The Supremes miss the boat

You have got to hand it to the Supreme Court of the United States: They probably have done more damage to the country than they realize.

In two days, in my opinion (and one shared by many people), the justices in split decisions have done considerable damage to the rule of law in the United States.

Granted, I am not saying that the justices don’t have that power, because they do, and however wrong I, or anyone else, may think their reasoning and conclusions may be, what they say is how the law is supposed to be interpreted and applied in the United States. That is the compact we live under. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it.

But love or hate the decisions they make we have to accept them as the new rules that govern the nation (at least until the political process can come up with a new way someway to interpret the compact that stands the scrutiny of the justices). If you don’t like that, then move to another country.

Now, having said all that, I think the Court’s rulings on both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and on “gay” marriage are faulty. Both of them for basically the same reason: They chose to redefine words with established definitions.

To some people this may not seem to be a big deal, but in the realm of the law, its rules live and die on definitions. How words are defined is established by tradition and precedent, and in both these cases the concurring justices chose essentially to say that neither tradition nor precedent was enough to warrant not changing the definitions.

Now, liberals and progressives will tell you this is as it should be because words evolve, the language evolves and over time things mean differently than they did before. Only in these cases, that really is not the situation. The justices just decided it was.

For example: the word “state” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Congressional legislation has a pretty specific meaning that has been held for roughly 228 years. That definition is no longer valid. When legislation or regulatory rules are made now, rather than meaning just the political subdivision of US called the “state” (of which there are 50 of them), the word now means either the states (in the traditional sense) or the federal government, depending on how you want to interpret it in the political/social context.

I understand the argument that ruling the PP&ACA (Obamacare) would have adversely impacted millions of Americans and I imagine that played a significant role in the thinking of the justices. The court is loath to play bull in the china shop with the U.S. economy and usually seeks ways to avoid doing it. Of course, the court could have done as it did 30+ years ago with the bankruptcy code and stayed striking it down in Toto and told Congress it had six months to fix the problem. But that would not have served the ends of those on the liberal end of the court whose political view of the world is that role of the government is expansive and such things such as health care are a right (wrong … but that is an argument for another day).

The justices did the same thing with granting equal rights to same sex marriages.

Look, I have no problem granting two people of the same sex who wish to enter into a contractual relationship (which, legally, is all “marriage” is) and receiving government benefits equal to those granted “married” couples. No problem whatsoever. But you have to recognize that this really isn’t about people loving each other or living together; it is about those benefits. All the rest really is just window dressing.

Granted, it is an effort by a minority of our population trying legislate social acceptance of behavior which is, by any estimation, a tad bit on the abnormal side and in most cultures is considered something other than acceptable behavior. In some it may be tolerated more than others but pretty much universally it is considered aberrant.

So, the justices decided, based pretty much on a loud and orchestrated campaign of political correctness, to say that such pairings had right to be called “marriages” and were indeed a constitutional right (S0 that they had to be recognized in all 50 states). In essence, they redefined the millennia old meaning of a word in almost all cultures and religions to fit what they thought was correct in our evolving world.

The court, however, was correct in saying what is a contractual right in one state has to be in all states. So, in that sense, they did do something right.

To me, at this junction, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My objection is to the laisse faire playing with the language. Now, I know this is what lawyers and judges do all the time and it is what they get paid to do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I see it as an assault on the rule of law, for remember the law hinges on words and how they are defined. Start changing the definitions and you tear at the foundations of the law. And if people can change definitions at will, then we become a nation of men and not law, as the old saying goes.

In one footnote, I would say that this ruling opens the door to polygamy becoming a constitutional right. You might say “nah, never happen”, but 20 years ago people were saying the same thing about gay marriage.

Autumn of life

First, I want to apologize to anyone who has followed this blog in the past: I have been woefully bad about updating, having somewhat abandoned you all to make links on my Facebook page. Richard Browne on Facebook

It has been easier to post links with brief commentary there, but I have decided to take the time at this point to more fully develop my headline thesis and Facebook is inadequate vehicle for that.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of links that will be in this post, but a) I am lazy and b) I am going to credit you, the reader, as one who follows the news in the United States and therefore already will be able to understand the context in which my views are made.

Now, what do I mean by “Autumn of Life”? Am I referring to my own or do I have some larger portrait to paint? The answer to both is “yes”.

I recently reached the ripe old age of 66 and with my health being as it is, I am – I must realize and acknowledge – in the “autumn” of my existence. It doesn’t mean I plan to die tomorrow or sometime soon, but it is a possibility that will come to pass. Being an old codger with a few miles under my treads does tend to give me a perspective that I once would have applied only to my digressions into my studies of history – of American, of the World, of Western and other civilizations.

So as I read today’s headlines on the internet and read through the lead stories of the day, on one hand I have been struck by an increasing sense of doom and gloom, while occasionally I see flashes that there may yet be hope.

The problem in the U.S., to me at least, is that we have become too complacent, maybe even too apathetic, about who we are as Americans and what is expected of us as Americans. Understand, that for most Americans we take for granted a lifestyle that literally few, except maybe the very wealthy, around the world really can hope to achieve. But we assume that lifestyle as a right, and don’t realize it is a privilege that has been built on the hard work and discipline of our parents, their parents, etc.

It is our expectations that are at fault now and how we fail to acknowledge the basis for the life that those expectations are built upon. Over the course of my life, I have witnessed how the elevation of our expectations in outcome were not keeping pace with the expectations of what input it would take to achieve them.

