The increasing power of the judiciary.

The judicial system increases its own power everyday.  From ruling that Hate Crimes (subjectively ruling that motive for already established crimes is backed by hatred or disdain, and objectively having no difference, i.e. harassment is a simple enough crime on the street but if the perpetrated moves his/her location or makes racist, sexist, or other certain types of remarks it is somehow transformed to a hate crime, see: http://ift.tt/1JCcCT7)  to broadening its own powers the include the ability to bypass the existing court structure and invalidate any and all Executive and Congressional acts,  even to the point of declaring themselves the sole interpreter of our Constitution.  In essence the judiciary has given themselves the power to decide what is really law and what laws they disapprove of (despite Americans routinely opposing their decisions and despite congressmen, the President, and Governors from both sides of the fence letting them know they are acting inappropriately.  What seems to be the most fascinating twist is that in order to try a judge for direct and clear violations of civil and federal law, all a judge has to claim is immunity and all charges will be dropped, regardless of the gross incompetence or outright slander/libel, made by the judge even in the course of duty.  They enjoy complete and total immunity no matter how despicable their actions.  The idea is for a consistent judicial system not bogged down by “frivolous” lawsuits.  While this may have been a necessity in the earlier days of our nation, it is now an antiquated relic that disproportionately distributes both power and wealth tho those rare few that have the connections.  It, like sovereign  immunity serves no purpose and indeed gives us the”separate but ‘equal idea.

Proponents argue that judges will always be in fear of suit and thus paralyzed in their duties.  I counter with the simple fact that judges, attorneys, pharmacists, and doctors and all those we place in positions of trust MUST be held at least as accountable to us as they expect us to give them.  If judges are unwilling to stand behind their judgments, then how do we know we can trust them in return?

The increasing power of the judiciary.

The judicial system increases its own power everyday.  From ruling that Hate Crimes (subjectively ruling that motive for already established crimes is backed by hatred or disdain, and objectively having no difference, i.e. harassment is a simple enough crime on the street but if the perpetrated moves his/her location or makes racist, sexist, or other certain types of remarks it is somehow transformed to a hate crime, see: http://ift.tt/1JCcCT7)  to broadening its own powers the include the ability to bypass the existing court structure and invalidate any and all Executive and Congressional acts,  even to the point of declaring themselves the sole interpreter of our Constitution.  In essence the judiciary has given themselves the power to decide what is really law and what laws they disapprove of (despite Americans routinely opposing their decisions and despite congressmen, the President, and Governors from both sides of the fence letting them know they are acting inappropriately.  What seems to be the most fascinating twist is that in order to try a judge for direct and clear violations of civil and federal law, all a judge has to claim is immunity and all charges will be dropped, regardless of the gross incompetence or outright slander/libel, made by the judge even in the course of duty.  They enjoy complete and total immunity no matter how despicable their actions.  The idea is for a consistent judicial system not bogged down by “frivolous” lawsuits.  While this may have been a necessity in the earlier days of our nation, it is now an antiquated relic that disproportionately distributes both power and wealth tho those rare few that have the connections.  It, like sovereign  immunity serves no purpose and indeed gives us the”separate but ‘equal idea.

Proponents argue that judges will always be in fear of suit and thus paralyzed in their duties.  I counter with the simple fact that judges, attorneys, pharmacists, and doctors and all those we place in positions of trust MUST be held at least as accountable to us as they expect us to give them.  If judges are unwilling to stand behind their judgments, then how do we know we can trust them in return?

Ad

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

http://ift.tt/1Guz0Nc

The increasing power of the judiciary.

The judicial system increases its own power everyday.  From ruling that Hate Crimes (subjectively ruling that motive for already established crimes is backed by hatred or disdain, and objectively having no difference, i.e. harassment is a simple enough crime on the street but if the perpetrated moves his/her location or makes racist, sexist, or other certain types of remarks it is somehow transformed to a hate crime, see: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/hate-crime-act.html)  to broadening its own powers the include the ability to bypass the existing court structure and invalidate any and all Executive and Congressional acts,  even to the point of declaring themselves the sole interpreter of our Constitution.  In essence the judiciary has given themselves the power to decide what is really law and what laws they disapprove of (despite Americans routinely opposing their decisions and despite congressmen, the President, and Governors from both sides of the fence letting them know they are acting inappropriately.  What seems to be the most fascinating twist is that in order to try a judge for direct and clear violations of civil and federal law, all a judge has to claim is immunity and all charges will be dropped, regardless of the gross incompetence or outright slander/libel, made by the judge even in the course of duty.  They enjoy complete and total immunity no matter how despicable their actions.  The idea is for a consistent judicial system not bogged down by "frivolous" lawsuits.  While this may have been a necessity in the earlier days of our nation, it is now an antiquated relic that disproportionately distributes both power and wealth tho those rare few that have the connections.  It, like sovereign  immunity serves no purpose and indeed gives us the"separate but 'equal idea.  

Proponents argue that judges will always be in fear of suit and thus paralyzed in their duties.  I counter with the simple fact that judges, attorneys, pharmacists, and doctors and all those we place in positions of trust MUST be held at least as accountable to us as they expect us to give them.  If judges are unwilling to stand behind their judgments, then how do we know we can trust them in return?

Finally an update from me!

It may seem hard to believe but it took me quite a long time to decide on how to write this piece.  My disgust for the current state of US affairs aside I am above all a patriot and loyal to the Constitution as it was written (bureaucracy, immunities (both judicial and sovereign), and way too much "judicial review" removed).  I am not, however, loyal to the misinterpretation we call our current government.  Mexico is a case in point.  We are terribly concerned with an immigration threat that while real is less of a threat and more of a nuisance.  We are obsessed with the states that want to govern themselves.  We believe that everyone is a terrorist who has simply committed a crime, no matter how small. And worst of all we build our lives around what is most publicized, not what is true (Dr. Oz, Dr. Phil, Opera, and Good Morning America dictate everything from our purchases and our filtered news to our mind and bodies).  Case in point is the trip I took to Mexico and what I uncovered there.  The time I had in Mexico was only a full working day yet it was very educational.  Without going more than a few yards from the boat, one can fill one's purse, messenger bag, or even a plain old paper bag with all kinds of "goodies" albeit within schedule IV and below (this includes antibiotics which are like candy it seems but it also includes the controlled substance Soma, a powerful and dangerous muscle relaxant).  Go past the initial gate and into Mexico proper and you can literally write down your pharmaceutical order, as it were, and have almost anything filled.  Finally what you can't find at the legitimate pharmacy is available for a price if one looks enough like a tourist trying to get a quick fix, simply wait to be approached.

