Monday, April 30, 2018

Refusing to Buy Homes on the Hill will Help Reduce the National Debt

   It is thought that there are only two ways of attacking the national debt: Either cut programs or tax sufficiently.
   I venture to say there is a third way: Reduce costs for the things you do buy. If you are paying for health care, bring the cost of health care down. If you are buying fighter jets, reduce the costs.
   And, I will tell you: This third way of attacking the national debt is, to me, the best way of all. It's new. It's never been heard of. But, yes, there is no better way to go about reducing the national debt.
   I'm not saying don't pursue the other two angles. Do tax appropriately and do cut unnecessary programs. But, also cut the bill for the things you are buying. If you cut the price tag, you can afford to keep more things.
   How much does a fighter jet cost? It seems I remember it is in the ballpark of $14 million. Now, you take all the metal parts, and all the cost of making them, and it just isn't going to come out to $14 million. I mean, go out and buy the metals, paying the going rates, and it isn't going to cost even a million. Fabricate those parts. It won't cost all so much. Pay workers to place all the parts together. Still the fighter jet is not coming anywhere near $14 million.
   So, where is all the money going? Product development? Sorry, I'm not buying.
   What costs so much is the the price of buying nice homes for company executives. What is so expensive is that these company executives live high on the hill. That's the biggest expense of all in making an F-15.
   As long as we let government contractors get away with it, they will charge ridiculous prices. We can be fools and throw our money away and continue to run up the national debt, or we can open our eyes and see what is going on and refuse to be duped.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

It is a Fine Line between the Wise and the Paranoid

  There is paranoia in each of us. It is part of the human spirit. It is in you, and it is in me. Now, the line between paranoia and wisdom is a thin one. We run from things we fear based on the information we have. If that information is valid, we are said to be wise for perceiving the danger and getting out of a situation that would have harmed us. If the information is spurious, though, we are classed as fools,and said to be delusional and paranoid.
Yea, a fine line that separates the wise from the paranoid.
I sometimes (perhaps not enough) avoid sugar, and GMOs and antibiotics. I act based on the information I have, but who knows if I am delusional. 
So, who knows what is paranoia and what is wisdom. I'll only say, sometimes you have to listen to the paranoid side of yourself. He who is paranoid can be he who is wise. If we don't listen to our fears, we don't avoid our pitfalls. The paranoid person is the wise person, to some extent.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Overcoming One of the Weak Spots in Our Medical System

   If you are a person with more than one medical malady, but the maladies hide each other or overshadow each other, beware. It seems to me, our medical system is not adequately designed to accommodate you. If you see a hip doctor, that can take quite a period of time and you may not be referred back to the back doctor until the hip has been replaced and it is evident you still have a problem.
  In my case, I'm partially lucky, for my hip doctor has indicated he will be sending me back to the back doctor before all my hip issues are resolved.
  I do not know that I'll agree to have anything done. But, I wish I could get a complete diagnoses.
  And, I've decided here is how I should go about doing it: I should list all my symptoms, asking the doctor what each of them might mean. If I have pain in the joint by my testicles and that is determined to be a hip problem, great. But, if I also say my leg tires after only 50 yards of walking, what is that? I should ask the doctor if that also indicates a hip problem, or if I need to be referred to another specialist.
  I should take each of the symptoms and request the doctor tell me what each of them indicates.Then, when that is done, I should ask him what the symptoms of a bad hip (or bad back) are, that I can more fully determine what my problems are, and whether I need to see other specialists, as well.
   Having our medical world divided into so many specialties has its problems. One malady gets treated while another is overlooked. True, the family doctor (general doctor) is responsible for getting us to all the specialists. But, sometimes he sends us to just one specialist at a time. I would say we need to take more responsibility for our own care. And, the way to do this is to list all the symptoms, and demand that each one of them be diagnosed.

Friday, April 27, 2018

Can the 14th Amendment be Used to take Away the Right to Vote?

   Does the 14th Amendment suggest government can take away from illegal residents the right to vote? Of course, we currently do not allow them to vote. What is interesting, is that the 14th Amendment weighs in on the question. Read it:
  "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State . . . But when the right to vote at any election . . . is denied to any of the . . . inhabitants of such State . . . the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such . . . citizens shall bear to the whole number . . ."
   It does say "inhabitants of such State." Since that would include any resident -- legal or not -- on first blush if you read no further, it might appear to grant the right to vote to illegal immigrants. But, reading on, it says that if someone is denied the right to vote, then the count used for apportioning representatives shall be equally reduced.
   Now, if it were just one person being denied the right to vote, that would hardly change the representation. No, it would take a whole group of people.
  And, that implies that a whole group of people can be denied the right to vote. It doesn't specify what the cause for not allowing them to vote might be, nor what the group might be, but leaves the question open -- which is certainly a dangerous thing. If it grants authority to deny illegal immigrants the right to vote, even so it grants authority to deny any group the right to vote.
   That's, indeed, dangerous. Do we really want such a thing sitting in our Constitution?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Trump's Personally Firing Mueller might be Unconstitutional

