The Basics Of Society

I have been watching the all out political war being waged by the Democrat Party against President Trump and Republicans, between the National Intelligence Intelligentsia and President Trump, the Republican Establishment and President Trump, the Globalists and President Trump, and the Main Stream Media and and President Trump with disgust and revulsion. We can’t even be intellectually honest with each other and agree on facts which are not in dispute even if we disagree on how to deal with the challenges those facts represent.

President Trump has been accused by the National Intelligence Intelligentsia and the Democrat Party and the Globalists and the Republican establishment, through the illegal leaking of classified information (a fact not in dispute), of colluding with the Russian government to tilt the election in his favor. There has not been in any of this illegally leaked information any evidence of collusion or vote tampering. In fact, the only evidence of vote tampering has been in Democrat controlled voting precincts in favor of Democrat candidates. Non-citizens have been allowed to vote, which is illegal.

The members of the Democrat Party in the Senate have threatened a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee who has decided in the majority of mixed circuit courts 99% of the time and has a 97% rate of not being overturned. A very main stream record for any judge ever. He is being blocked simply because a Republican President nominate him for the position. This is the height of stupidity for a party which just lost a presidential election and lost the vast majority of states and counties within the United States.

Abuse

I have never written about this before, but a recent event makes me feel as if I need to. I grew up in a home of physical, emotional and verbal abuse until my Mom and Dad separated when I was 11 years old.

My father was an alcoholic who would become violent and lash out at my mother, siblings, and I. My mother bore the brunt of his attacks. He almost killed her one time when we lived in Collins, Georgia where we attended the First Baptist Church. My Mom, on that night, escaped Dad's attack and the pastor and his wife gave my mother safe harbor. I remember visiting her there and the lights having to stay off due to the damage her eyes and face had suffered. My grandfather and uncles arrived soon after to move us from Collins back to my grandparent's home.

I remember a Sunday afternoon when we were living in my Uncle Harry's home in Whigham, Georgia, and my Dad had made his trip to the Florida Georgia state line to buy beer, and the interrogations began upon his return. He would call my siblings and I out onto the front porch one by one and threaten us with physical punishment if we did not come up with something to tell on each other. This lasted all afternoon with each being punished for the things the others had said.

I remember going to school with makeup on my face, applied by my mother, to cover up the black eye my father had given me. When asked by school staff what had happened I said I had walked into a door.

My Mom told me the beatings for me began while I was still an infant. I was born with ear, nose, and throat issues and kept ear infections. As an infant I would cry to express the pain I was feeling and my father would beat me for crying. I eventually had tubes put in my ears which seemed to alleviate the issues.

I write about this now not to get sympathy or anything else but because someone I love dearly is currently in a controlling, emotionally and verbally abusive relationship. They have gotten away three (3) different times and gone back. They have been in relationships throughout their life which encompassed all three (3) forms of abuse mentioned. I have tried reaching them every way I know and failed; so, I am looking for suggestions. I am praying and seeking God for them and I know He sees what is going on. Maybe, I am also just venting and frustrated.

But the point is, no one has to stay in that situation. Someone in your circle can and will help you, but you have to reach out. If they offer, because they have figured out what is happening, you have to get out of that situation. You do no deserve to be treated in such a way. God made you complete and in His image. You do not need to be in any type of abusive relationship. Please get help. Please.

16 January 2015

What is freedom? Isn't that the real question we should be asking ourselves at this time in our nation's history? I have my idea of what freedom is and it has been shaped by my parents, other respected adults, experience and education. What I consider freedom isn't what most people or those in government seem to think it is.

My concept of freedom is one in which I can worship as I wish, express myself as I wish, work in a vocation of my choice, spend what I earn as I wish, raise my children as I wish, choose with whom I associate, and have my own political beliefs. These are just some of the things which are part of my concept of freedom and areas in which government should stay out.

I believe government, which is a representation of its citizens, has a legitimate interest to maintain a civil society; I am not an anarchist. It should also stay out of areas which are truly conscience based decisions such as matters of faith, love between adults, or the raising of children (as long as there isn't physical abuse, with a clear definition of what physical abuse entails).

We an agree on certain things. Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, assault is wrong, corruption is wrong, a nation needs to protect its borders and citizens, discrimination based on ethnicity is wrong, discrimination based on sexuality (except for faith based private organizations) is wrong. This is just a start.

We can also agree an individual should be secure in their person, life is precious, a person's property should be secure, a person should be able to travel freely as long as they are not breaking any law. If I am driving as I should, no equipment malfunctions, not any open warrants, have insurance then I shouldn't be stopped for any reason. There is no probable cause.

I believe we can agree government should provide defense of the nation, a police force, a fire department, representation with other nations, a means to pass or change law, a judicial system, and representation on trade with other nations.

At what level of government these should be led is what seems to be up for debate. Where in the governmental hierarchy is it best addressed? These are the questions, every so often, we ask ourselves. We are in the midst of one of those times now.

We continue to have these discussions because we refuse to learn the lessons of history as we think we are more enlightened than those who have gone before us. We are still human beings with the same faults, vices, and imperfections as our ancestors. This is each generation's arrogance; we will do it better. Yet, we never do.

