Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

What Our Founding Fathers Knew But Obama’s Forgotten

September 12, 2012

The political system that the Anglo-Saxons lived under worked in protecting the people’s freedom to live their lives as they saw fit. However, the invading Vikings meant that they had to, of necessity, from time to time, join together, put on their armor and bear weapons, and kill as many of the enemy as they could. We don’t talk about much what the Anglo-Saxons did with the Vikings who survived and did not make it back on the boat. They were killed. They were killed to send a message to the Vikings that they would not be forgiven. They were killed to ensure the next invasion had that many fewer enemy.

Ultimately, the system fell apart, not because of the kings that organized the armies, but the apathy of the people in forming an army and working together.

This pattern has been repeated countless times, in countless ways, in countless cultures. When the people bind together to fight invasions for the common good, they enjoy that many more years of peace. Failure to do so, allowing petty politics to get in the way, means that the necessary military force is not assembled in a timely manner, leaving the country to be enslaved.

The United States won independence from the king because he failed to protect the people. The king became the invader. So they rebelled, and decided to try their own hand at protecting themselves. They were inspired because they had already done so successfully, fighting the French and Indians in a previous war.

The United States government was reformed in 1786 not because of petty political reasons, but because it was the only way they could see to create an entity that could adequately provide for the common defense. Taxes were no longer optional. A single man was the commander in chief. A body of delegates had the power to appropriate funds to wage war. That was the real reason why we had to form the United States under the new constitution. The additional benefits, of domestic tranquility, of unifying the states into one political body, bound by free trade and commerce, was an added benefit, a benefit believed to be necessary to make the first condition exist.

Our federal government is, fundamentally, a war machine. That is why it exists. That’s why we tolerate it. When push comes to shove, we’re going to push harder, and we’re going to make sure the pushers stay down. Our federal government has been tremendously successful in that regard. There is no credible threat to our security and freedom on the planet. The next largest militaries could be wiped out in a matter of minutes or days, if we decide to do it.

We don’t have perfect security. We never will. Non-state actors can still harm us, as we saw on 9/11. So we decided to do things a little differently. No longer could we ignore the petty warlords and terrorists in God-forsaken lands. We had to use our military capabilities to “bring them to justice”, meaning, killing them.

That was the purpose of the War on Terror. Rather than waiting for them to come here, we were going to hunt them down in their own countries, and kill them, before they could step foot in our country. That way, we don’t have to watch for terrorists at home. You don’t have to watch people coming and going through the airports, and scan them for bombs. You find the threats, root them out, and eliminate them. You make THEM live in terror, rather than the other way around.

The Obama Administration started off by declaring the War on Terror over, in not so few words. Now terrorist attacks were considered “man-caused disasters”. Now we were going to try and be buddy-buddy with the terrorists. “Oh, sorry for flushing your Koran down the toilet! We won’t do it again! We swear!” The intended effect was to melt the hearts of our enemies, so that they would be our friends, and we can drink beer together in the White House garden to resolve our differences.

This has turned out to be a colossal failure. The bad guys didn’t appreciate our signs of weakness. They decided to take it to the next level. They would overthrow their governments. They would threaten our allies.

Now, and ambassador is dead. His name doesn’t matter, because he is an ambassador. It wasn’t an attack on him personally, it was an attack on me, you, all of us. It wasn’t him alone that died, it was us. Our power has been challenged.

What does our president do? He apologized. He blames us for the attacks. He says, “You guys have to tone down that freedom thing you got going there.”

You know what, Mr. President? You have completely forgotten what the federal government is for. You have sought an office of an organization you cannot even comprehend the purpose of. It’s like you’ve become the CEO of GM and decided it was now your mission to save the world instead of build cars. (Oh wait, you did that!)

The federal government is a war machine. It exists to keep the bad guys away from our people, so that we can live and work and love and die in peace. It’s there, chained by the constraints of the constitution, and by the power of the people, hanging in the shadows with weapons of unimaginable fury. When one of us is threatened, it steps forward and lays the hurt down. When a lot of us are threatened, we unleash it to break things and smash stuff and make people very unhappy with their decision to fight us.

Mr. President, you have the presidency. Use it for its purpose! Tell these people they are going to die a most horrible death! Tell them they are not worthy to run their own country, and that you plan to establish a government friendly to us, and you’re willing to kill anyone who thinks that’s a bad idea. Tell them!

