Tag Constitution

The Ignoble Experiment

Michael 3 Comments

From 1920 to 1933, America conducted its “Noble Experiment.” I’ve never been able to dig up a good reason for that moniker, yet every written piece on Prohibition in the United States makes that reference. It took over 2 years for the required number of states to approve the 18th Amendment banning the “manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors” but conspicuously not their consumption. On the back end, 10 months and 10 days were all that was needed to adopt the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition. (Fun facts, the two amendments in between both involve elections – sort of. The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote (1933), and the 20th Amendment moved the inauguration of elected federal officials from March to January, and limited the President’s term in office to a maximum of 10 years (1935). Funner Fact, the 20th Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution that has not be challenged in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.)

So why this history lesson? I’ve been struck by the similarities of what went on with alcohol then to what goes on with marijuana now. Although you may not realize it, and movies depicting life in the wild west might suggest otherwise, America wasn’t a drunken wasteland prior to Prohibition. Alcohol was a part of daily life and contributed to life’s problems, but not to the extent temperance supporters had suggested. The final push for Prohibition came not as a result on the revivalists activities but ostensibly to shift the use of grains to the manufacture of food verses drink during the first world war.  In fact, twelve states had already adopted prohibition laws before the 18th Amendment was out before Americans for ratification.

That doesn’t mean Prohibition was universally accepted. For a while, ten states refused to enforce prohibition laws after ratification, and Prohibition never did result in a total ban on alcohol. Sacramental and ritual wines were excluded and any individual could, on a physician’s order, buy up to 10 ounces of alcohol as often as every 10 days at a licensed pharmacy. (It is probably just coincidental that the Walgreen pharmacy chain grew from twenty stores to over 500 in the 1920s.  Breweries were permitted to manufacture and distribute “near beer” that contained less than 0.5% alcohol. Distilleries sold malt syrup and wineries grape concentrates with instructions for home dilution and fermentation. If the westerns depicting bawdy saloons were overly fanciful, movies featuring Prohibition era speakeasies may be have overly kind. Black market alcohol was estimated to be a $100 million business (equal to about $1.5 billion today).

The repeat of prohibition was strictly economic. Prohibition had cost the federal government $11 billion in tax revenue ($191 billion today). But the repeal was also not universally accepted. Several states maintain prohibition laws, the last, Mississippi, finally reversed its prohibition status in 1966. There are still to this day various counties in ten separate states that continue to ban the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcohol.

Where are the comparisons to marijuana? There aren’t many except for a few million people clamoring for its legalization, states unevenly enforcing federal prohibition against it, local jurisdictions “decriminalizing” it, shyster shamans touting it as a medicinal, unregulated relative compounds sneaking their way into the marketplace, and states drooling over lost tax revenue that they never lost because they never had it in the first place.

You might assume from that last paragraph that I’m not a fan of legalizing marijuana. Yes and no. Are there medicinal benefits. There are indeed benefits of cannabinoids but not of the whole plant. And there are means to extract these cannabinoids, refine them, and compound them into consistently reproducible absorbable forms. And they are in fact already on the market and no I don’t mean CBD (although that has some limited use). For the rest of it. No. Alcohol and marijuana other are both addictive hallucinogens and any purported medicinal benefit from either is related to that. There is nothing that a bowl of marijuana will do that a shot of whiskey can’t. Except for one thing. I’ll explain it to you very simply.

Let’s say the two of us are sitting on my porch. I want a beer and you don’t. I drink the beer. Nothing happens to you.  You might have to listen to me sing the entire ABBA canon a cappella, but once we finish that you can get up and walk or drive home unimpaired. Let’s swap out a joint or a bowl for that can or bottle. Given enough time imbibing in your marijuana and I will be just as likely to test positive at the next random drug test on the job.

Don’t believe in passive absorption? Go ask a flight attendant with lung cancer who never smoked. But you better find one quick. There are a great many of them who will be among the 7,300 will die from passive smoke related lung cancer this year. Next year too. And so on and so on and so on.

Do we need another Noble Experiment? That’s not for me to decide. I’m not a legislator. Sort of like it shouldn’t be for a legislator to decide what makes for good medicine. Cheers.

