The national "no-call" list made the news the other day. Everyone seems so relieved that the federal government has finally stepped in and fixed the problem for us...but do we really want this sort of help?
The "problem," of course, is that private organizations utilize the telephone system to solicit business or financial support. Since most people have taken no steps whatsoever to protect their personal information, pretty much anybody can find out all sorts of things about them--their phone number, address, age, Social Security Number, gender, skin color, driver's license number, favorite foods, etc.--with a few clicks of a mouse, and perhaps a few bucks shelled out to one or more of the organizations with which their "lead" does business, in order to have access to their customer information database. (You thought that stuff was private? Better read the fine print on all those "privacy policies" one more time.) Once they have all that information, they sift through the databases to find likely customers, wait until suppertime, and then they start calling. All those potential customers, just sitting down to a meal with their family...they'll all get up to answer the phone, won't they?
This is the situation in which most Americans find themselves, but are they irritated with themselves for it? Heavens no; after all, how could it be my fault that my personal information has been broadcast all over creation? How's that, you say? It's on my checks, my driver's license, my email signature, etc. ad infinitum? Yeah, but that's private information, right? Just because I freely give it out to anyone who asks for it doesn't mean it's not private, does it? (If that's you talking, then you are as ignorant as I was only a short while ago. I highly recommend that you acquire and read J. J. Luna's How To Be Invisible as soon as possible.)
So, we've put ourselves into this situation, and now we want out. Do we figure out a way to do it using our own God-given talents and abilities? Or do we ask our federal government, which treats the Constitution as if it were a senile great-aunt, to take on yet another unconstitutional role? How long will it be until some preacher calls someone who recently visited his church to invite them to Wednesday night supper and Bible study, and gets fined $11,000 by the government for violating the "no-call" list? Supposedly, non-profits are exempt, but how much faith do you have that the federal government will never make a mistake? When will we see the formation of a national "no-knock" database that will slap a fine on door-to-door solicitors every time they pound on a listed door? How about a "no-beg" database that will nail that homeless guy who's always begging food downtown? Where does it end?
Once the federal government gets its regulatory foot in the door, you might as well invite it in for supper, because it's coming in anyway. Government is not the answer, folks. Paste that on your bathroom mirror, and repeat it out loud to yourself every morning: GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ANSWER. Government is a necessary evil. George Washington (remember him?) said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Learn to do things for yourself instead of asking the government to do them for you. For example, here are a few free-market tips for handling the telemarketer problem:
Notice that none of these tips involve the government at all. Some of them are even fun...sort of like reverse prank calls. They're all relatively simple and painless. If a significant percentage of the millions of people who have been flooding the government's "no-call" signup system had implemented even one of these methods on their own, the telemarketers would probably have changed their ways a long time ago. But we Americans are far too lazy to do it on our own. Let the government handle it; here's my driver's license and SSN...just pass me the remote and another beer. What's that? You're on the "no-pass-a-beer" list? Awww, man....
I am a member of the NRA. I pay my dues, and I receive America's 1st Freedom magazine, the "Official Journal of the National Rifle Association of America." According to the magazine, "The NRA, the foremost guardian of the traditional American right to 'keep and bear arms,' believes every law-abiding citizen is entitled to the ownership and legal use of firearms, and that every reputable gun owner should be an NRA member." With that in mind, I have a few questions for the NRA.
That bit about every reputable gun owner being an NRA member...well, I suppose I can let that by; after all, the process of exerting political influence takes big money. But what, exactly, is meant by the "legal use of firearms"? Reading through the Constitution, I find no mention of illegal uses of firearms. Certainly, one could use a firearm to commit an illegal act, but then is it not obvious that the act itself, not the use of the firearm, is the illegal thing? When the Second Amendment, which the NRA claims to champion, says, "...the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," does the plain meaning of the plain language escape the NRA's notice?
Why do the columnists in America's 1st Freedom consistently imply that the right to keep and bear arms requires permission? For example, in the "First Things First" section of the July 2003 issue, the author writes about Minnesota's "right-to-carry" law as "securing legislation that allows all law-abiding Minnesota citizens the opportunity to carry a concealed firearm" (emphases added). The writer further states, "In the past, police chiefs and sheriffs held sole discretion as to who would be allowed the right to carry a firearm." The fact of the matter is that those police chiefs and sheriffs held no such discretion, because no government offical has any authority beyond what is granted by the Constitution--and they especially have no discretion regarding a specifically enumerated right!
There's nothing in the Second Amendment about having to be "law-abiding" or "allowed the right to carry," concealed or otherwise; the amendment simply states that the government shall not infringe upon any American citizen's right to keep and bear arms. To amplify the clear meaning of the amendment, an American citizen has an inherent right to own, borrow, rent, sell, and otherwise trade in firearms, and to carry, stow, pack, and otherwise bear firearms on or about his or her person, and the government has no authority at all, period, to infringe upon that right. Thus, the very idea of a "concealed handgun license" or a "right-to-carry law" is anathema to the Second Amendment.