    Utah's senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, oppose the bill prohibiting President Trump from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, saying the measure is unnecessary and unconstitutional.
   I would agree it is unnecessary, but I wonder how they have concluded it is unconstitutional. I would guess there must be something in the Constitution that prompts their concern.
   Still, I wonder if Hatch and Lee could be dead wrong. I'm a little lost as to why they say it is unconstitutional, as what I'm reading in the Constitution suggests just the opposite. 
   Says the Constitution, "(T)he Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
   Isn't that saying Congress can give the president, the courts, and the heads of departments the authority to make appointments? If Congress can give such authority, surely it has the power to prohibit the president from firing someone.
   Indeed, rather than a law prohibiting Trump from firing Mueller being unconstitutional, it appears Trump's firing Mueller might be unconstitutional. Mueller was appointed by the Justice Department, which appears to be following the Constitutional way of being appointed. So, if Trump personally fires Mueller, instead of going through the Justice Department to do so, it seems that might be unconstitutional. 

Maybe the Me Too Movement has Wrought this, and it's for the Better

   A little detail can make a world of difference. Yesterday, as I read about Sandy Police Chief Kevin Thacker being fired for inappropriate touching and unprofessional behavior, I wondered. Has it come to this: being fired for no more than hugging? Is this where the Me Too movement has landed us?
  Then, more details were released. Thacker's hugs were apparently more than simple hugs, at times, with his hands moving down the sides of the breasts and such, and with the hugs lingering longer than necessary.
   So, not all hugs are created equal.
   But, here's what I'm thinking tonight: Even the more normal of hugs, when they are chest-to-chest, are often not the best of actions. Perhaps our society should reject the practice a little more. You can hardly hug a woman body-to-body without a sexual part of her body pressing against yours.
   Yes, maybe the Me Too movement has wrought this. And, maybe it's for the better.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

If Every Unwanted Hug is Criminal, We have a Lot of Sexual Predators

   Has hugging became a crime? Has the Me Too movement brought us to this?
   Sandy City fired its police chief, Kevin Thacker, and it might be he did nothing worse than hugged people. The mayor was asked if his offenses rose to the level of criminal conduct and replied that he could not make a legal judgement as to whether the offenses amounted to that.
  The mayor, Kurt Bradburn, fired Thacker for inappropriate touching and unprofessional behavior. The story discusses nothing more than hugging, so we are left wondering if that was the whole of his offenses.
   So, has it come to this? Is hugging an offense you can be fired for? Does it, in fact, reach into the realms of criminal conduct? Could you potentially do a little jail time for hugging?
  What has the Me Too movement wrought?
  It is safe to say that when hugging becomes groping, its a crime. But, what about hugs that don't go so far as groping, yet still might be considered sexual? Pressing another person's body against yours can be wrong. Or is it? There are hugs in which the bodies do not make contact -- only the arms and and shoulders touching. But, a great proportion of hugs are truly hugs, chest to chest, body to body, -- that's somewhat the definition of a hug.
  So, has hugging become a crime? Is it becoming a crime? "Yes, non-consensual hugging is an assault," writes someone with the nametag NeifyT in an online comment to the Deseret News story.
  So, then, where do we draw the line on this new thing we call "consensual hugging"? Most people feel pressured to accept hugs, but that does not mean they welcome them. It would seem, then, consensual hugging should only include those that are welcome.
  All I can say is, if every unwanted hug is criminal, we've got a lot of sexual predators out walking around free on our streets.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

If Rule of Law is Important, Let Us Not Bet in Violation of the Law

   Rule of law being so important when it comes to immigration, we must wonder if it is just as important when other laws are broken, such as when someone downloads music or videos without paying to do so. That's illegal, you know.
  How about when teenagers drink? Underage drinking is illegal.
  And, how many have played poker? The Illegal Gambling Act of 1970, I believe, makes that illegal. And, other forms of betting can be illegal.
  I read a link that listed these offenses and many others. Even those of you who have heard this line of argument before, might be interested to read all the things that are illegal.
  Using a fake name online can be illegal. Eating something before you get to the counter to pay for it can be illegal. Sharing your password for subscriptive computer services is illegal.
   Of course, we all know using a cellphone while driving is illegal. and speeding and running stop signs are illegal. Not updating your driver's license when you have moved to another state can be illegal.
   And, we know sharing medications is illegal. Making a meme that is not in the public domain can be illegal. Public intoxication and drinking in public can be illegal. Littering is illegal.
  And, of course smoking marijuana remains illegal by federal law, even though some states have legalized it.
  Jaywalking is illegal. Not registering your dog or your bicycle can be illegal. Libel and slander can be illegal.
  So, for those who are indignant with undocumented people for coming to America, do any of them have crimes of their own? In considering this, if the thought is that many of the above crimes are minor in comparison to crossing the border without permission, consider that most immigration deportation cases, if not all, are not even considered criminal cases.

