Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember rightey tightey, lefty loosey. 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.

No. 3: (11/12/08): Was the US founded as a Christian Country?

I have been hearing constantly lately about the back and forth between the left and the right whether the United States of America, was or was not founded as a Christian nation. I believe that much of the argument and where you come down on it is based on semantics and your understanding of the establishment clause in the context of the day. If you assume by Christian nation, you’re referring to modern day Evangelicalism, then no, it was absolutely not founded as a Christian nation. If you assume by “Christian nation” as the founders would have that it was founded upon the accepted doctrine of the Church of England and meant to be run as a theocracy then again no, it was not.

Many of the Founding Fathers were by no means “orthodox” Christians by the standards of the day, in fact many were openly Deists. But even the Deists among them recognized God as being the God of the Christian bible. I have not read any original material, correspondences etc. that denied their belief in God but rather sought to defend against state endorsed/mandated religion (directed towards the Church of England) warning of oppression at their hands when endorsed and supported by the state.

I part ways with the Evangelicals where they insist that the country was founded as an Evangelical Christian country. It clearly was not founded to be a theocratic country, but I don’t believe that it was purely secular either. If they truly did not believe in God, then there would be no reference to a Creator, nor would there be inalienable rights. Rights that are given to man by a “Creator” cannot be taken away from men; only rights given by men can be taken away or restricted by man or the state. Sessions of congress and the constitutional conventions were opened and closed with prayer, including on occasion by Franklin (one of the most ardent Deists) hardly an act that would have been practiced by Agnostics or Atheists.
The next question would then be what is the nature of the Creator that they reference?
It is clear that no specific name was given to the Creator (to their credit) i.e. Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu etc. Given though, that they were by a large majority if not all, Christians, Deists or Quakers, their consensus of understanding would have been that the Creator they refer to would have the nature of the “Christian” God.

I do however agree with the secularists that a very, very bright line must be drawn lest we allow Christianity to become the American Sharia. Advocating that our government should be run as though the Bible was the source of our laws, morals and principles would be partially correct but only in respect to how the Bible has influenced western society.

The majority of Colonial law at the time was based on the Common Law of England which was clearly theocratic in its practice of the day. The Magna Carta had enormous impact on the English Bill of Rights, Mayflower Compact as well as the Articles of Confederation, and of course the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Judeo-Christian beliefs and the natural law philosophies formed the cornerstone of the English monarchy and its law, and so by extension, the United States.

A common complaint in regards to religions is that “you have no right to expect that I’m going to let my government operate as if it has chosen a religion and wants everyone else to do the same” or that based on the prohibition.

We are in a republic which means that to a certain extent as a minority must accept as both a practical reality and a Constitutional reality that some beliefs will be “thrown in your face”.
In my reading there is no Constitutional prohibition against one that “includes the right to not have it thrown in our faces everywhere we go by the government.” Government is the organizational expression of the people and as long as a sentiment or right is the will of the majority it must be expressed so long as it does not infringe on a minority’s right to change the will of the majority either through free press, free speech or petition. I must respectfully disagree with you that the government’s current expression of religion constitutes an establishment of an official religion the likes of the Church of England that can be used as a legal club against you by the government.

None of the Founding Fathers spoke out against religion as having a right to free speech or participating or influencing government or the electorate at large. What they all agreed on that could not happen is political rule from the pulpit. It was perfectly acceptable at the founding for churches to use speech and collective power to influence members who were then free to go and act accordingly in a political sense. What was not acceptable would be for church inspired speech to be deemed more weighty then that of a non-believer. Equally unacceptable would be for the government to create, fund and support a specific church (i.e. Church of England) to go forth and proselytize/demonize in the name of the State.

In terms of references to In God We Trust on money and God in the Pledge of Allegiance, these are actually neutral as is any Congressional or Presidential proclamations. Take for instance, Veteran’s Day. If you are a pacifist and do not condone the taking of arms or recognize the use of arms as moral under any circumstances, are your civil rights violated because Congress made it a federal holiday?

You are equally able to express your beliefs on this day as any other day of the year. You are not imprisoned, you are not taxed at a different rate, your votes do not only count as 3/4 of a vote, etc. The majority of Americans however feel it is appropriate to officially commemorate the service of Veteran’s to their country. If you are Atheist and do not believe that God should be officially recognized in any sense, are you prohibited from using minted currency or any of the above examples? If I despise my mother, are my rights violated because of a Congressional proclamation for Mother’s Day? The foundation of America as democratic form of a republic, was to ensure the will of the majority must be the primary outward expression of the government, and in its genius, the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, ensures and charges the government to just as vigorously defend the rights of the minority.

