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.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, April 6, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, March 9, 2012
The Lottery and The Welfare Lady
Recently an Illinois woman realized her dream of winning that state’s lottery. With nearly one million dollars in hand after taxes, did this woman perhaps quit her job to indulge in a carefree life of pleasure? No she did not. It turns out that she had no job to quit. She was in fact on the public welfare roll in the state of Illinois, receiving food assistance in the amount of $200 each month, among other entitlements. After taxes, Amanda Clayton still came out with over $700,000. So maybe she had no job to quit, but at least she got off the public welfare rolls, right? Umm…no, she did not, and has not.
This is at least the second incidence of an Illinois Lottery winner being on state welfare rolls. And as outrageous as it seems, there are no provisions in Illinois law requiring lottery winners to be removed from such entitlement programs. Apparently this loophole exists in most other states’ laws as well. Illinois law DOES require welfare recipients to report any changes in their income or financial status, but, in this case, state officials rather candidly pointed out that welfare agencies rarely take affirmative steps to monitor recipients for unreported changes in status. In other words, it is Ms. Clayton’s responsibility as a good citizen to report her good fortune to the powers that be. Not surprisingly, however, Ms. Clayton is in no hurry to revise her welfare status.
A reporter caught up with Ms. Clayton outside her home (I mean ONE of her homes) and asked her questions along the line of why she was still in the welfare program now that she was a wealthy lottery winner. He specifically asked her if she still felt entitled to her welfare benefits, to which Ms. Clayton replied, “I kind of do.” She went on to say, “I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was OK because I’m not working. I feel that it’s OK since I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.” (Emphasis mine)
There are a couple of troubling things about Ms. Clayton. First, she appears to continue to have a sense of entitlement. That is, no matter how much money she may receive, whether in a lottery, in some settlement, or maybe just a huge gift from her friends, she has no “income” because she does not “work.” I suppose if she had won one of those “Super Power Ball” lotteries, with prizes in the triple digit millions, she would still have no “income.”
At the same time, we are all left to wonder why she does not work. I am trying to be non-judgmental here. Maybe she has some handicap. Maybe she is taking care of her mother, who apparently resides with her. Whatever the case, Ms. Clayton does not “work.” So, in spite of having over half a million dollars, Ms. Clayton is so concerned about her ability to buy food that she still needs the $200 food entitlement. I guess that if she went grocery shopping and accidentally spent $700,001, she should certainly be able to depend on her state dole to pay the extra dollar.
The other troubling thing about Ms. Clayton is that she gives one the impression that she will probably not go out of her way to make sure that the Illinois welfare agency knows she won the lottery. This may be a moot point, however, since the entire nation is now aware of her recent good fortune. But remember, the Illinois state welfare official already let us know that his agency would not make much of an effort to find out if any particular welfare recipient’s financial condition had changed. If the welfare office does not update Ms. Clayton’s financial status, would she do the right thing on her own? Would she voluntarily have herself removed from the Illinois welfare tab? Should she do so?
I have to admit that my first reaction was, “Of course she should report her new found wealth immediately, and ask that she be removed from the welfare rolls.” But upon thinking it over a little more calmly, I could see that it might be proper to consider all Ms. Clayton’s financial and social circumstances before making such a judgment. The Illinois Legislature apparently thinks so as well. They are working on a bill at the moment that would provide for the examination of any welfare recipient’s eligibility for continued entitlements should that person win any lottery prize worth over one thousand dollars. This is a step in the right direction, although the bill has been pending for over a year now. By the way, why is a welfare recipient playing the lottery in the first place? That is a subject for another blog.
Let us presume that a welfare recipient somehow had the means to play the lottery at other than taxpayer expense. If the person won $1,000 or even $5,000, chances are slim that this in itself would be enough to end the person’s need for (or dependence on) the welfare dole. On the other hand, a person who won a large prize, such as a $1,000,000 super-prize, should probably be taken off the welfare rolls. I suppose an exception would be if the winner owed $1,000,000 in medical bills or some other expense. If the person were legally obligated to pay off the debt with lottery winnings, that person would still essentially be “broke” and therefore still eligible for welfare even though technically a “millionaire.”
