Archive | June, 2013

This is a sad day

26 Jun

1962 Supreme Court decision took prayer out of our schools. This action was brought about by someone that didn’t believe in God and wanted their child not to be exposed to such prayerful activity. The truth is that if they didn’t want to pray they didn’t have to do so. Also even if someone held a gun to their head, no one can make a student listen to what is being said. If that were a possibility I would favor teachers having guns just to get the students attention. I have said many times that if you don’t believe and don’t want to believe, I will pray for your, but what I do should not make any difference to the unbeliever.

I don’t remember the word prayer being given a legal definition. Everyone just assumed that we all knew what it was and it just didn’t need to have a definition. Prayer is a private conversation between one person and their God. If I am involved in a public prayer the person leading the prayer cannot pray in my place. They can pray for me, but that can’t pray in my place. I have to do that myself.

I don’t want to infringe on anyone else’s religion, so they should have the right to pray by themselves or not pray. However if they say that I can’t pray any time or anywhere I want, they are infringing my right to honor my God. In that situation the state is trying to force me to become non religious. Nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase ‘separation of church and state’. This is a phrase that is repeated by representatives of our government and the media constantly that simply does not exist.

Later the court decided that you could pray but not out loud. These actions were brought about by a suite from the right which was badly orchestrated and didn’t go far enough to correct the wrong done years before.

Religious symbols on public property was also a problem. We could not display a manger scene, but we could have the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court Building. We have a chaplain in congress. This is another mixed signal that is sent down by the Supreme Court. In none of the cases above is the problem clearly identified before a solution is rendered.

In Roe vs Wade the court decided that they knew when life begins instead of leaving that definition to the expert scientists. The Court decided that didn’t begin until the second trimester. Another short sited decision.

Now the Court has legitimized Gay Marriage. Again they didn’t identify the definition of marriage. Marriage throughout time has been the union of a man and woman for the purpose of producing a child. All married couples didn’t produce children, but the equipment was there. Women produce eggs and men produce sperm. This is the natural way of things. The court did not define they thing they were trying to control. I am not saying that gay unions should not be legitimatized but not as marriage.

I have heard the argument that our values have changed. Our values haven’t changed. Values are what they have always been. We have just allowed the devil’s goals to replace our values. My Lord God can take this country away from us in an instant. Our values have to be His values, or there are not values.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU THINK

24 Jun

I just wrote the Supreme Court a note that said they should thing more broadly when considering the decisions they hand down.  I was especially referring to abortion, ethnic problems such as Affirmative Action, and gay marriage.

 

For instance abortion is simply a matter of deciding when human life begins.  The court made a decision that life begins after the first trimester.  There was no way they could have possibly known when life begins.  At the time the decision was handed down there was not enough knowledge about pregnancy to determine when that is.  If the decision was handed down that said that abortions were illegal except in the defense of the life of the mother and left the determination of when that moment is to the scientific experts, an abortion would now be anytime after the fourth day the egg is impregnated by the sperm and the organizer shows up. 

 

However, because the Supreme Court determined that they are God, this decision stands to this day.  Should it take another case to revisit this travesty or could Congress make a law that says life begins when the AMA says it begins based on good solid Intel that could be revised further as me know more. 

 

In the case of Affirmative Action, again the Court handed down an absolute ruling that covered the minorities.  It was so ill-thought out that it has caused everyone that is in any way subject to any odd activity to be able to use this to challenge decisions.  Using the law to micromanage situations such as these is a message from the workers of these United States that we refuse to negotiate without government stepping in to take the load.  However there are many (I would say the majority) of those people with grievances not being serviced by these decisions.

 

The decision does not protect the majority.  As system that would protect the majority would be a group that would protect the whistle blower and the employees that are being treated badly.  The ACLU would be a good source, but they only want cases that promote their agenda that usually does not have anything to do with the protection of the subject.  The federal government cannot micromanage every citizen plus every company and every decisions maker inside those companies.

 

Laws passed by Congress and rulings handed down by the Supreme Court have in common the ambiguousness in laws and rulings that have to be interpreted by courts instead of the experts in the field ruled upon.

 

Another example is the gay marriage situation.  To say that  gay marriage is legal because gay is a sect is like saying that drug addicts should be able to take drugs with no consequence because they cannot help it, or a person should be able to smoke anywhere they want because they have a habit.  If a person is gay they are gay.  They should have equal rights under the law to protect each other from undue financial problems, but to say they need marriage to do these is nuts.

 

The gays have imposed their will on me and cheapened the sanctity of my marriage.  They have stepped on my religious rights by taking from my bible the word marriage and making is something that my God says is despicable.  They have just crossed the line of dictating to me that I have to abide the concept of gay marriage even though it is specifically not allow in my religion.

 

In these cases the state legislators have said to God we know better than you.  We will do what we want.  I would be afraid to say to God such a thing. 

