The Legitimate Role of Government-Provide Security.

Governments exist to provide security for social groups.  That’s all.

Unfortunately, those who administer governments (elected officials and bureaucrats) too frequently overlook that duty and also expand their efforts far beyond that duty.

Believe it or not people are individuals.  They are not groups.

Believe it or not people do not always act in the best interest of other people.  People do not naturally have “common” interests.

Believe it or not the absence of a common interest often creates conflicts.  People will be disagreeable.

People establish governments to be the fair arbiter of conflicts and to smooth-out those inevitable disagreements.  By doing so, people place trust and confidence in their governments to do what is in the best interest of all people over time.  People in social groups seek out from among themselves those people who will understand what will be in the group’s best interest, long-term.  These chosen people are distinguished as leaders.

In order for leaders to be successful they must be dispassionate toward any particular person, including themselves.  Dispassion is not disinterest.  In fact, dispassion favors exceptional interests.  That  interest is in the entire group as a whole, both present and future.

It is just the opposite that makes a leader unsuccessful.  They become passionate about their own interests at the expense of the whole group.  They begin to make rulings that are short-sighted and about benefit to a select few. [My next blog post will explain how unruly government become the worst special interest of the whole lot of them.]

The next inevitability of poor leaders is they step beyond their role of providing security to imposing regulations. Within this scenario such leaders will force plunder among the people for the government’s benefit rather than the community’s benefit.

When leaders begin to exercise special interest and excessive regulation confidence from the people is lost.  People begin to expect special interest groups within the society will be exceptionally treated.  Consistency and constancy of confidence will evaporate.  Ultimately, people will begin to think that liberty will be regulated.  Then at last, they will resist the inevitable imposition of plunder upon them.

When a society reaches this level of dis enchantment it is the nature and disposition of nearly every person to expect the government to act in their personal interest rather than in the social benefit, either current or future.  They will expect that all others should be regulated and taxed for their benefit.

That social structure has never functioned successfully and never will.  Hence, we just witnessed major changes nationwide in the last election.  “The folks” demanded change from what was not working.  Yet, there is no offer of new policies, just an offer of new police at the helm of dysfunction.

That is the situation which our society is now living.  On nearly every subject we are led by men and women determined to use their role in government for their personal interest.  They further openly seek opportunity to segregate people into special interest groups…for short term comfort and gain.  Regulations, judgments, taxes, and bureaucrats all lean toward wasting the security of the people for an extra thirty pieces of silver.

There is much and many changes which society needs to make…if this society is to have long-term benefits.

That Is The Way I See It.

Ramblings…About the Past, and Present

Rambling:  that is what you all get in this post.

I notice that the culture and modern morals of the United States closely resemble the culture and morals of the ancient American culture and morals, as depicted in the Book of Mormon, when they were at their worst.  Lying, deceit, hatred, destruction of people and property and generally all those things which most societies and religions consider “evil” were prevalent then…and are now.


What is reported about for a majority of our elected officials is the abundance of lying.  Some of the foolish things said by people like Sheila Jackson Lee and Nancy Pelosi I no longer believe are the simple mistakes I use to give them credit for.  What they say now is so outrageously opposite from the truth I conclude they must be outright lying.


President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, Senate Leader Harry Reid, some of our statewide elected officials (two past attorneys general), our local state senator say one thing in carefully selected words, describe it as something different,and  mean something completely opposite to deceive a public unwilling examine them.


Racism, a subject which most people can’t even define, is perpetuated by elected and appointed officials, the media, and far to many people.   It is seen in our unnecessary “hate crime” legislation.  Such legislation, although promoted as an attempt to “protect” people, is in essence only legalized segregation or reverse apartheid.  From the US Attorney General down to our state attorney general refuse to enforce laws that may hurt their fund-raising efforts, even though enforcement would benefit all people.  Our state senator proposes legislation to protect classes of people rather than all the people, even though he proclaims it to be for equity.  The media from the ultra liberal MSNBC to the ultimate right-wing FOX drive wedges of intolerance among people.  But worst of all, too many, far too many people express all forms of hatred toward people seeking a better life here than in their own country.


Our streets have too many gangs and unaccountable people punching each other, stranger, and the elderly in some acts of bravado masquerading as bravery.  We see husbands and boyfriend of popular celebrities beating of their partners.  Just the other day was a story about a man throwing a baby out the window of a moving car…because he was he was upset at the bay’s mother, his girlfriend.  I ask myself, “what led a mother of a child to even be with such a person, rather than with the child’s father?”  From pole to pole, as the saying goes, the norm is killing and destruction.  I am reminded of the final scenes from the Book of Mormon.  The people were so filled anger that they howled in despair, not because of their impending doom, but because they could not return fast enough to killing and mayhem.

All of those behaviors have been taught against for THOUSANDS of years by religions and social orders of every inclination.  Yet, I hear some people openly advocating the old cultures and norms are obsolete.

In reality all that is becoming obsolete is the humanity of humans.

That is The WAY I See It.

Answers needed, wanted.

I have a question and I hope I get some serious answers and/or comments.

At what point does someone have the authority to deprive one person of their rights and accomplishments to satisfy the desires of someone else?

I am a fussy person about words and their meaning.  I ask the above question but it frustrates me that I don’t have the words to express it more clearly.  Let me try to explain my dilemma.  “Point” is a terrible descriptive word.  By it I mean under what circumstances that may exist.  By authority I mean “control over”.    That probably does not clarify much, but I have tried.

I wanted to try to  keep the question short.  That was the best I could do at the moment.

The key, or most important aspect, to this question is what is not said outright.  What is the precise point or circumstance under which one person has right to control another?

Here is the development of the discussion.

  1. Do we or should we live in a society where there is equal protection under the law?  Let’s momentarily say “yes.”
  2. What is the precise point where I, you, or our elected officials have the authority to take money from one “rich” person and give  it to a poor person?  $50,000, $100,000, $1,000,000?  What is the precise point?
  3. Better still, who and how decides that point?

One answer I have received is “Do what is fair.”  What is fair?  Does a single 19-year-old, going to college, deserve more than a single 19 year old, not going to college?  Why?  Who sets that standard?

Does and elderly couple have an entitlement to less than a young couple?  Why?  Who sets that standard?

“There are basic human rights that everyone should have,”  is another answer I have received.  Then a list of issues like education, health care, a home, etc. follows.

Again my question is who decides what those basic human rights are?

Is it a high school education?

Is it one annual health check-up?

Is it an apartment, house, or mobile home?

Those questions are automatically followed by other equally serious questions.

What if someone does not want a high school, college, or advanced degree?  Yet, they want the benefits that come from whichever one meets their fancy, what then?

What if  someone wants a homeopathic check-up, instead of a medical certified one?  What about someone with chronic disease; should they be limited to one annual visit?

What about a family of two versus a family of six?

The question really is who gets to be judge and  jury to decide who gets what and at whose expense?

I want to know precisely.  Platitudes and lofty pontification are just dust in the wind.  Someone please give me the precise answer!

When a society, which in reality is nothing more than conglomerate of individual controllers, takes from one to give to another I would like to  know the standard it uses.

Why do I want to know that standard?  Because as the cliché’ says, “There ain’t no free lunches.”  When the individual, or a society, decides to gift something to one person…somebody pays the tab.  Who is the Master of Ceremonies, besides the thief?

I am serious when I say want someone to give me a cogent answer.  My views are pretty clear.  I seriously want others to opine.  This may appear frivolous and specious, but the truth is, it is the most relevant question that can be asked of our elected leaders.  Otherwise, they will thoughtlessly get the answer incorrect.

That Is the Way I See It.

Immigration Solution

There are thousands of people crossing the southern border into the United States.  Surprisingly, I don’t join in with those haters that want to crucify these people upon a cross of prejudice.  Yes, I said that know that I would be view as an Obama loving liberal, which I am not.  He is the worst leader in the history of the world.

Yet, I do classify myself in two other categories;  Humanitarian and Constitutionalist.

As a humanitarian I believe every person has a right to attempt to better their circumstances.  I also believe that each of us has a responsibility to assist each other in that quest, to the extent that we are able.  That should be an individual choice with compulsion or judgement.

People seeking to come here to America, for the most part, are people who view greater opportunities here than where they come from.  Yes, on the furry edge there are those that want to sneak in to the USA solely to be disruptive. maybe even create mayhem.  I choose to believe they are few.  We should individually and collectively be guard for them.  Yet, there is no need for us all to be consumed with their intents.

I am reminded of a poem I heard some years ago, one phrase says

“He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him In !”

We talk of building wall and fences to shut people out.  We should at least talk also of bridges that welcome them in.

Am I so humanitarian that I would advocate open borders?  OF COURSE I AM NOT!  That has been, is now, and would be disastrous.  Only a fool would accuse me of such a premise.

Humanitarian does not mean carte blanche giving gifts and opening doors.  Humanitarian means first and foremost providing opportunity.  Those opportunities are no better nor any worse for one over another.  But, again, that is a choice and should not be a mandate.

Now, I move on to Constitutionalist.  This nation is a constitution of fifty states, not 49 nor 51.  Each state, despite illogical opposition, is a sovereign unto itself.  Each subscribes to a national government.  That government was never intended to rule over the states, but rather to provide equal protection to the whole of them.  That is what did and should again “constitute” this nation.

I have emphasized that this is 50 states.  I have emphasized that we ought not to be seeking to build fences, despite the wisdom of Robert Frost. In that light, and quite different from Jonathan Swift’s ideas, I too have a modest proposal.

The United States provides millions, yea, Billions of dollars annually to buy friends from around the world.  (Oh, that international affairs could be more like Facebook where the click of a key, without cost, can make you a “friend.”)  In fact one foreign president suggested a donation of a couple more billion to him could solve a problem for us.

Rather than building walls and fences, rather than trucking bullets to the border, perhaps we could simply tell foreign nations to our south an alarming thought. “The people coming here are fleeing from you there.  That implies you have an unsolved problem.  We have not created it, nor should we fund it.  You solve your problem, so that it does not create for us a problem…or all the money stops flowing toward you!”

In my naiveté I believe that shortly our borders would be “flowing with milk and honey” rather than immigrants.

Is that simplistic.  Oh, sure it is.  But the complex and convoluted ideas coming from the national elected elitist certainly are not working.

That Is The Way I See It.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics…and, Now Lawsuits

My initial reaction to a congressional lawsuit of the president was negative.  To me it was just so much nonsense.

With Speaker John Boehner and his pied piper followers come a high level of suspicion about motive.  However, when I watched the President’s rude, childish, and disrespectful response I acquiesced to give the whole thing another look-see.  I don’t think my mind has changed, but something has been solidified.

First, there is sufficient cause to impeach Obama.  That is no longer a matter of dispute.  Barack Obama should be impeached in the House of Representative and convicted by the Senate, and consequently removed from office.  That is a foregone conclusion beyond rational debate.  That is what I believe the House should do.

I also understand why the House has dillidallied around.  The US Senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid, would not do the correct thing of convicting Obama even if he were caught burning the original Declaration of Independence.  Reid and his renegades would explain it away as an accident.  Thus, a House impeachment achieves nothing when the character of the senate is also equivalent to nothing.

The House has been mildly patient in holding off with any impeach…at least until after the November elections when they will know if a bunch of Republican candidates have been able to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  If Republicans take control of the senate, then the Republican  House could have impeachment completed and ready for the new senators to act on by their first day in office.  Joe Biden who has demonstrated mental unfitness for office could be gone by March 15, 2015.  I am not advocating that, because that would leave us with John Boehner, who would spend as much time in tanning salons as Obama spends golfing. 

But impeach is a good option to be rid of the American embarrassment called Barack Obama.

The lawsuit business is a different matter.

The lawsuit of the president is to place in the hands of Supreme Court the decision which Congress should be making.  The lawsuit is about an official declaration by the Supreme Court that the president’s powers are limited.  Congress, lacking the will to act as affirmatively as several presidents have,  is willing to place the Constitutional design of the federal government at risk.

Congress wants SCOTUS to say what they are unwilling to say, “Mr. President, stop the executive orders or we will stop the funding.”  It is not, has not, and never should be the place of the president to issues executive orders.  He should only take executive actionWITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF APPROVED LEGISLATION AND BUDGETS!

No lawsuit or decision by the Supreme Court will ever alter that basic reality.  Congress must act affirmatively to direct the president through legislation, or remove him from office.  No other body, not even the voters, can change that FACT of life.

That Is The Way I See It.

Presidential Culture Building

I have posted on this subject before.  I shall repeat myself.

The President of the United States is not an administrator!  He is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”  Further, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”

Those are his duties in a nutshell.  Anything more is too much more.  Anything less is dereliction of duty.

The President of the United States is not an administrator!   For far too long, and excessively so under Barack Obama, the presidents have sought to be administrators.  To repeat, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  That mean he shall execute the laws and go no further.  Accordingly, he should not deviate from the execution thereof.  Both are neither his responsibility, right, nor privilege.

The president is figure-head domestically, with eminent power internationally.  That translates to two serious roles.  I shall address the latter first.

The president should be representing the United States in all matters which affect the states in international affairs.  That does not include dalliances with nation building and the internal or even international affairs of other nations…up to the point that those affairs clearly and directly prove an eminent threat to the states.  Thus the president should be the best of diplomats which the nation can produce, not the poorest as we currently are experiencing.

Domestically the president is a culture builder.  That is about the sum and substance of it.  A lazy or inept Congress does not expand the president’s role.

As a culture builder each president has had their own style and capabilities.  Under John F. Kennedy American saw a vision of the future.  Beyond the cliché “the sky literally was the limit” of what and where we as a people could go.  Under Ronald Reagan America thrived with a culture of confidence.

Kennedy knew how to motivate people to believe in their future and hope in their heritage.  “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  We all remember hearing those words directly from him, or from a teacher along the years.  Less often heard were these words,

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans – born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage – and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge – and more.

Ronald Reagan was no lesser a man of culture of confidence.  Boldly he faced the world and America’s greatest adversary, Russia, and said,

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Now we come to today’s America, with Barack Obama as President.  He has established a culture of corruption.

As maligned as Jimmy Carter was for his failed presidency even he had moments where he was a true executive.  Obama has had none.  Jimmy Carter gave a rousing speech  wherein he said “”I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy,…The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.”  People were motivated.  Two days later he acted by dismissing his dismissive cabinet.

Yet, under Barack Obama there have been a multitude of failures.  It sounds like every department in the executive branch has found a way to offend, alienate, or deceive the American public.  The national government stinks of corruption.  That is the result of a culture perpetrated by this president.  Allow me to explain.

President don’t surround themselves with pansies.  They don’t sit in  the audience of wall flowers.  The men and women they surround themselves with are people of strong and dominating personalities.  They are the proverbial crowd that if given an inch they will take a mile.  Such powerful people must be led by an equally powerful person.  The presidency is no place for an apologist.  Barack Obama is an apologist.

Like most presidents Barack has gathered around him a gaggle of arrogant peacocks.  That may sound bad or maybe insulting.  It is seriously not meant to  sound that way.  Peacocks are fierce, protective, flamboyant, loud and proud.  They are arrogant.  By necessity the heads of departments in the executive branch MUST BE arrogant.  But they must be led.

President Obama has generated a culture of corruption by failing to lead.  He has failed to set the standards of conduct which he promised in his campaign speeches.  Those speeches were lofty and appealing to some.  However, they are now fading puffs of smoke.  And, this president’s response has been to whimper, snivel and insult.

Every department has been taken over by the person at the top (without any leadership), seeking arrogant acclaim and accolades.  Obama has permitted it to happen.  He has set no standards.  His role allows him to require of them regarding the duties of their office.  He hasn’t, and they have run amuck embarrassing both him and the nation.

He fears to offend Eric Holder, by insisting that the AG do his duty without fear or favor.  Just today he was used faint praise to defend the head of the CIA for violations of the law and lying.  He trembles at the idea that Hillary might reveal him for the incompetent person he is…if he confronts her about  Benghazi.  He has used executive orders to interfere with Congress, but no influence over the blatant lies of Lois Lerner.  He allows his flunkies to send guns into Mexico Cartels, allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to flood the border, and has no capacity to direct his Secretary of State to get a marine home from Mexico.

