Joe Meglen

Joe Meglen 1 week, 4 days ago on Colby Townsend: Deciding to shop local

Lower the sales tax rate and locals will buy locally. This is better for the merchants and local residents alike. Doing so will result in increased sales that are less seasonal. According to the Laffer Curve this is likely to produce equal or greater tax revenue to the City. If not, eliminate non essential City departments. There are several to choose from.

0

Joe Meglen 1 month, 2 weeks ago on District Attorney’s Office investigation into irregular transactions ongoing

Brita,

GREAT WORK on discovering the "Irregular Transactions" at the Treasurer's office. The timing of the article in the PILOT is excellent. Too bad it wasn't published a week earlier.

I want to be the first to congratulate you on your win November 4th.

0

Joe Meglen 1 month, 3 weeks ago on David Ihde: 27 amendments

David,

A great letter backed by facts. Mr. Farquhar “may” think twice before posting another letter (rant) supported only by his world view and belief system.

0

Joe Meglen 1 month, 3 weeks ago on Brodie Farquhar: History check

Chris,

I am traveling with limited access to the Internet. This is posted on both threads to make sure you see it. In respose to your questions for me:

Again, voting regulations were not established by the Constitution. This was left up to the states. If you are asking for my opinion, then there is an argument to only allow property owners, and/or those that earn an income, to vote in order to prevent confiscation of property via mob rule democracy. Of course this ship sailed years ago.

The amendment process is obviously constitutional for this is codified in the Constitution. There is a difference between unalienable rights and “legal” rights.

The Bill Of Rights is a list of Natural Rights which free people are born with. These rights are unalienable. They are not subject to being repealed by constitutional amendment. The whole point of the Constitution is to acknowledge these individual rights and establish a strictly limited federal government that has the primary purpose of protecting individual liberty. Government lacks the jurisdiction to remove these rights via legislation or constitutional amendment. Unalienable rights existed before the Constitution and they will exist long after the Constitution is gone.

You are mistaken when you state that of the 33 Amendments:”you are required as a citizen to respect each and every one of them.” You are suggesting that citizens submit and obey no matter how unjust the Amendment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the states, and ultimately the people, to understand the actual meaning of the Constitution. This is not complicated when it is interpreted as written which was the Founder’s original intent. Statists would have you think otherwise. The federal government is the employee of the states. Unconstitutional laws may be nullified via the 10th Amendment. Constitutional amendments that a breach the original intent can be ignored and preferably repealed. Two possible candidates would be the 16th and 17th Amendments for these are in conflict with the intent of the Constitution. This is all part of the checks and balances. Of course holding the leviathan in check requires informed moral citizens that elect principled representatives that honor their oath of office.

0

Joe Meglen 1 month, 3 weeks ago on Joe Meglen: Is Constitution relevant?

Chris,

I am traveling with limited access to the Internet. If you are still following this thread, in response to your questions:

Again, voting regulations were not established by the Constitution. This was left up to the states. If you are asking for my opinion, then there is an argument to only allow property owners, and/or those that earn an income, to vote in order to prevent confiscation of property via mob rule democracy. Of course this ship sailed years ago.

The amendment process is obviously constitutional for this is codified in the Constitution. There is a difference between unalienable rights and “legal” rights.

The Bill Of Rights is a list of Natural Rights which free people are born with. These rights are unalienable. They are not subject to being repealed by constitutional amendment. The whole point of the Constitution is to acknowledge these individual rights and establish a strictly limited federal government that has the primary purpose of protecting individual liberty. Government lacks the jurisdiction to remove these rights via legislation or constitutional amendment. Unalienable rights existed before the Constitution and they will exist long after the Constitution is gone.

You are mistaken when you state that of the 33 Amendments:”you are required as a citizen to respect each and every one of them.” You are suggesting that citizens submit and obey no matter how unjust the Amendment. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the states, and ultimately the people, to understand the actual meaning of the Constitution. This is not complicated when it is interpreted as written which was the Founder’s original intent. Statists would have you think otherwise. The federal government is the employee of the states. Unconstitutional laws may be nullified via the 10th Amendment. Constitutional amendments that a breach the original intent can be ignored and preferably repealed. Two possible candidates would be the 16th and 17th Amendments for these are in conflict with the intent of the Constitution. This is all part of the checks and balances. Of course holding the leviathan in check requires informed moral citizens that elect principled representatives that honor their oath of office.

0

Joe Meglen 1 month, 4 weeks ago on Brodie Farquhar: History check

Travel makes this post less than timely but still appropriate.