Monday, April 23, 2018

More horses
die in the barn,
than in the harness.
Death gathers
where
gloom sets in
 If you can never be wrong,
you can never be human

Patriotism is Seeking to Make Your Country Better

Patriotism does not always mean supporting your country in what it does. If it does wrong, the true patriot will oppose it, and seek to change it. To support your country in its vices is a vice in and of itself. Seeking to make your country a better place is the better form of patriotism.

(Note: Tweaked 4/25/18)
   The strongest 
wrecking ball 
always wins

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Were Mormon Immigrants Part of the Reason for Today's Restrictions?


   As it is so late, I think to revise an email I wrote earlier today and drop it in as today's blog, even though I wrote on the same thing last Sunday.
  As I introduce this, I think to notice how President Russell M. Nelson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in General Conference weeks ago, noted that all eight of his great grandparents were converts to the church in Europe, and all eight of them immigrated to join the Saints here in the United States. 
  They were part of a massive influx in immigration -- and it was this large influx that has brought on the restrictive immigration policies we have today. Millions and millions of immigrants poured into America in the decades leading up to 1900, and, at some point, those who were born here decided enough was enough, that they wanted to bring down the gates on immigration. We speak of open borders and scoff at them, but, up until that time when the massive migration (which included the early-Mormon migration) prompted the changes, the borders were open. 
  The Mormons came for religious reasons, the Chinese came for work, the Italians came for, among other reasons, earthquakes, and the Irish came in part due to the potato famine. Which of the immigrants attracted the wrath of those already living here, I do not altogether know. Maybe the Mormons were not among those who were opposed. As I sit here writing this, though, it occurs to me this was at the time of polygamy, and many opposed the Mormons because of that. 
  At any rate, the Mormons were part of an "invasion" (if I can parrot that word) that brought the backlash against immigration that continues to this day. The drawbridge to immigration, so to speak, came down as a result of this era of immigration -- this "assault" on our open borders -- that occurred during the last half of the 19th Century. Whether the the Mormons were among the immigrants that those already in America sought to lock out, I do not know. Perhaps it was the Chinese immigrants and the immigrants from other countries that drew the contempt.
   Were those who came opposed before they even arrived, or was it not until after they arrived that it was decided it had been a mistake to have allowed them to come? What did they think of the Mormon immigrants after they came? Was there opposition then more so than before they launched on ships from Europe? 
    We speak of the undocumented invading our land these days. We use the word "invasion," and it is members of the church, as well as any, who speak this way. What of ourselves, then? What of the time our own ancestors came? What of of the time when all eight of President Nelson's grandparents "invaded" America's open borders? Did they -- just like the immigrants today -- come despite those already here objecting to their coming? Did they come despite the desires of those already in America? 
   I just wonder if we should not be more understanding of the immigrants of today, given our pioneer ancestors were part of the era of immigration that brought about all the restrictions on immigration that we have today.

Note: Blog last revised 4/24/18

Friday, April 20, 2018

Congress Should have Lived Up to its Charge in the Syrian Affair

 "The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War." (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11)
   There is nothing in that to suggest Congress must wait for an invitation from the president to consider war. Our Congress was simply negligent in its duty last week. As soon as the suggestion of a strike against Syria was broached, Congress should have convened and voted.
   You would not have lost the element of surprise. That was already lost when President Trump said there would be retaliation against Syria for using chemical weapons. Nor was there a need to attack so quickly that waiting for a Congressional vote was unreasonable. Indeed, such a short wait did take take place.
   Congress should be stepping to the plate in these situations. It should be proactive. It should be fulfilling its responsibilities.
   Rather than the president's decision, this should have been Congress's decision. And, the president could have  -- and would have -- been bound by what Congress said. Order would have been restored. The ongoing string of times we have gone to war without Congressional approval would have been brought to an end.
   If only Congress had shown the backbone to do its job, the Constitution could have been honored.

South Carolina Prison Riot Points to Need for Love in Prisons

   When you are learning from current events, and not just reading about them, you should wonder about the prison riot in South Carolina just days ago. Seven inmates killed, and at least 17 injured. One of the worst cases of prison violence in recent years, and perhaps the worst in modern South Carolina history. And, it wasn't just an isolated case. South Carolina has an inmate-on-inmate homicide rate nearly 12 times the national average.
   It didn't go unnoticed on those breaking down the story that the Lee Correctional Institution is understaffed and underfunded.
   But, don't let the analyst stop there. Underfunded translates into poor living conditions. It translates into poorly paid guards who can be (and reportedly are) disgruntled, and thus grumpy in how they perform their job.
   Which likely translates into gruff treatment of the inmates.
   Love is one of the most important elements -- if not the most important-- you can have in a good prison. Yes, we should treat our prisoners with love and respect and dignity. If these things did not matter, a Lee Correctional Institution would be as good of a prison as any other.
   I will add one more thing. While Lee Correctional might rank low it how it treats prisoners, there probably isn't a prison out there that treats its prisoners with warmth. If every time a guard interacted with a prisoner, he showed warmth and enthusiasm for the inmate, what a difference we could make. I would venture to say, rare is the prison that hires guards with an eye toward those who are naturally loving people. Does any prison at all do this? And, rare is the prison that trains its guards to be warm and accepting and caring in their interaction with prisoners.
   I will repeat: Love is one of the most important elements -- if not the most important-- you can have in a good prison. If this is true, more can be done to improve our prison system by instilling love than by doing any other single thing.
  Oh, this is an nontraditional way of going about prison reform, but it probably is the best way.
   