When confronted with a lying CIA Director he accepts the advice from self-inflated underlings to distract America with condemnation of Israel.

As much as I dislike repeating the old cliché Barack Obama is allowing the fox to guard the hen-house.  No, in reality, he is allowing foxes, wolves, and weasels to run the barnyard.

That Is The Way I See It.


Hate The Sin, Not The Sinner

In my particular faith association there is a phrase that is frequently used.

“Hate the Sin, Not the Sinner.”

That conveys the idea that we should possess an attitude of grace toward all people.  I, in fact, embrace that thought.

I recently received an extraordinarily vitriolic message from someone who “disagrees” with me  about Congressman Chris Stewart.  While praising him they called me everything but a white man.  I smiled through most of the note…until I got to the part where I was accused of hating the Congressman.  Then I became annoyed.

Because I criticize him for pandering to John Boehner and lying (or being astonishingly uninformed) to his constituents my latest fan believes I hate the man.  That is just so much silliness.

Just as we are to hate the sin, but not the sinner we can also hate the policies and conduct of elected officials with hating them.

I don’t know Congressman Stewart well enough to hate or love the man.  However, after over forty years of direct experience with candidates and politicians, and over half the time working directly with the policies imposed by them I do hate some of the actions.  Pandering is just one of those actions.

Since taking office the congressman has appeared to be ill-informed.  He also panders to whoever appears to be in minority power.  John Boehner is Speaker of the US House of Representatives.  Our Congressman show all the signs of worshiping him.  I hate that.

This congressman seems like a person that leads with his finger; his finger to the political winds.  That is pandering.

Utah is a state with scant influence in either presidential races or representation in Congress.  In the bigger scheme of things “bigger is better.”  California, Texas, New York, Florida all carry far more weight than Utah.  Let’s face reality.  Unless a presidential race is a sure thing nobody waits with baited breath how Utah is going to vote.  However, when the results in California or Florida (perpetually late in announcing results-intentionally by the way) are called, then the entire election is called.

In Congress, when Ohio, California, or New York votes people say “oh!”  When Utah votes people say “So.”

This is not meant to discredit Utah.  If anything , as you will see, it is meant as just the opposite.  Here is why.

Nearly since Utah became a state, and for most of its subsequent history, this state had fire brands for members of congress.  The have been men of stature who stood up and required themselves to be heard.  Fiesty, cantankerous, even bellicose?  Yes, when a voice required to be heard.

Utahans, possibly even unwittingly, do not want to be represented by milquetoast members of congress.  Senator Mike Lee is love and respected.  Chris Stewart is tolerated because we have a death wish to support anyone claiming to be a conservative Republican.

Utahans like the leaders to be leaders.  We object to House members that choose to be caddies for John Boehner.

Does that mean Chris Stewart will be replaced? Not likely!  When your name is followed by an “R” you can be re-elected until you go to jail.  Even then you might be re-elected if the judge let you out on the one day of the week that congress actually voted.  That is all unfortunate.  John Boehner does not need another caddy, nor does he need someone to carry around his excessive supply of taxpayer purchased sun tan lotion, or boxes of Kleenex.  Stewart is happy to do any of those duties if it will get him that much more of the teacher’s pet.

He is not the only choice this November.  neither is the Democrat.

It is time to get back having a spokesman for Utah rather than a mouthpiece for the oracle of Ohio.

That Is The Way I See It.


Are You Ready………………..?

It is time for radical political change in America.  It really is!

Since Obama has been elected president the federal government has become overwhelmingly despicable.  Character and accomplishment in Washington are at all time lows.  It is time for radical political change.

The Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as the Obamacarrot) was passed.  Then it has been proven that the president lied about it and his administration is too incompetent to even implement it.  The tech gurus don’t have the capacity to accomplish what many 12 year kids can do.

Drug dealers in Mexico were furnished with high-powered guns which were used to kill US Border Patrol agents.

Unemployment has remained at completely unacceptable levels.  Welfare and food stamps have escalated.  Economic hardship has never been more expansive…even during the Great Depression.

The president and thusly the entire nation has become the laughing-stock of the world.  Where we once led the world in production, we have now nearly become a third world country.

President Obama promised to close the issue on terrorist detainees, and failed to close the door.  In fact, slightly off topic, he couldn’t even manage to close the White House door to interlopers seeking paparazzi pictures of themselves at a state dinner.

Further, our very own Nero fiddled while a foreign embassy and ambassador burned.  Ok, that is overstatement.  He fiddled with his golf clubs.  I guess he was re-wrapping the grips, his only known skill.  That little venture cost four American lives.

That was the tip of the iceberg.  Hundreds have died in Afghanistan because he simply didn’t know how to get them out of that country, or in control of the situation.

All prestige the United States had in the land of the pharaohs has been lost due to this president’s buffoonery.

Thousands of lives were lost in Iraq.  Whether this nation should have ever been there will be a matter of talking head debates on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX for eons to come.  But the fact remains thousand of lives and billions of dollars in US treasure were expended in Iraq.  Just in the past few weeks all those lives and dollars were proven wasted, lost for naught, because this president would rather read the cartoon page than take the time to study national security briefings.  Another way to say that is to say, “this president is a cartoon.”

A jetliner vanishes, presumably hijacked and flown to a secluded location in the middle east to resurface again in a major attack on America or an ally.  Within a few months another plane is shot down, killing Americans in the Ukraine, as the Russian president smirks at Obama’s response.  That response was not even outrage.  It was another vacation.  One has to wonder how leaving the process of doing nothing…to do more nothing, qualifies as a vacation.

Thousand of illegal immigrants are flooding across the Southern US border, but this boy king (Obama) can’t get one decorated Marine across the border from Mexico.  That is quite surprising given the fact that he was able to trade five known terrorists for one suspected terrorist.  While Governor Perry is playing “Texas we’ll Hold’em” out, Obama is playing slapjack with Congress.  Which brings me to the real point of this post.

For all of Barack Obama’s obvious flaws as a leader, decision-maker, and human being (receiving hundreds of thank you notes from Jimmy Carter daily) he can be mildly excused.  What?

Congress, under the leadership of John Boehner and Harry Reid are even worse.  They allow congress to sit on their collective donkey posteriors passing gas to their constituents.  Congress, and specifically the House of Representatives have the power to immediately and irrevocably shut down Barack Obama’s reign of terror or reign of incompetence (whichever phrase you choose to use).  Sadly, just as Barack is preoccupied with fiddling while the nation burns, John Boehner is fiddling while he burns in a suntan parlor.

Folks it is time for the people to make the decisions that the “leaders” are incapable of making.  Three simple steps should be taken:

  1. Stop all purchasing.  Yes, all!  When the economy slows politicians take notice, because the only thing they understand is money and bribes.
  2. Use up whatever vacation and sick leave time you have by not working one day each week.
  3. Do not vote this November.  Yes, I know that sound counter productive and not in your best interest, but it is in your best interest and the nation’s best interest.  The one caveat is that you tell your congressional representative, EVERY DAY, that you intend on not voting.  Say it and mean it!

What do we demand? may be the question.

  1. Immediate accountability by all agencies of the federal government.  No more BS.  Just complete openness.  Lois Lerner has immunity from testifying against herself in a court of law, not before Congress.  She and hundred of other liars and incompetents should be fired without pension.
  2. Get into foreign affairs and finish them WITH POWER,… or get out.
  3. Immediate reduction in the federal bureaucracy, using every means available to make it happen.
  4. Demand that every member of Congress be impeached if they tell another lie.  Yes, I recognize that will leave only about three functioning members…for a while.

Either we can and will all take control, or we can continue to whine.  What is your choice?

That Is The Way I See It.

To Act, or, Not to Act. That is the question.

I tend to friend folks on Facebook that fit the category of people who describe themselves as “conservative.”  Of course I have friended others that have the opposite point of view.  It makes no difference, really.  Why?

Because in my experience most folks on Facebook simply like to repost cutesy “memes.”  The ones I see the most of are criticism of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.  Usually they are depicted lying in their native environment of ignorance.  Just pictures.

Yet, the people behind posting those pictures are at various levels of seriousness.  They truly dislike the excessive expansion of government control.

The role of the governments in the USA is to provide protection to its citizens as they (THE CITIZENS) hack their way through the jungle building paths of purpose and progress.  The popular cult of bureaucracy now views that role as obsolete.  They believe they must build the path, protect the people, keep the people off the paths, regulate how rapidly the people may, etc.

Over the years of unfettered practice the bureaucracy has come to design a mechanism of providing benefits with hidden controls over productivity.  Production is now power by the steam engine of corporate welfare.

Yet, the cartoons and complains go on, and on, and on.  As a society we are adept at howling at the moon…but wait for dinner to arrive on our doorstep.

It is frustrating to watch.  Too many people, far too many, bark from behind the safety of the closed front door and then cower when confronted with the opportunity to bite the mailman of bureaucracy and regulation.  Too often I have heard people say “I am doing my part.  See the meme I posted defaming Obama.”  The president of pandering chuckles behind his golf cart, “stick and stones; sticks and stones.”

Who is willing to actually live beyond their “sticky notes” of criticism?

I have presented this idea many times, and I will continue to do so.  “Actions speak louder than words.”

If a scant fourteen percent (14%) of the people of this nation, not a majority or even close to it, would embrace their inner voice they could change the misbehavior of the derelict domination of regulatory bureaucrats.  How?

Stop buying!  Yep, it’s that simple.  Stop buying.  Every non-essential could be left on the store shelves.  AND OH, there are so many non-essentials.

Yes, I know the weak-willed would argue about hurting the economy and local businesses.  I have heard all the arguments…at least a dozen times.  But the question remains; “Has waiting, hoping, and posting memes done ANY good, beyond assisting one to believe they are doing something?”

The answer is a resounding “NO.”

With a 14-18% decline in economic activity the Congress, even the most insane among them, would begin to tremble at the prospect.  As the old saying goes “money is the mother’s milk of politics.”  With a little spilled milk the hall of the capital would be flowing with tears.

The time is here now, not tomorrow, not November, not in 2016.  NOW!  Simply say no more buying until there is less regulation.  In the end the economy will be far stronger and the nation will be far more unified.

That Is The Way I See It.


Religious Hatred???

I have watched a friend with fascination.  He, Jimi Kestin, is the Sr. Pastor at the Foursquare Gospel congregation in St. George.  He and his wife have taken under their wings a young person in need of compassion and kindness.

Yesterday, I Dana and I had the opportunity to eat at a local restaurant.  There were several people from out of town that were attending a conference here.  I engaged one gentleman in a conversation about the conference, which was a gathering of Jehovah Witnesses.  I noticed that the man and his wife had clearly adopted two children ( of different race and nativity).

Another friend is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  She and her husband had taken the opportunity to care for a young person from a alternate religious lifestyle.

All of these people are open, caring, supportive of others.  In conversations they each have interesting, if not provocative, viewpoint.  Yet, each is very receptive and cordial.

Their commonality is faith in Jesus Christ and His teachings.  What is particularly interesting to me is that they all seem to be making great effort to practice those teaching.

In the middle east most of the people have ancestry and/or religious orientations that date back to the times and teaching of Abraham.  In my naive viewpoint it would seem that those things which unite us, or them, should be stronger than those that divide us.

That Is The Way I See It.

The Law of Unintended Consequences, and such.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times;

it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness;

it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity;

it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness;

it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair;

we had everything before us, we had nothing before us;

we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.”

As in all times, those were the days of Robert K. Merton.  The year was 1936 and our friend had written a novel piece of non-fiction titled “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.”  Thus began the formalization of the theory of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
In short this law simply means that if you don’t think about  what might happen, or don’t know what might happen, there is a reasonable chance that what you didn’t think or didn’t know will happen.  Not is not essentially where the problem exists!
The far more serious problem exist when you don’t prepare for the unexpected to happen.  Unintended consequences have their greatest impact on those with that have unintended reactions.
We frequently observe this phenomena occur with zeal among government officials.  Government officials tend to be eagerly engaged in “setting thing right.”  These are the pandering potentates of populism that rush to reorganize the kitchen because a flash in the pan of social insult.  Stated differently a little spilled oil causes them to slide mercilessly into leaving skid marks on routine social events.
I make reference to one such faux pas; the unintended consequence of seeking even greater society wide applause for being in office.
Over the years politicians have talked, argued, and pontificates about voter turnout and participation.  I believe there is a couple of reasons for that discussion.  First, and maybe foremost is that it is a safe subject.  A politician can’t be made to look too much jackass by encouraging more people to vote.  Unless, of course, that jackass is a Democrat.
The second reason is because some politicians actually believe that any participation by the electorate is better than informed participation.  “Better a posse of galloping fools, than the man who knows the truth.”
So I have set the stage for my particular bias.  Not only is it unnecessary to encourage uninformed voters, it is detrimental.
Yet, the analysis goes further than that.  Unintended consequences.
As politicians have sought to make access to voting easier I doubt it has made voting more informed.  Some statistics support my assessment.  And, as we all know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Online voting, mail-in voting, identification-less voting, etc. have been promoted and continued to be flaunted about by the vote buyers.  The unintended consequence has been a deterioration in the perceived merit of voting.  Generally, people are less inclined to vote because the value of voting has been diminished.
There is a saying I heard once those goes something like this.  Performance monitored, improves.  Performance monitored and measures improves dramatically.  The sentiment applies with easy voting.  When a person needs only put in minimal effort to vote the performance of voting will not ultimately improve.
Measuring and monitoring voting should have an element of required effort by the participant.  The intended consequence will be improved performance.
The years of unfettered and “make-easy” voting have had the unintended consequence of lessening the perceived value of voting.  Sadly, because one element that causes unintended consequences is as Sociologist Merton said;
“The two top reasons why the law of unintended consequences works, according to Merton, is that the framers of
a social change are either ignorant of possible far-reaching effects of the law or make errors when they develop a
change that don’t have the effects they desired.”
A person’s value system may also fail to make them look past their system when taking an action of any kind to evaluate how the law of unintended consequences might work.
Rather than perpetuating a theory that easier voting will improve voting, perhaps we ought to reverse course from that preconceived notion.  Make the merit of voting have a little touch of personal effort.
I suggest a modest proposal, hopefully suitable to at least Jonathan Swift.
1.  Get the government out of the partisan candidate selection process.
2.  All voting return to being required at a polling place; just dump all of the mail-in and online voting nonsense.  Both are unmonitorable and logistically measurable.
3.  National elections should be 24 hour events.  Every poll in every state opens at the same time and closes at the same time, regardless of time zone.
The emphasis on ease has failed us.  It is one of the unintended consequences.  However, the devastating outcome has been that our eager beavers of social restructuring (elected elitists) remain unprepared for the FACT that unintended consequences have occurred and thus continue spin their wheels while bogged down in the mud of self-importance.
That Is The Way I See It.

An Independence Day Message

The consummate battle in the history of the world has been to force people to do good.

This week we are celebrating battles.  We are parading about in honor of wars won.  Specifically, symbolically, we are pumping our collective fists in the air in honor of the victories won on US soil.

Today, celebrations and speeches are echoing over the hills and dales of Gettysburg. PA.  For several straight days 150 years ago The Union was driven back.  The Rebel cause was advancing.  Then the winds shifted.  The tide of freedom rolled in upon shoreline that divided liberty from servitude.  When that tide receded it was blood red…from the blood of good men.

Of that massacre of a miniscule measure of mankind Abraham Lincoln uttered these words, always to be remembered by every American, perhaps by all the literate world, “we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground“.

In three days we shall celebrate the 237th anniversary of another combination of immortal words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.

It should not be lost to the eye, ear, heart or mind of the casual observer that both these events declared without flinching that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty”.

There is a doctrine unknown to much of the world.  I call it the doctrine of “original pride”.  Poorly summarized in simplistic terms is says that Satan fell from grace with God because of his pride.  He had desire to force all men to be good.  Alternatively, Jesus Christ offered salvation not through force but through each person’s will.  Joshua (the Hebrew name for Jesus), of the Old Testament summed it up quite well when he said “choose ye this day whom thou will serve”.

Throughout history the consummate battle has been between choice and compulsion.

