Sunday, August 28, 2011
Balanced Budget Amendment
Definitions to apply to the following language of this amendment:
Balanced Shall mean that there will be NO deficit spending and the budget shall not increase the national debt. Decreasing the debt or underspending revenues shall be allowed.
Declared War Shall mean that a war was declared by the president and the declaration was approved by both houses of congress as is specified in the Constitution of the United States.
Declared Natural Disaster Shall mean that the House of Representatives shall pass a bill, by a 2/3rds majority,to declare, for a period of one year and ONLY one year, that a naturally occurring disaster has occurred and that it affects a specific portion of the country. The Senate shall then pass that SAME bill by a 2/3rds majority and the President of the United States will sign that bill.
Exempt Shall mean that it is NOT subject to the "Balanced Budget Amendment"
Naturally Occurring Shall mean any weather disaster, earthquake, volcanic, meteor impact, tsunami, and infectious disease. It shall not include global climate change effects.
A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
This amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishes that the annual budget of the United States shall be balanced in expenditures and revenues and will not add to the national debt in any one year. It shall be permissible to reduce the national debt.
There are two areas of spending that will be Exempt from this amendment, Declared Natural Disasters, as defined above and Declared War, as defined above.
1) Declared Natural Disasters must be re-declared annually as stated in the definition above. All expenditures that are exempted from this amendment MUST BE direct expenses relating to the declared natural disaster and will be exempt ONLY to the extent that they exceed 5% of the total annual budget, and ALL the expenses for any particular natural disaster whether exempted because they are above the 5% limit or within that first 5% MUST BE direct expenses related to the declared natural disaster..
Examples of allowed expenses are:
a) infrastructure repairs to the original state,
b) relocation of disaster victims,
c) housing, food and medical expenses of disaster victims
Non-allowed expenses would include, but not be limited to such things as:
a) improvements on the infrastructure. These would fall under other headings such as Corps of Engineer budgets and normal infrastructure improvement budgets and be non-exempt for that reason.
b) continued support of disaster victims past one year,
All allowed expenses will only be approved one year at a time subject to a re-enactment of a subsequent, one year, Declared Natural Disaster bill.
2)Declared War expenses will be exempt ONLY to the extent that they exceed 5% of the total annual budget, and ALL the expenses for any particular war whether exempted because they are above the 5% limit or within that first 5% MUST BE direct expenses related to the declared war.
Examples of allowed expenses are:
a) weapons, equipment, training, and facilities for troops
b) transportation of troops,
c) housing, food and medical expenses of troops
Non-allowed expenses would include, but not be limited to such things as:
a) infrastructure improvements within the United States,
b) weapons research, etc. that fall under the usual military expenditures needed to maintain a standing military force.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Freedom of the Second Amendment
The second amendment to the constitution was placed there by the founding fathers for good reason. They had just overthrown an unjust government and wanted to make sure that if the occasion ever arose again, the populace could, again, overthrow an oppressive government.
In this day and age it becomes increasingly unlikely that even a “well armed militia” could overthrow the HUGE government we now live under even if it did become oppressive. But that being the case, there is no reason to avoid the meaning of the second amendment. It was clearly not placed there to protect “sportsmen” or to protect the ability to hunt for food. No, it was meant to give citizens the ability to confront other citizens on an even footing. The weak could not be oppressed by a well armed minority, government, local police organization or vigilante group.
The movement, since the 70s toward concealed carry permitting and open carry permitting has been in the right direction. Some states are doing it as the Constitution meant it to be done. Vermont and Arizona are good examples. California was without permits until the Supreme Court told them they had to have a permitting process. They now do have a process, though it is actually a sham as only the well connected can get a permit in that state. The interesting thing is that, in California, open carry is permitted without any permit as long as the weapon is unloaded. But, you can carry the magazine in your pocket!!! Texas has “concealed carry” with a permit and they are working on “open carry” with a permit so they are moving in the right direction.
