Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The Case for Iraq.

First Let’s revisit some of Al-Queda’s escapades prior to Bush ever entering into office. We have the 1993 first attempt on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000. (On Clintons watch.) Oh, and 9-11 was planned for 5 years prior to 9-11-02, so that one cannot logically be blamed on Bush either.

All of these attacks were because of a “diffuse, global militant Islamic ideology that predates Al-Qaeda's creation, is locally organized and constantly recruits new volunteers. Even the usually maladroit Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, understands this: "We blame everything on Al-Qaeda, but what happened is more dangerous than bin Laden or Al-Qaeda. . . . The issue is ideology, it's not an issue of organizations." Bin Laden concurs, noting that his own presence is unnecessary for mounting new acts of violence. "Regardless if Osama is killed or survives," he said of himself, "the awakening has started."
New York Post May 23 2003

So, while some continue to blame President Bush for not focusing on Bin Laden, we can see from his own words that his death or capture will mean little.

These radical groups have been full-throttle towards the destruction of what it considers the most wicked nation on earth. Not because of anything Bush has done, but because of the perceived notion of promiscuity and homosexuality that it considers the heart of the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, the U.S.A. in general, and Hollywood and San Francisco in particular.

These groups have been looking for support from Islamic governments for decades, and the most supportive has been Iraq. Saddam was the only head of state that actually cheered in public when 9-11 occurred.

The fear is and always has been to some how keep Nuclear Weapons out of the hands of these radical groups. The only nation that continued to oppose unfettered inspections was Iraq. Saddam had been issued about a dozen or more ultimatum resolutions from the U.N. and continued to thumb his nose at them until Bush and Blair pushed for
Resolution 1441 which said among other things “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,” This resolution was also ratified by the Congress.

Because of the attacks that occurred on Clinton’s watch, Clinton had signed a Policy Statement that make the official U.S. policy in Iraq of “Regime Change.”

When Clinton left office he pointed out that not only was Regime Change the official policy, but that he and the rest of the world believed that not only did Saddam have WMD’s but that the fear of the civilized world was that Saddam would make them available to the radical groups.

Bush and Blair made “Regime Change” and WMD’s their pitch to get the U.N. to force Saddam’s hand. If Saddam had stopped resisting the unfettered attempts of the inspectors, we would quit being suspicious of whether he was planning to turn them over to the radical groups or use them on his neighbors.

Saddam had assurances from the Russians and the French that they would resist any attempts by the U.S. to overthrow his regime. He had the French and Russians in his back pocket with the Billions of Dollars from the Oil for Food scam that they were accepting. So, Saddam called what he perceived to be our bluff.

Even though no one can prove a negative, there are those who still insist that since we have been unable to prove that he moved the WMD’s out of the Country to Syria and Iran, then therefore they never existed.

The absolute best group to go to war against is the enemy that blows himself up. Pretty soon they will run out of the ones that are Kamikaze Crazy and their main weapon of fear will be gone and then they will have lost.

The absolutely wrong thing to do would be to give up now. As soon as the Iraq government assumes the full brunt of the security forces responsibilities, then the enemy will be on his last legs.

If we would have stayed in Viet Nam for one more year, we would not have 3 million dead Cambodian and Vietnamese peoples blood on the hands of those who insisted upon us “cutting and running” with our tail between our legs.

But yet, there are those in this country that would love to see us humiliated again. They love nothing more that to dishonor our country by having the world laugh at our losses. We lost over 55,000 brave American Soldiers in Viet Nam. I am proud to have served with some of those that gave their lives in the previous battle against those who at that time had their ideology of ruling the world. At least the Communists were not stupid enough to blow themselves up, or attack us here.

Humans have an inherent desire to be powerful and rule over others. If we had no police, we would see that without a “force” to oppose those groups that would rule others, we would all be doomed to constant rape and pillaging.

This same principal is applicable to those in the world who would rule other countries. If there were no armies to oppose Hitler we would all be wearing brown shirts and observing more genocide right in our own country.

These groups will continue to attack all those who will not live under their Sharia, or Islamic Theocracy, By being in Iraq, their priority for now is to put everything they have to defeat the new Democracy that will emerge, because they first want a Islamic Theocracy over there.

Make no mistake about it though, they will attack us here again and as usual, those who hate Bush will say it is all his fault and somehow if we had not gone into Iraq, they would not be out to establish their World-Wide Theocracy or somehow our decadence, promiscuity and homosexuality would no longer be a reason to attack us anymore.