Thursday, April 19, 2018

It takes not the voice of reason, but a dog's bark to win an argument

   The loudest voice always wins. I'm not so sure if "always" is the right word, but it seems the person who barks the loudest does, indeed, usually win.
   And, of all the people on the public square, Donald Trump barks the loudest.
   So, I think there is value in James Comey's new book, and in his media tour promoting it. Comey becomes a foil to Trump. Is the FBI and its investigation ethical? Whereas Trump and the Republicans have been the loudest voices, now there is more of a balance. Whereas the federal investigative agencies usually don't defend themselves (and don't usually need to, as they are not usually attacked as they are at this time), now they have a voice.
   Even falsehood can be perceived as truth if it is delivered through a megaphone. Trump and the Republicans picked up their megaphone long ago, questioning the integrity of the Russian investigation. If you can't defend yourself in an argument, you'll likely lose. So, I'm hoping Comey defends the integrity of the Russian investigation.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Take the 14th Amendment for what it Meant then, and We're all Citizens

  Be careful. If are going to interpret who is a citizen based on the Fourteenth Amendment, be ready to consider that everyone is. Yes, that's right: everyone -- including those who sneak across the border in dead of night.
   Them too. Stamp the title, "Citizen," right across each of their foreheads.
  First of all, lets read what it says in the Fourteenth Amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." As you finish reading and set it down, you might be thinking that means just the opposite from what I'm saying.
  And, by today's rules, you're right.
  But, we've changed the rules. They weren't the same back then. When the 14th Amendment was written, we had open borders. People weren't restricted from coming here. If you walked across the U.S.-Mexico border and chose to live in the United States, that was your God-given right; No one would think to stop you.
   Being a citizen wasn't a matter of getting those who already lived in this country to accept you. It was a matter of who lived here. Residency was citizenship. Yes, you needed to be naturalized, but that was a formality. I'm guessing you would find few among all those who asked to be naturalized who weren't.
   That was back in the days before deportation was invented, or at least before it was common.
   Then, starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the rules began to change. First, we criminalized workers from China, then it wasn't long before we criminalized a lot of others. America changed, immigration changed, and the rules changed. Whereas most everyone was naturalized before this time, a lot of folks no longer were.
   So, if you take the Fourteenth Amendment and read it through the tainted glasses of today, yes, you'll conclude it locks people out. But, if you take the Fourteenth Amendment to mean what it meant back then, we're all citizens.

Note: Blog revised 4/19/18
 

Congress Should be More Proactive in Declaring War

   I join with those who suggest President Trump should have obtained Congressional approval before attacking Syria.
   But, I also wonder why Congress thinks it has to wait for Trump to ask for its approval. There might be something in the Constitution to this effect -- that Congress should wait for the President to ask -- and I confess I do not have time to look that up. But, it seems if Congress wanted to do its job, it would convene on its own and vote on the question. Congress should be more proactive.

Monday, April 16, 2018

The Aim of My Shot is Critical, but the Aim of My Heart is More Critical

  I am the gun owner. I am aware mine is an instrument of death, that it can do harm untold. In taking it in my hand,  I pledge that rather than using it for evil, I will use it for good. And, I know that if I am to use it differently than the criminal, I must be of a different mindset.
  If he joys in death, I will not. I will mourn any death I might bring.
  If his tongue boasts of those he falls, mine will lament.
  If he laughs at those he kills, I will cry.
  If his heart is full of wrath, mine will not be.
  If he sees the gun as a tool of vengeance, I will see it no more than a tool of defense. Vengeance belongs to the Lord, not to me.
  If he searches and aches for opportunity to use the gun, I will shun its use. Seeking someone to kill is not a part of me. With each of my bullets, comes a tear. I will have my gun ready, and will look for places it is needed to bring safety to others, but I will not seek to justify its use when its use is not necessary. I will not bend that which is right till it becomes that which is wrong. I will not justify a crime in the name of justice. I will not kill, if killing is not necessary.
   If the criminal seeks a victim, I will seek that none should become my victim.
   In taking this gun in my hand, I will be mindful that my hand can become soiled, if I let it.
   In taking this gun in my hand, I will not lower my morals to the those of the criminal. Rather, my values will remain high, and I will raise them to reach the standards a good gun owner must reach if he is to remain unsoiled.
   In taking this gun in my hand, I realize that while the aim of my shot is important, the aim of my heart is even more important.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Remembering When the Mormons Invaded Our Open Borders