Now one may ask how all of this is relevant.  What is the real threat?  It is true that on return to the states I passed through no detector and only had to give my word on a declaration to customs that I had nothing to declare (which was true for me but for anyone smuggling would have been the only thing they had to do to get anything back into the states).  For all this though, I would not recommend an increase in TSA, simply a reassessment of what really is a threat.  However minor this must be it is a very real threat that should be dealt with appropriately (ideally diplomatically).  It should not under any means though be dealt with out of proportion.  This threat, as should all threats, be dealt with a much as it genuinely disrupts US health and should not be dealt with outside of the powers granted (not created by the government) in the Constitution.  When the government fails to do so or acts beyond its lawful powers and non-violent means have failed, any means must be used to restore a government that is constitutional.  The people always have the right to assert their end of the social contract, it is a question therefor of whether we have the courage to do so.

That is my update, look forward to getting back on the ball!

 

Going away

I will be headed to Mexico in the next few days and seeing the real story about what the "pharmacies" sell.  look forward to a full report with pictures!!



James Bianco, Valeyard

I don't Belieber you

Usually I wouldn't comment on something so trivial but Justin Bieber is a thorn in my side. It is ridiculous enough that his only discernable talent is his singing ability (helped, of course, by Autotune and a host of digital "enhancements") and we hold him up on a pedestal because of that, but his recent skirmish with the law and the rather staged look of it tipped me over the edge. It is no secret that he is a puppet of his even less talented handler Usher, and this recent chain of events only seems to reinforce this. His mugshot sports him with hair that is only slightly miffed (look through your local newspaper and find anyone who has had time to do their hair prior to being arrested), a visible base coat of foundation (unless his face is just naturally a different shade than the rest of his body), mascara (yes, mascara because very few boys his age that I have seen have long, full eyelashes like a L'Oreal commercial), and a smirk that shows how confident he is of his limited engagement in the county jail, despite the fact that most DUI recipients are at least held in the drunk tank until they can sober up.

My theory, and it is by no means any more than that is this: Usher knew that "bad boys" are popular with the teenage crowd he panders to, but he also knew that Bieber couldn't have the rap sheet of say Eminem and still be allowed by these teenagers' parents in their home. He knew however, that a DUI while a serious offense is not viewed by most people as being as serious as drug possession or assault and is a more forgiveable crime in younger people so long as no one gets hurt. He concocted this plan to give Bieber some "street cred" as it were and gave Bieber enough alcohol to blow the required 0.08, then set him behind the wheel, assured him of his bailing, and tipped the police off that Bieber was driving drunk knowing they couldn't resist such a prized catch. All of this done, of course, after ensuring that Bieber looked just "rough" enough to pass as intoxicated, but still decent enough not to look like a hard criminal.

This, of course, is both Usher and Bieber's prerogative but what really infuriates me is that MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) can spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars making the police look like the NSA (the commercial where they are camouflaged as people who are obviously drunk walk by and then end with the slogan of "We'll see you before you see us" is as creepy as the thought that our own government feels no need to operate within the confines of the law in surveillance) have made not even so much as a condemnation of this immensely popular figure's mocking the very serious and dangerous crime of operating a machine that can and has killed many people, under the influence of a substance that removes inhibitions and impairs judgment even in small doses. No government agency or even the Governor of the state he was caught in (our "great" state of Florida which has a high DUI rate compared nationwide) has come forward to say this is not acceptable behavior nor behavior to smile in a mugshot for as though it were a photoshoot. No agency or person that has in the past condemned drunk driving in general has even mentioned how disgusting it is that this very public figure is, in effect, encouraging his fans to embrace him BECAUSE of a dangerous and deadly crime and is by association, encouraging the committing of said crime.

So in short, whatever you believe about Bieber and his "music", you can not believe that his actions (due to his status) were even remotely responsible or that he should have received the light treatment he did by the judge hearing his case. At the risk of contempt, one might even question how much justice this judge meted out and how much of it went back in his pocket and toward his campaign to continue in his office (in Florida we elect whether or not to allow our judges to continue in their position and election time for that is fast approaching) for surely if he had considered the repercussions of such a light treatment as allowing a drunk teen idol to not remain in jail until trial but releasing him before the alcohol had time to leave his system, he would have held him to the fullest extent of the law.

This is simply my opinion however, what do you think? Did Usher and Bieber fake this for publicity? Is Bieber's mugshot appropriate for someone who claims to care about his fans (could have hit one of them while driving drunk) and various other social causes? Have the authorities, leaders, judge, and MADD reacted appropriately? And finally, was justice served in this case? I look forward to your response.

Bad Breaking

First-some house-cleaning I am going to start doing some investigative reporting along with the op-ed pieces everyone is used to.  Hopefully this will interest and invigorate everyone.  Now on to business.
The TV show "Breaking Bad" recently featured methamphetamine that had been colored for marketing purposes.  In a classic life imitating art a form of methamphetamine is now being produced called "blue meth".  True to its name, this form of meth is methamphetamine tinted with methylene blue.  Other colored forms of meth have been on the market including pink meth which was colored using red dye #5.  Blue meth however is making people sick.  This is because methylene blue (Unlike red dye #5 which is approved for human consumption) is used as a stain in labs and a potent disinfectant.  The makers of meth likely used this rather than the FDA approved blue because bulk methlyene blue is cheaper and easier to procure (food coloring isn't cheap), however blaming the makers is an exercise in futility.  Makers are interested in the same thing as every business man, profit, and their product isn't exactly safe to begin with.  Encouraging them and giving them ideas (like coloring a dangerous drug to make it more appealing to their customers and potential customers) should be something we frown upon, not something we include in our TV programming.  The question here is not whether or not "Breaking Bad" was irresponsible or even liable for making an existing problem worse (the last thing meth needs is to make its users MORE sick), but rather whether or not we should prohibit programs from showing content that they know encourages illegal and dangerous activities.  It is a fundamental question that has been debated in the halls of congress and in the courts.  Both seem to agree that every case is different (with a few standards, like not shouting "fire" where no fire exists or inciting people to riot, etc.) but both desire a standard for what speech is protected and what is not.  So what do you think?  How far should free speech go before being prohibited or even censored to some extent?