So, once again, what happened to us prior to Bush? That’s right, we were being attacked left and right. So that logic doesn’t fly, but those that want to regain power here will surely use it. Anything to get back in power. Oh, and all along claiming that the Christian Theoracy is the real danger in the World today. Yep, that makes perfect sense. We have been loosing to the froces of Atheism for the past decade or more. We have lost the "prayer in school" battle, we will eventually loose almost all of the "Ten Commandments" battles, and we will have "In God We Trust" removed from our coins. How do I know, because the forces of Atheism are more powerful than the forces of Theism in the courts. The courts think that being neutral is possible when having to choose between Theism and Atheism, so they choose Atheism.

We must stay the course or the radical Islamists will be back here blowing us and buildings up sooner rather than later!

For those who doubt that their aim is World Domination and destruction of America, here is a quote from one of their disciples:

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew." Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Greatest American

The Discovery Channel had a poll as to who we as Americans believe to be the “Greatest American” and the winner was...Ronald Reagan.

The Republicans had 3 names in the Top 6. George W. Bush beat Clinton. whoo-who!

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Martin Luther King, Jr.
4. George Washington
5. Benjamin Franklin
6. George W. Bush
7. Bill Clinton
8. Elvis Presley
9. Oprah Winfrey
10. Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I believe Matt Lauer will host the show to announce the winner this Thursday.

Lauer will probably choke on his words, when he makes the announcement. It will surely be difficult for him.

The schedule makes it sound like you can still vote during the first 15 minutes of the show. Schedule

Monday, June 27, 2005

Supreme Court Punts

When people are looking to authority for guidance, the worst answer in the world is "It all depends."

And yet, that was the courts decision today as it made one Establisment Clause case Constitutional, and another Unconstitutional.

Justice Scalia pointed out that the Courts duty is to proclaim what the standard is by being consistent on cases. And going both ways is not being consistent.


Listing the various ways in which higher beings are invoked in public life — from "so help me God" in inaugural oaths to the prayer that opens the Supreme Court's sessions — Scalia asked, "With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the court possibly assert that 'the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality' [on religion]?"

Being neutral is impossible since as both Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis affirmed, "The question of God is the single most important question in the history of mankind."

For if one is correct, the other is wrong. And either way, the answer is the most profound imaginable.

If there were no God, then the notion that there is one would be the greatest hoax ever perpetuated since the beginning of man. The gravity of a hoax of this magnitude appears to C.S. Lewis to be too inconceivable as to be possible.

By trying to be neutral, they have endorsed Atheism as the national religion, because you cannot be neutral, and by removing God from public life, we are being Atheistic by saying that Theism has no place.

By proclaiming a belief in God and his laws as being the basis of our laws, we as a Nation have always made a stand that we recognize that we are a Theist nation and not an Atheist nation.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Court Gets it Wrong Again!

The Supreme Court members have sworn to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America.

In our great Republic we have enjoyed more freedom than any other nation in history. Let us examine why.

There are two main reasons why we have a Republic instead of a Democracy.

First, is the Constitution, and second is the Bill of Rights.

Under a Democracy, the majority can impose its will upon the minority without any restrictions. In a Democracy, if the majority of the people wanted to run a certain group out of the country, all it would take would be 51% and they would have to leave.

Under a Republic, the Rights of the Minority are spelled out in a document, such that the majority cannot disregard their rights. Everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away. This is the basis of freedom.

So, how do we define Freedom? Freedom has been simply defined as…”My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” In other words, as long as I don’t infringe upon someone else’s rights, I should be able to do what ever I wanted.

We develop laws to help us understand how our actions may infringe upon someone else’s rights. If someone takes something that belongs to someone else, then they have infringed upon the other persons rights.

Where we loose focus is when an Organization takes something that belongs to someone else. For instance if the government takes something, (property/money), from someone that doesn't belong to them! Not only the lost freedom aspect of the act, but the morality of the act is lost or obscured. For instance, if the government says, "We think you should give of your property to the poor, but since we don't think you will, we will take it from you and give it to the poor instead." This is lost freedom of control of our property. (And morally wrong!)

But let’s examine a more detailed view of our Freedom.

