates. Roe v Wade forced every state to allow abortion through a very expansive reading of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This reading has led to other expansive rulings like Kelo (making eminent domain no longer just a public need tool). California's own expansive reading of the Equal Protection Clause was the basis of the California Supreme Court's ruling making gay marriage legal. This precedent may be the basis of any gay marriage case taken to the Supreme Court. Other than the destruction of federalism, a SCOTUS ruling that forces gay marriage nationwide would ignite a new front in the culture war that already has some very nasty battles.

It may not make any gay marriage advocates happy, but federalism is the best way to get what they want. Focusing on more liberal/libertarian states would create havens for gay marriage, just as some states have more conservative/libertarian gun laws than other states. This is the beauty of federalism: a nation united, but as diverse as the Amazon jungle. Some states may have full and equal straight/gay marriage, some states may have separate-but-equal marriage/unions and some states may outright ban gay marriage. That's how it is.

Marriage isn't race. Anyone who equates the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s to gay marriage is making a false analogy. The oppression in the South during that time was in violation of the 14th Amendment. Marriage, unlike voting, is not a right, it's a privilege regulated and licensed by each state. As such, each state's voters, through their legislature, determine their social structure for which marriage is a part of. If a state wants to protect gay marriage, they need to amend their state's constitution through the legislature, not force it through judges that may forget what their job is.

I'm all for gay marriage. I think gay couples who wish to make the pledge of marriage and build a family should be allowed to, but not at the expense of the foundation of our nation's political structure. It's not worth giving a future president and/or congress unlimited powers through the courts because gays couldn't handle working within the framework that has created the most diverse, most stable nation on Earth.

Cross-posted at Conservative Underground

A Quick History of the Second Amendment and A Comment Upon It

The Bill of Rights is a list of ten individual rights that all Americans have and for which the federal government cannot deny to any citizen. Through the legal doctrine of incorporation many of these rights have been applied to the states. Of all of the sacred rights held by the common American, the Second Amendment is the only one so diversely regulated by the states of our union that one state has little regulation beyond that passed by the federal government and another has regulated firearms beyond the reach of a majority of its citizens. Across the country, the First is read so stringently that religious displays are banned from any and all public land due to the reading of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", the Fourth is cited in opposition to intelligence programs that have the slightest ear listening to an American citizen. The Second, on the other hand, is the only right within the Bill of Rights that has been viewed by a multitude of scholars and intellectuals not as an individual right, but as a collective right. The only collective right on a list of sacred INDIVIDUAL rights. The collective view is a false one that can be disproved by history.

A Quick History

The history of the individual right to arms goes back to 12th century England where all men, including serfs, were required to own a weapon. At that time the local militia was invaluable to law and order, as well as military operations. It was of this atmosphere for centuries until 1671 when the British Parliament restricted arms by property accumulation. King James II outright banned arms for Protestants in 1686. It was reversed three years later by British Bill of Rights:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law." [1]

This right passed on to British colonists and was part of British common law, which is an integral part of our founding laws.

In 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (largely written by George Mason) held in Section 13:

"That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." [2]

When Shays Rebellion proved that the Articles of Confederation were too weak to hold the union together the Constitutional Convention was organized and two factions appeared: the Federalists, who wished to pass the new founding legal document, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it on fears it will destroy democracy and liberty. The Bill of Rights came out of a compromise of these two sides. The original Bill of Rights, as brought to the floor of the First Congress in the House of Representatives, was not a collection of constitutional amendments, but new sections to be inserted into the text of the Constitution. The original text of what became the Second Amendment was as read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." [3]

The text was to be inserted in Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4. Article I, Section 9 lists limits on Congress (individual rights), NOT collective rights or rights of the state or federal governments. After several months and several revisions, the Second Amendment was ratified as:

"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." [4]

Comment

It would not be a generalization to say that a great many of those who are in support of the view of a collective Second Amendment are the same who in support of the stringent individual view of all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The promotion of individual rights is not something to be attacked with. Its is the denial of an individual right (a right wholly supported by history and law) based on an emotional revulsion to the tool the right protects that is firm ground for contention. How can one truly call oneself a believer in the sacredness of the individuals rights of all mankind when you pick and choose which basic legal rights one believes in?

I believe the rights that are protected in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments are for each and every individual American citizen and legal resident. There can be debate about other rights derived from the amendments (abortion, marriage, etc), but the ones enshrined are the ones are that our Founders, our past leaders, representatives and citizens believed so important, so essential to the daily life, liberty and happiness of an American citizen that it had to be protected from infringement by individuals, cities, states and the federal government. The second amendment, our right to keep and bear arms, is one of those rights. Like it or not.