It is, of course, de rigor now to teach every child that they can achieve anything they want to and that everyone can be a success. That concept is why we now downplay competition and celebrate mere participation. We do this to promote self-esteem in our young and a belief in their abilities … even if their abilities are not up to achieving their expectations. I remember the first year I played organized baseball, I had these visions of me driving the ball up the hill above our diamond and into the parking lot. I walked 13 times (I was a little kid and had a small strike zone) and I struck out 13 times. We forgot somewhere along the line that we also have to teach our progeny that what we want often is not what we get.

I remember a saying from my youth: Aim for the stars, but be willing to accept the moon, or even low-earth orbit, if that is what your abilities will carry you to.

It is called dealing with disappointment and dealing with the reality that sometimes what you want and what you can achieve are entirely different things.

For example, when I was a young man I would have given my eyeteeth to become a line officer in the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. It didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying. Events both in and out of my control augured against me and I was disappointed in nine different attempts. What that taught me, with each of the failures I had a long the way, was to fall back, regroup, and strike out again with a new objective in mind.

Over my life, I have had some successes and, if I am honest, many failures. It was the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces after each of the failures – an some probably should be legend – and go on. It is hard. It is not easy. However, I thank my parents for for somehow endowing me with the perseverance to keep going.

The problem I see with a large part of my nation these days is that we have lost the consensus of what it means to be an American … and even if to be called an American is a worthy thing. If you read much of the politically correct debate, you begin to wonder if being an American really is worth all we go through … especially if we who believe in the old American ideal were such evil and bad people.

We have lost the consensus of what is expected of the individual adult, or the role of faith is to play in our collective lives, or what role civil and community organizations are to play in our American civilization, or what the individual roles of city, county, state and federal governments are.

The role of the individual, as perceived by those rather smart white men who wrote the constitution that underlies our current republic, was guardian of his (sorry, certain groups were excluded, although that has been for the most part correct as a matter of law) own sustenance and future. It was not the government’s role (especially not the federal or state) to make sure the individual had a roof over his head or food on the table. The role of the individual, however, was to contribute to the success of his community and to stand in its defense … and in a larger sense, to his city, county, state and nation, as part of his obligation to it. It was the individual’s obligation to uphold the law through his own actions, rather than an expectation that the government, at what ever level, to enforce the law. All were to be treated equally by that law and it applied to everyone.

That perception, unfortunately, no longer applies. If it feels good and you can get away with it, it seems that today no one has an obligation to obey or uphold the law. In addition, that extends to those whose job it is to enforce the law. If, for whatever reason, it becomes expedient not to enforce the law, or to enforce it selectively, or in some cases rewrite the law by executive fiat, those who are charged with its uniform enforcement decline to do so.

In order to satisfy the political beliefs for some, rather than take the language at its face value, it is twisted and turned into something Orwellian to behold. George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” is alive and thriving in 21st Century America.

On one hand, there are those who believe – not as American tradition holds – that in the 21st Century the rights and beliefs of the individual no longer matter but the rights of the community and democracy trump the individual with the “government” as the arbiter. We see political candidates to date making it clear that it is their position in no uncertain terms.

For example, take firearms. Well, you have the right not to own one, but does that make it right to deny someone who wants to own one to be able to do so. Just because you are scared of guns does not necessarily correlate to a need to ban guns.

The Second Amendment makes it an inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as so many of the people who debated its adoption pointed out. And it was not just for hunting, but it was survival … survival against enemies of the Republic from both within and without. The government is not giving us this right as a privilege and it doesn’t have the privilege to take it away from American individuals without showing good and just cause. It is not up to the individual to prove that he or she worthy of the right; it is up to the government to prove that he or she is unworthy of the right.

Now, I know that is not a popular position with some of our elites, particularly among our media gatekeepers and pundits and others who consider themselves to be progressive. To them, we have “evolved” past the need for individuals to be willing to step and defend not only themselves but their communities “from all enemies foreign or domestic.” (I know that oath because I have taken it many times) To them, that is what we hire police and the military for, but I would disagree with them.

In our hubris, we are letting our expectations and wants get ahead of our abilities and capabilities. In our hubris, I would posit that my country has reached the autumn of its life. Those who are familiar with the Cycle of Democracy will understand what I am saying … if you are unfamiliar with it, then I beg forgiveness and ask you to research it.

For many decades now we have let those who want desperately for everyone to succeed and raise everyone to the the same level as everyone else raise expectations without pointing out that there is no free lunch. Everything comes with a price and what you want sometimes is beyond the reach of what you can afford. That this is true does not necessarily mean that you are failure – I can attest to that, for I don’t consider myself a failure … I may not have been perfect or roaring success who achieved all his goals without effort, but that doesn’t make me a failure.

Unfortunately, we have raised at least two, if not three and possibly going on four, generations who were not taught that while all things are possible, not all things are probable. That as individuals we have to be prepared for disappointments and that we will take losses, probably in greater proportions than our gains.

I once gave a poem to my step-son and commended it to his reading. I told him to listen, hear and attend to its words, for they are good rules to live your life by. I hope it has helped him … and I would recommend everyone, especially every adolescent and young adult to read it and pay heed. It is the poem “If” by the British author and poet Rudyard Kipling. I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it, given Kipling’s provenance, but they would be wrong. It truly is an eternal lesson that knows no race, religion, creed or era.

When I look at events of recent days, I am struck by the fact that evil does walk among us … and, yes, there are evil people out there. They feed upon the envy, resentment and hate that is being fanned every day by people on the internet, in the media, and in our political leadership. We cannot escape that truth. All we can do is prepare ourselves to cope with.

How do we do that? There are a number of things we can do, but it falls to individuals and not to “society” or “government”.

First, we can endeavor to live our own lives by the only one true and universal rule of life: Treat others as we would have them treat ourselves.