Untitled1

A well regulated argument

Michael 2 Comments

I had a hard time debating with myself if I wanted to post this or not. It’s a topic that gets beaten to death so often you’d think it would be reasonable enough and just die but then, it’s not a reasonable topic. I also thought about putting out a “special” post last Friday because it was Gun Violence Awareness Day. But then I thought, the last thing you needed was me throwing in a nickel’s worth of my two cents on that day.

There is no doubt there is gun violence all over the place. Every week brings new mass shootings to the national news and local newscasts are filled with stories of shootings every day. In my greater metro area, between Friday and Sunday of this past weekend, four people lost their lives to gun violence and several others injured. There have been less than a handful of days a shooting hadn’t been reported here since a local mass shooting at an AirBnB party the night before Easter, including one when the victim was a one year old sitting in the back of a car targeted in a drive by shooting. If you’re not aware of the gun violence in the United States, then you’re really too stupid to be reading this.

So let’s summarize, all the people who think the Second Amendment gives you the right to own a gun, you’re wrong.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That was, is, and forever will be until its repeal, all the Second Amendment says. Nobody can deny you the possession of a weapon used to defend the STATE (i.e. the USA) if done so needed as a part of a REGULATED military effort). Considering we have a perfectly acceptable armed forces system now that was not in place in 1789, there is no longer a reason to guarantee anybody to right to maintain a weapon. But even if there was, the right is only protected when used to defend the country. Not to hunt, not to target shoot, not to defend oneself, not to forget you have it in your carryon bag at the airport, not to settle suburban hedge trimming disputes, and not to commit mass, or even single murder.

I am nothing if I cannot look at both sides, so let’s look. Gun control advocates point to the numbers, the most often quoted is that in the U. S. of A. in 2020, there were 45,222 gun related deaths (I don’t know why but that’s the last year the total is available). Gun advocates will say, “Woah, woah, woah. Over half of those were suicides.” And they are right. Fifty-four percent of the 45,000+ deaths, or about 24,000 were suicides. They don’t mention, but I will, that 2% (a little over 900). That leaves 43% or 19,455 people intentionally killed by another American presumably exercising his or her right to own a gun as part of a regulated militia to protect the country. That is over 19,000 people who were victims of gun violence.

The gun advocate will say that of those 45,222, almost 25,000 people were going to die anyway. (Maybe, maybe not, but let’s stick with saving the 19,000 for now.)  How does that compare. Forget deaths due to cancer, heart disease, train derailments, bad lettuce, or anything else not gun related. Let’s compare that to those who are participating in protecting the country in the modern well-regulated armed forces system. And let’s not just look at 2020. Let’s look at the entire twenty-first century to date. So far, in all armed conflicts since 2001, there have been 7,075 fatalities, about an average of 36 per year. That’s 18,964 LESS deaths due to defending the state in a well regulated military than deaths due to gun violence. Per year.

I could stop there but somebody is going to say, “But I just use my gun for hunting or target shooter or protecting my family. Not to randomly shoot somebody.” First, let’s ignore the protect your family argument because if you have a gun for protection and you are not planning on shooting somebody if you need protecting, then why do you have it? Then for the hunters and sportsmen (sportspeople?), you don’t need an assault rifle to shoot a deer, nor a 60 or 100 shot magazine to fire 20 times at a paper target. And really, you don’t need any ammunition at all until you’re ready to hunt or competitively shoot. I recall reading an argument to not regulate guns but, given that the Second Amendment is quiet on what you load into those arms, to ban ammunition. Maybe not such a horrible idea.

Consider this. For years, I shot skeet recreationally. (I’m not sure why because you just can’t make a good meal out of them, but even so … anyway) Every Sunday afternoon I could be found at the rod and gun club blasting clay pigeons into oblivion. I travelled to and from the club with my unloaded shot gun and at the club bought only the amount of ammunition I would use for the afternoon’s festivities and then go home with an unloaded shotgun. They say never to store you gun and ammunition in the same place. Mine were separated by about 15 miles. I’d call that safe and responsible.

