Archive | June, 2015

What should the Supreme Court hear?

30 Jun

We have now heard two decisions that have proven beyond any doubt that the once that own the Supreme Court have change the constitution.  The question is what strategy did they use?  The truth is that the once the created the strategy are probably dead.

We have heard the elected officials, pundits, newspaper, radio and TV stations owned by the elite, plus the unthinking followers of such tripe buy in to statements purportedly derived from manipulated surveys that conclude the majority of American citizens, approve of same sex marriage.  The question might be asked, “Do you believe that same sex couples should have legal status?”  However the report that comes to us over the media would say that the majority of the citizens approve of same sex marriage.  The two ideas are not the same, or should they reflect the true feelings of America.

We must always understand that this country was ordained by God to be a free state.  A freedom allows people to choose or not choose to follow God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  God didn’t’ ordain that the citizens of the US should be forced to follow His teachings, therefore he guided the framers of the Constitution to say clearly that our government could not dictate how God should be worshipped for even that He should be worshipped.  Now some of the pundits have developed the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ which has been mindlessly been promoted by the media as a direct quote from the Constitution.

Controlling when and where to pray, deciding if it was legal to kill an unborn child, and re-defining marriage should never have been taken up by the Supreme Court or any court.  It is not wrong to kill which is proven by simply reading the bible.  However, it is wrong to murder.  Any decision reached by the Supreme Court that limits our belief, or practices to outwardly show our belief in God is directly prohibited by our Constitution.  If anyone in the government or media actually read the Constitution it would be clear to them what the meaning becomes to be.  Saying that leads me to also say that I cannot imagine the framers of the Constitution saying to anyone or even thinking that the government should condone, let alone support any worship except that to God is preposterous.

The original intent of the constitution is never really considered.  It is a string of decisions from previous challenges that control the thinking of these judges.  If you asked a Supreme Court Justice why they made a decision on this or that, I would suggest to you that the decision was based on a previous ruling and not the Constitution.

Right and wrong has not changed over these two hundred and twenty four years since the STATES ratified the Constitution or the Continental Congress declared to the England that “All men are CREATED EQUAL and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights –“.  Much blood was shed over CREATED EQUAL and CREATOR.  Should the Supreme Court exist?  Absolutely, but not to make law.

Do we want Justice

13 Jun

A five foot two inch female school crossing guard puts her hand up and stops a sixteen wheeler without the slightest notion that the signal will be ignored.  The children cross the busy street without fear from oncoming traffic.  This is the way it should always be when an officer of the law give a command.  Two ideas become evident at this time.  One is that the officer is simply doing her job, and the receiver of the information wants to obey the law.

When I was a young man when an officer gave a command, there was not an option.  Now the bleeding hearts that point at the offers who are expected to, on the spot, psychoanalyze the subject and make a decision whether the subject is guilty or innocent as abusers of the law.

My question is does this make any sense at all.  Where is the respect for the law?  When a duly appointed officer of the law says to anyone that he want them to talk to him on any subject, do we have an option to agree or not agree to speak with him.  Absolutely we could claim the Fifth Amendment, or simply exercise our right to have counsel present, but we should not have the right to scream defiance to the officer attempting to do his or her duty.

From an economic point of view we should understand that we can make law in the legislative branch to be enforced by the executive branch of our government the cost is less than to use the judicial branch of our government to make law.  It seems to me that there should be a reasonable method to reach a point that would protect the safety of the law enforcement officers and the subjects.

A federal law should be written that says that if a law enforcement officer identifies themselves properly and the subject has a reasonable reason to suspect they are the person to whom the officer is addressing, they should make every effort to stop and comply with the instructions of the officer.  If the officer is wrong in his direction that then could become a court case against the officer.

If on the other hand the subject does not comply and runs from the officer, the legal definition of the subject would then become a target for the officer.  The exception would be if the legal representative is not a duly appointed officer of the city, country or perish.

The legal system has turned against the officer giving undeserved rights to the subjects committing or suspected of committing crimes against our country’s citizens.  If it is left to the legal forces to have to put themselves into unnecessary danger to protect the public, something is bad wrong.  I believe the bleeding hearts will not put themselves into danger to protect the public.

This is not to say the officer professional should not give the public respect and expect the same back from the public.  If we go by the accounts and opinions broadcasted by the media the police are always wrong and always prejudice.  Most of our law enforcement officers are good people who have been placed in a position no one would normally elect to be placed.

Our government cannot micro-manage our lives.  No one is that wise.  Our Supreme Court is also not wise enough to make laws with their rulings.

Personally I am for a constitutional convention, but I doubt seriously that a majority of our several states will enact such a convention.  I further believe that if we don’t have a constitutional convention we very well could have to experience a revolution from the masses that have just had it with the congresses and power mongers.

Let us revert back to what God intended when he allowed us to become these United States and let us a win more than one war that was impossible for us to win.  If we don’t give him the glory, he will take this country away from our children and grandchildren.