All the Pretty People

Public Service Announcement: brought to you courtesy of the pretty people living in their pretty homes with the best of the best available to them. Need food? They have an assistant for that. Need home cleaned? They have an undocumented worker for that. Need medical help? They have a private doctor for that. Need mental health? They have the best on speed dial.

“NBCUniversal on Friday launched a new “The More You Know” public service ad campaign aimed at informing people about how to deal with the COVID-19 crisis and reduce their risk of catching and spreading the virus… The campaign is being supported by many of NBCU’s advertisers and ad-tech providers including Acxiom; Cadent; Canoe; Crossix; Epsilon; Experian; Facebook; Panera Bread; ShareThis; Snap Inc; The Trade Desk; T.J.Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods; and Vizio-Inscape. The have donated commercial airtime, service fees, data and/or distribution on their own platforms to run the NBCUniversal-created Ad Council PSAs. ” https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/nbcu-launches-more-you-know-covid-19-psas

The government – local, state, federal – has been warning us of the dangers of social interaction, thereby instilling a fear of fellow mankind. Adding to that are all the shaming posts and memes on social media… you know the ones, the declarations that it’s the stupid people’s fault who are going to the store, or leaving their house as the reason for the continued shutdown of life. “It’s because of people like you that we have to continue isolation,” or some variation thereof. We have to isolate ourselves in order to avoid causing the death of one person, or many deaths. (Translation: if you go out, it’s your fault if a person dies because you didn’t listen.) Everything and everyone is a potential carrier or transporter of the virus and the only “cure” for this virus is to imprison ourselves in our homes. Of course it is only temporary until a vaccine is found, but a vaccine doesn’t “cure” the virus, it just minimizes one’s chance of getting the virus by injecting the virus… or something along those lines.

Cue the pretty people: Victoria Arlen, María Celeste Arrarás, Brie Bella & Nikki Bella, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, Gizelle Bryant, Andrés Cantor, Kelly Clarkson, Andy Cohen, Cris Collinsworth, Terry Crews, Ted Danson & Mary Steenburgen, Kate del Castillo, José Díaz-Balart, Reza Farahan, Ben Feldman, Erika Girardi, Melissa Gorga, Savannah Guthrie, Zuri Hall, Bob Harper, Lester Holt, Matt Iseman, Nick Jonas, Hoda Kotb, Marcus Lemonis, Erin Lim, Mario Lopez, Jane Lynch, Rachel Maddow, Dorinda Medley, Craig Melvin, Chrissy Metz, Becky Quick, Carl Quintanilla, Retta, Kyle Richards, Al Roker, Stephanie Ruhle, Tom Schwartz & Katie Maloney-Schwartz, Savannah Sellers, Christian Slater, Chris Sullivan, Michele Tafoya, Mike Tirico, Carmen Villalobos, Melissa Villaseñor, Brian Williams, and Captain Sandy Yawn.

Pretty people in their pretty homes informing the public that although we are isolated, it’s important to take care of our mental health and there is help available, just a text away to an unknown source. Wow! There it is, the cure for mental illness. All it took was government-imposed isolation to discover there is such an easy fix to mental illness. I’m so glad the sponsors donated money/time to inform us of this… I feel so much better now… guess I can sleep well tonight.

Except – yep there is an except – one question? How does this infomercial – sorry, public service announcement – truly help one person with a mental illness. These pretty people who live in a segment of society that the average American will never even drive by are suddenly telling you – the average American – that it’s important to maintain mental health by finishing that project, staying in touch with family (thought we were suppose to not interact with anyone, including family), calling a friend, “reminding ourselves to stay in tuned and connected as we experience these changes…” “it might be one of the most helpful things we can do…” And if that’s not enough to help you, well there’s always the know-all, cheerful bartender from the friendly neighborhood pub to tell us, “If you need help, it’s just a text away.” (Ted Danson, Cheers)

BAM! There it is, just a text away, all the help a person needs. Phew, I’m so glad because that was a close one.

I am raising the elephant dung flag. Let’s just break this down a bit, shall we? A person lives with a mental illness every second of every day. Depression, anxiety, PTSD, schizophrenia, OCD, suicidal… Even in the best of times, waking up, getting dressed, venturing into the world in which they live is a feat and testament to their courage to just get through the day without ending up in the mental ward or morgue. Yet now, every fear they have is being voiced by government officials, “friends” on social media and any other number of people declaring we have to avoid each other, and only essentials shall be purchased, and only essential employees can work… examine that last one: only essential employees. Imagine, you already struggle with self worth, and that job you had was the only thing that gave you a reason to get out of bed. It wasn’t the world’s best job, just a waitress, but it gave you purpose and an income. Now, everyone has told you this job is not essential, therefore, you are not essential. Add to that the reality that now you can’t pay your rent, or your phone bill. What reason is there now to get out of bed, to live through another second of another day in a world that just confirmed every fear you have?

Add to that the places that you previously went to for peace, grounding, or a simple reminder that beauty does exist are now closed: the beaches, the trails, the parks…

Cue the pretty people: help is just a text away!

