Drunkenness as a Constitutional Defence - The Record editor - Sep 28, 1999 - by Randall F. More

September 28, 1999 

Letter to the Editor - The Record

RE: Drunkenness as a Defence

               

As reported in the September 24^th edition of The Record, an Ontario court judge, Judge Patricia Wallace, ruled that it would be unconstitutional for an accused not to be permitted to use drunkenness as a defence for a violent crime. This is truly a ridiculous ruling! For drunkenness to be considered a legitimate defence for assault, rape, murder, or any other heinous crime is absurd and makes a farce and mockery of our justice system and our constitution.

One of the most serious problems that we face in society today is that, children and adults alike, are increasingly freed from being held accountable for their behaviour and conduct. This recent ruling will certainly go a long way to perpetuate this already horrific and growing societal problem. (Apart from the more universal societal problem, such a ruling is also a travesty for the individual victims who are violated but where nobody becomes properly accountable for the crime.) Let’s get back to some common sense justice.

Yours truly

Randall F. More, P. Eng      

President Clinton Impeachment - U.S. Senators/Members of Congress - Feb 10, 1999 - by Randall F. More

February 10, 1999

Dear United States Senator/Congress Member

I write this letter as a request to you to vote to end Mr. Clinton’s time as President of the United States. (Mr. Clinton should have resigned his office voluntarily and failing that should have been encouraged to resign by congressmen, congresswomen, and senators.)

There is no doubt that the present day United States can survive the Clinton presidency. The most damaging impact, however, of any decision not to expel Mr. Clinton from the highest office in the land will not really be felt until the next generation, maybe not for fifteen or twenty years, when today’s children will be the nation’s educational, business, and political leaders. These children, who are now building their entire system of ethics and values, will have had as one of their ultimate models a President who not only indulged in morally repugnant behaviour but who lied to his family, deceived the American people, lied to the courts, and committed a felony by virtue of his perjury and yet was allowed to remain in office.

Any school principal, college president, military officer, court judge, or corporate company president would be immediately discharged from office for similar conduct. Certainly the President of the United States must be held to a higher standard, not a lower standard! Honesty, integrity, self-discipline, sexual purity, and respect for authority should reign supreme in each of our lives, but most especially in the life of the President. This President has fallen desperately short in each of these fundamental areas.   

Mr. Clinton does not believe that he should be removed from office because his actions do not jeopardize the liberties of the people and do not cause great damage to the nation. Quite to the contrary, Mr. Clinton’s conduct is likely more damaging than most acts of treason. No message could be more wrong or more long term damaging to the nation than to allow Mr. Clinton to remain in office.

It is farcical to have Mr. Clinton paraded on the world stage, an absolute embarrassment to himself and the nation, with all the world aware of his disgusting and reprehensible conduct. Sadly, Mr. Clinton has shown that no man could rightfully even trust his own daughter or wife to Mr. Clinton’s care and yet the welfare of the entire nation is entrusted to this man. There is indeed something seriously wrong! He has violated all normal trusts.

Mr. Clinton has always cast himself as the pro-woman, pro-family advocate and yet his adultery and deception dishonour not only his own wife and daughter and Miss Lewinsky, but all families, daughters, and women everywhere.

For Mr. Clinton to remain in office makes a mockery of the Office of the President, the justice system, the rule of law, and any basic sense of morality. If there is any constitutional impediment whatsoever to Mr. Clinton’s removal from office, it will only be because the framers of the Constitution could never have imagined conduct as abhorrent and disgraceful as that of Mr. Clinton in the highest office in the nation. The precedent that would be set by allowing Mr. Clinton to remain in office is truly horrifying. Lying, cheating, adultery, perjury, and other related conduct behaviour become the new and approved standard for husbands, fathers, and leaders everywhere.

If Mr. Clinton is not removed from office, another appalling precedent will be that there will never again ever be an impeachment of any President. The “hurdle” for performance, behaviour and conduct will have been set so low that even the most pathetic figure could get over it.

To their credit, we should not lose sight of the tremendous graciousness of the American people to forgive Mr. Clinton, but such forgiveness should not nullify the consequence of disqualification from national leadership.

I encourage you, as would millions of others around the world, to do what may not at the outset appear to be politically popular or expedient, but that which is right and proper and for the long term benefit and honour of the nation, to discharge Mr. Clinton from the Office of the President. I believe that ultimately all Americans will be winners as a result of such a decision! Please exercise the necessary leadership for your nation at this important time.

These comments are respectfully submitted for your consideration.

  

Yours truly

Randall F. More, P. Eng.

  

U.S. President Clinton - Gun Legislation - Dec 30, 1993 - letter by Randall F. More

December 30, 1993                                  

President Bill Clinton

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C.

U.S.A.       

20500

Dear Mr. President

Re: Gun Legislation

As I am sure you agree, it is horrifying for millions of people around the world to continually see the ongoing and never ending murder of human lives in your country.

I am sure, too, that you, and most, would agree that it is particularly a disgrace in the United States of America which is a nation which otherwise should be so free and noble and principled. On a per capita basis, there are 130 times more murders by guns in the United States than there are in Great Britain.

The situation is no less frightening in Canada. (My own brother, who was a partner of mine in business, and two other employees were murdered by shooting in 1992 by a disgruntled employee.)