To those who advocate a complete seperation and removal of God or influence of religion from the public place, remember that the rule of unintended consequences. Under a rule of absolutism it would mean that Evangelicals insisting that student led prayer or a moment of silence in school would be as verboten as Dr. Martin Luther King, using his pulpit and religious networks to preach civil rights not only as a matter of a political right but also a spiritual mandate of the Christian faith. I see no attempts by the ACLU to remove copies of “I Have a Dream” speech which makes numerous religious references from schools or Martin Luther King Day as a Federal holiday which honors not just a civil rights leader but a religious leader as well.

No. 2: (11-11-08) What is Your Position on California's Prop 8?

Lets call a spade a spade, two sides of the pro-homosexual marriage has arguments that conflict with each other. One claims it is it isn't about politics or anything else except love and that it’s not redefining the definition of marriage. Others claim that marriage isn’t strictly all about love, its also about the legal status of marriage which is just that — a legal status. A ballot measure has the force of law which is defining a legal status. The argument about love and spiritual connection, is a spiritual argument which would more aptly be directed towards clergy in an ecclesiastical debate rather than a political one. If it is about love then do bigamists not love just as genuinely as homosexuals? Defining love in a legal manner is completely spurious effort as love is a completely subjective definition based on your personal interpretation.

If we as a society decide not to confer legal benefits of marriage on members of a bigamist relationship, on what grounds do we do so? If we say because they have no Constitutional right to engage in bigamy, what is the Constitutional right to a heterosexual marriage with legal status? I see nothing in the Federalist Papers, Constitution or the subsequent Amendments that either defines marriage or confers a right to marry (outside of a religious practice) and for the government confer certain legal benefits on them.

If the argument for heterosexual marriage is that at the time of the founding, that this was the accepted expression and that legal status should be conferred on marriage, then so be it, but that became a statutory right not a Constitutional right. If people determine that as a whole they do not see a sufficient need or value in extending rights of marriage to in terms of a legal status, then that is a right reserved to the people.

Our laws are designed to allow discrimination all the time when the people determine that the societal value of the discrimination is deemed to outweigh the persons or class discriminated against. Felons are discriminated against holding public office or owning firearms. Sex offenders are discriminated against by not having freedom to associate and interact with children. Non-licensed individuals are discriminated against by being restricted to practice law or medicine. Former employees are discriminated against by non-compete agreements with former employers. But again, what is the overriding social need and justification to confer the legal status of marriage on homosexuals as opposed to bigamists?

I still don't understand though why 2 people getting married who are gay is a right and 3 people getting married heterosexual or otherwise is illegal in the context of California’s Prop 8. If two (or 3 or more) people getting married is about legal status then lets treat it as contractual law. If it’s about love and a spiritual connection and commitment, then let's treat it as spiritual matter and let churches decided what it is.

As I said, either we uphold the traditional definition with a Constitutional Amendment, or we must rework the entire legal construct of marriage (outside of religious practices) and establish an objective determination of the purpose of marriage and societal benefits and secondly the objective criterion upon which we must confer legally sanctioned marriages and apply the standards evenly with no regard for religious beliefs or sexual orientation. In other words, marriage must become a branch of contractual law defining fiduciary duties of partners etc. and not a matter of civil rights law and dissolution of a marriage should take the form of dissolution of a company.

As this begins to become more and more a wedge us versus them issue, I would like to take it completely out of the power of the courts to decide this issue. I think marriage should be redefined and marriages can be religiously sanctioned relationships and civil unions can be legal constructs defined by the States and the Federal government. Thereby religious interpretations and definitions of marriage are removed from political discourse and do not risk law suits for refusing to perform a “marriage” that does not comport to their ecclesiastical beliefs.

The issue of marriage may be the biggest over looked separation of church and state issue there is. As it stands and for the past 200 years marriage has been a hybrid of legal and societal values and religious values and inextricably linked and to alter one is necessarily to alter another. I’m sure there was much anger in the south during the civil rights revolution whereby race could no longer prohibit people from getting married. Today a very small minority (between 2% and 4.2% depending on your source) of the American population is being discriminated against in being prohibited from getting married. The difference between blacks being able to marry and gays being able to marry is the difference between racism and the collective traditions of western religion and society in which the definition of marriage has not included homosexuality. Racism defies the Constitution the collective traditions of western religion and society do not. In an age of all or nothing absolutism I believe we should redefine marriage.

