I had originally intended for the previous writing to be a lone
writing on the subject of The First Amendment. After I concluded that
editorial, I had a few more thoughts.
    In what context was the Declaration of Independence written? In what
context was the Bill of Rights conceived? Did the authors speak from the
century or more of foreign rule? Should we try to change our
interpretation to justify the degradation of ethics and morals in
society? If there was meant to be a complete separation of church and
state, why did the founding fathers refer to and rely upon divine
providence in the struggle with the British?
    From the Broadway play and Movie 1776, it is suggested and put forth
that the Declaration was intended to inform King George III of the
reasons why the colonies were carrying on an organized revolt. It then
leads one to believe that when freedom was won, the Bill of Rights was
written to correct and prevent any reverting to the previous form of
government. The injustices suffered were clearly listed in the former,
and were corrected in the latter. Or were they? I am not an alarmist or
conspiracy theorist, but the incidents with the Weaver's and others that
have recently been insinuated, have raised suspicions that the documents
intended to protect us from tyranny, are being ignored by those in
power. While we do have a police force which whose membership takes an
oath to protect and to serve, is sorely under manned and in some cases
out gunned.
    There are well meaning but misguided politicians and activists
who slowly take our rights away from us. Only some points of view are
allowed to be taught.  Free speech is allowed as long as it agrees with
your ideals. There are now laws in some cases, which practically
castrate a man for enjoying the sight of a beautiful woman. Have men
complained when they are looked at by a woman? Jobs for the past couple
of decades or so have been dished out to under qualified "minorities."
My idea on that is the Liberals are trying to make up for the fact that
the Republicans basically were the abolitionists and they were for the
most part, in favor of slavery. Hmmmm! Sounds like a guilt trip.
    I believe that men are discriminated against more than women. Why do
more men pay alimony than women? Are men the only ones who plow other
fields? Why do men pay higher auto insurance rates? Should legal action
result from saying "Hey baby ya got a nice rack on ya?" While that may
seem uncouth and tacky, I do not see anything saying that is illegal.
Last Sunday at the races in Loudon, there were some people who showed no
respect for the either the US or Canadian anthems. The majority, from my
vantage point, did for both. In some states, showing disrespect for the
flag will end one up in the emergency room. But noooooo. We have to
respect the rights of these treasonous cowards to show no patriotism.
All I received for my comment to them was a sneer. The rights that made
this the greatest country on earth are the ones being used to tear down
the ideals that many citizens fought and died for.
    Should we suspend civil liberties for a few days to get the known
criminals off the streets for good? Why do the accused receive more
compassion and benefits than the victims? I once stated that in the
state I used to live in, that if they started using the electric chair,
I would pay the bill for the first one executed. The same goes for NH.
The form of capital punishment in NH used to be death by hanging. It was
changed not too long ago to lethal injection. I will pay for the first
one if some state legislators find the guts to finally start eliminating
the convicted murderers, even if I have to make installments from my SS
disability payments. Abolish parole for inmates convicted of violent
crimes.
    It seems that these liberal humanists get their hands on the prison
system and conclude that evil doesn't exist and the correctional
residents (prisoners) are just victims. Since when do you get to perform
any form of evil imagined and get free board, room, health care, and
educational benefits? The prisoners, in many cases, live better than
their victims, those that aren't dead. Hell, I am surprised that the
inmates haven't been allowed to unionize and hold the system hostage
through collective bargaining. Our motto of this great state is "Live
Free or Die." Seems anymore that it should be "Live Free after I Kill."
    Why is it that some of the cities with the most stringent gun laws
also have some of the highest crime rates? Does taking the gun from the
homeowner and travelling business man prevent crime? Why are non-lethal
forms of protection such as stun guns outlawed? I am in no way a racist,
but some "minorities" use the left leanings of the system to literally
get away with murder. So what if they came from poor households. It
isn't a persons financial status that indicates which way his life will
go. Some of the most humble beginnings have developed some of the most
accomplished men and women. Some states such as Vermont and Arizona, I
believe, allow the citizens to walk around with a non concealed weapon.
That should be a deterrent to most sensible folks.
    There are no simple solutions. Vice President Quayle got verbally
castrated for railing on Hollywood for producing programs that go
against family values. It is easy to say that families should stay
together. When people selfishly put their needs above those of others
and take no responsibility for their actions, the family value system
will continue to deteriorate. I have said it once and I will say it
again, some previous scholar stated that "With Freedom Comes
Responsibility."

                                                 William H Ford

                                                 August 23, 1995