I recently received my first external comment on a post I had written. It was critical. The only surprise is that it took this long. The person "called me out" as someone who sounded like they have never had to struggle. This is funny. We used to hang out at a buddy's house, as kids, because his family, on public aid, could afford to run their air conditioner while we, supported by work, could not.
Rather than launch into a post critical of those on public aid, I will use this space to target the true villains. I am referring, of course to our public officials. Not because they have allowed this to happen; (I feel a society that can take care of its needy is truly enlightened) but because they have mismanaged the rest of my tax dollars to the point of causing problems for everyone.
See the whole link card program makes up a very small portion of an otherwise bloated budget. And really, putting a better class of food in a child's mouth is not a sin. But because it is yet another wasteful cog in the refuse generator that is Illinois government, I took undue notice.
It isn't fair to single out this program, which at least benefits some people who need it, when our state loses more each to; questionable accounting practices, corruption, entitlement, patronage, and insider deals.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that I fell into the trap the bastards set for me. I started to blame other taxpayers, as though we are actually on different sides, rather than attack the corrupt system, run by corrupt politicians, who have gamed all of us into thinking we need to fight each other; rather than fight the source of our problems. In short, if the rest of my redistributed "wealth" were being stewarded properly, I would never have given a thought to the link card being accepted by Market Day.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Why Are American Men So Fat?
I was recently pondering the reasons that the United States
has such a problem with obesity. I cannot accept that it is as simple as an
entire country slipping into bad habits and sedentary lifestyles. True,
American food is usually consumed on the run with little consideration for its
nutritional content or even its flavor.
And it is also true that Americans do not lead very active lifestyles
anymore. Gone are the days of the brawny farmer who maintains his shape through
old age by working hard and eating fresh foods. But the shift from home cooked
meals and sitting back in easy chairs cannot be the only answer.
So I present to you my theory of why American men have
become fat. (Ladies, you have your own reasons and problems which I do not
understand at all.) I believe that the majority of men become obese because
they are profoundly unhappy.
Take a look at how the male in American society is treated.
He is either blamed for everything or portrayed as a Neanderthal with no use
except for a target for ridicule by women. (I call this the “Everybody Loves
Raymond” effect.) If he is not sensitive enough he is labeled as a brute, too
sensitive and he is not “man” enough. Men are now the only politically correct
target of ridicule. Listen to any radio station and within minutes you will
hear a commercial where a man is portrayed as little more than a bacon chewing,
beer swilling, caveman.
Men are strong and thoughtful and in the past they had
redoubts (man talk for a safe place or fort) that they would fall back to in
times of crisis. Hobbies and sports and working on cars, all manly activities
that were misunderstood but accepted by women. Women could watch the kids for a
few hours while the man cut the grass or fixed his carburetor. Men did not do
these things because they wanted to escape their families, they did them to
take a second to catch their breath and focus on one thing until the rest of
the world didn’t seem so bad.
Now don’t take this as an indictment of women. It isn’t. Women
can’t watch the kids for an hour or two anymore because they are at work
busting their asses the same way that men are in order to feed their families.
I just don’t know enough (or anything) about women to say whether they would
want to go work on a carburetor or not.
Home life and lack of free time is not the only problem. The
economy, unemployment, rampant idiocy, and a thousand other things conspire to
make American men miserable. So where does a man turn to get an instant feeling
of good will? With some addictive personalities excepted, most men will
eventually find food. Food makes you feel good. Food tastes great and can be
enjoyed any time of the day. And men can eat whatever they want because they
are just one step removed from flint knapping or throwing rocks at an obsidian
obelisk.
And what kinds of food are we expected to eat? Smart men
will often become “foodies” which is an idiotic way to say that they know how
to cook and take the same diligent approach to cooking that they used to take
building a fence or hand crafting a duck decoy. These men aren’t killing
themselves any slower; they are just doing it fancier.