What the judge down the street should be able to do as an officer of the State is to perform a civil union. The people of your state should determine who may qualify for a civil union and what benefits and rights that entails. Free from claims of Constitutional rights, as what rights a State chooses to confer upon its people is a decision of that State so long as they are not enumerated by the Constitution.

What your religious leader should be able to do is perform a wedding ceremony to those persons who adhere to the tenants of their faith without worry that if they refuse to perform a homosexual or polygamist wedding, they could be sued for violating someone's civil rights or lose their tax exempt status. Marriage is a sacrament in the religious context and should remain so, just as a Church may decide who qualifies to be ordained, who may take communion or be baptized, without fear of legal action.

Happy 223rd Marines! Semper Fi - A Message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps

During the summer of 1982, in the wake of a presidential directive, Marines went ashore at Beirut, Lebanon. Fifteen months later, on 23 October 1983, extremists struck the first major blow against American forces - starting this long war on terrorism. On that Sunday morning, a suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden truck into the headquarters of Battalion Landing Team 1/8, destroying the building and killing 241 Marines and corpsmen.

Extremists have attacked our Nation, at home and abroad, numerous times since that fateful day in Beirut. Their aim has always been the same - to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. The attacks of 11 September 2001 changed our Nation forever, and our president has resolved that this Nation will not stand idle while murderous terrorists plan their next strike. Marines will continue to take the fight to the enemy - hitting them on their own turf, crushing them when they show themselves, and finding them where they hide.

Only a few Americans choose the dangerous, but necessary, work of fighting our Nation's enemies. When our chapter of history is written, it will be a saga of a selfless generation of Marines who were willing to stand up and fight for our Nation; to defend those who could not defend themselves; to thrive on the hardship and sacrifice expected of an elite warrior class; to march to the sound of the guns; and to ably shoulder the legacy of those Marines who have gone before.

On our 233rd birthday, first remember those who have served and those "angels" who have fallen - our reputation was built on their sacrifices. Remember our families; they are the unsung heroes whose support and dedication allow us to answer our Nation's call. Finally, to all Marines and Sailors, know that I am proud of you and what you do. Your successes on the battlefield have only added to our illustrious history. Lieutenant General Victor H. "Brute" Krolak said it best when he wrote, "...the United States does not need a Marine Corps ... the United States wants a Marine Corps." Your actions, in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the globe, are at the core of why America loves her Marines.

Happy Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fidelis,

James T. Conway
General, U.S. Marine Corps

Petition to the FEC for an Audit of Barack Obama's Campaign

This is by no means meant to be a partisan petition. This is watchdogging pure and simple. I absolutely support McCain's campaign being audited. I think that despite his opting out of the campaign finance system, Obama's campaign should be subjected to the same rigorous review. The text and link to the petion can be found below:

We the undersigned hereby believe it necessary and petition the FEC to conduct full audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering $650 millon dollar windfall based on numerous allegations of questionable donations, donations from foreign nationals and accounting issues.

President-Elect Obama initially pledged to the American people in 2007 Obama filled out questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network that asked, "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama's answer? A check next to the box marked "yes." Underneath, the Illinois senator elaborated:

"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

In June 2008, he completely reversed himself saying: "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections..."

In a letter to Senators Feinstein Senator Bennett in June 2007, then Senator Obama referring to an upcoming FEC Commissioner appointment the Commission, noting that the FEC should demonstrate a consistent ability to uphold the law and overcome partisan biases and should reflect a record of nonpartisanship, fairness, and judgment necessary to enforce election laws."The FEC is an independent regulatory agency tasked with the enforcement and administration of the Federal Election Commission Act. Individuals named to the Commission should have a demonstrated record of fair administration of the law and an ability to overcome partisan biases."

President-Elect Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny Sen. McCain faces mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Additionally the conventional wisdom is that because the FEC is made up of 3 Democrat and 3 Republican Commissioners, it will deadlock and no audit will take place.

President-Elect Obama publically supported a publically financed campaign system until it was no longer in his financial interests to do so despite a pledge to fellow Democrats, Sen. McCain and all Americans that he would participate. The potential technical difficulties should not outweigh the public interest in auditing a record breaking $650 million dollar campaign. No future presidential candidate will subject themselves to a system where if you participate you are audited, if you raise too much money for the FEC to audit, they won't.