The real shame here is the “cure” will prove to be worse than the virus (disease), and the number of suicides will increase especially for those individuals who live with mental illness. But not to worry, suicide and the right-help for mental illness wasn’t a high priority of the pretty people or government officials before the virus, I doubt it will suddenly become a priority when we are told we can go back to normal (new normal).

For those of you who know a person who lives with a mental illness, defy the government orders and social shaming… visit – no phone calls or texts are not enough – actually take the time to go visit that person on a regular basis. You don’t have to offer some sage wisdom, just be there so that person knows they are not alone, and are still valuable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

 

 

Freedom: a Messy Thing (Pt 1)

Freedom: The state of being free, exemption from the power and control of another; liberty; independence. (Webster Dictionary, 1875)

The U.S Constitution was ratified in 1789, two years after the summer of 1787 that produced the Constitution after nearly two months of debates in a sweltering room in Philadelphia. At the conclusion of the convention, it was left to the men of the time to debate the merits of the Constitution. The most comprehensive review of the Constitution and its purpose is found in the Federalist Papers penned by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, and published under the name Publius.

Within the 85 published papers, all items found within the U.S. Constitution are discussed at length.

Federalist No. 1, published October 27, 1787 begins with, “After a full experience in the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.”

The last one, Federalist No. 85, published August 13 and 16, 1788 begins with, “According to the formal division of the subject of these papers, announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points: “the analogy of the proposed government to your own State constitution,” and “the additional security which its adoption will afford to republican government.”

The U.S. Constitution begins with the Preamble written by Gouverneur Morris: “We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.”

And there it is, the purpose of of the U.S. Constitution.

Many leaders of the day would not support ratifying the U.S. Constitution unless it included a Bill of Rights. There were 12 amendments proposed, with only ten being ratified on December 15, 1791.

Alexander Hamilton argued against including a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84. His argument was that a Bill of Rights was wholly unnecessary and would be dangerous. “They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? ”

He continued to make the point that declaring a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution would allow men predisposed to usurping power a plausible pretense to claim such power, because if it is in the U.S. Constitution as a “right,” it is therefore plausible that the U.S. Federal government has the authority to regulate such rights, to the point of entirely removing them from the people.

He, along with the other participants in the writing of the Constitution, stated that the U.S. Constitution’s was to limit the power of government, not the power of the people; which is why the U.S. Constitution begins with “We, the People.”

However, for other men such as Thomas Jefferson, there would be no support for its ratification unless a Bill of Rights was added during the First Congress. Jefferson wanted to ensure the government in no way could restrict or deny certain basic rights.

These early men were students of history and philos0phy and many of them believed in John Locke’s theory of natural rights that declared men are not borne to be subject to a king but are borne with certain inalienable rights that chief among them are life, liberty and property. In other words, men were borne with rights granted to them by their creator.  Locke, also a student of history and an observer of his time, knew that when government in any form has the power to grant rights, it has the power to remove rights, leaving the people subjects of the government, and not free to live their lives as they deem best.

In the end, the likes of Jefferson and his peers ruled the day because the promise was made that a Bill of Rights would be added to the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process. It is important to stress here that the Bill of Rights restricts the government, not the people. These amendments are:

I. Freedom of press, religion, assembly and speech.

II. The right of the people to keep and bare arms.

III. The right of the people to not have troops quartered in their homes.

IV. The right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures of property (privacy).

V. The right to due process.

VI. The right to a speedy and fair trial.

VII. The right to a trial by jury.

VIII. The right against excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.

IX. The rights listed in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

X. The right of the states and people, respectively, to retain all powers not delegated to the United Stated by the Constitution.

Key words that need to be highlighted is that each amendment states that the noted “right” in each cannot be denied by the U.S. government. Amendment X clearly states that all power not delegated to the U.S. government are retained by the states and people.

The structure of power begins at the bottom, with the people. Think of a pyramid. The biggest part of a pyramid is the bottom, and that is where all the power is to rest. The people then decide which power to delegate to the states. This would be the middle part of the pyramid. The top of pyramid and the smallest part is the U.S. government and it contains the powers delegated to it by the states.

The way it is now is more like an inverted pyramid with the biggest part at the top, or the U.S. government. The states and the people have, unfortunately, ceded much of their power to the U.S. government and as such, have very little. And the saddest part is many Americans would willingly give up their rights as to not offend or to have a bit of temporary safety.

Now that the foundation has been laid, please continue to Part II.

“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost, is lost forever.” John Adams, July 7, 1775

 

One Nation, Under…

Because it seems the county that I reside is not the only one (*see link at bottom of post)… here is a response I prepared and read at a town hall meeting last month with the names and location deleted:

“Here we are today to discuss … decision to post signs in all … classrooms stating students are not required to state the Pledge of Allegiance. From my understanding this came about because a parent complained and stated the ACLU had been contacted. So, as with the case of prayer, … acquiesced under threat of lawsuit. A simple recitation of Florida law that states no student is compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance would have sufficed, but again, his reaction was one of capitulation. Just as the case with teachers praying at functions off school grounds, this one is steeped in ignorance of the law and our founding principles.