All our advancements in technology always lead to ways of better oppressing those whom the government is suppose to protect and allow to flourish. It allows for greater government control and surveillance of its citizens as opposed to greater freedom.

Doubt the repetition? Read for yourself The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers which was just such a debate between the founders of our nation, the United States of America. It was a debate carried out via essays in the important newspapers of their day; in the public eye much different from today.

The didn't view the Constitution as a living document. They wanted to limit governmental intrusions into their lives because they had experienced that intrusion during the occupation of the British before the revolution and didn't want it to happen again. They looked at the span of history up to their time, and the ways in which the different forms of government had either helped or hindered their citizen's lives, and wanted to create a constitution which held the government in check and allowed the citizens freedom to succeed to the extent their talents allowed.

Just a few thoughts to get started.

Lois Lerner IRS Emails

In 2009 groups associated with the groups which would like to see the rule of law followed exclusively as outlined in the United States Constitution, commonly called “Tea Party” groups, and those with a conservative political stance noticed their applications to be designated as tax exempt were taking much longer than those which were adherents of different political philosophies. An investigation was launched and it was determined at least some employees within the department of the Internal Revenue Service which handled these types of requests were delaying, or outright rejecting, their application because of their beliefs. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is suppose to be an apolitical organization. The question then became who, if anyone, had directed these employees to act in such a way, and just how far into the government hierarchy did this reach?

The head of the particular department, Ms. Lois Lerner, was brought before Congress to testify as to what she knew after it was learned she had posited the question on a legal discussion board about such behavior. Ms. Lerner answered some of the questions, yet invoked her protection under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution against self incrimination on others.

Congress then subpoenaed all documents about this matter from the Executive Branch and was given some, but not all the requested documents. The missing documents were said to have been lost or destroyed when Ms. Lerner’s hard drive crashed on her computer and her Blackberry mobile phone was rendered unusable. The suspect phone wasn't broken until after news of the situation broke onto the national awareness.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is overseeing the investigation in the House of Representatives has been unsuccessfully trying to get the contact information for one Mr. Andrew Strelka from the Department of Justice. Mr. Strelka worked for Ms. Lerner and is allegedly implicated in the targeting of Tea Party groups and then as counsel on the cases which were brought in response to the targeting. This is a possible conflict of interest.

Throughout this process the administration has claimed the subject documents were destroyed and irretrievable, as someone from an IT background and having been using, fixing, and building computers of various sizes and capabilities for over 33 years, this just didn't compute. Any large organization has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure such data is maintained in case of legal action or audit. In the case of governmental agencies there is the Federal Records Act which lays down procedures and criteria for how the records are to be kept and what type of records are to be kept. U.S. Archivist David Ferriero told Congress that those laws had not been followed by the IRS in this case.

What has also been revealed by a Justice Department lawyer to a lawyer representing the watchdog group Judicial Watch is the supposedly lost documents aren't lost at all; the process to retrieve this information would be too “onerous”. This admission comes after the Justice Department and others within the administration have stated under oath in various forums the documents were lost or destroyed.

My issue with all of this is the precedent it sets and the willful deception by the administration of Congress. In 1972, President Nixon was on the verge of impeachment for the cover up of its authorizing the break-in of the Democratic Party Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel located in Washington, DC. This is the use of a governmental agency by a sitting administration to attack its political enemies who engaged in legal activities; to me this is much worse and a greater threat to our system of government.

The Huffington Post

Ex-IRS Official Was Complaining To Her Husband With GOP 'Crazies' Remark: Report

The Huffington Post,. (2014). Ex-IRS Official Was Complaining To Her Husband With GOP 'Crazies' Remark: Report. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/02/lois-lerner-crazies_n_5644376.html

The Huffington Post

Ex-IRS Official Criticized GOP As 'Crazies,' 'Assholes' In Emails

The Huffington Post,. (2014). Ex-IRS Official Criticized GOP As 'Crazies,' 'Assholes' In Emails. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/30/lois-lerner-emails-_n_5634379.html

The Huffington Post

Tea Party Lawsuit Against IRS Moves Forward

The Huffington Post,. (2014). Tea Party Lawsuit Against IRS Moves Forward. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/tea-party-irs_n_5600807.html

The Huffington Post

Justice Department To Investigate Missing IRS Emails

The Huffington Post,. (2014). Justice Department To Investigate Missing IRS Emails. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/justice-department-irs-emails_n_5593075.html

The Huffington Post

IRS Head Says No Laws Broken In Loss Of Emails

The Huffington Post,. (2014). IRS Head Says No Laws Broken In Loss Of Emails. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/irs-emails_n_5525126.html

The Huffington Post

White House Staffer Subpoenaed In IRS Investigation

The Huffington Post,. (2014). White House Staffer Subpoenaed In IRS Investigation. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/23/irs-probe-white-house_n_5523828.html

The Huffington Post

Congress Holds Lois Lerner In Contempt

The Huffington Post,. (2014). Congress Holds Lois Lerner In Contempt. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/lois-lerner-contempt-vote_n_5283001.html

NewsBusters

IRS Scandal Bombshell! DOJ Attorney Admits Lois Lerner Emails Exist! Will Nets Report?