The well-known dictators; Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Alexander the Great, King George, et al, have all professed to act in goodness to provide for their people.  In the process they have trample that eternal right of choice.  In the interest of forcing upon the people what was good they waged war against that which is truly good, the freedom to choose.  Millions of lives have lain wasted in heaps through the ages of time because one man occasionally garnered the support to oppress all men into goodness, according to their narrow perspective of goodness.

The Declaration of Independence and the battle at Gettysburg, PA are but symbols of what mankind will do “for liberty” or “for force”.  Colonist having crossed a raging ocean to choose to begin a new life of liberty proclaimed “We will not be slaves again”.  Abraham Lincoln paid the utter most farthing to say to a group of people, most of whom he never met, nor would ever meet; you shall not be mastered, but rather shall be masters of your of choosing.

Throughout our various governments today there are thousand upon thousands of people overtly or subtly saying “I shall be your master…for your good!”  These people find it convenient to oppress some so that others may benefit.  Isn’t that good?

Indeed it is not at all good! At best it is sufficient.  At its worst it is the imposition of servitude…in the “false” name of good.

It has always been, and shall always be that those who would force good upon others will ultimately force dominion upon them also.

Once shackled by oppression there is but one means of escape.  It requires a hammer and chisel.  They will beat not solely upon the chains that incarcerate but also upon the oppressor.  When one is forced to be good, if not them than the generations that follow shall beat out their liberty upon anvil of oppression.

So, then, and now, the battle is really not about “good” at all.  The battle is about the liberty to choose.

“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

When we ALL become willing to beat our chains into plowshares we may rest assured that our swords and spears shall quickly follow course.

The Choice

I begin with my best recollection of a quote by a highly educated man whom has spent many years in leadership.

“The choice in life in not between obscurity and fame, nor, between poverty and wealth.  The choice in life is between good and evil.”

I offer a modification of that premise for strictly social/political perspectives.

“The choice in social life is between individual liberty and servitude.”1044030_561607060544201_544391676_n

Individual liberty is present in a person that accepts authority, responsibility, and accountability for their life.  Individual libertarians profess and acknowledge that they have the sole authority to make decisions about their present and their future.  When faced with any choice, they claim that they and they alone possess the power and right to make a decision.

Further, an individual libertarian holds themself alone responsible for the outcome of the use of that authority.  When they take upon them a decision through their authority they acknowledge the they have a duty to follow through to the responsible end of that decision.  They do not have obligation to applaud others nor blame other for the outcome. They acknowledge that they and they alone hold the full weight of responsibility for the outcome.

Lastly, an individual libertarian recognizes that they are account able for the outcome of their responsibility.  They own both failure and success.

Servitude is just the opposite of individual liberty.  The authority for decisions rest outside the person and with another.  The responsibility is defined by another.  Accountability is exacted by another.

Now, in the course of life an individual libertarian may choose at various times and circumstances when they subject themselves to the authority of other.  Yet, in doing so they are exercising their authority to choose to be subject to another.  The consequence of responsiblity and accountability flow therefrom.

Framers of the Constitution and other forefather of our nation recognized virtually every generation must reaffirm the authority they will retain and that which they will surrender.  That is the essence of willing subjection.

It is only when an ad hoc government perpetuates force of authority that a people enter servitude.

We live in a time when nearly all governments operate under the presumption perpetual authority.  Rather than recognizing every man’s individual liberty governments are overbearing.  Such governments have contempt for liberty.  Now, I use the government maybe too loosely.  Governments are inanimate object of social construct.  They simply mechanism, nothing more.  The real and absolute culprit in the theft of authority are in the elected and appointed representatives.  It rest in the hearts and minds of those that will recognize every individual as having liberty…or that every man should be in servitude.

The choice in social life for every man is this, “Am I entitled to liberty, or, shall I go gracefully into the night of servitude?”

Another poll

Here is a new poll for those who like to express their opinion anonymously.

More with the Sunbowl

It appears much has been decided about the Sunbowl.  I am hopeful that I am wrong.  It is possible that is just a perception which certain bureaucrats want conveyed.  Yet, the people of St. George will presumably have the last word, even if it comes in November.

It is all too frequent that people reach the decision that “you can’t fight city hall”.  When in fact what actually transpires is that people get worn down and give up.

One reason people give up is because “city hall” tends to spend far more time justifying their decisions than seriously seeking public input.  That may end up being the case here, with the Sunbowl.

I read the newspaper reasonably regularly, and don’t recall seeing anything about open discussion at regular city council meetings.  I’m not saying it hasn’t been there, just that I haven’t seen it…and many other people in the city also have not seen it.  There have been “work sessions” of the city council, but they are even generally less well attended by the public than regular business meetings.

In several states there are specific legislated procedures required of municipalities to dispose of public property.  I am researching Utah Law in an attempt to determine if Utah has such restrictions.  But whether they have those restrictions or not, when a historic facility in a city is going to be dumped there should be ample time and encouragement for public input from ALL interested parties, not just a few.

I strongly encourage readers to comment and let me know if I missed the public meetings where demolition of the Sunbowl was discussed at length.

The construction of the Sunbowl was a community project, led by the Lions Club.  It was not a government project.  If it is going to be demolished, than that too should be a community decision.

Being familiar with how government projects evolve I know that many many times a concept is formulated in someone’s mind.  Then, engineers are dispatched to design the concept on paper.  From there commitments are made to defend that design and proposal as the only viable alternative.  My impression is that is exactly what happened with this three-way wheeler-dealer trade to capture tax dollars from the state… to pay for a local project.

The idea being touted is that the win-win is for everyone (everyone meaning municipal, university, and school district officials; not necessarily the interested public) will result in Hansen Stadium being used for rodeos, and the Sunbowl being torn down to build a new elementary school.  I have no disrespect for the rodeo.  I love a good rodeo.  However, the Sunbowl is not simply about a rodeo.  It is about preservation of history.

Whether at the Sunbowl (which is fine) or elsewhere the rodeo ought to have its own venue.  If it is going to moved, which has questionable merit, another location downtown is not practical.  When it becomes essential to relocate a rodeo (again highly questionable here) most cities opt for new locations away from their central business district, not onto a growing university campus football field, costing thousands of dollars annually for maintenance.  The supposition is that the money will be spent to create more bleacher space at the stadium to accommodate the rodeo.  In reality, it is a scheme to generate more seating for the routine and “profit generating” events at the stadium, with the rodeo being secondary.  It may offend some, who may very well need the offending, but this scheme is not about rodeos or multi-use venues.  It is about free money.  As is often said in politics, “if you want to know what is really going on…follow the money trail.”

With reference to the elementary school I will ruffle more feathers.  The central city district is currently highly transition residential.  There are some long time families living there and I mean them no disrespect.  However, the bulk of families with elementary age children is highly transitional.  That in no way implies they are substandard, or that they don’t merit quality elementary schools.  They most certainly do.  However, the demand for classroom space will be in constant fluctuation. The millions in other people’s dollars, contributed by the state, could be be spent on quality upgrade of the existing elementary school.  What is actually happening with the three-way deal is that the school district is trading away an existing location for educating kindergarten graduates in order to give the university a party place for potential college graduates.  Every other higher education facility in Utah, except Utah Valley, is more disbursed than Dixie State.  They function well and graduate students on a regular basis.

Putting an elementary school at the location of the Sunbowl place young reactive children at one of the widest busiest intersections, from all directions, in the city.  It is an invitation for a crisis.  I hope those that are signing off on this three-way deal are as quick to say the demise of a child is as practical as the demise of the Sunbowl.

Now, I have “heard”, in the absence of public forum, the use of a city park will be shared.  “If it happens, the city and the school district would share playgrounds (Vernon Worthen Park) and sports recreation components of the new school.”  Really?  Seriously?  Given recent events across the nation (two incidents in Utah), the most egregious being Newtown, CT (home of my ancestors), do moms really want their children sharing a park with unknown adults with unknown motivations.  What actually will happen is a tall chain-link fence will be built around wherever the school district allows the children to play (supervised by a couple teachers and a part-time bus driver).  The school district attorneys, regardless of what might be professed by bureaucratic administrators, will insist on actions to protect the bureaucracy against lawsuits…even if it also mean protecting children.  The predicted response is that the park will only be accessible during non-school hours.  All the better opportunity for someone intent of harming children to leave some dangerous element on the playground for the next day.

The dangers I mention about a shared park facility will easily be dismissed as being manageable.  That is one of my main concerns.  Every aspect of this proposal can ultimately be “managed away” through talking points.  That is at the crux of the problem.  A public decision made in secret negotiations being defended at any cost against criticism.  Rather than trying to manage away inherent problem in a bad idea, how about “throwing away” the bad idea.

This whole concept of a three-way deal is personified by the glories of “working together” which I would wholeheartedly support, if that were really the situation.  When striped of its “talking points” this three-way theatric slams head-first into one reality.  The university is the one that really gains from it.  They get more seating for THEIR sports venue.  They get more property for THEIR purposes.  It is wonderful that the university is here.  I am personally happy about that.  In fact, scampering back a few years I was at the forefront of attempts to attract a university to a city I was managing.  Yet, city governments represent the whole city, not simply a wealthy prominent segment.

It is truly time to stop pretending that destruction of the Sunbowl is the best solution.  Let’s stop pretending that an elementary school is the highest and best use of a desecrated past.  Let’s cease pretending that football revenue is more valuable for the present than the revenue of memories cherished in a monument, built by a city of volunteers rather than by expedient politicians of today.

Sixty years ago St. George leaders shouted, “It’s a good idea, let’s do it.”  Yet, today the echo back is “Is it expedient?”

Utah stands at the forefront of all fifty states boldly professing “We will honor the founding fathers”.  Yet, on a whim our representatives whimper in the shadows, “Our owner predecessors would make the same mistakes we are making, if they knew all the facts.”

Many people have contacted me since I stuck my head into this particular public noose, saying they agree.  I hope that shall not find myself to be a majority of one, when the rationalization of presumed rational men begin their long winded explanation that “every alternative was looked at, and this is the best.”

Save The Sunbowl

Today, in St. George, I had a quaint experience.  I took my camera and went up to the 65 year city old landmark, The Sunbowl, located at approximately 150 South 400 East.

Dixie's Sunbowl 150 S. 400 East  St. George, Utah

Dixie’s Sunbowl
150 S. 400 East
St. George, Utah

Finding an open gate and no “no trespassing” sign I wandered down onto the grassy field.  There was another gentleman there, whose name I didn’t catch.  He was canvassing the terrain with a treasure hunter’s metal detector.  I’m no expert on such things, but it looked high quality.  I joked with him for a minute about finding some cowboys gold watch.

As I watched him for couple minutes I reminisced about the time I went gold panning at country carnival.

I wanted to tell him, ‘Raise your sights.  This entire place is the treasure!”  There is gold in that there bowl.

Along with my brief stint of couple of decades in municipal government management (less than a third of the lifetime of the Sunbowl) I also became a certified Main Street Manager.  What that means is I have a strong interest in historic preservation.  In fact, since I am boasting, I will confess to managing one of only four cities in Utah that received legislative set aside funding for historic preservation and facade restoration.  Additionally, in upstate New York I ran a grant program for restoration of historic buildings. In humility, I suggest that I know a little about what I am talking about.

Dixie's Sunbowl 150 S. 400 East  St. George, Utah

Dixie’s Sunbowl
150 S. 400 East
St. George, Utah

In the Sunday, June 16, 2013 Spectrum article, The Price of Preserving History, several structures were talked about being historic.  (I encourage you to read the article.)  The Sun Bowl was not listed among them.  The City of St. George owns many of the local historic structures, and preserves them.  That is laudable.  Others have been demolished over the years in favor of new stuff.

Last week I visited with mayoral candidate Jon Pike about the Sun Bowl.  In essence, I volunteered my time to assist in bringing venues to the Sun Bowl to raise funding for its necessary upgrades.  I was quite surprised when he mention that a three-way negotiation was under way to ultimately build an elementary school on the site.  According to him,

“I really think the Sunbowl is going to be replaced by a new elementary school. A three-way deal is well under way. Very difficult situation. Love to talk with you about it.”

It would be a shame to demolish a historic for another crowded elementary school site.  I oppose, for what it’s worth, such a prospect.  I hope that many residents oppose it also.

What surprises me is that none of the people I have spoken with have indicated knowledge of this “three-way deal”.  One issue that is surfacing in the St. George city council race is the need for greater transparency.  It appears that some folks believe too much is done behind closed doors.  I hope the future of The Sunbowl is not one of those situations.  The bull dozing of a landmark should have substantial public discussion. I hope candidates for city Council and mayor will agree.

Recently a project of interest to the mayor has received special presentation to the city council and, as I understand, funding in the future budget.  The project of which I speak in the corrective action necessary to restore the hill west of the city center.  For nearly half the lifetime of The Sunbowl that scar has been there.  It is now as much a landmark as it is a scar.  On one hand the city will spend resources to correct a problem it didn’t overtly create, but overlook preservation of a 65-year-old monument to the city’s past.  I believe that warrants much more open and “transparent” discussion than it has received.

Dixie's Sunbowl 150 S. 400 East  St. George, Utah

Dixie’s Sunbowl
150 S. 400 East
St. George, Utah

The Lion’s Club has focused attention on preservation of The Sunbowl.  They should be applauded.  Citizen’s are ready to step forward to assist.  I cannot speak for all but I have experience with grant writing and major event planning.  Whatever talents I may have gained from those experience are at the free disposal of the city.  There are many many other folks with far superior talents to my own that I believe would step forward if given a legitimate opportunity.

I look forward to reading your comments.

The following is an online conversation I said with Jon Pike, on Facebook.  It is intended to provide additional insight into what is transpiring with The Sunbowl.  Please do not consider it a criticism of Mr. Pike.  He graciously gave me an succinct update as to what is currently transpiring.  I wish to thank him for his openness, and cordial explanation.

“For starters, though, on the Sunbowl, the issues are several fold. DSU needs more land to expand. The school district needs to build a new elementary school in central St. George to replace an ailing East Elementary in a few years. The city likes the idea of attracting more families to central St. George. The Sunbowl, while an awesome part of our history, isn’t actually the right size for rodeo (too long), lacks sufficient parking for any large event, needs at least $2 million to do a relatively minor upgrade, and due to its outdoor nature, isn’t a good venue for concerts that get loud. So, the state has already agreed in principle to fund DSU’s purchase of East Elementary over the next two years. The school district is planning a bond election this November to enable them to build a number of new schools. Since they haven’t been able to identify any other property in central St. George, the Sunbowl is a possible location. If it happens, the city and the school district would share playgrounds (Vernon Worthen Park) and sports recreation components of the new school. The rodeo could then move to Hansen Stadium where new large portable bleachers would be purchased to turn the stadium into a better rodeo arena. The bleachers could also be used to make the stadium a better venue for high school football playoff games.

Anyway,lots of things being discussed by each of the parties involved, including the Lions Club.”

Father’s Day

I would like to redefine “father”.  If not redefine it, at least offer a little different perspective on what it means.  As a practicing Christian (I say “practicing”, because I am not an “accomplished” Christian like so many people I know) I want to appeal to a few phrases from the bible.

In John 1:12-13 we read “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Further in 1 John3;1-2 we see, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

Now, I will grant that I might be making much ado about nothing.

Yet, elsewhere in holy writ we see reference to “offspring”, the “seed” of, and “begotten” when speaking of literal descendents.  For my purposes here I would like to champion the idea that being “sons and daughters” encompasses doing the will of and becoming like the father.  It reaches beyond discipleship, which embraces the teaching of another person.  It is all of that discipleship, yet, it is also the absolute intent to comprehend and emulate the behavior of another.

Jesus Christ proclaimed that he and the Father were one.  He was not only a disciple.  He was the perfect emulation of His Heavenly Father.  If I may, here is a quaint analogy.  Jesus Christ was the son of God because he was the sun that shined the Love of God on all mankind.  He and God the Father were one in bringing to pass the exaltation and eternal life of man.

At a personal level those that honor their earthly father are sons and daughters because they emulate their earthly father.  They do not obey out constraint, but rather out of love, trust, honor, and confidence.  In each them, their dads are seen by others.  They are sons and daughters of their dads, not simply by birth certificate, but rather because they are like their father.  When folks that knew their biological fathers see those children they likewise see the father in those children.  It comes out, because it cannot help coming out.