Due to time constraints, I will begin with the Declaration of Independence of 1776, with Thomas Jefferson’s words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

The truths Jefferson spoke of were self-evident, needing no explanation and that rights are granted by our Creator and government is the protector of those rights. In a commentary written by Jefferson regarding the events leading up to the Declaration of Independence, he wrote,

“…we cooked up a resolution… for appointing the 1st day of June… for a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, to implore heaven to avert from us the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights…”

After the drafting of the Constitution, of which George Washington was the presiding officer, it was written by John Adams that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

One of the first acts George Washington performed after being sworn in as the first President of the United States was to pray.

After the Bill of Rights was ratified and George Washington left office, he presented his Farewell Address to the nation which read in part,

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert the paths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true that virtue is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.”

Abraham Lincoln, 67 years later, addressed the nation on Nov. 19 1863, stating in part, “that this nation, under God…”

There was a time in this country when politician and layman alike acknowledged God; even for those who did not believe, there was an acknowledgment that this nation was built on the principles that liberty, freedom, and rights come from God, not government.

The argument that “In God We Trust” wasn’t used until the 1950s is a lie that has permeated the fabric of our educational institutions, courts and political institutions. The words “In God We Trust” are inscribed in the House and Senate Chambers; the Great Seal of the United States has inscribed the Latin phrase Annuit Coeptis, meaning “God has smiled on our undertaking”; coins from the 1880s and beyond have the words “In God We Trust” inscribed as well as paper currency from at least the early 1900s. Well before 1956.

The reminder is not that each person must adhere to a certain religion or  believe in God. The reminder is that our rights come from our Creator and government is to be the protector of those rights.

The wall of separation of church and state is a concocted idea from a 1947 Supreme Court Ruling in Everson v. Board of Education Ewing. While the Supreme Court upheld the board of education’s practice of reimbursing parents for money expended for bus transportation to take their children to school, even religious schools, the justices wrote in the majority opinion “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

In 1962, the Supreme Court erased almost 200 years of precedent when it declared the recitation of prayer, even with a neutral deity, unconstitutional for violating the separation of church and state.

The phrase itself originates from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Association, a group of Baptists, who were concerned the government would legislate their religion. Jefferson wrote the First Amendment guaranteed them their right and government could not infringe on that, writing there is a separation of church and state. The restriction was placed on government drafting laws infringing upon a person’s ability to practice their religion, or no religion, even in the public sphere. It was not a restriction on the people and it did not mean that we should refuse to acknowledge that we are “One nation under God” and it is “Providence,” “Almighty,” “Our Creator,” “Higher Being,” “God” who endows us with our rights – not the government.

My words here are not to advocate for a state-religion, but to remind those who are listening that we are one nation under God. No one is required to recite those words, but for our …, who is the leader of our education system in … to have such a lack of knowledge and to continually acquiesce to the demands of those who are offended by our very history is deplorable.

Feel free to argue and stand against our history, but at least know our history.

I will close with Thomas Jefferson’s words, “On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.””

*https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/schools-pledge-of-allegiance-mistake-sparks-194702711.html

The “Mall Gift” Who Wants to be President

Marco Rubio, the freshman Senator from Florida, now wants to be president. He touts his foreign policy experience, his experience in the Senate and his experience in the Florida House.

Let’s anatomize his experience.

In 2010, Marco Rubio was voted to represent Florida as one of the state’s two senators. Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which he took an oath to uphold, begins with Section 1: “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

In order for a bill to become law, it has to pass both chambers of Congress. All appropriation bills must originate in the House of Representatives with the Senate approving all appropriation bills. This is the job of a Senator: to vote on bills, to include appropriation bills, that then go to the President for approval or veto. In order to represent Florida and the people of Florida, he has to be there to vote.

And his record… in 2015, he missed keys votes on legislation, even legislation he originally co-sponsored. Here’s a brief breakdown:

• January 6: Co-sponsors S1 Bill to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline
• January 29: Did not vote on the Bill to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline (that he co-sponsored)
• May 12: Did not vote on HR1314 Bipartisan Budget Act 2015
• June 2: Voted against* HR2048 Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring (USA Freedom) Act of 2015: this act prohibits the bulk collection of data and requires the FBI to show reasonable cause to a judge for approval to collect information on specific individuals. (*Yes he showed up to vote, but not on the principles he now espouses.)
• September 30: Did not vote on HR719 Continuing Appropriations Act 2016
• October 1: Did not vote on HR2029 Military Construction and Veteran Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2016
• October 7: Did not vote on HR1735 National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016
• October 22: Did not vote on S. Amendment 2564 Prohibits Liability Immunity for Corporations that Break User Agreements
• October 26: Co-sponsors S.J. Res24 A Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title 5, Unites States Code, of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to “Carbon Pollution.”
• October 26: Co-Sponsors S.J. Res23 A Joint Resolution Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Source: Electric Utility Generating Units”
• November 17: Does not vote on the two aforementioned Resolutions he co-sponsored.
• October 27: Does not vote on S754 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015
• November 5: Does not vote on HR2685 Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2016

This is just in the last year, 2015. His statement to Iowa voters that he has a 90% attendance record is pure elephant dung as reflected by his voting record just in 2015. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good tale; after all, most voters don’t bother to check facts. They see a some-what good looking young man who speaks well and seems likable, so he must be telling the truth, right? Does this seem just a little bit familiar (think 2008)?