NewsBusters,. (2014). IRS Scandal Bombshell! DOJ Attorney Admits Lois Lerner Emails Exist! Will Nets Report?. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2014/08/25/irs-scandal-bombshell-doj-attorney-admits-lois-lerner-emails-exist

Sekulow

IRS scandal: Lois Lerner’s ‘perfect’ method for hiding emails

Sekulow,. (2014). IRS scandal: Lois Lerner’s ‘perfect’ method for hiding emails. Fox News. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/11/irs-scandal-lois-lerners-perfect-method-for-hiding-emails/

Flopping Aces

The IRS scandal explodes

Flopping Aces,. (2014). The IRS scandal explodes. Retrieved 29 August 2014, from http://floppingaces.net/2014/06/17/the-irs-scandal-explodes/

(2014, September 05). Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos. GOP lawmaker accuses DOJ of hiding former employee linked to IRS scandal | Fox News. Retrieved September 05, 2014, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/05/gop-lawmaker-demands-doj-hand-over-contact-info-former-employee-linked-to-irs/

Fast And Furious 28 August 2014

This fiasco of a gun interdiction/tracing operation is one in which common sense, teamwork, and planning went out the window. It was ill conceived and poorly executed. As you can see from my reference list at the bottom of this article I searched many different sources and from different ideological points of view and couldn't come to any other conclusion than what I wrote above.

The overall program started small under President Bush, though I couldn't find much information on the program under his administration other than it did exist. Apparently the weapons under his administration weren't allowed to “walk” across the border. That changed however when a new sub-program, Fast and Furious, was started under the Obama administration with the laudable goal to interdict legally purchased guns and rifles from illegally crossing the border into Mexico to arm the various drug cartels operating there. The program was to trace those guns to the cartels in Mexico and thereby find them and end them.

A small team was put together in Phoenix, Arizona to spearhead Fast and Furious with members from different parts of the the country and with varying backgrounds. The group never gelled into a cohesive team. The documentation shows they were in the midst of envy about their roles, differences in personality, without a structure and processes to support their administrative needs. There also was no coordination with Mexican authorities to trace the weapons once the crossed the border; how was a weapon to be traced in that circumstance?

The team leader, Mr. Voth, never received adequate support from the United States Attorney's office in Phoenix when evidence was brought to their attention of the many “strawmen” buying these weapons with large sums of money when the “strawmen” were on public assistance. The strawmen then “sold” the weapons to a third party who would illegally transport the weapons over the border. What was unknown, apparently to the Phoenix team, is some of these “strawmen” were informants for other law enforcement agencies using money from these agencies to purchase the weapons.

The team and the attorney then decided to institute a wiretap on one of the suspects only to have the suspect change phones within days of the initiation of the wiretap making it useless. They reapplied but by that time events took on a life of their own.

In all, almost 2000 weapons made their way across the border to Mexico. At least 1400 of those weapons are unaccounted for and more than 100 have been used in various crimes on both sides of the border. Agents of various law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border, as well as hundreds of Mexican citizens, have been killed or wounded with these weapons.

When Attorney General Holder was questioned on when he knew about this operation he initially said it was not before February 4, 2011, it was later learned he knew least by September of 2010. He as since had to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and the President has used Executive Privilege to block the release of other documents. They are using the excuse that these are just letters, memos and emails which discuss strategy and planning sessions on how to respond to Congressional inquiries. United States District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ordered the administration to turn over an index of all the documents pertaining to this operation to the court for review by October 1, 2014.

The problem the administration has is the perception they are hiding something. They have been caught in untruths with regard to the embassy take down in Benghazi, Libya, the swap of Sgt. Bergdahl, Obamacare, the lack of prosecuting a case it just had to show up in court to win in a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia regarding the New Black Panther Party, its funding of rebel groups in Syria which have morphed into ISIS/ISIL, and perceived weakness in foreign policy. Their problems may only get worse after October 1, 2014.

Conroy, B.

‘Fast and Furious’ gun running scandal began under President Bush’s watch

Conroy, B. (2014). ‘Fast and Furious’ gun running scandal began under President Bush’s watch. Your Site NAME Goes HERE. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/fast-and-furious-gun-running-scandal-began-under-president-bushs-watch/2012/07/13

CNS News

Gun-Running Timeline: How DOJ’s ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ Unfolded

CNS News,. (2014). Gun-Running Timeline: How DOJ’s ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ Unfolded. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gun-running-timeline-how-doj-s-operation-fast-and-furious-unfolded

Wyler, G.

Here's What You Need To Know About The Gun Running Scandal That Could Destroy Obama's Attorney General

Wyler, G. (2012). Here's What You Need To Know About The Gun Running Scandal That Could Destroy Obama's Attorney General. Business Insider. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-fast-and-furious-2012-6

Newman, A.