It always amazes me when people toss around the word “Right” in their argument for … well, for anything. Gun rights, women’s rights, students’ rights, union rights … like they have a right to do whatever they please and find somewhere in the Constitution to defend it. And there are a lot of guaranteed rights in the US Constitution. But in each case there are also qualifiers and limitations. Rights are guaranteed. Unregulated license is not.  We are a nation obsessed with the Rights without bearing the Responsibilities.

Now I’m not going to say we should or should not repeat the Second Amendment, although I will say before anybody tries to use the Second Amendment as a justification for killing 19,000 people this year, they really need to see a good psychiatrist.

Sorry, no cute picture for this post. I couldn’t seem to put one together to celebrate so much death.

Gun Wrongs

Michael Leave a comment

Today we’re sharing with you a memo to NRA President David Keene.  He is a national figure who travels worldwide hunting and shooting, meets with government leaders, is on television and in the news quite often, and does it all without a salary.  He even dresses well.  And he did it all by misrepresenting one of America’s most cherished symbols of citizenship – the Bill of Rights.

As we have posted previously, those famous first ten amendments to the United States Constitution were drafted because of ongoing debate that in remembering British violations of civil rights there might still be too much power given to the new government without adequately addressing the rights of the individual citizen.  And thus in September of 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution to address those concerns.  Two proposed amendments were not ratified but the remaining ten, the first ten, are our Bill of Rights.

With rights come responsibilities.  It’s such a shame that so many given these precious rights fail to make that connection.  They don’t even take the responsibility to read what right they are assuming.  Unlike the wordy First Amendment which weighed in at a whopping 45 words, the Second Amendment, the one David Keene, his followers and most likely even his opponents, apparently have yet to read, come in at a trim 27 words (11 of them at three letters or less).

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Any English teacher worth his or her salt can tell you that if you remove the dependent clauses the intention of the sentence is maintained.  Let’s look at this sentence.  There are two dependent clauses.  One is “being necessary to the security of a free State.”  You really don’t need this part of the sentence at all.  All it is there for is to clarify why we need a Militia.  The next dependent clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is only there to tell us how that Militia might be armed since the government then hadn’t yet come up with the novel concept of spending a couple trillion dollars more than it has to buy things like rifles.  They were willing to let the people who would be drafted into the Militia bring their own rifles.  Sort of like if you were to enlist into the military today you’d bring your own Hummer or submarine. 

So we are left with, “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”  And darned if it isn’t.  We have a great little Army in spite of what so many generals are being caught doing, a pretty good Navy in spite of what so many admirals had been caught doing, a high flying Air Force, well trained Marines, and a full Coast Guard.  All armed forces that make up our well regulated Militia. 

Maybe Mr. Keene doesn’t understand the word Militia.  It’s not something we use very much today unless the Second Amendment is being quoted.  That would be, “an army of soldiers who are civilians but take military training and can serve full-time during emergencies.”  We probably are more used to hearing it called the Reserves or National Guard.  They get their guns issued to them just like the full time military.

Now we understand Amendment Number Two says nothing about sport and hunting.  The framers of the Bill of Rights where understandably more interested in preserving the new country, not in either creating or limiting the first indoor shooting range.  Then hunting wasn’t sport, it was shopping.  And it was efficient.  One pellet, one shot, one rabbit, dinner.  The 18t century hunter hardly wanted to pump more than one shot into dinner.  They were all for getting more iron in their diet but that’s what the vegetables were for.So now that we have cleared all that up, here is our memo.

 

To:         David Keene, President, NRA
From:     The Real Reality Show Blog people
Subj:      On the “right” to own guns that shoot 600 bullets a minute, launching them about 30,000 yards or the equivalent of 30 football fields, driving each over 2 feet through a solid wood target and/or human being, from magazines that hold 30 bullets at a time.

Are you nuts?

 

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

Liberty and Justice for All

Michael 1 Comment

They are at it again.  It’s that time.  Easter is around the corner and a Michigan based organization of atheists of all people cannot let a religious holiday go by without a celebration.  Now they seem to think that the Ten Commandments are unfit for American consumption. 