Many a year ago I remember an anti-smoking commercial that showed a little boy sitting under a tree pretending to smoke a cigarette.  Then it showed his dad doing the exact same thing, sitting under a tree.  Then the commercial made a clear and simple statement, “Like Father, Like Son”.

Because this is a political blog I guess I better say something about politics.

The framers of the Constitution, and George Washington in specific are frequently referred to as the Father(s) of our country.  The question I ask is “Are we the sons and daughters of that George Washington?”  He placed nobility in public conduct above all else.  Do we do the same?  He defended the ultimate right of each man to determine his own fate, without the intrusion of the government.  Do we do the same?

President Washington is purported to have said “I cannot tell a lie”.  Are any of our recent presidents “sons” of George Washington.  Are they willing to emulate him.  Are they, or members of Congress and state legislatures, willing to sacrifice all for their honor?

Just as Christ said, “All have fallen short of the glory of God”.  Thus, we ought not to expect perfection from ourselves as sons and daughters.  However, as the apostle John said “to them (us) gave he power to become the sons of God”.  Likewise, we have the power to become the sons and daughters of the patriarchs of our nation.

Today is Father’s Day.  A dozen generations of fathers have passed since George Washington.  Dozens of generations of fathers have passed since Jesus Christ proclaimed “Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father, which is in Heaven is perfect”.  Thousands of generations have passed since God placed Adam in the garden of Eden and then asked “Is it good that man should be alone” and then instructed Adam and his wife to be fruitful and multiply.

Today is Father’s Day.  Many different values permeate society.  Moses delivered a message to the people of Israel, “honor your father that your days may be long…”

The serious question for our day is, “Whom shall we choose to be our father?”

Innocent until proven guilty?

Today I received an email from the Utah Eagle Forum, presented as an “Action Alert”.  I am usually and generally in agreement with the Eagle Forum.  They are not the extremist organization that hate mongers would make them out to be.

However, today’s Action Alert departs from the standard high credibility for which the Utah Eagle Forum is well-known.  It comes rushing to the defense of Attorney General John Swallow.  The logic behind that race-to-defense is as suspect as the allegation they pose against those who they claim have rushed to judgement against the embattled Attorney General.

The Forum uses the convenient number of ten to list the egregious attacks on John Swallow.  Some items on that list are shallow underminings of reason at best. Others are simply flawed understandings of popular, yet misguided phrases.  I speak of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” sentiment.

Says the Eagle Forum’s Action Alert, “Under the law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, a concept apparently forgotten by the media.”  This is sound if properly understood, and not applied to a pending impeachment…which the Forum is applying it to.

Let’s begin with the obvious.  “Innocent until proven guilty” is not a phrase found in the Constitution.  The presumption that the government must prove guilt is certainly there.  It is just and sound doctrine.  But even then it applies to proving criminal accusations.  The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” was used by the courts to clarify the intent of the language of the Constitution.  Yet, even then the courts consistently have opined that a person tried must be proven guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”.  Reasonable doubt does not mean “beyond ANY doubt”.

The Free Legal Dictionary, which provides historical precedent in addition to simple definitions, states,

“The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.”

With respect to the indulgence in financial dalliance, of which ample accusation has been proffered, there is no need to even consider “innocence until proven guilty” in an impeachment procedure.  Impeachment is not about determining criminal innocence or guilt.  It is about evaluating credibility and social fitness for office.  There are voices of special interest that would have us deceived into believing otherwise.  But, that just ain’t so.

Neither impeachment nor public sentiment must comply with the standard of reasonable doubt or innocence until proven guilty, in determining the merits of a public servant.  To suggest otherwise would lead to depriving all people of their right of conscience.

Those voices as represented by the presumption of the Eagle Forum’s list of essentially required blindspots which states,

THE most important reason for the legislature to NOT initiate impeachment proceedings at this time is because Attorney General John Swallow has done absolutely nothing since becoming the attorney general of Utah that would justify or even suggest impeachment. Read what the Utah Constitution says about impeachment; “The Governor and other State and Judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office.” Note that it specifies “in office.”  (emphasis added) Allegations brought prior to John’s becoming attorney general are irrelevant to an impeachment and have not been substantiated or proved by any CREDIBLE source and are currently being investigated by the FBI.”

John Swallow is relying upon the fact that he was elected by a sizable majority of the electorate.  Fair argument, although without substance.

  1. The indiscretions which he has not denied, potentially led to his having one of the largest campaign war chests in Utah history for any statewide candidate.
  2. The allegations against him were strategically hidden from public scrutiny several weeks before the election.  The result of which, if they had not be sequestered, might very well have resulted in a justified alternate outcome in the race.
  3. His conduct was apparently undenied malfeasance, although denied by those with a narrow perspective of protecting their political interests ahead of the overall social interests.  The timing of his misconduct may elude the phrase “malfeasance in office“.  But, ask the serious and relevant question does it diminish his “malfeasance FOR THE office”?  I happen to think it does not excuse him.

Further the Eagle Forum Action Alert uses strawman arguments about the costliness of impeachment.  First, the millions which they presume is pure speculation.  Second, are we to conclude that collusion in high places and continuance of corruption is less costly than cleansing the public conscience ?  Again, I think not.

Lastly, the Eagle Forum has tossed all of their apples into the bottomless basket of the FBI investigation.  Is this the same FBI that has a director that does not even know the name of his chief investigator in the most prominent case before them in fifty years?  Is this the same FBI that has failed to contact any of the parties aggrieved by the recent unconstitutional actions of the federal government.  Well, Yes, come to think of it they are the same.  It is unreasonable to rely upon the skills of an inept overreaching federal agency.  But, at least we can expect them to have the private phone records of private citizen…or be able borrow those records from the president’s campaign committee.  Oh, wait, that was an unfair assertion, …I guess.

There would be no need for an impeachment, if.  There would be no need for an investigation, if.  There would be no need for the ongoing drama, if.

If what?

If John Swallow would resign.  Nobody, except John Swallow caused the public focus on this issue.  Nobody but John Swallow is hung-up on his public financial benefit.  Despite efforts to question the integrity of his accusers, he need only look at his own long-term ongoing agenda of deception to see the cause.

Why are you out of Jail?

I have posted this reference before, but it bears repeating.

In the play “The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail” by Lawrence and Lee, Ralph Waldo Emerson is standing at the window of Henry David Thoreau’s jail cell asking him , “Henry, what are you doing in jail”?  In response the scene closes with Thoreau answering by way of a question, “Waldo, what are you doing out of jail”?

Over the past several months we have been inundated with story after story of the intrusiveness of the government into the lives of Americans.  They have imposed on the freedom of the press.  They have imposed on the rights of children to be children by casting them out of school for pointing their fingers like a gun.  The feds have imposed on your private communications.

Here in Utah a federal judge had the gall to believe he could require a man to control his wife like some cheap piece of chattel.  On one hand the federal government declares that women have equal rights to men in society.  Yet, a judge demands that a man subject his wife to the slavery of silence.  Marriages are falling apart faster than house of cards on a windy day.  Yet, the judge in the Jeremy Johnson legal case appallingly suggests that Mr. Johnson divorce his wife.

It was not sufficient that the judge demand silence from Mr. Johnson himself.  It was not sufficient that a bumbling federal attorney can’t build a case, the judge had to resort to approving the theft of Johnson’s assets and threaten the theft of his family’s assets also.  What is next?  Will the judge rule that since the good people of St. George did not organize a lynch mob the assets of everybody in town must be confiscated by the lords and masters of Washington.  Welcome to Zion, Roy Bean!

In St. George, Dixie Ambulance operated for over a quarter of a century.  Times were always tight, but they always made the system work.  As a result of their work the emergency response doctors at DRMC gave them repeated accolades for their service to the community.  At the end of the day, what mattered most, the saving of lives, Dixie Ambulance was recognized for accomplishing its mission.  Yet, some top-heavy bureaucracy in the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services arbitrarily decided that some other company might do it better.  That same agency is causing concern from numerous other public and private emergency response providers across the State of Utah.

When I personally sent a letter to the state legislature outlining my justified concerns with what appeared to be “political insider trading” I was shocked by the response from one leader in the state senate. {as a sidenote, financial insider trading on Wall Street can earn a person significant jail time and fines.  Yet, political insider trading by bureaucrats and elected state officials earns them another plaque of accomplishment}.  Back to my point.  When my letter of concern was received by one state senator (whom I have been told, but have not verified, receives substantial campaign contributions from the successor of Dixie Ambulance) called me on the phone.  He was so angry that his voice was trembling like a little boy reporting to his dad he broke the neighbor’s window with a baseball.  Bless his tender backside, he never addressed anything in my letter.  His objective was to point out some law that he and one of his comrades had pushed through years ago.  When he realized I wouldn’t be bullied into pacification and acquiescence he terminated the call.  I gave you the long version explaining that another elected official wagged his finger rather than lending his ear.

The list goes on ad nauseam.  Our Attorney General has been playing loose with the purse strings that buy popularity.  He explains it away with excuses that he wasn’t the AG when he was engaged in the conduct.  His posse of apologists in elected office raise the hue and cry that he is entitled to innocence until proven guilty.  Yes, he is, in a court of law.  That stricture on public sentiment has never existed.  The people are fully capable of and justified in loosing faith and confidence in elected officials.  Besides, even in a court of law, there must be sufficient stench at the crime scene to produce an indictment.  All of his defender “in the know” must be smelling something if they want a full investigation.  As Shakespeare said “a rose by any other name smells the same”, and my daddy paraphrased “A skunk by any other name stinks the same”.

I return briefly to the national scene of the crime.  The government, and all of its minions of minutia, want to track down and publicly flog a guy by the name of Snowden.  They tell us it is because he has single-handedly compromised ALL OF American security for the next bazillion years.  All of the high-ranking talking heads in Congress have raced to the various microphone to brag  that “in the public’s best interest” they have spent their hard won looting of the citizens to buy the horses necessary to have Mr. Snowden drawn and quartered.  Yippy-Ki-Yeah!

Let me drift back in history for a moment.  I am a fan of Mr. John Brown, though he lays a moldering in his grave.  One reason for my enjoying the old boy is because a great-uncle of mine rode with him on many a mission to rescue the enslaved.  He is a folk hero today for a lot of folks in the north and the south.  However, following his execution at Harpers Ferry it would have been impossible to swing a dead cat without hitting a politician ready to besmirch his character.  Just like today politicians of the lowest of lower character raced for a podium or newspaper in order to profundicate about a man they were afraid to emulate.  And emulate him they should have.

History has proven John Brown’s, unrelenting and uncompromising as he was, being questionable in his methods and obedience to the law, image stands in monument to his intolerance to a government gone putrid.

Will Snowden, a hundred years from now, prove to be worthy of a monument.  I will never know, but my youngest grandchild might.  And, I am not advocating that a stone monument be built to him.

I am suggesting that a monument in the character of a free people be erected against the tyranny imposed upon us by our current crop of politicians and bureaucrats.  There was a time when Congress was filled with farmers that grew corn, peas, beans, potatoes, and melons.  The work and moral ethic of those men has been squashed.  Today, among those in high places, we find guardians of poison ivy defending corruption like “It’s what’s  for dinner”.

We can not rely upon the physicians of public power to heal themselves.  They have become addicted to their own drug of self-indulgence.  An indulgence that prescribes there is a law to cure every evil.  A healthcare law of a million pages would be insufficient to cure their addiction of arrogance.

The only way back to “free will” is to actively abandon their and our addiction to “free stuff”.

Government passed ten thousand laws to enforce the Ten Commandments.  Yet, they would not even stop there.  They progressed on to passing a million laws to rain down Manna in the wilderness of self-indulgence.

The problem of big government, domineering government, abusive government can not be solved by those in power now.  It can only be solved by every man changing his view-point.  You may look into the room and see the four barriers that confine you.  Or, you can look out the window and finally see the opportunities in a sunrise.

Injustice abounds.  We can complacently believe that it will end of its own accord.  We can complacently believe it shall not grow regardless of how much more it is fed.  However, to believe those complacent beliefs is lying to ourselves.  Experience has proven injustice always expands in the vacuum of complacency.  The only course back to liberty is through the brooding truth of absolute conviction.

Today, the question to us, the masses of the people, is “Why are you out of jail?”




You Deserve to Know…and decide.

Today the United States of America (actually the entire world) is fraught with controversy.

We are fighting over all kinds of issues.  The President spits on Congress.  Congress slaps the President.  Moralists attack homo-sexual rights activists and vice versus.  Attorney generals at both the federal and state level, acting as officers of the court…violate the rules of civility and then use the defense that they have not violated the law.

All of the squabbling really comes down to political pandering.  I am soundly convinced that most politicians, and people, simply subscribe to the idiocy of ideology rather than to principles they seriously understand.  Political partisanship is easily attained.  What is difficult to achieve is political principle.  Principle takes actually thinking through one’s behavior.  Partisanship only requires vocal affirmation of platitudes.

On one hand we see politicians swear on their sainted grandmother’s grave that they are conservatives.  Yet, daily they act out in the same bad behavior as those dreaded “leftists”.  One issue that fascinates me greatly is how one US Senator proudly boast his conservatism and opposition to big government.  Yet, he correspondingly proposes requiring certain people, based on the national origin, to be DNA labeled “for the record”.  This same senator likewise held, and I believe still does, the record for getting the most legislation passed at the federal level.  Really?  He opposes government growth and has contributed the most to its growth.

Another local state senator that I am aware of swears he is conservative.  He spit in his hand and shook vigorously with the Republican Party to uphold conservative values.  Carefully he groveled in mock humility before the voters on bended knee, shed a tear of sincerity, and begged that them to give him the opportunity to serve faithfully, righteously, and without bias.  Then, miraculously he was transformed into a man who went hell-bent after using his influence, AS A STATIST, to browbeat members of the public he swore to serve without bias.  He is a brilliant man, as far as he can shine the light of glory upon his self-deceit.  He turns to the internet to promote his goodness and wisdom.  Then, it appears, under assumed names he applauds himself for his goodness.  Fortunately, there is some excellent albeit expensive software that can evaluate writing style.  There are three people who have virtually the exact same writing style as this man of “character beyond reproach”.

But, my focal point here is not to dwell too long on attacking men drowning in the depth of their duplicity.

My greater objective is to ask a simple question of those both “in over their heads” and those that walk the earth in humble submission to those wiser men.

“Are you willing to give up your right to make decisions for your life to another person?”

There is not a correct nor incorrect answer to that question.  But it should be modified slightly.

“Are you willing to give up your right to make decisions for your life to another person, without understanding why you do so?”

Within the answer to that questions lies the essence of liberty.

We passively submit to politicians presuming they operate under the same premise as doctors to “Do No Harm”.  We accept them as being wiser, without questioning their conduct. Yet, in their zeal they in fact create much harm.

Please watch this video regarding the Holocaust?  Some years ago I visited the holocaust museum in Washington DC.  It struck me with emotion deep enough to bring tears to my eyes when I observed hundreds upon hundred of shoes piled in bins.  They were the shoes of those that walked to their slaughter, because a society ordained a master who knelt before them.  Then those same people within a short time were brought to kneel before him.  They chose to allow another to make choices for them.

However, we are more sophisticated today.  No such thing could happen.  Today we are better people and don’t tolerate such egregious treatment.  Except when we begin to think a solution to “illegal immigrants” is cataloging their DNA.  Or, maybe when a lowly state senator can drive a person out of business under the disguise of protecting the public from some “future” problem.  Or, maybe when a state attorney general defends his errant conduct with the excuse that “it wasn’t illegal at the time”, setting himself apart from the fact that it was unethical at all times.

I am reminded of the words of a poem that depicted Nazi Germany.  Here is one version:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Standing on the sidelines watching the parade march by is entertaining.  However, being in the parade watching the audience is even a greater thrill.  But, greater still, by far, is knowing that you are in the parade because you chose to be the one “to choose your course”.

So, we are back to the question

“Are you willing to give up your right to make decisions for your life to another person?”

There is no correct nor incorrect answer.  But, you deserve to know!



Is Ethical Behavior to Hard?

Is ethical behavior by elected officials too broad to ask for?