Obama’s “Fast and Furious” Gun-running Scandal Grows

Newman, A. (2014). Obama’s “Fast and Furious” Gun-running Scandal Grows. Thenewamerican.com. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15533-obama-s-fast-and-furious-gun-running-scandal-grows

Guns Save Lives

BREAKING: Federal Judge Orders Department of Justice to Release "Fast & Furious" Documents

Guns Save Lives,. (2014). BREAKING: Federal Judge Orders Department of Justice to Release "Fast & Furious" Documents. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-federal-judge-orders-department-of-justice-to-release-fast-furious-documents/

Breitbart News Network

Holder Begs Court to Stop Document Release on Fast and Furious

Breitbart News Network,. (2014). Holder Begs Court to Stop Document Release on Fast and Furious. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Holder-begs-court-to-indefinitely-delay-group-s-lawsuit-fighting-for-release-of-Obama-s-executive-privilege-Fast-and-Furious-documents

New York Post

A 'Furious' revelation

New York Post,. (2011). A 'Furious' revelation. Retrieved 27 August 2014, from http://nypost.com/2011/09/29/a-furious-revelation/

Benghazi Attack September 2012

Benghazi Attack September 2012

On the night of September 11, 2012 the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and 4 people were killed. United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. All of which could have been prevented and any dispute of the cause of said attack could have been prevented if the truth was told no matter the consequences. There are facts in dispute in some instances, but the truth about the cause isn't and why it was a source of contention all sprang from a need to provide political cover for poor decisions leading up to the attack.

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to work with rebel groups and coordinate arms shipments, that was his job. The United States had made a decision to fund and support the groups responsible for the rebellions in Libya and Syria. Libya was and Syria still is run by secular dictators who used the United States as a evil straw man to pit themselves against and blame for all the ills of their populations. But they had learned their lessons at great cost about directly getting involved in plots against the United States and had cooled their support for such operations. In fact, an Islamic militia group was hired to protect the embassy.

The groups which were opposing these regimes were a mixture of Islamic fundamentalists and secularists, with the greater portion of each group being of the religious fundamentalist nature. The fundamentalist rebel groups were linked with organizations which called for the destruction of Israel and hatred for the United States. They were part of what is left of Al-Queda, a group which we have been fighting since at least 2001 and has grown into what is now known as ISIL/ISIS.

When the attack started the meager forces which were in the consulate called for help and those personnel which could headed for a safe room. In Benghazi was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) facility with some armed personnel, and some of those individuals came to assist the consulate. The embassy in Tripoli, Libya also sent some assistance.

The attack went on throughout the night, with the clear understanding on the ground this was a preplanned attack, not a demonstration against the film “Innocence of Muslims” which grew into the attack. The information was further bolstered when, as the attack is occurring, a group called Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility through Twitter. There were also claims by this group the attack was planned with the consent of Dr. Morsi who at the time was the leader of Egypt and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; a group the administration was trying to work with diplomatically.

Important to remember are the requests for additional security personnel and facility security upgrades that were requested by Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom in July and October of 2012. These requests were not approved though funds were available in the State Department budget. General Carter F. Ham, Commanding General of Africa Command, twice asked Ambassador Stevens if extra military personnel were needed to bolster security before the attacks due to an increase of violence against western organizations in Libya and the Ambassador declined the offer. September 5, 2012 Africa command also issued a security warning for all Americans in Northeast Libya. The British and Red Cross had left Libya because of the rising violence and direct attacks on their assets. There had been no direct threat against American assets, but with the “Arab Spring” movements in Egypt and Tunisia and the rise of violence against western organizations, the atmosphere was tense.

During the attacks there were American assets located outside of Libyan territory, which would require Presidential approval for their use, available to intervene in the situation if needed. They were not used. In fact, LtCol. Gibson, head of military special forces in Libya, was prepared to board a plane in Tripoli to head to Benghazi during the attack, and he was ordered to “stand down”. Who issued the order has never been released, but the LtCol. Gibson followed the order though livid about his inability to intercede on behalf of those left in Benghazi. There is dispute about why these forces were not used and those who say a “stand down” order was never issued; someone issued LtCol. Gibson such an order. Also, members of a a CIA response team (Kris “Tanto” Paronto, Mark “Oz” Geist, and John “Tig” Tiegen) say the top CIA official at the Annex in Benghazi told them to not respond to the attack on the consulate. The finally went without orders, and when air support was requested, none was received.

The administration then, at the behest of the State Department, went with the story which blames the film for the demonstration which then led to the attack, though throughout the attack and according to CIA and Gen. Ham, they knew from the beginning this was not the case. It was not the until September 19, 2012 that the administration started to identify this as a terrorist attack.

An independent review of the State Department performance released December 18, 2012 during this crisis stated "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies".

This is an ongoing situation in which only one person has been arrested.

Library, C.

Benghazi Mission Attack Fast Facts

Library, C. (2014). Benghazi Mission Attack Fast Facts. CNN. Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/index.html

Greenfield, D. and Greenfield, D.