This startling report comes after a child is shot and killed in the name of a neighborhood watch.  After a bonded security guard kills his partner and makes off with $2 million.  After five people were found so gruesomely murdered investigators can’t even figure out how they were killed.   Yes, the last thing we need in this country is a moral compass, a set of rules, directions on how to tell the difference between right and wrong. 

If you haven’t had a chance to read our special post, “We Hold These Truths” (January 13, 2012), please do.  It’s long.  It’s far from politically correct.  It has the words “Church” and “Constitution” in the same paragraph.  We think it makes a world of sense.   

We won’t repeat the discussion on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we presented in January.  We do want to repeat that regardless of what some dolts in Michigan say, the authors of the Bill of Rights don’t say anything about building an atheistic society under the guise of an oft-claimed separation of church and state.     

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If you don’t recognize it, that is the Famous First Amendment.  The whole thing.  Every word of it.  That’s the one in which Congress says it won’t say how you will worship, and that nobody in the government can stop you from worshipping.  It doesn’t say that you are not allowed to worship, not even in public.  It says that Congress will not prohibit the free exercise of religion, not that Congress will prohibit religion. 

If we had a choice we’d tell the atheists to go to hell.  The only reason we don’t is they probably don’t believe in hell either.  Where do you send a dolt to spend all eternity in despair?  Should we send them to the courtrooms to listen to the testimony of those trying to wiggle out of murder charges?  Maybe we should send them to the crime scenes where real dead bodies lie from the hands of those who didn’t understand “thou shalt not kill.”  Or perhaps they should see their life savings disappear to the charlatan “brokers” who amassed fortunes by stealing from retirement plans and savings accounts.  But whatever you do, don’t send them to church to pray for innocent children who die while left behind to fend for themselves.

Sorry, not so funny today.  But there’s nothing funny about some dolts worried that there is a plaque of The Ten Commandments outside a school.  They should be more worried if people ever stop teaching The Ten Commandments to the children. 

To heck with it.  Hey!  Any atheists out there who are so stuck on this separation of church and state thing that you can’t see how good you have it here, why don’t you just go to hell.  You’ll find your way easily enough.  The signs are all around you.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

 

We Hold These Truths

Michael 2 Comments

A word about this post:

We wrote this before Christmas amid the annual outcry over manger scenes in front of government buildings and wonderings if you had to say Happy Holidays not to get fired.  It was written more as history lesson than rant over Politics and Religion and we figured there were enough to fight that fight.  And who wanted a history lesson right before Christmas?  So we spent our time spending time together, enjoying friends and family members, humming Christmas carols, watching Christmas movies, thowing some change into a few red kettles, and generally living the spirit of the season. 

Then this week the local paper had a story about a Pennsylvania university that was offering discounts to its men’s and women’s basketball games.  Among these was a discount for those with a religious affiliation.  Actually the discount was extended to anyone belonging to a faith-based organization as part of the school’s “Faith and Family Night” promotion.  According to the paper, a university spokesperson explained that “fans could mention affiliation with any faith-based organization, not just churches, to get the discount.”  We imagine if you really wanted to go to a basketball game and were short a couple dollars for the ticket, you could just lie.  If you didn’t belong to a faith-based organization, you’d probably not think twice of it.

Opponents of creches, of discounts to church groups, of saying “Merry Christmas” during the Christmas season, and probably of sales of Easter bonnets during Easter sales always fall back on that so often misquoted document, the Constitution of the United States.  “It violates my First Amendment rights,” is a favorite excuse for bad behavior. 

So, we’re going to risk bad behavior of our own and present “We Hold These Truths” to our public.  It’s our way of saying we know what our rights are.  And so do the people who wrote to insure us those rights 225 years ago.  Please don’t trample them on your way to finding your rights.  (And yes, we know that “we hold these truths” comes form the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  Technically our rights were insured by the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution either.  Humor us, ok?)

It is a very long post.  Regular readers know our posts already are pretty long and even compared to those posts of around 500 words, this one is a doozie!  At close to 2,000 words we hope we’ve said something thoughtful, intelligent, and meaningful.    And at the risk of making it even longer, we encourage you to comment on it, to re-blog it, to send a copy of it to your Congressman, to e-mail it to friends, to share it with your family, to share it with your local news outlet, or if you know one to share it with, share it with your favorite atheist.

