Been a long time...

It's been a while since I last posted anything here, but I wanted to share a post that I made on Facebook.

"NBC reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted on Sunday that states with varying population sizes should not get the same representation in the U.S. Senate.

Dilanian suggested in his tweet that it was unfair that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Saturday, quoting a Washington Post article that said, “Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans.”

Dear Mr. Dilanian,
Those smart men who wrote the Constitution would today call that a "feature" not a "bug". Our REPUBLIC (not democracy) was created to "restrain the mob" by dividing powers not only among the three branches of government, but between the federal government and the states. If you will educate yourself, these are called "separation of powers" and "federalism" respectively. It is not (and should not be) possible for the people of 2 or three states (California, New York, Illinois) to dictate political preferences to everyone in the United States.

If anything, what we see in the latest fiasco, is the failure of the 17th amendment. The writers of the Constitution envisioned the Senate as a place relatively free of politics with senators elected by state legislatures to represent the states interests in Washington. By allowing for the election of Senators, the amendment made the Senate just as political as the House. By the way, without the 17th amendment, there would be 62 Republican Senators.

The trouble lies in this failure, and the 17th amendment should be repealed.

So, please stop with all the whining about "fair". I tell my students that the fair comes once a year. Let us concern ourselves with what is JUST and CONSTITUTIONAL. If our media members are really so ignorant of our Constitution, it comes as no surprise to me that the majority of our citizens are also.

Hope Springs Eternal

I am a Texas Rangers fan.

When I first began paying attention to baseball when I was 8 or 9 living in Maryland, I was not attracted to the successful Baltimore Orioles, but to the hapless, hopeless Washington Senators.  I don't know why.  Maybe I like the idea of being the perpetual underdogs, fighting against larger market teams and the bottomless pockets of some AL East teams, especially the "Damn Yankees".  I watched on TV as they lost their final game to the hated Yankees by forfeit in the 9th inning while actually winning.

I followed the team to Texas in 1972 and for the last 40 years I have loved this team.

When I was in college in the 1980's, I was a regular "bleacher bum" in the old Arlington Stadium, enduring the sweltering heat of August in those old aluminium benches, cheering on my team to repeated last place finishes.

In the late 1990's I thought we had arrived, but again, the Yankees shattered our dreams.

I watched great players, Mike Hargrove, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Sundberg, and of course, Nolan Ryan.

I saw management trade pitchers for hitters then hitters for pitchers, year after year, never finding the right balance.  The seemingly endless parade of Managers and the ridiculous A-Rod fiasco.  Still I watched, went to as many games as I could, bought the merchandise, and prayed for "next year".

The last three years have been ones of emotional highs and lows.  Thrilling victories and heartbreaking defeats.  Losing the AL West in the last game of the season was especially hard.  I am not a "boo-bird", but if anyone has a right to be disappointed, I do.

That being said, baseball is a game of hope, and each spring is a fresh start.  Only 5 months until pitchers and catchers report and Spring Training will be a time of joy again.

Here's to next year!

P.S.  I'm not sure whether I will be supporting the A's or the O's in the playoffs yet.  Both teams played with lots of heart this year and deserve to do well.

P.P.S  If Josh Hamilton wants to leave the team that gave him a chance when no other team would, then I wish him better luck than Albert Pujols has had with the Angels.

P.P.P.S.  No matter what, I still HATE THE YANKEES!!

A Plague on both their houses...

Almost every day, I read comments to this or that news story and I am struck by the number of people who seem to think that the problem with our government is not enough cooperation between the parties, or that both parties are equally corrupt and ineffective and to blame for the problems in our country today.  You know those people.  What I call the "plague on both their houses" types or to coin a moniker: plaguers.  The offer no solutions to the problem, but heap condemnation.

I have come to the conclusion that, in reality, these people are lazy citizens.  Not lazy in the way that they are not hard working, but lazy in their thought processes and political awareness.

Let us take for example our current economic "recovery".  The plaguers would have us believe that: 1. The Democrats haven't done enough to help the economy, and 2.  The Republicans have prevented solutions to the problem.