In an October 25 CNN interview, he was asked about his voting record, or lack thereof, and his response was one of arrogance.

“A lot of these votes don’t mean anything because the president will veto it,” he answered.

Really, that’s his answer. The president will veto the bills; therefore, why show up?

During the December CNN debate, he attacked Ted Cruz for voting against the National Defense Re-authorization Act – a bill that funds the troops, according to Rubio – because it contained a provision that would allow the federal government to indefinitely detain any American without due process.

– Yet, wait for it… Rubio did not even bother showing up to vote this past year for the NDRA. –

Rubio’s response was at the debate, “If you are an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS we are not going to read you your Miranda rights…” is another pile of elephant dung and a red herring because all that’s required is for the federal government to deem an American citizen a “terrorist” without proof and then to hold that American indefinitely without due process.

And he fancies himself a Constitutional Conservative – he must be reading Cuba’s Constitution because he surely isn’t reading the U.S. Constitution.

Back to the CNN interview, his justification for missing so many votes is that “Voting is not the only part of the Senate job. I mean, the most important thing a senator does is constituent service. We’re still involved in looking out for Florida’s issues.”

Again, for a man who touts the Constitution, it seems he is in need of a refresher course because as a U.S. Senator, his job is to represent Florida’s interests by showing up to vote on proposed legislation. However, he claims that he’s fully briefed and therefore, it’s all okay.

“I was just there this Tuesday. I got fully briefed and caught up on everything that’s happening in the world. I’m fully aware…. (I have a) staffer assigned to intelligence,” he said in the interview.

Only an elected official can one get away with not showing up to do his job or showing up once a week to get briefed and still have a job. But I digress.

Taking his position to its logical conclusion, if he thinks it’s wasteful to cast a vote because the president will veto it anyway, what will he do should Democrats regain control of the House and Senate and he’s president? Not show up for work because it would be a waste since Congress wouldn’t pass anything he supports?

Moving on to his touted foreign policy experience.

The Conservative Solutions PAC is running an ad that states, “FACT: Marco Rubio’s attended more classified national security briefings this year than any other candidate. TRUTH: (Marco Rubio’s a) recognized foreign policy expert who will keep America safe.”

In other words, because Rubio has attended intelligence briefings, meetings which require no action, he is a foreign policy expert. Ignoring the fact that the ad doesn’t say who considers Rubio a foreign expert – maybe his staffer assigned to intelligence –  just that he is considered a foreign expert Well, let’s consider the claim of his expertise because he’s attended briefings…

Making that claim – that Rubio is a foreign policy expert because he’s attended briefings – is like saying I’m an ace pilot because I attend flight briefings.

Again, all this seems just too familiar.

Now for his record in the Florida House.

He blocked bills that made it out of committees with strong bi-partisan support such as a bill that would have allowed the deportation of up to 5,000 illegal immigrants in prison after they served half their sentence. He also blocked enforcement proposals such as a bill requiring employers to check workers’ status; a bill mandating increased cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies; bills that would have penalized farmers and government contractors discovered hiring illegal immigrants; and proposals requiring local police to notify federal authorities after arresting illegal immigrants, and stricter regulations on public benefits for illegal immigrants.

But hey, he played football as a youngster and that taught him a good many things… as he said in an interview in his hometown last year.

His experience is more along the lines of dishing out elephant dung with the hope that voters will accept it by the shovels, and to date, he’s been right.

As voters, it is important to look beyond the fancy rhetoric that rolls off his slick tongue and look at the record upon which he stands, not the record (and principles) he claims to stand upon, because his record clearly indicates that the only principle he subscribes to is the one that gets him elected.

This nation elected another Senator eight years ago with a similar background, who also spoke well and appealed to people’s emotions – let’s not make the same mistake again. Or as the title of this musing states, we don’t need another “mall gift” occupying the White House: pretty on the outside, but empty on the inside.

“The reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History by appraising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experiences of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.” Thomas Jefferson – Notes on the State of Virginia 1781-1785

 

Obama’s Tears fall Hollow

President Barack Obama took to the airwaves, with tears in his eyes, and declared his intent to make buying or owning a firearm more difficult. His words, and tears, are political theater, designed to elicit emotional support for an issue that he’s been pushing for quite some time: gun control.

“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children…

“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it, but I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

“We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” Obama said.

He invoked children, first graders and every time he thinks of a child being killed… cue the tears.

Let’s break this down a bit.