I am amazed at the thoughts that come to me about immigration. Today, an electric one -- at least exciting to me.
There was a time when immigration wasn't restricted. The borders were open. It wasn't until 1882, with passage of the Chinese Immigration Act, that America decided some people just shouldn't be allowed in, that we needed to say, "Whoa!" and pull in the reins on how many people were coming.
Did we say, that was 1882? And, did we say that was the first time the right to enter the U.S. had been restricted? And, did we say a string of other laws against immigration followed? And did we say what prompted all this legislation -- that from 1870 to 1900, about 12 million people flowed into America?
Oh, and did we say that in the 1870s and 1880s, the bulk of them came from England, Ireland and Germany? Yes, you might recognized some of them, then. Wouldn't that include those coming to join the saints in Utah? Wouldn't it include all these Mormon immigrants coming to America for religious reasons?
Did I mention that this vast wave of immigrants -- from China and Italy and various other countries -- led America to say, Enough is enough. We've had it already. Stop this mass invasion of people entering our country.
Yes, the Mormons were part of that "invasion." They were part of the vast wave of immigrants pouring into America that led to a backlash that saw us bring down the gates on immigration.
Actions bring reactions. The flood of immigration -- of which LDS immigration was a part -- resulted in a counter reaction: Our borders, which had been open, were restricted.
I don't know that there were any ill feelings toward the Mormon immigrants. And, they probably didn't account for a large part of the total immigration. I don't have figures available, but I would guess the LDS migration did not amount to much against a total of 12 million from 1870 to 1900.
It was the Chinese workers and others, perhaps, who drew the wrath of those who brought down the drawbridge on what had been open borders -- not the Mormons. But, should we not feel some kinship of spirit with them? It just as well could have been us -- the Mormons -- who they despised.
And, when we speak of immigrants pouring into our country these days, and of how they are an invasion, why does that differ from the Mormons coming from Scandinavia, and from Germany and from England, and pouring into America in such large quantities? (They might not have been a large part of the total, but they were still a significant number.) Why wasn't that an invasion?
Why is it okay for us to say the LDS migration was okay, and was not an invasion, while we at the same time we are saying what is happening today is an invasion?

Note: Blog revised a little 4?17/18

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Would We Thought of Immigration the Way the Founding Fathers did

We look at things differently and handle immigration differently than they did back in the early days of our country. I wish we followed closer to their pattern. The first laws on naturalization? They made no restriction on who could come, nor did they require permission to come. Rather, they dictated that a person once he (or she) arrived had to stay here a certain number of years before being granted citizenship. It was as if the founding fathers were saying, We're not going to give you citizenship until you prove you are not going to leave. This is quite a flip from what we do today. Instead of requiring them to stay, we do the opposite and deport them. Why would the founding fathers want the immigrant to prove he was going to stick around before granting him citizenship? I'm guessing it was because they didn't want them to have U.S. citizenship if they weren't living in this country. In the eyes of the founding fathers, citizenship was for those with their feet on American soil -- those who were living here.
Here's the point: The Constitution set the pattern for the way immigration was practiced in the early days of the country. The first laws reflected what the Constitution said.
In the Constitution, when it speaks of naturalization, it speaks of just that, no more. The founding fathers could have used the words "migration" or "immigration," but instead chose the word "naturalization" Thus, the Constitution gave authority over naturalization, not immigration. Says the Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus, Congress was not given power over migration or immigration. It was not given power to say who could and could not come -- only power to naturalize them after they arrived.
And,so it is, our use of the term "citizen" has a different bearing than what it did in the early days of our country. Our understanding of who should be granted citizenship greatly differs from the beliefs and practices of the founding fathers, and is at odds with what the Constitution mandates.

Note: Blog revised 4/15/18

Friday, April 13, 2018

It is Twisting the Facts to Convenience Injustice

Did you know that deportation hearings are considered a matter of civil, not criminal law? So much for the idea of calling them illegals, right? I jest, but consider seriously what is happening: Since it is a civil matter, they are not entitled to public defenders. And, without public defenders they are six times less likely to win in court. Plus, it saves us money. Deporting them is already costing us $18 billion a year. Imagine the added expense if we gave them all public defenders.
Now, let's see here: We pass laws making it illegal for them to be here. We chase them down with the largest police agency in America. We arrest them, and jail them, and yet we say it isn't a criminal matter? (Nothing personal, huh?) We call them "illegals" and practically spit at them for breaking our laws, yet -- in order to deprive them of their rights -- we insist it is just a civil matter, not a criminal one? Hypocrisy at its highest. It is -- in a manner -- cooking the books. It is twisting the facts to convenience injustice. Who is really the criminal here (who is the illegal) -- them or us?