Let's see, when the Democrats poured almost 1 Trillion in borrowed money into the economy promising that unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, the Republicans had no power to stop them.  Obviously, just by basic observation, it is clear that this money did not do what the Democrats promised that it would do.  Yet, the plaguers don't seem to attribute blame for this failure to the Democrats.

When the Democratic Congress tried to come back for a "second bite" in 2010, the people rose up and gave Republicans control of the house.  It is at this point that the plaguers say the the Republicans became the party of NO!  Blocking the President's "effective" policy solutions.  You know, the ones that worked so well in 2009 and 2010.

Now really, seems to me that these people are either: 1. Stupid or uninformed, or 2. Really Democrats who like to pretend that they aren't.  While I can understand that, the are being disingenuous.

I had a conversation online last night wherein a fellow challenged me, insinuating that I had never voted for a Democrat, therefore making me some kind of a hyper-partisan biased against one party or another.

I tried to explain to him that I was a Conservative, not necessarily a Republican, and that I tried to vote for the most conservative candidate available.  I also tried to explain to him that in many cases in Texas, particularly in county or local elections in the rural area where I live, there is ONLY a Democratic candidate and that I had, as recently as this year, voted for that person.

At that point, I turned the question back on him.  He admitted quite quickly that he was a liberal Democrat and had NEVER voted for a Republican.  Yet, he could not admit the hypocrisy of his question.

When I was in boot camp many years ago, when we were marching and someone messed up, turning the wrong way or getting out of step, the Company Commander would stop us and provide some corrective "motivation".  But if EVERYONE in the company did the wrong thing, no one noticed, and even the CC was left scrambling to catch up.  Thus I learned the lesson:

If everyone is wrong, no one is wrong.

There must be responsibility.  In our two-party system, there has to be political accountability.  You cannot blame everyone for every problem.  You must discriminate the noise and attenuate the message.

There is Right and Wrong in the political spectrum.  Stop being lazy and uninformed and FIND IT!

What were they thinking?

Yesterday on the steps of our nation's capitol, a group of activists held a rally that they entitled "We are Women".  The poorly attended rally...

was billed as an opportunity to tell Congress, who by the way is currently in recess, to stand up for what the feminists claim are their "rights" to free contraception and free abortions.  Some of the more creative women, shall we say, dressed the part, literally.

Donning the costume of, well, their private bits.  They were joined by others from the group Code Pink later to reinforce their demands.

Now let me make something completely clear:  I am a man who fully supports EQUAL rights for women.  There is no reason that women shouldn't be treated, hired, fired and promoted on an equal basis with men.  The law has NO business discriminating against anyone because of their gender.

That being said, I have a question.

After years, no decades, of being told that women do not want to be treated as sexual objects, WHY are then now presenting themselves as nothing more than SEXUAL OBJECTS?

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood...

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."

Well, it certainly looks like President Obama has gotten what he wants.  He has been doing his utmost to make this election a choice of ideologies between conservatism and his own brand of "pragmatism" which is of course thinly veiled liberalism.

So a stark choice then.  Fine.  That's what we conservatives have wanted since the day Ronald Reagan left office.

In the last 80 years, we have had only 8 years of conservative stewardship.  8 years when the power of the private sector and the strength of the individual were set free and allowed to grow.  Those 8 years under Ronald Reagan set in motion 27 years of success, wealth and prosperity for our nation.

In 2007, when the liberal party gained control of both houses of Congress, they began to turn the nation away from the path of success.  In 2009, by taking the Presidency they had two years of unfettered control to "turn the ship of state" and turn it they did.

Look at any economic measure, employment, poverty, business activity, anything and you will find that in 6 years of liberal stewardship of our economy we are right back where we started in 1980.

So yes, let's make this election a choice.

Let us be bold and take the road "less traveled by"

4 more years of Democratic disaster, or a return to the policies of conservative success.

As Frost said, it will make "all the difference".

The Myth of the Undecided Voter

As the presidential election approaches, I have seen more and more articles about the "undecideds".  This morning, Politico had an article about "The disappearing undecideds..."  In the article, the author basically lamented that our country has become so polarized that the "middle" where these undecideds supposedly reside are becoming fewer and fewer.  But seriously, let me ask you...

Is there any INFORMED citizen in this country that hasn't already made up his or her mind?