Accolades were given for the recent passing of the Brady Bill, but really, especially after so many years of debate, with no impertinence intended, its potential accomplishments can only be considered minuscule at most.

Let’s put an end to the abhorrence. It’s an absurdity that Americans believe that they can protect their own lives by possessing their own guns. It, too, is ludicrous for citizens anywhere to think that they should and must have the right to bear arms. Whether this was true and right at any time in your nation’s history should no longer matter. If the Second Amendment of your constitution permitted citizens to bear bombs, would that make it right? No, and so it is with guns. But if it is too difficult or there is not the national will to ban guns in their entirety, I suggest a very simple and effective and inexpensive solution. With few minor exceptions, every citizen who chooses to own any gun of any sort should have his/her gun registered and safely kept in a local repository (possibly the local police station) to be checked out for short periods of time for legitimate use with very severe penalties for violators.

Oh sure, such a suggestion would be neither an instant nor a total solution, but it would have a phenomenal deterrent effect in helping to bring an end to the carnage. And, oh sure, many normal law abiding gun association members will raise their objections and there will no doubt be those who would still want to proudly display their marvelous gun collections over their mantles, but this solution would be a small price to pay and tiny inconvenience for the tremendous gains that would be made. I think Americans, like us all, must be prepared to forego some of our so called “rights” in exchange for a few responsibilities instead.

Murder, like any other wrong, begins within the human heart, but until we can change man’s heart, let’s change the laws to ones that are meaningful and substantial and honorable. It should now be clear that there is no honor in having the right to bear arms.

I encourage you to exercise the necessary leadership to effect such a change, promptly. Thank you.

  

Yours truly

Randall F. More, P. Eng.

Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney - God in Our Constitution - Apr 8, 1992 - by Randall F. More

April 8, 1992

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney

Prime Minister of Canada

Room 309-S

Centre Block

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Prime Minister

RE: Constitution

I understand that the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Constitution has recommended inclusion in the preamble to the Constitution meaningful references which acknowledge the supremacy of God over this nation and the importance of spiritual values.

I understand these references include:

"We affirm that our country is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God,..."

"We recognize that we remain free only when freedom is founded on respect for moral and spiritual values,..."

I wish to encourage you and to thank you in exercising your leadership to ensure that these appropriate, significant, and foundational references are properly included in our Constitution.

We are encouraged throughout Scripture to be in pursuit of these ideals and I include two references (taken from the Good News Bible):

  

"Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Psalms 33:12).

"A nation without God's guidance is a nation without order" (Proverbs 29:18).

Please be assured that many across this nation continue to uphold in prayer yourself and others in key leadership positions so that you may be given the grace and courage and confidence to make these God honouring decisions particularly as they affect our Constitution.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly

Randall F. More, P. Eng

cc The Right Honourable Joe Clark, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs

   The Honourable Walter McLean, P.C.,M.P., Waterloo North

   The Honourable John H. Reimer, P.C.,M.P., Kitchener

   Constitution Alert!

His Strength is My Strength - His Peace is My Peace - Upon Greg's Death - by Randall F. More

upon Greg’s Death

February 3, 1992

by Randall F. More

HIS STRENGTH IS MY STRENGTH

HIS PEACE IS MY PEACE

Your life in Christ makes you strong, and His love comforts you (Philippians 2:1 GNB).

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7 NASB).

The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things: and the God of peace shall be with you (Philippians 4:9 NASB).

I can do all things through Him who strengthens me (Philippians 4:13 NASB).

And with all His abundant wealth through Christ Jesus, my God will supply all your needs (Philippians 4:19 GNB).

May you be made strong with all the strength which comes from His glorious power, so that you may be able to endure everything with patience (Colossians 1:11 GNB).

Ontario Premier Rae - Provincial Austerity - Jan 27, 1992 - letter by Randall F. More

January 27, 1992        

Honourable Robert Rae, Premier of Ontario

Room 281

Legislative Building

Queen's Park

Toronto, Ontario

M7A 1A2

Dear Mr. Premier

It is with concern that I read the enclosed The Globe and Mail January 25th. article entitled, "NDP stalwarts urge Ontario to drop austerity program."

You certainly need no such advice.                  

As individuals, as families, as businesses, and as institutions we must learn to spend within our means and it is no different for governments.

Sure it would be nice during these tough economic times to increase deficit spending as an economic stimulus but only if we had been able to generate surplus funds during the many preceding prosperous years, but sadly this is not the case. Deficit spending is already out of control. We don't need more of it.

Even if increased deficit spending was the appropriate route at this particular time, the answer is not to have more "make work" projects but instead the money should be put back directly into the hands of Ontarians through cash payouts. Let the citizens decide where the money should be spent, whether it be for homes and shelter, food, clothing, transportation, or any other desired goods or services.

Let's get out from under this fallacious notion that there's such a thing as a "free ride" or a "free lunch." Let's get back to having what we can afford, spending within our means. Sure, we won't like it in the short term but we and our children will like the disastrous alternative far less.

Yours truly 

Randall F. More, P. Eng.

Ontario Premier Rae - Abortion and Homosexuality - Jan 24, 1991 - letter by Randall F. More