A Useless Weed and A Dove

While I was engaged in the performance of my duties early in the morning a couple of days ago, I was fortunate enough to witness one of nature's wonders.  Not really anything majestic, but something quite miraculous and spectacular in its own right.  I saw a dove fly off the ground and land about midway up a pine tree.  The little dove grasped in its beak a single blade of a dead weed.  Personally, I have never seen much use for weeds, whether dead or alive, but on this day, the dove needed this particular dead weed.

Landing on what was apparently a suitable branch, for what I still did not know, the dove walked up and down the branch, looking all around and even under the branch.  It walked a few feet up the branch, another few feet back the way it came, all the while bearing the dead weed in its beak.  I was not sure what was going on, and almost came to the conclusion that the little bird had gotten too much sun the day before.  But what the little dove did next was truly amazing, and I am blessed to have seen it happen.

The dove apparently found a suitable spot on the tree limb just in the fork of a small branch of that limb.  The bird then began, and I promise I am not making this up, pulling the weed through its beak with one foot, then the other, pulling the weed back and forth.  I was confounded as to what the bird was up to, but about this time I noticed that the dead weed was no longer straight.  The dove had shaped that piece of weed into a curve.  This was amazing enough to me, given that most birds, including this particular dove, do not have fingers with which to manipulate objects.  But what happened next was even more amazing to me.  The dove took the weed, now bent, and somehow wedged it into the fork of that limb and branch in such a way that the weed now made a half-circle.  The dove then flew away, returning only seconds later with another dead weed.  The same amazing performance was continued with the same results.  About this time a second dove joined the first, an almost identical piece of weed in its mouth as well.

I have to say that by now I had figured out what was going on.  These two doves, love mates, were obviously building a nest.  I continued watching their activities for a few minutes.  In less time than it has taken me to write this blog, the basic form of the nest had taken shape.  The two birds, with no training other than what was "instinctive" to them, had done what many people could only do with some glue and a lot of patience.  Occasionally one mate or the other would affix a new weed or small stick, only to see it fall away from the nest to the ground.  Without missing a stride, the bird would fly away to wherever the mother lode was and return with another piece of weed or grass and put it in place of the lost weed.  The two doves were still thus engaged as I left my observation post to take care of an assignment.

Two nights later and I went to the same location on another errand.  When I got there, I looked into the pine tree to see what had happened with the two doves.  The nest was there, but now it was fully completed and occupied.  I could see a single timid brown eye staring at me over the rim of the nest.  The two little doves had built a cozy home that would most likely stand up to all the wind and storm that might befall them, and would provide a warm place for them to hatch their children.  All this started with one dove finding one piece of a dead weed. 

Imagine. I thought weeds were useless!

Using The Ghost Radar App For IPhone

Having had several friends (okay - that's an exaggeration - only two) ask me about my adventures with my new Ghost Radar, I decided to post a little bit about what I have done and seen.  So here it is:

As part of my job, I spend the night wondering the halls of the local hospital.  This building is actually a conglomeration of three or four buildings of various ages, the oldest dating back to the forties.  I went into this little adventure with certain preconceptions, the first being that I myself was not off my rocker.  That being decided in the negative (by me!) my next preconception was that the older part of the hospital would be the "hot bed" of "ghost" activity.  Another thing I believed was that I would "feel" the ghostly presence whenever the Ghost Radar signalled there was a ghost nearby.  Finally, I figured I would be frightened if I actually encountered a real ghost.

So finally the big night! I went to work, got my equipment, and began my rounds through the hallowed halls of the hopefully haunted hospital.  Within a few minutes the Ghost Radar signalled the presence of a "ghost."  As I looked at the app's radar screen I saw that a small green dot (the ghost) was approaching the center point of the screen (my IPhone).  I hastily scanned the area but, alas, there was no shadowy form floating across the floor, no misty apparition...nothing.  Just me and my IPhone.  The green dot actually converged with my location dot, but I felt nothing.  Not even the hairs on my neck were standing.  No jokes about the ONE hair on my head standing, please.  I was somewhat disappointed at not seeing something when the alarm went off.

About an hour later I was up on the fourth floor, another place I thought to be a ghost hot spot.  I was right.  Not long after I stepped off the elevator, the Ghost Radar nearly blew up!  I was standing in the middle of a herd of disembodied souls, according to the app.  As many as ten green dots were circling my locator dot.  Some of the "ghosts" danced around while others crossed and crisscrossed my dot.  I have to say it was a little exciting, all this activity.  But I was again surprised that I did not feel some sort of sensation, no fear, not even a little skin crawling.  Curiously, some of the dots did not come toward me, but instead seemed to flee as fast as possible.