There are four possessions that we must have in order to be truly free. They are:

1. Life, with adequate amounts of physical and mental health and strength.
2. Absence of the restraint or coercion of others, except when their freedoms, or four possessions, are infringed upon by me.
3. Knowledge of Laws and the enticement of others to understand them.
4. The right and control of property.

There are those who would make this 4th possession much harder to understand. Life depends upon access to food, clothing, and shelter, and unless we are able to acquire these items of property, our very existence is in jeopardy.

As we grow independent from our parents, we learn that we can take raw materials and energy and thru the efforts of our body and mind, we can produce items that others want and will give us some of their property in return. Once we have gained this property, or money, we can then be really independent. However, if we cannot do with our property as we wish, we no longer are truly free. “A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” (Federalist #79)

Property becomes the means to one’s goals. Freedom could be defined as the power and opportunity to achieve our goals.

Thru synergy we can combine our free use of property with others free use of their property and accomplish things that are beyond our own limited abilities.

But, if we cannot do with our property as we wish, we will be limited in our freedom to accomplish even the smallest goals.

“Control” of property thus becomes a key component that is usually lost in the governments methods of espousing the “greater good” of society as the reason they will “take”, (steal), our property, or will limit our ability to sell, or otherwise use it as we see fit, as long as we don’t infringe upon others rights.

This claim that the State Government can “take” someone’s property and give or sell it to a giant pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Corp, even if it is for the "greater good" is taking away freedom. Fox News

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Proper Role of Government

I am going to make this one short and to the point. In my Profile I point out that the single most important book about the proper role of government that I have ever read, (My Political Science Professor told me to read it), was "The Law" by Frederick Basitiat.

Well for those who are interested, it has passed its copyright period and has been classified as a "public domain" document and is now available on the web in it's entirety.

Here it is: The Law

Have fun. I only hope you get as much from it as I did and it is only about 75 pages.

All who strive to do the right thing should read this book. It changed my political life completely. It gave me foundation to have consistant views on politics.

The Sedition Act - Dick Durbin

Although both the “Sedition Act” and the “Espionage Act” were repealed in 1921, we should all understand the reason they were inacted in the first place. See:

Senator Durbin stood on the Senate floor and did another “moral equivalency” speech that would surely have qualified under either of the acts above as treason, had they still been in effect.

There is no other Country in the World that is so self-examining to try to better itself than the United States of America. We criticize our selves more than any other country on earth. But we sometimes do it at the wrong time and without any regard for “unintended consequences.” We should have more brains than to say things that will become propaganda for our enemies.

Let’s examine how we as Americans are being so bad in our treatment of the prisoners at GITMO. First many, many have been released. How many were release from the Gulag or Auschwitz?

Not only released unharmed, but weighing more than when they went in. Many have said it was the best food, (we give the Muslims honey glazed chicken, and other fine foods because it is part of their strict diet), and have said it was the best treatment they have ever had.

And now let us examine the complaints. A few say they are being tortured, (the definition of torture is “the infliction of severe physical pain." - American Heritage Dictionary)

First torture complaint is that we played with the thermostat and actually made it too cold for one prisoner. Wow! That is severe pain. Almost like pulling out fingernails as happened in the Gulag.

Next we played with the thermostat and made it too hot. It got up to almost 100 degrees. Wow, severe physical pain again. Never mind that here in Sacramento we have and average of over 60 days a year where temperatures approach 100 degrees, or that the temperature inside a hummer in the desert approaches 130 degrees.

These statements by Durbin are inciteful and fallacious.

We really need to come up with several new words that could be used for the following:
1. A small amount of pain, like playing with the air conditioning.
2. A medium amount of pain, like hitting someone with an open hand.
3. A severe amount of pain, like pulling out fingernails, cutting off extremities, poking out eyes, burning people alive in ovens. Oh, I forgot, this is the definition of torture!

Which of the three above are the ones associated with Gulag and Auschwitz? That third one is the only one that means torture. Number 1 and 2 have no definitions and for Durbin to equate them is to be intellectually dishonest. Anything to get back at Bush!

There is a reason that we have about 150,000 words in our language. Each one means something. That is why we should choose our words carefully.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

The Special Election

First, let me say that my blog name has to do with “choice.” Free Agency means the Freedom to choose. We can only effectively do this in a Free Nation.

