Recent Frustrations

It's been a while since I've blogged. I was without a computer for a couple of weeks, which meant that I was away from the internet as my source for information. Luckily, our computer was still under warranty for one more week, so we had our hard drive replaced completely for free. Thanks Apple! It's taken a little bit of time to get back into the swing of things and catch up on major events. I'm sure I missed a lot that I'm not even aware of yet. While I was away I did get to watch a number of documentaries thanks to Netflix. You can learn about some of the more interesting ones here, here, and here. That last link should not be confused with this, but you may see a correlation between the two.

Now that I am back in the saddle (figuratively), I would like to take the time to clear a few thoughts all at once. I'm frustrated and saddened by the some of the recent actions by the various branches of our government. It's seems apparent that the checks and balances system built into our original system has been overtaken and destroyed by our current government system. The initial intent of checks and balances was so that no one branch of government became so overly powerful that it could abuse and use the citizens. But within the last month we have witnessed each of the three branches of government abuse power, unchecked and unbalanced by either of the other branches. Let's review them, starting with the Executive Branch:

First, we saw our Executive Branch, which has the responsibility to enforce the laws passed by the Legislature and to appoint judges within the Judicial system, begin a legal struggle with the state of Arizona over immigration. Regardless of your opinion on the issue itself, when the Federal Government begins suing states over their right to protect the citizens we have a real problem. It's a divisive tactic to say the least, and one that I'm sure is being employed intentionally. You may have heard the old adage that a house divided against itself cannot stand. If the federal government can orchestrate a series of events that would pit state against state, and people against people, our country would be ripe for a sweeping change in government action that will put us on a quick path towards communism. In this instance, the Fed is saying that the people of Arizona don't know what is good for themselves, so it requires someone else to tell them what is good for their state. This is a blatant overstepping of bounds and powers as much as Obamacare is a blatant overstepping of bounds and powers. And when states, like Missouri, vote to exempt themselves from Obamacare we hear the White House respond by saying that five million votes mean nothing to them.

Which brings me to our Legislative Branch. I just mentioned Obamacare, which was the dreamchild of the President, but put into play by the Legislature. We've witnessed the ill side-effects of the Bailout, which was started by Bush and finished under Obama. In recent weeks it is the Financial Reform bill that was passed that will cause more ill side-effects. These things, along with a number of other things like them, are reasons why California Representative Pete Stark would feel comfortable telling his constituents "I think that there are very few Constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life...The Federal government can do most anything." For a while I've been thinking how contradictory it is for us to expect honesty and virtue from our elected representatives when, by and large, we choose them from among the ranks of lawyers. Haven't we all heard jokes and generalizations about the dishonest nature of lawyers. It's nothing new and yet we continue to put lying and cheating lawyers in charge of creating laws that they can take advantage of in the future.

This leaves the Judicial Branch. It has long been a fear, even among our founders, that if a judge were given too much power we would find laws being produced in court instead of being interpreted. I've heard the term "Activist Judge" being used. I fully expect to see this now that we are getting Supreme Court Judges appointed who have no judicial experience at all. It's a scary thought to me that I would expect a judge to use the law to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, but in some cases the law is being interpreted and used to further a hidden agenda. Which brings me to the judge in California ruling that the constitutional amendment, now known a Prop 8, twice approved by the people of the state is unconstitutional. Gay rights is a topic for another day, but in this case the judge was being an activist for his own cause, as he is gay himself. In his response he mentioned that marriage is a bigoted institution used to put down homosexuals and that the people were voting for it based on morals rather than laws. I find this outrageous! Two times the people of California have voted on the issue in support of traditional marriage, and both time a judge has told them that what they think doesn't matter. Seven million people in California don't matter. Also, our legal system has its origins in Judeo-Christian law, which is a moral code and was so long before our government was established. And if a judge can somehow magically discern the motives behind peoples votes could we please get one of these judges to say that Obama shouldn't be President because most people voted for him because he's black and not because of his qualifications.

The three branches of our government have become three superpowers struggling for total control of the best country on earth and we, the people, are the ones being hit with the bombs while they fight. We should be aware, as were our founders, that government derives its power by the consent of those that are governed. We are watching our government take power unto itself, without care or concern for us. It is a virus that is spreading in Washington D.C. If we are not careful it will spread through the entire country.