I have used the Ghost Radar on two occasions, with approximately the same results.  So, according to the Ghost Radar there is traceable evidence of ghosts or spirits or whatever residing in the local hospital.  As I wrote these words, my lovely bride assured me that the hospital is indeed haunted.  She related to me several experiences she had there, including charts suddenly flying across the counter, and IV poles moving across the floor of a patient's room.  She assures me that the hairs on her neck, and that of her colleague's, were indeed standing on end.  That is far better proof of haunting than any Ghost Radar can provide. 

NOTE: By way of disclaimer the author of this blog does not necessarily, but MIGHT, believe in ghosts and hauntings.  If you are the author's employer or potential future employer, you are notified that this blog is for entertainment purposes only.  It is neither intended as proof that there are ghosts in the local hospital, or that the author sees ghosts at work.  Nothing in this blog should cause the inference that the author is in any way unstable and not suitable for current or future employment.

Oops, the Ghost Radar has just gone off again!  It seems my couch is haunted!!

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn - Who Do They Represent?

Both Texas senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, were among the eighty-six senators who voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law on December 31, 2011. By the way, notice the timing of the law...it was passed and signed while most of us had a lot of other things going on in our lives.  Not only that, the law was debated with very little fanfare and in hopes that we - the people - would hear very little about it before it was passed.  And I must admit, I was caught sleeping on this one, so to speak.  By the way, I commend those senators who stood up to the political pressure and voted against this terrible bill.

This law does a lot of things, but I am particularly alarmed about two things it does.  One, it allows for the arrest and detention of American citizens without trial or any other due process, if the citizen is suspected of "supporting terror."  The other thing it does is allows the military to make arrests in the United States RIGHT NOW, if so ordered by their commander, or the Commander In Chief, if HE so desires to give such order.

We, as citizens, are not supposed to be alarmed by this law, under the principle, I suppose, that if we have done nothing wrong, we have nothing to fear.  Unfortunately, under this law, we may never know what we have done when THEY suddenly show up to arrest us.  What I mean is that the definitions of "terrorist," "supporting terror," and "engaging in terrorist activities" have become so broad since the terrible events of 9-11, that basically anyone the "powers that be" decide is a terrorist can be arrested under authority of the NDAA. 

Fortunately for those arrested under this Act, the detention ceases when hostilities cease.  Ummm....wait a minute.  When does the "War on Terror" cease?  It has actually been on-going since the US Marines base in Lebanon was bombed, and since the attack on the USS Cole.  And it continues now, these eleven years after the attack on the World Trade Center.  In other words, if someone in the government or in the armed forces decides that a particular person has engaged in some sort of terrorist activity (even just READING about terrorists), that person could be arrested by the armed forces, spirited away, and never heard from again, until the War On Terror is over.  Again, when will that ever be?  There have been terrorists since America won its Revolution, and there will be such until the end of human life on this planet.  So, once arrested under authority of the NDAA, a person can be held indefinitely with no recourse to "one phone call."  There is no requirement that authorities allow the detainee to call a lawyer nor be allowed to even notify his family of his arrest.  And there is no requirement that the person be placed in a local or state prison.  Can you say Guantanamo Bay?

At one time, persons writing what I have just written would be called freaks, paranoid, crackpots, and so on.  But now it has actually happened, with the blessing of your own senators and congressmen, more than likely.  Your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is not only in jeopardy, it has been usurped completely.  No, the police are constrained as ever by the Constitution, but your government at the national level now has the AUTHORITY to arrest you (they like to use the word "detain") whenever it feels the need.  As time goes on, there is little doubt that both the definition of terrorism and terrorist will expand, AND the authority to "detain" American citizens will expand as well, to causes other than "terrorism."

Ironically, while most of America has shown little concern about this tragic loss of civil liberties, journalists and media around the world are decrying these things.  Some articles in foreign media ask when will the Americans wake up and take back their freedom?  At home, conservative people are forced to become "bedfellows" with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in order to combat the shredding of the United States Constitution.  And some amateur commentators, including this one, are concerned that even writing in protest of NDAA and other such anti-American, unconstitutional laws might render them "potential terrorists," and as such, subject to unreasonable search and seizure, and ultimately to disappearance into some detention camp.