I will agree that there are those who adhere to the extreme, those Democrats that would never vote for a Republican for any reason, and vice versa.  Call that 1/3rd of the voting public.

There are also those who really try to understand the issues, weigh the people and personalities of those running, and make the best decision that they can, though they tend to "lean" to one side or the other.  Call that also about 1/3rd of the voting public.

That leaves a third of the voting eligible population who are either too clueless, too self-absorbed or honestly too stupid to have an opinion.

You know some of these people.  They live in their own world, oblivious to virtually everything around them.  They seldom watch news programs, never read newspapers or magazines, have no opinions, and feel strongly about nothing.  If it weren't for the relentless efforts of political parties, they wouldn't even be registered to vote, let alone actually take part in an election process.

Are THESE the people you want choosing your next president?

You know, THESE PEOPLE!



OK, so call me a snob, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with these people breeding, let alone electing our president.

If ANYONE can live in this country at this time and NOT have an opinion about anything, something is seriously wrong.

So, the next time YOU come across one of these clueless creatures who know more about who is on "The Bachelor" or "American Idol" than who their Senator or Congressperson is, PLEASE politely encourage them NOT to vote.

This has been a message in the public interest.

Go back to your lives citizens...

Just a helpful hint...

For those LGBTQ folks trying to raise the awareness of the rest of America through their "Kiss-In" at Chick-fil-a this week, just a bit of advice.  If you want to influence your average straight male in this country into being more open to your cause, post more pics like this...

This one...  Not so much...

Now... who will see humor in this post?

I'm a HATER!

That's right folk, I'm a hater!  At least that's what I've been called by people who don't agree with my opinions. Funny thing is that I was raised in a country where I was taught there was a thing called "free speech" where you could openly express your opinions.  Others didn't have to agree with your opinions, but they should at least respect your right to have them.

"I may not agree with your opinions, but I will defend to the death your right to them!"

No more!  If your opinion differs, then you are beyond the pale.  You are a hate filled non-person who does not deserve any consideration other than to be dismissed and disdained.

So, when I question the President's "evolution" over gay marriage as being political, I am a gay hater.

When I caution people not to jump to conclusions in the Treyvon Martin case, I am a racist hater.

When I question the so called "scientific consensus" of Global Climate Change, I am a "flat-earth" denying hater of the planet!

I was reading an article this morning in the New Yorker Magazine Online (I do my best to read BOTH sides of the political press) and the author quoted his wife as saying "People are really willing to vote for Mitt Romney? They hate Obama so much they’d vote for Romney?"  Really?  REALLY?


Why is the assumption that my political motivations are all based on HATE?  Can't I have a policy disagreement or dislike his leadership style, or his foreign policy?


Seems like just a few years ago, the press was trumpeting that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism".


I guess that only applies when your "dissent" is against a Republican president.  

Francisco Franco is still dead...

Back in 1975, when Saturday Night Live was still funny, Generalissimo Francisco Franco, leader of the Spanish Civil War and ruler for almost 40 years, died. I suppose that this in itself was not funny, and Chevy mispronounced Generalissimo, but it was an admitted turning point in world history.
For what seemed like a year afterwards, Chevy began Weekend Update with "The top story tonight; Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead". A running gag as it were.

 Fast forward 36 years. On May 2, 2011, President Obama announced that the Navy SEALs had dropped into a compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden. I don't have to remind you that he was the person who plotted the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and most assuredly deserved to be killed.

I congratulate President Obama for having the political courage to take a risk. It has been his only major foreign policy achievement of his term.

One year later, as the anniversary of this accomplishment approached and in the midst of a political year, our President released an attack ad against his Republican rival asserting that Romney wouldn't have "pulled the trigger" and made the "gutsy call" to send in the SEALs and kill bin Laden.
 
I think Romney summed up my reaction very well: "Are you kidding? Even Carter would have done it!" So much for a gutsy call.

THEN, the President jets off to Afghanistan to sign a new agreement with their supposed leader and spends some more time patting himself on the back on his great accomplishment. It seems like we hear something every day about himself or one of his spokesmen reminding us about the success of the raid.

