"One Nation Under God" Has Lost It's Way

Staring out a hotel window in East New Orleans, amid all the still visible destruction of Katrina left in her wake as if it occurred just yesterday, and now almost seven years into a 'War Against Terror,' a war which over 60% of the American people are now opposed, even though the people have spoken loud and clear with their votes in the last election yet with a Congress and President that are hell bent, it appears, to ignore once again their constitutents and even the U.S. Constitution in this 'no win' unconstitutionally expanded and offensive war, it has become apparent......

It is now almost impossible to discern the "good guys" from the bad, nor find any nuance of those values behind our U.S. (and states) Constitutions and Judeo-Christian heritage (on which the founding fathers based that Constitution, although many would like to forget it appears in recent court decisions and rulings).

Cases in point, which are current events:

1. Kelo v. City of New London - governmental greed at its finest with Sandra Day O'Connor stepping down, yet David Souter remaining on the bench over eminent domain abuse in the name of tax revenue and an illegal 'taking' at it's core, giving one citizen's private land to another 'sovereign subject' (developers) merely for tax revenue, setting an unconstitutional precedence that will have huge ramifications for all future generations of Americans (and flying in the face of what the founding fathers fought and died for in the first place, who had been through one abusive 'sovereign' government taking their land and giving it away to sovereign subjects, the nobility in that case, not developers.

2. Teri Schiavo - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in our Bill of Rights incorporated in our Constitution should extend to a brain damaged and handicapped adult, as well as to the fetus or handicapped child. Ms. Schiavo was not being kept alive "artificially," except with the provision of basic sustenance, food and water, was Catholic by all accounts with no living will in existence, had family ready and willing to continue to care and provide for her needs, yet a Florida judge in truth ignored her Constitutional "right to life" and sanctioned her murder in the name of awarding legal "custody" and control to her husband, a "legal" bigamist. I would argue that the 'privacy rights' of citizens as guaranteed in the Constitution against unlawful searches and seizures, does not extend to the willful taking of an innocent life, absent a living will, by starving and dehydration which cannot be any stretch of the imagination be defined as 'artificial' or extraordinary means, since every single human life needs food and water in order to survive - from the infant to the elderly. Nor did they intend judges nor family members absent such wills to play God and judge the affirmed or injured's quality of life. And, with respect to civil and individual rights and the separation of church and state - some matters go beyond the stated law and also religious beliefs are 'facts' with respect to such issues as euthanasia, since in many of the Christian faith suicide and murder of an innocent life who has done no harm or committed no violent crime against another human being are forbidden and moral sins in direct violation of God's word on these issues. He did charge mankind with sovereignty over the animals, but it is he and he alone that has sovereignty over humanity absent 'extraordinary' or mechanical, artificial methods of prolonging life. This woman was a mere 39 years old and breathing on her own, a devout Catholic who believed in the sanctity of marriage to the point that she did not divorce a rather abusive spouse from all accounts, and it took 14 full days for her to literally dehydrate to death - so what does that say about her will to live, and religious devotion?

3. The "swearing in" of a Congressional member on the Quoran, with the media calling it, as with the bible, a "ceremonial" book. Because it "belonged" to Mr. Jefferson's library, it was deemed appropriate as a book upon which to take his oath of office. I think the founding fathers would disagree vehemently with this one. Our federal representatives, and all public servants oaths are actually to uphold and execute their offices according to the 'law of the land, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Constitution only (although there most definitely was a biblical foundation behind that Constitution acknowledged by those founders). Maybe a change should be made and this acknowledged and the public 'swearing in' ceremonies hereafter should include a ceremonial copy of that 'damn piece of paper,' instead and upon which they place their right hands.

4. Governor Schwartzenegger's, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, et. al. new proposed agenda, "mandatory" and/or universal health insurance for all Americans. Massachusetts already has such a law in effect, I understand with "fines" proposed for those citizens not in compliance with this new law. I believe legally mandating such a 'purchase' - a health insurance policy - will fail because our 'civil servants' are missing the point (whose leading proponents are probably being "campaign contributed" to for such legislation) - more than half of American citizens cannot afford even basic major medical coverage at current levels - and without strict regulation of the insurance industry at either the state or federal levels, seems destined to enrich the insurance industry and state governments funding low income or indigent programs to increase their revenue, or place the government in the position of determining who lives and dies in this country (scary thought - see the Teri Schiavo commentary above).