James Bianco, Valeyard

Sovereignty

Wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to decide whether or not you wanted legal action taken against you?  Unbeknownst to most people, the States and  their employees (Governor, Lt. Governor, Sec. of State, etc.) as well as most federal officers (President, Congress and Supreme Court, which to  respond to my Google+ comment yes it is odd for such a liberal judge to issue a stay outide of her power, but she also receives a large contribution from the mormons and the Supreme Court is no stranger to seizing unlawful and unethical power.  As well as the Cabinet of states and the President which can claim sovereignty) all have this ability as well as immunity from all "minor" offenses (misdemeanors, which include Notary fraud and bribes under $5000).  Justices of our Supreme Court can even claim more power (the Supreme Court's power is specifically enumerated in he Constitution but since Marbury v. Madison they have been adding on powers under the guise of "Judicial Review") AND has the ability to hold in contempt anyone who disagrees with them.  They have little interest in justice (see Snyder v. Phelps and listen to the arguments of the justices as well as the announcement of their opinion and you can see their bigotry and complete ignorance of jurisprudence) and often times vote either to appease the public (DOMA ruling came only after a Gallup poll that said 73% of approved of repealing it) or to put themselves in the limelight because they know people forget about them (Snyder v. Phelps was issued not in the interest of protecting free speech, it was issued because Westboro Baptist "Church" was constantly in the news for their atrocious and repugnant behavior as well as Ms. Phelps complete moronic arguments in the Arizona courts).  Congress passes law that benefit their pocket books and the President has no courage to challenge any of it.  Yet we, as Americans, allow them to continue their behavior and give them infinite "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards with not one qualm.  We refuse to hold them accountable (STILL doing the Electoral College and not direct vote), and live in fear of criticizing them or even being civilly disobedient.

What do you think?  Should Sovereignty still exist and if so why?  Should the people hold everyone in office accountable to their oath to defend the Constitution and represent the will of the people or are things working out just fine as they are?  What do you think?

A NOTE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH IS NOT PART OF ANY BAPTIST DENOMINATION AND HAS BEEN DENOUNCED BY ALL OF THEM FOR THEIR MESSAGE OF HATE AND IGNORANCE.  THEIR ACTIONS (PRIMARILY PROTESTS AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES), IF EVALUATED BY THE IRS WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THEM FROM A 501(c)3 (CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, ETC) to a 503(b) (SOCIAL CLUBS, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS).  THEIR STATUS AS A CHURCH IS DUE TO MS. SNYDER (THEIR "ATTORNEY" WHO HAS NUMEROUS BAR COMPLAINTS FOR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR).



James Bianco, Valeyard

How the Judiciary Failed us today both in Utah and in the Supreme Court

It is curious how the Mormons, whose educational system is less than reputable, and who still maintain a doctrine of polygamy could be so sly. Calling upon one of the few Justices whose ignorance is only outweighed by her inappropriate mixing of her religious beliefs with civil law, the State of Utah (one could hardly argue that it is anything less than a state whose official, but unofficial, religion is Mormonism. A story, by the way that's good for a laugh if one is up to it, but I digress.) asked Justice Sotomayor for an emergency stay halting all gay marriages until the District Court of Appeals rules whether Gay marriage is constitutional. She, being the ever prudent jurist (who has apparently forgotten that the Court has already ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional) decided to grant the stay until the Appeals court decides. Thankfully, the Appeals Court judge actually was paying attention when the DOMA decision was handed down (I believe Ms. Sotomayor was having a mild stroke that month and just signed the dissent to satisfy her HEAVILY religious and conservative lobbyists-follow her paper trail and it reads like Jerry Falwell's memoirs) placed the ruling under a sort of Fast-Track. So what can we draw from this? The Judicial system was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to handle disputes when the law is unclear or outright broken. Contrary to Ms. Sotomayor and several other judges' opinions, it was NOT created to impede the progress of law (until AFTER an initial ruling and then it should not interfere until it reverses that ruling), not to create laws, and certainly not to stop something that has stood numerous appeals and affects only one group of people (gays) in a positive way. Judges, and especially Justices, continue to build their power, issuing their own "executive orders" as it were (stays, injunctions, etc.) and issuing them based only on personal preference, not any educated interpretation of the law. We have seen this happen time and again in famous cases like Brown v. The Board of Education (Stays on the decision to integrate were issued until the Supreme Court could get their grubby mits on it, depriving blacks of what was their right at the time of the stays, as an appeals court had ruled). What is worse is that if we dislike the President and his executive orders, we can impeach him. We cannot impeach sitting Judges, even when they are so old and senile that their decisions are ignored by the others at best, but still become part of case law. We can only wait until they all die and then elect a President to place competent jurists on the bench, and elect a senate that will confirm them.

In short, doesn't it seem that rather than protecting liberty and allowing the courts to rule in their jurisdiction (Ms. Sotomayor's decision was WELL outside of the powers enumerated in the US Constitution), our courts have become places where the richer your lawyer, the better your chances, and the more you belong to whatever sociological group the judge does, the better your chances of winning? Does justice rule in our courts? What do you think?

U.S. Supreme Court puts gay marriage in Utah on hold.

Guess who's back

After a couple of injuries and a bout with the flu, I am glad to be back.  Rather than leave off where we did, I am going to lay some foundations.  The previous Executive structure was only really understood as a necessity by a few.  To show this necessity, I want to show HOW the current system has failed with a few examples and hopefully some discussion.
As it is pertinent to me I will discuss our current entitlement programs (social programs especially Social Security Disability).  We, in America, believe to some extent that we have a responsibility to care for those in our society who cannot care for themselves.  Our belief in this however, is expressed in the creation of an agency that exists not to facilitate this (even when it has already been paid for by the claimant as is the case that happens when a person claims after years of work) but rather exists to hinder this.  The initial evaluations of Social Security are made by PhD's with no medical experience and who make recommendations of work a claimant either can not perform or can never find.  Multiple impairments are not considered until the Administrative Law Judge Stage which can and often does take years to get to.  In the meantime, those who can claim and try to receive benefits are unable to work but often have ever mounting medical and other bills that exhaust the finances of the claimant and (if they are fortunate enough to have them) family/friends. 
This, it would seem, is the opposite of the original goal society expressed.  Yet it is not just Social Security, our care of the poor, elderly, and disabled is designed not to help, but rather it would seem to hinder and keep people in the neverending cycle of, at best, debt; and in the worst case (especially disability) progressively worsening health and possibly death.
Does this not seem a failure of our system and a failure of our representatives/senators to exercise our goals and desires?  On the social scale is this what we want?  Comments?  



James Bianco, Valeyard

Part II: The Executive Department of "The Ideal Government"

Our current Executive Branch is bloated and inefficient. Through the guise of regulatory activity, its agencies create their own laws which are separate and above what Congress has enabled them to do. Our own NSA is a perfect example of this. Whether or not they were empowered to do so, they used the Patriot Act to justify the whole-scale spying on US citizens and US allies. They are not alone in their activities as each Department creates for themselves entire structures of regulations which are at best tangential to the original vague laws that authorized their goals. It is my goal to eliminate that red tape through remembering the purpose of the Executive Branch and limiting it to that purpose: to enforce the laws Congress has established. Thus I think the following structure would allow us a far better, and far less greedy Executive Branch.
Article I The Executive Branch

Elections

All elections should be based on the popular vote alone and the Electoral College should be disbanded. It is a hold-over from the days when calculating the popular vote and verifying it was tedious and could leave the nation leaderless if there was a dispute. This is no longer an issue.