Easy to say, but difficult to do. We wish we were ruled by our reason, but the truth is we are move often ruled by our emotions and our passions. Still, we must learn that it truly is better to forgive rather than to let our anger and hate eat away at us and turn us into beasts we do not recognize.

The second thing may seem at odds with the first, but it is just as true: If we want peace, then we must be prepared for war.

Whether it is war at the individual level, the community level or the national level, we must be prepared to step forward and take whatever measures we can to combat evil when it comes … and it will come. This is not something we can farm out to mercenaries in the form of police or the military. This is something each of us must take on as our personal obligation, not just to ourselves, but also to our communities, our cities, our counties, our states, territories, commonwealths and districts, our nation … and probably, by extension, to our planet.

I say these things without consideration of color, or race, or ethnicity, or economic, or social status. It doesn’t matter to me. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, it does matter these days. No longer is it important what the law says, or what people’s actions are in accordance with those laws, it only matters what someone’s perceive gender is, or sexual orientation, or color of their skin, or whether they are rich or poor or somewhere in between. This is wrong and is part of the evil that has brought autumn to our Republic.

If you have bore with me throughout this lengthy essay, I commend you. If you agree with it, I hope it inspires you; just as I hope it it inspires you to respond with a comment if you don’t agree with me.

 

Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Politics should stop being politics

Obama: Congress should stop bickering

The President thinks that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting and arguing over how the federal government spends its money. They should stop “manufacturing” crises and stop being “out of touch” with the American people.

TIME OUT!

Mr. President, what world are you living on, because it sure ain’t the same one the rest of America lives on.

Sorry, but the Republicans and the Democrats pretty much are doing what they are supposed to do: Represent the interests of the people who sent them there. Now that does not mean everybody in their district or state, but the people who voted and supported them. That, Mr. President, is how a representative democracy works. You don’t like that, then move to a different universe.

I know that I am a voice in the wilderness here, but, people, we have to understand that the US does not speak with one voice. It never has and it never will. Currently there are more that 310 million of us, each with our own mind and our own view of how things ought to be. Neither of the major political parties represents the view of the majority of Americans – especially on every issue. That is what makes politics politics.

Mr. President, you want Congress to pass a budget? Then call Harry Reid over in the Senate and tell him to pass the next budget bill that comes over from the House as is. Don’t play around with it, just pass it. And then you sign it. But, you and I know that isn’t going to happen.

And it hasn’t happened since the Republicans became the majority in the House. Every year, since 2009, the House dutifully passes the various and sundry authorizations and appropriations bills (like some 26 of them each year) and every year during that time the Senate has piddled and diddle and not one thing has it resolved. Why? Because the Democrats won’t accept what the Republicans have passed.

Every year, the Congress ends up passing a “continuing resolution” that, I guess, now extends all the way back to 2009 (it actually doesn’t but that is a different story). As Pappy used to say: That is one heck (he WAS a gentleman after all) of a way to run a railroad.

All continuing resolutions do is kick the can down the road to be dealt with again whenever it runs out.

So, the problem has not been in the House. It has been doing its job all along. And the problem is not with the Senate Republicans; they are just standing by what their House brethren have sent over. No, the problem lies on the other side of the aisle.

Now, I will guarantee you that you will not see it reported that way because it does not fit the establishment narrative of the problem.

I saw this back in 1994 when the GOP first took the House after being the minority party for more than 40 years. The establishment media was in a quandary. Over 40 years the reporters and pundits had established where they could go to get information and where the levers of power were. In an election, all that was washed away and it upset them. No longer could they go to the “usual suspects” and get the low-down on what was going on the backrooms and the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill. For a reporter who has spent years developing news source relationships, that is a very disconcerting feeling.

The new folks in power on the Hill, a bit chary of those who had developed such deep relations with their opponents, were less than welcoming to the established reporter and pundit class. So the feeling became mutual and the media bias grew to a deeper chasm.

Now, Mr. President, I know that neither you, nor any of your staff, or anyone else of note or power will read my ramblings (well, maybe someone at the NSA who is bored to death might), but please quit blaming others for your own lack of leadership.

The budgetary train wreck, the health care train wreck, the foreign policy train wreck, they are all your responsibility. Don’t slough them off on your minions. Don’t ask your co-equals in government (the ones who are to set the polices and priorities that you are to execute with the resources they give you) to do things that you apparently are unwilling to do.

Compromise is a two-way street and Congress is a co-equal with the Presidency (as is the Supreme Court). That is how the American republic was designed and how it is supposed to work. (Not by executive order and writ, as you just demonstrated with the setting up of new panels, etc., to sidestep the role of the uncooperative Congress – AND that is yet another rambling I will not digress into)

Nuff Said. Have a nice day. 

More rambling thoughts

Go win an election – Obama

President Obama sometimes gives the impression that as president, he is the only one who counts.  Sorry, the US government doesn’t work that way.

Gloating over the capitulation of his opponents in Congress on the issues of  what form of government funding was to be passed and how much debt the federal government would be allowed to take on, he told the losers they “needed to win an election.” The implication here, I suppose, is that the only election that counts is the presidential one. I guess if you think that the government should answer only to the president and be at his beck and call, that would be true but it is not what a democratic federal republic is all about.

You see, Mister President, your opponents on policy issues did win 232 elections in 2012 (out of 435 for seats in the House of Representatives), which means they hold a majority there. Now, if the US was a parliamentary system, it would mean that you would not be the elected leader of the United States … but that is a never-mind.

The point being is that not all power is supposed to reside in the White House and those people who control the other House were doing, essentially, what the people who voted them into office asked them to do.

