Lie after Lie

By Susan Carroll

As a country we are at a critical juncture: which path will we take?  I love America, just not the America I find myself in today. The lines of community vs. collectivism have blurred. Generosity is now taken out of your neighbors pocket not your own.  Much of what we see happening today is the direct result of lies, outright blatant lies.  Lies spread by those who wish to “transform” America, change America into what it is not, and they are succeeding. The seeds of these lies have been disseminated for many years.

First lie: Democracy.  Every pundit and talking head, left or right, states we are a “democracy”. Indeed we even profess to be spreading democracy in the Middle East!  Our Founders are rolling over in their graves as they went to every possible extent to enshrine a Constitutional Republic, a Nation of Laws.  They knew all too well the failings and evils of democracy.  They classified “democracy” as two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner”.  Liberty is an armed lamb contesting that vote.  The only thing “democratic” about our form of government is our elections process.  In a democracy the majority can take the rights away from the minority.  In our Republic, our rights come from our Creator as stated clearly in our Declaration, and are protected by our Constitution.  Rights are not privileges; rights that you are born with and are protected by these documents cannot be taken by a tyrannical government.  In a Democracy, if 51% of the people decide that all people who are 5’3” with green eyes should be exterminated it can be done: not so in a Republic.  In a Democracy if 51% of the people think the other 49% should pay to support them, it is done…this is what democracy breeds.  It is where we are today.

Second lie: Separation of Church and State.  Nowhere in our Constitution or Declaration is it written that there is or must be a Separation of Church and State.  It does state that there cannot be an establishment of ONE National Religion.  Many different Christian denominations Founded America, having left Europe for Religious Freedom they did not want one Christian religions’ designated as the National Religion.  States were however free to designate a State Religion.  Our Founders prayed before each meeting.  George Washington led the entire Congress down the street to St Paul’s Chapel to pray after his inauguration and commit America to the hands of Divine Providence, to God.   Our Founders felt strongly that a Republic was viable only for a moral and religious people. What was protected was Freedom OF Religion:  not Freedom from Religion.  What have you done to protect these freedoms?

These lies, perpetuated ad nauseam since the ‘60’s have changed the very fiber of America, rotting away at the very core of our Founding.  These fabrications have led to ever furthering decay of our Republic, and a populace that either believes the lie, or disregards and accepts it: going about their daily lives.

We have become a society of “whatever feels good” or: moral relativism.  This has been promoted by the elite in their pursuit of power and control. Every facet of our Country has been permeated by these morally depraved elitists, from our government to the media to our schools to our churches.  Hollywood sells sin:  life is reduced to a choice, sex is reduced to an act without consequence, responsibility or love, male and female roles are now interchangeable creating an androgynous society, and adults that behave like children; thus the need for an elite group to control things, taking over your adult responsibility and caring for you.  A nanny state, the elitists dream: handed to them by an apathetic, mislead and naive citizenry.  Our Declaration (which is the Foundation our Constitution was built on) and our Constitution had to be distorted, reinterpreted and redefined: to turn rights into privileges to be interpreted by courts stacked with global elitists.

“The elite attempt to avoid the fact of their own dysfunction by trying to elicit criminality in others. If they can convince the masses that morality is relative and that right and wrong are subject to interpretation, if they can convince us to ignore our own inner voices which are inborn, then their monstrosity could be considered normal — even preferable. In a world of moral relativists, the man with a conscience becomes the criminal, the outcast; and the elites become the heroes they always wanted to believe themselves to be.” (quote from Brandon Smith: Personal Liberty)

Inherent rights must therefore be reduced to privileges, only then can they be taken from a deceived public.  If immorality is accepted on a whole, then the elitist sins of corruption, pilfering, subjugation, bribery, population reduction, class warfare, murder will be accepted with apathy.  After all a moral society, a well armed populace, an educated society allowed to keep the fruits of their labor is a threat to tyranny, the tyranny which is taking over America.   They have been taking over for generations, quietly, the time was right and the elite are confident that now is the time.  They believe they have dumbed us down, numbed us to government tyranny, and removed our conscience and personal responsibility to the extent that they can rule: the final nail will soon come.