It is inevitable that a welfare recipient will win the lottery again in one state or another. While it may be that we could depend on most lottery winners to voluntarily update their status with their respective welfare agencies, there would still be some who would “omit” their status update. For these people, a system of cross-checking lottery winners with welfare recipients would insure that they were caught and charged with welfare fraud. They could then use their lottery winnings to pay for their criminal defense, thus saving taxpayer money that would have been expended for that purpose.
This is at least the second incidence of an Illinois Lottery winner being on state welfare rolls. And as outrageous as it seems, there are no provisions in Illinois law requiring lottery winners to be removed from such entitlement programs. Apparently this loophole exists in most other states’ laws as well. Illinois law DOES require welfare recipients to report any changes in their income or financial status, but, in this case, state officials rather candidly pointed out that welfare agencies rarely take affirmative steps to monitor recipients for unreported changes in status. In other words, it is Ms. Clayton’s responsibility as a good citizen to report her good fortune to the powers that be. Not surprisingly, however, Ms. Clayton is in no hurry to revise her welfare status.
A reporter caught up with Ms. Clayton outside her home (I mean ONE of her homes) and asked her questions along the line of why she was still in the welfare program now that she was a wealthy lottery winner. He specifically asked her if she still felt entitled to her welfare benefits, to which Ms. Clayton replied, “I kind of do.” She went on to say, “I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was OK because I’m not working. I feel that it’s OK since I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.” (Emphasis mine)
There are a couple of troubling things about Ms. Clayton. First, she appears to continue to have a sense of entitlement. That is, no matter how much money she may receive, whether in a lottery, in some settlement, or maybe just a huge gift from her friends, she has no “income” because she does not “work.” I suppose if she had won one of those “Super Power Ball” lotteries, with prizes in the triple digit millions, she would still have no “income.”
At the same time, we are all left to wonder why she does not work. I am trying to be non-judgmental here. Maybe she has some handicap. Maybe she is taking care of her mother, who apparently resides with her. Whatever the case, Ms. Clayton does not “work.” So, in spite of having over half a million dollars, Ms. Clayton is so concerned about her ability to buy food that she still needs the $200 food entitlement. I guess that if she went grocery shopping and accidentally spent $700,001, she should certainly be able to depend on her state dole to pay the extra dollar.
The other troubling thing about Ms. Clayton is that she gives one the impression that she will probably not go out of her way to make sure that the Illinois welfare agency knows she won the lottery. This may be a moot point, however, since the entire nation is now aware of her recent good fortune. But remember, the Illinois state welfare official already let us know that his agency would not make much of an effort to find out if any particular welfare recipient’s financial condition had changed. If the welfare office does not update Ms. Clayton’s financial status, would she do the right thing on her own? Would she voluntarily have herself removed from the Illinois welfare tab? Should she do so?
I have to admit that my first reaction was, “Of course she should report her new found wealth immediately, and ask that she be removed from the welfare rolls.” But upon thinking it over a little more calmly, I could see that it might be proper to consider all Ms. Clayton’s financial and social circumstances before making such a judgment. The Illinois Legislature apparently thinks so as well. They are working on a bill at the moment that would provide for the examination of any welfare recipient’s eligibility for continued entitlements should that person win any lottery prize worth over one thousand dollars. This is a step in the right direction, although the bill has been pending for over a year now. By the way, why is a welfare recipient playing the lottery in the first place? That is a subject for another blog.
Let us presume that a welfare recipient somehow had the means to play the lottery at other than taxpayer expense. If the person won $1,000 or even $5,000, chances are slim that this in itself would be enough to end the person’s need for (or dependence on) the welfare dole. On the other hand, a person who won a large prize, such as a $1,000,000 super-prize, should probably be taken off the welfare rolls. I suppose an exception would be if the winner owed $1,000,000 in medical bills or some other expense. If the person were legally obligated to pay off the debt with lottery winnings, that person would still essentially be “broke” and therefore still eligible for welfare even though technically a “millionaire.”
It is inevitable that a welfare recipient will win the lottery again in one state or another. While it may be that we could depend on most lottery winners to voluntarily update their status with their respective welfare agencies, there would still be some who would “omit” their status update. For these people, a system of cross-checking lottery winners with welfare recipients would insure that they were caught and charged with welfare fraud. They could then use their lottery winnings to pay for their criminal defense, thus saving taxpayer money that would have been expended for that purpose.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
After Fifty - Living Dangerously
In July of last year, my fiftieth birthday came and went, actually with relatively little fanfare. Unlike the immanent 12/21/12, the world did not end on my birthday. I did not even get the usual black party or "over the hill" bash. Basically, nothing happened. Actually, though, something DID happen. I began to live dangerously. As my daughter said, "Gee, Dad, you've made FIFTY! You've beaten the odds!" We were discussing motorcycles at the time, and Child B (the daughter) was trying to encourage me to learn to ride a motorcycle. And, oddly enough, I AM seriously considering it! But today I have done what must surely be one of the most dangerous things a man can do. You would think at fifty I would know better, that I should have learned over the two decades of marriage. Not me!