Roberts the Justice

June 28, 2012

As you no doubt heard, Obamacare has been ruled constitution by Chief Justice Roberts, which offset Justice Kennedy’s unconstitutional vote and made it law.

His reasoning is not simple or terse. Lawyers at Power Line Blog are analyzing it as we speak. Some of the initial analysis is already enlightening.

Chief Justice Roberts did exactly what I would like all justices to do. The Supreme Court is not where we settle our society’s problems. It is to be used, exclusively, to sort cases out and apply the law fairly to all.

I am one of those who still believe that Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided. Meaning, the power to decide what is or is not constitutional is in each of the components of the federal government, the people, and the states. They are to use their powers to enforce their view over all the others, which powers have been carefully allocated to ensure one cannot exceed the bounds to the detriment of the other.

This case is Chief Justice Roberts doing exactly that. He said, “There is an argument that makes the law constitutional, and people who would disobey the law won’t be able to hide behind the constitution because of it.” Then he described how one could navigate constitutional law. The navigable route is simply that Obama passed a massive tax increase with a loophole for those who buy health insurance that makes the IRS happy. This will surely be a scarlet letter during the upcoming election, but that is not why I like this decision. I like it because it makes sense. Yes, it is a tax, I admitted it, many others did, despite the fact Obama and all the other constitutional lawyers on the left denied it.

I believe that the president, the congress, the states, and the people should use the constitutional argument to shut each other down. If congress believes something is unconstitutional, they should not expect some other part of government to overturn it. They should realize they are the first and last bulwark of what is constitutional or not, and what becomes law in our country or not.

As such, it is up to us, the people, to choose representatives, senators, governors, and presidents who agree with us about our interpretation of the constitution, and are willing to fight (with their constitutional power) to defend it.

If the Supreme Court had acted with such prudence before the Civil War when they heard the case of Dredd Scott, I don’t think we would’ve had a Civil War. Recall that it was the Supreme Court that imposed slavery on the Northern states. Before the Dred Scott decision, a Southerner dare not take their slaves into free states, because the free states did not recognize slavery according to law. Although this was annoying to Southerners, and although it meant that slaves were slipping out of the Southern states into the North, it was hardly a reason to go to war. Many countries exist side-by-side with rules that harm the other without war. Besides, the importation of slaves was already banned, meaning that what slaves were bought or sold were either already slaves or born into it in the South.

There was an amicable resolution to the slavery question, one which a particular candidate for president advocated before he was murdered. It was simply this: ban slavery everywhere, by buying the slaves from the South with federal monies and freeing them. With no slaves imported and no existing slaves, the institution would end without a single tear shed.

The question of abortion is another instance where the Supreme Court went to far. The reasoning behind it was a new invented right that the constitutional subtext supposes to exist. Since people are private in their papers, then that means we can’t search inside women’s wombs to see if they are with child or not, and so we can’t have laws anywhere in the country that forbid the slaughter of unborn children, regardless of when a child is consider to be a living person under the law. How the one is connected to the other has never been explained, since it cannot be explained. As a child, I did not understand it. As an adult, it is the kind of logic that wants to make me scream.

If you are one of those sort who despise Roberts for ruling against freedom and liberty and for government largess, I beg you to reconsider. His job is not to create government in the way he sees fit. Any justice that believes that is their job should be impeached immediately. His job is simply to read the law and the constitution and do his best to reconcile them in specific cases. What more could we want in a justice? To give them anything more is to create an absolute oligarchy, a rule by justices.On the other hand, if you have become a newfound fan of Roberts because he has sided with your cause, I beg you to reconsider. Today’s friend will be tomorrow’s foe, because it is not allegiance to one side or the other that caused him to write his opinion in that way.

I would like to crawl inside the mind of Scalia and Thomas. Unfortunately, Justice Kennedy wrote that decision. I am left to imagine what they were thinking. Their argument hinges on the fact that it was not a tax. I would like to know why they say it is not, because to me, it was and is a tax.

Gratefully, the “other” four justices wrote their decision separately from Roberts, arguing that the commerce clause empowers the federal government to do whatever it wishes, damn the people. To them, the government could mandate we all worship golden calves, or make slaves one of another, because the commerce clause empowers the government to do so. They have never implied there is a limit, and their decision today reflects this. I am grateful because they are honestly telling the American people what they stand for. Now, the American people can tell their senators they want more like Roberts, and less like Sotomayor or Ginsburg.