And now, We Hold These Truths: 

———————————————————————————-

A bit before Christmas, a Michigan based organization of self-proclaimed atheists threatened to send busloads of its members from Wisconsin to a small town in Pennsylvania because that small town was planning on doing the unthinkable for the 50th-some time and erect a Christmas manger scene outside its municipal building.  The organization wrote, “It is unlawful for the state to erect this nativity scene on borough property thus singling out one religion.”  There was no word if that was written in Michigan or Wisconsin.  Nor was there word of which one of the many Christian religions was being singled out.  Now, halfway through January, that little town is still fighting that fight and is already looking ahead to Christmas 2012.

Just as the Christmas season was winding down the college basketball was moving into high gear.  There is a college not far from that Pennsylvania town that is offering a variety of discount nights including First Responders’ Night and Veterans’ Night.  Also among their special promotions is a discount night for those who belong to any faith-based organization.  It didn’t take long before there were new headlines throughout the Keystone State quoting an organization questioning the validity of that one.  Not because it singled out one religion but because it wasn’t fair to the basketball fans who are not religious and thus not eligible for a discount.  The opposing group didn’t say the same for those who are not veterans or first responders.  Apparently not being a veteran is something beyond most peoples’ control.

We hate to be so rude to so many people who are so protective of our Constitution, but, get a life!  (We said in our first blog we weren’t going to be politically correct – just plain correct.)  At the risk of being quite politically incorrect, here are the facts.  If we were you, we’d get a beverage, sit back, and hold on for the remainder of this post.  We will also warn you that the remainder of this post is more history lesson than rant.  If you appreciate intelligent and thoughtful discussions you should enjoy this. 

When our early lawmakers wrote the Constitution back in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, they had no idea they were creating controversy for future fellow Pennsylvanians.  They also had not planned on creating fodder for the trough of stupidity that nonsensical organizations like the dolts in Michigan and/or Wisconsin hide behind.  As much as everybody wants to say so, the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this oft-claimed separation of church and state.      

The confusion seems to have arisen not at the signing of the Constitution in September of 1787 but came as an afterthought to that document.  More than two years later, some states’ representatives still remembered the British violations of civil rights that drove even earlier representatives to unanimously pass the Declaration of Independence.   Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was not a member of the Congress that drafted and forwarded the Constitution to the states for ratification.  He was, however, a vocal critic of that group for their lack of specifying individual rights, rights that were significant in the writing of the Declaration.  And thus in September of 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution to quiet those most concerned that the government had too much power and the rights of the individuals were not adequately addressed.  The first two proposed amendments as presented to the States were not ratified.  But the states ratified amendments 3 through 12 compiling the first ten amendments to the Constitution, now known as the Bill of Rights.

The first of those ten ratified amendments over the years has stood the test of time and rarely was questioned or opposed.  Only in the second half of the twentieth century did citizens whose rights were the very focus of the amendment’s authors did those citizens start plucking individual phrases to justify petty and personal opinion.  There are only 45 words in the First Amendment.  That is not too many to read and savor all at once.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

But since the Dolts of Michigan and others insist on tearing it apart word from word, we will examine it thought by thought.  The dolts and their brethren always pick on the first 10 words.  Most dolts can’t count past ten so that must be why they stop there.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Nobody ever quotes the next six words, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Probably the “thereof” confuses them.  That’s the authors’ way of saying that they and future representatives to Congress won’t say how you will worship, and nobody in the government can stop you from worshipping.  There is nothing in those combined 16 words that says you are not allowed to worship, you will not worship, or that there is no support for you to worship.   Nor does it say that there might not be a multitude of ways to worship.  In fact, one can make the leap that the reason for the first ten words are to support a variety of ways to worship, a freedom the authors of the Constitution and their ancestries did not have under the foreign realms from which they fled.  Congree will not prohibit the free exercise of religion.  (We wanted to spell that out just in case there is a dolt out there and it is still confused over “thereof.”)