I'm afraid that for the next six months we are going to be hearing: "The top story tonight: Osama bin Laden is still dead".

Where's Chevy when you need him?

P.S. Sorry for being away for so long, but I promise to do better as I seem to have somewhat more time on my hands of late.

Another Essay on Global Warming

Earlier this week, in a conversation that was intended as a humorous look at Global Warming in a winter of record low temperatures, I was accused of not knowing the difference between climate and weather.  Being the pig headed pseudo-scholar that I am I immediately consulted a dictionary.

I discovered the following from Webster’s Dictionary:

Climate –

1.  A region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2. a. the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

b. the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors  climate-controlled office>

3. The prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period  

Weather –

1. The state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness

2. State or vicissitude of life or fortune

3. Disagreeable atmospheric conditions

Being thus fortified in my knowledge, I decided to rise above the current “weather” and to have a look back at the “average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years”.

The Western Region Climate Center provided me with data regarding Brownfield, Texas (where I live) from 1914 to 1954.  Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, they did not have the data from 1954 to the present date available.  Therefore, I sought out my data from weather.com for information on the last 30 years, 1980 to 2010.

My methodology was thus:

I took the average high temperatures and the average low temperatures from both data sets and created the table below:

Month	H1	H2	L1	L2
1	56	54	26	26
2	64	60	30	30
3	70	68	36	35
4	76	76	44	44
5	82	84	53	54
6	90	91	61	63
7	93	93	64	67
8	90	91	61	63
9	84	85	57	58
10	77	76	47	47
11	66	64	35	35
12	57	56	26	26

Utilizing this data, I averaged the monthly highs and lows for each data set.

Data set H1 (1914-1954) had an Annual Average High Temperature of 75.4F

Data set H2 (1980-2010) had an Annual Average High Temperature of 74.8F

Data set L1 (1914-1954) had an Annual Average Low Temperature of 45.3F

Data set L2 (1980-2010) had an Annual Average Low Temperature of 45.3F

By adding and averaging the complementary data sets (H1+L1) and (H2+L2) I discovered the following:

Annual Average Temperature for Data set One (H1+L1/2) was 60.35F

Annual Average Temperature for Data set Two (H2+L2/2) was 60.05F

This would indicate that the Annual Average Temperature for Brownfield, Texas has DECREASED .3 degrees in the past 96 years.

Now before any of you begin to rant and rave about me being a “denier” and a believer in a flat earth, let me share something that I was taught in Basic Statistical Analysis in college:

“Statistics can be made to exhibit ANY outcome desired.”

My desire was to show that there was NO global warming for the past 96 years.  Using the scientific method and carefully selected statistics, I have fulfilled my desire.

I am not a “scientist”, but I understand the scientific method.  I understand that science is the exploration of the unknown and that no answer or theory is permanent.  The concept that “Global Warming” is “settled science” is ridiculous. 

If there were such a thing as “settled science”, physics would have stopped with Einstein.

TRUE scientists are ALWAYS seeking a better answer, not trying to convince everyone that everything has been discovered, settled upon and all the questions answered.  They certainly do not try to hide data that conflicts with their theory as the climate researchers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the propertied “experts” on climate change did.

TRUE scientists do not concoct easily disprovable but frightening stories about the melting of glaciers and the impending doom of rising sea levels inundating cities and countries and splash them theatrically across the movies, television, radio, internet and print media. 

They certainly don’t select a washed up politician who, by his own admission “did not do well in science classes while in college” to be their spokesperson.

Speaking as a Political SCIENTIST, one who studies politics, governments, governmental systems and the people who engage in them, I see politicians trying to lead, not by inspiration, not by explanation, but by fear mongering and half truths.  When these efforts do not succeed, they persist in their desires by implementing laws, rules and regulations IN SPITE of the public desire.

When that happens, it ceases to be about the possibility of a changing climate or dangers to our world and becomes all about CONTROL.

I for one believe that the government already has more than enough control of our lives.

Unions going to Pot?

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a Union member.

During my career, I have, in turns, been invited, encouraged, cajoled and somewhat intimidated into joining a Union.  I have always declined.  It has always been my belief that unionization “levels” the playing field to such an extent that the “hard chargers” and “go getters” are penalized by having to share pay and benefit increases with those who are less so.