Thursday, April 12, 2018

If You and I Cannot be Detained and Deported, Neither Should They

   "Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment
All people in this nation's jurisdiction means everyone, whether you consider them citizens or not. And, when the 14th Amendment speaks of the protection of the laws, it does not set a limit. They are to receive all the protections, not just due process, and not just the protections of not being raped and robbed.
The protection against being deported should apply to them. The protection against being detained for being on American soil should apply to them. If you and I cannot be detained for being on American soil, neither should they.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

We Should Honor the Constitution and Protect all Who Live Here

  "Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  If the laws protect the person born here from being deported, then going by what it says here in the Constitution, those same laws protect everyone residing in the country from being deported.
   Or they should. The 14th Amendment suggests that whatever protections the laws provide, they apply to all living within the jurisdiction of our borders. No exceptions are made. If a person lives here, period, they are entitled to the protection of the laws.
   You might not like what those words say, and you might suggest that is not what was intended. Still, the words as they are written are the words that are written. I believe the framers of the 14th Amendment intended for it to protect everyone living here, just as they said.
   Back in those days when the Civil War had just been completed, and stretching way back to the days when our nation was founded, they had a different concept of whether people could come here and whether they could stay. The borders were open. You can argue the borders shouldn't be open, but you will have problems arguing they weren't open when our nation was founded.
  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. We should honor it and keep it. If it provides equal protection to the undocumented, we should honor what the Constitution says and extend that protection to them.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The Greatness of a Soul is Determined by the Circumference of its Love

The greatness of your soul is measured by the circumference of your love. If the circle of your love reaches out only to those who serve you, and honor you, it is a small circle. But if your circle swings wide around and encompasses those who have harmed you, and those who have spoken evil of you, and those who have wronged you, then the circumference of your love equals the circumference of the world, for it takes in all the world. And, if the arms of your love swing around all the world, then the greatness of your soul is as great as all the world.

Monday, April 9, 2018

The Gaza Strip Barrier Should be Allowed to Remain

   As I think to blog against the barrier between Gaza and Israel, I call up a Wikipedia article.
   "The barrier has been effective in preventing terrorists and suicide bombers from entering Israel from Gaza. Since 1996, virtually all suicide bombers trying to leave Gaza have detonated their charges at the barrier's crossing points and were stopped while trying to cross the barrier elsewhere," says the article.
   I change my mind. If the barrier is successfully stopping terrorists and suicide bombers, it should be allowed to stay.
   But, then I read how the wall was rebuilt and a one kilometer buffer zone installed and Israeli soldiers were given authority to shoot and kill those in the buffer zone.
   And, so they have done.
   If my voice were a voice to be heard, I would probably oppose this. Perhaps I need more thought on it before saying I definitively oppose it, for I suppose if you simply tried to arrest and jail those found in the buffer, they might detonate suicide bombs when approached to be arrested. 



Sunday, April 8, 2018

Why not Fix Social Security?

  I've often thought that the duty and pleasure of being a legislator or Congress member is to spot things that are wrong, and fix them. Sometimes, they are easy fixes.
  I've found one: Social Security. How many times do we hear that knowing when to take your money is crucial -- that you could lose thousands and tens of thousands if you do not start collecting at the right time.
   So, why don't we fix that? Why has it been this way for decades, and no one has fixed it?
   Is Social Security income taxable? If so, that might be where the inequity comes in. Do you slip into a higher tax bracket if you wait too long, therefore it becomes wise to start withdrawing money before you hit that higher tax bracket?
   If so, just pass a law saying all Social Security income is taxed at the level you were taxed at at time of retirement, or whatever. This might not be the problem, but whatever it is, I would think the fix would be easy.
   So, why don't we fix it?

Saturday, April 7, 2018

Theories of a Madman

  That which hurts, also helps. Or, so it can. Even so, stress can lead to strength. Stress might seem like something that hurts, but it can trigger responses that build. When faced with pressure, a person can crumble or respond positively. To some extent, the choice is belongs to the person. He has two buttons to choose from. One is the cringe button. When the person chooses the cringe button, messages are sent to the body, saying, Beware, you are doomed, there is no way out, give up. The other button is the adrenaline button, Adrenaline has been known to give strength to lift cars and do miraculous things. It has even been said to take away pain.
  If there are miracles -- health miracles -- adrenaline can be the agent for them. We speak of how there are scientific laws at play, and of how miracles are brought about by them, though they are laws we don't understand. If there are healings, then, adrenaline might be the physical force that brings many of them about.
  We speak of faith, and of the faith to be healed. I have suggested that when faced with a crisis, the person has the choice of pushing the cringe button, or the adrenaline button. Is not this faith? If he has great faith, he will push the adrenaline button in more high-crisis situations.
   Before it is a chemical, adrenaline is an electrical impulse. Not all adrenaline is equal. A person might have faith equal to some tasks, but not to others. And, some things might be beyond the reach of adrenaline and faith.
  Adrenaline can be compared to the baking process. You can have all the ingredients needed -- taking pills, eating well, etc. -- but if those ingredients are thrown out without being used, they are of no value. Sometimes the ingredients are processed without the need of adrenaline. It is like simply pouring Kool-aid into water, the process is complete with no more than a little stir.  Other times, you need to place everything in the oven and bake it. Even so, when you take medicines, they often heal you without anything needing done on your part.
   Not so with adrenaline. You do need to do something. You control it. There might be times -- maybe even the majority of them, I do not know -- where adrenaline is not empowered by your choice, but the point is, it can be empowered by your choice. You (at least sometimes) can control it.
   Adrenaline is like an oven. You take all the ingredients and turn on the oven and bake them for the proper amount of time, and you have your cake.
   It is said, when you get an adrenaline rush, sugars are released into the blood stream to give you the energy necessary for the task. Even so, you need ingredients. You don't just put an empty cake pan in the oven and expect to have a cake. Knowing that wheat turns to sugar, wheat might well be one of the best ingredients for creating adrenaline.
   Well, there are my musings for this morning. Some of these theories might be amiss, but I would guess at least a portion of them are correct.

