Saturday, June 30, 2018

Open Borders does not mean Your Nation will Cease to Exist

  Do not suppose your nation will cease to exist just because you have open borders. There are two words in that phrase: "open" and "borders." Having open borders doesn't mean you don't have borders, it means only that they are open.
  It is false reasoning to suggest opening your borders means you no longer have a nation. We should be able to see on its face that that is false. 

Take the Business Away from the Cartels

What if we could take away the cartels' business of smuggling folks into the United States? I've a cousin who suggested a way. In his words, posted on Facebook:

Here is what I feel needs to happen:
1. The border needs to be secured. Whether we build a wall, or use some other means doesn't matter. A wall over the entire length of the border would be impractical, but it would be the best means of securing the border in many places.
2. Legal Immigration needs to be expanded, but it needs to start in the country of origin. We have embassies for this. If we need to expand our embassy personnel to deal with the increased work load so be it. Then when they get their proper documentation they get on a plane and fly to the United States instead of providing business for the drug cartels to transport them across the desert.
3. In the event that their home country is unstable, there is no U.S. embassy or they are fleeing political persecution, They can apply in a neighboring country with an embassy.
4. For those people who still insist on trying to cross the border, set up consulates on the Mexico side of the border to deal with them, thus there will be no need to detain any of them in the U.S. while they wait for their answers from the government.

I replied to Gayle by saying:
  Gayle, I thought on your four-prong suggestion last night and this morning. It's a good plan. I am not in favor of the wall, but like each of your other suggestions. What you say shows it is wiser to process applications at the embassies. That would take the business away from the cartels. It would also mean no children would be separated from their parents upon reaching the border. Your plan could perhaps be instituted without any legislative action, but rather by just encouraging immigrants to apply at the embassies. Still, it might be good to have legislative action spelling out such points as the expansion of those qualifying to come into the U.S. Having a consulate on the Mexican side of the border to process those who do not use embassies in their own countries is also obviously a wise thing.

Wisdom Wins the Day when it is Considered on its Own Merits

   If you want to politicize your government system, one of the best things to do is to have comprehensive bills. Never take an idea and let it stand on its own, alone as a bill, unattached to something else.
  That would mean voting on a proposal on its merits alone. If the bill were wise, you would be inclined to vote for it. It is better -- if we are to preserve our messed-up system of government -- to throw all kinds of proposals into one bill, forcing them to all be considered at once and making it so some ideas that are not so good can slip in and with those that are good.
   Oh, and praise the system. Speak of how it requires give and take, and of how that is a good thing. Speak highly of the spirit of compromise. Surely, people can see compromise is needed, and is a wise and wonderful a thing.
   I, for one, am not so sure. It seems the spirit of compromise is not always the spirit of truth. If you have a measure that is good, and you mix it with a measure that isn't good, the result is an uneven measure. The result isn't always the true measure of what should be done.
   I must give you an example: Immigration. Most would agree separating children from the parents is not a good idea. If a Congress member were allowed to submit a bill on this matter, alone, and not forced to run the bill through committees before it presenting it for a vote, the bill would pass. Who would dare oppose it?  Leaving children with their parents is the right thing to do and if you simplify the matter to that question, alone, who will oppose it? Not so much politics here. It is simply a matter of what is right and wrong and everyone votes on it on that basis along. Wisdom is served, the problem is solved, and we are on to the next question.
   Better, I guess, to insert politics, to let Democrats insert their agenda and Republicans to insert theirs. This is a political process, so why would we ever try to take politics out of it?
   Well, there are times for give-and-take. There are times when you must accept something you don't want to get something you do want. But, that practice does not need to be the rule. Why have a system that requires it as a practice?
   Wisdom wins the day when it is considered on its own merits, when all other matters are shaved away, and not allowed to obscure what needs to be done. If we are to have a wise system of government, we will hold to this practice whenever we can.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Idea of the Day: Encourage Immigrants to Apply at Embassies

  Sometimes, an idea is so great, I do not understand why we don't do it. My cousin Gayle Jackson and a person I ran into named Patrick Davis offered such a solution today.
   Same solution. I had never heard it before, and today I heard it twice.
   Process immigration applicants at the embassies in the home countries. Right now, the good portion of immigrants travel across Mexico -- subjecting themselves to the cartels -- and either sneak across the border of present themselves for asylum once they reach the border. Here's the way Gayle explained it:
  "Legal Immigration needs to be expanded, but it needs to start in the country of origin. We have embassies for this. If we need to expand our embassy personnel to deal with the increased work load so be it. Then when they get their proper documentation they get on a plane and fly to the United States instead of providing business for the drug cartels to transport them across the desert."
   So, how do we get the immigrants to apply at the embassies? One, let asylum applications be processed at the embassies. International law might dictate that the application be made either upon crossing the border or sometime later after being in the U.S., but, there doesn't seem to be reason to not process asylum requests right at the embassies.
   Two, make it so those who apply at the embassies are more likely to be approved than those who show up at the border. And, make it so those who apply at the embassies are approved quicker and easier. What if you could apply at the embassy, and be approved within a week and be on a plane to the U.S.? Which are you going to choose -- traveling all the way across Mexico only to face a lengthy process upon arrival, or going to the embassy and being quickly approved without having to journey across Mexico? 

Point of the Day: Sen. Booker on Trump Appointing High Court Justice

   Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, points out that in nominating a Supreme Court nominee right now, President Trump has a huge conflict of interest.
   Should anything from the Mueller investigation go to the Supreme Court -- and there is a good chance that will happen -- whoever Trump appoints will be there to deal with it.
   I heard MSNBC's Rachel Maddow note at least one of those on Trump's short list has already expressed his opinion that Trump could pardon himself. Seems such a candidate might be attractive to Trump at this time. What is to stop him from appointing such a person?

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Freedom shares its riches most 
with those who need them most

Would that we would consider on the needs of those coming from Central and South America. People living in poverty and in fear of gangs and violence -- could we be more willing to share our freedoms with them?

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Freedom does not 

come with boundaries


It does not lock out its own. And, if it could, it would make everyone its own. It would take everyone in.