Even so, even here in Texas, some “union” priorities have been incorporated into State benefits.  Several years ago, the State created a “Sick Leave Pool” to which employees could “contribute” a small amount of their sick time.  Ideally, if one were faced with a catastrophic illness where they exhaust their own sick leave, they could draw from the pool in order to maintain their paycheck for a period of time, hopefully long enough for them to return to work.

Many of my co-workers flocked to the idea, contributing small amounts of their time to the pool, generally the minimal time required to participate.  It didn’t take me long to realize that these were the people who never seemed to be able to accrue more than a couple of days of sick leave because they were taking it almost as soon as they got it.

I felt that, were I to contribute my time to the pool, chances were that it would be distributed to persons who, through their own mismanagement, had squandered their own time, thereby providing them with a benefit that they neither earned nor deserved.

When I left state employment after almost 10 years, I had over 240 hours of sick time on the books.  That is AFTER I took 120 hours off for “Paternity Leave” after my daughter was born.

To say the least, the lure of unionization has never held any kind of interest for me.

Now there is the great news on the Union front from California, where workers in the “Medical Marijuana” industry are flocking to the Unions in order to gain collective bargaining powers.

The New York Times reported in May, that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5 in Oakland had enrolled about 100 employees in the “Medical Marijuana” industry into their Union.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/29pot.html?_r=1

“This is a natural for us,” said Ron Lind, the president of Local 5, who’s 26,000 other members work primarily in groceries and the meat industry. “Our union’s primary jurisdiction is retail.”

As reported this week by Fox News, about 40 workers in the marijuana cultivation industry have joined the Teamsters Union, Local 70.  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/11/in-california-unions-go-to-pot/

Now remember, I am not a Union man, but these recent acquisitions of these particular workers beg answers to a few questions.

1. Since marijuana cultivation and distribution remains a Federal Felony (despite the lack of enforcement), couldn’t the Unions be seen as entering into a criminal conspiracy to violate Federal Law by encouraging and facilitating the cultivation and distribution of an illegal product?

2. If California passes Proposition 19 in November, will the Union provide legal representation to the marijuana growers and distributors in the lawsuits that are guaranteed to come?

Some of you are old enough to remember during the Vietnam War when the Union leadership came totally under the influence of the Democrat Anti-war Leftists.  Thousands of union workers LEFT their unions because they could not support what their supposed leaders were doing.

There was film on the television and photographs in the newspapers and magazines of the “hard hats” counter-protesting at anti-war rallies.  “America, Love it or Leave it” was their common slogan and there were documented incidents of these people assaulting the “hippies” who sat in doorways smoking marijuana.

Do you think that the Middle America union member who is just trying to keep his job at a decent wage is going to embrace these people who make their living in an illegal trade?

I wonder…

The New Poor?

I was reading an article from the Associated Press today that states that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.  Specifically, that the top 20 percent of Americans (those making more than $100,000 per year) received 49.4 percent of all income while those living below the government established “Poverty Line” made only 3.4 percent of all income. “That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was… nearly double a low of 7.69-to-1 in 1968.

I wonder how many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the “Poor” in anti-poverty programs since 1968 in order to make the problem WORSE than it was?

I think that our problem in the United States now is not that we have an increase in the number of “Poor” people, or that they are making less of the national income than others, but that our DEFINITION of “Poor” has changed so much as to be unrecognizable.

I know that anecdotal evidence is never the best basis for an argument, but how many times have you experienced being behind a person at the grocery store who, after using their “food stamp” card to pay for the milk, bread, cereal, cheese, etc., then reaches into their wallet to produce cash to pay for their beer, cigarettes, steaks, etc?  Then the bag boy/girl takes their purchases out to their less than three year old vehicle?

So, I am going to disregard what you and I see with our own eyes, and look at the statistics provided by our own government.

The government set the 2009 “Poverty Line” at $21,954.00 for a family of four or $1,829.50 per month.  This is just about $11 per hour for a standard 168 hour work month.  But wait, this is ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.  So, this family of four actually makes about $12,000.00 more just based on what standard exemption/standard deduction removes from their taxable income.  So we are looking at a salary of about $34,000.00.  That brings us up to $2,841.67 per month or almost $17 per hour.