No, Mister President (and your allies across the aisle in the House and across the hall in the Senate where they have control), that does not mean that those people who oppose you are extremists – despite being repeatedly labeled as such, nor racists – another favorite label being thrown around, nor hostage takers or terrorists or anarchists or arsonists or bombers. Despite your rhetoric to that effect, these people are not out to destroy the government, any more than one would hope you are. These merely are people who have a profound difference of opinion and world view than yours.

To me, it is tragic to see so many news stories and political pundits saying that the shutdown (such as it was) and the resistance to raising the debt ceiling was all the fault of the conservative Republicans and their Tea Party allies.

The shutdown did not have to happen and all the “painful” closures were not necessary. It doesn’t take much critical thinking to realize that the needed legislation had been passed by the House of Representatives but was blocked from passage by the presidential party loyalists in the Senate. It was those Senators who were holding the government hostage until they got what they wanted, not the other way around. Unfortunately, that was not nor will it be the way it was reported in the majority of the news dissemination outlets in the United States.

And now they are gloating over their victory and telling their opponents don’t ever oppose us again.

It is even more distressing to see liberal/progressive web sites like the Huffington Post headlining their page with demands that the loyal opposition bow down in obeisance to the righteousness of the progressives demands. What was it Churchill said about in victory? Something about magnanimity?

I read somewhere about how progressives are looking to create a country where it is the elite (themselves) who will perpetually be in power and those beneath them will just accept the justness of such an arrangement.

As for the other issue at the bar in the shutdown – Obamacare, or as it officially is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that it was designed to fail and that has been the intention of its “supporters” all along. I know that is being dreadfully cynical of me, but given the absolute disastrous train wreck the rollout of the “health insurance exchanges” this month, it is hard to believe that even our government and its contractors could be that incredibly incompetent. Those who know me know that I am loath to attribute to conspiracy anything that can be explained by mere incompetence, but this really has been pushing the envelope on that viewpoint.

I mean, nobody read the bill (supposedly) before it was passed and since then it seems that waivers and exceptions to its application have been the rule rather than the other way.

You see, here I tend to agree with the people who have been denigrated as Tea-baggers: I am of the opinion that the law, whatever it is, should be applied without regard to wealth, social status, gender, race, creed, religion, color, parentage or any of the plethora of other things that we use to divide us. In fact, I have feared the Balkanization of the United States for many years.

The law, in my humble opinion, should apply to all or to none at all. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the Obamacare law and its mind-boggling pages of regulations. To me, this is an egregious error, but I guess I am one of those bomb-throwers.

The funny thing to me is that, outside a few notable exceptions, I have met very few health care professionals who are in favor of Obamacare … actually most of them have expressed very negative views about the “reforms”.

As I discussed with one recently, the problem we have in the United States is not with our health care delivery system. It, in fact, is in really good shape, considering all the challenges it faces. Rather, the problem lies in how we are going to ration that delivery because it must be rationed. We have no other choice. Health care is a finite resource. We have only so many doctors, nurses, health care technicians and right on down to the porters and maids (not to mention the clerks and accountants in the billing offices).

To me the problem always has been how do you pay for all of that and who gets to decide who gets what? I am of the opinion that is not the in the purview of the US federal government, but since the bulk of the opinion makers in the US are now allied with national news dissemination organizations, all problems are nationalized (even if national solutions rarely are able to solve all problems).

I mean what would all the Bill O’Reillys, Anderson Coopers, Rachel Maddows, etc., do if they had to address merely local issues (even if they had some national implications) in all the various markets around the nation. They would not be able to cope.

I cite as a for-instance, an issue brewing in southern Maine over the use of the port facilities in South Portland to export Canadian oil. Currently, the facilities are used to pump oil from tankers from other places to Canada to feed its needs for heat, energy and transportation. The people who operate the pipeline, apparently plan to use the same facilities to take Canadian oil and export it to markets elsewhere in the world.

There are those around here are extremely put out that such a plan would be put forth at all. Of course, these people would dearly love to see the Port of Portland closed down, or so I overheard one supporter of a ballot initiative  to place such strict restrictions on the oil facilities that it would force them to close, tell another person today. They said something to the effect that so what if the 10 people working at the terminal were put out of work.

That would not be my point, however. Mine would say something about why should we in Portland be wanting to hurt so many Canadians?

However, I also know that this is not just about oil, but “tar sand” oil which those whose minds are focused on “protecting” the environment are so adamantly opposed to being developed. It doesn’t matter that the Canadians in Alberta are getting a good deal out of selling the oil, we just can’t have that happen, I guess.

And last but not least … I think the internet is a good thing. I think that letting people “blog” their thoughts and views is a good thing.

You see, apparently unlike the President of the United States, I think that blogging is of benefit and the more ideas, thoughts, points of view, etc., competing in the free market of politics the better … and may the better ideas float to the top.

Apparently, President Obama doesn’t agree and thinks that “bloggers” have too much influence. Well, I guess if your goal is to control the flow of information to the vast unwashed masses out there (note all the lengths the current administration has gone to combat leaks to reporters and the news media – which is predominately friendly to the Obama government), then the unrestrained freedom of social media and blogging would be more than disconcerting.

Just another sign that progressives and the president really don’t trust anyone but their fellow travellers.

Well, nuff said and nuff rambling for one post.

Who is blocking the solution to shutdown, debt limit?

Senate Democrats block progress on debt limit, shutdown

Reid nixes bipartisan compromise in Senate

The folks over the Huffington Post are all happy because the people they like in the Senate are all over throwing various compromise solutions back in the faces of the Republicans if they offer any.

 

NO SURRENDER! NO RETREAT!

 

I think the American people deserve a little bit better than this, but I understand the sentiment and it is a two-way street. However, having said that, it seems egregious to me that the Majority Leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rejected a compromise proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that had the support of at least six Democrats. Not enough to invoke cloture (should someone decide to filibuster it), but enough to pass the bill if all the Republicans bought into the measure.

