Justin Jelincic

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for the ‘Bill of Rights’ Category

Keeping the government out of Religious activities

leave a comment »

It seems to me that many of the progressives speak out of both sides of their mouth.

With one side they say there needs to be a strong, clear line of separation of Church and State,  but then they champion the government taking on Religious activity, and weakening the houses of worship in the process.

Perhaps their motives are pure, and reflect their view that the Religions in America are failing in their obligations to show charity, but their actions undermine the very institutions that should be providing charity.

When Pastors, Bishops, Rabbis, or other religious leaders ask their flock to get aid from the government, instead of , or in addition to, the religious family, something is wrong.   Wrong with religion, and wrong with government.

The government plays a valid role in creating insurance pools to share risk, but not in offering charity.  Call the subsidies what you will, but if they are handouts of cash, to, or on behalf of, individuals or companies, based on need, and not insurance contract, it is charity.   Payments in excess of the contract obligations, are charity.

FDR provided employment opportunities in the WPA and other programs to give dignity and pay for work, not handouts of charity.  Today the progressives give charity, not dignity, and they borrow from the grandchildren to give that charity.

I for one think that families and the houses of worship are better suited to give intelligent, and appropriate charity.

Government programs should offer compensation for work, or payouts that are supported by insurance purchases.  The government should not steal the dignity of the citizens by telling them they can’t survive without government handouts.

In the extreme, when the government becomes a charity institution,  it has established itself as a religion. When the Federal government establishes itself as a religion, it violates the first amendment prohibition.

Free citizens should be told to put their faith in God,  family, or humanity, but not in the government.


Written by Justin Jelincic

May 8, 2014 at 8:51 pm

Righteousness or politics?

leave a comment »

Listening to the Progressives from my party, in their “righteous anger” over guns being used to kill children, and you would think that they want to protect children, even if they had to tread on the Bill of Rights a bit to do so.  To those with political agendas, protecting the children should come at any cost, even adults surrendering their constitutional rights.   But then, with the next breath, they advocate burying children in the burden and misery of debt, so that adults can have government “charity rights”.

How odd?  They would weaken the Bill of Rights, but at the same time create entitlements rights that have not been adopted by the Congress and the States.

I wish there was enough integrity in Washington and the State Houses, to say, what they really mean, that politics, not righteousness, rules their decision making.  

It would be grand to have a President, or leader of the Party, be consistent to a principled position, instead of to a political one.

That’s what I’m thinking tonight.

Written by Justin Jelincic

January 17, 2013 at 10:37 pm

FAT Governmental analogy – Being overweight is a BIG problem

leave a comment »

I work for a health care company. Our economic indicators show the long term impact of an increasingly overweight population.

Members of our party have taken on the issues of poor food quality delivered in our school cafeterias, and the junk food industry. This is an issue to be addressed as it is impacting current and future generations. Members of our party have taken on the issues of physical inactivity as well as food selection. Let’s Move!

There seem to be two ways our party members want to address this issue. Take away the opportunities for citizens to make bad choices, or encouraging citizens to make good choices through education.

It is reported that Michelle Obama told Topanga Sena, a young Scholastic News reporter, that ‘Let’s Move!’ is “not about having government tell people what to do, because government doesn’t have all the answers.” It would be good if party leaders focused on this reality.

We do NOT have all the answers, NOR do we have the power to force people to eat broccoli. We need to become a party that educates citizens on the short and long term impacts of being overweight. Eating that YUMMY fast food, drinking that sweet soda, sitting long hours at the computer to engage in social media, or play games that exercise our brains and fingers, but not our heart, lungs, and mussels.

75,000 fans in the stands, and millions on the couch, watching a limited few exercise is not a healthy recipe for our country. We need to personally engage in order for this to change. Government prohibition will not work. Government force, coercion, and manipulation will not work. We individually need to choose better. We each need to exercise for ourselves. EACH ONE OF US needs to be the one who initiates change in our own lives. EACH one needs to take responsibility for himself. As JFK would have said, “ask not what the government can do for you” but ask what you need to do for yourself.

Fast food, televised sports, and social media may provide short term pleasure, but it has short term consequences that grow worse over time. We need to WARN the population of the problem, and create opportunities for different choices that will lead to better personal and societal outcomes.

HOWEVER personal weight is not the ONLY issue we need to educate the population about. Poor short term choices, by our party leaders, ARE also leading to short and long term consequences.