Yesterday my lovely bride told me she was getting a haircut today. She wanted to get her hair "cut off." So today, after work, I drove home eager 1) to see my spouse's lovely new haircut, and 2) to depart for Tampico, one of the better Mexican food restaurants in the Midland area. Just as I pulled into the drive, I saw my son (Child A) walking toward our residence. I joined him and we both entered my residence together. There, seated on the couch, was my lovely bride and her new...er, um. I told her, "Lovely Bride, you did not get your hair cut after all!" My spouse said, "What?! I DID GET A NEW HAIRCUT!" Like I said, having turned fifty, I really DO like living dangerously!
Child A, standing a few feet away, was already looking at me as if I were a distant but cherished memory. He is not even thirty and HE knew I was now in the DANGER ZONE. Thinking rather quickly for a fifty-year-old I said "Oh, Lovely Bride, they did your cut so well you can't even tell you've HAD a haircut." The LAZER-EYES (as discussed in an earlier blog) were pointed in my direction, boring holes through my skull. Child A, standing a few feet away, continued to stare at me as if I were a distant but cherished memory. Thinking quickly again, I said, "Tampico?" I was quickly out the door before Lazer Eyes could do any further damage.
Needless to say, the evening had a happy ending (else I would not now be writing these words). Yes, we went to Tampico, with Child A in tow. The Lazer Eyes were extinguished with a Tampico special Margarita and some good food a la the Botano Platter. It was a great meal, and there was lots of laughter thanks to Child A's witty sense of humor. The great meal was topped off by a stop at the local TCBY parlor, then home again. With more quick thinking, I made numerous observations concerning the loveliness of my Lovely Bride's new hairdo. I think that the combination of my silver tongue and the spouse's frozen Margarita won the day. Now Child A is gone to his abode, and I am seated on the couch with my Lovely ( and somewhat mellowed) Bride. She has a new hairdo and I am really enjoying my Year of Living Dangerously.
Yesterday my lovely bride told me she was getting a haircut today. She wanted to get her hair "cut off." So today, after work, I drove home eager 1) to see my spouse's lovely new haircut, and 2) to depart for Tampico, one of the better Mexican food restaurants in the Midland area. Just as I pulled into the drive, I saw my son (Child A) walking toward our residence. I joined him and we both entered my residence together. There, seated on the couch, was my lovely bride and her new...er, um. I told her, "Lovely Bride, you did not get your hair cut after all!" My spouse said, "What?! I DID GET A NEW HAIRCUT!" Like I said, having turned fifty, I really DO like living dangerously!
Child A, standing a few feet away, was already looking at me as if I were a distant but cherished memory. He is not even thirty and HE knew I was now in the DANGER ZONE. Thinking rather quickly for a fifty-year-old I said "Oh, Lovely Bride, they did your cut so well you can't even tell you've HAD a haircut." The LAZER-EYES (as discussed in an earlier blog) were pointed in my direction, boring holes through my skull. Child A, standing a few feet away, continued to stare at me as if I were a distant but cherished memory. Thinking quickly again, I said, "Tampico?" I was quickly out the door before Lazer Eyes could do any further damage.
Needless to say, the evening had a happy ending (else I would not now be writing these words). Yes, we went to Tampico, with Child A in tow. The Lazer Eyes were extinguished with a Tampico special Margarita and some good food a la the Botano Platter. It was a great meal, and there was lots of laughter thanks to Child A's witty sense of humor. The great meal was topped off by a stop at the local TCBY parlor, then home again. With more quick thinking, I made numerous observations concerning the loveliness of my Lovely Bride's new hairdo. I think that the combination of my silver tongue and the spouse's frozen Margarita won the day. Now Child A is gone to his abode, and I am seated on the couch with my Lovely ( and somewhat mellowed) Bride. She has a new hairdo and I am really enjoying my Year of Living Dangerously.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Leap Day - Part Two
Yesterday was Leap Day for 2012. I hope you had a great one and did something special. In Midland, Texas seven babies were born on this day. One of the parents already said he is going to count his daughter’s age only by Leap Years. When his daughter thinks she is sixteen and wants to drive the family care, Daddy will tell her that she has only had four birthdays and therefore is too young to drive the car, and particularly too young to date. Personally I am not holding my breath for that one. I suspect that this young lady will have had several boyfriends and a couple of speeding tickets by the time she reaches her “fourth” birthday.