So at least there is good news today. 5 to 4, the Supreme Court ruled that there are limits on government despite the commerce clause. One of those limits is mandating the purchase of something. This is something that hasn’t happened, ever, as far as I can see. We are now entering in new territory, territory where the Supreme Court will not go along with anything congress says simply because they utter the magic phrase “commerce clause”. This is truly a turning point.

Monarchism in the United States

February 3, 2012

One of the things I admire about the military is their complete willingness to totally subjugate themselves to the civil government. Generals and admirals may disagree with Congress and the president, but they have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, which means when Congress and the president tell them to jump, they ask, “How high?”

The president is our “king” in the United States. One of the reasons why we adopted the Constitution of the United States is because the Articles of Confederation did not provide for a king-like administrator, which means our government was inept. Of course, we limit the powers of our “king” with checks and balances. The senate must approve any appointment, and the Congress writes the budget and legislates what parameters the administration can operate under. The House can impeach anyone from the administration it pleases, for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, and the Senate must try such impeachments.

This kind of behavior by Eric Holder troubles me. Eric Holder is our Attorney General of the United States. This is a position which the senate has approved him for, and which he holds until such a time as the House decides he has done something worthy of impeachment and impeaches him, and the senate convicts. It is also held within the confine of the laws that the Congress writes, and the budgets that the Congress passes.

In other words, they serve at the whim of the Congress, and under the direction of the Congress. Every red cent of spending is their business. Every official action is their business. Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors are their business.

When Congress asks Eric Holder to come testify, they are asking him to explain why they should not impeach him, or defund him, or write new rules making his life more difficult. The proper attitude that Eric Holder should have is the same attitude someone going before his boss should have.

Eric Holder’s outrage at being questioned about Fast & Furious is troubling. Does Eric Holder think that his position gives him power over congress, or that he is free to do as he pleases without congressional oversight? If so, does the think that the limits the constitution has placed on our “king” do not apply to him? If he really believes this, then he is an enemy to our people, or at least, those of us who still value the constitution. Perhaps he imagines Barack Obama as some sort of king who answers to no one but God for his behavior, and has the right of rule given to him by God. With his official position given to him by King Obama, Eric Holder supposes he too is a sort of king in his position, answerable only to God and the king.

It’s this sort of thing that really troubles me. Has Eric Holder never heard of English history? Does he not know about Roman history, or Greek history, or any history of any country that ever had a king?

Or does Eric Holder think he is somehow exempt from that sort of thing. Are we a new people, fundamentally different than our ancestors from 200 or 2,000 years ago?

Maybe he thinks he is a superior human being, Homo Sapiens Sapiens Superior. He has somehow evolved the right to rule over the inferior Homo Sapiens Sapiens race, and how dare anyone, let alone a lowly representative from Idaho (of all places!) question his behavior!

Sure, we can handle things like this. If someone rises up proclaiming a right to rule, then someone else must rise up claiming the same to throw down such a ruler. We call those things civil wars, and they are nasty affairs. The Constitution of the United States was designed to allow us to overthrow our governments without blood. The reason why our past elected officials are not dead is because the Constitution of the United States saved their lives from the people who would organize and overthrow them.

Viewed this way, Eric Holder should be hiding behind the constitution the same way soldiers hide behind hard cover in a firefight. If he has some beef with the representative from Idaho, he should be citing article, section, and paragraph to explain why he gets to cover up the Fast and Furious scandal.

Of course, rational thought isn’t a strong suit among liberals like Eric Holder. It’s why they’re liberals in the first place.

Rep. Ryan’s Budget Plan: Not Enough

April 5, 2011

Rep. Paul Ryan has made a budget with cuts across the board and a reworking of the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid plans. Rep. Ryan is moving in the right direction. His plan, if implemented, will completely eliminate the national debt over time.

The sad truth is that even if the Ryan plan gets passed, signed off by the senate with only nominal changes, and signed by the president, we still won’t be out of the financial straits we are in. This is because all it takes is one drunken congress and we are back to square one. What we need to do is to make permanent changes to the budget process and federally administered programs.

I would start with a constitutional overview. Congress should try to justify every line item in the budget by tying it to a specific clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. If there is any doubt as to the constitutionality of the program, eliminate it with that reasoning. If you explain that the constitution is designed to protect the freedoms of the people by limiting the power of government, and that by violating those limitations the freedoms of the people are infringed, then you have a stronger argument than fiscal sanity.

