What is most important to anyone anywhere? Unquestionably, it is one's own life and the freedom to live it. No one wants to lose his/her life, or some kind of freedom of action.
The problem, which seems unbelievable for those of us in the United States, is that our Federal government thinks that it can deny an individual's freedom, and/or life based on secret evidence. The Federal government has taken supposed terrorists into court, or kept many people in prison, as "enemy combatants" solely on its claim that the evidence is secret. If that argument is valid, then our basic human rights established in the Declaration of Independence, have been abrogated. "We hold these truths to be self-evident... " It goes on "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."
It can be argued that our government must keep secret some things, especially living with the threat of terrorism. But on the other hand, one's life and freedom overrides even the government's claim of secrecy. This has to be a fact! Our government should give up on the prosecution of that individual when the government is to represents all people. A person can't be put in jail on evidence that the defendant can't confront. That is also one of the basic principles of our law. It can't be otherwise! Put yourself into the situation of being unable to confront an accuser within your own life. Why our courts forget this basic principle today is beyond reason.
There has to be a balance in all things. Much of the world does want democracies. When a country decides upon a democracy, it doesn't mean our type of democracy, as we hope to understand it. It could be a religious form of government. Our understanding is undermined by our present government's actions of holding and/or trying people on secret information. This becomes like trial in "absentia," which is illegal in the United States.
EARMARKING
Americans seldom hear the word "earmarking;" therefore they don't know what it means. This author just learned about the word and its reference to yet another way that our corrupt Congress works.
Any member of Congress can earmark money for a pet project. The name of Senator Harry Bird is all anyone sees when driving through West Virginia. He was able to get loads of money for his state. In the past, members of Congress had hard time earmarking money because of tight budgets. Bird had that power and the ability in past days. Earmarking is almost unlimited today, with no caps on spending and members of congress having no conscience. The Transportation bill had 538 earmarks in 1991. There were a total of 1,800 earmarks in 1991. Appropriations carried 8,000 earmarks totaling $10 billion in 2004. It was excused under the pretext that it was only 1.2% of the $882 billion budget. The amount of $10 billion is still big money when talking about the secret way our country is going broke. What reader wouldn't like a.2% of the total budget for him/her self?
Numerous frivolous earmarks have been approved and funded. The earmarks are only frivolous to the outsider. The residents in any district receiving appropriations think funding of projects is just great. It is impossible to unseat that district's member of Congress.
All any member of congress has to do is attach an earmark to any piece of appropriation. If money is tight, yet there is no prior review, except perhaps by a conference committee. That means that no members of Congress vote on that appropriation. Today earmarking is an open door. Didn't Republican administrations of the past always preach fiscal responsibility? Earmarked appropriations will be debt that all our grandchildren will have to service or possibly pay off. Just call your member of Congress if there is anything you need.
Chester P. Soling
No comments:
Post a Comment