Bless the Keri Becker Woods of this Country -- and Let Them Stay

Consider on the young mother pictured with her husband and two children which I see on Facebook. She is an immigrant, here on a green card. Looking at the picture, seeing such a seemingly wonderful family, I cannot help but think that if we had no immigration laws to go by, and we were just deciding on her case alone, we would let her stay. In fact, we would be aghast at the very suggestion she should be deported.
  I post on Facebook (I edit it a little and change her name): 
  "Bless the Keri Becker Woods of our country. Is she doing any harm to our nation by staying? If we were to review her case, and ask what harm it would do anyone if she were to be allowed citizenship, I'm thinking we would accept her. Who would raise a hand and say, 'Send her back; She's ruining our nation'? And, what if we treated and judged every immigrant this way? What if this were our immigration policy? What if we looked at each immigrant -- legal and 'illegal' -- and simply judged if they were doing any harm by being here? If an individual is doing no harm, let them stay. I've looked into the faces of so many immigrants and saw so many humble and wonderful people, that I'm amazed there is a national outcry to send them packing."
  

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Aren't We Going to find out what is behind the Child Immigrant Crisis?

We must wonder if there will be -- or have been -- any studies to explain how many immigrant children are coming from broken homes, how many are coming to join family already in the U.S., how many are fleeing violence, etc.
Children fleeing unaccompanied to America, and being subjected to human traffickers to get here -- this is a humanitarian crisis. Are we going to find out what is causing it? Of course, if we haven't yet awakened to the idea that we have a crisis, then we won't ask all these questions. It will only be if when we perceive we have a crisis that we will begin to ask the questions.
Where you lose freedom is when one person takes it from another

And, aren't we doing that by locking the immigrant out? 

Monday, June 25, 2018

This, too, is a Humanitarian Crisis

Speak not just of the children separated from their parents once they get here; Consider on those who come unaccompanied. Should not this, too, be considered a "humanitarian crisis"?
Children being subjected to the cartels as they travel north to the border -- is this not a humanitarian crisis?" Children being raped as they migrate -- not a humanitarian crisis? Children arriving without homes to go to -- humanitarian crisis? Youth falling into the influence of the MS-13 -- humanitarian crisis, or, no?
The need for parental guidance is not lost. If a great number of youth and children are being thrown into a new society without the support of parents, call it what it is: It is a humanitarian crisis.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

When Freedom is Won, it Should not be Hoarded

Reprint of a blog from long ago.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2012

When Freedom is Won, it Should Not be Hoarded

Freedom should be free, I suggest, in making an argument that we should not make it so hard for people to come to America.

Only to have a Facebook friend fire back, "Uh, freedom wasn't exactly free for the Founding Fathers. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and it wasn't idle rhetoric."

And, another replied, "Freedom is never free, it must be purchased with blood through every generation."

Good thoughts, those are. In such a sense, freedom is not free. But, the freedom to come to America is not one that needs to be earned through spilling blood to get here. Freedoms that need to be won are won by those who don't have them from those who won't just give them away. But when freedom is won, it should not hoarded, but shared, freely.

The man who shares not his freedom knows not its meaning.
The man who shares not his freedom knows not its meaning

   We are hoarders of freedom in the United States, not letting just anyone enter our country to enjoy it. I can only say, if we believe in liberty for all -- in freedom for all -- then we do not say, "Except for immigrants." Freedom knows no exceptions.

Gun Lobby Persuades Legislators to do away with a Practice of Justice

  It was always, Innocent until proven guilty, until the Castle Law came along. It was always felt the burden of proof should belong to the prosecution.  If your offense is invading a home, however, you should know the law has been changed. If you are invading a home, you are now presumed guilty. Oh, and I'm not talking about being presumed guilty of trespassing into a home. No, you are presumed -- by your presence -- to have threatened the life or well-being  of another.  And, it is presumed he has the right to kill you. If you entered his home secretly, the law suggests that the only reasonable thing for him to do, is to kill you.   So, the law has always been, Innocent until proven guilty? Till the Castle Law came along? But, gun-rights advocates got that changed. Their lobbyists persuaded our legislators to do away with this principle of justice when it comes to entering a home.   Death to all who enter here, is the more correct principle nowadays, it seems.   We talk about the power of the gun lobby. I cannot think of having more power than being able to get rid of the principle of innocence until proven guilty. Note: For those who want to read Utah's Castle Law, it says:   The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

Friday, June 22, 2018

Our Inhumanity to Humanity is Still Showing

   Invasion? Poor people coming to take jobs, rejoin family, and escape violence -- this is what we call an invasion? And, we want to build a wall to lock them out?  Aren't we a benevolent bunch.
   We may have seen how wrong it is to separate families, but our inhumanity to humanity is still showing.

Truth waits not for the reasoning of men

Citizens Packing Heat Against Criminals: Isn't this Vigilante Justice?

From a blog in 2015:

  Throw everyone a gun, then.
   I'm not so sure that is the answer to all the gun violence in America, but there is not a shortage of people who believe it is.
   Tell me, how is this not vigilante justice? Isn't the definition of vigilante, a person who belongs to a group of self-appointed citizens who undertake law enforcement on their own, often because they believe law enforcement agencies are inadequate.
  Having a person appointed as the designated crime fighter -- instead of tossing everyone a gun -- has been the more organized way of dealing with law breakers. It's a tradition I wish we'd stick to.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Do Those Administering 2nd Amendment Justice Get More Leeway?

Note: The below blog is a reprint, first published 5/6/2015. I find it interesting that I made the same observation in yesterday's blog.

   Had it been police officers pulling the triggers in those Utah County shootings this past week, I'm guessing there would have been an outcry.
   It should make us wonder if gun rights advocates aren't accorded a greater right to kill than are our men and women in blue. Of course, these are times police are being scrutinized. Still, it should jar us a little that a person, hailing that he or she is operating under the banner of Second Amendment rights, can kill with greater impunity than an officer of the law.
    Consider those two Utah County cases, if you will. In one, a carjacking was underway in a parking lot, and a person with a concealed weapons permit noticed it, came over, and stopped it. He noted the unarmed carjacker lunged to take his gun from him, and he shot and killed him to stop him.
   Now, suppose it had been an officer. Had an officer pulled the trigger, Would we be questioning why the officer shot an unarmed person?
   Then, case two. A man came pounding on someones door, but the homeowners didn't respond, so the man crawled up a floor and onto the balcony to get in. The homeowner noted he went to the balcony door to talk to the intruder, who then forced his way in. The homeowner shot him in the chest, killing him.
  The intruder was drunk, and lived just buildings away in the same housing development, and likely, in his confused thinking, thought he was entering his own home.
   Now, what if the homeowner had been an off-duty police officer and had been the person pulling the trigger? Would there have been outrage if it had been police officers doing these two shootings instead of others? Would there at least have been much more intensive investigations?
 Yes, I do wonder, if at the moment in America, those who administer Second Amendment justice aren't given freer rein to pull the trigger than officers are.
  Note: Blog shortened 5-7-15. I had been of the misunderstanding that the cases were no longer under investigation, but after reading on the Internet tonight (5-7-15), I understand that they yet might be, especially the homeowner/intruder case.