Some men will take the easy way out and dine on fast or
processed foods and then wonder why they aren’t at their high school weight
anymore and be unhappy… and then guess what they do?
The food isn’t the problem and women aren’t the problem and
society isn’t the problem. Men themselves are the problem. We have forgotten
what it is that makes us men. Not the beer swilling apes that ad campaign would
mold us into but the kind of man that your grandfather and if you are lucky,
your father is. The kind of man that would do something right, not because it
benefits him the most, but because it’s just how things should be done. This is
what we should go back to. Being strong, mentally, spiritually and yes
physically is part of what it is to be a man.
Because men are strong, they sometimes feel that it is
necessary to bear the weight of everything that is wrong without complaint.
This internalizing of suffering is a big factor in being miserable and fat. If
no one understands why you are so unhappy, then the only thing for you to do,
perhaps, is sit at home and eat.
So what is the solution? First, talk to people about why you
are unhappy. You got married for a reason. Your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend
if you go that way, would rather have you be happy and whole then mopey and
fat. If not then, run like hell away from that person. Do you think your significant
other would rather be around and unhappy fat slob or a healthier man with a “can
do” attitude and fire in his belly. (not from spicy chicken nuggets)
Also, it is essential to do the things that make you feel
like a man, whatever they are. Fix something. Break something. Shoot something.
Hit a golf ball or a jump shot. Whatever it is that makes you feel connected to
the universe and closer to the Creator if only for a brief moment.
Lastly, realize that as a man you must be strong and
sometimes other people will need your strength. Let them use it. Help your
fellow man, whether he is your neighbor or some stranger you don’t know. These
people might actually see you as a strong man and follow your example and
before you know it the world might suck a little less and you might not need to
supersize your fries.
Lastly, If you have a significant other that is willing to
help you recapture your lost happiness, you need to realize that she might need
you to be strong for her or to do something so that she can do the things that
make her feel more like a woman. (Whatever women do instead of fixing carbs)
Just knowingly nod to her and don’t judge what she is doing. Just remember that
some of the stuff you think is captivating, she sees as baffling.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Too f-ing far.
I was made privy to knowledge that I ordinarily remain ignorant of; my daughters' school supply lists. One daughter needs 7 (seven) dozen pencils, and the other 5 (five) dozen; in unbroken, new packs. Pencils come in packs of 10 (TEN). The reason they need so many, I have been told, is to supply the kids who don't have any. The list always asks for a ridiculous amount to be supplied and then they send them home with most of them at the end of the year, so I don't think they are being used to redistribute the wealth, but seriously, why 7 dozen?
Last year they needed dry erase markers, so when asked, they could write on the board. God forbid they use one that someone else had touched!? But the king of all stupidity, the straw that broke the camel's back, is the ruler. (pun intended) One child is required to have a wooden ruler. You can tell me my child needs a ruler. You can even say it needs a straight-edge on it. But to specify the material? What the f#@% difference does it make?
If an inner-city teacher specifies plastic only, out of fear that the metal on the edge of the wooden ones could be sharpened, I would understand. If a mechanical drawing class requires an architect's scale, I get it. But this is crossing the line. I will only be nannied so far.
Mind you this is not the same for each child. Different grades require different tools. I get that. No problem. But your child's list depends on your child's teacher, (not state, not district, not school, not grade) and that is another point where I call B.S. The teacher's individual preference should not decide how much my child's school supplies cost. The argument is, of course, teaching is facilitated by standardization. Fine, but it starts with the teachers. The teachers for each grade need to get together and decide, grade-by-grade what is needed.
Of course I have the option of placing my children in a private school, and paying twice for the privilege. Also I could home-school them, at the expense of social growth. But why should any of us put up with such petty intrusions. I'm not angry about this despite how petty it is, I'm angry BECAUSE of how petty it is.
There is a basic issue at the heart of this. This issue is one that is touching every corner of our country. A consummate lack of accountability. When I didn't bring in enough pencils, I suffered. My bad planning was related to my parents via a note sent home to be signed, and I learned to be responsible.