That brings me back to our "representatives" in Congress.  I don't know about you, but I definitely did not request that my Senators and Congressman vacate or abridge my freedom in any way.  I did not request the USA PATRIOT Act, nor any of the subsequent laws that quashed my freedom.  Lest we forget also, our "open and transparent" President not only signed the extension of USA PATRIOT, but has also issued executive orders that curtailed our freedom as well.  Mr. Obama, the most open and honest President in US history, has demonstrated his true colors by asserting that he, as President, has the right to order the arrest of anyone at any time, and (as was demonstrated recently) has the right to decide that American citizens can be killed without any sort of "due process" if they are deemed (by HIM or other combat commanders) to be "terrorists."

It seems that our representatives do not represent us.  I say if they are not representing us, let us not keep electing them to office.  Both Kay Bailey and John Cornyn are repeaters.  They both voted for NDAA

Remember, no President or other elected official can (LEGALLY) constrain any of our rights, as these were granted by the Creator, not the government, and not even by the Constitution, which enumerates them.  When our elected officials vote away our liberty, even while our men and women are fighting and dying for the liberty of people in foreign lands, is it not time to flush these politicians out of office forever?  Is it not time to install in their place people who have read and understood the Constitution of the United States and who will honor their solemn oath to protect and defend it?  Next time Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn ask for your vote, and tell you that they stand on their record, I hope you will look at their record in horror and disgust, and turn them out of office for good.

Drones Over America: Droning On

In a disturbing turn of events, Congress has passed a bill that requires the Federal Aviation Administration to ready a plan to incorporate the "civilian" drone program into the various flight paths making up United States airspace.  The bill was signed into law by the most "open and transparent President" in the history of this nation.  Mr. Obama, that champion of freedom and transparent government, could have at least gone on record as being against this continued decimation of our freedom by vetoing the bill.  Chances are Congress would have sooner or later over-ridden the veto, but as they say, it is the thought that counts.

For all of our fellow citizens still so enamored with Barack Obama and the "difference" he brought to the White House, I would like to point out that President Obama could have truly marked his administration as being one of openness and change by doing all he could to get Congress to repeal USA Patriot Act. Instead, he both encouraged Congress to extend USA PATRIOT and signed the extension of that act.  Barack...nothing like Dubbya?  He sounds A LOT LIKE President Bush II to me.  Lately President Obama has had several opportunities to strike a death blow to the proliferation of drone aircraft in the United States.  Did he do so?  No, the only "strike" President Obama has made so far was a drone strike that killed two American citizens in Pakistan.  Here at home, Obama is whole-heartedly behind the "dronization" of the American sky.  His Department of Homeland Security is placing drones with police agencies and other agencies of enforcement across America  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10344710-pilots-worry-about-safety-of-allowing-domestic-drones-in-us-skies. 

NOTE: I have only placed one new article here.  In just a matter of seconds, you can find countless articles about the President's use of drones in foreign nations and his vision of the use of drones in the United States.

Why am I upset over the coming proliferation of drone aircraft around the world and particularly here in America?  If I am doing nothing wrong, why would I care if drones were flying around spying on me?

First, drones around the world.  I am upset about our government's use of drones around the world because the use of drones allows US - the United States - to overfly foreign sovereignty with relative ease and at no risk to American pilots or soldiers.  I am all for no risk to our service men and women, but I am against this nation's flagrant disregard of the sovereignty of other nations, while at the same time demanding that these same nations respect sovereignty.  This is hypocrisy at its absolute worst.  Smaller nations around the world must look to the skies with dread, wondering when a drone will drop out of the sky and rain down missiles on them.  Yes, the drones will supposedly be hunting war "criminals" and those hostile to the United States, but they will inevitably accidentally strike civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or who are simply mistaken for "terrorists." I am outraged that people around the world must be in fear for their lives because of the United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.  I am outraged that the freedom and hope this nation has inspired to other nations over the years is now being replaced with a sense of dread and resentment that our nation and our President have the power of life and death over so many people around the world.  Granted, the United States could destroy the world with our nuclear arsenal, but the possibility of this situation is remote.  Not so the possibility that Barack Obama or any president to follow could send a drone to any nation at any time to kill any specific person. 