So, the narrative remains that it all the Republicans’ fault. I am sorry, but that meme doesn’t fly anymore. This has become a situation where the progressives/liberals are saying “We won the White House. We still control the Senate. It don’t matter what the House says, especially since it is controlled by the opposition. What we want goes, period. End of sentence. End of story. And if you don’t like that you are a hostage-taking, kidnapping, baby-killing, ransom-demanding, terrorist bomber.”

If it were left to me, and I was the only one whose vote mattered, I would start with serious clearing out of the halls of Congress in November 2014 (if not sooner in those states where recall elections are permitted) and I would start with the liberals and progressives, and probably would continue on down to all the elected folks, and then start on the career staff that man all the policy-affecting offices in the congress members’ offices. Now, that is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Of course, there is little I could or would do with the blatant partisanship among the various news gathering and news disseminating organizations, other than call them on the fact that they are not fair and balanced, especially the ones in the broadcasting field but also including those in the traditional print media.

Sorry, but label what passes for journalism now as what it is: in the traditional sense of it, we are living again in the heyday of new era of Yellow Journalism.

Wikipedia's defines "Yellow Journalism"

Now, if you don’t know about Yellow Journalism, you need to go back a little more than a century or so, and look at the way the news was covered by the “majors” … not a pretty sight.

The “objective journalism” standard never really has been the norm, but for a brief shining period there in the 1950s and 1960s (and maybe into the 1970s and early 1980s) it was something that mainstream journalists professed as their goal. Not that they even came close, but it was the dream of a lot journalists that trained in that era.

So, I think it is time for us to let go of that illusion and realize that is not the case. Time to realize that everyone has a point of view and to them, it is fair and balanced and everyone else’s is prejudiced.

However, I would like to disabuse those who say that the House has no right to defund programs it doesn’t like. Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt. You may not like it, but the same thing was tried when the Iraq War went south. Remember the people who voted for the war before they voted against it? If you don’t remember that issue, then you need to have your memory checked because it wasn’t that long ago.

And just because some law has passed Congress, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, does not mean that law is engraved in stone … and unless it is an amendment to the Constitution, it is not necessarily the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes do take precedence over state law, but that does not equal constitutional status.

If it were the case, then little things like the Fugitive Slave Act and the Volstead Act would still be the law of the land. Or Plessey v. Ferguson would still be in effect. Nope, laws can be changed. Courts can change their opinion on what is constitutional and what is not.

Even if it is a law, Congress (especially in the case of the House) has the prerogative to vote against providing any funds to enforce or put any law into effect. Heck, it has been underfunding immigration enforcement for years.

I really would hope, however, that more people would look at the situation unfolding in Washington, D.C., and recognize that despite the repetition of the canard that it all is the fault of the party that controls the House of Representatives, the fault for this mess does indeed lie elsewhere.

To me, the answer is obvious beyond debate.

Nuff said.

I think Jimmy Carter should stick to building houses

Democracy is not working in US: Jimmy Carter

Former President Jimmy Carter does some pretty amazing work with his wife through his efforts with Habitat for Humanity. I really laud his efforts there.

Unfortunately, when he strays from that he kinda loses me.

For example, I think Habitat for Humanity is an incredible program. It helps build homes for people who otherwise might not have one and those people have to put some sweat-equity into not only their new home, but others as well. It is part of the Habitat contract with the individual. No, these homes are not just given to people gratis. Sorry, that isn’t what the program is about.

In addition, in most places, it is not a government program. I think that is one reason that it works so well. It is a non-governmental effort that makes agreements with families that through donated labor and material a home will be constructed to modern standards as long as the person agrees to put in so many hours working on their own home as well as helping build other homes. I think that is a fair trade.

However, I think President Carter implies a lot more than he bargains for when he starts saying that things like housing, health care and education are “rights.” Yes, they are necessary things and things that one would hope that most people would have at least some access to. 

Having said that, I would start to question where one draws the line on providing necessities to people. It is the old “How much is enough” question and who gets to decide what enough is.

For people like Carter, it seems that government is the answer to who should be doing the providing and begs the question of who decides how much is enough. And of course, if government is not guaranteeing food, housing, health care and education, then obviously democracy is failing.

Sorry, Mr. Carter, but that is a bunch of hokem and you should be old enough and smart enough to realize that it defies human nature. You and the folks with Habitat are smart enough to require a contract from the new homeowners, but it seems that when something becomes a “right” and is provided by the government, then the contract that requires some return from the purchaser (receiver of goods and/or services) gets lost somewhere.

Actually, Mr. Carter, democracy is alive and well in the American republic. Maybe you don’t like the way things are going, but then you had your chance and the American people chose a different course than you were offering some forty years ago. Sorry, but the American people weren’t buying what you were selling. (I remember, because I had to endure double-digit inflation and mortgage rates pushing 20 percent and witnessed double digit unemployment when benefits were far less generous than now.)

I am afraid the President Barack Obama is having to learn the same lesson that President Carter had to learn. Sometimes, a large number of people in the US tend to resent things just being handed to them or someone else. They see the ultimate fairness in exchanges – like the sweat-equity contracts demanded by Habitat for Humanity – for goods and services.

A lot of people look at 99 weeks of extended unemployment benefits and scrunch up their noses and eyebrows and wonder what the heck is going on. They also look at people expecting the government to provide them with housing, healthcare, food and cellphones and wonder whatever happened to the contract where you had to give in order to receive?

Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mr. Carter: Interestingly enough a slim majority of Americans (at least reflected by the people they sent to represent them in the House of Representatives) seem to think it is not working out like it was projected and maybe there should be some changes in the program … like making it apply to everybody and not just those unfortunate not to have the pull to be exempted from its provisions and face fines etc. if they don’t get with the program. So their representatives are using the constitutionally-mandated power given them to rattle a few cages and try to get the attention of the Senate and the Executive Branch to maybe tweak the law some.

You need to put a call in the Mr. Obama, Mr. Carter, and tell him that maybe he should be listening more to the people and less to the media, the pundits and his political cronies.

Just a random thought there.

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Government by fiat

Obama, rejected by Congress, implements new gun control steps

Now, if you don’t have problems with the sentence above, then you have problems living in a democratic republic.

The Obama Administration, failing to get its gun control agenda through Congress, said it is going to go around Congress and by executive order implement its idea of gun control.

This is government by executive fiat and we are seeing a distressing increase in it in the United States under the current administration.

But let's take the gun control steps first.

By using the language (and most people’s limited understanding of what is really being said), the administration’s decision to block the re-importation of “military-grade” firearms given as military aid a half-century ago probably seems reasonable. Can’t have all those Army automatic weapons like machineguns being purchased by civilians.

However, the real impact is to block the re-importation of the staple weapon used by most of the infantrymen in World War II and the Korean War: the M1 Garand 30-06 caliber semiautomatic rifle. The problem with the Garand is that it makes a lousing weapon in the hands of a criminal. It is big with only an 8-round clip in its magazine. It one fires one bullet at a time and automatically ejects the clip when your 8th round goes down range. It also will smash the heck out of your thumb if you don’t get it out of the way of the bolt when you insert a new clip (and try manually setting up a clip some time, it ain’t fun). It does not even come close to fitting anyone’s description of the fearful “assault rifle.” No 30-round detachable magazines, etc.

Why the administration is banning the re-importation of such collectible weapons is beyond me, but there is some rationale there somewhere.

Still, back to the basic point: When is the current US administration going to be called to account for using its regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative powers of the Congress chosen by the people to enact the rules they want?

I think the American people need to start asking why Congress is laying down on the job and not challenging the executive branch’s usurpation of its powers.

Assault on the Electoral College

Electoral votes not equal

How the Electoral “College” system works

It seems, of late, we go through this spasm – mainly by progressives – over the U.S. Constitution’s specifications for electing a president. You see, according to them, it is not “democratic” (it was never designed to be that way) and not everyone’s vote is equal (which is true).

You see, when you vote president in November, you really are not voting for one of the candidates but, in 48 states and the District of Columbia, you really are voting for a slate of “electors” who are pledged to vote for the candidate who gets the plurality of votes in your state. Two states apportion their electors by congressional district with two going to the candidate who receives the plurality of votes in the state.

Note: I said plurality and not majority. There is a major difference. A majority would be 50 percent of the votes cast plus 1, while a plurality merely means the candidate got more than any of the other candidates on the ballot (and remember you will see more than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney among your presidential selection choices when you step into that voting booth. Not that you would know it from what you see and read in the most of the media. The other candidates have been deemed by said gatekeepers of the news to be “unwinnable” and hence not worthy of coverage. Ain’t that a hoot and a self-fulfilling prophecy? Also note that at least one candidate, Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in 47 states and possibly all 50, if the Libertarian Party’s court challenges keeping them off the ballot are successful).

Now, there is a movement afoot to have states agree to allocate all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, but then what would be the point of having states? Note that this is being pushed in states where the Democratic Party has control of the legislatures.

Now, why do we have an “Electoral College”? Surprise, it is a compromise. You see there were those who wanted the president to be elected by popular vote, but enough of the wise people who wrote the constitution were too wary of “the Mob” and the vagaries of popular emotions to go that route. Others wanted the president to be selected by Congress, but then that would leave the president beholden like a prime minister to the congressional faction that elected him, which most likely would be from the Big States to the detriment of the Small States. So, like the Congress, which represents both the states and the people (before popular election of Senators, but they still represent their states at-large), a compromise was struck that each state would get the number of representatives and senators it had in Congress. Since the minimum number is three (two senators and one house member) and the maximum number of House representatives is 435, then some votes carry more weight in terms of popular support than others. Consider that the District of Columbia, which is not a state, also gets three, you can see why the Small States like the current setup.

Now, it was left to the states to decide how to select their “electors” and most choose to do it by allocating all of them to the winner by a plurality in a statewide ballot of qualified voters. Unfortunately, when you do that, sometimes (as in 1876, 1888 and 2000) someone who didn’t win the nationwide popular vote ends up being president. Note that is not unusual for a president to be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote, in fact, that really is the norm.

However, there has been one instance, where a president won the popular vote and led in the Electoral College (but did not have a majority and in the Electoral College vote you have to have a majority) but ended up not being president. That’s ok, he got his revenge and was elected four years later and basically revamped how the executive branch was run.

Now, if it was just left to the popular vote, candidates basically could write off most of the states and the nation and focus merely on a few big cities. Sweep those, and you got the popular vote in the bag. But that is not what this country is about. It is a federal republic and not a democracy … despite what academic political scientists and progressives will want you to believe.

So, while the current system, which will remain in effect for the current election, may not be the best way – my vote would be to allocate electors by congressional district with two at-large and staying with the plurality rather demanding a majority (unless you wanted to have runoffs a few weeks later between the top two candidates in those states where nobody got a majority – which would be such a big hassle it is not worth the bother).

What is bothersome about the current spate of complaints is that once again it seems designed to throw the results into question and rather than accept it as it is designed, it seems to want to promote the idea that your vote doesn’t count. It does count.