I was a caller today on the Eric Houge show and talked to Eric about the up coming special election. A previous caller had mentioned some silly conspiracy theory about how the manufacturer of the voting machines had contributed to Arnold’s campaign and therefore the outcome of the November special election was already set. If that is the case, then no need for Arnold to spend another nickel.

Eric and I were rather amused since it is well known that people in business are interested in seeing that good people are placed in government so as to hopefully foster a good environment for jobs and business.

Tax dollars ultimately come from one source, employers. Employers pay taxes. Employers hire employees that pay taxes. Without employers there would be no one to pay taxes.

But yet union bosses and the radical left hate employers and love employees. They might wake up one day and realize that they killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

But the point is the everyday people in this great country, along with most businesses, “freely” contribute money to help the candidate of their choice. This is not the case of those who belong to Unions. Their Union Dues can be spent on a candidate who is diametrically opposed to many of their member’s wishes/issues. So, the union members are “forced” to pay for someone or some things that they are against. This is why Arnold has put on the November ballot, the measure called “Pay Check Protection.” The members get to “choose” whether or not their dues go to the Union Bosses pet politicians.

By the way, We need to watch for continued lies in the next few months coming from the special interests and union bosses, so let’s examine some that are sure to be echoed:

Lie #1 – Arnold is hurting certian groups. No, the taxpayer money pie is only so big. We sometimes have to move funds from one area to supplement another more needy area. When the legislators ruined our budget, they did it because it was too easy to write checks from other people’s checkbooks, i.e., the taxpayers. But in the end, the public workers will still be well taken care of. Remember how Prop 13 was going to ruin our needed services like police and fire protection. They will cry the same "wolf" again!

Lie #2 – Arnold is spending 80 million on this special election. No, he is spending about 40 – 45 million and it will save us a lot more than that.

Lie #3 – The amount of education spending has been cut. No, the amount of “increase” is less than some would like, but it is still going up. This is a favorite lie of the “tax and spend” group.

Lie #4 – Arnold is being divisive. No, he is enlightening the differences between good policy and bad policy. We in this great country were never intended to be together on all issues. That is why we have a two party system. It is a good thing to have areas of disagreement, not a bad thing. Divisive is such an emotionally charged and negative word. Arnold is being “clear” not “divisive.”

Arnold is a "mover and a shaker" and some of those who used to "bully" the taxpayers are getting scared.

Monday, June 13, 2005

School Vouchers

Update Note: I just added a link to an article by Milton Friedman published in the Wall Street Journal about Vouchers. See link below. 6-14-05.

With Arnold fighting the Public Teachers Union over some very good issues, we should re-examine the real problem with K-12 education in general.

One of the sure ways to have a poor system is to make it part of the government. This statement is not just rhetoric. One of the things that make organizations efficient and successful is competition.

We don't really have much competition in our school system. Private schools can’t compete because most everyone that wants to send their children to a private, (good), school would have to pay twice.

We don't reward good teachers nor chastise bad ones. We give them all tenure based upon how many cobwebs they have. You have been here x number of years you deserve a raise also. Again, cobwebs.

With Vouchers, taxpayers would have some of their tax money returned to them in the form of a voucher that they can only spend on school for their children.

This would allow parents that are currently paying twice for their children to have a good education, once in taxes for public schools, and again for private education, to actually only pay once.

Imagine having the schools competing for our children. Imagine the best teachers getting salaries that are really up where they should be and the poor teachers being paid less.

Milton Freedman is against having public employees administer our schools for a very good reason. See: Opinion Journal

Also there are way too many administrators per teacher. That is classic "empire building 101", where people are paid by the number of subordinates that work for them. So, they fight for hiring more subordinates instead of fighting for more tools to help our children.

It is bad enough that we have a "socialized" K-12 school system; at least we could make it better by introducing some element of competition with vouchers.

The Teachers Unions have been fighting vouchers for years and they will continue to fight that battle because job security and money/power is more important to the Union Hierarchy than what is best for our children.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Roe v Wade

Since it appears that we may be sending at least one new Justice to the Supreme Court in the next two years and the big rallying cry on both sides will be the "litmus test", that is not admitted to exist. That being the position of the nominee on Roe v. Wade.

Perhaps it is time to fix that problem.

Can it be fixed? Yes!

Most Americans agree on some degree of abortion, so maybe all we need is for Congress to take the "Activism" out of the courts hands and into the place were it should be. In Congress.

Let's examine the real problems.