But why is it important…other than that the Constitution says we have that right?…. In every state that has enacted “concealed carry” permitting crime rates have gone down. They have gone down because the potential criminal is concerned that he might have resistance and not even know from which direction that resistance might come. Open carry has its problems. I am not sure I would want to be carrying in the open even if it was permitted. The first target of a criminal, on entry into an area, would be take out those with exposed weapons! I would prefer the criminal would not know I was behind him with a weapon.
Some states don’t allow carrying in hospitals, banks, government buildings, drinking establishments and churches. Some of this, such as drinking establishments makes a small amount of sense, but some states don’t restrict it except to say the person carrying should not be drinking which makes a LOT of sense. However, why would a permit carrier who had to go through an FBI background check to get the permit be restricted from carrying into a bank where he might be able to stop a hostage situation from developing. A restriction that the bank robber has no compunction in ignoring. The robber in this case knows that he will not meet any resistance as no one but him/her will have a weapon!! Why is there a restriction against carrying a gun into a church, where an Islamic extremist might launch an attack? The usual answer I get to that one is, “Why would you want a gun in church?” That is a very uninformed question and the answer is a simple, “Why not?”. It is our right to carry.
The permit method of allowing the carrying of weapons is not, in my opinion, constitutional, but does carry with it a full FBI background check which should quench some of the critics. However, what would you think if the government said you free speech was conditioned upon a permit obtained only after having taken a four year course in English and paying a $100 a year fee for the permit? Or your right to freedom of religion or from religion was predicated on your having obtained a permit that required a study course of all the worlds major religions and a “church tax” or $5 to be paid every time you entered a church, synagogue, or mosque. (For the non believers, the fee would be an equal distribution of a tax equal to all the church taxes received from the previous year, distributed to all the atheists. Even taxing, fair and balanced.) Freedom of association would then mean every person on Facebook would then have to pay $1 for every “friend” that they accumulated. So why is the second amendment different? Why is there a permit required to exercise that Constitutional right?
Actually, though the critics will say otherwise, carrying of weapons either open or concealed reduces violence. Back in the old west when two men, carrying openly on their hip, met on the side-walk, they tipped their hats to one another and were polite. To do otherwise might cause one or the other to draw and shoot. It was a gentler time!!! That of course is an exaggeration. But, when the law places a heavier burden on one who is carrying, that person is more aware of his responsibilities. If you are carrying and know that the law frowns on your exposure of your weapon, you tend to be very concious of that responsibility to keep it out of sight and your need to be really sure that it is justified before pulling it out. This causes you to quell your anger and think in a very controlled manner about what you may be thinking of doing. Most states make a big issue out of “brandishing” a weapon and assess large penalties on those that pull a weapon for the purpose of “scaring” someone. I know that if I have a weapon in my car, I am a much better driver and less aggressive. When I carry I feel secure and in feeling secure I feel less need to be aggressive. Aggressive behaviour, at least in males in most species, is intended to scare away a rival when a threat is perceived. When you are carrying you feel less threatened so there is less need to be aggressive.
I saw a statement recently that referred to the open carrying of weapons as a levelling of the playing field. The 90 pound grandmother is equal to the 230 pound “gorilla” in the dark alley. In that confrontation both are on level ground when it comes to force and any exchange must be negotiated and the more convincing argument is the winner because force is no longer a factor. Only reason can be used when force is neutralised. The upholding of second amendment rights will lead us toward a more reasoned society.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
In this day and age it becomes increasingly unlikely that even a “well armed militia” could overthrow the HUGE government we now live under even if it did become oppressive. But that being the case, there is no reason to avoid the meaning of the second amendment. It was clearly not placed there to protect “sportsmen” or to protect the ability to hunt for food. No, it was meant to give citizens the ability to confront other citizens on an even footing. The weak could not be oppressed by a well armed minority, government, local police organization or vigilante group.
