So In Which God Are We Trusting?

20140321-152128.jpg

The motto of the United States of America up until 1956 was E PLURIBUS UNUM, meaning out of many, one. A very befitting motto for a nation of immigrants starting anew united as one.

However, in the 1950s something happened. A new breed of politician came into power with a great fear, a fear that the “godless communists” were encroaching on the American way of life and something must be done about it.

What’s one way to make sure everyone in the world knew the United States wasn’t about to bend over to the commies? Create a new national motto, and “In God We Trust” was born.

Here’s the thing though – In which God are we trusting?

In a nation of many religions, and many Gods, all of a sudden we are to trust in a blanket theology? Who is this God we are trusting? Which one? Zeus? Allah? Jehovah?

That’s just it, it’s a blanket term that holds no clout and no semblance of what the United States stands for. Everyone is still allowed to worship as they choose, but now we’re “one nation, under God”??

Which God??

There is not one God mentioned at all in the U.S. Constitution. NOT ONE.

There is however, the freedom of religion.

The first amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

It’s pretty darn clear. No laws regarding religion shall be written, either based from our about, and everyone is allowed to worship or not worship as they choose.

Thanks founders!! Thanks for the freedom!!

That freedom is now trying to be eliminated by people who think their religion is the best religion and the religion everyone else should be following.

Whose religion is the best religion? Well that is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and everyone has the freedom to follow whichever one they see that to be.

If you are trying to pass laws that limit another citizen’s freedom to live life as they choose because it goes against your God and your religion, you are going against the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but you can still do as you choose on your own time “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Plain and simple… Really.

Well that, and there’s also this: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – 14th Amendment, Section 1

Which really limits the ability for others to write laws that limit the rights of others… yes, that includes religion.

Again I ask, in which God are we trusting?

We’re not, or you can, or whatever, that’s a personal opinion and a personal right that someone can make for themselves. The phrase “In God We Trust” alone is actually unconstitutional. We don’t trust in a God, but any citizen as an individual can trust in any God they choose.

Many get mad they cannot impose their religious beliefs and way of life on others via legislation. They’re mad that the constitution doesn’t actually allow that, that’s why they want things like “marriage amendments” and such, so then they can say, “look see! It’s in the Constitution.” However, it is not, never has been, and freedom willing, never will be.

Letting others have the same rights you have doesn’t limit the rights of you to still believe whatever you want nor hinder your ability to live the way you choose. Equality is just that — equal. Not special rights, equal rights.

So if we’re going to keep “In God We Trust” it should really be amended to “In God We Trust… Or Don’t.. Whatever You Want Really.”

The Only Argument Needed To Combat Arizona’s Legislated Discrimination

constitution

To combat Arizona’s new passed piece of legislation that would legalize a business’ right to deny service to an LGBT individual there is only one argument needed, and that is…

The 14th Amendment (Section 1) of the United States Constitution:

“… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

If those in Arizona want to claim they are “Constitutional Conservatives” then they should probably abide by the Constitution.

There used to also be legalized discrimination for race. Those laws were found unconstitutional, and if this law regarding LGBT individuals were to go into effect, it will also be found unconstitutional.

 

No, Howard Dean Did Not Agree With Sarah Palin

20130802-143655.jpg

Despite what Fox News is telling you, no, Howard Dean does not back up what Sarah Palin said about “death panels” and the Affordable Care Act.

Rather, Dean praises many aspects of the law, and for the areas where he offers critique, he offers solutions.

In the Wall Street Journal article Fox News is quoting Howard Dean never mentioned “death panels” but rather the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

He said, “The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.”

HOWEVER, he went on to say, “There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting—the essential mechanism of the IPAB—has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients. Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the IPAB, in its current form, won’t save a single dime before 2021. As everyone in Washington knows, but less frequently admits, CBO projections of any kind—past five years or so—are really just speculation. I believe the IPAB will never control costs based on the long record of previous attempts in many of the states, including my own state of Vermont.”

Dean believes it leaves the opportunity for rationing, but he doesn’t think it would ever happen. He basically just wants to limit the bureaucracy.

I totally agree, and instead of babbling on incoherently like Sarah Palin, Dean offers a solution — get rid of the IPAB. Not the Affordable Care Act altogether.

You don’t throw out a whole basket of bread because one piece is moldy, you get rid of the bad and keep the good.

Nice try though, Fox News. You almost had me on this one.