The President

The President is the face of our nation, and the commander of our police force. As it stands, he holds powers outside of what the Constitution has given him. The Executive order allows him to create temporary laws and temporary military movements that can have wide-ranging and possibly destructive powers. His appointment of justices and other officers (ambassadors, etc.) even when confirmed by the Senate is an archaic and useless measure that is best left to the people through election. Only the power of veto still serves a purpose, though it is abused for partisan reasons.

The President, under my construction, would have only the power of veto without additional powers approved by congress. As the face of the nation, the President has no business in the budget, no business in moving and commanding troops without permission from congress, and no business issuing executive orders (law-making should be vested solely in one branch, not muddled into many). The President need not appoint anyone as all offices can now be expedited through the election system and chosen by the people. The President should be the bearer of the peoples' will to other nations and the very essence of what it means to be American. He should be our ambassador to other nations, supervising other ambassadors and ensuring that the image of America is consistent.
He should retain the power of veto with one caveat, all vetoes should be ruled by the Supreme Court as either just or unjust. If a veto is made based upon threats to pass or not pass other legislation the President's party holds interest in, then the veto is unjust and should be disregarded. If the veto, however, is made based on solid legal theory and holds the interest of the people and not the party, then it should be ruled just and upheld. (Overcoming said veto will be address in the legislative part of this series). The President should be no younger than 25 and no older than 65, should have served in at least 2 other elected positions, and should have attained a Master's degree or higher. The President is elected for 4 years and may be elected twice. Because of the benefits the members of the Executive Branch receive, they should never be paid more than the minimum wage at the time (this includes ALL members of the Executive Branch)

The Vice-President

The Vice-President should serve as President of the Senate and should hold no other duties apart from serving temporarily as President should the need arise due to death or illness of the President. The VIce-President should be elected separately from the President and meet all the qualifications to be President. The Vice-President should serve at most 2 terms of 4 years

The Line of Succession

Should anything happen to the President, an election should be called as soon as possible to elect another. The Vice-President should serve as President during the interim. THe other lines of succession should remain in place, however all should be temporary until a proper election can take place. No person should assume office simply because of misfortune and all offices should be filled with the choice of the people as soon as possible.

The Cabinet

The President's Cabinet should stay as small as is necessary to enforce the laws of Congress. They should never have the power to create regulations that serve in any way or in any semblance as law. As will be addressed in the section on the legislature, laws should be sufficient clear and well defined to allow them to be enforced with no additional regulations. Internal regulations (Hiring, firing, etc.) should be permitted. The Secretaries of the Cabinets should be no younger than 30 and no older than 70 and should have attained at least 1 Doctorate in the field they wish to be Secretary of. They should also be elected officials who serve a term of the same length of the President they are elected under.

The Fed

The Fed should be abolished and replaced by an elected regulatory agency.

THe Bureaucracy

The officers and employees of the various cabinets should stay as small as is possible to enforce the law. They are entitled to minimum wage at the time and are hired by the President. Their conduct, whether official or not, is a direct reflection upon the President and any and all actions taken by them should be regarded as actions by President. Their actions, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses as well as those of all federal and state employees should be published for public inspection and their homes and families will be protected by the US Marshals and the State Police.
They must at all times restrict their actions to enforcing the law and must never attempt to interpret it, go around it, use any loopholes in it or any similar action. They must never, without a court order, use secretive techniques on anyone. This includes the military who must abide by civilian law and whose Secretary of Defense must be elected from the highest ranking members of each branch.

Emergency Powers

Upon the vote of 51% of Congress, or by a special election called by the President in which 51% of the nation agrees, the President may, for a specific and exact period determined by the people or Congress, whichever is applicable, take full command of the military for the express purpose of defending the nation against an aggressor.

Removal of an Executive

Should any member of the Executive Branch prove incompetent, or incapable of filling their duties, he or she may be removed upon recommendation of a member of the House, who, upon obtaining at least 51% of their fellow Representatives and 2/3 of their Senators may take said recommendation to the Supreme Court who, after reviewing all the evidence will decide whether or not to issue an order of no confidence. Upon said order the Executive will be removed and an election will take place to replace said officer.

END
This of course is not a perfect design and would require a great deal more discussion to come up with something perfect. The fact of the matter is that the current Executive Branch has taken for themselves powers not intended for them to have. Take for example the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This entire Department was created as a fear reaction to 9/11. We have no need for an entire department to be created to do something many other departments already do. The NSA would be another perfect example. The CIA handles foreign intelligence (and domestic) and the FBI handles domestic concerns (and foreign to some extent). In addition, each branch of the military has intelligence operations. The NSA was created so we could spy on people we weren't supposed to be spying on with our legitimate means (Geneva Convention, what's that?). This is the effect of a bloated and misused Executive Branch. We haven't seen anything of our Vice-President, nor has he been doing his job as President of the Senate, so why are we paying him? Another example. Time after time we can find perfect demonstrations of a fat, bloated, and lazy Executive Branch and a doddering nation unwilling to see that we can make a better way.

Well, let me know what you think and any suggestions to make this design I present to you better. The next segment will be The Legislature.

Welcome Back! Part 1 of "The Ideal Government"

I apologize for the delay but I have been contemplating a solution to the problems inherent in our government.  At the moment our government is inefficient, overpaid, not listening to their constituency, spying on their own people as well as their own allies, and has on numerous occasions threatened the very existence of our Union.  In the Senate they have misused the power of unlimited debate to simply block the passage of laws that the people desire (Filibuster).  In the House they have refused to use their power to remove elected and/or appointed officials who have transgressed the public trust (Impeachment).  The laws passed rarely reflect the desire of the people and those elected are rarely qualified to do what a public SERVANT should do.  Our elected officials are wealthy and indulgent while the average American is middle class and quickly losing all they own to the wealthy.  Those in power have made sure that power is retained by the wealthy and prohibit those who represent the interests of the middle class from possibly winning an election (winning an election is directly related to the amount  of money put into a campaign, rather than platform or qualifications).  Watching Congressional Hearings and speeches is a cavalcade of idiocy.  Congress refuses to do what we pay them handsomely for with most speeches given to an empty house  and debates are nearly non-existent.  Congress does not alone share in this damnable indictment.  Our President ignores and acts directly opposite to the people, delegates authority to his bureaucracy who creates law (regulations carry the force of law) not based on true science, but on those they pay to create the conclusions they wish.  The Department of Defense, the IRS, INS, CIA, FBI, US Marshalls, NSA, FDA, and most importantly the DEA all infringe on liberty unnecessarily, harass  the populace continually, and refuse to listen to science, unless it involves groups like the MPAA (who rely on obscure and unwritten rules.  Literally, they just watch a movie and make an arbitrary decision) or special interests who pay to have their "science" justify a particular regulation.  The President has become a neutered dog and parrots whatever sound bite sounds good.  Rather  than lead our nation, he allows ignorant and bloated morons whose pay and benefits are NOT commensurate with their qualifications and who rely on inaccurate data to lead us to fear everything from Marijuana to trans fats (Its amazing how both have been around forever and never caused massive problems until Bloomberg (Sieg Heil Bloomberg!) banned them and now just looking at trans fats can cause a heart attack)(Also, just to clarify, neither trans fats that are in even soda pop and marijuana, which the AMA and numerous other truly scientific agencies have approved in its smoked form as a medicine and is SUBSTANTIALLY  less dangerous than the legal drug Alcohol).