Applying the constitution to the budget will result in dramatic cuts across the board. If we use this line of reasoning for every budget to be passed in the foreseeable future, then we will not have to worry about runaway spending ever again.

The End of the Unions?

February 25, 2011

Historically, unions have played an important role in American politics. In past decades, unions have been the single most powerful influencer of government at all levels, even surpassing the influence of industry and the people.

Our American system, however, has checks and balances that eliminate the power of even majorities imposing their unjust will on the minority. In this case, the unions were an unforeseen power that bled the treasuries across the country dry in order to perpetuate their fraud on the public.

Today, the unions are being eliminated as a political power. No longer will states stand idly by while unions transfer tax dollars to politician’s pocketbooks. We can see this because nothing the unions in Wisconsin can do can stop the republican legislature and governor. Everything they try simply reduces their influence and perception in the eyes of the public. I believe, here at home, a candidate could see a boost in their poll numbers if they simply declare solidarity with the people of Wisconsin, their elected government, and opposition to all public employee unions.

What is it that lead to the demise of the unions? Simply put, representative democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood that no system of government is perfect. All are subject to corruption, so famously summed up as “power corrupts”.

Governments exist to protect the rights of the people. Even if we demolished our government, new governments would spring up in their place. No matter where you go in the world, the vast majority of people are always willing to give up a few of their rights to secure themselves. We see it in families, companies, tribes, cities, states, and entire nations. The pattern can never be broken, because 2 people, working together, are always more powerful than 2 people working independently.

Our Founding Fathers did an unprecedented survey of world governments. From their unique position in history, they could accurately weight almost every form of government imaginable. Rather than choose only one form, they combined the best parts of each, and set the worst parts of each against each other. Our modern government is actually a hodge-podge of democracy, republicanism, dictatorship, thoecracy, feudalism, and every other form of government imaginable. To point out a few features, the people retain the power to overthrow government entirely (recognized in the Declaration of Independence); the people also have the power to overthrow the people within government, namely the house of representatives (democracy). The states and the people elect the members of the senate and the president, and laws are changed only according to their consent (republicanism), while the president retains all but absolute control over the execution of the law (dictatorship). At the same time, we have a judiciary that judges are law based on their unique interpretation of the law—not unlike a priest who declares to the people what the will of God is. Within American society, we belong to families, churches, societies, and companies. Each of these has a variety of forms of government, one more suited than the other. We are fine working under the tyranny of our CEO, but oftentimes prefer a more democratic approach to our congregations and societies. Of course, we try to balance one form of government against each other as best we can in our lives, just as the Founding Fathers did with our governments.

What set the unions apart was their unique ability to combine together to exploit weaknesses in our democratic and republic form of government. Just as our Founding Fathers expected, when a big enough group conspires together, our government will fall under their power.

However, just as the Founding Fathers anticipated, over time the party in power would alienate more and more members of society with their abuses of that power. We see that today the union has fallen to an all-time low in popularity because they have clearly been sucking our pocketbooks dry, and insist on extracting even more cash from the people to sustain their special interests.

And just like the Founding Fathers anticipated, a bloodless revolution was made possible when those opposed to the ruling party found enough compatriots to drive them out of office.

So here we are today, with the unions rapidly diminishing in power due to their own abuses of that power.

And tomorrow, we’ll see another group rise in power only to abuse that power, only to alienate enough people that they too will fall from power.

Those groups who can maintain power are those groups who truly protect the rights of the people as a whole. If the unions had not insisted on extracting ever more extravagant benefits for their people, but instead searched for and destroyed elements of our society that plagued the people by abusing their rights, as they originally insisted they would, we would all be happily ruled by the unions.

And that, my friends, is why America is great, and why America will always be great.

Why Corporations Need Unlimited Speech

January 25, 2011

There is a lot of absurd hubbub about the recent Supreme Court ruling (Citizen’s United) that says that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to speech. It’s obvious where the hubbub is coming from—those who want unions to get preferred treatment over other corporations.

To understand why corporations need unlimited speech (at least as much as individuals do), I want to tell a story. Let’s suppose that I, you, and a whole lot of other people get sick of political corruption. We decide we want to not only spend a lot of our own money to discover corruption wherever it is, but spend twice as much money as the candidates to expose the corruption when they run for office.