(Yes, I possess concealed handgun licenses in at least two states; my justification is found in the Second Amendment's statement that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary...." Note that "well-regulated" here means "adept at the use of firearms," and as the CHL process enabled me to demonstrate and certify my regularity, I felt that it was at least marginally constitutional to that end; however, most state governments--and even the NRA--apparently view the CHL as a grant of "permission" to carry. That view is completely unconstitutional, and in my opinion provides ample justification for refusing to obtain or renew a CHL in any state that holds such a view.)
Wayne LaPierre doesn't mince words when it comes to the First Amendment; in his article on "campaign finance reform" in the same issue, he writes, "Americans need no permission on when to speak, or how to speak, or by what means they can speak to influence government. Free speech requires no reporting, no explanation, no rationalization, no preapproval to or by anyone--especially anyone in government."
Let's take Mr. LaPierre's statement above and revise it such that it applies to the Second Amendment rather than the First:
"Americans need no permission on when to keep and bear arms, or how to keep and bear arms, or by what means they can keep and bear arms to influence government. The keeping and bearing of arms requires no reporting, no explanation, no rationalization, no preapproval to or by anyone--especially anyone in government."
Mr. LaPierre, can you publicly agree with that statement? If you cannot, then why not? Does your no-compromise stance on the clear meaning of the Constitution end somewhere between Amendment I and Amendment II? If so, where and why? The NRA's "Official Journal" certainly includes a lot of language about "law-abiding" citizens being "allowed to carry" and that sort of rot. So which is it, Mr. NRA? Does the organization truly defend the Second Amendment as vehemently as you do the First, or does it simply pay lip service to the Second for the sake of the dues-paying members it produces?
I want to know, and I daresay I am not alone. I pay my NRA dues to assist in the effort to protect and defend the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. Would I be a better steward of my funds to send them elsewhere?
An attractive young woman who works in my office building danced into my office the other day and announced to us that her divorce was on the verge of being finalized, and she was going out drinking to celebrate.
I was speechless. My co-worker, whose own marriage has survived the threat of divorce by persistent prayer and the grace of God, looked her in the eye and said that he would never congratulate anyone on a divorce. All I could do was shake my head in disbelief at her obvious expectation that we would rejoice with her. She finally left, her mood only marginally deflated. Upon reflection, I wished that I had been able to compose myself enough to tell her a few things myself.
For the rest of her life, she will share part of herself with a strange family. She has sliced in half the amount of time she will be able to spend with her children, and with her grandchildren. She will be forced, by the decree of the divorce court, to send her little girls into a strange home, over which she has no control, into situations she can neither foresee nor protect against. While they are young, she will always fear for their safety. When they are grown, she will always wonder whether or not she will see them on any given holiday.
"For I hate divorce," says the Lord, the God of Israel (Malachi 2:16). God hates divorce because it damages people, twisting the divine bond of marriage into a sick treachery. Even if the divorce is justifiable (i.e. due to adultery), yet it is no cause for a party. Marriage is serious business.
What causes all heaven to weep, causes this young woman to want to propose a toast. In this, she is testifying to her girls that the end of a marriage is a joyous occasion, instead of teaching them the truth: That the marriage covenant has a deep and serious magic to it, touched by the very heart of God. That marriage is an earthly representation of the love Christ has for His church, and is sacred above all other human institutions. That divorce is a terrible rending of hearts and lives, to be avoided at all costs.
She says she's going out drinking to celebrate, but I know better. Proverbs 31:6-7 says, "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his trouble no more." There are few things in this world more bitter than the death of a marriage. Even the death of a bad marriage merits mourning, not celebration.
And I should know.
Fox News is running a story about Congress' desire to address the issue of a terrorist attack decimating their numbers. "Members said this week that despite the time that has lapsed since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, they still feel an urgency to write into place new rules to ensure continuity — even if that means a constitutional amendment to do so." But what sort of amendment are they talking about?
In a nutshell, they're talking about an amendment that would further dismantle the Constitutional Republic crafted by our Founding Fathers.
Right now, state governors can appoint replacements for senators who die in office. You may recall (if you have studied history outside of a government school) that the Constitution originally assigned state legislatures the duty of electing federal Senators, with the people directly electing federal Representatives. Our Constitutional Republic was dealt a blow with the 17th Amendment, essentially because it put the U.S. one step closer to a pure democracy, which is ultimately anathema to the rule of law.