There Might be a Cure for Some of What We Call Old Age

Note: This is a blog I wrote 5/12/15. I republish it because I ran into it one day after blogging on the same topic. 

   How about a study of why muscles cease to work? Do they lose their elasticity? Are they too weak? What?
   In the case of old people, we often simply call it the deterioration of the body. And, it seems to me, rather than treating it clinically, rather than studying the problem and trying to find a cure -- we simply dismiss it as what happens when you get old.
   I say, treat it as something that needs a cure. We've searched for cures for most every disease, and been successful in retarding the development of many of those conditions. Why not this? Your reply might be that once old age sets in, it sets in, and cannot be conquered, and that the deterioration of the muscles is strictly a matter of being old. It can't be solved.
   I disagree.
   I ask, is it a matter that the muscles no longer receive the energy they need to make them operate fully? Is it that the physical composition of the muscles breaks down? I say, treat this like a disease, and study it, and there might be an answer.
   Many among the elderly are restricted to wheelchairs. Others use canes. And those that don't have wheelchairs and don't have canes are more limited in their mobility than they were when they were younger. I'm assuming it is often because of a condition that comes upon their muscles, but you tell me.
   Can a cure be found? If you say, "No," if you say, "Just accept the fact God intended us to be old when we are in fact old," I will say, "Remember Kitty Hawk, for folks once said, if God intended man to fly, he would have given him wings."
   I say, maybe we can find a cure. Maybe we can eradicate much of the need for wheelchairs and canes, and make it so many men and women can sprint as fast at age 90 as they could when they were 19.
   Laugh, but I think it possible.

(Note: Slightly edited 6/21/18)

To Heal an Aging Body

   I wonder, still. I wonder if my body can heal with the flip of a switch, a mental switch, a touch of faith. I wonder if it is not my body that needs to change, but my mind, if I am to be healed. I wonder if my mind is healed, then my body will be, also.
  If I can but relax.
  I had a TIA a few months back. That's a mini stroke. More than once since then, including yesterday, it seemed the pressures of the day built up big enough that I could feel another about to burst upon me. But, by simple will of mind, as I felt it coming on, I put it off.
  By simple decision.
  I sat in my chair yesterday, in pain. It so seemed that if I let my mind go there, the pain was excruciating. I could flow into pain with a simple decision to let myself go into it.
   I pulled back, mentally, and the pain leveled off, or so it seemed.
   I rolled out of bed this morning, onto my feet, and it so seemed that I almost could relax, and my body would be healed. It so seemed that my body was close to being relaxed, and instead of a stumble and a limp, there would be a perfect step, a perfect walk, a healed man.
   Oh, that I could give my body that command, to relax and be whole.
   Thus it is, could faith heal me?
   It occurs to me that I have had heart problems about as long as I have had stiffness, and tightness, and hip problems. If I relax the body, does it affect all the body? When the muscles tighten, do they tighten on the heart as well as in the legs?
   I think of how old men such as I need to stay closer to the bathroom. I think of how I can be fine as far as needing to use the bathroom, but the moment I open the front door, the urge to urinate becomes uncontrollable. My mind is trained to go that way.
  So it is with the rest of my body. There are mental commands, subconscious ones. They control me and my health. As they take over one part of my body, making it harder to control urination, they also take over the rest of my body, so that I cannot walk.
   You will say I need a pacemaker for my heart. I will say I wonder if I need but to relax. You will say that I need my hip replaced, for it is bone on bone, and no mental process is going to cure that. I will say, you might be right, but I that I wonder the same. I wonder if I could but mentally say, relax, if I could walk a normal walk, if I could heal.
   These are things I wonder. I do not say I am right, only that I wonder.  I am fully aware that often we take our hopes and make them gospel, when in fact they are but delusions.
   So, which is it? Are my hopes the seeds of faith? Or are they the offspring of delusion?

(Note: Slightly edited and tweaked 11/15/18)

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Do Police Officers Face Greater Scrutiny than Homeowners?

   Does a homeowner get a freer pass than even law enforcement agencies when it comes killings? I believe every officer-involved shooting is investigated. Or does that depend on the policy of the agency? And, I notice the district attorney investigates shootings by officers.
  How often does the D.A. investigate shootings by homeowners in home invasions? I would guess that might not be as often, but I could be wrong.
  I'm guessing the home invasions do always come with investigations (I'm not talking D.A. investigations, but police investigations), but I wonder if they are traditionally as thorough as those of officer-involved shootings.
  It would seem our police officers would be more trusted than the average Joe, and warrant no greater investigations. But, I wonder if when the average Joe happens to be a homeowner, that might not be the case. Homeowners might face less scrutiny than police officers.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Should Police have Right to Kill When the Fleeing Person is a Threat?

   I read with interest a story about Zane James being shot as he was fleeing from police. I think of other stories we have heard about individuals shot while fleeing. I wonder if some are shot for fear they are considered a threat to the public. Do we have laws governing this, giving police leeway to make such judgment calls?
   Whether James' case was one in which there was such a concern, I do not know. I'm guessing it was not. Still, I wonder on how much leeway should be given to police in weighing whether -- if he escapes -- the fleeing suspect poses a danger to the public.
   I'm not ready to say don't give police such leeway. Perhaps, we should.  I can see the need to protect the public. But, there is also a danger in giving police too much free rein. Having free rein leaves a window open for abuse.
   I do not know the answer tonight, but wonder what language should go in such a law, that it would give officers the right to shoot in needed situations, but would not leave too much of an opening for abuse.
   I just believe that if you leave room for abuse, you will likely get abuse. And, I believe you write the law so it leaves the smallest window for abuse as is possible.

Monday, June 18, 2018

If a Flag Salute were a Handshake, would you Shake America's Hand?

 (Note:This blog was rewritten some 6/20/18 and will likely be rewritten some more.)