First, I find his compassion for children just a bit disingenuous for a man who has staunchly supported abortion, up to the final trimester. Putting it into raw numbers, since he loves to tout them as justification for his actions: almost 58 million babies have lost their lives since Roe vs. Wade. Think about that: 58 million brothers, sisters, grandchildren have been killed while in utero, sucked out as if they were nothing more than garbage. And should a baby survive an abortion, President Obama would rather the baby die on a cold hard table or trash bin than have medical care provided, as exhibited by his vote against a Born Alive Act while an Illinois Senator.

I also find it disingenuous considering his town of Chicago is home to some of the most tragic violence in the nation, to include the killing of children, and yet he’s mentioned Chicago once… today… but he failed to mention that it’s not law-abiding citizens gunning down children, it is criminals who don’t give one iota about background checks or gun laws – of which Chicago is the proud city of extremely strict gun laws.

Second, the putrid hypocrisy oozing from this man is malodorous. Aside, from his only valuing life when it suits his purpose, this is the same man who time and time again has fallen over himself to ensure that we, Americans, don’t condemn Islam, touting ad naseum the idea that it’s a religion of “peace” and we shouldn’t make it more difficult for Muslims to enter the United States and we shouldn’t judge the whole because of the few. Yet, there he stands, condemning the whole because of the few when it applies to gun owners.

Third, gun violence has been on a downward trend for many years now, but let’s take his figure and apply the same standard to say, cars. The National Safety Council reported that in 2013, an estimated 35,200 people died in traffic accidents in the United States, and about 3.8 million people in car accidents required medical attention. The cause according to the report: mostly human error.

I’m certain that the people who buried their brothers, sisters, and children who died because of a car were no less hurt and heartbroken than those who buried their brothers, sisters and children who died because of a bullet.

The President’s Executive Order states doctors can now report certain mental illnesses of their patients to the federal government via the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). In addition, information on Social Security beneficiaries who meet the arbitrary “criteria” of “mental impairment” to include an inability to manage their own benefits will be added to the NICS and they will be prohibited from buying and owning a gun.

The President, through Executive Order, will require all persons selling guns to be a registered gun seller. That, in essence, puts an end to all private sales.

Again, let’s apply these standards to cars.

If a person is mentally unstable enough, as defined by the federal government, to own a gun, why are they permitted to drive, especially considering there are more car deaths than gun deaths. Also, because there are more deaths due to car accidents than mass shootings, why not require all car sellers to be registered dealers, meaning, no more private car sales.

Then there’s the hypocrisy that this president wants to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay who will then most assuredly access their guns to kill people, and possibly a few Americans.

Fourth, there’s his assertion that he taught Constitutional Law and therefore, he knows “a little about this… I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Well, let’s review the Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” PERIOD!

Each provision in his Executive Order is an infringement on that right. It doesn’t state that when the president determines too many people have died at the hands of guns, that restrictions (infringement) can be placed on American citizens. It states, “… shall not be infringed.”

And since he’s such a scholar of the Constitution, why has he circumvented Congress through this Executive Order. Why didn’t he make this impassioned argument to Congress, urging them to change the laws as required by Article I?

Remember, Article I states that Congress is to make law; Article II states that the President is to execute the law. It doesn’t state that the President gets to change laws, add to or take away, because he thinks more – or less – should be done. No, he is to execute the laws that the Legislative Branch has passed and he, or a previous president, has signed into law. That’s not what he did though, is it?

Finally, there’s his statement that “We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.”

Benjamin Franklin once said:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Which leads me to the conclusion that this President never lets the facts get in the way of a good tale… or to achieve his goal of increasing the power of the federal government, while decreasing the liberties of the American people.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Paper 58, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

Yet by way of President Obama, along with the complicity of Congress, an elective despotism is now what we have – and I don’t see that changing anytime soon, regardless of who succeeds him.

Hillary’s Lip Service to Women

As a young attorney, Hillary Clinton represented Alfred Taylor in a rape charge against a 12-year-old girl. It was definitely her duty as the selected attorney to offer a vigorous defense but the way in which she discussed how she got Taylor off is most revealing.

In audio recordings, she can be heard laughing about never trusting polygraphs again and light-heartedly discussing how the prosecutor mishandled crucial evidence in the case. Her tone, her nonchalant attitude, the airiness in her voice is void of any seriousness in which the case demands. A young girl’s life was completely destroyed by what this man did to her and while he had a right to counsel, the way Hillary recounted the case is void of any real emotion or concern for the victim. It is also telling of Hillary’s character in the way she went after the child’s character, maligning her on the stand. It wasn’t enough just to defend the man, she stooped to the sub-ground level of attacking a child who had been raped.

At a recent New Hampshire event, Hillary was asked about her recent tweet that all sexual assault survivors deserve to be believed.

“But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and or Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?” a woman asked Hillary.

Hillary’s response?

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

In other words: believe only when it’s convenient and dismiss when it’s not; take a stand for women when it requires nothing; but when it requires sacrifice, blame the victim.

Evidence of Bill using his position of power for decades to have sex with women abounds, whether they were willing participants such as Monica Lewinsky or not, such as Juanita Broaddrick, who recounted Bill’s flippant remark about icing her gnawed lip after he was done.