Elect means to “choose out from” among a group.  The clear implication is that one is chosen to represent the group.  It is anticipated that the group has such confidence that the one “chosen out from” among them will consistently act in their stead as though they were each standing there themselves.

It takes some thought to digest that concept.  One that is elected is not independent of the group from which he was chosen.  In fact he is a strict representative of that group.  Now, then, the group has a rightful expectation that the elected will represent them at their best, not at his best.  Both the elected and the elector should understand that given similar circumstances (whatever they may ultimately be) any members would act the same if guided by ethics.

Thus, what then is ethics?

It is the consummate expression of preserving life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for every man, without the initiation of coercion, force or dominion.

Ethics is not a matter of transient religious views, culture, or customs.  Ethics is a matter cooperative co-existence.

Religion, law, culture and even common decency says “do not kill”.  Yet, when violence invades life and liberty killing may in fact be the most ethical of choices.  Correspondingly, depriving a man of his right to pursue happiness may be met with extreme ethical force of resistance.

How does this relate to the initial question “Is ethical behavior by elected officials too broad to ask for?”

Ethical behavior would prevent an elected man from violating his obligation to the society which elected him to the extent he would chose never to be deceptive to his electors.  He would harbor no secrets and certainly would not invade one man’s pursuit of happiness to shower greater happiness upon another.

What is most significant is that any member of the electorate, given equal information and opportunity, to act with a full measure of ethical foundation would chose nearly precisely the same.

Elected officials should perpetually ask themselves that very question.  “IF another were given my authority and power, with an intact ethical mindset, would he do as I am presuming to do?”  The only safe and reliable answer to that question is a sincere “YES!”  Any other answer acknowledges that personal persuasions are playing a stronger role than ethical choices.

That self assessment is only “too broad to ask for” if the elected official has weakened his moral fiber to the point that ethics is a burden rather than a blessing.

Now, above I mentioned a justification of actions which are normally, and ought to be, reprehensible.  However, great men have revealed to us the idea that it is the nature and disposition of just about all men once they gain a little authority, as they presume, they begin to exercise unthical behavior.  They will seek to bear down upon other men with dominion.

When that happens they loose their strength in leadership and of being elected.  For their own sakes, as well as for the community, the society must call into question their ethics.  And, if justified they ought to be striped of authority.

Men of ethics would not oppose such sanction and course of questioning.  How do we know that to be true?  By asking that question “IF another were given my authority and power, with an intact ethical mindset, would he do as I am presuming to do?”  Making poor choices is not an essential flaw in mankind.  In fact, in some circles, men rejoice over making mistakes because it leads them to better correct their inclinations in future endeavors.

Seeking to hide the existence of poor choices is a fundamental flaw of mankind.  Not only have they erred in their ethical decisions, but violate the trust of their fellow beings far more deeply by choosing to hide their mistake in the sackcloth of intentional deceit.

Far more important in life than winning the victory is “winning the choice between being ethical and unethical” behavior.  A kind society will establish a means whereby the society may respond to the inevitable ethical flaws of its leaders.  The leaders, more than any man unelected, should desire such a corrective process.  The entire society should seek diligently for the day that such a process is no longer needed, rather than a time when it is no longer wanted.

An Interpretation of the Intent of the Founders of the Constitution

Bear with me in a brief history of the founding of the US Constitution.  The New World, as it was known, was settled by people seeking opportunity for broader liberty and wealth.  Ultimately it was peopled by those which fell under the governorship of the English monarch, the king.  Eventually many of the settlers began to feel that king was becoming more a dictator than a benevolent protector.  After years of effort to reach equality, of treatment by the king, with their counterparts in Europe leaders such as Thomas Jefferson wrote a document called the Declaration of Independence.

In the natural course of human events the king sought to re-establish the subservience of the Colonies under his scepter of authority.  The War of Independence ensued, with the colonies being victorious.  The colonies became independent states under an agreement or pact known as the Article of Confederation.  Those articles proved to be substantially ineffective for a nation of sovereigns (individuals and states).

Presumably the best minds of the day gathered together in convention and wrote the document which preserved individual sovereignty for persons and states, while granting the nation a government strong enough to adequately protect the Union.  That document, The Constitution of The United States of America, has been deemed by many as nearly sacred, and by some as inspired by God.

In the course of time scholars and their students have perpetuated the idea that the Constitution established three distinct and equal branches of the federal government; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  That theory is an erroneous teaching.

The Constitution was not, and should not be considered, a solely comprehensive document.  Rather it is a progressive document.  Lest, the current anti-progressives get an immediate insult to their sensitivities clarification is in order.

By progressive it is intended to mean that the Constitution addresses issues in relative importance.  The preamble of the Constitution identifies the intent of the document and co-incidentally that of the convention: To create a stronger union of the sovereign people and states.  That is what was and is of greatest importance.  Following thereon are the definitions of the powers of that central government and its limitations.  One section progresses from the previous.

First, the intent.  Second, legislative power.  Third, executive power. Et cetera.

Just a brief clarification is needed.  This requires a quote from the Constitution.  “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Conversely, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  Note that the president is secondary to the Congress, and, that the executive is not given legislative authority.

Now, here is a brief word about legislation.  Legislation is not law.  Congress passes legislation in the form of “Bills”.  The Founders were far more literate than much of today’s American society.  Each word was written with specific understanding, intent, and order.  They wrote with purpose, and for effect.  In today’s society we lack much of that precision of voice and meaning.  Therefore, when the Constitution uses the phrase “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress” there is meaning which the Founders comprehended, and which current society overlooks.  Legislation comes from a Latin root “legis latio”,-proposing (literally ‘bearing’) of a law. It is therefore Congress that proposes law in the form of Bills.  The President does not and should not.

For a significant portion of the history of the Colonies the King of England was viewed as a tyrant.  He enacted laws which were punitive to the interests, safety, liberty, and prosperity of the colonists.  The Declaration of Independence was the culminating expression of the colonist’s dissent and objection to that abuse.

The Articles of Confederation, and consequently the US Constitution, profoundly expressed the reasonable mistrust the people had with kings.  The founders recognized and even embraced that mistrust.  In consequence they segregated the chief executive from “legis latio” power.

In protecting people and states under the new, and now more powerful, national government the Founders diminished the power of a necessary chief executive.  They declined all forms of royalty titles and inherency to the presidency by subjecting the election of a president to a wise body of electors.

They recognized through experience, both historic and personal, that entitlements to executive power would corrupt not just the president but the people as well.  They realized that a man possessed of a personality trait of entitlement to govern would ultimately lead to anger, hatred, and potentially bloodshed.  This would be brought about by the assertion of opposing forces persuading the masses of people to contend. In those contentions the laws would be perverted and many people would be corrupted.

Through careful consideration of history and known propensities of most men the Founders created a system to combat those eventualities.  They established a comprehensive, although not complex, system of establishing laws and governance.  It was initiated by wise legislators and executed by a president with a clearly restrained role.

The president’s role is limited in the Constitution.  Those limitations were intended to prevent the chief executive from corrupting either the people or the laws.  To the extent warranted, precisely, within the Constitution the president is tasked with preserving the unity of the nation.

The Founders were extraordinarily aware of the havoc that kings, presidents; dictators (et al) could create when they had the power and authority to implement laws and means of mastery over people.  Further, they knew from their experience that such a person in power could and likely would be difficult to remove from power.

They also knew that such a person would have his friends in position to keep him in power; and that he may or would disregard the role of those who had the right to propose laws.  Such a man, if given great power, in an interest in preserving himself in control, would create laws, and impose them upon the people.  Those laws would be to preserve his own interests and those of his friends.

The founder, in their wisdom, knew that those who opposed these dictates and refused to obey them would be hounded by such a president until he caused their will and liberty to be destroyed. Anyone that opposes and speaks out against him will be chased down, and, he will seek every means at his disposal to destroy them, even to the extent of killing them if he and his friends deem it necessary.

Those descriptions sound extreme, yet history has repeated itself over and over.  There has never been a generation of people where there has not been a leader with such propensities.  Mankind would be entirely foolish to contend otherwise.  Dictators have and will always be among us.  The only means of avoiding them is through diligent efforts in preventing them.

As the founders established, the people should choose legislators which are conscientious in maintaining liberty for all the people, without restraint.  Although there are always those who seek power and control over others it is not common that the majority of the people want anything injurious to others.  Yet, in all societies small groups of people do, in fact, want to have dominance and power over others. It is therefore essential that the whole population of the people engage in the electoral process.

The founders knew that an entitled royalty or a chief executive strong enough to create laws of their own accord would be detriment to the sovereignty of the people and the states.  In establishing the Constitution their debate was in how to protect the liberty of the people against the inevitability of a government that could become corrupted.  One of their primary concerns was to restrict a president that would tear the nation apart by his partisanship (placing himself and his friends above the interests of the whole nation).

Many say that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional government of the United States of America was an experiment in liberty.  Nothing could be further from the actual.  It was not an experiment.  American self-governance was an act of faith by wise and prudent men.

The Founders trusted the people, acting in their best interests rather than in selfish interests, to choose leaders that would be wise and prudent.  Yet, they also recognized that in the course of time the people might become momentarily swayed by the sentiment for unwarranted gain.  To that end they fashioned a government that would be complex enough to require the people to thoughtfully consider the ramifications of the proposals of men inclined to their own popularity.

Now, some two centuries and two score years later the origins of their wisdom have been squandered.  A government intended to be legislated by representatives of the people and the states has degenerated into a system of partisan quarreling.  A central government intended to minimize the power of a chief executive, without legislative authority, is now subject to the whims of a president surrounded with his hirelings in fraud.  A national government intended to have a judicial system entrusted with protecting the federalism of The Constitution has been politicized to the level of pandering to a president, while a shorted-sighted legislature, tasked with oversight, is busied being neglectful of their duty.

Not to sound like an advertisement for Fox News, but America was founded in the principle of a fair and balanced society. In reality we were not designed to be governed by a government.  Rather, we were intended to be a society governed by each man doing that which was right for all, while pursuing that which was best for them.

There is an old cliché which says “That government governs best, which governs least”.  May I boldly amend that sentiment to read “That government governs best…which needs not govern at all”?

As a people we must return to be our better selves; unselfish, serving, charitable, hard working.  Elected representative officials must return to the notion that they do not master the people, but rather simply propose necessary and essential legislation.  The President must return to understand his role is not of a legislator, but that of a leader sacrificing all else to his country.

We have turned aside from what America was by experimenting in the “sorcery of power over others”.

The watchword of our current time is and ought to be “return”.

Foreign to our nature, as it has become, we must return to the course set by the Founders.  If we fail to do so, we will fulfill the greatest fears of our Europeans ancestors.  We shall sail forward into an unknown ocean of oppression, and, surely fall off the edge of the world of opportunity.

Guns vs Gums

Guess what?  There is a debate about gun control.  It is going on right now.  Pro-gun folks are saying “You let me have my guns, or I’ll shoot you.”  Anti-gun folks are saying “Surrender your right to guns or I’ll stab you with a knife”.

Today the President dove straight into the group of gum-flappers with his proposed edicts about gun control.  Of course, as usual, the President was speaking out on an issue without concern for its impact or relevance in the future.

President Obama has fallen on his face several time in the past four years when the issue of gun control came up.  He has had many opportunities to share his views of the importance of this issue.  Yet, for all intents and purposes he shied away from the issue.  Yet, today it is a serious and significant issue for this president.  Why?

Because it is an opportunity to be personally popular while showing no personal substance as a human being.  If this is an issue today…it was an issue last year,…and ten years ago.  Yet, he and many others in Washington DC suddenly decide that today is the day to make a stand.  Or, in other words, today is the day to flap their gums.  And, whether readers agree or not the FACT is that they are grandstanding.

Let’s examine a limited list of serious issues about gun control, beyond the significant one noted above.

Years ago, when I was young and getting started, some slob (no exaggeration-she was a true blubber butt) walked into an all-night market I was working at.  She fired her 22 caliber rifle directly at me.  Fortunately for me, she left a hole the size of the Grand Canyon in the wall behind me…rather than in me.  There was a German-made Luger under the counter.  The Luger is a semi-automatic weapon.  I was able to place my hand on the pistol and aim it directly at the robber, that without provocation fired at me first.  Now, why am I bringing this personal survival story to light?

Is a 22 caliber rifle an assault weapon?  Not in the eyes of anyone that really knows anything about guns.

I share with you the perspective of one who has stared into the hole, two inches beside his ear, in the wall that results from such a rifle.  It IS an assault weapon.  It is a damn scary assault weapon.

Here is the point.  It is impossible to define an assault weapon.  The fact is that the German Luger, by presidential definition, was more of an assault weapon than the one fired at me.  Somewhere, in some realm, the assailant understands that her aggression was the assault weapon, which just wasn’t smart to use.

It is the circumstances that define the weapon as an assault weapon.  The punk that threatened me with a knife a hundred years ago, somewhere near Baltimore, when I was a teenager understands, just as I do, that circumstances define what an assault weapon is.  I am not a tough guy, and never have been one, but I sometimes wonder if that punk grandfather ever explains to his punk grandchildren how he got that scar across his face.

Ok, enough on that point.  Suffice it to say, any weapon is an assault weapon…in the wrong circumstances.

Now onward to my second point.

I stand firmly on my protections under the 18th amendment to the Constitution.  This amendment was ratified in only one year and one month.  However, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment…in less time than it took to pass the 18th (288 days).

A group of alarmists, similar to Barack Obama, persuaded several states to support the 18th amendments in stomping on the liberties of people who sinned differently than they did.  If you are not aware of what happened the 18th restricted the legal sale of intoxicating drinks  (similar to Michelle Obama’s efforts to restrict the sale of non-intoxicating soft drinks).  The 21st amendment repealed this restriction on civil liberties. Why?

The major reason is because so many people enjoyed drinking intoxicating drinks.  Ultimately, the silly 18th amendment led to substantial increases in the use of intoxicating drinks on the “black market”.  The black market led to an unprecedented increase and growth rate in organized crime.  It led to a substantial increase in alcohol poisoning through use of “moonshine” manufactured intoxicating drinks.

Here is the conclusion.  Is anyone, other than Barack Obama and his fools in Congress, actually convinced that illegal usage of “assault weapons” will go away?  The right to own guns is an American institution that no degree of legislation will ever altar.  The only thing this silliness by the president will foster is a larger “black market” for guns.  History is the proof.

Now, going beyond simple historic evidence there is another reality that exists here.  There are so many weapons already in society, including “assault weapons”, that those guns will be available for several decades, maybe even centuries.  The only difference is the price will go up and the most violent will have access to these weapons.

Barack Obama and is gang in the senate need to come into the real world.  The more he tightens his grip on the throats of good people in America, the more violent people will slip through his finger and assault the innocent.

Crucified upon a Cross of Taxation

In 1896 William Jennings Bryan declared to the Democratic Convention “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

There is no tax that does not affect every member of society.  The rich cannot be taxed without the poor and middle class seeing unknown fingerprints on their thin wallets.  Eventually the dollar in a wealthy man’s hand that has had a corner torn away by government will find it way into the fingers of the poor…equally of less value.  Only the foolish believe that they can give the rich a smaller glass, with which to give the poor a larger drink of water.

Before the nation today there is a fiscal fiasco.  It is an affair run by (wo)men who line their living from thinning the wallets of the wealthy.  They govern by mandating that every person’s purse have an opening at both the top and the bottom.  Unfortunately, eyesight is a nimble narrow thing.  They have neither ability nor will to see both the top and bottom at the same time.  Thus, perpetually, such men will tear the hole below wider and wider until it dwarfs the entrance above.

That is the plain and simple premise of taxation.  Drain the pond until it empties faster than it fills.

Theft by taxation is not some noble venture of those in elected office.  It not like keeping a penny found in the gutter and dishonorably kept.  It is the nature and disposition of almost every official that promotes theft by taxation to shake a man senseless until a penny falls to the gutter.  Then the man of government, believing himself to be a man of God, snatches the penny from the gutter saying “This piece of copper is my rightful property.”  Then to compound their flawed appraisal boldly declare “This tarnished copper piece shall become a silver dime when I have finished polishing it.”