 Danny sat down the morning paper, a stern feeling crossing through him as the latest news on the separation of immigrant children from their parents settled in is mind. He looked out window, spotting his American flag waving in the wind.
  He turned on his computer, called up YouTube, and searched for the National Anthem. Turning it up as loud as he could, he marched outside in front of his flag.
  And, took a knee.
  When his neighbors, the Heidelheisters, came walking by, spotting what was happening, he yelled out, jestfully, "I couldn't find an NFL game to participate in. Not many going on this time of day in our neighborhood, are there?"
  Todd Heidelheister gave him a quizical look.
  "I'm glad you came by," Danny said. "Can I explain what I'm thinking?"
   "Ivan, I've never known you to be anything but patriotic," Todd said. "Do, indeed, tell us what is going on."
   Danny stood up. The National Anthem was ending. He walked down the sidewalk and reached his hand out to shake it with the Heidleheisters.
   Todd started to put his hand out, to take the handshake, but then quickly drew it back. "Sorry, Danny, I know it seems a little disrespectful of you to not shake your hand, but, I won't just now. I don't want to shake it -- not after what you've just done. It would be kind of like condoning what you've just done."
   Danny smiled. He moved his hand over toward Melanie Heidelheister, but she declined his handshake, as well. "No, Danny, I'm not going to shake your hand either," she said. "I'm afraid I'd feel like I was congratulating you for what you've just done. Like Todd said, I know this is kind of disrespectful toward you, but . . ."
  Ivan's soft smile faded from his face. He looked away from the Heidelheisters and over at his flag. "You know, I feel the same way as the two of you," he said. "See, I've been listening to the news -- all the news about children being taken from their parents down there on the border. It's just not right."
  He paused, and his lips pursed for a moment.  "I guess I feel that with what's happening down there with these children, no, I don't want to be supportive of it. If I am going to send a message right now, it's going to be just the opposite. It's going to say, 'America, I'm not a blind patriot. I support you when you are good, but not when you're not. I salute you when you because you are a noble and great country -- one that I can honor. But, right now, I can't honor what you are doing. Right now, I'm not much in the mood for saluting you.
  He paused again, sighing. "Todd and Mel," he said, "I don't salute that flag for any other reason than for what it stands for, and when it quits standing for what it should, my salute goes away."
   He looked down at the ground. "I guess I understand now how those NFL players feel. They are ashamed of the way we the police are treating the blacks. They're a lot like the two of you. You look at me, and disapprove of my behavior, and say you aren't going to shake my hand. They look at what America has done, and they feel the same -- they don't want to shake hands with a country when its doing things they can't condone. They don't want to congratulate and salute bad behavior."
   "I  understand them, now."
   Todd and Melanie looked back at him across the fence gate. Todd smiled. Melanie smiled. "We understand you, now," one of them said. "We respect you even more than we did before." Todd and Melanie extended their hands, offering handshakes that moments before they had refused to give.
 

In the Eyes of Society, He's a Patriot

   A burglar slips into a home 3 a.m. in the morning. The homeowner hears a noise, grabs a gun, and goes to investigate. He spots the burglar in the living room, where he is leaning over to pick up a television. The homeowner fires a round of bullets into his back and head, and the invader drops dead to the floor.
   Justified homicide?
   The next day, the story in the newspaper gives no details, only saying the home was invaded and the home invader was shot and killed. The comments at the bottom of the online news story all say that if you break into a home in the middle of the night, you need to understand there are consequences.
    With some of the commenters, I don't think it would make a difference if the news accounts did say the burglar had his back to the homeowner. You don't enter someones home in the middle of the night, period. If you do, you've got to understand that getting shot and killed could be the penalty.
   In the eyes of the world, the homeowner is a hero. He was protecting his wife and his children. In the eyes of society, he is a patriot, just exercising his Second Amendment rights.
   How have we come to this point, that we view this as justice? How have we become so carried away with gun rights that things that are clearly terribly wrong are accepted as right and just? -- Even by wonderful and good and church-going people?
   Wrong is wrong, regardless what the world might say. The Ten Commandments still have value, and should carry more weight than do gun rights.

 

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Murder has no Better Friend than the Castle Law

   The law being what it is, the investigation into the shooting of Makayla Yeaman should be over. Well, if you want to determine if the killing was morally justified, continue to investigate. But, if you just want to know if it was legally justified, the law says it was.
  Morally, you should not kill another person unless it is necessary to do so. If you go by the law, however, death can be administered to anyone who breaks into your home unlawfully and while trying to keep you from knowing they are entering.
  Utah's Castle Law defines when it will be said that someones life is in jeopardy. Rather than requiring that a life actually be in jeopardy, the law says it will be presumed the shooter has reason to fear for their life or fear they will suffer serious bodily injury,"if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made . . . surreptitiously or by stealth."
   Surreptitiously? Look it up. It means, in a way that avoids attracting attention. Stealth? That's an action taken cautiously, secretively, and in hopes of not being noticed. Those are not good ways to go about entering someones home, but do we kill all who enter in such a manner?
  So, the Castle Law is a wide-open window for murder. You can kill anyone who enters unlawfully and while trying to keep it a secret they are coming in. Anyone! Death to all who enter here! Or, at least, death to all who sneak in without a welcome.
   Laws against trespassing are a good idea, but should we kill everyone who violates them? If we're talking trespass of a home, and the homeowner doesn't know you are coming, clearly -- going by the law and by what we teach each other -- we should kill them dead. At least, the law gives us permission to do so.
   It seems obvious that when Makayla Yeaman entered the home in West Jordan, she snuck in. So, lacking legal right to be there, that's the end of it. Case closed. Her death was justified in the eyes of the law.
   It is right that we allow a person to protect themselves and their families, even if it means taking the life of another person. It is wonderful to live in a country that allows us to defend ourselves in such a way. But, we were allowed to protect ourselves this way well before the Castle Law came about.
   Designing men? Did they craft our Castle Law? I certainly wonder at what they were aiming to achieve.
   I called the other day to ask for a police report on what happened in the Makayla Yeaman case. I was told the investigation was still being conducted and, therefore, no information was available. So, it appears there is, indeed, an investigation still going on. Now, while I think that if our laws were written honorably, they would call for an investigation into every such killing, the way they are written leaves no reason to investigate these killings that happen in home invasions.
   Why investigate? By law, the homeowner is always right and justified and the invader is always worthy of death. Murder has no better friend than the Castle Law.