What message is being taught here. You (well, your parents) pay for things that are turned over to a government appointee; who will distribute them back to you on an as need basis. No personal accountability. Dependence on "authority", to provide for your needs. You can't be trusted to be accountable for yourself.
If it seems like I'm reading a lot into this; it is because I am. But this story is just used to highlight the flaws in a system that I have been cataloging since my oldest began school. Don't worry though, they are being taught important things like: "You have to do something nice for the Earth every day." (and God, I wish I were kidding.) If I want my children indoctrinated, I'll send them to church, or I'll do it myself. I don't need public schools, that I pay for, to indoctrinate my children into a credo, to which I do not subscribe.
Last year they needed dry erase markers, so when asked, they could write on the board. God forbid they use one that someone else had touched!? But the king of all stupidity, the straw that broke the camel's back, is the ruler. (pun intended) One child is required to have a wooden ruler. You can tell me my child needs a ruler. You can even say it needs a straight-edge on it. But to specify the material? What the f#@% difference does it make?
If an inner-city teacher specifies plastic only, out of fear that the metal on the edge of the wooden ones could be sharpened, I would understand. If a mechanical drawing class requires an architect's scale, I get it. But this is crossing the line. I will only be nannied so far.
Mind you this is not the same for each child. Different grades require different tools. I get that. No problem. But your child's list depends on your child's teacher, (not state, not district, not school, not grade) and that is another point where I call B.S. The teacher's individual preference should not decide how much my child's school supplies cost. The argument is, of course, teaching is facilitated by standardization. Fine, but it starts with the teachers. The teachers for each grade need to get together and decide, grade-by-grade what is needed.
Of course I have the option of placing my children in a private school, and paying twice for the privilege. Also I could home-school them, at the expense of social growth. But why should any of us put up with such petty intrusions. I'm not angry about this despite how petty it is, I'm angry BECAUSE of how petty it is.
There is a basic issue at the heart of this. This issue is one that is touching every corner of our country. A consummate lack of accountability. When I didn't bring in enough pencils, I suffered. My bad planning was related to my parents via a note sent home to be signed, and I learned to be responsible.
What message is being taught here. You (well, your parents) pay for things that are turned over to a government appointee; who will distribute them back to you on an as need basis. No personal accountability. Dependence on "authority", to provide for your needs. You can't be trusted to be accountable for yourself.
If it seems like I'm reading a lot into this; it is because I am. But this story is just used to highlight the flaws in a system that I have been cataloging since my oldest began school. Don't worry though, they are being taught important things like: "You have to do something nice for the Earth every day." (and God, I wish I were kidding.) If I want my children indoctrinated, I'll send them to church, or I'll do it myself. I don't need public schools, that I pay for, to indoctrinate my children into a credo, to which I do not subscribe.
Monday, August 13, 2012
S 3414 Cyber Gun Control.
http://votesmart.org/bill/15638/41248#41248
A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves. This of course is in the guise of "cyber security". While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban. I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups. The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem. At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill. Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill. End this behavior now. How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it. Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone. This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit. (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty. Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill. (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
If only there were some other way to get this done. Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...
But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote. A man can dream, can't he.
A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves. This of course is in the guise of "cyber security". While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban. I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups. The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem. At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill. Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill. End this behavior now. How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it. Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone. This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit. (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty. Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill. (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
If only there were some other way to get this done. Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...
But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote. A man can dream, can't he.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Healthcare: A Uniquely American Solution.
After much thinking, and more discussion, (yes, that was intentional) I have arrived at a solution, agreeable to both sides, for the problem with America's healthcare system. Again, this is why it is important to think before you act. (ahem, Congress, Mr. President) I hope that whichever person wins the Presidency, and the new Congress, will see this and at least think it over.
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Governor Quinn proposed assault weapons ban.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57484162/illinois-gov-proposes-state-assault-weapons-ban/ (1)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)