Alas, they take the shiny coin and hold it high above the heads of people, boasting in their pride.  Presuming themselves to be wise beyond their reason they declare the one cent dime should be invested in worthless efforts to spend future pennies they hope to shake free of every man’s pocket but their own.  They press down upon the heads of every person, rich and poor, a false sense of value.  It is nothing more than a mockery of advantages of nobility.  Yet, in the end, long after the legislator has passed away in comfort, mankind suffers the scars of taxation.

Today I say to the Senate and the House “You shall not press down upon the brow of America this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon the cross of taxation.”

The White House Rapper

For about two years now I have been accusing President Obama of having a “ghetto mentality”.  Of course there are some public spectacles, like Chris Mathews, that come off their rails when I use language like that.  Simply because I use the terms “Obama” and “ghetto” in the same sentence than I must be a self-righteous racist intent on driving everyone back into slavery.  Of course such a suggestion comes only from those that are in over their depth in a kiddie pool.

Suffice it to say Barack Obama has a ghetto mentality.  Whether that comes from poor upbringing, his neighborhood, or his race is really quite irrelevant.  What remains at the end of the day is a president with a ghetto mentality.

Ghettos have existed nearly as long as mankind.  They became popular, as the phrase “ghetto” , in Europe a couple of centuries back.  The ghetto was where certain nationalities or ethnic groups lived within  cities spread across the old continent.  All too frequently they housed the poorest of the poor.  They also represented those groups of people who were generally disfavored by society because of their unique status as a racial or cultural community.

Jews were among the most prominent of Ghetto communities.  They were religiously and socially isolated because of their beliefs.  In many cases they were lower on the scale of humanity than were Negroes.  They lived in abject poverty, for the most part, being looked down on by their fellow-men.  Another group of transients, affectionately referred to as gypsies, were members of “traveling” (or more appropriate described as “chased”) ghettos.

These ghetto dwellers established their own cultural norms, laws, and even languages.  They depicted their status via their music, dance and art.

Through the course of time various ghetto cultures rose and faded away.  For example for many hundreds of years Jews were a predominantly ghetto society.  In the mid to late 1800s the perspective of Jews began to change.  Religious revivalism openned the viewpoint among many Christian groups that Judaism was in fact their theological parent.  The disdain for Jews began to melt away.  Among Eastern Europeans cultures it came slowly but into the twentieth century Jews had begun rising from their millennial dispersion to become a respected culture force.  Today they are an honored people among most nations of the world, except the Arab gypsy tribes.

During this time other ghetto societies all but vanished, including the gypsies, while other classes of people were driven into ghettos.  Economic station was the general cause of the perpetuation of ghettos.  Yet, these ghettos, like their predecessors, established their own “order”.

What is common among ghettos, old or new, is a prevailing attitude of protectionism against the outside world’s perceived abuses.  Gypsies adopted cultish mysticism as one of several means of defense.  Jews relied heavily upon the idea of being “God’s Promised People” that would one day rise to their full stature and glory.  In the modern ghettos the defense mechanisms were and are now far more militaristic.  They culturally govern by rules of violence.

In short the ghettos were then owned and now are owned by the rulers of its culture.  Even though in many cases, if not most, that which is owned is little more than decayed ruins.  The current, like the past, attitude is protection against a perceived enemy.  This protectionist ideal is still depicted via their music, dance and art.

One of the things which we see very prevalent today is that silly little thing called “rap music”.  Rap is the portrait of ghetto protectionism.  By listening to the earliest rap music there is a very common, almost obligatory, theme to the music.  That theme, for lack of a better descriptor, is “trash-talk”.  One can listen to the origins of the music style and see that the best rewarded and recognized rappers are those that trash-talk the best and most consistently about other cultures.  Trash-talk is the protectionist mentality of the ghetto.

This trash-talk is weaving its way into society in general, just as former ghetto cultures wove their way into the greater society.  In our sports, entertainment, news, writing, and politics we see trash-talk becoming more prevalent.  Nobody with any modicum of self-awareness, or awareness of our current times will deny that trash-talk is the preferred method of communicating.  Our social media systems (Twitter and Facebook, as examples) are powerful symbols of a society that has turned to trash-talk as a matter of routine communication.

Our current president is one of the most adept trash-talking personalities in the nation today.  President Barack Obama is petulant and unrefined in his use of trash-talk.  When challenged on his policies he instinctively reverts to personal salacious oratory about those questioning him.  He cannot seem to be able to deliver any message that is not about his superiority over others.  In short President Obama disrespects anything and anyone that does not defend and hold his vision and habits as sacrosanct.

Our president has a ghetto mentality.  Whether his mentality comes from adapting to a culture being swayed by universalizing of the ghetto culture, or whether it comes from his clearly poor upbringing that deprived him of interaction with multiple cultures, it is apparent in virtually all of his interactions on the national and world stage:  he lacks judgement and decorum.  President Barack Obama cannot separate himself from his ghetto mentality.

Those that call me racist for my comments would desire that I be more diverse in my thinking.  I respond by suggesting that I would desire the same from the president; someone capable of being diverse in his thinking.  As grand as it is to work ones way out of the ghetto, it is grander still to work the ghetto out of one’s way of dealing with others.  If Barack Obama wants a legacy of achievement he needs to make the personal change of ridding himself of the ghetto.

Years ago Jessie Jackson joked that if he walked on water people would say that he couldn’t swim.  Years from now the twilight of Barack Obama’s legacy will have a boomerang appearance.  No matter what he may actually accomplish, he will always be mostly known as an untrained child in the ways of mankind.

Seeking to establish the importance of Irrelevance

Some folks believe that I am cynical towards government.  In that presumption they are mistaken.

I am a strong advocate of government doing what only governments can do in the most efficient and effective manner possible.  In fact I believe in liberal support for a government doing its duty.  A society should support and adequately fund and protect a government doing its duty to all the citizens uniformly.

However, what those folks, I referred to above, frequently focus on is that I equally chastise a government-run by people who would divide such a society into classes.  Then to make matter worse they seek to advocate violence between those classes through inequitable distribution of its protection.  Stated more succinctly elected officials classify certain people as the “haves” and the “have-nots”, then pit them against each other.

The Romans did this with the gladiators in the coliseums.  At least they had the honesty to make sport of their indignity before the masses.  What I observe is incessant lies and finger-pointing by our legislative largess in an effort to avoid their own sanctimonious salaciousness.

I have spent the tenure of my career in working with governments.  I have witnessed first hand their drive to establish personal significance by abandoning nearly any form of rationale analysis of their behavior.  I offer some examples.

In one city it was fashionable to pander to the interest of a few in order to appear open-minded.  Those advocates of mediocrity and separatist inclinations pushed responsible legislative matters, that would have served the entire community forward, into the background.  The city was strong with an effective police presence.  It neither intimidated the general public, nor tolerated deviants from festering.  Yet, today, a decade later drugs, gangs, murder, child abuse, theft, and the list goes on, have become common place.  The elected elite refused to see the course they had set out on, and they fail to see now how THEIR divisiveness of the community into special interests has produced the onslaught of these insults to the community as a whole.  They lacked vision, while pandering to their focus on viewpoints.  And, now they are reaping the whirlwind.  The police have not become worse, they have been forced aside from serving the whole, and the segments of corruption have entered into the city.

At the national level we see the same thing.  Presidents, Representatives, Senators and most recently even Supreme Court Justices have made it their mantra to worship the few at the expense of serving the whole.  Saith the Apostle Paul “And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.”  Yet, onward trudges a crazy congress and a pejorative president endlessly defending their failed frolics into separatism.  We have a president insisting that one class must be punished so that another class may be blessed.  Congress is no better.  They also promote the convoluted contrivance that somehow they and they alone can solve the maladies that exist in society.

Such an embarrassment of philandering should be scoffed at by any reasonable person.  Neither the president nor the congress can repair what they clumsily broke by their awkward interference.  Fully 60% of the business which the federal government has audaciously assumed to itself is, by the most conservative descriptive, simple pandering.  If the government as a whole or any elected representative thereof suggest that some segment of society should be treated grandly while any other is not equally so treated should be dishonorably dismissed from their role.  They fail to comprehend the nature of useful societies.


A New “old” Approach

Over the past several day I have read a variety of news articles, commentaries and of course the ever-present opinions expressed on Facebook.  I have been reading about the killing of children and adults in Newtown, Ct.

Replete, abundantly, is the discussion of gun control.  That discussion is followed by accusations and assumptions about mental health.  Behind that is the argument about God not being allowed into schools.  The alternate views are praised and defamed.  Blame is laid at the feet of every special interest and cause imaginable.  In some cases it is mild.  In other cases it is severe to the point of possibly needing investigation by authorities…before another incident erupts.

As I said in a previous post it appears to me that there is a lot of hacking at the branches, and little attack on the root cause.  I will address this in a manner offensive to some, naive to others, and laudatory to a few.

To begin with the argument for gun control is understandable.  Take away the guns and the weapon of choice is eliminated, thus subverting the ability of a potential assailant to commit such heinous acts.  Seems logical, except for the fact that it will not prevent these acts from reoccurring.  In fact, when these acts do occur they will be that much more astonishing because we will have presumed safety where it did not exist.

Contrary to the argument for gun control is the argument against it.  A heavily armed and trained teacher in the kindergarten class could have and would have “made short work” of the scoundrel.  Their successful prosecution of preventive measures would be a clear message to all future assailants that they would be shot clean through.  Thus nobody would ever attempt such a dastardly deed again.  Weapons of self-defense have been successfully used for thousands of years.  Yet sadly, violence continues.  Besides, the prospect of an armed defender being in the right place at the right time is extraordinarily remote.

I shall not take quite as much time on the mental health issue.  In short it comes down to this.  One person pridefully says, ‘Because I have been trained, read a book, have experience with someone close to me that suffers for a mental health problem,  I am therefore an expert.  Listen to me…This must be a mental health problem.”  Further, they, and a host of others with even less (if possible) understanding pontificate about the need for more mental health resources.  The long and short of the “it must be a mental health problem” simply are choosing to believe that such heinous acts can only come from derangement.  They quickly reject that anyone differently motivated than themselves must “have something wrong with them”.  To me that is quite an extraordinarily prideful conclusion.

So, OK, what do I suggest?  Certainly not an all-encompassing solution to the self-centered behavior of assault.  I do offer what I believe is viable for a society steeped in a genuine desire to “fix” the problem.  Kindness!

Remember that story of the leprous general  in the bible.  He went to the prophet and said he wanted to be cured.  In short, with a touch of irony, the prophet said “go take a bath”.  The general was incensed.  Afterall, he was important.  The nerve of a prophet telling him to cleanup his act.  Fortunately, the general had a servant, more accustomed to being humble, who suggested to the big man that if the prophet had instructed him to do some “great thing” than wouldn’t he have done it readily.  Then the servant suggested that the general just go and do what he was told.  To the general’s credit he “humbled up” and was cured.

In that story lies the fundamental cause of human frailties; Pride.  It is the cause of all enmity between men.  It is the cause of all enmity between man and God.

Among the complexities of charity, which is commanded in the scriptures, exists the dimension of kindness.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

I offer a solemn thought which could lead to a broader scope of repair to the fissures, cracks, and breaks in society.  Have we “tried the word of God”.  I don’t mean the try which says “God, yeah I think He is real.”  I mean the try which says “Yes, His advice makes complete sense and I AM going to do it!”

I don’t know the circumstances that led to any of the recent public displays of unreserved acts of violence.  I serious doubt anyone does or ever really will.  Yet, I am naive enough to believe that simple acts of kindness would have altered the behaviors.

Maybe it happened, I certainly don’t know, but here is what I imagine could have occurred.  A despondent person. contemplating some vile act at a mall, a theater, or an elementary school may have been walking the street the evening before or the morning of such acts.  Then, to their surprise a stranger offered a kind word, held a door, said thank you, let the person “go first” in line.  Such simple acts may have delayed their “acting out” their self-contained solutions to their despondency.  Maybe, just maybe, a caring kind gesture would give them confidence in their Godly humanity.

Now, imagine the effect upon that person, if each day for many weeks, months or years some random act of kindness was extended in their behalf.  I am sufficiently naive to believe those acts of kindness would, in fact, alter their behavior.

Now, who is willing to have the courage to extend such acts of courtesy, generosity, charity, or kindness?  This message is not new.  It is as old as God communicating His desires to mankind.  Hmmmm.  There are those words again; “man” and “kind”.  They fit together as naturally as “Please” and “Thank you”.

Ahhh.  But in my suggestion I err gravely.  Perpetual kindness in all places and in all circumstance is “no great thing”  for which a person can be recognized.

Permissiveness of Exclusivity – The Cause of Social Slaughter

Henry David Thoreau said ” For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.”

On Friday December 14, 2012 a man carrying a gun killed 27 people at an elementary school in Connecticut.  You all have heard about.  On December 11 a gunman killed two people and critically wounded one at this mall near Portland, Ore.  In July, a gunman killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in Aurora Colorado.  We all still recall the tragic news of the thirteen people murdered in Columbine.

Fifty-five people murdered, hundreds personally and immediately terrorized, thousands of family members and friends devastated for the rest of their lives, millions across the nation wondering “How did this happen?  What’s wrong with society?”

And of course the battle over gun control rages on among political elites and pseudo-sophisticates on Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the “your wrong and I will prove it” social media websites.  “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!”  Wahoo, we are all that much better informed now that we have been told that for the 27,000th time.

Not unaccustomed to setting myself up as an authority of things I know nothing about I will offer my opinion…as humble as it can be presented.  Keep in mind I intensely disagree with the liberality with which guns are sanctioned in our society.  It makes no sense to me, in light of all the specious arguments, that we justify slaughter in the name sport hunting.  Worse yet is the silly person that justifies hunting with the comment “I do it for the meat” or “I do it to feed my family”.  Yet, as a constitutional libertarian I whole-heartedly defend a person’s right to own, and when necessary, use their guns.  For me there is no distinction regarding the make and model.

These terrorist acts are public expressions of private assumptions about the gunman’s right to have power over others.  It comes from the permissiveness of exclusivity (pride, in laymen’s terms) in man’s constant pursuit of an expanded dominion.

In all of our social functions (politics, national origin, religion, education, business practices, entertainment, news reporting, ad infinitum) exclusivity is pandered to and promoted.  In national politics any lie is acceptable to advance a private agenda.  In entertainment (movies, books, and games) anything goes in order for the one to dominate the many, usually over something as silly as “I am angry at that person.”  Two people of faith in the same savior will come to blows over their opinion that “My God’s better than your God, My God’s better than yours.”  How about this one, that’s popular in the West and South, “This is my country, get the hell out!”

Some women may get irate at this comment, but the fall of the Roman Empire has been attributed to women getting equal rights/status.  That is insufficient.  The fall came from some members of society believing they had insufficient rights to dominate others, and those societies believed they had a duty to defend and protect such baseless assertions, just as we also now do as a nation.

Until we choose a different course, until we demand better of ourselves, our political, entertainment, media, and business leaders we can rest assured that those with legitimate universal rights will use those rights to terrorize others, assuming those rights are exclusive to themselves.

Thus, we are back again at the discussion of roots and branches.


Terrorism is an act of striking debilitating fear into the minds of others. Terrorism can be inflicted one-on-one, or onto whole communities of any size. Sometimes terrorism is intentional. On other occasions it may simply be unintended consequences.

Terror is a matter altogether different from terrorism. We tend to overlook that fact.

By way of example let’s consider the pit bull. Generally people are fearful of pit bulls simply because of the reputation. Yet, a well-trained pit bull can be gentle and protective. Even so, when a pit bull appears in an aggressive posture it strikes terror into those around it.

Now consider the lowly Chihuahua. They are small and always noisy. Yet, they don’t strike fear into anyone, except me. I have one. He hates me and bites my fingers while I am in bed and have my hands under the covers where he can’t see them. He has sharp teeth and I live in terror of him…except when he cuddles up next to me. I choose to keep my hands where he can see them. As a result neither of us is terrorized.

That is about the best example I can come up with.

Because of the reputation of some followers of the Islamic religion we tend to see all Muslims as pit bulls. Yet, those that seek to be part of a family and loving and live by the bulk of their doctrine are positive influences in any community. However, certain teaching of Islam, when activated can be very traumatic for all those around them.