Second, I am outraged and disgusted that we have reached a point here in the United States 1) that our government feels the need to spy on US, on you and me; 2) that our government and many corporations acting at the government's behest have the capability through drone aircraft technology to spy on us; 3) that WE - the People - are as yet standing by like sheep while the government implements its plan to have 30,000 or so drones in operation by 2020 so that we will be spied on at all times.  You may say "Amigo, if you have nothing to hide, WHY are you so upset that drones will be flying around recording your activities?  Why, indeed?

First of all, it is my INALIENABLE RIGHT to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  That means that as long as the police do not suspect me of committing a specific crime, they have no reason, and NO RIGHT, to spy on me, to conduct surveillance on me, to follow me, or even to compel me to tell why I am where I am and why I am doing what I am doing.  The police (and remember I am a former police officer) have no right to walk into your house just to find out what you are doing.  The police (nor ANY agency of ANY level of our government) have no right to walk onto your property and see what you are doing on your property.  The police have no right to fly over property looking for violations and offenses.  Are you growing marijuana in the privacy of your own little jungle?  Even in this case, the police must SUSPECT your are growing marijuana BEFORE they have the right (what we call Probable Cause) to then fly over your property.  Air flights that have allowed police to accidentally find marijuana must be just that...accidental.  Otherwise the police have made an unreasonable search.

Okay, that was frivolous, but not so far off the mark.  The person operating the drone system will be able to see everything you and I do.  We all have seen or heard of examples of closed circuit television operators in stores "zooming in" on attractive ladies, looking down their blouses, looking into dressing rooms, admiring their posteriors...or a hundred other inappropriate uses of the security cameras.  Now, multiply this by 30,000 and eliminate even the slight accountability that store security guards have to their supervisors, and you can begin to see the problem with having such a huge and out of control drone program.

Here is a danger that is not so frivolous but is very real.  With up to 30,000 drones flying around the country, the chances for collisions between drones and manned aircraft become astronomical.  Remember, our air traffic controllers are even now barely able to keep track of all the airplanes in the sky.  Not only are the chances of such collisions great, the reality is that such collisions are inevitable.  A drone the size of small airplane could crash into a passenger jet, causing a great disaster.  But remember, some drones are as large as fighter jets.  The idea of all these new bodies flying around our airspace is not very comforting.  But what is really angering is that the use of all these drones is completely unnecessary.  And unwarranted. 

I encourage each of you to let your representative know that you are against the domestic use of drones.  I urge you also to let your representative know that you are opposed to the use of drones in foreign nations unless the United States is specifically - and legally- at war with that nation.  That is, no declaration of war against another nation - no military drones deployed in that nation. I hope that you will not fall for the line that if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to be opposed to drones flying around spying on you.  I hope that you will demand that laws be enacted restricting the use of drones to military purposes in legal military operations, and that you will demand laws restricting the domestic use of drones to very specific legal purposes.

We as a nation have been sold the idea that we are all safer if cameras are posted around our cities.  The same principle can be applied to drones.  We are being conditioned to believe that drone technology is necessary to keep us safe in this age of terrorism and the "post 9-1-1 era."  I would like to point out two things.  One, cameras - whether mounted on poles in cities or mounted on drones flying over cities - do not KEEP US SAFE.  All they do is record what happens.  No, cameras do not stop a car from running a red light, they only record the aftermath.  Cameras at ATM's do not save the lives of robbery/murder victims.  They only provide information to the police after the fact.  Drones will be no different.  They will not increase your safety, they will only increase the documentation of your injury or demise.  Oh yeah, drones CAN do one thing.  If President Obama decides you - an American citizen - are a threat to the nation for some reason, he can order a drone to come to you and blast you into oblivion, without the benefit of due process, of being charged and convicted of some crime.
Meanwhile, the drones over America are droning on.

That Sometimes Dreaded Yellow Card: Jury Duty

I opened my mailbox the other day and found, among the two weeks worth of unpaid bills and junk mail, a yellow card that was very familiar to me.  I had to examine it no closer to know that it was a jury summons.  First I felt that usual feeling of "oh, no...why me?"  Do you feel that way when you first see that little yellow card in the mail assortment?  I have to say that by the time I had walked back to my humble abode, I already looked forward to jury service.  Really, you ask??  Yes, that is what I said.  I looked forward to my day in court...as a juror.