Actually I have been thinking about some modern uses for Leap Day, and I believe I have come up with some good things that could be done on Leap Day every Leap Year. First, why pay federal income tax every single year? Just think of the administrative costs that could be saved if taxes had to be filed each LEAP DAY. I can hear the IRS screaming now. It’s just a thought!
For school students, why not decree that those children must take the TAKS each and every February 29th? Along with that decree would be the requirement that teachers could only begin “preparing” the students for their test six months before the upcoming Leap Day test. Wouldn’t it be great if students could actually “learn” for at least three out of every four years?
What about the United States presidential election? Yes, I know it already occurs during each Leap Year, but I would like to add a new twist. Instead of the seemingly endless campaigning, with the associated huge political contributions and accompanying cronyism, I submit to you that we should limit the presidential campaign to only the months of January and February of each election year. In January the candidates could campaign until the 15th of the month. The remainder of the month would be dedicated to primary elections. In Leap February, the winners of the primaries would have another five days to make their final campaign appearances. The election would then be held. The results of the election would be vetted by the fifteenth day of February, leaving our new president another two weeks to be briefed and “brought up to speed” by inauguration day, Leap Day!
These ideas of mine for a better use of Leap Day are “tongue in cheek” ideas, but really only half so. I am somewhat serious as I write this blog. Why not just one scholastic achievement test, if such a test is needed at all? After all, students must pass tests and otherwise prove they have gained the required knowledge at many points during each school year. As to students who have NOT achieved passing levels, THAT is already known too, AND without the need for a separate (and federally mandated) achievement test. As to national elections, why should we be forced to endure (and finance!) two years of presidential campaigns? Again, I am sure many people would love to see the campaign season whittled down very drastically. As to income tax only every fourth year, do not hold your breath for that one. Income taxes will be an annual requirement for years to come, as long as there is a United States of America.
Thanks, everyone, and have a happy Leap Year!
Actually I have been thinking about some modern uses for Leap Day, and I believe I have come up with some good things that could be done on Leap Day every Leap Year. First, why pay federal income tax every single year? Just think of the administrative costs that could be saved if taxes had to be filed each LEAP DAY. I can hear the IRS screaming now. It’s just a thought!
For school students, why not decree that those children must take the TAKS each and every February 29th? Along with that decree would be the requirement that teachers could only begin “preparing” the students for their test six months before the upcoming Leap Day test. Wouldn’t it be great if students could actually “learn” for at least three out of every four years?
What about the United States presidential election? Yes, I know it already occurs during each Leap Year, but I would like to add a new twist. Instead of the seemingly endless campaigning, with the associated huge political contributions and accompanying cronyism, I submit to you that we should limit the presidential campaign to only the months of January and February of each election year. In January the candidates could campaign until the 15th of the month. The remainder of the month would be dedicated to primary elections. In Leap February, the winners of the primaries would have another five days to make their final campaign appearances. The election would then be held. The results of the election would be vetted by the fifteenth day of February, leaving our new president another two weeks to be briefed and “brought up to speed” by inauguration day, Leap Day!
These ideas of mine for a better use of Leap Day are “tongue in cheek” ideas, but really only half so. I am somewhat serious as I write this blog. Why not just one scholastic achievement test, if such a test is needed at all? After all, students must pass tests and otherwise prove they have gained the required knowledge at many points during each school year. As to students who have NOT achieved passing levels, THAT is already known too, AND without the need for a separate (and federally mandated) achievement test. As to national elections, why should we be forced to endure (and finance!) two years of presidential campaigns? Again, I am sure many people would love to see the campaign season whittled down very drastically. As to income tax only every fourth year, do not hold your breath for that one. Income taxes will be an annual requirement for years to come, as long as there is a United States of America.
Thanks, everyone, and have a happy Leap Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)