 

 

Abortion is nothing to celebrate

By Jeff Chidester

Link to the original article

 

There were numerous topics I was considering for this week’s article, but one story drew my attention the most, mainly because it received very little coverage at first. It shows how disconnected our elected officials are from the differing viewpoints of their constituents.

The issue of abortion is a divisive topic. It is one that most people are incapable of debating in a calm and intellectual manner, which is understandable because it can be very personal. Having hosted many radio shows on the matter, I can tell you it sometimes brings out the best in people, but mostly I find it brings out the worst.

What is lost all too often by some is the need for understanding, compassion and empathy for those deeply affected by abortion, something many politicians choose to ignore for what they perceive to be political gain.

There was a time when I considered myself disconnected from the matter, indifferent in many ways. But over the course of time, I have become very passionate regarding life and abortion. I am unabashedly pro-life, which is to say I am not afraid to defend my decision. My pro-life stance is one supported by science and the self-evident truths defined by the Declaration of Independence.

I have studied every aspect of abortion. I have reviewed Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton numerous times. I have read countless books representing both sides of the topic. I have associated with people who represent both points of view in varying degrees. There is one thing I can say with absolute certainty: I have never met a reasonable person, who also happens to be pro-choice, who “celebrates” Roe v. Wade, or revels in the fact that abortion is a part of our society. Most pro-choice people I know bear it as a harsh reality of a difficult decision that, sadly, some families have to make. It has been my experience that families suffer emotionally and physically with the decision to end a baby’s life, even though at the time they believed they were making the right choice. Trust me when I tell you that a reasonable person finds nothing to commemorate in this decision.

You can only imagine how perplexed many across New Hampshire, and the nation, were when they heard about N.H. House Resolution 6, a resolution to commemorate the 40-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in essence to celebrate abortion.

The primary sponsor of HR 6, Rep. Candace Bouchard, D-Concord, and regardless of whether the resolution passes, it will have absolutely no effect on the legal status of abortion in New Hampshire. So why waste valuable legislative time discussing HR6? Rep. Bouchard’s actions are extremist, meant to be nothing more than an “in your face” affront to those who are pro-life. This type of divisive discourse is exactly what people do not want to see in their representatives. Gloating and mocking do not belong in the legislative process, something Ms. Bouchard should be mindful of in her next piece of legislation.

Ms. Bouchard’s actions were not only disrespectful to those who are pro-life, but also to those who are pro-choice, those who understand the despair that many women and their families experience as the result of abortion. I can assure you those affected by abortion do not commemorate the anniversary of their abortion, nor do they feel the desire to celebrate Roe v. Wade.

The voters did not cast their ballots for Ms. Bouchard so she could present legislation that does nothing more than rub salt into a public wound. Ms. Bouchard’s actions showed her to be an extremist, someone insensitive to the beliefs of all her constituents. If last November demonstrated anything, it was that perceived extremists and those not focused on the will of the people will soon find themselves removed from office. Ms. Bouchard should consider this before she wastes anymore of the public’s time on inflammatory nonsense.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610.

Catch his weekly article every Sunday in the Portsmouth Herald

 Why I Oppose Reauthorizing VAWA

In writing this piece it must be made perfectly clear that I understand the issue of domestic violence very well.  As a former law enforcement officer I dealt with the tragedy of domestic violence on the front-lines every day. Unlike many in Washington, D.C., my actions, and the actions of local support providers made a difference. Supporting that mission is important, but the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is not the answer anymore.  The intent of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was noble; but like many things that come out of Washington, intent and reality are two different things.

The VAWA has long been hijacked by politicians, with willing allies within the Democratic and Republican Parties, and is used to support a radical Left-wing agenda, and sadly abused men/women and children are victimized all over again, used as political pawns.