(Note: Blog tweaked 6/17/18)

Friday, June 15, 2018

Down came the Wall, and the Man with the Crown

  Trumpty Dumpty built a great wall
Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall
  All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Trumpty together again

  The wall that he built, he sat on like a throne
He told all the people to stay on land of their own
  But so many there were, they knocked the wall down
Down came the wall and the man with the crown

   I wrote this poem about a year and a half ago, wondering if the immigration issue would bring Trump down. Now, with so much criticism of his separating families, I think of this poem again. 
   I wonder if the plight of the immigrant hasn't become more popular since Trump took office, if his policies haven't brought more sympathy to the immigrant.

(Note: The comments beneath the poem were added 6/16/18)
   

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Kings are also Given the Right to Kill

   If a man's home is his castle, it is the gun that makes it so -- at least, to some degree. Well, let's just say that if a man's home is his castle, the gun is the enforcer. We even have a law we refer to as a castle law, which makes it lawful to use deadly force in defense of a habitation.
   How appropriate of a name, Castle Law. Kings live in castles and kings also have the right (well, they take the right) to kill anyone who enters their domain, no questions asked. How interesting, then, that the Castle Law gives homeowners the right to kill those who enter their domain, and face limited questioning for what they have done.
   The Castle Law it is, then, but we could call it the King's Law, just as well. If a king kills someone, he isn't subject to second-guessing from the people. No one questions his right to kill. He's the king. There will be no arrest and there will be no trial.
   Even so, it is with the home owner, thanks to the Castle Law. If he works it right, when killing someone, there will be no arrest and there will be no trial. There might not even be much of an investigation.
  If the invader is killed, and there is no evidence of foul play and no one left alive to witness against him, then the homeowner's word is accepted as the rule of law and as the judgment on what happened.  The homeowner is king of the home, and of the castle, and judgment is settled by the decree of the king. I would go so far as to wonder, when we set these laws up, whether we were thinking we should, indeed, give the homeowner such power, and that is why we named them castle laws?
  As long as the homeowner is in position to say the use of lethal force was necessary, who can question him? Murder becomes a right. Yes, most of the killings might be truly justified and in self defense, and done in an upright and honorable way, but the process we have created makes it possible for some not to be so. It makes it possible for legalized murders to slip in. As our law spells it out, anyone who enters the home secretly or by stealth can legally be shot and killed as long as the homeowner can say he had reason to believe killing them was necessary to stop them.
   Murder by decree, or justified by the king's decree, then. Or can we even call it murder? I don't know that in all the stories I've heard of kings saying, "Off with your head," if I've ever heard it suggested it was a murder. Rather, it was his right. Have we created the possibility of the same scenario with our castle laws?
  The other person might have been backing up with his hands up, but if the homeowner kills him and insists it was his own life that was being threatened, no one will ever know. The homeowner will get away with it. He will get away with murder.
   For those who care to read it, here's what the law (Utah Code 76-2-405) says:

(1)A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a)the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or

(b)he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

(2)The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.


(Note: Parts of the blog were rewritten 6/15/18 in hopes of giving it a little more focus.)


Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Whether its 1925 or 2018, Lives are more Important than Property

   If you are going to consider the roll of guns in today's society, you might want to reflect on how Warren Smith Potter handled his in -- oh, I don't know -- 1925 or so.
   Warren Smith Potter -- I heard this story from his great-grandson. Potter laid out salt licks for the deer. Now, when hunters learned he had a lot of deer on his land, of course they wanted to do their hunting there. Potter wasn't much of a gunman, but he did have a shotgun. So, he pulled it out, suggesting to the deer hunters that they best not cross onto his property.
   Here's the thing. What if Potter had shot them? Of course, they -- having their hunting rifles with them -- might have won in a shootout.
   But, what if Potter had shot them?
   Does keeping someone off your land justify putting a hole in them? Thou shalt not kill is one of the Ten Commandments. It's a pretty big deal. The idea is, you never kill unless you have to. So, does keeping others off your land justify your taking their lives?
   Even if you are so kind-hearted, that you're just trying to save a few deer? 
   Saving the deer makes a little better of an argument. Shooting someone just to keep them off your property holds little value with me. What have you won and lost? Someone loses their life and you become a killer in exchange for the pride of keeping them off space that belongs to you.
    So, what if Potter had shot the hunters?
   I think of my own father. He, like Potter, wasn't much of a gunman, but he had a gun. We lived on some of the best pheasant hunting land in all the country, I would guess. But, Dad never reached for his rifle to go confront the hunters.
   Someones crossing onto your property isn't a good thing. But, is it such a harm that we should shoot anyone who does venture onto our property uninvited?
    Whether it is 1925 or 2018, I say, No.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Why aren't Police Releasing more Information?

   My mind shoots back years, to when I was discussing a home invasion shooting with a gun advocate, and he suggested the homeowner shouldn't even be questioned by police, as he had been traumatized enough.
   I think he was serious. And, judging from some of the things said by online commentors to a Deseret News story on the shooting death of Makayla Yeaman, I wonder if some them might feel the same way.
   "Why is there even a follow-up story? Second-guessing gun use," says a commentor identified as Say No to BO.
   "She tried to burglarize the wrong home. Case closed," says someone calling himself (or herself) Mainly Me.
  My thoughts go the other way. Why is it that we are days past the event and police still haven't released some of the basics -- some of which  they surely knew as quickly as they interviewed the homeowner? What did the invader do to threaten the homeowner? Did she pull the knife, or make threatening motions with it? Did she make any verbal threats? How close to the shooter was she? Did the homeowner even know she had a knife? How many rounds were fired? Where did the bullets hit? How long after the shooting was it before paramedics were called?  Did she die on the spot or was she transported to the hospital?
   Hey, police didn't even release this basic information -- that a knife was found -- until days after the shooting. It would seem you surveyed the scene of the crime and found the knife immediately after the shooting.
   Why is so little information being released? These are basics belonging in any news story about a shooting. Why are they being withheld by police?

