One of my friends had a joke of sorts that I really loved because of both its intellectual wit and poignant truth.
Q: Do you know the difference between ignorance and apathy?
A: I don't know and I don't care!
And thank you to my very good friend Brad for that one …
But sadly, the very truth of that statement is the very heart of what is wrong with American society today and why our once great and proud nation has been allowed to become what it is today. Actually, I should probably clarify that to say that I hate what the American government has become today. Anybody who knows me knows that I share a sense of Patriotism that would make Charlie Daniels green with envy. I love America and I love the principles upon which she was founded but there are people today who would gladly topple lady liberty and that needs to be stopped. As I am rebuilding my site to include my favorite subjects there, I have been going through all of the Federalist Papers, inserting code and readying them to be published. As far as I can see, the only major flaw in the thinking of the Founding Fathers was the foresight to imagine the level of ignorance and apathy in American society today.
Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers would have said or done had King George come into their homes and made laws regulating what they could and could not do in their homes? Granted, his laws were plenty bad enough. Yet here we sit, as a people and as a nation, on this very day that you are reading this, allowing the continued usurpation of power and rights far worse than anything perpetrated on our Founding Fathers to continue as we the people, sit idly by watching television or otherwise distracted. Their gravest mistake was in believing that we the people would always have a vested interest in overseeing our representatives and making sure that they did not cross the line for personal gain while willfully neglecting or even being totally contradictory to the will of we the people.
We have allowed political action committees, special interest groups, lobbyists and other high-dollar investors to buy, sell and trade our representatives' votes on all matters both great and small. Our founding fathers assumed that we the people would keep the politicians in check and be the end-all fix for our system of checks and balances. I have no doubts that people may be voting in record numbers but how many of these people are voting based on factual information and how many are voting based solely on what they are told by the political party of their choice? Do you really think that there is a viable difference between either of the two parties when these big-money interest groups are making substantial campaign contributions to candidates on both sides of the aisle? About the only difference I can see in either party is the end result they want for the American government and neither one has anything to do with we the people so much as it does retaining power and earning more cash for their coffers. To quote one of the Founding Fathers who had some insight into the potentials for problems with our constitutional republic …
"...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one... when all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1821
It was held to be true that the true power lay in the state govenments and with we the people and that together, we would keep the federal system in check and not allow it to usurp the power of the states or the people. Unfortunately, this is one area where we, as Americans, have all failed. While smoking may be a deplorable habit, it is not prevented anywhere in any of our laws. How is it then, that the federal government can make laws regarding legal acts that consenting adults willfully partake in in the comfort of their own homes or in private business establishments? The fact of the matter is that they have no right to do so and any such laws are blatantly unconstitutional and should be stricken from the books.
If such laws are to be passed, they can only be passed on state and local levels and should you wish to remain in a state with such an oppression of personal rights, that is certainly your choice. However, the federal government never has had the right, the power or the constitutional approval for passing any such laws. In another classic example of these real-good/feel-good laws, we have the motorcycle helmet laws. Now most people may agree that these laws are actually viable and serve a good purpose. I know that I certainly appreciate cheaper insurance rates and I hate to see anyone (well … okay … almost anyone … but I am still human after all) lose their life or become a vegetable due to an easily avoided head injury. Nonetheless, I cannot find any of the “few and well defined” powers of the federal government that allows them to pass this as a federal law.
Another right of we the people that the government has no constitutional authority to prohibit or even limit is covered in the first amendment. You know … the one so blatantly and unconstitutionally infringed upon by the McCain-Feingold act?
Let's start with the freedom of the press since that one is in the current headlines nearly as often as issues of religious importance.
When somebody like … oh … I dunno … maybe the New York Times for example, willfully violates issues as inconsequential as … I dunno … maybe something like National Security (The violation of which is still a federal crime and actually is one of the few and well-defined powers of the federal government and one of the few things that they are supposed to enforce and prosecute when violations occur) Freedom of the Press and the omniscience of the first amendment are invariably brought up as a defense of their actions and little or (more often) absolutely nothing is done in regards to their blatant apathy for our public safety, the health and well being of the union and we the people, and they walk away absolutely free of any personal responsibility for their actions.
But that's okay right … because the first amendment is unquestionable and it cannot be trampled upon by the government right? Or can it?
Now if I live in California and my neighbor on one side is a christian, my neighbor on the other side is jewish and his neighbor is islamic, we should, by the very same amendment, all have the freedom to express and practice our religious belief without interference by the federal government right? I mean after all, a willful and blatant act that constitutes a federal crime is protected by the very same amendment right? But now, all of a sudden, that amendment that seemed so clear and obvious becomes something hard to define, living and breathing and thus, open to debate. Personally, I would think that the side-by-side displays of a crescent, a menorah and a cross would be an excellent display of the very freedom of religion that is unalienable according to the first amendment. The fact that such people of such different beliefs could live side by side in peace and harmony seems to me to be nothing more than a cause for celebration and not for consternation and concern. But such is not the case for our illustrious and all-powerful federal system that is so much wiser than we the people and especially a nobody like me who looks at all of these emblems as a celebration and not as a personal affront on my faith. According to them and to many people, this is a violation of some non-existent wall of separation between church and state.
Find that one in the constitution and I will fly back to America, send out press releases, give you all the time you want to gather a crowd and bend over and kiss your arse … and even give you tongue if you insist!
It is not anywhere in the constitution and it never has been. It came about only in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist convention and repeated what was so plainly written in the first amendment … that THE GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION! Yet our all-powerful federal system now comes into your home and tells you that it is illegal for you to celebrate your religion as you see fit because it may offend your neighbors. Throw in the classes in California public (and tax-payer funded) schools where they are actually teaching courses in Islamic Studies and maybe … even hopefully … you may begin to see the hypocrisy that comes with the selective and gradual encroachment against we the people and our unalienable rights.
Unfortunately, I can not, in good faith, place all the blame at the feet of the federal system that illegally and unconstitutionally continues these practices. Quite simply, this is the end result when we the people, allow ourselves to become over-complacent in both our ignorance and our apathy. This my fellow Americans, is the true cost of ignorance and apathy … and that is no laughing matter.
Is the Constitution neutral in its stance?
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.
-- William O. Douglas --