The Democrats have used the VAWA as their modern day Trojan Horse, packing it full of radical agenda items, daring the Republicans to publically challenge the bill. When Republicans try to have a fair and open debate on questionable provisions in the VAWA, the Democrats jump out of the horse and accuse the Republicans of being anti-woman and anti-kid. And it works every time.

We do not serve the victims of domestic violence when we allow the VAWA to become merely another political program, misused by political hacks to increase their influence.  The finer points of this year’s version of VAWA does nothing new to help the victims of domestic violence, but does everything to strengthen political alliances:

• The bill would provide special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. Why?
• It would also expand the authority of Native American establishment to prosecute non-Indians who have been accused of committing violence against a Native American on tribal lands. Many believe this standard would violate current longstanding treaties and constitutional oversight. Why?
• Would raise the number of special U.S. visas issued to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic violence. Why?

As with Obamacare, we will most likely have to wait until the bill passes (again) to find out what is really in it. But the more disturbing part is the fact that Congress has ignored the wholesale fraud and abuse, and absolute lack of accountability that has rendered the VAWA weakened.

Christina Villegas, of Heritage, did an excellent job documenting just some of the most recent reports of fraud and misappropriation. But the misuse and mishandling of funds has existed since the inception of the VAWA (back in 1994). For every dollar misused, that is funding denied to the victims of domestic violence.  Adding to the misuse are needless redundancies from non-profit groups. Each with good intentions, but their power and ability to serve would be greatly increased if most would consolidate within their shared service area.

Like many pieces of legislation, some choose to play fast and loose with the data that is needed to support the proposed initiative, and VAWA is no exception.  For example, in 2011, at the University of New Hampshire, Vice- President Joe Biden claimed that 1 in 5 women on college campus are victims of sexual assault. Of course the number is grossly inflated, in large part because the Department of Justice expanded the definition of sexual assault.  Under pressure from feminist groups, the DOJ accepted the notion that a vast amount of rapes were going unreported; a notion not supported by any valid data. This politically motivated expansion led to reports of an ‘epidemic’ of rape on college campuses, resulting in real victims being marginalized.

The original intent of the VAWA has become perverted, in large part because it has grown to be about political power, and not about helping victims.  Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow of Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Beverly LaHaye Institute, puts it plainly: “Decent people are outraged at the abuse of women, but VAWA is more about building feminist power structures than about protecting vulnerable women or addressing the major problems of battered women who end up in hospital emergency rooms.”

Further, the VAWA is clearly anti-male (and not just by virtue of its name alone). It immediately identifies that ONLY women and children are victims of domestic crime. It ignores the fact that 1 and 6 men are victims of domestic violence, which many expert know is greatly under reported because of the stigma men have in reporting abuse. Women are more likely to commit abuse against men, and are three-times more likely to abuse children.  Additionally the VAWA does little to address domestic violence perpetrated on the elderly.

Once again, why let facts get in the way of ‘the truth.’ Abuse is real, but the VAWA does little to solve it. It merely throws money at the problem, hoping that it reaches those in need. But there are a lot of hands reaching out between the distribution of the funds and the victims. The key is local control. As with almost every issue we deal with, we need to put the solution closer to the problem.

Policy Points to Consider:

Sunset:

The VAWA needs to be thrown out. It is time to start from scratch. The VAWA is a classic testament as to why we should build in sunset provisions into almost every piece of funding legislation.  In doing so, it should be renamed to reflect the issue it was originally meant to solve, helping victims of domestic violence.

Sun-setting also permits for true revitalization of the intent of the program and will immediately end the misuse and fraud. Previsions could them be put in place to assign proper oversight and integrity.

Simplification:

Return to the roots of what the legislation was supposed to address, before politics perverted it. There is no reason why this bill should be more than two-pages in length.

Funding should be concentrated only at those programs that directly aid the victims of domestic violence, REGARDLESS of age or sex.