Now, lest someone get the idea that I am isolating Islam I offer a bit more. In the Old Testament there are repetitious instances of the Israelites being directed to slaughter others. Additionally, there are stories of them in their worst days, slaughtering simply because they could.

That is the environment of the Middle East. Culturally, opposed populations seeking to one-up-manship each other. The western civilization is so far removed from that culture deep comprehension of it is nearly impossible. It has become, or has always been, not simply an eye for an eye. It is a life for an eye.

Consequently, the entire region lives, and dies, in terror. Some of the terror comes self-imposed. Other parts of it come from overt acts of terrorism. Yet, even other forms come simply from reputations. “I must keep my eye out…for the one who would take my life.”

In western culture, especially in the United States of America, we have lived in relative comfort safe from terrorism or terrorizing thoughts. As the potential for terrorism expands and becomes more pervasive our fears become exaggerated into immobilizing terror. We react all wrong.

Rather than responding to growing real threats with measured calculated planning and anticipation our propensity is to react with violence and debates. Repeating, that is wrong. As implied, as a nation, we should respond with a measured and calculated plan that anticipates potential threats. With such a plan in place terrorism will be more likely stymied, and terror will be more likely mitigated.

“Bombing the hell” out of international states that house terrorists is not a measured and calculated plan. My own fears and concerns have had me on more than one occasion suggesting that “bombing the bastards” back to the Stone Age was a proper course. That is anger speaking, but not just anger. It is my own form of terrorism…which holds no more merit than does my enemy’s.

People are fond of accusing President Obama of lacking a strategy to deal with terrorists. Many see him as pandering to terrorists, lying to Americans, or worse being incompetent to deal with the real and present threat. Whether those assessments are true or not begs the bigger question. Isn’t this a challenge for our entire national leadership to address?

The existing terror within the hearts and minds of Americans, and the terrorizing influences we face, demand a measured and calculated plan of response. The crisis is the fear. It is not how many and who crosses the borders. It is not even about the potential for another skyscraper to be leveled by a bomb. The crisis, which it really is, is the fear. Said President Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts…”

Our duly elected leaders speak of messages, walls, bombs, boots on the ground, and drones. But, for all of their droning on and on the prevailing wailing of the warning sirens is political rhetoric, devoid of cooperation.

Republicans blame Democrats, Liberals blame Conservatives, Congress blames the President and the Supreme Courts naps through it all. Perhaps Johnny Cash played it best with his catchy tune “The One On The Right Is On The Left.”

There once was a musical troupe
A pickin’ singin’ folk group
They sang the mountain ballads
And the folk songs of our land

They were long on musical ability
Folks thought they would go far
But political incompatibility led to their downfall

Well, the one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear was a Methodist

This musical aggregation toured the entire nation
Singing the traditional ballads
And the folk songs of our land
They performed with great virtuosity
And soon they were the rage
But political animosity prevailed upon the stage

Well, the one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear burned his driver’s license

Well the curtain had ascended
A hush fell on the crowd
As thousands there were gathered to hear the folk songs of our land
But they took their politics seriously
And that night at the concert hall
As the audience watched deliriously
They had a free-for-all

Well, the one on the right was on the bottom
And the one in the middle was on the top
And the one on the left got a broken arm
And the guy on his rear, said, “Oh dear”

Now this should be a lesson if you plan to start a folk group
Don’t go mixin’ politics with the folk songs of our land
Just work on harmony and diction
Play your banjo well
And if you have political convictions keep them to yourself

Now, the one on the left works in a bank
And the one in the middle drives a truck
The one on the right’s an all-night deejay
And the guy in the rear got drafted

Americans are both fearful and frustrated. Congress and the president wander the streets of Washington DC singing “Who let the dogs out” implying that blame is the answer to the challenge. The more relevant question should be raised.

Who will bring the dogs in? Whether they are pit bulls or Chihuahuas the terrorist litter is too large for 536 elected officials to be individually running around pointing at each other when rabies is at the door.

The one on the right and the one on the left need to meet in the middle. Cooperatively, despite political and personal animosities, Congress and the President need to develop a strategy. The terrors which we are experiencing are not the president’s alone to resolve. This is a joint effort and it is time for Congress and the president to set aside partisan bickering and establish a rational policy.

New Balloting Rules are Needed

Balloting rules, particularly in Utah, are too antiquated and cumbersome.

The worst part is there is always some bureaucrat hanging around the ballot booth attempting to persuade people not to vote (or so it seems).  They are more concerned with using force than using logic.

It is not just them.  They are a part of the problem, or as scripture familiar to just about everyone with multiple generations in Utah know so well: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion,”  (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39).  It is natural for those bureaucrats to proven they in control rather than servants.

But, enough of that.  We have all experienced them.  The system contributes to the problem primarily because governments generally are so slow to respond to opportunities for improve.  They would rather control than change.

The process

You register to vote, where you must prove who you are.  You show up at the polling place to vote and then must prove who you are, AGAIN, with two forms of ID.  Your VID is not acceptable.

However, it you mail in your ballot no “Proof” is required at all, contrary to the quaint supposition one of the controllers with tell you.

The best part is that you get to vote in advance of knowing anything truly relevant about the candidates.  It is a historical FACT that much of the relevant information about candidate surfaces within the last few days of the campaign, totally useless to those that have already voted.

Today’s problem

I want to share an incongruity that happened today while voting.

We went through the normal nonsense of proving we were not extremist terrorists intent on blowing up a single ballot station of a small city election by providing birth certificates, drivers license, four credit card bills with addresses, the last seven months of utility bills, four eye witnesses, and a triple notarized statement of verified personal identity.  The purpose behind this intrusion, beyond giving some bureaucrat the satisfaction of being in control of other people, is still unfathomable.

Then, and this is still beyond reason, I was handed on of those credit cards required to cast my ballot in the voting machine.  When I inserted the credit card into the voting machine it told me that the card had already been used to vote!  Think about that for a moment!

I attempted two more times to insert the card into the reader and received the same message.

Well known for my impatience with such events I calmly and patiently, to my wife’s embarrassment, advised the Gestapo at the gate that the card registered to have been already used.  I expected to be required to bring my trunk full of identification documents back in from the over-sized U-haul truck in order to get a new card.

I was completely surprised when Commandant Schultz simply handed me a new card.


Given that I tried to use the card multiple times, eating up precious time, how did the officials know that I had not simply cast a ballot and was now trying to get a second shot at manipulating the outcome?

I see three immediate potential answers to that question:

  1. They no longer cared because the moment of doing their job had passed.
  2. They mishandled previously used cards, meaning all ballots cast today at that location are suspect.
  3. The ability to monitor my precise voting preference (who), which is patently anti-American and unacceptable to our entire elective process.

Other possible answers exist, but I choose not to indulge them.  I prefer to get to a rational solution.

Voting Option…the alternative.

First, chiseling our votes into granite is a somewhat outmoded, even for government entities.  Bring on the present.  Registration to vote should require proper identification.  Keep what is working.

Second, those credit card 2x4s are pretty cheap.  Really, they are.  I mean they are cheap even for government agencies which make a habit of getting ripped off.  All registered voters should receive one of those cards.

  1. The card would serve as verification of proper registration, and contain a photograph of the voter.  Thump print recognition could be included on the card (but I recognize that is fearful to some conservative small government oriented people and should not be required (totally opt-in).
  2. The card could then be inserted into the voting machine and a ballot cast.
  3. The only requirement at the sign-in table would be for the official to verify photo and signature (on the card also) matched.

Third, the system would then indicate that the personalized card had been used and would be ineligible for repeat voting.  This would prevent dead folks from voting more than once.

Fourth, for those people opposed to the technology for whatever their reasons the old method could be still available.

No system for mass participation is without occasional glitches.  That is to be expected.  However, as they said to the six-million dollar man, “We can fix him.  We have the technology.”  Fortunately, major technological changes would not be required in most jurisdictions.  It is a matter of one-time programming costs, plus a relatively little bit for implementation.

Now, since I am on the subject of voting I have one further suggestion which will make some folks have heart attacks (I am not responsible for those occurrences because you have been forewarned).  My suggestion about voting is this, CUT IT OUT!

Voting has become a meaningless pastime promoted mind-numbingly by elected officials and politicians.  OK, that is an over statement.  Encouraging increased voting has become the passes reflection of being a good American.

Elected officials and politicians think they are being good little boys and girls by encouraging people to get out and vote.  They are not.  First, for all of the time and energy spent encouraging people to vote the actual results have been a dismal reversal.  Participation has not been improving at all, except in minor anecdotal experiences.

Second, this hype vigilance toward getting people to vote has for all intents and purposes achieved one more dismal outcome.  Elections have become more partisan with fewer informed voters…and as stated above fewer uninformed voters.  So, CUT IT OUT.

I have no, and I repeat NO, evidence to back up my assertion, but I believe that all the efforts to making voting more convenient, addition to failing, has actually diminished the value of voting with people.  I firmly believe that few people vote because it is too easy and therefore meaningless to them.  Again I stress that is simply personal opinion…even though it is accurate.

What is to be done?  Return to one election day on which people can cast their ballots.  Laziness should not be an option to alter public policy.  If a person places some other activity ahead of voting on election day that is their free choice.  The choice is that they don’t get to vote.  Just as dead people, even in Chicago, don’t get to vote lazy people should not get to either.

I have heard all the arguments about convenience, blah blah blah, etc.  Make a choice, vote or choose not to vote, but don’t blame society.

What would I do to mitigate legitimate concerns?  First, with the eased means of voting described above a lot of money could be saved.  Use that money to keep polls open twenty-four hours.  A vast majority of the people could find a time in 24 hours to go vote if they actually wanted to do so.

There are some legitimate circumstances for very limited absentee balloting;  Students away at college and military personnel stationed away from their homes.  Those are valid reasons for absentee voting.  The businessman that has to take a business trip, “Sorry pal, hope your company treats you better next year.”

One highly meritorious value of 24 hour balloting is in presidential elections.  TV stations would be more hesitant to project winners.  Even if they did make those projections for some states, it would allow candidates to mobilize their supporters to get to the polls and vote.  Opening polls at the same time nationwide, and then closing them at the same time would have all results tabulated simultaneously.  I see a benefit to that.

This post is much longer than I wanted it to be, but I am long-winded.  One final point.  Presidential races appropriately determined in the Electoral College.  Prudence says that should never change.  What should change that every elector sent to the college should have the right to vote as they see fit, and not by some state law requiring “winner-take-all.

That Is The Way I See It.


A Rational Debate Format

How soon we forget.

A couple of days ago CNBC hosted a debate among the Republican herd of contenders for the presidency.  There is no question.  The moderators did a rotten job.  That will soon be forgotten.

How do I know it will soon be forgotten?  Because not that long ago Fox NEWS hosted a debate and they also did a rotten job.  Megyn Kelly was an embarrassment to the profession of journalists, commentators, pundits and jerks everywhere.  Proof of that is the night after the CNBC debate she couldn’t contain herself from further attacking and baiting others into attacking Donald Trump…in a feeble attempt to justify herself once again.

The fact is that presidential debates are a joke.  This years the “debates” are a laughing-stock of the media and the political parties combined.  One has to wonder if anyone in the media has ever seen a real debate…or, for that matter seen any real news.

The latest proposal is to have a group of right-wing talk show hosts act as moderators.  However, you should have no fear.  A prudent proposal is on the doorstep knocking for a chance to beat down the incompetence currently being demonstrated by the media and the chief apologist for the Republican Party, Reince Priebus.


  1. Stop calling them debates.  At best they are forums.
  2. Cut the number of the participants in the forums.
  3. Lose the hotshot names in media circles and go with a different crowd of moderators.
  4. Set some universal rules ans stick to them…adamently.

Forums, not debates

Debates are a technical term for a specific scholastic method of presenting arguments.  What we watch on TV are nothing like those debates.  What we observe, beyond media talking heads attempting to prove they are informed when they are not, is a forum for candidates to present their perspectives and proposed solutions.  Call the gathering what they are.

When they are called debates people naturally expect confrontation.  When they get confrontation they dislike all the candidates except the clown with the most clever lines…and him or her for only a few days.  If they don’t get confrontation they feel cheated.

The networks want confrontation for the sake of ratings.  That is the worst reason for holding the “debates/forums.”  Confrontation is great for the ratings of Survivor or The Bachelor.  But when it comes to matters that matter confrontation should be set aside in favor legitimate differences of viewpoint.  Those engaged in cheap thrills should be working in the carnival, not the media.

When the inciting word “debate,” which the events are not close to being, is changed to forum only those people seeking an accurate understanding will tune in.  They will tune in to learn, not tune in to be turned on by a “cage match,” as Ted Cruz very eloquently described the current debate stagecraft.

Since the “debates” are not debates at all let’s call them and treat them as they should be; forums for exchange and clarification of ideas.

Cut the Number of Participants

Let’s get real.  With vast numbers of candidates on the stage any real message will get lost in the rhetoric.  Beside, for the most part all Republicans are going to be saying the same message with only subtle differences in implementation (Same for the Democrats).  It is those implementation differences that voters should be hearing about.

Therefore a maximum of seven (and that is likely too many) candidates should be on stage at once.  Second tier forums are simply a waste of time for those viewers that want to start their beer drinking earlier in the evening.  Drop the prelude.

With technology as it is today on the internet we can quickly toss the FOX News bias line unto the trash heap of insanity.  Despite their whining about not being able to control public opinion, and therefore saying social media polls are invalid, there are serious alternatives.  Make them valid!  The capability exist whereby a vast majority of public opinion polls can be made valid.

Asking for a person to register their preference can be isolated via substantiated email addresses, single response URL management, etc.  Hence, the silly argument that public opinion can’t be objectively measured is…well…silly.  It can be validated with as much or better security that voting machines.

Top three candidates-people’s choice

The reason I bring that point up is that the top three candidates in a forum should be selected by the public interest in hearing from them in a forum.  An online survey encouraging and monitoring voters to rank all (YES, all) candidates would allow for an accurate selection process.  It would be as accurate, if not more so, than the fickle daily changes in statistical analysis now used.

Second three candidates-moderator’s choice

The second three, of seven candidates, would be selected by the three moderators (discussed in subsequent paragraphs).  These three candidates would be selected from among the remaining candidates.

Third level selection-if necessarily desirable

Just to keep the field modestly open the seventh candidate would be selected (people’s choice format) by the forum sponsor from among all remaining candidates.  This would ensure that at least one of the lower tiered candidates had a chance to separate into the major contender field.

Lose the Hotshots

The current format for the debates tend to highlight media types that have a popularity to maintain, as moderators.  Thus, as we have seen in recent debates the moderators that are more interested in flaunting their style and bias than those interested in drawing out legitimate information from candidates.

Therefore prudence would suggest going with less known media representatives and including persons interested in advancing the dialogue.

Each forum should be held regionally with an intent to focus on regional issues with national implication. I.e. a Forum held in the western states would focus on immigration and federal land management where the bulk of federal lands is held.  Hence, moderators should be selected from among that region.

One regional/local commentator, ranked highest by all candidates from a limited field would be one moderator.  National commentators would be automatically disqualified for the same rationale as rejecting national news hosts.

Two other moderators would be selected from candidates within the presidential contender’s party.  One of those moderators would come from the host state of the forum and the other would come from a different state.  Both would be selected by forum organizers from among knowledgeable individuals, and subsequently approved by a majority of the presidential contenders.

Universal Rules with Adamant Adherence

The reality is that the current debate formats are weakly managed.  Both moderators and candidates need to be held to a higher standard.

A. Both moderators and candidates have a set time to ask questions and deliver answers.

B. On a rotating basis moderators ask one question of two candidates.  None of the other moderators or candidates know what that one question will be.

C. Each of the remaining moderators are allowed ONE follow-up question to any candidate.  Very limited time allowance for answers.  No onstage exchange or rebuttal allowed by candidates.

D. A strict time clock is kept by a separate timekeeper.  Microphone and camera blackouts will be used for both moderators and candidates not staying within their time limits.

a.  Timekeeper will monitor time given to each candidate and advise moderators to adjust according to make the best effort to balance time among all candidates.

E. Ninety second opening and closing statements allowed by each candidate randomly selected  immediately prior to the forum.

F. Online controlled surveys of public reaction to the candidates will be monitored and the results will be announced as the official public reaction to the overall forum.