Monday, June 11, 2018

Set Up a System Where Something can go Wrong, and it Will

  You cannot set up a system where something can go wrong without expecting that, sooner or later, something will go wrong.
   We've done that. We've set things up so most every time a home invader invades a home, he (or she) will be able to find cause to kill the intruder. Now, what could go wrong with that scenario? Sooner or later, there will be a homeowner who shoots and kills an intruder who doesn't deserve to be killed.
   Or, do all intruders deserve to be killed?
   Forgive, but I think not.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Killed in Accordance with the Societal Values of Our Time   

   Makayla Yeaman, age 23, shot and killed when she invaded a home in West Jordan. No, we do not know all the details. But, it seems unlikely she was an actual threat to someones life. Yes, she was a drug addict. Yes, she was a burglar.
   But, did her life need to be taken?
   She was shot and killed in accordance with societal values of our time and in accordance with the laws of our land. She was shot and killed because this is what we teach: We teach that if someone enters your home, you shoot and kill them.
   Really? And, with no exceptions?
   It seems we have the attitude that there is no other choice: If someone invades our home, there is nothing else to be done. Anything short of shooting them is to be derelict in the protection of your home, your castle, and your family.
   I beg much to differ. Life is precious. Taking another person's life is a serious thing -- or should be. Yes, there will be times when you need to kill someone in self defense. But, no, we should not shoot and kill every home invader.
   And, we certainly shouldn't have a law that makes it legal. 
  Makayla Yeaman? I read the news story. It didn't suggest there will be so much as an investigation as to whether the shooting was justified. I'm sorry, but anytime someones life is taken, there should be an investigation. And, more than a perfunctory one. In the case of Makayla Yeaman, however, we are left to suppose the shooter said he feared for his life, or the life of his family, and that was the end of it. There will be no need for further inquiry. You were just protecting your home, and no one on this green earth is going to fault you for protecting your home.
  Oh, forgive, but despite all this -- despite all our concern for the homeowner -- can't we see we have opened a door where people might be killed unnecessarily? Can't we see that anytime there is a home invasion, the homeowner is going to be able to say he feared for his life. We won't be able to question it. But, not every time a person enters a home will there be an actually need to kill them. These two things don't match: He's always going to be able to get off the hook, but he's not always going to be deserving of getting off the hook.
  Often, it will be just the homeowner and the intruder. If the homeowner kills the intruder, there will be no witness to testify against him, no one to even suggest the killing was unjustified.
   He's off the hook, whether the killing was actually justified or not.
   Our laws have not always been this unjust. You have always had the right to defend yourself, and to kill rather than be killed. (It is wonderful that we've always respected this right.) But, you have not always been allowed to be your own judge and jury. The law has not always been worded so that your word was all that was needed to get you off the hook for murder.
   But, things have changed. In today's society, you just say you felt your life was endangered, and that is the end of it. The law can have no hand on you. 
   Yes, we should fix this law. Yes, it is a loophole for murder.
    Of Home Invasions and Death to those Who do Invade
    I might have lost the last post I wrote in the comment section of a Deseret News story about the shooting and killing of a home burglar in West Jordan. If the comment is published, I will be able to retrieve it, but it might not be approved for publication. The article was about a lady shot and killed for breaking into a home in West Jordan. She evidently got the garage opener out of a vehicle parked in front of the home, entered through the garage, and got as far as the next room when she was shot. The police spokesperson said he did not know if she was armed. Reading the whole of the story, though, I am guessing she was not. Reading the whole of the story, one comes to think she was there to rob it in order to pay for her drug addiction. The online comments are quick to point out that if you break into a home, you have to be ready to pay the consequences. I post the following:
    "Don't think I see a comment in this thread suggesting the shooting might have been wrongful. We are taught to shoot and kill house invaders. We even have a stand-your-ground law that says if you feel your life is endangered, you can kill the other person. When the police come investigating the next morning, all you have to do is say you felt threatened, and you are off the hook.
    I guess I'm not so convinced as the rest of you that we are going about this the right way. Life is precious. Just because a person is in your home in the middle of the night does not, in and of itself, give you the right to kill them. We, as a society, are responsible for this type of death. We should change our law and quit teaching each other to kill anyone who enters our homes."
    Comes an answer from another poster, one titled, "at long last," noting ours is a society where, "actions have consequences. In this case the burglar got killed. I know of few people who have a problem with this. In case you don't realize it, John, this is a felonious act she committed - an egregious invasion of a person's home. Chances are quite good she won't ever do this again."

    Another poster, DN Subscriber, responds that, "Society can and should be teaching criminals that breaking and entering into other people's houses in the middle of the night is illegal, and that homeowners have the right to use deadly force. Any injury or death of the intruder is their own fault, not that of the homeowner." 
    I post the following: "Bless you all for your opinion. You feel the killing was justified, that crime has consequence. I do agree that crime should have consequence, but feel that when possible, the retribution should be dispensed by a court of law, not by the victim in vigilante style. No, we have not set up a good system of justice when we set it up so the victim is allowed to exact whatever level of vengeance he -- in his anger, -- wants, even to the taking of the life of the other person. Then, we set back in our chairs, observing what has gone on, and call it justice? Burglary is a crime. It is wrong. Taking from others to pay for a drug addiction is wrong. But death to all burglars? Is the crime worthy of the punishment? No mercy, no charity? The hands of justice may be heavy, but they cease to be the hands of justice when they are this heavy."

Friday, June 8, 2018

President Trump and the Power to Pardon Blacks because they Matter

   Did we just hear President Trump offer to pardon blacks who have been unfairly treated in our legal system? Is that what we heard, because that's what it sounded like to me.
   This could be quite a sizable offer, depending on what he has in mind. I mean, it has been pointed out that while only 13 percent of the nation is black, blacks make up 37 percent of the prison population. That means there might be room for a high number of pardons.
   Of course, at this point, we aren't even sure pardoning these people is what Trump had in mind -- but it sure seems to be. He was preparing to leave the White House to attend the G-7 Summit in Canada, and he was talking about NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem to protest treatment of blacks by police.
   "I am going to ask them (the NFL players) to recommend to me people that were unfairly treated," Trump said, promising to look at those applications.
   Did Trump just sign on with the Black Lives Matter movement?
    What if the players submit applications for, oh, say, 2,000 people? I mean, where do you draw the line? You ask for applications of those who have been treated unfairly, and only 13 percent of the nation's population is black while 37 percent of the prison population is black. . . .
   How many of them, then, have been treated unfairly? How many are you going to pardon?
   I would guess that if there is a discrepancy in the number of blacks being arrested -- and it certainly seems there is -- then it is not so much a matter of false arrests and false convictions as it is targeting blacks who are guilty and letting whites go when they, too, could be charged.
  With that in mind, there might be few blacks warranting pardons, for even though you are targeting them, they are still guilty.
   Then, again, perhaps a number of them have been given overly stiff sentences, same as Alice Johnson was. Now, then, you have the potential for thousands of sentences being commuted.
   I don't guess this is going to play out in such an interesting fashion, but it could. Trump has already suggested the players submit him names. The cat is out of the bag. Now, when the players submit thousands of names -- should that, by chance, happen -- how do you say you will only go with 10 or 20?
 