No funding should go to advocacy or lobbying groups; they siphon money away from helping the victims, and tend to be redundant.

Funding:

The funding mechanism should be simple. The more direct the funding, the more efficient the funding.

The more hands we have touching the money, the larger the bureaucracy, which once again draws money away from directly helping the victims.

One funding option could be direct funding in the form of block grants to each State. The grants would be sent directly to the State Attorney General of each participating State.

Each Attorney General would be required to enact and oversee efficient and compassionate domestic violence programs.

Accountability:

Simple and local control ensures stronger oversight and returns integrity back into the program.

Create a system that promotes a synergy between four partners. The four partners  involved must be held to a strict standard, but it must be the State Attorney General’s Office that is held to the highest standard. The service group should be comprised of: DOJ (1), State AG (2), Supporting Agencies (3), Victims (4).

Reporting:

Reporting must come from the three service providers (DOJ, AG, Agencies), and must address key concerns

• Distribution of funds
• Actual services provided by the entity receiving the funds
• Effectiveness of the entity receiving funding

Each entity receiving ANY funds, must file a yearly report, or lose funding. The State AG would be responsible for preparing a yearly report, which must be posted on-line.

Providing care, protection and recovery for the victims of domestic violence is the responsibility of every community, one that I know many are willing to support. But VAWA is an outdated model that has succumb to destructive, political influences. By simplifying the program, and truly returning to a more manageable local structure, we can once again create a service that helps domestic violence victims, not one that victimizes them all over again.

Lastly, we must stop villainizing those who do not support the VAWA, accusing them of being anti-woman or uncaring. This tactic is nothing more than a bullying technique that is harmful to the discussion and ignores the legitimate concerns many (like myself) have with VAWA.  One has to wonder what some gain by attacking people are have devoted their lives in trying prevent domestic violence or help the victims of domestic violence, but whom are vilified because they believe there is a better way than the VAWA.

If the VAWA does pass (which it most likely will), it will be for the wrong reasons and will only serve to validate that Washington, D.C. cares more about votes than truly helping people in need.

Additionally resources:

The Failure of the VAWA

Congress should scrap VAWA

 

Sequestration – A Fools’ Agreement

By Jeff Chidester

Link to original story

Once again our nation faces another crisis created by the ineptitude of some of our representatives in Washington, D.C. The inability by so many in Washington to simply do what we do every day, their jobs, has once again placed our already fragile fiscal state in peril. These artificial crises are playing havoc on our economy and hurting every American.  For all the talk of our national deficit and debt, what we really should be talking about is the absolute void of leadership in our nation’s capital. Washington has become a place where it is far easier to blame than accomplish. Sequestration could have been avoided if only we had politicians less concerned about keeping their jobs, and more concerned about doing what was right for America.

Sequestration was designed to fail from the beginning because it was built on a flawed premise that the cuts would be too painful not to agree to a deal.  But how did we get to this point again? This latest crisis can be laid directly at the feet of President Obama. The whole brilliant plan for sequestration originated from the White House. That’s not to say there aren’t other people responsible for this mess, but in this case the buck truly does stop with President Obama.

First, the main reason for sequestration is that the Democratically-controlled US Senate has failed to pass a budget in almost four years. In a normal world, the debates over spending and tax receipts are the result of a conversation between the two chambers of Congress as they work to finalize a budget. Granted, many budgets over the past decade have been irresponsible, but at least we had a spending baseline and estimated tax receipts, and the opportunity for transparent debate. But without a budget, there is absolutely no discipline.

The idea for sequestration was first floated during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, when according to Washington Post Reporter Bob Woodward, reliable sources inside the White House verified that President Obama first originated the sequestration plan. During this past presidential campaign, President Obama falsely asserted several times that the idea for sequestration was proposed by Congress. Woodward countered Obama’s assertion that the idea was proposed by Congress was “not correct” and that “it’s refuted by the people who work for him (Obama).” Yes, sequestration was President Obama’s idea.