 

The Declaration of the Constitution says that I am endowed with certain inalienable rights, which among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I AM NOT HAPPY WITH THESE LAWS AND RULINGS.

Privacy Protection and Treason

18 Jun

The discussion about privacy in all cases I have heard even from Congress and other political persons concern the symptoms instead of focusing on the real discussion of protecting the rights and safety of our citizens.  I don’t understand why we have been, as a people, put in a position of protecting terrorist and other criminals above the welfare of the citizens.  First we should determine if the laws protect law abiding citizens from harm. 

 

Don’t misunderstand accused citizens have rights which generally are stepped on my all law enforcement agencies.  This is another point and should be discussed separately.

 

If a person or persons plot to overthrow the government, kill one or more individual citizens whether in country or citizens in foreign countries, these persons should be considered terrorist.  At the point the plot exists, the citizenship of the perpetrators should never protect them from retaliation from our government.  Whatever it takes to protect the innocent citizens should be on the table. 

 

It is the plot or declaration that should make the difference.  If a person says to another person, “I am going to kill you or your family, or otherwise bring harm to them or their assets.”  The declarer just announced a plot to do harm to someone else.  At this point in time these people are declared not to have done anything yet.  This is a lie.  They have probably struck fear in the heart of the recipient of the declaration.  If this can be cohobated the declarer should be arrested as a terrorist.  That is an act of terror whether domestic or foreign.  The person could be reacting and not proactive, but this can be sorted out in the investigation.  

 

Most all domestic crime is money oriented.  In general people either want something someone else has or are taking advantage of people in secret.  There are the killings of rage and robbery killings.  There are the killings that are caused from drugs and other crime related causes which could fall into the definition of a plot.  Targeted killings whether domestic or foreign are a different category.  These are people either foreign or domestic that have decided to kill, maim, or otherwise violently disrupt our way of life.  I my opinion these people have renounced their citizenship. 

 

As a naturalized citizen that has taken an oath to uphold the constitution or a natural born citizen that is bound by the oath your fathers or even ancestors took to make this nation an independent republic, we have agreed to live by the laws of the United States “inadvisable with liberty and justice for all” which we all say when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.  Once we ignore the principles of the Constitution of the United States, we should not expect to be protected by them.

 

For instance Edward Snowden is a traitor.  He has and/or is putting the wellbeing of many people at risk.  This is a plot to undermine the principals of our government.  Instead of pussyfooting around, this man should be apprehended and summarily executed. No one can undo what he has done, but there should be no way he should be able to justify his actions.  He is not a whistleblower.  He is a traitor.  A whistleblower brings some wrong to the attention of those that can do something about the plight of injustice they have discovered.  Clearly not enough protection is given whistleblowers for they serve a very useful purpose and should be compensated for what they have done.

 

The problem seems to be what should be controlled by the states and what should be controlled by the federal government.  As soon as it is discovered that a crime either planned or committed is discovered or simply executed that is indiscriminately planned or carried out, the activity should be declared terrorism and be tried under the laws of treason.  As soon as the act is classified terrorism and/or treason the federal laws should prevail.

 

There are many examples of this type of crime. Now with the internet becoming a tool, we cannot allow the abuse of the internet unless it is regulated properly.

 

When the internet became available to the public and the search areas included finding people you wanted to find, it was basically free to all.  As the money hungry people began to see the possibility of making a profit from this great tool.  Agreements were made between governments and certain companies to let the governments deal with these companies, blocking the access to certain information from the general public.  The internet, in my opinion, is just like the radio waves, or the telephone frequencies owned by the people.  The internet must be regulated to a degree that we cannot become victims of all this information available.

 

First we must take control of the internet to the degree that it cannot be manipulated to indiscriminately allow personal information to be exploited in any way.  This would include the marketing use of the internet.  If someone wants to know what I buy, send me a survey.  I have discount cards, and if I buy milk from Kroger’s then they have a right to use that information.  I applied for their card.  However, they should not be able to give or sell that information to anyone else.  The act of volunteering my information by applying for the card should settle that point.  This should apply to all cards including credit cards.

 

However, if it is determined by a judge that I need to be watched or investigated, the government should be able to access the Kroger data base and determine whether or not the fact that I buy milk is important to the investigation going on.

 

Now how would we get there?  Before a judge would issue such an order patterns would have to immerge to show cause.  This would come from normal investigation using what is and has been available to law enforcement taking care not to overstep the citizen’s protection rights.

 

When a person that normally does not buy nitrates suddenly or continually purchases nitrates, there could be system that allows a store owner to report such abuse much like people are reported for buying excess amounts of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride.  This type of data base should be legal and expected.  If citizens buy guns or large amounts of ammunition they should be reported by the store owners.

 

There should be no exceptions to these rules.  Information should be free to all from the data base.  This should not be a database that requires joining.  It should just be a database on the internet protected from anyone accessing the information to alter the results of the posts made to it.  Such protection does exist.