There was a time in our collective past that a summons to court was nigh unto a death warrant.  A person so summoned was actually going to the King's (or Queen's) court to answer to some charge or another.  By the way, the summons in those days was not the yellow card with which you and I are so familiar.  No, class, the "summons" was generally several of the King's soldiers breaking into one's home and bodily carrying the "summoned" person back to the castle.  The person was not necessarily taken to the King right away, my friends.  He or she might be placed in a dungeon and allowed to remain there several days, weeks, months...whatever...before getting his or her "day in Court."  Unfortunately, by the time the accused actually got his day in Court, the King's Court, the verdict was pretty much assured.  Also, there was no need for evidence in those days.  Evidence was often enough simply the King's "verdict" that the accused was guilty and needed to be locked away.

Luckily for us, citizens over the years got fed up with the above practice.  The Crown's powers were restrained to great extent by documents such as the Magna Carta and similar lesser documents.  Some citizens of England, not satisfied with even these changes in the law, eventually rebelled against the Crown in what became known as the American Revolution.  One of the most important fruits of that successful rebellion was the document that eventually was ratified and adopted as our Constitution.  The very first amendments of the Constitution were those amendments now known as The Bill of Rights.  These amendments enumerate (but do not grant; that was done by the one known as The Creator) those rights that are inalienable to man.  One of those rights was Trial By Jury.  That brings me back to the little yellow card I found in my mailbox.

Yes, I admit that for a few minutes after I found my jury summons I had some negative thoughts.  My first thought of course was of the income I would lose should I miss work to serve on a jury.  I thought of having to go through the line at the courthouse metal detector.  I knew I would have to take off my belt, maybe even my shoes.  I knew it would be a crowded and miserable process.  Then there was the interminable hours (okay, only about two) I would spend listening to the judge explain the importance of jury service.  Then there would be the hours of sitting through the voir dire examinations, listening to both the prosecutor and the defense attorney ask questions of potential jurors.  And there was the knowledge that all these lost hours were an exercise in futility for me. 

You see, a former police officer has little to no chance of being picked to sit on a jury, particularly a criminal jury.  The defense attorney, in most cases, does not want a law enforcement officer on his client's jury.  After all, it was a "brother officer" that arrested the lawyer's client in the first place.  There is the assumption, possibly grounded in some cases, that a police officer...even a "former" one, could not be fair and impartial to a defendant.  It would be assumed that a police officer would take the word of another police officer over a felon ANY day.  But really, would not even the "average person" take the word of a police officer over a felon most of the time?  But police officers are assumed by the defense to be automatically prejudiced toward the defendant.  Like I said, sitting through the long process of jury selection was very frustrating knowing that I was most likely wasting those precious hours of my life.

Maybe you would be happy knowing you had a nearly zero chance of serving on a jury.  Not me.  From the age of eighteen I have received several jury summonses over the years.  I have to admit that when I was younger, I really did not want to serve on a jury for the same reasons most people do not want to.  But through the years I served as a peace officer, I learned the importance of juries.  I learned that the justice system of this nation would not work without juries.  And I learned that judges tended to hand down very hard sentences when a defendant chose to bypass the jury.  I learned that the power to both judge a person and sentence a person was very awesome indeed.  One man or woman having this power was not necessarily a good thing for all the people all the time.  And I learned that, as a policeman, I had virtually forfeited my opportunity to ever sit on a jury.

Flash forward again to 2012.  By this point in my life, I had received several more jury summonses, only to be excluded from even the possibility of service simply because I had been a police officer.  So I received the summons mentioned at the opening of this blog.  On the appointed day I appeared at the courthouse and spent the obligatory hours going through the jury selection process.  Here I would like to note that the time spent in jury selection should have been significantly longer.  Over half of those summoned did not bother to show up.  On this particular day four different courts needed a total of five juries.  As I expected, eventually I was questioned about my past as a police officer and whether that would effect my ability to be fair and impartial to the defendant if picked to sit on the jury.  I saw the defense attorney's eyes shift a little as I spoke of my law enforcement career.  Coincidentally the person seated next to me was also a former police officer.  In a truly shocking turn of events, both of us were selected to serve on the jury.  The case was a criminal case, a felony.  And I was finally being allowed to exercise both my privilege and my duty to serve on a jury.