It was and has been reported that during the Monica Lewinsky affair, when Bill’s other conquests came out, Hillary went on a warpath, doing everything in her power to eviscerate the women who accused Bill. Blaming them and then blaming it all on some “right-wing conspiracy.”

When Donald Trump recently mentioned that he will go after Bill should Hillary send him out on the campaign trail, the media jumped on the bandwagon of defense for Bill and Hillary. First with stating a candidate’s spouse is off limits and then attempting to downplay the fact that Bill is indeed a man who abused his power to get in the pants of whomever he wanted, with Hillary standing by her man.

CNN anchor Deborah Feyerick began a segment on this topic with,
“First of all, can we set the record straight? Is Bill Clinton sexist or does he simply like women?”

Following that “it’s no big deal” question with, “He had some very high powered women in his cabinet. Everybody from Ruth Bader Ginsburg… Attorney General Janet Reno, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright… So is he sexist? Is that a fair criticism?”

As if having Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, or Janet Reno as the Attorney General and Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State meant he wasn’t a womanizer. Besides, these women didn’t exactly fit the profile of the women Bill sexually sought out.

But it’s a double standard that has been applied since the Clintons burst on the national stage of politics. Dismiss and justify what they do; destroy the victims and Republicans.

Remember during the 2012 election when Mitt Romney was skewered because he stated he had a book full of women he could use to fill cabinet positions?

Remember when Todd Akins, a Republican Senate candidate, was forced to resign because he made a comment about “legitimate rape?”

Remember in 1998 when former Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh said, “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Well it seems back then there was at least one woman who donned her kneepads to pleasure Bill. A young intern who was publicly humiliated by Hillary, calling her a narcissistic loony toon.

And while Monica was willing, there were far more who weren’t.

Then there is her term as Secretary of State while her husband was the face of their foundation: The Clinton Foundation. While Hillary was supposedly chastising Middle East countries for their lack of rights afforded to women, she and her husband were accepting millions of dollars on the back end from these same countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei.

She supports women so much that she didn’t ask that Chelsea Clinton work hard to garner that coveted $600,000 annual contract at NBC. How many women were passed over for a Clinton who had no experience in the field of journalism and according to reports, didn’t produce any news worthy pieces?

Of course these are just normal dealings for the Clintons and the media is happy to play along to ensure the first woman, or more clearly, the first Democrat woman gets elected as U.S. President.

So I suppose Hillary does stand for two women: herself and Chelsea.

The rest of us… not so much, because the Clinton’s – especially Hillary’s – dealings with women is how I know she is not serious about women’s issues, especially sexual assault. The media’s and the liberal establishment’s responses are also how I know the two groups aren’t particularly concerned with women’s issues either. It seems the only time they express concern is when they can bash Republican men or women, meaning, the same standard isn’t applied to those within their own ideological sphere – and this is how I know they aren’t concerned at all.

We are just pawns to be used to ensure her coronation. Nothing more.

And then there’s her wonderful love of the military… but that’s a topic for another musing.

Lost the Battle?

Upon reading my recent musings on a woman’s body, a woman’s choice, a friend texted me the following:

“Unfortunately, we have lost this battle. I don’t believe that there is any ground to gather at this point. While I believe abortion is homicide, the battle I think we still have a chance on is paying for them with tax money.”

I texted back that I disagreed with his assessment, but first let me state, the post wasn’t about abortion per se, but rather the illogical argument made when advocates state it’s a woman’s body and thus her choice. If we take that argument to its logical conclusion then there are a good many “anti-choice” laws that should be repealed from drug laws to prostitution laws, because the “my body, my choice” argument applies as surely to those laws as it does to other behavior driven laws.

As a teacher, I have had the opportunity to get students critically thinking about their positions and to take their positions to their logical conclusions. At a minimum, to urge them to apply the same standard to all opinions of laws.

For example, during one class lecture on the steps of policy making, I used the secondary education system as an example. Many school districts across the nation have had to grapple with students who identify as transgender and what that means with regard to bathrooms and locker rooms. One young dual-enrolled (female) student commented that school districts should allow a boy who identifies or feels like a girl the use of the female bathroom for changing and toilet use. I asked if the girls who use the bathroom or locker room should be considered when making this decision, the student replied, “No.”

Her response was typical of many attitudes today. In essence, she stated that if the boy feels like a girl, the other girls should respect that and accept this boy’s feeling and not go against such a policy.

Moving on to the steps to policy making, I used the real example of my county’s school peanut allergy policy. As we went through the steps of how an idea becomes a policy and in turn becomes a regulation or law, I used the Superintendent’s decision to implement a “no-peanut” policy within all county schools. This policy included no eating in the classes, no vending machines outside the cafeteria, and the removal of all peanut related items in the vending machines, and letters and phone calls to parents that students should not bring to school any food made from peanuts, tree nuts or any non-nut food made in facilities that also make food using nuts or oils made from nuts.