According to the 2009 IRS Tax Tables, this family of four should owe $2,454.00 in income taxes.  But wait, we forget about the Child Tax Credit of $1,000.00 per child, thereby reducing their tax burden to $454.00.  That sounds reasonable.  But WAIT!  We forget about the Earned Income Tax Credit!

Again, according to the 2009 Earned Income Tax Credit Tables, this family of four is eligible for $3,648.00 in Earned Income Tax Credit.

That means, this family of four would pay NO INCOME TAX and would RECEIVE a check from the government of $3,194.00.  This would make their ACTUAL ANNUAL INCOME to $37,194.00.  Are these people POOR?

Remember, that this is BEFORE we consider eligibility for the “anti-poverty” programs of SCHIP, AFDC, Section 8 Housing assistance, Free and Reduced School Lunch Program, etc., the value of which could exceed $20,000 per year.

When my Father was a child in the 1930’s, during the Great Depression, living with his Parents and 12 brothers and sisters on a hardscrabble farm south of Grapevine, Texas talks about being Poor, he knows what he is talking about:  No running water in the house,  an outhouse in the back yard,  one new pair of shoes every year.  Most of our Parents can tell similar stories.

What is poor today?  I don’t really think anyone knows, particularly not the government.

Should a “poor” person receiving federal assistance have: a new car, an HD TV, a Cell Phone, a $200 pair of sneakers, gold and diamond jewelry?

Is the American taxpayer, through the provision of monetary and non-monetary assistance, taking away the incentive of people to work hard and improve their lot in life?

Are we providing a level of support that is allowing people to spend their income on luxuries because they know that the government will provide for their basic needs?

I think that we, as a country, need to reevaluate what we consider to be poor and better target the benefits to those who actually have needs that cannot otherwise be fulfilled.

I also think that everyone who has ANY income, no matter how little, has an obligation to pay SOMETHING in income taxes to help defray their costs to the rest of society.

Nearly HALF of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax.

My friends, something is very wrong with that.

Happy Constitution Day!

Two hundred and twenty three years ago today on September 17,1787 thirty-nine representatives of the various States assembled in Philadelphia signed the Constitution of the United States of America.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This document in seven simple articles, set forth the framework of the new government.  From the powers allotted to the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary,  to the obligations of the States to the whole, to the methods for ratifying and amending the document.  In 4,543 words, these men charted the path that our nation would take.

Unfortunately, their work was incomplete.  George Mason of Virginia protested that there was no "declaration of rights" in the new Constitution and that it opened the door to tyranny by the central government.

Although most of the formal arguments for and against the Constitution, particularly as contained the the Federalist Papers, dealt with the power of the central government versus the various States, the undercurrent of Individual Rights was always present.

While some States had already had statements of rights passed by their legislatures such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights passed in 1776, most did not.

Even Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist #84 was forced to address these concerns claiming that the Constitution contained "the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured."

Additionally, he stated that "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous."

Because of, or possibly in spite of, Messieurs Hamilton, Jay and Madison's efforts, on June 21, 1788 with New Hampshire ratifying, the Constitution of the United States of America came into effect.  Elections were set for the first Tuesday in November 1788.  On March 4, 1789 the first United States Congress took their seats and the government began operations.

Fortunately, the argument for a Bill of Rights had not died with the ratification of the Constitution.  On September 25, 1789 the first amendments to the Constitution, later to become known as the "Bill of Rights" was passed by the Congress and submitted to the several states for ratification.  In December of 1791, with ratification by the Virginia House of Delegates, the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution of the United States.

To remind you all, these amendments are as follows:

Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment 2
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.


Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Amendment 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For the last two hundred and twenty three years, these simple words have held this country together and made her strong.

It is only when we have strayed from this enumeration of the rights of the individual that our country has gone astray.

Today I would say to you that our country is in just such peril.

We must return to our roots, to the Constitution, to it's actual words and original meanings, not what we want them to say, but what they truly say.  We must reign in a bloated, over reaching central government and return the power to the States and the People.

We must, we can, and we will.