How can we be expected to solve this issue if the very person responsible for sequestration won’t even take responsibility for the plan? The fighting between the parties is intensified because President Obama not only won’t admit he suggested sequestration, he has erroneously tried to blame Republicans. President Obama’s insincerity on this matter was so egregious that the Washington Post’s own fact checker Glenn Kessler bestowed upon President Obama four Pinocchios for his claim – a rating that indicates “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.” Ouch.

To be fair, the debt ceiling agreement that originally contained the sequestration cuts was overwhelmingly approved by Republicans. Whatever their reasons for taking the deal, it was still President Obama’s idea. Let’s face it, had the Republicans not agreed to President Obama’s sequestration deal, the Democrats and the media would have been screaming ‘obstructionist!”

 

If you look at the final votes in Congress more than 70% of congressional Republicans voted for the sequestration deal, while 58% of Democrats voted for it – a practically bipartisan agreement. Each person’s reason for supporting sequestration varies. Neoprogressive-Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans wanted to see defense cuts. Conservative Republicans wanted to see cuts to nondiscretionary domestic spending. I suspect that a majority of the members of Congress, and for that matter the President himself, wanted to see the some of these cuts. They just do not have the courage to say so publicly. Each would rather blame someone else, and then try to restore the cuts they did not support.

When President Obama offered sequestration, he should not have been surprised that Democrats and Republicans alike jumped at the chance to kick the can down the road to be dealt with later. Now it is ‘later.’ The can is still in the road, and the discussion has turned to Washington’s second favorite pastime (after kicking the can), the blame game, with President Obama leading the finger pointing.

The rest of us can play party politics and only hold those we oppose accountable when they are in office, or we can show leadership and hold all of our elected representatives accountable when they fail on issues such as this most recent sequestration deal.  Washington could learn a lot from every day Americans like us. More times than not, when we are faced with dealing with a fiscal crisis in our home, or kicking the can down the road, we almost always work to resolve the problem immediately.

Once again, President Obama has missed another opportunity to show leadership in dealing with a real issue. But how can we expect President Obama to lead when he won’t even take responsibility for his own actions.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610.

Educational equality: Better students, stronger schools

By Jeff Chidester

Should a parent and their child have the right to determine the best path to ensure that child’s educational prosperity?

If so, should that child be denied access to educational opportunities that best suit their intellectual and physical needs, regardless of monetary consideration? Your answer may fly in the face of what some neoprogressives in New Hampshire (and across the country) believe. Because these questions provide the pretense of a controversy, and some would have you believe that sinister motives for providing equal access to education are afoot.

RSA Ch. 77-G was passed last year and established the New Hampshire’s Education Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (STC). The program is simple. Businesses can receive an education tax credit from the state of New Hampshire against their state business profits tax and/or business enterprise tax. The total education scholarship tax cap is $3.4 million for 2013. The state spent roughly $2.3 billion on education in 2012, and $3.4 million represents roughly 0.0014 percent.

Some lay people believe the business tax exemption for educational investment is unconstitutional. In fact a small group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the tax exemption violates Part I, Article 6 and Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution. Additionally, House Democrats have offered HB 370 to repeal the program that is already in action. Currently, 250 children are being served by this innovative program, and more are being added every day. It would be unfortunate for our children if this was repealed. In addition, those who are uncertain about the program’s viability should look to state Sen. Nancy Stiles, an educational advocate respected by both sides of the aisle, who has already indicated she will vote against the repeal if it makes its way to the Senate.

Opposition to the tax credit is about religion or outdated socialist dogmas, period. The lack of forethought defended by a handful of misguided people to stop the business tax credit will only serve to stop a deserving child from an education that until now has been solely reserved for the rich. Too many live in a world where they believe there is either a clear wall separating religion and government, or that educational choice is anti-public schools. This constricted view serves only to heighten the individual’s misconceptions and unfounded fears.