Islamic Militias Behind Benghazi Attack Seize US Embassy in Tripoli | FrontPage Magazine

Greenfield, D., & Greenfield, D. (2014). Islamic Militias Behind Benghazi Attack Seize US Embassy in Tripoli | FrontPage Magazine. Frontpagemag.com. Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/islamic-militias-behind-benghazi-attack-seize-us-embassy-in-tripoli/

Griffin

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

Griffin,. (2012). EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say. Fox News. Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

Discoverthenetworks.org

Benghazi: The Terrorist Attack of September 11, 2012 - Discover the Networks

Discoverthenetworks.org,. (2014). Benghazi: The Terrorist Attack of September 11, 2012 - Discover the Networks. Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1755

FactCheck.org

Benghazi Timeline

FactCheck.org,. (2012). Benghazi Timeline. Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

30 April 2014

I remember the Rodney King statement after his beating by police officers, “Can't we all just get along?” What he was really asking is can't we all just accept we are all different; we all have different goals, different lenses through which we view the world, different ways of communicating, different cultural and behavioral norms, and different ways of doing things. We just don't think about things the same way. People within the same cultural setting don't think of things the same way; much less in a truly multicultural society as the United States of America.

The basis of our country's culture, whether we like it or not, is the Constitution which our founder's put into place; yes they were a bunch of old white guys who did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. They hadn't yet come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong; though that discussion was started to come to the fore. They didn't feel a woman had a place outside the home or that her opinion should be even considered in public discourse.

They did have the sense to understand the government which has the power to give you everything also had the power to take those things away and wrote a document which limited the power of government. They then understood the need to codify those rights which individuals should have, and government could not abridge, and wrote the first ten amendments to guarantee such. They knew the document might need to change, but wanted to make it difficult so whims of culture didn't overcome the need for reflection, and wrote an amendment process which makes one think before acting.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution, protect we the people from an overbearing government which might try to silence our voice or restrict our expressions of faith, non-faith, political will, freedom to gather, or the freedom to live a life of solitude if that is our choice. This freedom is the basis of how we are suppose to live in the society made up of those who, for whatever reason, weren't happy where they were. All our ancestors came from somewhere else; even the Native Americans' ancestors came across the land bridge between Asia and North America.

The ability to disagree with your neighbor, to debate the issues and then reach a compromise solution, is the gift the founders of this country endowed to us through the Constitution. It would be foolish of us to not embrace those freedoms and not allow the power of whatever constituted authority to squelch even one voice. We must allow differing opinions if for no other reason but we are all fallible human beings and make mistakes.

We can only guarantee those freedoms by truly being “a nation of laws and not of men”. Every law must be viewed through the lens of the Constitution as written and not as we want it to be. Every law must be enforced throughout the depth and breadth of our social structure. If not then the rule of law is meaningless and of no value. Just something to think about.

29 April 2014

I guess I want to delve into private property today as I keep reading about regulation, government take over of land, and the use of eminent domain.

Think of something small, to start with, when getting into the subject of personal property. A child has a piece of candy, it is theirs, they were given it as a gift or they bought it with money they had earned in some way. The piece of candy is theirs and no one else has the right to just take that piece of candy. The child may choose to eat the piece of candy or save it for another day; whatever the decision is, it is theirs and if someone takes it without asking that is stealing. STEALING!

Now let's say the child decides to build a house out of all the candy they have saved. Everyone around them says they shouldn't do that as it is a waste of good candy and tries to stop the child, but the child is adamant. The other people then try to force the child to stop building the house with their candy by getting together and deciding to stop the child by force and take the candy away to use as they see fit. This is essentially how eminent domain works.

The people, in the form of a local government, around a property owner decide they can find a better use for an individual's property than the person can themselves. They then take the property, pay the person they are taking the property from a price they deem to be adequate, and use the property.

Now you may say this isn't stealing as the owner was paid a price. Well, you miss they whole definition of stealing which is taking something without the owner's permission. Permission from the owner was never obtained, the property was taken by use of force in the form of government.

The candy house wasn't going to hurt anyone, the others just didn't believe the owner was using their assets wisely. Is this going to be the criteria for taking from someone else; are they using their assets wisely? If so, then we never truly own anything if someone can take what we have acquired because they don't like how we are using it. This isn't what the Constitution was written by our founders to mean. This is socialism. It is wrong.

28 April 2014

There are several things on my mind today which I will go into, and which I will probably have to delve further into as the week progresses. They are things which are ripping our American society apart and are antithetical to our continuation as a nation. We are no longer truly tolerant, we no longer respect private property and privacy in general, we believe things should be given to us because someone else has it, and others through government taxation should fund our way of life.

When I say we are no longer truly tolerant, what I mean is we cannot seem to agree to disagree. We are coming to the point where if someone disagrees with our point of view about something they are evil and should be ostracized or made to disappear. There seems to be no room for people to actually engage in a thoughtful debate with respect for the other people involved in the discussion. There was once a time, in my remembrance, where disagreement about issues didn't mean we were total enemies. The vilification of people with opposing views has made real discussion almost impossible.

We also seem to be too enamored with worrying about what someone else is doing on their property or in their private life. If truth be told, I don't want to know your sexual orientation as a first step in getting to know you. Tell me your name and let's have a discussion and find out about each other that way. I don't need to know what your religious affiliation is or even if you have one unless that is the basis of our first contact. We will learn those things from each other over time during the process of building a friendship.

What you do on your property isn't my business unless it is causing physical harm to other people or affecting the surrounding property. I should be concerned about taking care of my little corner of the world in a manner which conforms to my belief system and ensuring my own integrity before worrying about anything else.