My privilege?  My duty?  Yes to both.  Once again, the American system of justice could not function without American citizens serving as jurors, as the triers of fact.  I have no idea what the outcome of this trial will be.  What I do know is that in two days, a man unknown to me will walk into the court room an innocent man.  True, he is charged with a crime, but also it is true that the State must prove he committed the crime. In only a few nations around the world do the people have the right to walk into trial PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT.  And only in the United States is the justice system weighted so much in favor of the defendant.  It is the juror's job to first presume that the defendant is innocent.  Second, it is the juror's responsibility to demand that the State prove its case.  Those two responsibilities ensure that a person charged with an offense gets a fair trial, based only on the evidence produced by the state. Then, and only then, can the accused be found guilty of any crime. 

It is my privilege to have the opportunity to be a part of the American justice system, to allow a person to be tried truly by his peers, not by practicing policemen, not by prosecutors or judges, but by ordinary people, ordinary citizens.  If no citizen were willing to serve on the jury, if every citizen either found an excuse, or simply ignored the jury summons, the accused person could not be tried, and justice would not be served.  I hope that the next time you get one of those annoying jury summonses you will remember that it is a privilege to be a part of the justice system of this nation, and it is a duty to answer the summons, so that every citizen who is charged with a crime can indeed appear before a jury of his peers, and depend on his peers to provide a level field, a fair trial....no matter the outcome.

You STILL Want Barack To Be PRESIDENT!!!

I have a friend whom I admire very much because he, a common citizen, is running against a very well monied incumbent Congressman in West Texas.  Though Jim Riley is a (OMG!) Democrat, he stands for many things I believe in.  In particular he stands against representatives who DO NOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE that elected them.  For instance, Rep. Conaway did his level best to get the licenses approved so that Waste Control Specialists could move their poison into Andrews County.  Granted about six hundred or so people in Andrews (politicians and hysterical citizens, mostly) actually WANTED this nuclear garbage DUMPED in their backyard.  Otherwise, they screamed at us, Andrews would "die."  The irony here is SO great. 

The remainder of the people Conaway "represents" (around THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND) did not want this radioactive quagmire anywhere NEAR the Permian Basin.  But our "Representative" apparently voted his "conscience" on this issue, as well as stumped around the area in favor of Harold Simmons, the billionaire owner of this and many other enterprises.  Conaway has not done it ALL himself, but he definitely led the local charge to bring the WCS nightmare to West Texas.  So Jim Riley is fighting a largely uphill battle against Representative Conaway, who is backed by Harold Simmons and his ilk. 

I would be able to vote for Jim Riley without a single reservation, EXCEPT for my one reservation.  Jim Riley supports President Obama, and indeed wants to see Obama re-elected in 2012.  Jim's stance is the same is many Democrats.  They want Obama re-elected NO MATTER WHAT!  This is very alarming to me, especially when I think of all the good Jim Riley could do for our local congressional district.  But it pains me to see Jim, or ANY other candidate for office, present such blind support for President Obama.  Jim thinks deeply about the issues that effect his local constituents, yet still supports the most UNPATRIOTIC President this nation has ever seen.  I cannot believe that a veteran of the armed forces can support a President who turns his back on the flag of this nation and refuses to salute or show honor to the flag in any way.  I cannot understand why Jim, or millions of other Democrats, support this man, unless they too feel such disloyalty for Old Glory and all that it stands for.  I do not believe Jim Riley is unpatriotic in any way.  Thus his support for Obama is puzzling.

Over the years since Obama was elected, I have heard many hysterical Republicans and others screaming that he should be impeached.  I had to ask, for what?  Although I have only agreed with one thing Obama has accomplished during his first term, I had to stand up in a position I did not like very well and say that Obama had done nothing that was impeachable, much less that warranted his removal from office.  But in October 2011 President Obama crossed that line and should have been both impeached AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE.  Yet there was surprisingly little outcry for this, even from the previously hysterical Republicans who had earlier screamed for his removal. 

You see, in October 2011, President Obama crossed the line from just an unpatriotic President, and became a common criminal with a very uncommon power, the power to reach out and murder two Americans several continents away from the United States.  Obama became a President who violated all forms of "due process" and indeed became policeman, prosecutor, judge, and jury all in one over-inflated-ego package.  Through the use of drone warfare, the President ordered two American citizens stalked, then killed.  A drone located the two individuals, who by the way, were CHARGED WITH NO CRIME, then either fired a missile, or led an American military jet over Pakistan airspace and the jet fired a missile, killing the Americans.  We (the People) will never be sure, and it does not really matter.  What matters is that a President of the United States took it upon himself (with advisement of course) to usurp all Constitutional authority and violate the rights of these two American citizens by murdering them.  Do you STILL support this President?