The FEC must scrutinize President-Elect Obama just as thoroughly as independently as they will Sen. McCain. This is not only reasonable to the American people, but in President-Elect Obama's own words, the FEC should "demonstrate a consistent ability to uphold the law and overcome partisan biases and should reflect a record of nonpartisanship, fairness, and judgment necessary to enforce election laws."

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/AuditObama

Q&A - Questions from the Audience No.1

No. 1: (11-10-08) Should the U.S. be attacking al Qaeda in foreign countries without permission?

First off, I believe neither the War Power Acts nor Congressional Defense Authorizations are sufficient to deal with this problem either in a diplomatic, military or legal sense. Continuing with the current method will not lend any credibility to military and foreign policy. We need a national debate that will set long term military and diplomatic policies regarding terrorism and pre-emptive use of force. I do want to begin this discussion by saying that in the case of an imminent threat, when there is sufficient actionable intelligence, I of course advocate the President using all available resources to thwart an attack be it terrorist or otherwise. In the case where the foreign government is either hostile or suffers from security leaks that could compromise American lives a successful execution, diplomacy would have to wait.

If in the situation where an act of terrorism is initiated by an independent, unaffiliated terrorist or terrorist group, I think the first goal is to work diplomatically and allow the host nation to take care of business quietly and behind the scenes. If they will not I think the President has the statutory and Constitutional authority to initiate a surgical operation using the CIA and/or Military Special Operations.

In the case of the Taliban, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia etc. whose governments that are either actively supporting or tacitly providing safe harbors towards terrorist networks or affiliated terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda should be put on notice by the United States by a formal Declaration of War against the terrorist organization. This allows a full and public debate in Congress imposing strict accountability of those in favor and against, there will be a greater likelihood of diplomatic means being exhausted and far more consistency in policy both by the initiating President as well as future Presidents. No more subjective policing actions. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Somalia, Balkans, Gulf War II and the War on Terror were unconstitutional wars and never should have been allowed to happen in the manner they did.

The ability to engage in military action for extended engagements (note the difference between the above actions and actions in Grenada, Panama Canal and Libya) has been abused in a bipartisan manner by Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Clinton and Bush all relying on UN Security Counsel Resolutions. It’s a ceding of Congressional authority allowing an Executive power grab that is been useful for Presidents seeking politically expedient military quick fixes and useful for Congressmen who have sought plausible deniability allowing them to vote for something before they vote against it. Clearly defined Congressional oversight and an end to ad-hoc diplomatic, foreign and national security policy is the third rail answer to the question.

Happy 223rd Marines! Semper Fi - A Message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps

During the summer of 1982, in the wake of a presidential directive, Marines went ashore at Beirut, Lebanon. Fifteen months later, on 23 October 1983, extremists struck the first major blow against American forces - starting this long war on terrorism. On that Sunday morning, a suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden truck into the headquarters of Battalion Landing Team 1/8, destroying the building and killing 241 Marines and corpsmen.

Extremists have attacked our Nation, at home and abroad, numerous times since that fateful day in Beirut. Their aim has always been the same - to kill as many innocent Americans as possible. The attacks of 11 September 2001 changed our Nation forever, and our president has resolved that this Nation will not stand idle while murderous terrorists plan their next strike. Marines will continue to take the fight to the enemy - hitting them on their own turf, crushing them when they show themselves, and finding them where they hide.

Only a few Americans choose the dangerous, but necessary, work of fighting our Nation’s enemies. When our chapter of history is written, it will be a saga of a selfless generation of Marines who were willing to stand up and fight for our Nation; to defend those who could not defend themselves; to thrive on the hardship and sacrifice expected of an elite warrior class; to march to the sound of the guns; and to ably shoulder the legacy of those Marines who have gone before.

On our 233rd birthday, first remember those who have served and those “angels” who have fallen - our reputation was built on their sacrifices. Remember our families; they are the unsung heroes whose support and dedication allow us to answer our Nation’s call. Finally, to all Marines and Sailors, know that I am proud of you and what you do. Your successes on the battlefield have only added to our illustrious history. Lieutenant General Victor H. “Brute” Krolak said it best when he wrote, “…the United States does not need a Marine Corps … the United States wants a Marine Corps.” Your actions, in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the globe, are at the core of why America loves her Marines.

Happy Birthday, Marines!
Semper Fidelis,

James T. Conway
General, U.S. Marine Corps