There is also this overwhelming sense of entitlement. Somewhere the idea that equality of opportunity must lead to equality of outcome came to be expected; which just isn't the case. I can put 100 people in a room, give them the same training and access to information, and there will be 100 different results. This is because we all have different skill sets and ways of doing things. Some people are faster, some slower, some smarter, some who couldn't find there way to the bathroom with arrows on the floor pointing the way. We are different and will have different outcomes no matter what.

This next item stems from the previous, you should not use government to take from those who are successful just because you think it isn't fair they should have more. Someone in their family, if not they themselves, somehow acquired that wealth. What you should be doing is looking at how they managed to gain the wealth, and find a way with that knowledge, to do it for yourself.

Just a few things on my mind this morning. Would love to hear your thoughts.

23 June 2014

It seems we have a flood of children illegally crossing the border we share with Mexico; in fact, it seems the White House is willing to sign an executive order, bypassing Congress and the current laws on the books, to all this and give them some type of legal status. I am sorry but I have a very difficult time accepting the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going to become an emperor and decided he can make up the law as he goes along and ignore laws passed in a constitutional way.

I am all for legal immigration, part of my heritage is written by those who immigrated to this country in the 1600's, but nearness to our borders shouldn't give anyone a pass to the front of the line. There are people from every country in the world who would love to come to America, yet they must go through a time consuming and invasive process to qualify. For some reason, people from south of our borders are allowed to walk right over the border, in violation of existing law, and a blind eye is turned. They are allowed to flout our laws and given every benefit of the social safety net; yet, our veterans die on waiting lists to receive needed medical care.

I want a better immigration policy, but not at the risk of our national sovereignty or security. Before any new laws are passed, rigorously enforce existing law. The government will not enforce existing law, how can I be expected to trust them to enforce any new laws which are enacted?

14 May 2014

We must repeal the 16th amendment and do away with the income tax and institute the Fair Tax.

We must enforce immigration laws as written before introducing more immigration laws. Show me you will enforce these laws executive branch, then I will believe you would enforce any new laws passed.

Start selling some of the federal lands held in individual states, back to the states they are in for parks and reserves.

Remove Common Core curriculum which is a travesty in education.

The President needs to stops issuing executive orders to create laws which he knows Congress will not pass to bypass the Constitution. It is a violation of his oath of office.

We must stop supports groups we know are terrorists such as the rebel groups in Syria which are Al Qaeda by another name.

We need to label the group which kidnapped those Christian girls in Nigeria as a terrorist group and treat them accordingly.

Sharia Law must never be an accepted practice anywhere within the borders of the United States of America.

We need to elect people who are loyal to the country and the constitution it is based upon instead of a political party.

This is just a start, but a good one.

13 May 2014

I am trying to figure out just what we, as a people, really want from our government because it has definitely changed from the type of government our founders put in place. Our founders understood a government who could give you everything could also take it away. We seem to have lost that understanding.

We no longer believe in the rule of law which is a principle which ensures everyone is equal in the eyes of the judicial system. We have forgotten the necessity to have this inviolate principle in place, because once we throw the principle out the window, the rest of the foundation of our legal system goes away. Public officials no longer feel obligated to enforce those laws they disagree with or against a chosen few who might violate a law. This will lead to disillusionment in the system and eventually sow the seeds of rebellion.

We cannot have a fair society by passing unfair laws. We cannot target groups because of their ethnicity, religious belief, economic status, or political affiliation. All must be equally accountable under the law and not exempt from any portion of those laws. This is why sharia law, which is a form of Islamic law, should never be permitted within the confines of the United States of America. A rape victim should never be punished for being forced into a sexual act, this happens under sharia law. A person should never be kept from a benefit of the constitution such as how they dress or precluded from obtaining a drivers license if they are a citizen, this happens under sharia law.

There cannot be a multi-tiered legal system based on political affiliation, religious affiliation, creed, or ethnicity; but we are starting to have that in this country.

12 May 2014

I received an email Friday or Saturday which discussed my earlier posts about being the brunt of ad hominem attacks and response with logical argument to those attacks. In the posts I was responding to one of the words to describe those like myself who oppose certain policies was “racist”. The individual who sent the email basically said if I was responding to the use of the word, maybe I was and needed to check myself. I'm sorry, but I can't let that pass.

Just because an individual disagrees with a particular policy or idea doesn't make them racist. Now if they used that as an excuse to be against the policy, then maybe there would be a reason to use the descriptive term. If, however, they have a logical, fact based reason for their opposition; then pejorative terms shouldn't be used. Rather, attempt to refute their reasoning with logic and fact.

Otherwise you are the reason we cannot have real, constructive political discussion in this country. The use of ad hominem attacks are meant to stifle debate and shut down your opposition and not allow them to express their ideas, which is their first amendment right. You are also admitting the weakness of your own position. Saul Alinksy is wrong to have suggested the tactic in the first place.

9 May 2021

One of the byproducts of socialism and communism is a need for control. To ensure you collect the production of those with the ability, you have to increase control over their production which ensures the authority in charge of redistributing the production gets that which it feels it is entitled. Think about this, control over what you produce is given over to an authority to ensure you get no more than your “fair share” of what you have produced. You don't have control over your own production any longer.