Too many believe any program they consider to blur the boundary of church and state must be stopped. Or school choice is all about those wacky “Tea Partiers” who secretly want to dismantle the public education sector. But that is not what this battle is about. What we are talking about here is providing the best possible educational opportunity for every child, regardless of the physical, mental or financial boundaries that may be preventing that child from flourishing in their current school. We must stop as a society setting up false boundaries based on our own prejudice that make us sound noble at cocktail parties, but in this case only serve to deprive a hardworking, ambitious child the opportunity to blossom.

Not every child will use this scholarship to go to a religious institution, and if some do, it does not matter. Neither the fund nor the child’s presence at that institution is a pronouncement of any religious belief, nor will it be in any way an indication of state sponsorship of any religion. It will merely be an indication that the child has found an educational home that fits his or her needs. No wicked scheme to bring down public education; no state sponsored religion; no vast right-wing conspiracy.

Some who oppose educational equality, but who also send their children to private schools, would contend that in addition to paying for their child’s education, they continue to support public education through taxes. But a great education is not merely about money, but a personal commitment by all who are involved to ensure the success of every child. This success comes from the existence of a symbiotic relationship bound by personal interaction (teacher-parent-child-community). Much of what ails the educational system in American cannot be fixed by throwing more money at the problem.

Educational equality can only be achieved through choice and competition. Some are hiding behind their own fears that competition within education is an attack on public schools. It is not. Competition breeds excellence in the individuals and the institutions that embrace the challenge. In almost every human endeavor competition has made us stronger. But if a child is put into a situation that does not prepare them for that competition, and provide them with all the tools they need to achieve individual success, then we have a system of inequality.

Many children who may use the scholarship to attend a private secular or parochial school may not necessarily be of that faith, let alone be religious. Some readers of this paper send their children to St. Thomas Aquinas High School or Portsmouth Christian Academy because they deemed those schools the right choice for their children. Fortunately for them, some of those parents can afford to fund what they know will provide their child with best opportunity to thrive. But what about parents who do not have the means to send their child to an educational institution they know will give their child the best opportunity at success? Have some become so blinded by their disdain for faith that they are prepared to close the doors of opportunity merely on the basis that the institution is faith-based?

Maybe the Supreme Court (or Courts) will find the program unconstitutional, or maybe the law will be repealed. But then what? Will we continue with a system that allows some children access to an education system that challenges them and affords them the greatest chance for success, while other children toil in a system that stifles their creativity and is ill-suited for their skill set.

Educational choice is accepted universally, and in fact this program was based on other programs around the country. I find it rather ironic though that those in opposition to this program only seem to be pro-choice before the child is born, and not after.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has lived and worked in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. He is the host of New Hampshire Perspective heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610.

Surrendering Rights Places Liberty in Jeopardy

To misinterpret the intent of our founding documents (the Declaration of Independence, the New Hampshire Constitution and the U.S. Constitution) is to place our very liberty in jeopardy.

A person may choose not to exercise their inherited rights so clearly defined within each of these documents, as well as the Mayflower Compact and the Articles of Confederation. But to apply that same standard onto their neighbors is to open the door to autocracy and surrender the rights of others when it is not yours to surrender.

When our Founding Fathers put pen to paper I have no doubt there were many advances they could not have imagined, just as many of us cannot envision what the future holds. The Founding Fathers were not trying to define the mechanism we would use to ensure our freedoms. Through the Declaration of Independence, the N.H. Constitution and U.S. Constitution they delivered the very apparatus designed to ensure a simple truth: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Among men and women, our Founding Fathers trusted that we would not be limited by the technology of their day, but be guided by the wisdom of their words.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment, they could not envision a 24-hour news cycle, the Internet, e-mail or smartphones. They were not distracted by attempting to define the method of delivery in which a person would exercise their free speech, religion or expression. They were only concerned that every person, regardless of their station in life, could openly and honestly speak their mind, especially when doing so to address any “long train of abuses and usurpations.” They understood, as so many do today, that the pen is mighty, even if that pen was later replaced with a laptop, tablet or a video camera.