Finally, the Judiciary has overstepped its bounds in that they have claimed the right of judicial review without any good reason (read Marbury v Madison) and without approval of the people.  They have created and vetoed laws which is not their right.  They have ignored the Court of the People, prohibited representation to attorneys which only they can license even when representation by a non lawyer is desired.  They have prohibited private criminal prosecution despite it working in every other civilised country and exists now only in despotic regimes.  They make access to the court and records expensive and difficult to obtain for all but the wealthy.  Judges are corrupt, preferring to stay with the old boys club where they listen and give deference to anyone with a JD, even when the other party has a valid case.  Judges do not understand or know the law and attorneys bend the rules and are allowed to.  Any question of a judge or attorney will place someone in contempt.  Judges are bloated, ignorant, incapable, overpowered, overpaid, and refuse to apply the law equally, even to the point of discrimination.

This is a short indictment of our system and so through the next  few weeks I will show you how to fix this. Perhaps with any luck we can call a Constitutional Convention and fix this system that is slowly but surely destroying this nation I love.  Let me know what you think would be part of a better government!

Church and State and the space in between

This nation was founded with the idea that all men and women could practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) that they wished with little to no interference from the government. Because of the government being set up as a contractual government (i.e. the people give the leaders the right to rule and expect fair and just treatment in return) it also expected little to no interference from religion. This is only a right way of thinking if one stops to consider it. In order to allow the practice of any religion or lack thereof, the government itself must be free from the moral and ethical confines of any one religion. It must relegate itself to reason and scientific inquiry in order to achieve the freedom we claim to hold so dear. Yet one religion in particular wants to assert dominance (albeit in a covert manner) over all the others and dominance over the laws of the land. This religion is Christianity. To say this, one must first understand that no claim is made as to the right or wrong character of Christianity or any claim to wish its existence gone. Neither of these is argued or will be argued. It is simply argued that a number of misguided individuals believe the nation should base its laws on Christian ethics and morality and not on what the facts actually say. In addition, these same people desire to have no aid in creating such a nation as they wish to remain tax free. As the saying goes, they wish to have their cake and eat it too. What these individuals refuse to confront is that to base laws not on rational and scientific means, but to base them on one very small subset of the population, denies the ethical considerations of the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, and the many other religions prevalent in our society. Thus far, the government has done little to interfere with the practice of any religion, but should organizations such as the Westboro Baptist "Church" (Their prevalence of social activities and large expenditure on them, their constant self instigated legal battles, and their lack of any coherent dogma or actual church membership-the "church" is almost exclusively the extended family of "rev." Phelps- makes it hard to take them seriously when they call themselves a church. e.g. by their definition my blog and our family meals are a church), and the numerous Senators and Representatives who pander to their constituents' emotional love of religion, continue then the government should step in. They enjoy a tax free and quiet existence, to ask for laws without even considering that those laws only benefit them and serve no purpose in a rational society, borders on political and not religious organization. In short, the ethical and moral guidelines of Christianity or any other religion have no place in politics. If our laws are based on one particular subset, it is always to the detriment of others. The law must be rational, not religious. Only when the law infringes on the practice of a religion (NOT simply offending them but actually prohibits them from worship in some tangible way) is that religion allowed to petition the government for its change. Any other political speech should , rationally and logically, be avoided by religion OR the religion should be taxed as any other corporation. The space between is the freedom afforded to religion to practice off of public roads and to use public utilities. Any further space invites the tyranny of a State Religion. What do you think? How should church and state be separated? Should they be separated? I look forward to your comments and the probably protest/lawsuit of the Westboro Baptist "Church".

Electric Racing motorcycles for the Police, now I'm angry

RE: http://news.msn.com/science-technology/lapd-tests-out-new-electric-motorcycles
I am an avid supporter of the enforcement of law (except when that law contradicts the natural rights of man, e.g. the right to use a medicine approved by the AMA for over 40 years, marijuana, under the care of a licensed physician. I support them following orders, except orders that contradict the Constitution like the suspension of Habeas Corpus. I donate directly to them every year. I even support them upgrading their existing equipment to better serve the public (i.e. electronic fingerprinting, e-filing of reports, GPS on cars, cars that are more fuel efficient,etc. But the one thing I can't stand is some cop coming up with a budget proposal for an item the force has no need for (a racing bike) and then pushing it through with the unfounded claim that it will catch more "crooks" than the current equipment. With all this mess over the current budget and the impending default, it seems downright negligent to spend money on something so frivolous and that has no proven potential to be any better than the current equipment apart from a manufacturer's claim and a cop's desire to ride a BMX bike on his job. Do these people even take their job seriously? Do they not realize that their sole goal as police officers is to enforce the law and protect the public, NOT go on a Toys 'R Us spree? Let me know what you think, are these expenses justified and if so, how? I look forward to your comments.

Why Boehner is pissing me off

The foundation of modern politics is the vote. Even though we as Americans don't typically vote in large numbers, we expect our representatives to vote on everything. Look at the committee system, we vote a formation committee, vote who is on it, vote what they will discuss, vote on their votes, vote on the votes they voted on, and then vote on that as well! Boehner's refusal to allow a vote on anything is not just shameful, but should be considered as treason. He may not like the outcome, but then again he may, the only way to know is to put all the issues to a vote and allow the chips to fall where they may. I am not fond of many of the votes of the Florida legislature (which at times border on the idiotic) but I respect them as law because they were arrived at by a vote of duly elected officials. Boehner's refusal to allow a vote on one issue that he doesn't like is a tyrannical Speaker holding Congress at bay at the expense of the Federal Government, our economy, and our very people all because he can't stomach the US funding a law that was upheld by the highest Court and made by the self-same congress he is inhibiting. He will be the downfall of the once noble Republican party. What do you think of Boehner and his actions?