The movement, since the 70s toward concealed carry permitting and open carry permitting has been in the right direction. Some states are doing it as the Constitution meant it to be done. Vermont and Arizona are good examples. California was without permits until the Supreme Court told them they had to have a permitting process. They now do have a process, though it is actually a sham as only the well connected can get a permit in that state. The interesting thing is that, in California, open carry is permitted without any permit as long as the weapon is unloaded. But, you can carry the magazine in your pocket!!! Texas has “concealed carry” with a permit and they are working on “open carry” with a permit so they are moving in the right direction.
But why is it important…other than that the Constitution says we have that right?…. In every state that has enacted “concealed carry” permitting crime rates have gone down. They have gone down because the potential criminal is concerned that he might have resistance and not even know from which direction that resistance might come. Open carry has its problems. I am not sure I would want to be carrying in the open even if it was permitted. The first target of a criminal, on entry into an area, would be take out those with exposed weapons! I would prefer the criminal would not know I was behind him with a weapon.
Some states don’t allow carrying in hospitals, banks, government buildings, drinking establishments and churches. Some of this, such as drinking establishments makes a small amount of sense, but some states don’t restrict it except to say the person carrying should not be drinking which makes a LOT of sense. However, why would a permit carrier who had to go through an FBI background check to get the permit be restricted from carrying into a bank where he might be able to stop a hostage situation from developing. A restriction that the bank robber has no compunction in ignoring. The robber in this case knows that he will not meet any resistance as no one but him/her will have a weapon!! Why is there a restriction against carrying a gun into a church, where an Islamic extremist might launch an attack? The usual answer I get to that one is, “Why would you want a gun in church?” That is a very uninformed question and the answer is a simple, “Why not?”. It is our right to carry.
The permit method of allowing the carrying of weapons is not, in my opinion, constitutional, but does carry with it a full FBI background check which should quench some of the critics. However, what would you think if the government said you free speech was conditioned upon a permit obtained only after having taken a four year course in English and paying a $100 a year fee for the permit? Or your right to freedom of religion or from religion was predicated on your having obtained a permit that required a study course of all the worlds major religions and a “church tax” or $5 to be paid every time you entered a church, synagogue, or mosque. (For the non believers, the fee would be an equal distribution of a tax equal to all the church taxes received from the previous year, distributed to all the atheists. Even taxing, fair and balanced.) Freedom of association would then mean every person on Facebook would then have to pay $1 for every “friend” that they accumulated. So why is the second amendment different? Why is there a permit required to exercise that Constitutional right?
Actually, though the critics will say otherwise, carrying of weapons either open or concealed reduces violence. Back in the old west when two men, carrying openly on their hip, met on the side-walk, they tipped their hats to one another and were polite. To do otherwise might cause one or the other to draw and shoot. It was a gentler time!!! That of course is an exaggeration. But, when the law places a heavier burden on one who is carrying, that person is more aware of his responsibilities. If you are carrying and know that the law frowns on your exposure of your weapon, you tend to be very concious of that responsibility to keep it out of sight and your need to be really sure that it is justified before pulling it out. This causes you to quell your anger and think in a very controlled manner about what you may be thinking of doing. Most states make a big issue out of “brandishing” a weapon and assess large penalties on those that pull a weapon for the purpose of “scaring” someone. I know that if I have a weapon in my car, I am a much better driver and less aggressive. When I carry I feel secure and in feeling secure I feel less need to be aggressive. Aggressive behaviour, at least in males in most species, is intended to scare away a rival when a threat is perceived. When you are carrying you feel less threatened so there is less need to be aggressive.
I saw a statement recently that referred to the open carrying of weapons as a levelling of the playing field. The 90 pound grandmother is equal to the 230 pound “gorilla” in the dark alley. In that confrontation both are on level ground when it comes to force and any exchange must be negotiated and the more convincing argument is the winner because force is no longer a factor. Only reason can be used when force is neutralised. The upholding of second amendment rights will lead us toward a more reasoned society.
"You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free."
Jim Isbell
=================================================================
The Free Republic
=================================================================
July 3rd 2010 Speech
April 17th 2010 Speech
Trinity Base - in Defense of our Republic
Ronald Reagan was Right
American Majority
Red State
Blog Mirror of The Free Republic
My Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)