This control doesn't just extend to how much you produce, but also to how you produce it, how you get the materials and labor you need to produce whatever you are producing. If the authority feels a job is a right every citizen is entitled to, then you will not be allowed to automate to produce your product more efficiently as that will put another citizen out of work. Of course, to ensure you are following their guidelines the authority will have to institute an oversight capability which will increase your overhead to enable the authority to pay for the structure they create to oversee your production. This further decreases the pot available for you to pay your workers and yourself.

Imagine this across the link and breadth of every business in the country and then extrapolate that across society. It will have to invade every aspect of society to ensure there are workers trained to do the jobs the authority say are needed to keep the country functioning.

It will creep into what we hope is freedom of speech, because it will be in name only. If you disagree with their agenda it will no longer be a discussion or debate; rather, you will be attacked with ad hominem attacks, shouted down by plants in the crowd, or pushed to a “free speech zone” where no one will be able to hear or see you. Another way to shut you down is to appoint people who agree with them to the judiciary and then call the constitution a “living document”, which means it will mean whatever they say it does as opposed to what we know the written words mean. What was meant to be a contract in which we the people gave the governmental authority a limited amount of power, is totally remade without an amendment or discussion on its true meaning and the actual context in which those words were written.

Think about these words and where we are today.

8 May 2014

Yesterday I was in a conversation with some people who told me I didn't know the meaning of the terms I was using, when what they meant was I understood it too well. I was using the term socialism to describe the underlying philosophy of the current administration and his political party.

Socialism and communism spring from a central thought, “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. It sounds good until you start thinking through the ramifications of what it means. Wealth redistribution is its central idea. It is what the phrase means. You take from those who produce to give to those who don't.

It is the philosophy behind the trophies for participation but no trophies singly for those who were outstanding or who actually won the championship. It tells those who want to push for outstanding achievement in whatever they do to not worry about it, it means nothing to be outstanding, achievement gains you nothing.

What an individual earns through their hard work and sacrifice shouldn't be ignored, it should be lauded and put forward as an example of what someone can do when they seize every opportunity, delay gratification, and make the world a better place in the process. Their success becomes a motivation to others; the possibility exists they themselves could achieve something greater than their current station if they work, sacrifice, and delay gratification. It used to be called “The American Dream”.

Our society no longer understands the concept of delayed gratification. We want instant gratification. It is borne out in our low savings rate as a country, as that is what a savings account is representative of. A savings account is there to save for a rainy day, in the process, the bank uses those funds to make loans to local people to start businesses, buy equipment, home improvements, expand businesses, or any number of useful things to a local economy. The bank in turn charges the people interest and passes part of the interest to you which increases your savings account. You money will grow over time but it isn't a short amount of time.

True capitalism is built on the concept of delayed gratification. You work, save, invest, and sacrifice to build familial wealth over time; and it may take generations. When you do it this it builds yourself and those around you. It is the concept of “a rising tide lifts all boats”. This concept also doesn't take from someone to give to someone else. You give and receive. You invest and get to see the investment help someone else fulfill their dreams all while earning a return on the investment you made.

6 May 2014

Today I am taking a break from the heavy stuff and will get back to it tomorrow and just leave some observations and questions to think about.

Young people today that I have come across are less ambitious and less respectful of themselves and others. Why is this? What have we done as a generation of parents and elders which have led them to believe this is the type of behavior which will lead to success?

People of my generation, I turn 50 in September, seem to be more interested in toys and the outward appearance of success than building the infrastructure for true familial wealth. I know I was guilty of this for the longest time. Why is this?

Our government believes we have to have everything given to us and told what to do in the smallest of issues with no explanation? Why is this? Why must we be treated as children?

Just some questions to think on. At least, some I have been pondering lately.

5 May 2014

The rule of law is the foundation our founders built this nation upon; but, what is the rule of law? The rule of law is simply that every law applies to every person present within the boundaries of the United States of America; and that would include members of the United States Government. There would be no exceptions. This is no longer the case.

We all know you get the legal representation you can afford; which just follows in a society in which you get the quality of merchandise you can afford. It is just capitalism at work. Every copy, every filing, every brief, and every consultation is a cost the legal professional has to pass on to their client and make a profit to support themselves and their families. It is the American way. An individual's expertise is worth remuneration.

Anyway, a good case in point is the Affordable Care Act, perhaps better known as Obamacare. The members of congress passed this law without reading it or really debating it; how could they debate something they didn't read? Congress exempted themselves from abiding by this monstrosity of a law and would like us to believe it is okay for us but not for them. This is the corruption of the process our founders were afraid would happen. It is why they didn't envision needing career politicians much less having them. Government was to remain small.

It happens when politicians start taking on party affiliation instead of representing their district or state. The party system has had a hand in undermining the principle of the rule of law. Most of our elected representatives first allegiance is to themselves and and maintaining their goals. If that goal is to remain in their current position, or reach a higher elected office, they must raise funds to campaign and win votes. The political parties and lobbyists control the majority of funds for this type of thing for those in political office. It is only human nature to turn to these sources for the means to maintain one's dreams.