The Founding Fathers could not have envisioned attack drones, satellites, hand-held infrared or X-ray devices when they wrote the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments; but surely they knew these amendments were needed to stop the abuses of an unchecked government, affording due process to all and preventing the abuse of a corrupt judiciary.

If the technology does not bind us in our ability to exercise all of our other enumerated rights, why then do some choose to apply a different standard when it pertains to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2a of the N.H. Constitution? I understand the impulse to act on emotions and blame the mechanism, and not the oppressor, for an evil act such as the Sandy Hook tragedy. But that still does not give anyone the “right” to infringe upon the liberties of their law-abiding neighbors, who are deserving of these unalienable rights.

Someone recently suggested that “a person has a right to bear arms. But only if it is a musket, like they had when the Constitution was written.” He might as well have said, “a person has a right to free speech. But only if they use a quill and jar of ink, like they did when the Constitution was written.” Our rights are not defined by the limits we may choose to impose upon ourselves, but by whether we embrace that there are truths that are in fact self-evident. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, but about our individual and collective right of self-defense and to resist tyranny. But be assured, the very liberties you enjoy today have as much to do with the Second Amendment and Article 2a as any other unalienable right. And though you may choose not to exercise that right, know that its existence ensures you can exercise all of your rights.

We are all heirs of a unique societal covenant, one that ensures us all “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Not granted or defined by man, but endowed by our creator. But that covenant is not without a price; it demands we serve as benefactors to those who will follow us. Each American generation must fight and defend our liberty, not bound by the technology of the day, but unrestricted by the absolute truths that have existed throughout human history.

New Hampshire patriots William Whipple, Josiah Bartlett, Mathew Thornton, John Langdon and Nicolas Gilman were not bound by the cynics of their time, but gathered together unrestricted by the quandaries of any self-imposed perceptions, to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” And with that shared vision, not only proved a truly free country could be born, but ensured that men and women everywhere would know real liberty.

You are free to surrender any of the rights and freedoms that so many have fought and “paid the last full measure of devotion” to gain and secure for you. But make no mistake, your foolishness does not extend beyond the limits of your being; and thank God, because one day that neighbor you condemn as a “nut” or blindly ridicule as a “tea bagger” will be there when your liberty is in peril, because he/she chose to honor and protect their inheritance.

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has traveled the world extensively, living and working in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. Chidester is the host of New Hampshire Perspective — heard each Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610. He currently writes on matters relating to the U.S. Constitution, government’s role and responsibilities in our lives, and international issues that affect the United States.

Mr. Obama, We are a Deadbeat Nation

By Jeff Chidester

“The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. … We are not a deadbeat nation.”

— President Obama

Wrong Mr. President. The United States of America is a deadbeat nation, whether we raise the debt ceiling or not. As with the most recent fiscal cliff debacle, the debt ceiling debate only further points out the absolute crisis state we have reached as a country regarding our budget deficits and overall national debt. And while our representatives in Washington point the finger of blame at each other, America’s financial stability grows weaker.

These numbers are overwhelming. In just a few years, the U.S. will be spending more on just the interest on the national debt than on our entire national defense budget. To understand the dire situation in which we find ourselves, we have to understand the basics. I’ll call it Debt and Deficit 101 (or Debt and Deficits for Dummies — a book well titled for some of the fine folks in Washington, D.C.).

The debt is the total money our country owes as a result of borrowing to pay our bills year after year (today’s total is more than $16 trillion, a number that has passed the total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), the measure of all that is produced in the economy). Currently, the United States borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends. The deficit is the amount of money overspent, or borrowed, in any one year (this year’s deficit is more than $1 trillion, again). Any year’s deficit is added to our total debt and any year’s surplus reduces the total debt. Each year, we collect revenue and use it to pay our nation’s bills.