(Indexes: Health, medicine, miracles)

Friday, April 6, 2018

When it Comes to Voter Fraud, Dead People Make Good Victims

   When it comes to voter fraud, dead people make good victims. I wonder if we could not easily end this long-standing abuse.
   Have the mortuaries enter the necessary personal information into a data base to ensure the right person is identified. Send that information to the election offices. A computer then matches the information from the mortuaries with the voter list and the dead voters are identified. The election office workers then  double-check the names before actually deleting them. With the newspapers in front of them (online, perhaps), they look up those in the listing from the mortuaries  to see if they have, indeed, died, thus protecting against the system being infiltrated and names being deleted that shouldn't be deleted.
   It seems simple. We could largely bring an end to the fraudulent voting achieved by using dead peoples' names.

Thursday, April 5, 2018

It is Said a High Number of the Undocumented Vote -- But . . .

   All this makes me wonder how many undocumented people actually do vote.
  Oh, I can see how it makes you mad -- a person here illegally, illegally voting -- piling one crime on the top of the other.
   But, how often does it happen?
   I search the Internet, and find sites asserting that undocumented voting is quite high.
   "It's almost certain that illegals (in 2016) did vote -- and in significant numbers," says an article in the Investor's Business Daily.
   "We find that some noncitizens participated in the U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," says Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, and David C. Earnest in a 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal.
   I only suggest is seems strange. By far, the vast majority of  the undocumented hide in the shadows, not wanting to be discovered and deported. Often, they might even be the victim of a crime and not report it because they fear being  uncovered.
   Now, why would they change that pattern just to turn out to vote? Especially if voting involves committing an illegal act, and they know that if they commit an illegal act, it means they will be deported?
   It means sticking their neck way out -- sticking it on the line and risking everything. Do they go that far just to vote? Do they go ahead and do it, anyway? In fact, are there so many doing it that they are doing it in significant numbers like the critics suggest? Is the amount of those doing it so high and meaningful that it changes outcomes in the Electoral College?
   If perhaps it is true, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And, when things don't make sense, sometimes it is wise not to buy into them too quickly.

Does Requiring an I.D. Stop Non-Citizens from Voting?

  Should we require identification at the polls to curb the undocumented from fraudulently voting? Would this stop them?
   Consider what happens when someone shows up and the polls to vote, and an I.D. is required. They walk up to the table, the poll worker asks for the I.D., they show it -- and the poll worker looks down the list of registered voters and matches them against those in the registry.
   They already have to be in that registry -- or be using the name of someone who is -- or they cannot vote regardless whether they are required to show an I.D.
   And, whether you stop them depends on the I.D. you ask for. If you are asking for no more than a driver's license, that will not be enough, for a person here on a green card, on a temporary visa, can obtain a driver's licenses -- and obtain it legally. They are not citizens, but they can show I.D. As for the undocumented, will requiring them to show an I.D. stop them? A number of them probably have gone out and gotten driver's licenses, even if they went about it illegally.
   The time and place to stop the undocumented from being able to vote is when he (or she) registers to vote. If you didn't require I.D. at that time, you're late if you are just asking at the election. And, if you did, he must have showed it then, so he will be able to pull it out again and repeat the performance.
  Requiring I.D. such as a driver's license does prevent someone from impersonating another person. It doesn't screen out all the non-citizens, but it does do a pretty good job of preventing one person from impersonating another. That is what showing I.D. at the voting place is good for.
   So, as for it screening out the undocumented who would impersonate others, how does it do? It probably screens them rather well. The undocumented person shows up with the name of another registered voter -- perhaps someone who has died -- but then has to show a picture I.D. to verify he is that person.
    Here is something to consider, though: No one questions that the undocumented sometimes forge documents, milling false social security cards and such. If they want to vote all that bad, would some of them mill false driver's licenses? If they have already shown they will forge documents to get those something they want, then it is simply a matter of how much they want to vote.
   I'm guessing few -- if any at all -- want to vote that bad. But, who knows.
(Note: This blog was substantially rewritten about two hours after it was initially filed.)


