Welcome to
Michael Burns' Political Blog!

I have posted my resume online at:

• Professional Resume of Michael A. Burns

For those of us in North Orange County, specifically Yorba Linda and north-east Anaheim, our commute is going to be tough for the next several months. The south-bound lanes of Imperial Highway between Orangethorpe and La Palma will be closed for up to 4 months starting Friday.

Read more about the closure in the OC Register article here.

We learned in the previous article that we have a Republican form of Government, a government ruled by law. The basis of our Government is held in the words found in the Declaration of Independence.

"... they are 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 powers from the consent of the governed ..."

And, this forms the basis of my political beliefs! From these words, I have developed the "Three P's of Government" which define the proper role of government.

Three P's of Government
Protect Life - The government must protect the citizens it represents.
Preserve Liberty - The government must preserve the freedoms of it's citizens.
Permit the Pursuit of Happiness - The government must allow it's citizens to pursue happiness.

I apply each of these to a government action to determine whether the action is appropriate or not. If the action is in opposition to any of them, then the action is inappropriate. In most cases, an action will apply to at least two of these. For example, let's take the issue of banning fireworks, something that is very common in Southern California.

Protect Life - Banning fireworks does protect life and property. This very reason is why the bans were proposed.

Preserve Liberty - Banning fireworks takes away a freedom. Law-abiding citizens are no longer free to use fireworks if they so choose.

Permit the Pursuit of Happiness - Banning fireworks does not really apply here. One could stretch it and say that the ban prevents them from "being happy", but that is not what is meant by "pursuit of happiness".

So, "banning fireworks" is not appropriate because it takes away a freedom from it's citizens even though it may protect lives and property.

Now, this seems pretty simplistic and limits the role of government. And, that is exactly the point. The role of government in our daily lives must be limited and, applying the "Three P's of Government" consistently, we can achieve that.

Merry Christmas to all!

May your day remind you of the joy we have in the Lord!!!

I am using a new blog at http://michaelburns1963.wordpress.com. It is much easier to post articles to.

I am also in the process of moving my website to http://www.michaelburns.name. Unfortunately, I am not able to spend much time working on it, so it will take some time before it is "fully functional".

Please use these new sites to keep up with my thoughts on the issues that interest me - and hopefully you!

Yes, it's cliché, but it's the truth. Jesus is the reason for the season!

So, as we begin this Christmas season, listen to the song below and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

Because, it's called Christmas With A Capital "C" -- Go Fish Guys

Finally, someone else is putting forward the idea I suggested here, the idea of getting the State out of the marriage business. Read the opinion piece by Douglas W. Kmiec's titled "A proposal for compromise on Prop. 8".

Essentially, the idea is to eliminate marriage licensing by the State and replace it with a civil union. The civil union will have all the same rights and benefits that the State confers to marriage today. No ceremony is required to establish a civil union, only the completion and filing of the proper paperwork.

Then, the religious institutions will be free to perform marriage ceremonies for whom they choose.

And, more importantly, those who believe the act of homosexuality is wrong will retain their First Amendment right to state their belief in the public square, whether they are an individual or a religious institution.

Let's hope this idea gains momentum and actually get's pushed through the legislative process.

I have stated before (here and here) that the goal of the gay activists is not tolerance, but utter acceptance.

Tolerance is defined as:

• a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own [dictionary.com]
  


• the endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; [dict.org]
  

The following references clearly show that tolerance is not what the gay activists are seeking. The articles relate how the gay activists are punishing those who supported Proposition 8.

• 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban
  


• Gays Hit Back at Mormons
  


• Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood
  


• Prop. 8 victors upset by personal attacks
  


• CMT artistic director quits in fallout from Prop. 8 support
  


• Prop. 8 supporters suffer harassment, assaults from homosexual activists
  


• The Hypocrisy of the Tolerance Movement
  


• The Proposition 8 Blacklist
  

And, as I stated before and provided examples of here, once they have redefined marriage, there will be efforts to indoctrinate our children, force churches to perform their ceremonies, and silence all opposition!

For your reference, here is the current definition of marriage from two separate sources. I have placed the wording here rather than simply linking to the definition in order to preserve them.

• The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [dictionary.com]
  


• The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife [dict.org]
  

Fact:

The number of States having amended their Consitution to preserve the definition of marriage as defined above is now 30. [NYTimes] [The Heritage Foundation]

Alan Bock suggests in the entry "Why license so much" on the Orange Punch liberty blog that the government licensing everything that is licensed is nothing more than a means to generate revenue. The suggestion is that licensing in no way really protects us.

I have to say that I agree that most of the things the government licenses serve no purpose other than generating revenue for the government.

What purpose does it serve to license a dog? Why not cats, mice, birds, rabbits, snakes or any other “pet”?

What purpose does it serve to license a car or a boat? Is the car or boat “safer” becuase it is licensed? Am I safer because the car or boat is licensed? No!!!

What purpose does it serve to license a fisherman or hunter? Neither have to “prove” their skill. One merely fills out a form and “bingo”, they are licensed.

What purpose does it serve to license a marriage? None! Yes, there is the blood test to ensure “genetic” compatibility should the couple decide to have children. But, a bad test will not result in a denial of a license.

All of the above clearly generate revenue yet provide no “benefit” to society or those being licensed. So, why do we allow the government to impose those licenses on us?

Now, like I said above, only most things we license are serve no purpose. Some do, especially those that require demonstrating expertise in the area in which the license applies.

For example …

A lawyer must pass the “bar exam” in order to be licensed to practice law. While there still is the possibility of getting a “shady” lawyer, we know that they understand the legal system if they are licensed.

A driver, pilot or skipper must demonstrate a general ability to operate the vehicle they are being licensed for. In most cases, their age and eyesight are also verified before they obtain a license. In my mind, this does serve a purpose, ensuring that those operating a car, plane or boat are minimally capable of doing such.

It is clear that in most cases, licensing is nothing more than another means to extract money from the citizenry. We need to push back on the government at all levels when it comes to licensing. We need to require them to demonstrate a clear and beneficial purpose for the license.

Once again, the gay rights advocates are attempting to use the Court system to further their agenda in opposition to the citizens of this State. Three (3) separate lawsuits have been filed in an attempt to overturn the passage of Proposition 8.

Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8

UPDATE: Victory for Prop. 8 theatened by uncounted votes, lawsuits