This certainly sounds reasonable! After all, if John Q. Citizen wants to spend all his free time following up on what the politicians are doing, he should be allowed to do so. If John Q. Citizen wants to buy a huge billboard spelling out why Politician X is corrupt and doesn’t deserve to be elected, he should be allowed to do so. Without this, we cannot function as a democratic republic.

What? You think we should be allowed to tell someone when they have said enough? You want to create a system where those routing out corruption are not allowed to outspend and out-speak the guilty and corrupt? Yes, the same rights and privileges afforded to those with noble intentions is awarded to those with ignoble intentions, but who, ultimately, can judge between the noble and ignoble? That’s what elections are all about.

If you agree that any individual should have unlimited speech, then let’s talk about what corporations really are. Let’s say John Q. Citizen is doing a really good job routing out corruption, but he could do more if he had a team of people working for him. This requires capital, of course, and he comes up with the ingenious idea of asking for money. He promises that 100% of the money you give him will go to pay those who are routing out corruption and run election ads against those who are corrupt.

Should the very fact that John Q. Citizen is cooperating with others disqualify his speech, or the speech of the group? Does it matter whether they appoint someone to be their CEO, someone to be their spokesman, someone to run the books, some people to be on the board, and so on and so forth?

The shallow arguments against corporate personhood sound reasonable on their face. But what they truly represent is an argument against individual liberty. That’s why communists and leftists love to use this shallow argument—they are fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.

Balanced Budget Amendment

January 17, 2011

Thomas Jefferson once stated that if he could make any change to the constitution it would be to deny congress the power to borrow money.  How much better off would we be today if Jefferson had his way?

A balanced budget amendment is not as straight forward as one would think.  We would have lost World War II without the power to borrow money.  Jefferson himself called congress into a special session when Napoleon Bonaparte offered to sell 828,800 square miles to the US for $15,000,000.  This was a good deal and Jefferson wanted to execute the purchase before France could change her mind.

Another thing to keep in mind are the shell games politicians play. When a state goes to the people to get approval for a state lottery or other revenue increasing scheme, they almost always include language stating that all the revenue raised will go to some virtuous cause, like schools or to care for the elderly.  This leads people to believe that the revenue raised will be on top of the revenue the schools (or other virtuous cause) already receives.  In fact this is never the case.  If the lottery raised $100,000,000 dollars for the schools it merely frees up $100,000,000 of education funds to go back to the general fund.  It just becomes more play money for the politicians. Any balanced budget amendment must prevent this.

One thing we do not wish to allow is perpetual debt.  We cannot allow congress to mortgage the future of unborn generations.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

1. The United States government shall have two budgets; one for national defense and one for everything else. The defense budget and the general budget shall have separate revenue streams. Revenue may be transferred from the general budget to the military budget; however, money shall be be transferred from the defense budget to the general budget.

2. Congress shall have power borrow money for national defense with a simple majority of both the house and the senate and with the signature of the President, upon the following conditions:

  • Congress has declared war.
  • Actually combat is taking place.
  • There is a draft and the children of congressmen are being drafted.

(The war has to be real.)

3. Congress shall have power to borrow money for the purchase of new territory, up to the purchase price of said territory) with a simple majority of both the house and the senate and with the signature of the President.

4. Congress shall have the power to borrow money for any other purpose with a simply majority approval of both the house and the senate, plus two percent for each consecutive year that the United States has carried a debt.

Explanation:

If the US was debt free and congress wished to borrow money they could do so with a 50% plus one vote majority in both the house and the senate. If they wished to borrow more money the next year and they had not paid the debt from the previous year, it would require a 52% majority.  If they had carried a debt for ten years then a 70% majority would be required.  If they carried a debt for twenty five years it would require a 100% majority, plus one vote to borrow more money.  The party is over.  At this point they cannot borrow any more money until all outstanding debts are paid off (unless they chose to purchase Siberia or they needed to finance a war).

Cross posted from A2 Curriculum

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA): “We have not been able to review [the constitution]

January 6, 2011

Rep. Jay Inslee, before the UNPRECEDENTED reading of the US constitution on the house floor: “We have not been able to review the exact language we will be reading today.” (link)

Democrats are on notice. The constitution exists, the language is not complicated, and the people demand compliance with its provisions.

Tyranny vs. Liberty

December 13, 2010

There are, ultimately, only two political philosophies.

One is “Government should take from one to give to another, thus making life better.”