Wednesday, April 4, 2018

The Law Says Obama could be Born in Kenya and Still be President

   The website for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office says a person born abroad but with American parentage is a U.S. citizen.
   If they are born as American citizens, doesn't that make them natural born citizens?
   Now, if the Constitution says that in order to be president, a person must be a natural born citizen, and if a natural born citizen includes someone born abroad but with American parentage, doesn't that mean it doesn't matter whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya?
   Yes, that is what it means.
    Though I supposed I had stumbled onto something new when I discovered this, I had not. It has already been noticed. I found a blog written by Michael Russnow for the Huffington Post back in 2012 that discussed the matter. 
 "So, this nonsense should stop, and it’s amazing that the media on CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News and CNN’s Anderson Cooper has not heretofore picked up on this fact," Russnow wrote.
  Two days ago, I wrote of how the Constitution, itself, seems to indicate a person born abroad should be considered a natural born citizen if his (or her) parents are Americans. Whether or not others have noticed this, I do not know. But, having the Constitution backing the argument, and not just the USCIS website, is significant.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Given the Constitution, Could 2 Million more Immigrants come?

  (Note added 4/4/18: I did not think to look up before I wrote this whether children of Americans born abroad are U.S. citizens. They are. This invalidates the meaning of this blog.)

   If being a "natural born citizen" applies not only to those born on American soil, but also to those born abroad to American parents . . .
  If we recognized this might be what the U.S. Constitution suggests . . .
  Then, would a number of Mexicans -- happily fitting the description -- cash in and rush across the border into the United States?
   Estimates on how many U.S. citizens live abroad vary from 2.2 to 6.8 million. If it is hard to come up with that estimate, it seems it would be even harder to come up with an estimate on how many of them have given birth while living abroad. But, let's say that, on average, each foreign-living American has given birth to just one child.
   That's 2.2 to 6.8 million people suddenly qualifying to move to America. That's 2.2 to 6.8 million people suddenly discovering they have full citizenship rights and there is nothing to prevent them from coming here. The biggest chunks would be coming from Canada and Mexico, but they would come from other countries, as well.
   Those opposed to expanding immigration would be vexed, but should they be?  Should they be upset? If the Constitution allows it, why not just support the Constitution and let them come?


Monday, April 2, 2018

'Natural Born Citizen' Might include American Children Born Abroad

  There is wording in the Constitution suggesting a person born outside the U.S. can be considered a natural born citizen.
  It is found in the part listing the requirements to be president. It says that only a "natural born citizen" can become president. And then -- somewhat inexplicably -- it adds that he or she must also have been a resident within the United States for 14 years.
   Now, anyone born here, unless they moved out and remained away for 21 years, is going to have been a resident for 14 years. So, why is that even mentioned?
   I see but three or four possible explanations.
   One -- They (the founding fathers) might have been concerned about allegiance, and wanted to rule out those affected negatively by living abroad.
   Two -- They just put the 14 year rule in for no real reason other than thinking it would be nice if they lived here 14 years since they were going to be president here.
   Three -- "Natural born citizen" could mean anyone born with citizenship rights, even though born abroad. The founding fathers might have considered that if an American was living abroad at the time a child was born, that child would still be a "natural born citizen."
   And, in thinking about it, I wonder if the third explanation doesn't carry the most weight. The wording doesn't specify that the 14 years be the last 14 years. If you were trying to assure that the person not be someone affected by being abroad, it seems it would be the most recent years that would be in question. And, if you are just making a rule because you think it would be nice to have a president who has lived here, it, again, seems it would be the last 14 years you would be concerned about.
   But, if you are looking at someone born abroad, and suggesting they need to make some kind of connection to the U.S., a connection is a connection, whether it is the last 14 years or 14 years somewhere else along the line.
   A forth explanation might be that, yes, the founding fathers did mean to make it the last 14 years, not just 14 years anywhere along the line, but they just didn't think to word it that way when they wrote the Constitution.
   For those who want to read it, here's what the Constitution says:
   "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
  In closing, note this: The first words could have said, "No Person except someone born in the United States . . ." instead of, "No Person except a natural born Citizen." This gives further weight to the thought that the founders might have been including children born to Americans living abroad.
  Note added 4/4/18: I did not think to look up before I wrote this whether these children of Americans living abroad are considered citizens. They are. While this goes toward validating my thinking process for this blog, it spoils the blog I wrote the next day. Read a blog written 4/4/18 for what it means for Barack Obama, if you haven't already guessed.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

It would seem Odd to Say Our Prisons should be Places of Love

  The harsh chemical of hate is not needed in our prisons and correctional facilities.
   This is not to say hatred of what they have done is not appropriate, and not to say expressing that hatred to them is not appropriate. It is not to say sternness and rebuking are not appropriate.
  Those things, as well, need to be part of our rehabilitation system. But, when the day is over, the prisoner should feel some love. There is no wrecked life that is going to be corrected without love. If our prisons are ever to be about rehabilitation, they must also be about love.
   What is the phrase? "I don't care how much you know, until I know how much you care." A person doesn't respond -- not to any teaching or correcting or guiding -- until you have reached them, until you have connected with them.
   And, you don't make that connection without love.
   It would seem odd to say our prisons should be places of love, but I'm saying it. If love is the catalyst for correction, then perhaps of all places, our prisons should be filled with love.