Each and every vote counts and rather than put the election up in question, let’s support our candidates and quit worrying about what goes on in other states. That is what it means to live in a federal republic and is why we have sovereign states. You don’t like that, then go live somewhere else.

No budget

Fiscal cliff?

Continuing resolution

Ok, I guess it covers it. The federal government is supposed to be operating on a budget that goes into effect on Oct. 1 every year. However, this session of Congress, like the session in 2010 and 2011, didn’t really pass a budget. It passed what is known as a “continuing resolution” which basically is kicking the can down the road, as one politician put it.

Being a product of political grid lock, such resolutions basically permit the government to continue functioning on the basis of previous budget authorization and spending laws. In this case, it seems that while the House did pass a budget (meeting its constitutional responsibility), the Senate as it has done every year since 2009 has found it  politically inexpedient to pass the budget, opting instead to authorize the government’s various agencies to continue spending for the next six months while a compromise is sorted out.

Unfortunately, apparently, the grand compromise from 2011 has to have a “budget” passed and not a continuing resolution or the great sequestration goes into effect.

Not bad politics, if you think about it. It is not like the Senate could not have passed a budget. It could have, and it could have been substantially different than the House-passed version. Then, however, the good senators would have had to have been on “the record” so to speak about what their budget priorities were. Not good.

So, the House has gone on record – and being controlled by Republicans – and that gives the Democrats a good foil to use during this election year … and relieves them of any responsibility for the fiscal affairs of the nation.

Personally, I think it is all porcine scatology. Well, even more than that: It is about “transforming” the country, as President Obama says. I may not approve the way the Obama Administration is going about this transformation, but it is getting a lot of help from the Senate, which is depressing. I also may not approve of the nature of the transformation, but until more people vote against it than for it, I will be in the minority and, therefore, must accept the results. That, folks, is what you do in a democratic republic.

Of course, that course may change … and I hope it does.

May be life yet in the War Powers Act

President sends letter to Congress

Hallelujah! President Obama this week sent a letter to Congress, as required by the 1970s War Powers Act, to inform it that he had dispatched troops to Libya who might face combat.

The President at least is observing the letter of the law this time. Last year, when U.S. Special Operations troops were on the ground in Libya and in planes either over or near the embattled country, he thought it was not necessary to follow the law.

Of course, given the nature of the current crisis in the Muslim world, he probably should crank up the copy machine and just change the country to announce where he is sending the next group of Marines, since another two such fleet security teams reportedly have been dispatched to different embassies.

It might be that it is election season, but I am glad to see the President at least telling Congress what is going on. Now, if his administration would be a little more open about what happened in Libya, and other countries where U.S. embassies have been under siege. Hiding behind the supposed FBI investigation into the deaths illustrates a law-enforcement mindset and not a combat mindset. That, unfortunately, is unfortunate because it seems to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists have declared global war on America.

Too bad Congress can’t just declare war on the Islamic terrorists, only they don’t have a state, per se; they don’t have a government; they don’t really claim sovereign control over any land. They do, however, have a flag … I wonder if that is enough?

Anyway, kudos to President Obama. You did the right thing.

Thank God for religious freedom

Pakistan grants bail to girl accused of blasphemy
Iran releases Christian pastor
The Mutawah
There is one thing that most Americans have a great difficulty in understanding and that is living under theocratic rules.
Of course, to your run-of-the-mill progressive, American Christian fundamentalists fit the description, but believe me, they don’t even come close. Fundamentalists in the U.S. of any stripe don’t hold a candle to the real thing that you find in Muslim countries functioning under the auspices of Sharia laws.
For example, the young Christian girl in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for supposedly burning a page from the Quran (the Islamic faith’s version of the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, the holy book). Apparently, it seems, that the equivalent of a priest or rabbi or pastor fibbed and that was what got the child arrested. Due to international pressure, at least the girl was released on bail. That doesn’t mean that the charges can’t go ahead, but it does mean that she gets out of jail to be with her family, hiding somewhere in Pakistan from those Muslim fundamentalists who would like to see her drawn and quartered. And you think American Christian fundamentalists are intolerant.
In the second case, an Iranian who was fulfilling the role of a Christian church minister apparently is not going to be put to death for apostasy by the Iranian regime. It seems that the international attention won another victory and he got off on appeal, which reduced his charges to a lesser crime and he was released in lieu of time served, which was three years in the pokey.
You see, things like that don’t happen in the United States and won’t as long as the law is respected by those who believe and those who don’t believe. It wasn’t always that way, but it is the way it is today and has been for a good long time now … well at least for about a century or so. Yes, we do tend to tolerate differing religious views in the U.S., even though those not currently popular often have a relatively rough time of it. Unfortunately, intolerance also is one of those faults/sins that we will never get rid of … but, more than other places, at least we have a bridle on it.
What we don’t have are mutaween … or as I call them the mutawah. In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween are the enforcers of customs and mores, like what you wear, are you observing prayer time, is your shop not selling unapproved goods like CDs, DVDs and alcoholic beverages. I know my progressive friend out west sees an American version of these religious policemen in everything the religious right/conservatives seem to do, but really, our religious right has nothing on the mutawah. And such enforcers here definitely don’t have the sanction of the government, and despite his fears, I don’t think our government will give such enforcers sanction.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I had a number of encounters with the mutawah. Most were amicable – they didn’t speak much English and my Arabic was limited to about three or four phrases. There was one incident when the business I was visiting suddenly shut all the shutters on the windows to the street and as it continued on with business, the owner explained to me that it was prayer time and rather than shut down the press run he was doing for me, he just closed the shutters so the mutaween wouldn’t see what was going on. I guess my time was worth more than the pressmen’s prayers or the fine he would have faced had he been caught (which he said he was occasionally – he did this often and not just for the infidel American Army NCO who was there – and was ready to pony up the fine).
There was one encounter, which fortunately I missed, where another NCO, who was a friend of mine, literally had to drag a female soldier out of a shopping mall before she got arrested. They were both in civilian clothes and she was wearing the obligatory floor length skirt, but her shirt sleeves only came down to her elbows and she wasn’t wearing something covering her hair. A couple of mutaween decided that she wasn’t observing the local dress code and decided to hassle her about it. Being a proper American who seems to think that the U.S. Constitution applies anywhere in the world, she proceeded to try to make a federal case out of it. Bad idea, young lady. Well, the NCO rode to her rescue, literally dragging her by her arm out of the shopping mall as she was practically screaming about her rights and away from the two officers.
When they got back to the hotel where we were billeted, I got the story and we two NCOs tried our best a) to calm her down and b) explain to her the facts of life that what goes in the US does not always go over in other countries and we have to respect that. We may not agree with it, and definitely don’t have to like it, but we do have to – as we usually put it – SADO. (SADO stands for Salute And Drive On and is what you do when you have to do something someone in authority tells you to do that you disagree with or think is wrong)
When I look around and see a Mormon and a Protestant, backed by two Catholics, running to lead the United States I am amazed (Well, not really, because I am an American who believes in the tolerance of America). It is not something that you will see in very many countries around the world. Well, even in the US, the fact that these candidates even profess their religious preferences raises eyebrows in some progressive quarters that would rather see secular humanists in the job. They have no room for those who see some value in religious faith or the belief in some deity that you can’t see or prove the existence of. To them it, it all opiates for the masses and a bunch of hokum.
Of course, we may come to the obverse of a theocracy, and that is almost as scary as the thought of living in a theocracy.