The Best Bet

As the shutdown continues and loathing of the Republican party grows steadily, it would seem that Boehner would look to the future of the country and the impending default crisis (and the ensuing aftermath) and just agree to a budget that funds healthcare. If, as the Republicans have been crying for ever, Obamacare is more damaging to the healthcare of the nation than the current arrangement, it will not take long for the American people to realize it and they will do exactly as the Republicans want them to (i.e. vote Republican in the next congressional election cycle and return control of the Senate to the Republicans, thus killing the healthcare bill legitimately and as grown adults, not the children everyone is acting like now). If, however Obamacare is the idea that Democrats believe it to be, then the Republicans will have done the right thing in allowing their own personal hangups to be pushed aside for the good of the nation. Either way, this bullheaded ideal of holding out because they don't want to fund a law that was passed by both houses of Congress and has stood the test of the Supreme Court simply because they don't like it and believe it violates some non-elaborated moral standard is at best irresponsible, and at worst, an evil beyond compare (Standing ground for rational beliefs is commendable, this is not that). If they ever hope to regain control of congress and pass laws they believe will benefit the American people, they must show that their interest is not narcissistic but rather the interest of the people and their economy. The best bet to do this is to pass a fully funded budget and let the people decide for themselves the benefits or liabilities of Obamacare.

Oh Florida, What have the Georges Done?

Due to a disability that reared its ugly head in 2011 (Spinal stenosis and numerous herniated and ruptured discs) I require (per my doctors) a pain medicine that comes as a patch called Fentanyl.  It is a schedule II substance that can, if not used as directed, become highly addictive.  This would be all well and good if it weren't for an incident that was so grievous and took so many lives, that access to this medicine, which allows me to get out of bed without enormous pain, was restricted to the point of absurdity.  The incident involved two brothers, the Brothers George as it were, and due to the length of its tale can be read here:  http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/07/11542417-how-florida-brothers-pill-mill-operation-fueled-painkiller-abuse-epidemic?lite .  In short, these two brothers operated hundreds of fast food pain clinics that in essence allowed people to walk in, pay an enormous sum, and walk out with far more narcotics than they could reasonably use.  Its impact can not be understated, they caused the death of tens of thousands of people and spurred lawmakers to assume that this was the trend all across the board.  Tracking systems were put into place to track who uses narcotics, how often they fill, how much and what they fill, and who writes the prescriptions.  Doctors, in fear, stopped writing these medicines and pharmacies instituted quotas that regardless of how many patients they had that needed the medicine, they would only be supplied with and fill so many narcotic prescriptions.  This, coupled with the fact that Florida refuses to allow wider use of non-narcotic pain medicines (like Marinol which has been shown to reduce pain without the nasty side effects) has made life for those of us with legitimate pain (and mountains of documentation showing it is legitimate) to obtain the medicines needed to make life bearable and help make us more productive.  It would seem here that two bad apples spoiled the bunch.

Ignoring the invasion of privacy these tracking systems employ (Florida rejected systems that would only disclose sensitive information if a crime was suspected by the system) one must wonder what the goal of the legislature is?  Though tens of thousands of lives were lost, it is less than the lives taken by meth, heroin, cocaine, and other much more dangerous drugs.  Would not a more targeted measure against those who seek only to abuse these medicines be a more ethical approach or must all of us suffer for these two very bad apples?  Is it not ridiculous to assume that all doctors are pill pushers and all patients are addicts?  And what of those who need help relieving their pain, do they not deserve a better quality of life than this?  My pharmacist and family look at me like I'm a heroin pusher every time I fill a legitimate prescription and use it EXACTLY as directed.  Do I not deserve better than this, especially when my need is documented by MRIs (numerous) and XRAYs as well as several agreeing independent evaluations?

Of course I ask these questions but you may be thinking, well that's Florida, not my state.  It is foolhardy to tread that road because time and time again states will follow the most restrictive policies if their citizens do not speak up.  What do you think, is Florida's policy fair, and if it were you, how would you feel about it given my condition?  I welcome responses as always.

[polldaddy poll=7452280]

 

Oh the wonderful things you will not see because "there's nothing to see here, move along"

I am fortunate to have many friends and relatives who are either serving or have served in our nation's armed forces. I know at least one person in every branch either active or retired. The military is nothing to mock or scoff at as they defend this nation and fight in our wars even when they disagree with the principles behind those wars. My father served many years and was granted unparalleled access and taught me to respect those who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend my ability to post this blog.
That aside, there are a few things about the military that may distrub you. For example, though pledged to defend our Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the law of the military if you will) allows certain parts of the Constitution to "not apply" as it were to military members. For example, the First Amendment protects our liberty to speak our minds (so long as we do not encourage or endorse criminal activity), petition our government for a redress of grievances (through protest, the court system, writing letters to congresspersons, etc.), practice what religion we will (so long as certain tenants of the law are upheld), and assemble freely (again, the right to protest, strike, etc.). This fundamental right, however, can and is suspended in some cases for military members. They may not protest their government or its actions even if they obey orders, during certain times they can not contact their representatives, in fact the only premise the military seems to endorse is the religious freedom, but even that hinges on the availability of a chaplain of that religion being present (and chaplains are in short supply). Even the amendments protecting the rights of the accused, such as habeas corpus and the prohibition against self-incrimination may be suspended at will by the Pentagon and/or superior officers.
What do we make of this? It would seem that those who defend the rights we hold dear are subject to the abridging of those rights in the name of efficiency and "security". Sometimes, it is true, these rights must be suspended, e.g. in the midst of battle, protesting marines would be highly devastating. But what of those affected who are not in the line of fire? Should we as citizens not protect their rights just as they protect ours? And why a Court Martial of persons on American soil? Could our criminal justice system not adequately handle the affair? It would seem that our military is its own state whose obligation to the Constitution is only its defense. The question then becomes is this right? What do you think? Go and read the Uniform Code of Military Justice and ask yourself if all of its provisions protect those who serve as they protect us:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47 (UCOMJ)

Race in the 21st Century

Race (i.e. the subdivision of humans as being genetically differentiated into different groups) is a myth. Whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. are all different only by the amount of melanin in their skin and certain perceived differences that when looked at on the whole, are entirely superficial. Take any two persons of different "races" (A brief note, on the US Census you determine what race you are, there are no scientific definitions provided, simply what race you believe you are) and strip away the skin and you will see identical body structure. Evaluate the genome and you will find only that certain people produce more melanin. If this seems offensive, consider the following skin tone chart:

Now, decide at which point one race ends and another begins. Though it may be easy to say the darkest tone is black and the lightest white, it is difficult, if not impossible to make agreeable differences in between. Every person has their own definition of what color constitutes what race. In addition, modern evidence suggests that all humans originated in Africa and the Middle East and then spread out across the globe. Differences in skin tone developed as a way of the body coping with different climates. Differences in body mass and fat distribution did the same. Both of these over millennia of human history. Research has shown no difference in brain mass and indeed apart from superficial differences in skin tone and other environmental changes (e.g. hair type, fat distribution, etc.) no difference at all. All humans share the same genetic code and because of this, it is impossible to divide us into subsets according to any reliable method because no subsets exist.
All of this is not to say that groups that identify with one race or another do not share cultural differences. These differences however, come from heritage and not a division of race. Cultural differences should of course be respected, but we should not fool ourselves into believing that any human is better or worse than any other human. Moreover, we should not fool ourselves into thinking our self-created race identifications have any significance to anyone but the individual. White, black, yellow, red, green, or even purple polka dots (would be interesting to see that one) are simply natural reactions to the climate that person's ancestors chose to live in and reflect in no way the individual's capacity. Martin Luther King Jr. knew this and envisioned a day when all colors of people came together and were not judged by their color but by their character. This day, despite mountains of scientific evidence showing our sameness, has yet to come. Bigotry, hatred, and fear still abound. Though we like to think ourselves sophisticated, we are still the same fearful and racist nation we have always been (with some refreshing exceptions). We still look for ways to divide. We look at race, political party, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. any excuse to consider ourselves superior and others inferior. If we ever hope to make any progress, we must stop this foolhardy way of thinking and instead look to what unites us, and consider all men and women equal. Only then can we have a dialogue and come together to fix our nation and our world.