Some of you may say, "Okay, Barack Obama has done this thing, but I support all his other programs and goals."  Let's think about this statement and what it means.  Is President Obama is such a great man and great politician that his other programs outweigh his flagrant disregard for the Constitution of the United States (I am assuming here too that you are not repulsed by his lack of patriotism)?  President Obama has violated a number of Amendments in the front portion of the Constitution that we have come to call the Bill of Rights.  Remember those?  Remember also that our "Government" did not GIVE us these rights.  NO...these Rights were granted by the Creator.  Even our great document, the Constitution, does not GIVE us rights, but only enumerates the rights WE ALREADY HAVE.  What the Constitution DOES is LIMIT GOVERNMENT.  I know that is an alien concept today, but at one time our government was limited.  And, almost immediately the Constitution was ratified, the Obamas of that by-gone era began TRYING to consolidate more power to the "Government," as Barack Obama has done so well in our own day.

The logical progression of Mr. Obama's usurpation of Constitutionally protected due process of American citizens abroad is the usurpation of due process here at home.  Sound far fetched? Mr. Obama's edition of the Homeland Security Office has been busily providing drones to various law enforcement agencies over the past four years.  These drones have been used for various missions, most of which were "secret" in the sense that citizens of the various jurisdictions have no idea their law enforcement agencies even HAVE drones.  I suspect that Homeland Security provided these drones with the proviso to local law enforcement that the drones be available for Federal use when requested/demanded. (Disclaimer - the foregoing was my opinion).  If President Obama is willing to use drones against ANY American citizen, is it so hard to be believe that he would be willing to use drone technology against EVERY American citizen that he deemed, through his "due process," to be a threat to America?  Is it such long step from here to using drones against political dissidents?  From there, it is just another short step to using drones against political rivals!

So if you truly believe in democracy, in the Constitution, in our inalienable rights, then how can you still support President Obama?  He has already tried to force Americans to buy health insurance (Incidentally Gingrich supported this concept while in Congress).  What is the next thing the government will decide Americans "need" and therefore, try to FORCE Americans to buy?  What will Obama's Government force us to do next?  Am I saying that we should blindly support the Republican candidates just because we don't like Obama?  No, because because frankly Newt Gingrich parallels Obama on many issues.  Most alarming to me, BOTH men are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.  Unfortunately, it is necessary to choose the lesser of two (or several) evils.  I understand that most Democrats would rather eat hot nails and live scorpions than vote for anyone other than a Democrat candidate.  I understand.  But I hope that you will pick a candidate that does not literally and symbolically turn his back on the flag of this great nation and on the Constitution, the law of this great nation.  I personally could live with a Democrat President if that were necessary.  But I implore you, Democrats, if you want a Democrat for President, please...PLEASE find one that will truly support and defend our Constitution, because ultimately that President will be supporting and defending you and me...We, The People of The United States of America.

Officer Down: Jaime Padron, Austin Police Department

It is my sad task to open my first blog in April on a tragic situation that occurred in Austin today.  But it is my honor to praise this officer in my blog, and also to mention private citizens who deserve praise as well.

Officer Jaime Padron, Austin Police Department, worked his last shift today.  He was attempting to arrest a "drunk" at one of the Walmart stores.  After a short chase and during the ensuing struggle, the "drunk" pulled a pistol from under his shirt and shot the officer point blank in the chest.  Even though the officer was wearing a "bullet proof vest," the shock from the bullet stunned the officer.  The suspect quickly fired a second bullet, striking the officer in the neck.  As the man fled, the officer was able to call for help.  A second officer arrived quickly and began CPR.  The ambulance crew arrived quickly as well, but the officer died at the scene.

Officer Padron was a double hero, having both served as a peace officer for over ten years, and serving in the armed forces in Iraq.  My sympathy to his family, and to his friends at the police department.  I for one would like to thank Officer Padron for his service and honor him as he made the ultimate sacrifice today.  There are two other people that I would like to commend as well.  Two Walmart employees immediately rushed to the officer's aid after he was shot.  When the suspect fled the two employees gave chase.  Their bravery was magnified when they continued the pursuit and apprehended the man even as he fired his weapon at them.  These two Walmart employees deserve our praise.  Not only did they aid the officer, but detained the shooter at the risk, literally, of their very lives.  These two employees requested that their names not be published, but they are heroes just the same.