There is a price to paid for their largess and it is in the form of fealty to their cause. The representative has to vote as the party or lobbyists request to maintain the source of funding. Oh, the party or lobbyist doesn't require 100 percent loyalty because they know this would lead to the representative losing their perceived independence and, soon, their seat. No, loyalty is only required on the big issues like the Affordable Care Act or Immigration Reform or Minimum Wage.

This is enough for today, we will continue this tomorrow. Just a little something to think about.

2 May 2014

Let's get back to the subject of this entitlement thinking being a product of greed and envy because it is; it has ever been thus. We see someone of greater means has more stuff than we do and we want it. We see we can't have it right then and will have to work for it, and save, and put off other things we may want to save the money to get what they have. We become resentful.

We then hear someone tell us it isn't fair they have more than we have, they are no better than us. Why can't we have it. They then say, well, we can't just take it that would get us arrested. We haven't been able to appeal to those with means better nature to just give it to us either. The constitution doesn't say they have to and really doesn't say anything about it in general. Let's pass a law and tax them for the amount we want and force them to give it to us.

They are the ones providing the jobs; so, how do we get this passed. We have to demonize them. We say they didn't really earn it, we did by our work to produce the goods. They just inherited the money or stole it by not giving us living wages and we aren't able to support our families.

What isn't realized in this talk is often, the business was started by a member of the family now running the business. The individual who started the business started small with himself and maybe a few others. They built the business over time and saved the profit, reinvested in the business. They were smart enough to invest the money they earned and build a nest egg of wealth for their families to give their families opportunities they themselves didn't have. This is suppose to be the American way.

What also happens, and I must write this, is those descendants of the individuals who start the business, forget the lessons learned by their ancestor. They maximize profit at the expense of the employees and cut corners in safety and other areas of the business. They forget the lessons they learned in business school or just the golden rule. This sows the seeds for the envy and greed and allows outsiders to come in to water and nurture those seeds until a crisis forms. Successful companies take care of their employees and anticipate their needs to continue to have a productive workforce. Or to put it simply, if you take care of your people they will take care of you; a lesson I learned in the Marine Corps.

What happens is the passing of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which allowed the income tax. Which led to the installation of the socialist idea of income redistribution which is nothing more than what is described above, legalized theft.

Entitlement 01 May 2014

The sense of entitlement which has permeated our culture is rotting it to the core. I was taught no one owes me anything other than the respect one would show to another human being. I am not owed a job, internet access, health care, capital, a place to live, education, food, or a laundry list of other things we all think we are somehow owed.

What we fail to realize is, if we don't earn it ourselves it has to come out of what someone else has earned; which means, it is either given freely by that individual or is being coerced from them in some other way. If it is being coerced, it isn't being given freely; so, it is being stolen. I know that goes against everything we seem believe in the world today, but it is simply truth. Oh, and one thing to remember, the list of items I mention above aren't covered by the Constitution of the United States.

I want you to think about the mindset of the people who migrated or immigrated to this country back during the several hundred years before the revolution which led to the birth of the United States. They were coming to a largely unsettled land; they either had to earn passage through hard work or indenture themselves as servants for a period of time. There were some wealthy individuals who saw an opportunity to increase their wealth and take the risk of coming to the untamed land and carve out a business for themselves. Very entrepreneurial don't you think?

They settled this country through hard work, risk, and delayed gratification. The mindset of people was one in which this land was worth the cost to have the chance at freedom in one of the many forms it takes; be it religious, political, or entrepreneurial. These people believed in earning it for themselves and their descendants because it wasn't going to be given to them.

They had lived under a government which had grown large and corrupt. They had lived through religious persecution and understood the problems with a rigid stratification of society. They wanted out of that type of existence. It is the reason they found ways to leave wherever it was they came from to have the chance at a new life with freedom to either succeed or fail in a very harsh environment. These are our ancestors and what they bequeathed to us was a representative republic with a constitution which embodied those principles they struggled so mightily for.

We are throwing it away. We are allowing ourselves to forget they wanted all to have to a chance and be accountable to the law with freedom to pursue their individuals goals. We aren't groups in this country, we are individuals who can choose to stay in their perceived groups or try a new one (freedom of association). We can choose to leave the faith of our families and choose a new one (freedom of religion). We can own a firearm and protect ourselves and our community (2nd Amendment). We are safe from government intrusion into our homes without showing cause to a magistrate (4th Amendment). These are things they understood were needed by experience.

We have seen our country grow into the most powerful nation on earth because the of the freedoms they guaranteed us in the Constitution. We are throwing those things away by allowing the undermining of that very same document.

We think those which have accumulated wealth should have to give it to those less fortunate; so, we created a way to force them to do so through a graduated tax structure and the various social programs we have instituted. By doing so, we created a lucrative tax evasion industry in the form of lobbyists to create tax loopholes, accountants to come up with unique ways to write off “expenses” and a bloated government agency with extra-constitutional power in the IRS. Oh, I almost forgot the corrupt politicians who are in the pockets of the lobbyists to write the loopholes into law. All this is the product of envy and greed.

That is enough for today. I will pick this up again tomorrow.