Federal Representatives, however, must be elected by the people (according to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution), which means that special elections--which typically take a couple of months--must be held to replace them if they die in office. Tom Eisenhouer, spokesman for the House Rules Committee, says he "[doesn't] know of any way of replacing members without changing the Constitution," which suggests that he hasn't actually read the Constitution (so what's he doing in that position?!). Building upon Mr. Eisenhouer's ignorance, many members of Congress claim that they need to be able to bypass the Constitution whenever they are able to declare that a "catastrophic event" has taken place. And they're planning to use 9/11 angst to push the amendment through.
James Langevin (D-RI) says, "We must not allow our government body to be interfered with, no matter how serious the attack that might occur. ... We cannot let the business of the people be interrupted." That sort of statement hinges on the idea that we would be in trouble if Congress were unable to function for a couple of months, and that "the business of the people" is really what Congress is all about. It also presumes that the Congress is more important than the Constitution.
"The business of the people" centers around the homes, churches, and businesses of the people, not the halls of the Capitol. You may rest assured that, at this point, our Congress fears being forced back into its Constitutional boundaries far more than it fears any terrorist attack, so a crippled Congress would in reality be great news for America. They couldn't spend our money! Perhaps those who were able to convene would be more likely to be concerned with their duty to protect and defend (and obey) the Constitution instead of coming up with even more creative (read: unconstitutional) ways to redistribute our money to their respective constituencies, subvert the rule of law, and continue to permit the usurpation of power by the federal Legislature. I certainly do not wish calamity on our beloved Congress, but the fact remains that nothing straightens out priorities like a good near-death experience.
While the Congress might legitimately consider ways of meeting outside of the Capitol (such as alternate locations, secure videoconferencing, etc.), they have no business even suggesting an alteration to the Constitution that would alter the foundational operation of our Republic. I urge you to contact your federal congressmen and let them know how you feel about this.
I have a collection of poignant quotes that are randomly tagged to the end of my emails at work. Yesterday, my boss informed me that his boss had requested that I remove these quotes. It seems that she was disturbed by one of them.
Following is the text of the email sent to my boss:
On 5/28/03 4:32 PM, "Miller, Mary E"
"Ron, Jon has every right to air his political philosophy every minute of his own time. However, it is not appropriate to include on his official university emails. See the quote at the bottom of his message. Please relay this. Thanks."
And what was the quote at the bottom of my message that disturbed Ms. Miller so?
"Step by step, American liberty is disappearing. Americans are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation." (Tom DeWeese)
Now there's an irony to crease your trousers.
Granted, it is a long-winded quote--in fact, it's among the longest quotes in my collection, because I couldn't find a satisfactory way to edit the thing; however, the length of the quote is not what bothered Ms. Miller, but rather something about its content. Is the quote really a "political philosophy" as Ms. Miller contends? Does TAMU policy prohibit a TAMU employee from expressing a political philosophy (or any other philosophy, for that matter) in an email signature?
According to TAMU System Policy 33.01 (Privileges as a Citizen), part 3: "System employees are free to express their opinions on any matter, so long as such opinions are not offered as opinions of the System." System Policy 33.01.01 (Political Campaign Events on Property Under the Control of The Texas A&M University System) says that a TAMU employee is "required to remain neutral in partisan political activities" but that "Individual faculty, staff, and students continue to enjoy all constitutional rights and privileges concerning freedom of speech and participation in political events, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions." It goes on to say, "No TAMUS component may endorse, recommend, or otherwise indicate partisan political support for any candidate for an elected office, or for any current officeholder of such an office." However, "This does not prohibit such components from expressing agreement with actions, policies, or other official acts of officeholders."
The Tom DeWeese quote contains no reference to any politician or political party, much less an endorsement or recommendation for a candidate. It could be construed to express agreement with non-specific policies of non-specific officeholders, but even that is a stretch. Several of the quotes in my collection were made by politicians like Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and the like, but I daresay those gentlemen are no longer personally active in politics (except, perhaps, as heavenly spectators). In other words, the quote does not violate the TAMUS policies on political expression by employees. According to TAMU System Policy, this case really hinges upon whether or not random quotes tagged onto an employee's email signature are "offered as opinions of the System." The fact that the quote is clearly attributed to its author, and is placed after the body of the message and even below the signature information, makes it reasonably clear that the quote is not an opinion of the System; however, I am in the process of obtaining the System's opinion on this from the TAMU Office of General Counsel.
I sincerely hope that Ms. Miller's concerns hinge upon the "opinion of the System" issue. If that is not the case, then I would have to conclude that the attitude of at least one administrator at Texas A&M University toward their employees is akin to a feudal lord condescending to allow the peons to toil in his fields, provided they behave themselves and don't make too much noise or smell. In that case, perhaps those administrators need to consider anew the fact that they are employed by the citizens of Texas, of which I am one, and they do not have the power or the authority to violate the natural rights of those to whom they are responsible.