As long as we’re dissecting words written over 220 years ago we want to keep going.  There are, after all, only 29 of them left.  The First Amendment goes on to say that Congress will also make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”  They go together.  Even over two hundred years ago the authors recognized that the press was and is the enduring voice of the people.  They are the same and that is why it is written as a single clause.  Perhaps current members of the Fourth Estate should remember that when they are editorializing.  Perhaps they also should practice just “correct,” and reflect the thoughts and feelings and prayers of those who support the press and forget about being “politically correct” themselves.   The earliest publications of this country were quite politically incorrect by our standards yet they rallied their readers to the extent that we now have a country that will make no law abridging those freedoms.  Congress will not abridge the right to free speech or press.  Together.  One mind.  One voice.  The one voice of the many people. 

Congress will also not abridge “the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The right to assemble goes along with peaceably.  You might prefer to call it peacefully.  Peaceful demonstration is how the dolts’ younger cousins would have you believe every protest begins.  No.  When demonstrators show up with clubs, pepper spray, guns, and the intent to use them if they are confronted by others with different views, peaceful has left the building.  The final phrase “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is colonial speak for “ask the Government to put right wrongs” or to “ask our representatives to review citizen rights for those the original authors missed.”  It doesn’t mean to sit in a park, refuse passage to people who are trying to get to work, turn over cars and trucks, throw rocks at policemen, and in general act like the animal version of a dolt.  It does mean to gather together, discuss how you’ve been wronged and how you would make it right for everybody.  With one voice of one mind you can then ask our assembled representatives to listen to us and make things right.  It’s a powerful concept, particularly if you can find an elected representative who understands the First Amendment.

Remember, the Four Freedoms are the Freedom OF Religion, Freedom OF Speech, Freedom FROM Want, and Freedom FROM Fear.  It just seems all backwards.  Protestors exercise their “rights” while instilling fear in everyone else.  Our government repeatedly bails out banks and manufacturers while allowing individuals to suffer 29% interest rates and retail prices that have no basis on the actual cost of goods.  Public comment periods to bills and government contracts are virtually non-existent but the idiot screaming down the block at 3 in the morning has a right to free speech especially if he’s the drug addicted son of the mayor.   And dolts are allowed to charter organizations specifically to support freedom FROM religion.  (By the way, among its several accepted definitions is that religion is characterized by a set of strongly-held beliefs that somebody lives by.  We contend that any group of people so concerned over getting its ideological point of view, its strongly held ideological point of view, to the extent that they are prepared to proselytize for it, is pretty much practicing a religion.  Think about it.)

Before we finish our little history lesson let’s step back a few years earlier, to the summer of 1776, again in the city of Philadelphia.  To the Declaration of Independence.  To that very short announcement that the former British colonies were indeed one new country, one that would fairly soon establish taxes and representation, and an army and navy, and a Bill of Rights.  Before those assembled got to the part about these truths being self-evident they first declared:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” 

You couldn’t fool those colonists.  They knew who fixed them up.  They knew that the “powers of the earth” are granted by “Nature’s God.”  After that acknowledgement they moved on to:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Somebody gave those colonists the idea that all of us are entitled to live our lives, to live them by the four freedoms, and to be happy while we do it.  It certainly wasn’t Thomas Jefferson or John Hancock.  It wasn’t George Washington or Benjamin Franklin.  It wasn’t even John Adams.  When you thank someone for your self-evident endowments you know who you’re going to thank.  We say it enough every day.  Thank God.

They may not want to believe it but even the dolts have God to thank.  Every time they take advantage of a Christmas sale each winter or an Easter Sale the following spring there’s a reason behind it.  It’s not Mr. Macy they have to thank for that great deal on a Play Station.  And we’re pretty sure they aren’t going up to their butcher and asking for a higher price on the spiral cut ham because there is no God.  No, they know the reason behind the deal. 

And what a deal it is.

Now, that’s what we think.  Really.  How ‘bout you?

(All passages from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights are copied from transcripts of the originals including spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as it was then written.  Transcripts reviewed at the National Archives website, www.archives.com.  Read about these documents at “The Charters of Freedom,” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/.)