The other is “Government should treat all equally, thus making life better.”

The first form of government is, obviously, unjust. Our communist, liberal, progressive, and even some conservative friends don’t understand this. If you view it in simple terms, however, it becomes quite clear. What right does anyone have to the property of another? Or put in terms of duties, why does anyone have a duty to provide for another?

The first form of government encourages people to seek power in government for the purpose of manipulating the system to their own advantage. Does that sound familiar? Those companies succeeding today are not necessarily successful because they are better than other companies, but because they have curried favor with the Obama administration and the democratic-controlled congress. They are, as democrats like to put it, part of the problem, but a problem created by the same polices that democrats support.

It’s like trying to eliminate ants by assaulting them with honey. Each onslaught brings only more ants, and the problem persistently grows worse.

Isn’t it obvious that by concentrating power, influence, and money in Washington DC that all the corrupt elements of our society would gravitate towards it? Isn’t it obvious that giving even more power, influence, and money to Washington DC only makes the problems worse?

The second form of government is inherently just, almost regardless of what the laws are, as long as everyone is treated the same. Someone trying to manipulate the system to their advantage would find it extraordinarily difficult. If they were successful in corrupting a part of the government such that it favored one group of people over another, this would be an anomaly, something that needs to be repaired by the elimination of it.

Suppose that rather than regulating Wall Street and bailing out banks and showing favoritism to some banks over another, the federal government simply said, “We’re out of the business of regulation, bail-outs, and favoritism. We don’t give a hoot which bank succeeds or fails, and we aren’t going to program any of our tax policies to encourage one behavior over another.”

What would be the natural reaction of the corrupt fat cats on Wall Street? They would leave Washington DC. There is nothing to manipulate there to their advantage. They can only succeed or fail based on their individual capacity to provide a greater service for a superior price to their customers.

Suppose they no longer hide behind the SEC and have to convince the American people that they are not manipulating the markets without government endorsement. What would it take to convince the American people, and having lost the trust of the American people, how would they ever gain it back?

This is what people don’t understand. Were it not for Washington DC’s meddling in the affairs of Wall Street, they would long ago have expelled their corrupt elements for fear of a backlash of the American people. If they could not do so successfully, Wall Street wouldn’t exist in anything like the form it enjoys today. If you really, really want to see the Wall Street Fat Cats go down, stop allowing them to use your name to endorse their actions through the SEC.

As for me, I want the federal government to retreat back to the hole wherein they should have been contained for a very long time. If the Federal Government only concerned itself with ensuring free trade between the states, setting a wise foreign policy and enforcing it, and fighting hostile powers until they surrender, then it would be a tiny fraction of the size it is today. Our federal tax burden would be virtually nil. And if Congress printed money the way our Founding Fathers intended, we wouldn’t have any national debt nor would we require one red cent in federal taxes. There might even be enough money to send to the states, a sort of negative tax, and eliminate taxes altogether from our country.

End Unemployment Benefits

November 16, 2010

Want to get a bunch of people employed?

Stop paying for their unemployment.

One of the programs that needs to be cut immediately is the unemployment programs administered by the federal government.

One the one hand, it’s a moral hazard. That means it’s paying people to do something that is not good for them. Paying people unemployment tells them that they need to remain unemployed.

On the other hand, it’s taking money away from employers that would be used either to increase wages or to hire more people.

If you want to have unemployment benefits, do so with your own money. Spend less than you earn until you have cash on hand to survive 3 months without a job. Then continue socking away money for your retirement. This way, you’ll not only have peace of mind, but you’ll be helping our economy grow and expand with your savings. See, real savings—money that could have been spent but was saved instead for the future—can be employed as real investment, creating real jobs that will be there after the next economic downturn. This is as opposed to the other kind of investment, investments made with speculation or false hopes. Investments made with savings that come from real people spending less than they earn is real investment and doesn’t upset the balance of our economy.

I understand that there are a lot of people who have hit rock bottom and can’t get a job. That’s why I’m volunteering my help through my church to those people. We have a program in place to not only help people get food, shelter, and clothing, but to see to it that they can get the skills they need to find a good job in today’s economy. You can approach and LDS church anywhere and ask for help, and the members there should guide you to our church welfare program.

This welfare program is not reserved for members alone, nor is it an proselyting tool. It is designed to help people in our communities, and has a track record that goes back over a hundred years.

There are other charities out there, too many to list or mention, that have similar aims.