WE should be the Party that speaks to the choices of a bloated, overweight government. We should be the party that challenges citizens to exercise their voice in the political area. We should be the party who teaches personal accountability. We should be the party, who looks to “teach how to fish” rather than giving daily fish handouts.

Bloated government leads to a sluggish economy. Bloated government leads to greater dependency on government. As the number of people working for government grows, the number of people looking to the government to spend more on payroll and benefits (self interest), increases, and the Political Action Committees apply pressure to “feed me”.

When the issue of fast food was first being attacked in the SF Bay Area, the news media carried comments from single parents saying “I come home tired, I don’t want to have to cook, the kids want fast food, it’s what I can afford, what else can I do?” The days of cooking healthy food from scratch are going for an entire generation. The next generation will only be worse. My daughters got the pleasure of home cooked meals. They learned to cook. They like to cook. Their stories suggest that their peers did not learn the joy of cooking, but the joy of eating out.

When LBJ’s great society effort started they seemed a logical step, but they started us down the road of bloated government. They started us down the road of the Federal government, taking on the role of Religious institutions. Undermining the role of Religion in our society, lead to a less moral society. Some churches seem to have stopped asking their congregations to support the poor, and instead look to the government to do this vital work. A bloated government makes this issue grow.

As we know, bloated government can be in more than just the social issues our party champions. Bloat occurs when the government does what is should not do. Grossly overpaid contracts happen everywhere I guess. Last night’s news (05/25/2012) was filled with the news of corruption, even at the Vatican, with overpriced contracts, with kickbacks (?) being exposed. The news reported that rather than looking to clean up this problem, the first effort was to arrest the whistle blower.

We need to see bloat and remove it. We need to avoid becoming like Europe, with government employee protests, leading to closing down the nation, and preventing the government from doing the right thing.

WE SHOULD BE the party who elects statesmen, not politicians, and lead the way back toward a thin, trim and fit government, before we come to an untimely end, from the excess fat, clogging our economic arteries. We have members of the party who both see, and are willing to speak the truth. We need to elect them. If you see PAC money supporting a candidate, vote for someone else.

I am the only Democrat in the CA 13th congressional district race who has not taken PAC money. I will represent you, not the PAC’s. I will advocate putting the US government on a diet to return to health. I will not start it to death, but I will not try to get it healthy by feeding it more.  The time to get healthy is now.   The time to address the issue is now.   The time for change is now.

Please consider voting for a healthy choice.  

Do some government programs violate the first amendment?

leave a comment »

2 Corinthians 12: 14 …”For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.”

Do some government programs violate the first amendment?  I think when the government puts in place policies that are contrary to the religious texts, one must at least ask the question.

Our underfunded social programs, that tax children and grandchildren to provide for parents and grandparents, seem to be in violation of principles the scriptures have put forward. The programs themselves seem to place the government, instead of the family and religion, in the place of safety net.

I believe “The Great Society” has weakened the strength of the religious institutions.  Religious leaders now look to the government to fund social programs, rather than their members.  The widows mite is no longer given to the temple, but rather it is sometimes taken by the government.

How far is too far?  When does the government involvement in charity programs, become a religious activity that is prohibited by the first amendment? 

I know we have slid slowly down the pathway.  Step by step, the government has done more, and the houses of worship have done less.   If the current state of government charity, was put forward in ONE package, in 1792, would the founders, who understood their intent in the words of the Bill of Rights, have soundly and clearly said: “This violates the Bill of Rights we just adopted.”?  

I think they might.  I think we all at least need to ponder the question, even if it is an uncomfortable question.

 The anti-Federalist were concerned that without a bill of right to limit the Federal powers, the Federal government would trample their rights.   As one site says: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ 

“The House approved 17 amendments. Of these 17, the Senate approved 12. Those 12 were sent to the states for approval in August of 1789. Of those 12, 10 were quickly approved (or, ratified). Virginia’s legislature became the last to ratify the amendments on December 15, 1791. The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power.”

Without the courts upholding the Bill of Rights, the Federalist can, and will, use excess government power.  We need to ask, “have they exceeded their power and authority?”  and if we think they have, we need to elect others who are willing to represent US, not special interests, and restore our God-given freedoms.


Written by Justin Jelincic

April 22, 2012 at 9:10 pm