First there needs to be agreement on which abortions are acceptable and perhaps proper/moral to the majority of us. Lets go down the list of do's and don'ts:

1. Rape - Acceptable by most.
2. Life Threatening to Mother - Acceptable by most as Self Defense.
3. Incest - Acceptable by most.
4. Inconvenient - Not Acceptable by most.
5. Just Because - Not Acceptable by most.

Next, the Law that really needs to be passed by Congress is the Definition of When Death occurs. Armed with this we can then honestly speculate that the opposite is when life begins, and Congress could define it as well.

Then with definitions of when life and death occurs, the courts can make some judgments based upon something other than agendas. They could say something like "all legal abortions must occur prior to first indication of life." Or during the first Trimester. This would mean having defined when life begins. Is this possible? Maybe, read on.

Here is what the Supreme Court said in the Roe V. Wade Case about the concept of when life begins, which has everything to do with the unborn being granted protection under the 14th Amendment:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Roe V. Wade - Wikipedia

So, does the medical community agree upon the definition of when death occurs? There appears to be agreement from what I can gather. Judge for yourself, I have provided a link that makes it clear it is not so simple to just say it is when the brain is dead. It must be more specific.

They agree that it occurs when there is irreversible brain death. All other functions of the body can be artificially sustained, but not brain activity.

With this understanding of when death occurs, we can then perhaps establish that life could very possibly occur at first brain activity. Here are four sources:

First from Canada: "A person is dead when an irreversible cessation of all that person’s brain functions has occurred." See:

And next from Britain: “Brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead." See: Britian

And Third, from a U.S court case: "The UDDA provides that "an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem, is dead." See:

And finally another opinion on the definition of death that recognizes there are too many definitions of what "Brain Dead" means in the U.S.A. See:

Therefore we must be more specific in our definition so as to prevent the pronouncement of death when a person is visibly still functioning so as to be intuitively and obviously alive. Such as in the Terri Schiavo case. She definatley had brain activity, all could see it in the videos and therefore she was not "brain dead."

It is very important to understand that "Brain Death" is not meant to be so simple as the definition from Britain, but rather more like Canada, where "an irreversible cessation" of all brain functions occur.

This means that the brain is unable to keep other vital organs such as the heart sustained on its own. It also must consider the brainstem.

Many Doctors seem to feel that the "brainstem" holds the true repository of the life force. As noted in the above case, (third source), a baby born with just a brain stem, can still keep a body functioning for a few days.

This means that the true definition of "Brain Dead" needs to be "When a person is truly dead, the brain cells don't generate nerve impulses or EEG signals for a sufficient time as to render it impossible to restore the needed oxygen to prevent sufficient deprivation as to cause an irreversible cessation of all brain functions."

Or the most acceptable definition "The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), adopted by most states, defines brain death as the "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." See:

With one of these two definitions, we may have a reasonable working definition.

I think it makes perfect sense to use the logic that life must therefore begin at first brain activity.

Destroying a baby that has Brain Activity seems pretty clear to me that it very well could be murder.

Some might want to continue to leave it open ended and just play politics and we will continue to have both sides claim that the other side's Judges are being Activists.

In the forth article, it is pointed out that making a legal definition of death may lead to too many different interpretations, but what do we have now?

There are some that believe that life begins at conception. They could be right. If so, then we would still be better off than keeping with the current rate that has produced over 45 million abortions.

Finally, since life comes from our Creator, and at death it returns to our Creator, it may very well be we were not meant to know the exact time when those events occur. If that is the case, I can live with that as well.

What do you think? Should we just leave it like it is?

Friday, June 10, 2005

Dean a Clinton Puppet?

Many people claim that the Clintons run the DNC in specific, and the Democratic Party Machine in general.

So why is Howard Dean leading the DNC? Because the Clintons want him there.

Why do they want him there?

Simple, by being such a bombast and extremist, it will allow Hillary to come to the Democrats rescue and restore common sense to the Party.

Or so, the plan goes. What will kill the plan of having Hillary look like a centrist, by chastising Dean, is her voting record. She won't be able to run and hide from her record.

There is also a new "tell all" book due out in a few weeks that is supposed to be the "smoking gun" problem for her.

The book is by Edward Klein, and is titled..."The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President."

If Hillary becomes President, does that mean that Bill will be the "First Lady?"