The Legacy of John Brown

Prior to the civil war there was a man who saw the status quo and did something about it. John Brown raided Harper's Ferry Virginia, then a Federal Arsenal, with the intent of overthrowing a government he saw as lazy and unwilling to correct a grievous evil, i.e. the institution of slavery and the Dredd Scott decision. While I can not legally advocate the overthrow of our government by force, I do advocate the courage of John Brown. We are on the third day of a partial shutdown of our federal government. People are without jobs (people who unlike their "representatives" can not afford to be without a paycheck), our stock market which drives not only our own but the entire world's economy is sinking lower and lower, our so-called representatives and president are bickering, and we sit doing absolutely nothing about the entire affair. Documents are released showing that our tax money is going to fund an agency that spies on itself and we do nothing. However unlikely to succeed he may have been, at least John Brown stood up for what he believed in and rallied the people to his cause. It was the image of him hanging in Virginia that spurred on the election of Abraham Lincoln and started the Civil war. It was his legacy that got people in the North to have the courage to do something, whether it was write in support of abolitionism, or fight on the front lines to free the slave in the South. And though this is not a Civil War, this is a dire time, that requires the courage of John Brown. Will we answer the call and reform our government or will we allow them to trample over us and continue their path to our destruction?

Reverence Today

Out of Reverence for the passing of a wonderful woman, my Aunt Faye, there will be no post today. Please keep our family in your prayers.

Who's REALLY to Blame?

The shutdown of our Federal government over the so-called Obamacare has left many newscasters asking "Who's to blame?" Their question is, of course, only a ploy for ratings but it is a question that they have only offered a couple of answers to, The President, The GOP, or the Democrats. Unfortunately the answer to this question is none of the above. While it is true that each has a part to play in all this mess, we must press past the superficial if we want to see who is really to blame (although that begs the question of why we are playing the blame game instead of blowing up our congressmen and women's mailboxes and emails with action demands). While the President's ultimatum and the GOP/Democrats unwillingness to yield and compromise is certainly a blame worthy offense, it is we who are to blame. Study after study shows that the typical voter doesn't vote their Senator or Representative in based on their platform or even their personal beliefs, but is directly related to how much money is spent on a campaign. More often than not we vote based on fundraising rather than true representation of what we as Americans believe. It is a despicable and ignorant way of choosing those who will directly change the very landscape of America and her policies, and we know this so we cast blame on those we the people elected. It is, to some small degree their fault but ultimately the blame lies directly on us the voters for caring more about the glitz and glamour of a politician rather than their actual policies and beliefs. If we are to cast blame, we must cast it to those who truly deserve it, ourselves. Now get out there and stop this mess by calling, writing, faxing, emailing, etc. your congressman or woman and if you don't, then take what you deserve without complaining. Those who fail to act forfeit their right to complain. What do you think?
[polldaddy poll=7439769]

Gay Marriage

It is one of the most amazing things to see when a society refuses to grant a right that would seem to be so simple, the right to love and live with whoever one wants to. Yet this is what is happening in America today. The Land of the Free is lagging behind the Old World of Europe and clinging to an ideology at odds with the very foundations of America. Thomas Jefferson in The Federalist Papers recommended to our young nation that we keep religion and state separate. Remarkably the people that are against the idea of gay marriage (marriage as a state institution, not marriage as a religious one since our laws do not cover what a religion recognizes as valid) are almost exclusively against it because it would somehow taint the "holiness" of the United States. They have no qualms, however, with accepting tax exemption and would argue that religion should be separate from the state in that matter. It would seem they want to have their cake and eat it too. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage as a state institution should be available to all and should not be exclusively held by those who are heterosexual. Marriage to the person one loves simply, from a state standpoint, means that two people wish to enter into an exclusive contract with certain binding terms that sets that relationship apart from friendship. It is not, from the standpoint of the state, a matter that concerns religion at all. If those who wish to ban it based on their religious beliefs persist in their public opposition, they should also be willing to be taxed and nonexempt from their other public duties (nondiscrimination laws, etc.). If they are unwilling to do so, then they should be willing to allow the state to extend the right to marry to any two consenting adults, regardless of gender. What do you think? Should gays be allowed to marry?
[polldaddy poll=7424473]

The Right to know

When Edward Snowden made his disclosures regarding the NSA's actions against their own citizens and against our allies abroad, Americans responded with a less than adequate level of disgust. Senators, attempting to pander to their constituents called him a traitor and used words like "treason" and "terrorist". Americans still did not respond. The question, however, remains one of immense importance regardless of the response of the citizenry. Do we have the right to know what the government is doing? In matters like the Manhattan Project it was an easy question to answer. During that time citizens knowing what the government was doing could have put the whole world at risk. This time, however, is much different. We are not talking about a weapon or even the plans of a war, we are talking about domestic surveillance of innocent people with the remote chance a threat might be found. As a free society, we have the right and the duty to know that our government is conducting these kinds of activities. We have the right to know when our government is putting us at risk by listening to our allies covertly. They are, after all, our allies and we should do everything we can to make sure that alliance is not jeopardized by some power hungry bureaucracy. Our senators responding by calling him names and attempting to extradite him so vigorously should raise the alarm that Snowden's disclosures were only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed I wonder if this post will not subject me to surveillance by the government I have put my faith in to protect me. The right of the people to know the abuses of power of their government is an absolute. The right to privacy is what separates us from the people who seek to destroy us. It does not mean we are doing anything wrong (I use the restroom in private and I am not doing anything wrong, it is simply something I have the right to choose not to share with my government) it simply means we are exercising a fundamental right that all men and women should have. Snowden is not a traitor or terrorist, he is a refugee from a government that is rapidly heading towards a Big Brother kind of society. The reaction of the citizenry is not just disappointing, but disgusting. We can raise troops of protesters for a murder in Florida, but we can't even raise a finger to petition our own government to stop their heinous crimes against their own citizens. Both issues are important, and we must, to continue to live free, react equally as vigorously to the revelations of Mr. Snowden as we did to the acquittal of Mr. Zimmerman. What do you think about Edward Snowden?
[polldaddy poll=7422535]

Euthanasia

I have been watching my Aunt Faye slowly die over the past month in hospice. At times she was lucid, but now she slips deeper and deeper into sleep. It started me thinking of an old debate that still occasionally comes up in our legislative halls. Should we allow those who have passed beyond all hope of recovery choose to die with dignity and intentionally (i.e. through the administration of Nembutal or another barbiturate that overdoses them and allows them to sleep until death)? I believed at one point that this was an unconscionable act that doctors should never even contemplate but now I am not so sure. Our lives, much like our property, belongs and is owned by us and though it may affect others, it still is ours to do with as we please. We have no qualms with allowing people to kill themselves or put themselves in harms way through other means (e.g. cigarettes, alcohol, texting while driving, etc.) but we seem to believe that to allow another to end our life intentionally when we are suffering with no or very little hope of recovery is an act akin to murder. But why? Why are we so intent on this? While it is true that miracles can and do happen, they are not as a matter of course a regular occurrence. And if an adult, in their right mind (not depressed or under the influence) decides that they do not want to continue to suffer, should we not afford them the right to make that decision? Is it not more painful to the family to watch someone slowly die than to allow them the chance to die as they wish? I believe it is. It does not make sense that we refuse to give people complete control of their life (including their death which is a part of every life) yet argue so ardently that life begins at conception and has human rights then. We give the unborn more rights than those who have faithful served their society and only wish to end their life in a manner of their choosing. Of course I do not believe that those who are depressed or are unable to make a rational decision either through drugs or mental illness should be afforded this right, that would be fool-hardy. Yet as I watch my Aunt Faye slowly die before my eyes I can't help but feeling and knowing that this is NOT the way she would have chosen to go if she had another option. For now I must be content to know that as she slips away at least she is not in pain. This, however, is little comfort. What do you think?
[polldaddy poll=7418461]

What the Founders Intended

It irks me to no end to hear our Representatives and Senators go on and on about what the founders of our nation meant when they wrote our Constitution. It would seem the answer would be plain enough: The founders intended this nation and its Constitution to live and grow with the changing times. They had no intention of any founding documents to be static and unchanging; indeed they provided for the means to change them in the first place! Our system, however, has become so bogged down with the trappings of the founders' intentions that they have created a stale Constitution with innumerable laws and bureaucracy binding it to a point that the United States is choking on the vomit of its own lawmakers and the judiciary that interprets these laws (their interpretations, by the way, change with which party is currently in power). Yet even these the founders foresaw in incorporating into our Constitution a way for the people to change the very nature of the entire system. This way is the Constitutional Convention. Our last and only one was with the Articles of Confederation. It was then that we realized the utter uselessness of the current Confederation and drafted the Constitution we have today. This, of course, forces one to wonder if it is time to call another convention and bring this stale system a breath of fresh air. I have posted a poll on this subject and would love to discuss this option. Please vote.

Speaking out against the government

We as Americans are not terribly fond of unnecessary restrictions on our liberty, yet many slip past us day in and day out.  Years ago one in particular slipped past because it was attached to a legitimate concern, i.e. the forcible overthrow of the government.  While I would never publish or advocate such an idea (it is, after all, illegal to do so) I do believe that it is important that the people know that the very foundation of this nation (questioning the legitimacy of the current ruler, then King George III) has been for some time outlawed.  The law reads that anyone who writes, publishes, speaks publicly or privately, etc. in favor of the forcible overthrow of ANY government (from the Federal government to the local homeowner's association) commits a felony.  I personally believe that all peaceful means should be exhausted before resorting to force in any situation, however this is not the issue.  The issue is that it is illegal to even communicate a thought that the government has gotten too big for its britches (to use a good old southern term) and should be taken down.  This idea, illuminated by John Locke and adopted by Thomas Jefferson that government is by consent of the government and that any government that becomes oppressive affords the people the right to revolt is at the very foundation of our nation.  To revolt should, of course, be considered treason by the ruling class because they have a right to defend themselves.  To communicate ideas, however, is a fundamental right of the people, no matter how abhorrent to the ruling class or to other people.  The right to speak, so long as it does not immediately endanger others (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) should be the priority of those who claim to protect liberty.  These days, however, those that we elect to protect liberty seem to have one goal...to destroy it.  That however is a different post.

Social Insecurity

It has been over 2 and 1/2 years since I first requested help with my disability.  I still am waiting on a hearing date that I am told will come soon.  This, however, is not the issue.  I have paid into the system more than 5 times the amount required to collect.  I did so with the idea (given to me as a child) that I was paying into it so that when I needed it, I could be taken care of.  This, as it tuns out, could not be further from the truth.  I have had to jump through hoops (despite 5 doctors and 2 MRI's showing the extent and disabling aspect of my illness), argue with disrespectful government employees (who seem to forget that government is by consent of the governed), and be essentially called a liar, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  I have also gotten to see people who can walk without assistance and even run and jump, as well as take care of themselves, who ARE receiving these benefits.  I press on though, hoping that the ALJ will have the wisdom to recognize that no employer in their right mind would hire someone who can't lift a gallon of water, has to alternate sitting and standing frequently, has little grip in his left hand, and must take powerful narcotics just to control the pain of his illness.  I have tried and tried, but my illness prevents me from doing even the most sedentary work.  Unless one believes Dr. Kibria (who, by the way, works out of a Sunglass Hut!) I simply can not perform the jobs that social security believes I can (i.e. Laminator I-requires clear head since it deals with heavy machinery so narcotics probably wouldn't be ideal; Label Addresser-a position that has not been in existence since the 80's unless volunteering for a local congressman is a "job" and, on top of that, would require typing at a decent speed, something my weakness in my left hand prevents; and finally Surveillance System Monitor-a position which would necessitate long periods of sitting as well as moving up and down stairs which I have a VERY difficult time doing, and would also require a clean background, which I do not have).  So it boils down to this, Social Security has no desire to pay those who are truly disabled, only those who can fake it long enough to convince them.  I am not and will not fake anything.  I have paid my dues, and now it is time for the government to pay what they said they would or at the very least, refund my money.  These are the only 2 moral and ethical solutions, of course we all know ethical behavior is not a strong point of our federal government.  

The Unfairness of Edison State College

Edison  State College has decided that they will not pay for my injuries even though they have admitted responsibility and have almost every faculty member agreeing that the elevator that caused my injuries is unsafe.  Unfortunately, Morgan and Morgan gave me some cock and bull story that the statute of limitations had expired, but the FL statutes states a 4 year statute on negligence.  It is important to note that Edison stated they had no liability insurance when in fact they do.  Isn't it wonderful that not one person will accept responsibility for a serious injury that could have resulted in my death?

Welcome!

Hi!  More will be coming shortly!