Why Raising The Minimum Wage Is The Economic Stimulus We Need

money

The argument from the right about raising the minimum wage is that costs will go up. Not true. In fact, prices go up no matter what due to inflation. However, because wages have stagnated while prices are inflating, more people are finding it harder to even scrape by. The bigger question can be asked: If prices are going up, but wages staying the same, where are all the increased profits going? Likely to shareholders and into the pockets of the CEOs.

This neglect to value human capital has come at a giant cost to the US economy and government. Those who make the goods, or provide the services are not being paid fairly for their hard work. The value of the employee to the employer is nearly as valuable if not more than the employee just being grateful for having a job. Companies can’t survive, especially service companies, without the hard work of their employees.

The other arguments to keep wages down consist of irrational fears that it will “hurt business” or cause employers to lay people off or that it will hurt the economy altogether.

Here’s the thing, those arguments are coming from corporate lobbyists from some of the largest companies in the world. Of course they want to keep wages low, that’s more profit for them. More often than we’d probably care to realize, policy is written to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, because that’s how to keep the poor and check and the wealthy calling the shots.

They’re missing the bigger picture though — increasing wages is a win-win for everyone.

If wages are raised at or above the poverty line fewer people will be in need of government assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, etc). Many large companies rely on the government subsidizing their profits by supplying their employees the benefits they don’t offer. The government is forced to then make up for the lack of a living wage.

If more people have more money in their pockets who are now relying on themselves instead of the government, they would then be putting more money back into the economy. They will have more money in hand to spend on goods and services they couldn’t afford before.

To summarize: less taxpayer money used and more money back into the economy — profits still go up.

This really should be a no-brainer and should garner support from both sides of the aisle. Our government representatives need to stop answering to corporate lobbyists whose only interest is themselves and their short-term gains. If the minimum wage is raised to a living wage the corporate bigwigs and their beloved shareholders will still rake in a hefty profit. The government will receive more tax revenue from the wage increases as well as lower spending due to no longer needed assistance to those not making a living wage. The economy will in the end get the much-needed boost it needs as more jobs are created.

Everyone wins.

According To Fox News White American Men Have it the Toughest — Apparently 2nd Class Citizens

dawson-crying

That river you see? Yeah, I just cried that out. I weep for how rough white American males have it these days. I mean, we may never see a white male ever become president, or run a company, play a professional sport, or get equal pay for equal work. We’ve apparently come a long way but have a long way to go.

Or not.

In the latest rant on Fox News.com from Suzanne Venker she delves into the atrocity of how white American males are treated. She even goes as far as to say they are “second class citizens.” She states, “the White American Male must fight his way through a litany of taunts, assumptions and grievances about his very existence. His oppression is unlike anything American women have faced.” She wants white American men to better organize to fight the oppression they face on a daily basis.

I didn’t make this up, because quite honestly, who would believe it? I believe Ms. Venker is mistaking rising gender and racial equality as persecution, injustice, and tyranny. Just because people stand up for themselves to be treated equally or be granted justice doesn’t mean they are pushing the white man down. Yeah I just wrote “push the white man down”… and yes it’s as ridiculous as it sounds.

Venker went on to write, “the college campus is a breeding ground for sexual activity, which makes determining wrongdoing (and using Title IX to prove it) extremely difficult. Sexual misconduct does not necessarily constitute harassment—and women have as much of a role to play as men do.” Of course referencing Title IX which is “a clause in the 1972 Education Act stating that no one shall because of sex be denied the benefits of any educational program of activity that receives direct federal aid.” Oh, and women have as much of a role to play in being harassed as the men? Oh really? Were they asking for it? Were they?

She also stated, “In 1977, a group of women at Yale used Title IX to claim sexual harassment and violence constitute discrimination against women.”  Well yes, it does. When women are sexualized and/or have violence perpetrated upon them, that would seem as though it is blatant disrespect and discrimination based upon the gender of the individual.

Ms. Venker needs to realize that she is not only fighting a battle that doesn’t need to be fought, but in fact, also fighting against herself. Women, people of color, LGBT individuals, and/or all of the above are not, in fact, pushing the white man down. They are trying to play on par and level the playing field. That’s not discrimination, and white American men, especially white American heterosexual men still rock a pretty firm advantage when it comes to almost anything.

So Ms. Suzanne Venker you are wrong, and I’d happily debate you any day of the week.

 

x
Follow Political Shake