Let's just hope that her counter part, Mr. centrist, John McCain doesn't get the GOP nomination. He is the biggest appeaser in the GOP and would compromise principals for expediency, and popularity.

He loves the MSM and the MSM loves him. That should be our first clue as to not have him represent the GOP.

Secularism or Atheism

There are only two choices we can make about this nations core identity and beliefs.

Either we get our "Rights" from a creator, ("that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"), or we are just some random event that has little significance, and there are no "unalienable" rights.

Either we are a nation that recognizes that there is a God or we say that there is no God. It's like being pregnant; there is no middle ground. Either we are a "Theist" nation or an "Atheist" nation.

Even Agnostics fall on the side of the Atheists. When you ask them do you believe in God, "yes" or "no", they say, "Well I can't say "yes."

Making this one choice does not mean that this nation is "making laws that "establish" or "promote" a single religion, because we all know that there are thousands of religions that believe in God.

None of us want a National Religion that only recognizes one religion. Either we recognize thousands of religions that recognize many different versions of God or we recognize a "single" religion that recognizes "no God".

But choose we must, because there are those that want to change us to a single Atheist religion instead of allowing us to continue to have a foundation of many different religions.

They attack religion under the guise of being secular.

Secular does not mean "anti-religious", it means, "not relating to a religion or a religious body." - American Heritage Dictionary

Atheism is a belief, a belief that there is no God, which makes it a religion. From the American Heritage Dictionary.."The doctrine that there is no God or gods." A doctrine is a religious dogma.

Again we can be secular and still acknowledge God, (however we choose to worship), as long as we do not promote a single religion.

The Founding Fathers wanted a Secular (not relating to a particular religion) government, but at the same time recognizing religion in general.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars…” - George Washington

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Freedom for Security (The Patriot Act)

One of my favorite Conservatives, Judge Andrew Napolanto has a book out called "Constitutional Chaos." It is about the problems with the Patriot Act.

From a book review on

"But in this sensational new book, Napolitano sets the record straight, speaking frankly from his own experiences and careful, thorough investigation and revealing how government agencies will often arrest without warrant, spy without legal authority, imprison without charge, and kill without cause. "

He talks about the Federal Agents being able to issue their own search warrants. They can also seize bank accounts and make it a crime if you make it public, even to a lawyer.

Are we giving up freedoms to gain security? I don't mind giving up convenience, such as more searches at airports, but please don't let the government become Orwellian.

With the vote coming up on the floor in Congress soon, let's make sure we let our congressmen know that we expect them to insure no rights will be given up for the sake of security.

Here is the URL of the Patriot Act: Patriot Act

And here is the URL (Fox News), of the few provisions that Conservatives are worried about: Fox News

I'm for 99% of Patriot Act, but am worried about possible abuse of power down the road.

Remember Government is by definition "Force". See my George Washington quote at the top of my page.

Am I all wet? Am I worried about nothing? The one thing that does worry me about my stance is that the ACLU is against these provisions, (and more).

I never thought I would be in agreement with even the slightest area with the ACLU. The ACLU is one of the worst things that ever happened in the U.S.A.

I heard a rumor that ACLU stands for Atheists, Communists, and Liberals Union. Is this true?

Maybe I am too concerned?

Some one please reassure me or straighten me out!

Saturday, June 04, 2005

Gulag in GITMO?

Gulag. The word is an acronym for the 476 Soviet bureaucracy administered forced labor camps. In Russian it is "Glavnoe Uppravlenie Lagerei" which means "Main Camp Administration."

This is where both criminal and political prisoners were sent. Some for being 10 minutes late for work, some for telling a Political joke.

Are those in GITMO, criminals or political prisoners? Most are not. Most are not harmed in any physical way. Most are given their own prayer rugs and holy sciptures. Most international visitors report back home that for the most part, those 500 or so in GITMO are treated humanely.

In the Gulag, no one was given a Bible. No one was treated with any respect.

In most accounts of the Gulag I have read, there are anywhere from 18 - 20 million people who passed through these 476 camps. Of these passing through, there were up to 3 million who were killed. Many more millions were tortured by having excruciating physical torture. Most that died in the camps, died from literly being worked to death. Rapes were routine.

Read the "Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for the best account of this terrible example of one of the most horrific human rights violation examples in history. To compare GITMO to this is to dishonor those who went through the Gulag.