Thursday, June 7, 2018

If the Pardons are for those like Alice Johnson, bring them on

   I join my voice with those of so many others who are hailing President Trump's pardon of Alice Johnson, who was serving a life sentence on drug charges.
   Johnson was a nonviolent offender, and hers were not distribution charges; They were possession charges. Life sentence? She had already served 21 years; That sounds a bit much, in and of itself.
   That Kim Kardashian West took up Johnson's cause, seeking to free her, speaks well of  Kardashian West. She saw an injustice and had the moral rectitude to fight against it.
   President Trump's pardons and threatenings of pardons had had me thinking the other direction: that maybe we should reign in a president's right to pardon. And, I still have concerns, as do others, about whether pardons are being made for political and personal reasons.
   But, the pardoning of Johnson has me considering what Johnson suggested, that there are many others, like her, also deserving of clemency. Why not seek out those like Johnson, or as worthy as Johnson, and pardon them?
   Our Constitution's writers were perhaps as concerned with the rights of those accused of crimes as much as they were with anything else.  Amendments Four through Eight in the Bill of Rights deal with the rights of the accused. No less than 14 protections are provided in the Bill of Rights.
   And, then, to boot, there is this provision allowing presidents to grant pardons. Clearly, the founding fathers cared about the rights of the accused.
   Perhaps it would be good if we did see a flood of pardons from President Trump, depending on who is pardoned and all. If they are in the mold of Alice Johnson, bring them on.

Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Can a Sitting President be Charged with a Crime?

  It is said by some, a sitting president cannot be convicted of a crime. I would suggest, the writers of the Constitution were trying to go the opposite direction, trying to ensure that presidents were not immune.
   Read Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
   "Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial and Punishment, according to Law."
   The writers said that in impeaching the president, the Senate cannot go beyond removing him or her from office, and from barring him or her from any office, trust or profit. That's all the Senate can do. But, the writers wanted to make it clear that that does not mean the president cannot be convicted of a crime, so they added language saying he or she is "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial and Punishment according to Law."
   Those last three words, "according to Law," suggest that whatever the law says for anyone else, the same applies to the president.
   So, where do we get the idea a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime? I would imagine it comes from the three words, "the Party convicted." Convicted is past tense. In this case, it appears to be referring to the president being convicted of impeachment. So, it is saying that the person impeached can be indicted, tried and punished. The pundits suggest that, therefore, until the president is removed from office, he or she cannot be charged, tried or convicted.
   I would argue that:
   (1) As I said, it seems the founding fathers were attempting to ensure just the opposite. If we are to go by the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we do not let the president off the hook.
   (2) While, yes, the wording says he can be indicted, tried and punished after being removed from office, it does not specifically say he cannot be indicted, tried and punished before that removal. So, if we are just going by the words -- not the intent -- we still do not let the president off the hook.
   (3) As I said, the last three words -- the three words following the explanation that the person convicted of impeachment can be held liable for crimes, are "according to Law," which suggests whatever the law is for anyone else, so it is for the president. Nothing changes; The law is still the law.
   Impeachment is simply a separate process from the trial. Perhaps, the founding fathers were wanting to make sure they were not giving Congress judicial power to convict of crimes. They wanted that matter to be handled by the appropriate branch of government -- the judicial -- just the same as it always is, with the normal processes in place.
   It would seem to me that with this in mind, when Mueller concludes his investigation, he should turn his findings over to two separate entities. First, he should give Congress all the finding pertinent to impeachment. Second, he hould give all the findings back to whatever agency or court that you and I would face were we to be charged with the crimes.
  It might be that rather than the impeachment coming first, conviction of crimes will need to come first.  I say this because the Constitution says, " The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
   It says there must be a, "Conviction of." Does that mean the president must first be convicted of treason, bribery or another high crime or misdemeanor before he can be impeached? It would seem that is one possibility of what the writers of the Constitution were trying to say.
   But, the verbiage also refers to removal of office also being for impeachment. It says, "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of." Does this mean either or? -- Either "Impeachment for" or "Conviction of"? Does it mean the president can be removed from office not only upon being convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, but also after being impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?
   I'm believing this second process is the one we practice. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, but when the Senate voted, there were not enough votes to remove him from office.

The Agreement says Just the Opposite

A repost from six years ago:

   A whole movement demanding the federal government turn over its public lands to the states, sometimes even citing the "enabling acts" as the power that gives the states right to the lands, and yet when I read Utah's enabling act, I find just the opposite. I find it says Utah forever relinquishes the right to those lands. Says the act: "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof." What am I missing? Or, is it simply that the Sagebrush Rebellion is completely amiss?

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Sen. Merkley's Visit Marks an Unveiling of the Secrecy

   A U.S. senator's efforts to visit an immigrant processing center in Texas the past weekend revealed the American government is secretive about its treatment of those coming from other countries. 
   And, not only secretive, but abusive. The practice of separating families quickly drew charges the United States inhumanely treats families attempting to immigrate without federal authorization. 
  "I was barred entry," Sen. Jeff Merkley said of his attempt to visit a detention center in Brownsville, Texas. The windows of the center, operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, were blacked out, covered up so they could not be seen through. 
  "They do not want members of Congress or the public to know what's going on," Merkley said Monday in a telephone interview with CNN.
  That the government is shielding its treatment of immigrants from the public is drawing a backlash. And, that even members of Congress are not allowed entrance only heightens the concern for what might be going on in secrecy. 
   While the Trump Administration has vastly ramped up concern by separating children from their parents upon arrival at the border, secrecy in the immigration system is hardly new.
   Immigration courts commonly are gated. The gates might be open, but when a person tries to actually enter the buildings, he or she is greeted by security and turned away unless able to cite specific business to be conducted. No public docket of the proceedings is available, nor are transcripts of the proceedings made available to the public. Often, the hearings, themselves, are closed to the public.
  Immigration courts commonly are not well marked with signage identifying them as such -- as federal immigration courts. Instead, the buildings might be marked by little more than their street numbers in lettering on the buildings. 
   Sen. Merkley's attempted visit to the immigrant processing center brings attention to the fact there is so much secrecy. That the federal government shields not only the American public from what is going on, but even bars Congress members from an inside view is raising questions as to why the secrecy. New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez tweeted that he, also, has been barred from entering an immigration detention facility.
  And, there is the cry that what is happening is inhumane. "Separating immigrant children from their parents is inhumane and should end," editorialized the Star-Telegram in Fort Worth, Texas. Others have also joined in the cry that the practice is inhumane. 