This policy is the result of one high school student who has a nut allergy. Without dismissing the severity of nut allergies, I asked the students thoughts on this policy. The students, most dual-enrolled and thus quite familiar with the policy, had different views ranging from accepting to rejecting of the policy.

The same young female student who stated other female students should accept a male student into the female locker room or bathroom because he feels like a girl stated it was wrong to ban all nut related products from an entire student body for one student, and that it was wrong to require parents to determine if lunches they pack their students contain nut-related ingredients. Her position was that the whole should not have to be “punished” for the one.

I asked, “Could not the same standard be applied to the transgender student?”

A startled look came upon her face and then the light started to glow in her mind as she replied, “Good point.”

As is often the case, she had a standard for one thing, and a different standard for another, but the two were not so different in terms of policy making and when she discovered this reality, I could tell the thought process had begun.

There were many other conversations we participated in and with each subject, the questions I asked were designed to elicit critical thinking and to have the students take their position to its logical conclusion.

So back to the “My Body, My Choice” post. It was designed to elicit critical thinking in the minds of  whoever chooses to read the post.

 

 

 

 

My Body, My Choice… Right?

The argument most often invoked for the continuing of abortions is that it’s a woman choice to do with her body as she chooses, and the government should not interfere with a decision that is hers and hers alone, and her doctor, so we’re told.

This argument is rife with flaws though, because as laws dictate, it’s really not my body after all.

If my body was my body to do with as I choose, then why would I be involuntarily admitted to a mental institution for evaluation if I exhibited behavior that proved harmful to me?

For example, I no longer find my right hand convenient and no longer desire to have the use of my right hand; after all, I’m left handed, so do I really need my right hand?

I choose to cut off my right hand. I’ve not harmed any other person; I’ve not caused a panic among society; I’ve merely decided my right hand is no longer of use to me and I wished to rid myself of this appendage.

Under the Florida Mental Health Act, commonly known as the Baker Act, I would be involuntarily admitted to a mental institution for evaluation to determine if I am of sound mind. I could be held up to 72 hours before a judge determines the next course of action, unless the doctor determines I am fit to be released or should be kept for a longer stay pending more evaluations and treatment.

So am I really in control of my body?

Let’s propose for a moment that I wish to smoke marijuana in the comfort of my home. I do not drive while “high” and I don’t sell to anyone, I merely enjoy lighting up a joint after a long day. According to Florida law and federal law, I can be arrested and incarcerated for using an “illegal” substance. A substance I am choosing to put only in my body. I’m not hurting anyone else; it’s my choice, right?

So am I really in control of my body?

The answer to the two examples is a resounding no, I am not in control of my body after all.

So let’s apply this same standard to the argument for abortions. The argument that states it’s my body and I can do with it what I choose. The fact is it is not my body I am choosing to do with what I want; it is a separate body within my own. So I am not choosing to do with my body what I want; I am choosing to remove another body from my own.

In any other instance, outside the womb of course, this would be called murder.

Disclaimer: The examples used in this blog are examples only; I do not use any illegal substance and I will not be removing any body parts.

Symbols matter… or so they say

Now that the New Orleans City Council has voted to remove statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, with the support of Mayor Mitch Landrieu, it is time these leaders ask themselves if the same standard will be applied to other institutions.

As reported in the Louisiana Weekly, during the meeting held to discuss removing the statues of Lee and Jefferson, it was stated that the time has come to remove the symbols of hate and slavery. On that note, the meeting ended with activist Pat Bryant leading the audience in a rendition of “Oh Freedom,” with his final words being, “And before I’d be a slave, I’ll be buried in my grave.”

According to http://www.nola.com, Mayor Landrieu stated “Symbols really do matter. Symbols should reflect who we really are as a people.”

Located at 2701 General Pershing St is the Women’s Health Care Center which provides, “Expert, Confidential and Respectful abortion care.”

What’s respectful about a medical procedure that ends the live of a baby in utero, I don’t know.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States was founded by Margaret Sanger, a symbol of birth control and abortion.
Will these institutions, or symbols, likewise be removed in New Orleans or Louisiana?

If Mr. Byrant and Mayor Landrieu applied these same principles to other institutions, they would begin their fight to end every abortion that eradicates the lives of Black babies.

In 2010, Black Americans accounted for 12.6% of the U.S. population, yet Black American women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions; four times the number of abortions for white women. More Planned Parenthood or abortion clinics exist in low-income Black neighborhoods than any other group of American neighborhoods. Why is this? Why do leaders such as Mr. Byrant and the New Orleans City Council and the Mayor turn a blind eye to a monstrosity that is far greater than two statues? Why not is the Black community in an uproar over the slaughter of their babies while those infants are in their most helpless state, in utero?

Margaret Sanger, a white woman and the founder of Planned Parenthood envisioned birth control and legalized abortion as means to eliminate society’s unwanted: the poor, the illiterate, the minority, i.e. Black child. Her ideas were framed as a way to help women plan their families and to discard those children who didn’t quite fit into that narrative or plan.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race,” Sanger wrote in 1922.