 

In the case of what would be terrorist or traitors, the federal government tends to want to keep this information secret, but it should not be.  It should be that I, as an average citizen, I notice someone doing something that seems to me to be abnormal.  I could look on the internet database and see that this person has been reported before for odd activity.  I then make my report.  My identity is protected as an informant from the general public, but not to the government agency that reads the report.  From this information the government can begin making a case for an investigation.  Only during a trial would the names of the reporting citizens be used if necessary.

 

We must change the way we look at criminals, terrorist, and traitors in the country if we want to protect it.  We must change the way we protect the rights of privacy.  We are in a different age of information.  We must at all costs change the way we approach privacy without giving a benefit to a few corporation to make money.  Any system we create must be owned and controlled by the federal government.  The state governments must not be able to control it away from the federal government because the state might be trying to plot against federal lawt.

 

Our prison system is so antiquated and confused as to who should be in jail for what purpose we desperately need to redefine the classification of who we now call criminals and house them separately with help to those that can be saved while just keeping the hardened criminal sequestered from the public.

I am a Christian but this nation is not a theocracy

16 Jun

I listen to the radio and TV news and pundit speeches and am amazed and astonished at the lack of response outlining the inadequacy of the Congress to adequately identify and address to any real solution that would help our country go forward.

 

One of the big things we have to address is the budget.  We steal from one collection method of taxation to solve the shortage in another.  We have intelligent people in Congress.  It is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of willingness to do the right thing. 

 

It is true that the electorate is sent to Congress with clear objectives in the vote.  Now that is approximately 50% of our nation.  Even if the percentage was 100% the fact that for the most part the electorate doesn’t understand the problems enough to make the decision to strap a Congress person to a particular vote.  That would be a democracy.  We are not a democracy.  We are a republic.  That means we do recognize that we should limit the decisions to the wisest and smartest people in our nation. 

 

The Tea Party and some other components of our Congress believe the Christian values are more important than anything else, including the welfare of our citizens. While it is true that we should be guided by Christian values, it is not true that anyone has the authority given by our Constitution or our God to force anyone to accept them.  As a matter of fact criminal law is written for people that do not accept our values. 

 

The Tea Party has diverted the focus of the Congressional theme from solving problems and allowing the outside influences to guide the greed of K street under the cover of the noise made by the often misstatements of those Tea Party members.  

 

We hear in the news about some outrageous statement about something they said and nothing about the fact that;

 

  • no banker has gone to jail because of the trillions of dollars the American people lost through no fault of their own or the thousands of home lost because of their activity,

 

  • misappropriated funds for personal benefit the replaced it less the profit earned,

 

  • stopped loaning money to entrepreneurs to grow jobs against asset based collateral while creating situations using derivative collateral for themselves.   

 

  • While we need more people to come more educated, they allow companies to sell the education to people trying to improve themselves at exorbitant prices to allow these companies to make profit on the amount of the cost of education.  This is just not right.

 

I write about these things mostly pointing to the fact that we have people that a smart enough to solve these problems.  Unfortunately we don’t have people that are smart enough or maybe not informed enough to choose the right people to represent them.

See the whole board

8 Jun

I was watching a rerun of West Wing where President Bartlett and Sam Seaborne were playing chess.  The President kept saying to Sam, “look at the whole board before you make a mover.”  He said this several times while Sam was guessing what was happening politically in the situation room.

 

Sam did a good job guessing.  It was written that way, but the phrase I keep remembering is ‘look at the whole board’.  For a chess player this means a lot, but it should mean a lot to the thousands of elected officials in this nation. 

 

In chess if you play your game without paying attention to the possible strategy of your opponent you will get beaten.  If you make any move without a reason, you will get beaten by your opponent.  In running this great nation of ours we have to do two things well.  We have to make deliberate moves that benefit the nation as a whole, and we should never make stop gap moves that kicks the can down the road.  Sorry for the younger readers.  ‘Kick the can’ is a physical activity game that requires nothing but a can and some kids.  What I mean is we should make things happen to perform a specific purpose.

 

Our legislators waste a lot of time doing things they need not do.  Let’s suppose they passed a law that say you can’t throw anything out the window of a car.  Wait a minute; they did pass such a law.  It is micromanagement at its finest.  It cannot be enforced to a degree that makes a difference, so we post signs costing into the millions of dollars.  We have few neighborhoods that help, and we send the prisoners out to pick up debris.  We cannot control everyone’s life to that degree.  At some point we have to let people be responsible for themselves.

 

We used to look at the whole board.  When I was young, if an adult saw me doing wrong, they had no problem telling me so.  I also had no problem obeying.  We lived in communities then, and if I didn’t obey, he or she would tell my father. 

 

Our legislators should ‘look at the whole board’ and figure out the balance between micromanagement and placing the responsibility on the public to protect ourselves unless it is at a degree that a professional should do it.  See the problem.  Look at the whole board.

 

Are we looking at the whole board or do we think we are paying someone to do it for us?  Even if that is so, did you vote?