Many of the large insurers are foreign based companies (Farmers = Zurich), which means this increased revenue will not even result in economic gains for the U.S. or employees of those corporations. This "life and death" industry needs regulation now, not transferring the enormous costs of this program back to the citizens, or initiating a federal program where the American citizens are paying for Wal-Mart's employee benefit package.

The rich will live, the poor or middle class will die out faster than they already are. We think we have problems with the homeless and 'welfare' moms now (due to 'no fault' divorce and/or inadequate educational opportunities accorded now). With the illegal immigrant situation, our porous borders and national security issues still not adequately addressed or federally provided for (while sums are being doled out for 'toilet studies' and the like) feel candidates with such positions and the ramifications which will occurr at both the federal, state and local level with such an agenda are committing eventual political suicide with this program's inclusion of funding now matter what the immigration status, due to the already simmering resentment of many in this country with already providing state health care and other benefits for which they have or are paying taxes for these individuals, and the majority of the population, it would seem, outraged over this situation. With the baby boomer's coming of age, and the economy and housing crisis as it is, what candidate in their right mind could take such a position, and where is the money going to come from in order to fund it (another unaccountable programs such as Social Security and Medicare the feds can dip into whenever they want for their discretionary purposes?). Ludicrous. And finally.....

5. Iraq - We can't or won't abide by the Constitution in "providing for a common defense" in using our military personnel to shore up our porous borders or assist in 'homeland' security programs, the state of which, after all, in truth was the major contributory factor in why 911 even occurred to begin with (since two of those 'pilots' trained in my home state, Arizona, and came over the Mexican border it would appear from news reports). Seven years post 911 the borders are still open, although we were attacked from within and any military leader would have shored up those borders immediately prior to even setting foot on foreign soil, rather than proposing and force feeding legislation in order to eavesdrop on American citizens, or strip search them at airports, or obtain their banking records and even library records. No citizen was involved in 911 to begin with - so why is it that the American citizens have lost their liberties, and bin Laden is still on the loose?

Sending more of them over there now after Hussein's execution to mediate what appears now more than ever a 'civil' war, appears it is Vietnam all over again, albeit with religious overtones. Leave the career army there, the elite forces, diplomatic corps and military intelligence to continue to track down bin Laden, and use our regular army to prevent another occurrence through increased border security and immigration controls. Do that first, then we can decide what to do with those that are already here other than a blanket amnesty program. Border security and immigration control are imperative to prevent another 911 type 'invasion' - we have anti-aircraft missiles for any 'weapons of mass destruction' they may attempt to develop or use. Use the $3 billion per day this war is costing us, not to mention in additional American lives, to deploy the troops to our borders now!

As far as private property rights now in this country also, now the most of the states in this country have created another lawyer, homeowners associations, and the power these now "mini-governments" our state legislations have created knows no bounds - it took an Act of Congress to allow a private property owner and citizen to fly an American flag on their own property (although the size and placement the flagpole may still be HOA determined) - need I say more? Your neighbor has been given authority and permission over you and your personal property (be it home or money) greater than the U.S. Supreme Court (lien foreclosure for excess taxes deemed 'assessments' = a "taking") (parking or illegal paint or structural addition penalty = fine, plus loss of freedom over use of your own property = "taking") Ask anyone who has lost their home through foreclosure, penalties or "restriction" harassment whether or not the damage is as "criminal." We don't have land and home ownership anymore, we have 'corporate socialism' of land ownership, with these over the top land use control and taxation deed restrictions - and since they are mandated for all new redevelopment in most metropolitan areas, how long before there is no unencumbered land or freedom of ownership over land or home ownership remaining in the U.S.?

Kind of makes you wonder who the true criminals are anymore. The thief who takes your television at least doesn't live next door, nor are you 'paying' them for their larceny, nor their expense accounts, pension plans, or salaries.