We do the people who suffered through these and Nazi concentration camps an injustice when we attempt to do such a poor job of equivocating between the Gulag and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (GITMO).

To those who are making this comparison, please stop!

Should Government be Fair?

Should Government be Fair?

In order to answer this question we must examine two meanings. First, the meaning of government, and second the meaning of fair.

Notice that I didn’t say definitions. We need to examine the proper use of these two things.

First, we will examine the proper use of government. If we go back far enough into our earthly history we will find that the earliest forms of government came into being after humans were already on the earth. Governments came as a need of the human race and not as a parent or ruler.

People found early on that there was safety in numbers. Instead of making a homestead by them selves, people would gather into “tribes.” They noticed that in order to protect their life, liberty, and property, they had to have some who would be organized to do the protection. So, some would volunteer to be part of the defense team. They were to primarily “provide for the common defense.”

The team derived its powers from those they served. The team did not grant the individuals their rights; the rights were always present.

Next, the word “fair.” The easiest way to determine if someone is being fair is to play role reversal. Suppose you were part of the above tribe and you and 30% of the tribe had “brown” shoes, and the other 70% of the tribe had “blue” shoes.

Now, we are to vote on how to support our defense team. The “blue” shoes people vote to have the “brown” shoe people furnish most of the needs of the defense team. So that means the majority are using the force of government to impose their will on the minority. If you were to switch sides and you still think the situation was fair, then you are a fair-minded person. However, most people who vote to have the “brown” shoe people, (the rich), pay for most of the bills of our “team” would vote differently if the roles were reversed. It becomes easy to say, if I were rich, I wouldn’t mind paying more.” The problem lies in not understanding that once in the reversed role, we change our mind, even when we say we wouldn’t.

The next logical step is to “force” the rich to pay for most of everything. This is what is happing in our great country. When Tiger Woods realized he would have to pay so much more in taxes once he got his 70 Million dollars from Nike, he decided to make Florida his home state. Imagine that! Florida is one of the 7 States that have no state income tax. He saves over 9% of his money, by changing his home from California to Florida.

We have mostly rich people, (mainly lawyers), in Congress, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy included, who make sure they have tax shelters to protect their wealth, while the Upper Middle Class bears the brunt of the taxes in this country. All along the rich congressmen tell us that they are champions of the poor. They pay no social security in congress, they voted to have their own plan. Wonder why?

Here in California, a famous actor wants to have the “rich” fund a new socialized pre-school program. They know that since the majorities are not “rich”, that it will pass. That is a tyranny of the majority, and it is not fair. I am not rich since the dollar amount is 1 million dollars of income per year. I will vote against it because I would not want to be forced to pay “more” just because I was different. We punish the successful. And don’t think that confiscating their money, (property), is not punishment. It has the same effect as a fine.

When ever we vote we are imposing our will on others. The proper way to vote would be to ask yourself, if this “tribe” were just local, say my neighborhood, would I feel comfortable in going to my neighbor and saying “you must do such-and-such?” Only by understanding that the power of a government should not be viewed as having any more power than an individual.

Would I feel comfortable in saying “You are under arrest because we have proof that you stole from your neighbor? Yes! Would I feel comfortable in saying “Your are under arrest because I noticed you not wearing your seat belt?” No!

You are really only free as long as what you do, does not infringe on the rights of others. As an example, I agree with those that say, the government should not be able to impose it’s will on what goes on between two consenting adults. As long as they are not infringing upon someone else’s rights, then I would not feel comfortable in forcing them to stop. When we vote, lets consider what the proper role of government is, and what is fair.

I know some will say..."We must steal from the rich to give to the poor, because otherwise they would starve."

First, stealing is wrong even when it is for a good cause.

There are millions of good causes that people scream to be funded. The problem lies in forcing a minority group to fund them. Even if the minority group is the rich. (It turns out to be the upper middle class, even though the stated target group is the "rich". The truly rich have tax shelters.)

We don't know what would happen to the poor, if the majority stopped stealing from the rich to pay for the Poor’s needs. We will never allow it a chance because their are too many in this country who view what others would do by what they would do.

I don't see any rich "do-gooders" giving all but say $100,000 a year of their income to help the poor, yet they are the same ones that say..."They, (all rich but themselves), don't need that much money."

They live in opulence while screaming for more tax on the rich, knowing it will only affect the upper-middle class, and not them.