Big fib

Convention but no Hillary

Why no Hillary

Illegal for Hillary to be there

Hatch Act references

The Hatch Act as Amended

The Hatch Act of 1939

Federal employees limited in partisan political activities

Justice Department explains

Sorry, but an unidentified senior Obama administration official needs to go back and check the law before mouthing off.

It is not “illegal” under the so-called Hatch Act for a secretary of state to attend a political function. As a matter of fact, such high-level political policy-making presidential appointees are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Hatch Act.

For those who are not familiar with the “Hatch Act”, it was initially passed in 1939 to prohibit federal government employees from having to work in the political campaigns of their elected masters. Sounds quite reasonable to me; however, the act was amended in 1993 (and went into effect in 1994) to make it easier for those federal employees to express their political views. Those amendments did not bar the secretaries of state and defense or the attorney general from attending political meetings such as the national conventions.

Now, then-President Clinton delegated the authority to those three (but not others) to put out “rules” and guidelines that limited what political activities could be involved in, but did not explicitly say: The Secretary can not participate. Beep! Wrong answer.

So, despite what the senior Obama administration official was saying, there was no law banning her from the Democratic National Convention … and if there is, I wish someone would show me exactly where it says that a secretary of state is barred from attending such a political convention.

No, folks. This unfortunately is a big fib, being pushed along by the reporter at CNN and others.

Good try, though.

First Amendment concerns

Critiques' deletions cause censorship cries
You know, sometimes I really am impressed by how little a large proportion of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
For example: The right of free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, but most people don’t understand what “free speech” means.
It does not mean, for instance, that you can say anything you want about anything and anybody you want at any time you want. Sorry, but you can’t do that.
You can’t lie about other people, either verbally or in writing. You can’t damage the reputation of other people, either verbally or in writing (with some exceptions). You do that verbally, and you can successfully be sued for slander. You do it in print (or over the airwaves) and you can successfully be sued for libel.
You can’t say just anything that you want, like, maybe, yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That also can get you arrested.
You can’t display things, calling it “art”, or do certain things that offend local community standards (or sometimes national community standards). It is called obscenity and will get you arrested.
You can’t call for the violent overthrow of the government. That also will probably end up getting you arrested, especially if you try to garner the means to accomplish your calls. It is called treason and sedition.
You can’t demand a third party print your libelous, obscene, treasonous or seditious material, or air it on television or radio or leave it on their servers on the internet. Sorry, that does not fall under your right of free speech.
Now, if you own the server, you can put whatever you want on it. But if it is someone else’s server or web page, then you have no rights at all. Besides, they can get (and probably would be) sued for your libel and they really don’t want that to happen.
You see, that is why web sites, servers and internet service providers (almost all of which are private entities and not government entities) will “censor” your comments. They don’t want to get sued.
The First Amendment only applies to the government(s – courtesy of the 15^th Amendment) in the United States. It says CONGRESS shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to the freedom of speech, expression, etc. It does not say that your neighbor, or your newspaper, or radio station, or your television station, or some web site or internet host has to allow you to have free rein on their platform.
Nope, you want the freedom to say or whatever, then you go get your own soapbox and put it on the public square, or buy a copy machine and use it as a printing press, or crank up your own radio or TV station (unfortunately, there you will have to get an FCC licenses due to limited bandwidth on the airwaves), or set up your own web site on your own server (although there too the government can shut you down if you violate the law, sorry about that).
You see, freedom doesn’t mean you have no responsibility. Not that at all as you are responsible for what you say and do. If there are consequences, civil or criminal, then you have to be prepared to face those consequences and accept them as a result of your actions while you were exercising your vocal cords or your computer terminal.
So, when a web site deletes your comment, get over it. It is their right. You may not like it, just as they don’t like what you are saying. But they own the printing press and they get to decide what they print. You don’t like it, go create your own web site.
You see, freedom really isn’t free. It doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be licensed or censored. Freedom comes with a cost and part of that cost usually is acting responsibility and with dignity and respect toward the rights of others.