Representation Without Taxation

I believe the Founders realized the downfall of a pure democracy is allowing voters to elect politicians that promise benefits from the public treasury. The safeguard against this was allowing only property owners and heads of households to vote. Of course, this long ago went by the wayside, but nothing short of restricting voting rights to taxpayers will stop the runaway spending, because voters with no skin in the game always find it easy to spend other people's money.

A Republic demands equality under the law, respects the property rights of the individual and derives its just powers from those who work to support it. A Democracy demands equal suffrage under the government, expects the distribution of wealth and is destroyed by those who contribute nothing. Our Founders rebelled at “taxation without representation,” but neither did they desire representation without taxation. The voter ID America needs is a paid tax receipt.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com

HISTORY AND OUR SOUTHERN BORDER

      Throughout medieval and modern history, nations have sought to reclaim lands they or their allies were forced to cede. There are many examples. A few of them are: Crusades were fought to reclaim “The Holy Land” for Christendom; Hitler began his rampage by invading countries that had taken German lands following WW1; Argentina fought the British, attempting to reclaim the Falklands; Iraq sought to reclaim Kuwait, claiming Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq, lost in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913; Today, the longest running example, in modern history, of armed conflict to regain territory, is along the borders of Israel.
      In a treaty, signed in 1848 between Mexico and the United States, ending the Mexican-American War, Mexico lost claim to all lands north of the Rio Grande, meaning Texas, and all lands in states now known as: Arizona; California; Colorado; New Mexico; Nevada; Utah and Nevada.
      Given the history of nations seeking to reclaim ceded territories, it is not surprising or unusual to think that Mexico would desire the same. In fact, it flies in the face of history to think otherwise. However, it would be sheer foolishness, for Mexico to attempt a military invasion of the the world’s greatest super-power. But it is possible they learned a lesson from their own history.
      Following Mexico’s War of Independence, settlers from countries other than Mexico and Spain were invited to Texas. It took less than ten years for the Mexican government to realize their error and prohibit immigration from the United States. However, by this time, residents of Mexican descent were outnumbered by more than 4 to 1 and the fires of independence were burning.
      Allowing unchecked immigration led to Mexico’s loss of Texas and the same is happening today across Europe. Muslims there have increased in numbers allowing them to control large geographic areas, both physically and politically. London has a Muslim mayor and Sharia Law is being recognized in their legal systems. Without firing a shot, Muslims are changing the religious and political economies across Europe because of unchecked immigration and their refusal to assimilate. Like it or not, Muslims are doing the same in the U. S.
      The lessons of history are not lost by people that pay attention, they are only lost by people that think they are above history. Mexico seems to be paying attention. Why would they allow a seemingly endless stream of people, from south of their border, to trek across the full depth of their country, while aiding and abetting them?
      Perhaps, Mexico desires to see these Spanish-speaking people enter the U. S. because they know a common language binds people together; They know from their own history that it is possible to take control of a country through immigration; They know that supplying the required numbers of immigrants from their own people would disrupt their own society and economy; They know that facilitating sufficient numbers of Spanish-speaking people from outside their own country, to invade the U. S. will allow them to re-take lost territories without firing a shot or supplying the manpower.
     Mexico probably has little interest in regaining sovereign control of its lost territories. They do not want to build a fence between the Southwest and the rest of the U. S.  They are happy to leave government and the expenses thereof to the U. S., while they receive the windfall that comes when they control the economy.

Jim
www.jim-mac.com

It is Time to Rethink Using The Number

Today, Annie called AAA in Bartlesville for a quotation on an insurance policy to cover a property in Grove, OK. She was told that no insurance company would give us a quotation without our first giving them our Social Security numbers. We refused. Interestingly, our Social Security cards have the following on the face: “For Social Security Purposes Only Not For Identification.” Additionally, our Medicare cards were recently replaced with cards that do not have our Social Security number on them. Apparently, in the midst of fraud using stolen Social Security numbers, the SSA is returning to its original policy. Perhaps, it is time for legislation to prevent the use of Social Security numbers for any reason other than Social Security business.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com

Amendment I

“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.”

Beginning with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which declared religious tolerance for Christianity in the Roman empire, The Roman Catholic Church began some Fifteen Hundred years of political power and influence in Europe. Though papal authority was rejected by England’s monarchy and supplanted by The Church of England, the political power of religion continued. Even today, “Defender of the Faith” is a title belonging to the sovereign of England. The problem existing during these periods when religion and government were intertwined was that anyone who opposed the ruling class or their religion was branded a heretic, and punished to the satisfaction of the government and religious leaders.

Clearly, the intent of the First Amendment was not to stifle religion, but to guarantee religious freedom. This amendment guarantees government neutrality in matters of faith by specifically prohibiting actions that historically were used to prevent free exercise of religion. Government cannot establish a state religion forcing acceptance as did Constantine in Rome; government cannot abridge freedom of speech, silencing those preaching or teaching religion; government cannot prevent the use of the printing press to print Bibles or religious materials; government cannot prevent the people from peaceably assembling to worship or conduct religious affairs; government must receive petitions for redress of grievances in these matters, that is, government must act to stop any intervention of these freedoms.

Interestingly, prior to the Twentieth Century and World War II, the “social architects” made few rulings concerning the intent of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Perhaps, society understood full well that the First Amendment was instituted to protect citizens from oppression in the name of religion, such as existed under the rule of England’s monarchy in particular, and European monarchs in general.

Today, the First Amendment that was ratified to protect freedom of religion is being used to attack religion and religious values. The First Amendment was not written to empower or shield, secular news organizations, or pornographers, or filthy language, or riotous protests, or the banning of religious symbols.

Jim

www.jim-mac.com