(Note: Blog tweaked 6/7/18)





Monday, June 4, 2018

No Self-Pardon for President Trump, and no Right to Shoot Someone

  Could President Trump, as he claims, pardon himself?
  Could he shoot James Comey and the nation not be able to indict him for it, as his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has suggested?
   Instead of turning to experts, and asking them, why not we open the Constitution and get our answers right from it?
   So, could he pardon himself?  "(H)e shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)
   Would seem, then, he could pardon himself as long as he wasn't impeached. As soon as he was impeached, he no longer could pardon himself.
   And, could he fire a bullet clean through James Comey's heart and get away with it?
   "Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7)
   Yes, then, he could be indicted, tried and punished. It might be argued he would have to be impeached, first, but he certainly could be held liable for shooting and killing another person

Sunday, June 3, 2018

Of Trespassers and Invaders and the Uninvited in Our Homes

   Suppose a family moved in from New Jersey and was greeted with outrage by neighbors who suggested they were invading their neighborhood. Suppose they told them they were trespassing.
   Would be silly, wouldn't it.
   So, why do we so label those who come from Mexico? Are they really trespassing? Are they truly invaders? We don't use such strong language on escaped convicts, even though the only legal place they are suppose to be is in jail. Nor do we use it on those intoxicated in public, even though they might be in places where public intoxication is in violation of the law.
   I would imagine somewhere, a staunch gun-rights advocate might carry a gun into a store where it is posted that guns aren't allowed.
   A trespasser, then? An invader?
   And, what of the person who smokes in front of public buildings, in violation of the law? Is he, too, a trespasser, an invader?
   My point is, the language we use on the undocumented just isn't fair. It isn't just. It's inflammatory. We do not use it on others who wander into places in violation of the law. Why on the immigrant -- and on the immigrant, alone?
   Are we bigots, to pick on the immigrant and not to equally be outraged with the presence of others?
   One might argue that the difference is that the escaped convict and the public-intoxicated and the gun-bearer and the smoker all are citizens. The immigrant is not. All the others, jointly with the rest of us, own this land called America. They might be in places they shouldn't be, but at least they are owners.
   And, that is where their argument falls apart. This is where their whole "invader" and "trespasser" analogy is found to be inaccurate and wrong. Do we own the land in the same sense as a person who has bought a property lot? Is it the same thing? You are always welcome on your own property, aren't you? If that property really is yours, you can smoke and drink on it all you want. If that property is, of a truth, yours, no one can march in and post a sign saying, "No smoking or drinking, or you will be asked to leave."
   So, the analogy has fallen apart.
   This analogy is often taken a step further. t goes like this: If someone moves in uninvited from outside the country, it is the same thing as someone walking into your personal home and assuming the right to live there. If you are all so fired up about letting immigrants in, why don't you let them move into your personal home? goes the argument.
   I wonder at us -- whether we should be buying into this analogy/argument. It suggests an immigrant arriving from another country is equal to someone walking into our home and making themselves welcome. Well, no, it is not equal -- at all. It would be wonderful if we were not persuaded by such a false  and wrongful analogy. The accusation is unfair and unjust and inflammatory. The immigrant might be here in America wrongfully, and it is understandable that some would therefore want him to leave, but to suggest his coming is literally the same thing as someone moving into our home is a gross overstatement. It is a false analogy calculated by those creating it to do unjust and hateful damage, and, next time we hear it -- rather than buying into it and passing it along --  we ought to recognize it for what it is -- an accusation intended to inflame our feelings against the immigrant. It is a false assertion intended to foment hatred.
   In conclusion, shall we call them trespassers and invaders? Is using such language being fair? Overstatement does nothing for the value of justice. Justice is only devalued when lies are employed. Bless us that we are not buying into such false analogies and arguments.

 

Saturday, June 2, 2018

Work Should not be Criminalized

Work should not be illegal. The work ethic should not be criminalized, but encouraged. Let the working class come to America. If we really feel we must send someone packing back to the country they came from, let's not let it be these. Let's try to hold on to these, the ones who just want to work. Who would think America would criminalize such a thing? Often they are the poor, seeking no more than an honest-day's work. Instead of cutting these people off, wouldn't we be better served to screen out someone else? Maybe go after the dishonest, or those who come in with criminal records, or those who commit crimes when they get here, or those who come just seeking to get on our welfare programs?
But, those who come in search of a better life, wanting no more than to work? Are these the people we would criminalize?

(Note: This is a repost of a blog from a year ago.)

Friday, June 1, 2018

Response to School Shootings? Maybe it Should be up to the States

   I notice in amazement that despite all the calls to do something about school shootings, our government does nothing.
   Well, tonight it occurs to me that all powers not specifically given the federal government are reserved to the states. How far to we take that? There are obviously a lot of federal laws that could be said to violate this principle. But, should we be sticklers about it? Should we say, if we don't like it being set up the way it is, then change the Constitution to allow the federal government to do more.
   But, until then, quit looking for the federal government to pass laws affecting the school shootings.
   I think of the Parkland shooting, and how it was the rage of discussion even at the time Utah's legislature was in session. I think how Utah decided to study the issue, and put off making laws till later.
   Does that mean next year, Utah will come up with a legislative response?
   I think of Florida, and how Florida did come up with some legislation. In seeing that, I wonder if much of the of the nation is more cognizant than what I have been about state rights. Yes, throughout the past week I've thought about states and communities making the decisions, but that it might be specifically in violation of the Constitution for the federal government to make the decisions didn't really rest in my mind until this evening. I didn't make that connection until just a few hours ago.

Let Kids Vote Only if Districts Give Them that Vote

   Yes, I think it worthy that the teenagers decide their own fate. They are not only the ones at risk, but it is they who are leading the protests calling for action against school shootings.
   But, there is a difference between saying they should make the decision, period, and saying school districts nationwide each should decide if their students should decide what measures are taken at their schools.
   In the blogs I posted, I said:
   Tuesday: "So, let each school decide. Perhaps the school administrators make the decision, perhaps the parents do   -- and perhaps some schools would let the students, themselves, cast the votes on whether to have the metal detectors."
   Wednesday:
   "Let communities nationwide decide if the students in their schools will make the choices."
   If someone were to represent my position, they would not be fully honest, nor accurate, unless they included the provision that the individual school districts should say whether students get the say.