What was she speaking of when she wrote and spoke of a “cleaner race?” It surely wasn’t in reference to the elite and rich white members of society. Again, it was her definition of undesirables she wanted applied to society: the poor, the illiterate, the Black child; as if these qualities meant the poor person, the illiterate person, the Black person was of lesser value than her white counterparts.

In a letter to Dr. Gamble, she wrote that Black pastors should be recruited to help educate Black women about birth control and abortion, but they needed to be careful to not allow their true intent to be known.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

It’s been argued that Sanger wasn’t speaking of exterminating Black children but rather offering birth control to Black women and that they (Sanger and company) would be accused of doing exactly what she stated should not get out. It might be a credible argument if it weren’t for the fact that she also said,

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

While history is set to be removed from New Orleans under the guise of not having statues (“symbols”) that depict “racist” individuals such as Lee and Jackson, the silence is deafening as Black babies are killed in utero.

Why this silence of the biggest killer of Black children?

President Barack Obama is on record as being one of the staunchest supporters for abortions, even late term abortions. He voted against a Born Alive Act while in the Illinois Senate that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survive an abortion because it would be too inconvenient for the doctor.

Does he know the history of this “evil” he supports? Or does he just not care?

Why do other prominent Black leaders, elected or otherwise, not decry the slaughter that is happening to their very own? Why is a statue of Robert E. Lee more offensive than the killing of thousands of Black babies? Why are people more concerned with perceived past visages of racism than they are about the overt racism that exists in their very neighborhoods?

Cup of Joe

My day begins early and always with a cup of coffee, usually accompanied with the news. I know, the latter is not always (or usually) the best way to start the day because sometimes the news is so distressing, it’s enough to spark the desire to start the day with a glass of wine instead of coffee… and of course, that’s never a good thing.

Which brings me to this morning… and Joe Scarborough. Good ole Joe used to be a U.S. Representative for Northwest Florida and now has his own morning show… praise be, there’s life after politics after all. Why news channels continually flock to has-been politicians to lead “news” shows is an idea I will never understand, but alas, here we are… news anchors replaced with personalities, which brings me to this morning… again.

Sitting in my Northwest Florida home with my cup of coffee, watching Joe interview Mike Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate. After a somewhat coherent interview, Joe asks Mike Huckabee the following, verbatim:

“Can you do me a favor right now? Cause I’m a Republican and I like to win elections and you win elections by getting people to vote for your party. Can you do something right now, and, and say something nice about Muslim-Americans right now, ah, who are pursuing the American Dream that are law abiding and let them know you want them in our Republican Party, ah, every bit as much as you want Southern Baptist from Northwest Florida in the Republican Party?”

What?! I almost snorted coffee through my nose at the question, but it wasn’t over. Huckabee begins an answer, “Absolutely. Look…” was all he got before Joe cut in with, “Cause I’m so worried that I hear some of the other Republican candidates saying things, acting as it Muslim-Americans are others, are not of one us. They are our brothers and sisters, are they not?”

So now my coffee is through my nose and on my shirt.

Ah, no they are not our brother and sisters. First, let’s just get rid of this whole hyphenated American crap. Either one is an American or they are not… period. There are no hyphenated Americans.

Second, why is the onus on a presidential candidate to say something nice about Muslims? Why is not the onus put on Muslims, American or otherwise, to say something nice about America. The country that affords them to practice the religion of their choice?

Third, why is the implication that non-Muslim Americans have a problem with Muslim Americans. I am not Muslim and I do not have a problem with Muslims, but apparently, there are many Muslims who have a problem with me. I don’t dress, speak or act in accordance with the Koran, and that, to them, is a huge problem. Yes, yes, many Muslims are “peaceful” but until I see the masses of “peaceful” Muslims rise up in opposition to the “radical” or “extremist” Muslims who, according to many, twist the religion, I do not really want to be lectured to about saying something nice about Muslim-Americans.

Now of course, Joe wasn’t directing the question to me personally, but he might as well have been because that’s the implication from him and all his fellow-talking heads, as well as the President and his administration. They all seem to fall over themselves, clamoring to say how much we need to respect Islam and its “peaceful” tenants, while watching Christians’ heads rolling off their shoulders in the Middle East or Americans gunned downed in America. Really? This is the priority?

Seventy four years ago today, we were attacked. President Roosevelt didn’t mince words. The media didn’t mince words. We were attacked and we responded in full force. It may have taken a few months, but on April 18, 1942, Tokyo felt the full wrath of America. Sixteen B-25 bombers took off from the USS Hornet with the mission to drop bombs on Tokyo and other Japan assets. While it didn’t stop the war, it sent a message to Japan that they were not untouchable and we would respond in full force; civilians, military, industry, no one was out of reach of the American military when provoked.

And so today, as I watched and listened to Joe ask such an absurd question, and then listened to the President’s address from the night before, I realized we are doomed to lose this war because we have an administration and media that are more concerned with how Muslims feel than responding in full force to eviscerate the enemy. An enemy who has proclaimed they will see their flag fly over the White House.