Mr. Farquhar, Your letter starts with, and is, an ad hominem attack. You lost any credibility you "may" have had after your first sentence.

0

Joe Meglen 2 months ago on Joe Meglen: Is Constitution relevant?

Chris H.,

Thank you for your comment.

My letter is intended to reach those that retain the ability to think for themselves after passing through the indoctrination centers called the public school system and being exposed to a lifetime of propaganda from the controlled corporate “news” media.

Your comment on women’s suffrage provides the opportunity to expound on an issue that can not be completely covered within the space allowed in the PILOT’s Letter To The Editor policy.

The original Constitution did not establish who could vote. This was left to the states. State voting policies generally restricted voting to landowners to avoid the redistribution of wealth via mob rule democracy from those that have to those that have less. Many states allowed women and free slaves to vote if they met the property ownership restriction.

Scott W.,

Thank you for your “living document” comment for it allows me to dispel yet another myth espoused by “Progressives” to justify dismantling the Constitution. Your statement that the Constitution is a “living document” written in general principles allowing the courts to decide how those principles should be applied in specific situations is patently false. When the writings of the Founders are examined it is clear that the Constitution is to be interpreted precisely as written. Every word that is included was carefully selected. Statists, socialists (Progressives), collectivists use every twisted bit of legal logic imaginable in an attempt to change the actual meaning of the Constitution to suite their own anti-American agenda.

In closing I repeat something from one of my earlier posts that applies here: “Collectivism is a mental condition that causes free people to voluntarily enslave themselves…”

0

Joe Meglen 2 months, 1 week ago on Paula Salky: Anthem deserves respect

Chris,

For once we agree.

To learn real history we must be inquisitive and think for ourselves. We must not take what is taught by those that control the school system and Academia at face value. Math used to be an exception but with the new Common Core curriculum not even math is exempt from the state’s collectivist influence. Paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte: “Those that win the wars write history.” Quoting Josef Stalin: “Education is a weapon; whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and whom it is aimed.” In 1969, at age 20, finding myself enslaved against my will at Ft. Ord I had the good fortune to come to know a well informed Drill Sergeant from Alabama. At 20 years I did not yet quite have a brain but the beginnings of critical thinking started to manifest. In spite of what I had been taught in public (government) schools it began to dawn on me that the federal government may not have my best interests at heart. During a discussion about the “Civil War”, the War of Northern Aggression from the Southern point of view, my Alabama Drill Sergeant introduced me to the concept of state’s rights and how these rights are fundamental to the preservation of the Constitution, and of course the Constitution is primarily about preserving freedom of the individual. The subject fascinated me and I have been researching it ever since, well before the Internet.

You are correct, with a few notable exceptions. This…”History is not taught in schools, Colleges or Universities.” The master prefers to teach their subjects what they want them to know. No more and no less.

0

Joe Meglen 2 months, 1 week ago on Paula Salky: Anthem deserves respect

A small correction. The original stiff arm salute used during the pledge of allegiance “may have” been influenced by the Roman Army salute but his is not proven. Both Hitler and Stalin greatly admired Abraham Lincoln for his total disregard for the Constitution and his ability to crush descent with brute force. Hitler admired the “Bellamy” salute and adopted it for the Nazi Party.

This history is of course not taught in government schools.

0

Joe Meglen 2 months, 1 week ago on Paula Salky: Anthem deserves respect

Eric,

You make some excellent points. However, your comments may have been better directed at the pledge of allegiance rather than the National Anthem. It is the difference between the country that was and the country we have today. Following Lincoln’s unconstitutional war on the South that crushed state’s rights, and effectively overthrew the Constitution, the pledge of allegiance was written by the socialist (they weren’t called “progressives” or fascists in 1892) Frank Bellamy. The key words: “the republic”, “one nation” and “indivisible” are cited as a daily mantra by public school students. The purpose is to condition the students to think of the United States as a single nation state with centralized power rather than the Founders vision of a voluntary confederation of sovereign states. While citing the original pledge of fidelity to the single nation state students faced and saluted the flag using the “Bellamy salute, similar to the “Hail Caesar” salute of the Roman Empire and later adopted by Hitler as the Nazi salute.
This brings to mind Lenin’s quote: “Give me four years to train the children and the seed I’ve sown will never be uprooted.” A pledge of allegiance to the principles upon which the United States were founded; freedom and individual liberty would be far more appropriate than a pledge to the American Empire that is in opposition to individual freedom. This comment will no doubt create cognitive dissonance from some.

0

Prev