It goes without saying that for many years we have spent more than we have generated through taxes. We borrow the money principally from ourselves (for example, Congress has borrowed more than $2.5 trillion from the Social Security fund), but also from foreign investors, with China and Japan being the largest purchasers of our debt. Our inability to pay back what we borrowed from the Social Security funds makes us a deadbeat nation. Our inability to barely make our interest payments on the money we have borrowed contributes to our deadbeat status.

To put our debt in perspective, if you spent $1 million a day since the day Jesus was born, you would not have spent even a trillion dollars. President Obama promised to reduce the debt in half by the end of his first term. But since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased from about $10.6 trillion to more than $16.4 trillion, a 50 percent increase since taking office. President Obama uses accounting tricks to try to convince the American people that his policies will reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years, all while continuing to rack up yearly trillion-dollar deficits.

President Obama is not alone. He has a willing accomplice in Congress. We haven’t seen a budget in four years, we see billions of dollars of pork added to bills such as the Sandy Relief bill, all while committing class warfare on the successful by implementing feel-good taxing policies that are purely political. We also need to stop believing that not increasing spending on insignificant programs is a cut to those programs. It is not.

Make no mistake about it — every American citizen is invested in our overall debt. Our debt and deficit belongs to all of us. Each share of our national debt per taxpayer is more than $111,414, and counting. Our representatives continue to kick the can down the road, sequestered within a dome of ignorance that has encased our nation’s capital, squabbling over whom to blame, while everyday Americans work hard and struggle to live within their means.

What can we expect from the debt-ceiling debate? More finger pointing and demonizing? This will resolve nothing, but the media will report a grand, last-minute deal that is nothing more than a fictitious solution wrapped in a cloak of failure. Why can’t our elected officials, who have sworn an oath to serve the public, focus on solutions rather than blame?

There is a scene from “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens in which Scrooge first encounters the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley, wrapped in a long, heavy chain. Near the end of this encounter, Marley made an ominous confession: “I wear the chain I forged in life! I made it link by link and yard by yard! I gartered it of my own free will and by my own free will, I wore it!”

America has forged a chain of its own free will as well — a chain of servitude that we will no longer pass just to our children, but to our grandchildren as well.

Link to the original article

Jeff Chidester was raised in New Hampshire and has traveled the world extensively, living and working in the Far East and Europe for extended periods. Chidester is the host of New Hampshire Perspective — heard every Sunday at noon on 96.7 The Wave and WGIR AM 610. Chidester currently writes on matters relating to the U.S. Constitution, government’s role and responsibilities in our lives, and international issues that affect the United States.

 

The Hagel and Brennan Nominations

First let me start by saying that President Obama did not, nor has he ever sought my advice on matters pertaining to his administration. Likewise, Republican leadership has never sought my council. I am sure that I find myself in the same place that most of you do.

Whether we agree with President Obama in his choice of Sen. Hagel and John Brennan will matter very little.  Like each President before him, President Obama has the luxury of choosing those people he believes he needs around him. The Senate has the responsibility of confirming those nominees. In the entire history of our country, only nine nominees have been rejected. To that point, neither of these men should be added to that list.

By all accounts, both Sen. Hagel and John Brennan are honest, hardworking individuals. Both have devoted their lives to public services, and at times have disagreed with both Democrats and Republicans. They have made statements and committed to policy points that some disagree with, but were not dishonest or illegal.

Whether you or I, or a different President, would have selected these nominees isn’t the issue. They have been nominated, should face tough – but fair questioning, and barring any new revaluations, confirmed. Their confirmation is not affirmation that we agree with them, but merely they have been subjected to the Constitutional process, and that Congress will maintain oversight over their respective appointments, and should they fail to perform their duties as defined, called before Congress to answer for any deficiencies.

 

Links:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/07/obama-to-nominate-hagel-brennan-for-top-security-posts-despite-criticism/

Bio Info on Chuck Hegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

Bio info on John Brennan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan