Perspectives

Crime & Politics

A segment of society is up in arms over the death of a teenager in Florida.  A militant group has put a $10,000 bounty on the head of a man who is not charged with a crime, "dead or alive."  Journalists are asking why the case has not already resulted in legislation sponsored to overturn the rights of American Citizens to not run from criminals.  People are marching in protest, over this particular death and politicians are claiming this case is the reason why Citizens should not be allowed to embrace their 2nd Amendment Rights.  Cries of "Racism" emanate from partisan quarters.

What makes this death different?  Well, for one, the picture of the deceased is 5 years old.  It was carefully selected to portray Treyvon Martin as an innocent boy.  A 12 year old football player looks far more innocent than a 17 year old flipping off the camera. 

Is this case worse than the case of a Marine shot to death in front of his daughters, by an Orange County Deputy?  Where was the outrage of a America then?  It didn't fit the political agenda of the media, nor politicians.  Is Zimmerman innocent in this case?  I don't know, but I do know that the case is not what is portrayed in most of the MSM.  One witness has described an attack on Zimmerman, followed by a gunshot, after which she describes the attacker as being the one left lying in the grass.

If one believes the storyline told by the outraged, Treyvon Martin was simply walking down the street with a bag of skittles and a cell phone when he was murdered.  In such a case, the "Stand Your Ground" law would not apply.  But if the facts were that the Neighbor Watch member had asked the "suspicious acting" victim what his business in the neighborhood was and then attempted to return to his vehicle when attacked, it might apply.  The police annotated grass stains and injuries on Zimmerman.

Destoying the World with "Environmentalism"

In the Bible, God commands man to be a good steward to the Earth.  In the last few decades, wildlife management has transformed from hunters protecting Nature while maintaining the balance, to environmentalists demanding that man protect predators that compete for the food supply.  While it was conservationist hunters that led the charge against wanton littering and destruction of nature, environmentalists have prophesized the coming Ice Age in the 70's and 80's, Global Warming in the 90's and 2000's, and now settled on "Climate Change" to hedge their bets in both directions.

Climate change is real.  It runs in cycles with decade long, century long, millenium long and probably longer cycles.  There have been multiple ice ages, including the mini-ice age of the Christian age, from which, with no factories, the Earth warmed.  And with diminished cattle, it's not likely that the methane producing sheep and cows had much of an effect either.  If anything, the diminished production of methane should have produced a colder, not warmer environment, when they froze or starved to death, along with their human ranchers.  The Great Lakes were created by melting glaciers, as well as were numerous canyons around the world.  The "ice bridge" across the Aleutians melted long before Al Gore claimed the swimming polar bears were drowning, or the first steam, much less the first gas combustion engine was invented.

In the name of saving fish, California has created a desert, preventing farmers from irrigating their farms.  Environmentalists have worked diligently to repopulate the West with wolves, that feed on the same meat humans eat.  Conversely, they have worked hard to stop hunting of the same prey by men.  Meanwhile lions and wolves are preying not only on deer, but also California pets, and occasionally even human children and adults.  Meanwhile the same prophets of doom have encouraged the move from rural "carbon neutral" residences, where food and future furniture are produced, to the heat producing concrete jungles where criminals prey on humans.

Afghanistan: Where Politics is More Important than Reality

"Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so too does geopolitics, and should the United States leave Afghanistan -- should ISAF, should NATO leave Afghanistan -- that would create, in my mind, for all intents and purposes, a geopolitical vacuum, ahead, however, of the [Afghan forces] being ready to take full security."  General Allen, ISAF Commander, in testimony to Congress.

General Allen is in a difficult position.  When he accepted the job as Commander of forces in Afghanistan, he committed to Victory over the enemy, using whatever resources the POTUS allowed him.  Obama won't use the word Victory, and is hell-bent on "ending the war" by withdrawal.  In 2011, the POTUS began pulling Troops out, in the middle of the "fighting season."  In 2012, the POTUS is stubbornly removing another 25% of the force, again, in the middle of the fighting season.

A rapid expansion of the Afghan security forces, on orders of the politicians, led to a lack of vetting of the recruits, and hence a number of Taliban infiltrators to it.  That has resulted in an unprecedented rash of "green on blue" attacks.  Except, the attackers, while wearing ANA/ANP/ABP uniforms, were actually Taliban fighters.  Inexplicably, the Administration has ordered that to be downplayed. 

What Authorizes the Government to Do That?

What To Do About All Those "Crazed Combat Veterans?"

In the first quarter of 2012, the media has publicized an Iraq Veteran killing a Park Ranger in Washington, an Orange County Deputy killing a Marine, an Army Private being stabbed to death by Meth Heads in Washington, and a Staff Sergeant that allegedly killed 16 Afghans in their sleep, along with so many other stories of Violent Veterans.  The media is quick to tell us that these are Combat Veterans, but often fail to tell us when the person was tossed out of the military, like in that first case listed, or correct the story when they weren't in Combat at all, or weren't in the military as they had claimed.

In 2008, the NYTimes was on the same hunt, to prove that "Crazed" Combat Veterans were slaughtering American Civilians.  They wrote about 121 cases in which someone died.  The problem was that in many of those the Veteran was found to be innocent or to have acted in self-defense, while in others the trial had not occurred, and in many it was not murder at all.  In those latter cases, it was often a car accident, that helped to boost their body count.  When it was all said and done, the numbers demonstrated it was safer to be near a Combat Veteran than to be in the safest big city in America.

But "one is too many."

One case of domestic violence, one murder, or one suicide is "too many."  Yeah, that sounds good, but short of locking every American up in solitary confinement, there is NO program that can end all violence in this Nation, any subsection of it, or in any other country.

The question is whether or not the media attention presents a true picture.  It sells papers and tunes in viewers when the headline reads "Crazed Combat Veteran Kills Civilians," and they are selling papers.  The problem is that by pimping that headline while ignoring headlines about illegal aliens, druggies, and gangbangers killing cops and civilians, the media is creating, purposely, the perception that Our Veterans are violently, deranged lunatics, to be feared by Our Citizens.  The evidence does not support that.

The Last to Still Argue for a Win in Afghanistan

In 1993, Osama thought he understood the lesson: America would back down from a fight, if they just killed a few of Our Troops.  He had learned the lesson from Viet Nam, and from Somalia.  In both cases, Our Troops had delivered America Great Victories, but the politicians had managed to defeat Our Troops.  There was a point in 2006, 2007, and into 2008, where it looked like the politicians would pull a defeat off in Iraq too.  In a sense, they did.  General Petraeus was able to pull Victory out of the jaws of the politicians in the nick of time.

In the wake of the 2008 elections, I warned colleagues that the media and politicians were going to try it again in Afghanistan.  It had been a tough year in Afghanistan, but the war there has been the least deadly in American History. 

Nevertheless, the media has done its part to publicize every negative while ignoring the positives.  In few other places will you find the stories of the Generosity Our Troops are doing every day.  In few other places will you find their daily Victories.  The MSM had sabotaged the Mission in Iraq and now they were fully focused on doing the same in Afghanistan.  It wasn't for a lack of stories that they didn't report daily.  It was for a lack of negative stories and the others they ignored.

Tennessean Prefers Argument to Voting

In a conflict between Election Workers and a man, Tim Thompson, claiming to have served in the US Marine Corps, a cook in Nashville, managed to embarrass Tennesseans, Veterans, & Marines with behavior uncharacteristic of all.  In a pre-planned event, he invited the news media to accompany and videotape the encounter, wherein he refused to present a Photo ID, as required by law, in order to vote.

While Tennessee Election Officials attempted to defuse the situation, by explaining what was required and what alternatives to the presentation of photo ID were, the man claiming to be a former Marine,  pointed to a commonly available patch sewn on a leather jacket yelling "This is my ID."  He also waved around a voter registration card typed on cardstock, with no picture that has been used in previous elections.

Tennessee issues photo ID's free of charge to those demonstrating proof of citizenship and residency, who do not have one of the approved photo ID's.

What Were The Founding Fathers Thinking!?!

It has become popular to say the US Constitution is" outdated."  Politicians in Washington have stated more than once that they won't let it get in the way of their plans.  And many people appeal to the American Voter's compassionate side to claim that "someone must do something," which is often synonymous to a campaign to increase the size of the Federal Government, and the amount of tax and debt it collects.

When I ask those that tell me that the Constitution is outdated, what exactly it is that doesn't apply to governance today, they usually say something about modern technology, but they can't point to anything in the Constitution, because they don't seem to have read it.  The Constitution does not govern technology.  It governs government.  It lays out responsibilities and authority of various branches and levels of government.  It spells out how it can be changed, if such a change is needed. 

"The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to REPRESENTATIVES of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their SERVANTS can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled." George Washington

It is a living document, not because it can be changed at the whims or "interpretation" of a politician or judge, but because it affords a method of amendment, which has been used 27 times, the last of which took 201 years to be ratified.  It is written in clear, precise, simple English.  You don't need a law degree to understand it.  At worst, you may need a dictionary from the 18th Century and perhaps a High School Diploma.  Shall and Shall not are rarely used today, but they offer no room for loopholes.

The Constitution is first and foremost the blueprint for how the Federal Government is established.  It creates the US House of Representatives and the US Senate and gives Congress the greatest list of powers; to declare war, to raise Armies, to maintain a Navy, to write laws, to raise revenue, and to spend that money.  It establishes the Executive Branch, which is to preside over the government and do the day to day business of the Nation, but limits the authority of the President to that which the Representatives of the People authorize.  It establishes the Judiciary, whose responsibility is rule accordingly to the law & the Constitution, not empathy or politics, in matters of dispute.

To simplify the 4 original pages of the US Constitution into an ideology of governance, it says that the Federal Government has responsibility for external affairs, and for affairs between the States, while the States have responsibility for governance within their borders.  It sets up various mechanisms to prevent the Federal Government from punishing or rewarding regions or states, and to maintain a level playing field.

The Bill of Rights was written and ratified almost immediately.  It re-iterates the principles of the Declaration of Independence and primacy of State Governments in the governance of the People.  The Bill of Rights were necessary because although the Founders had previously stated the Rights of the People to Freedom, as a Right given by God, not man, the Founders knew that if these Rights weren't spelled out and guaranteed, some politician wanting total power would usurp the God Given Rights of the Individual.

Again, I ask, What were they thinking?  Did they not know that the People would want Education and Health Care?  Why didn't they give such authority to the Congress?  Why did they make States, not Congress & the President, the governors of Americans?  Why did they restrict the Federal Authority to external affairs?

Who Authorizes War? Constitutionally? UN or Congress?

The War in Libya presented America with a political dance that had the Administration first telling us that it just wasn't possible to do anything to stop Qaddaffi from slaughtering protestors in the streets and then using a UN Resolution authorizing a "No-Fly Zone" to launch missiles at Television Stations because they were reporting news in support of a Sovereign government it didn't like.  We launched cruise missiles.  We sent in Military Aircraft.  We conducted warfare in Libya.  At no time, did the Obama Administration ask the US Congress for authorization to go to War.

For a year, the Obama Administration has said it just isn't possible to do anything to protect the people of Syria from the Ba'athist Regime and ally of Islamist Iran of Bashir Assad, outside of asking others to say it's a bad thing to do.  The Administration now appears to be in the opening salvo of preparing for war in Syria and Congress has some questions, namely: Will the current Administration get Authorization for War from Congress, as required by the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, which bows to no treaty, no international body, and no legislation passed by the entities it established, or not?

The question is not whether or not the Assad regime should be destroyed.  It is a state sponsor of terrorism, second only to Iran.  The question is, whether or not the Obama Administration respects the US Constitutional requirement that ONLY Congress may authorize the engagement of the Nation into War.

Outside the constraints of the Constitution, some might find Secretary Panetta's answer reasonable.  This is what the Constitution states; ONLY Congress has authority to:

A Responsibility to Vote?

Growing up, my father often said: "Those that do not vote, do not have a right to complain about the government they get."  I embraced the duty of the Citizenry to participate in the election of their government.  I recall later in life being relieved that the individual I had voted against had won.  Between the time I had sent in my absentee ballot and the results had been posted, the world had learned that the one I had voted for was a sorry excuse for a Human that believed in the superiority of one race over another.  His opponent was bad for the Nation and State as well, but he was worse.

Some have accused me of indecisiveness for refusing to join a political party and others of partisanship for opposing the policies of politicians that speak out of both sides of their mouths in the same speech.  But when I admitted to one that I had not voted in every election, one person was astounded that I could ignore my duty as a citizen and still complain about the results.

I have attempted to explain why there have been elections in which I did not participate, but it has been piecemeal.  More important, than the responsibility to vote, is the responsibility to know who and what you are voting for, or against.  At times, I have not voted due to no fault of my own.  When I relied on an absentee ballot, those ballots did not always arrive in time to be counted on return.

But there were other times, I had every opportunity to vote, and chose not to do so.  I simply did not have the information I needed to vote for one politician, or against the other.  I won't vote just for the letter behind the name, not even if I strongly disagree with the politician they're running against.  There are even times when it is obvious a single vote won't matter at all.  If you live in California, it's close to guaranteed the electoral vote will go to the Democrat in the Presidential Election, so if that's only interest you have in an election, there's really not much of a need to take a day off work and hit the polls.  It is far more important in the Congressional and Senatorial Elections, but if you live in San Francisco, you can bet Pelosi will be re-elected, so again, not much need to go vote for her either.

Only the Senatorial election in 2010 looked to be close enough to warrant a trip to the polls in CA.

Forms of Democratic Representation & Governments

Elections are held in a majority of the world's countries, ranging from Venezuela & Iran to Germany, Russia, & Britain, the United States, but does that mean the people have a true input to the political process?  Not necessarily.  For the most part, the rest of the world has some type of parliamentary system as opposed to the US Congress, and the current government in the US is very different than the intent of the US Constitution. 

In the American system, the people vote for a person, to represent their district, first as a representative of a party against the people selected by other voters for the other parties, and then between those running for that office of various parties and independents with no party affiliation.  Rarely does the political party itself choose the politician that will run for that office, but on occasion it does occur, such as in the special election of the New York 26th District in 2011 which was held when the serving Representative resigned.

In the parliamentary system, the parties choose the politicians who will hold the seats, if the party wins it.  In most parliamentary systems, voters cast a ballot for an individual and for a party.  Whereas, in the United States, the politician getting the most votes, regardless of party or how many parties get how many other votes, gets the seat. In the parliamentary system, a party getting a minimum percentage (usually about 5%) of the vote is given seats in parliament, even if they lost in every district.

Parliaments have various degrees of authority in various systems, ranging from an advisory board to the executive to the selectors of the executive (Prime Minister).  Some have a type of legislative authority and others don't.