There is no doubt but that these suggestions need some finessing.  They are not intended to be finalized.  However, they are a foundation point for dialogue on making the entire presidential “debate” structure far more superior to the current three-ring circus.

That Is The Way I See It.

Come on. Really?

The latest round of political trash talk is Hillary cussing out Donald J. Trump​ for not criticizing someone that criticize Obama.  It is clearly just so much Political correctness being tossed around.

Apparently from report a questioner at a Trump campaign rally said ““We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims,” said the first man Trump picked out of the 15,000 person crowd to ask a question. “We know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American.”*

In response to the rally comment Hillary Clinton tweeted “Donald Trump not denouncing false statements about POTUS & hateful rhetoric about Muslims is disturbing, & just plain wrong. Cut it out,”

I hope others see the true problem here.

It is the intrusion of government into religion, and religion into government.  When the co-mingling of the two occurs it is always religion that gets sullied first.  And, eventually, the government itself collapses under the weight of trying to be the conscience of all people.

If Obama is Muslim, so what!  Yes, because of the abundant misunderstanding of Islam by both adherents and “infidels” there is just cause to be aware of his potential for undermine the safety of the nation.  But, if he is capable of not imposing his religion on me, I have no problem with what his religion may be.

However, Hillary is sorely mistaken when she concludes that a voice of conscience should be silence simply because it reflects a view contrary to her own.  She at once wants to impose her brand of suppressing conscience on Donald Trump because he didn’t impose his brand of expressing conscience on another person.

That in a nutshell is the error of her attack, along side of its obvious pandering for attention to rescue her failing campaign.

Hillary wants to control the hearts and minds of the American people, rather than simply allowing people the right of non-oppressive expression of liberty of conscience.

The central concern on this matter is not solely the issue of what Religion Obama is, which he tacitly endorses.  The central issue is whether some people (i.e. Hillary and Obama are more free than others in society.

I say “Come on. Really?”  The answer is a resounding “NO, they are not more free, thus making the rest of us less free.”

That Is The Way I See It.

*Western Journalism, What Trump DIDN’T Say When Asked This Question About Obama Has Sparked Outrage–His Campaign Responds…, September 18, 2015.

Not just “NO” to Carly, but “Hell No!”

It is getting just down right stupid.  Nearly everyone is focused on Donald J. Trump​ in a negative manner.  Yet, not one of those damn fools running for president has anything positive to offer this nation.  People are peeing all over themselves about Carly, like children who have never been potty trained, when all she had to say is some dumb comment about her looks.  If you actually listen to what she said last night she didn’t say anything worthwhile.

We don’t need a person as president that can’t get pass her offense at what others said weeks ago. Anyone, even Hillary Clinton, knows that foreign leaders will say offensive things.  If Carly Fiorina can’t take the heat than YES, she should get out of  the kitchen.

Her only accomplishment so far in this race is tearing down Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  That is very very pathetic.  Yet, jackasses across the nation are whining that Donald Trump only talks in platitudes.  Carly has said nothing, except “I hate …”

I for one am tired of the BS from idiots that think this just another thirty minute comedy hour.  Have you thought about the fact that Carly personally chose to kill jobs for over 30,000 American citizens, while now boasting that some jobs MUST be filled by foreign workers.

This woman is too dangerous to be president.  She WILL pick-up where Obama leaves off.  The Democrats know they have a loser in Hillary, but they won’t openly encourage Biden because they know they have Carly Fiorina to rely on.  Replacing Obama with Fiorina is like saying “let’s get rid of Harry Reid in favor Mitch McConnell, at least Mitch will screw the nation behind closed doors.”

That Is The Way I See It.

Change the Presidential Debate Format

So far this presidential cycle we have had two “let’s raise our ratings” celebrations on national television.  One by Fox News decidedly aimed at trying to elevate another candidate to be competitive with Donald J. Trump.  The other was last night by CNN which was geared toward their corporate philosophy of limiting information in hopes of drawing people back for the conclusion.

Both of those debates failed to achieve either of the media giant’s intentions.  They also failed to give the public any substantive view of the candidate’s policy intentions.

Yes, there were some good quips lines in the real purpose of the debate, from the candidate’s perspective.  Carly tossed her presumption out that she could speak for all women with her caustic comment toward Donald Trump. “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”  Another humorous one-liner came from Scott Walker, “we don’t need an apprentice in the White House — we have one right now”.

So, then, what would make a serious debate?  First off I would like to see a debate structure that was more traditional.  Yet, I also recognize such a structure would be impractical with so many candidates.  So I offer an alternative that moves away from the grandstanding one-liners and efforts to elevate rating of the media outlet.

Step One; Only four candidates one stage at a time.

This is how they would be picked.  A panel of journalists and Party leaders from the applicable party would rate the relevance of candidate statements over a designated two-week period, close to the debate date.  They would establish specific criteria, which would NOT including polling ratings.  For example;  “In the past two weeks candidate A made this specific proposal (not something vague), and it should be addressed in the upcoming debate.”

Step two: Four comments would be presented to all the candidates.  One from each candidate’s public statements selected in step one.

Step three:  The candidate that made the statement gets four minutes to articulate the position.  The remaining three candidates get 2.5 minutes for rebuttal.  The originator then gets 1.5 minute response time.

Step four:  The rules specifically state that

  • any personal attacks will result in immediate silencing of microphones, and elimination from the remainder of the debate.
  • time limits will be strictly enforced (warning lights will of course be provided) to within ten seconds.
  • Moderator gets only two minutes to set up question, without commentary about content.

This format would push candidates that wanted to participate in the debates to formulate specific policies for the public to comprehend, before the debates occurred.

Additionally, this type of format would then allow candidates to challenge and defend policy statements “face-to-face.”

This format would tend to eliminate the showmanship of candidates and allow people to determine “winners and losers” based on actual policy positions.

That Is The Way I See It.

Commentary on Glenn Beck

There is a storm brewing around Glenn Beck​.  The distant rumble of thunder from several years of discord between Andrew Breitbart and Beck is darkening the skies immediately overhead.

Recently I have engaged in challenging Beck as disingenuous, with an even more recent acknowledgement of my error. (But, that is a different story).

In a Facebook post on 9/14/2015 Beck open a comment with these words, “Breitbart news. Are you this petty? Are you void of anything decent?

Answer: no. Just like last week when I said something stupid that I regretted, you have done the same.

How could you say “in his own words” and then make up a quote from me?

Those are your words not mine.”

The article to which it appears Beck was responding was dated September 14, 2015.  It was entitled “Glenn Beck in His Own Words: I’ll Save More People Than Schindler.”  Throughout the article that headline is the only place in which Breitbart News states that Glenn Beck used the phrase “I’ll Save More People Than Schindler.”

In fact Breitbart quoted Beck as saying “We can save more people by Christmas than Oscar Schindler saved.”

I think that the headline poorly reflected on Glenn Beck, as being self-serving or vain-glorying.  Clearly, the quote does not suggest either to be the case.  In fact, given the entire paragraph one could logically conclude that even the actual statement by Beck was taken out of context.

Now, having said that I also believe that Glenn Beck overreacted to the headline by Breitbart.  If any of you are like me you have read headlines that left you wondering “Where did that headline come from?”  Candidly, all media, including The Blaze (Beck’s publication), have written stories with weak or misleading headlines.

There is poor communication between Breitbart and Beck.

However, it is not just the headline of the headline that is relevant.  It is in fact the context of the story.

In the context of the story Beck’s quote says “We can save more people by Christmas than Oscar Schindler saved.”  Is that what he meant?  Would that be accomplished by Christmas.  That is approximately only 100 days.  Can that be achieved?

To put it in perspective, giving Schindler the benefit of extended accomplishment, that is more than 1500 people rescued (approximately how many Schindler actually rescued from the holocaust).  Is that possible in 100 days, given the fear mongering going on about bringing any refugees from Syria, whether they be Christian or not?

I’ll answer the question with my customary candor.  I don’t know.

But, one thing I do know.

If we do not try than we certainly will not be able to it, and we will never know if we could have.

In my calculated way of thinking that makes the effort worthwhile.

To quote from Beck’s response to the Breitbart article;

“Let’s save lives and our own souls. Together, with our readers and audience we, meaning all those within the sound of our combined voices, can save thousands.”

If our efforts save even one soul, one person, one child than our labors have not been in vain, and we surely will be blessed with the joy of knowing what we have accomplished…even if the world never knows.

That Is The Way I See It.

The Iran Deal IS NOT the Last Best Option

September 11, 2001 is a date we shall remember for many years to come.

It is not simply a time slot on the calendar, it has become an event.

There is no need to detract from the melancholy of sadness associated with the date and events of nearly a decade and a half ago.

Yet, in the shadow of those fallen planes, buildings and lives our government appears to be erecting a new block to the sunlight of reason.

For months the Obama Administration has been working on the “Iran Deal” formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The JCPOA outlines how the world will be assured that Iran develops nuclear capabilities only for peaceful purposes.

Israel is suspect of the actual outcomes, along with massive numbers of conservatives in the United States.

Nuclear capability exists in a few nations of the world whom have demonstrated restraint in using that vast power destructively.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never shown indications of such restraint; exactly the opposite has been the persona of their political and religious leaders.

The issue at the forefront is one of trusting whather Iran will change their centuries old demeanor, or, whether they will continue with their bellicose nature.

Nuclear proliferation is not the proper field in which to test their newly adopted proclamations of commitment to civilized interactions.

The Obama administration has been unable to effectively thwart the Iranian intent to build a nuclear bomb.

In that failure the administration has effectively “thrown in the towel” after the third round in a twelve round match, not because they have been knocked down but because they have been told they were knocked down… and they believe it.

Congress in like fashion has been slapped around by the Obama administration numerous times, and now believes that they too must be on the mat. They are not.

Much more can be done to move forward in preventing Iran’s intended development of a weapon of massive destruction, and Congress must act accordingly.

Quick acquiescence to a president seeking a legacy is insufficient cause for Congress to “take a knee” at his behest.

Thousands of American citizens went to their knees following September 11, 2001, but arose with a determination to make the nation and the world safe from terror.

It is incumbent upon this Congress and this president to follow through, not in acquiescence, but as leaders of the free world.

Local Resolution for Congress

Congress has failed to protect future generations of Americans by refusing to reject the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Deal, orchestrated by the Obama Administration.

I encourage that the following resolution (with appropriate references) be passed by city councils and forwarded to elected members of Congress.  The polls indicate that Americans overwhelmingly reject JCPOA.  Congress has declined to acknowledge that information.  Therefore, resolutions from local governments are the next best step.



WHEREAS, over the past several decades the international state of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Hereinafter Iran) has acted in an aggressive and bellicose manner toward its neighbors, and

WHEREAS, Iran has and continues to be governed by political leadership with expressed intent to create substantial harm to the recognized State of Israel, and

WHEREAS, The Islamic Republic of Iran has and continues to be guided by religious leadership dedicated to the destruction of the recognized State of Israel, and

WHEREAS, Iran has and continues to be guided by political and religious leadership dedicated to the destruction of The United States of America, and

WHEREAS, Iran has demonstrated continued opposition to cooperation for peace within the international community of nations, and;

WHEREAS, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA-Iran deal) fails to provide long-term security to either The United States of America or her greatest ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel, and

WHEREAS, Iran has demonstrated incongruity with the terms and conditions of multiple prior such agreements as JCPOA, and

WHEREAS, JCPOA has the real potential to exacerbate hostilities worldwide resulting in nuclear devastation on a scale previously unknown to the world, including the potential for the killing of millions of the human race;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of ­­­­________, Utah that the City of ___________________ opposes Congressional approval of the JCPOA, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of ­­­­________, Utah hereby call upon the Honorable United States Senator Orrin Hatch, United States Senator Mike Lee, and Representative ________ of the United States House of Representative to oppose JCPOA in the strongest mean available to them, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council calls upon all residents of the City of ____________ to communicate directly with the above mentioned senators and representative to encourage opposition to JCPOA and express for acting in agreement with the citizens of this City, State, and Nation.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of _________________, Utah, held on the       day of        , 2015.


SIGNATURE:            Mayor                                                              Date


City Clerk



City Attorney


The latest round of arguments against Kim Davis (from the Washington Examiner) is that there are consequences for her actions.  Their article cites one of my favorite characters, Sir Thomas More.  It got me thinking.

There are different qualities of consequences.  I shall address some.

There are natural consequences.  When you place your hand in a fire you will get burned. If you cut yourself, intentionally or accidentally, you will bleed.

There are unnatural consequences tainted with maintaining order.  When you murder someone, the natural consequence is that the person is dead.  The unnatural consequence (for order) is that society has made a law against killing and allows judges to administer a punishment.

Another form of unnatural consequence is designed for safety.  If a parent sees their inexperienced child running toward a busy street a series of things will happen.  In many cases the child gets a severe “chewing out” or even a spanking.  The parent loves the child (which I believe is the natural consequence of creating the child) and therefore they administer unnatural consequences to teach the child how to be safe.

Following on the heels of the “safety consequence” is the compliance consequence.  An example would be the high school teacher that insists that a student “show their work” in algebra, or the professor that requires students to embrace their prescribed “teachings” as opposed to their teaching.

Lastly, I identify the non-sequitur compliance consequence.  Let me explain a couple basics.  Non-sequitur and sequitur come from the Latin.  Respectively they mean “it does not follow,” and “it follows.”  A natural consequence would be closest to a sequitur.  Hence a non-sequitur could easily be deemed arbitrary, if not capricious. Such a consequence would be demonstrated in the complex concept of property forfeiture solely from fear that a person may dispose of possessions before the government can get their “cut of the value.”  Another way to phrase it is the government making sure they get a prime rib steak, even if the owner is left with ground beef.  “It does not follow!”  Another example would be the removal of the digging up of a Confederate General’s bones because someone is offended by the general’s behavior four generations previously.

All of the actions by Kim Davis presumably are unnatural consequences of her asserted faith.  Likewise all the actions against her; the complaint (non-sequitur compliance), court required actions, incarceration, etc., they are all unnatural consequences, to her choice.

The most egregious unnatural consequence is the non-sequitur compliance. 

I place the unnatural consequence of Kim Davis’ behavior in the category of “safety consequence.”  Regardless of Kim’s past she now professes a total allegiance to Christianity and God.  For the safety of her soul, either in spite of or because of her past, the consequence of going against conscience would be rushing headlong into a busy street.

Excuse what seems like a departure from the narrative.

King James, famously known for the most popular version of the bible, was also a bully.  His hidden agenda to re-foster Catholicism throughout Great Britain forced unknown thousand to their death and escape (or banishment) to the New World simply for being Puritan, or, protestant.  King James bullied his courtiers and advisers into submission (except for one, whom would not be bullied out of his conscience).

Kim Davis, regardless of her choices, is now burdened with being our present day Coke taunted by the King’s Bacon (I leave it to the reader to surmise who these two men are).

The law did not impose upon her conscience, until the Supreme Court unwisely, bowed to the non-sequitur compliance of people who hated what Kim chose to stand for.  The Supreme Court did not pass any law which circumvented her conscience.  The Supreme Court has no Constitutional nor historical legitimacy in to make laws due to their bowing to the demands of a subset of society, to detriment of another person’s conscience.

Now, while one person’s conscience is assaulted by the whims of others, society wants to demand that she has an obligation to succumb to those demands or suffer the consequence of the indignity of non-sequitur compliance.  She has chosen to stand firm in the safe consequence of her confirmation to God.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
Martin Luther King Jr.

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.”
Mahatma Gandhi

“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.”
Henry David Thoreau,

That Is The Way I See It.

Where does the line get drawn for a clerk in Kentucky?

Where does the line get drawn?

I read people screaming and yelling about a clerk in Kentucky, that stands up for her values and is using her discretion.  “She needs to be fire, she needs to be in jail, etc!”

I would like to see these same nitpicker screaming and yelling about the patrolman that uses his discretion to NOT give them a ticket for speeding.  The principle and severity are the same.  The clerk uses her discretion to say no to following a non-law.  Yet, the law also makes someone speeding worthy of get a ticket.

Will these people, demanding that the clerk’s head be hung a pillar of London Bridge also demand that the patrolman be fired…for not giving them a ticket for speeding?

States have all kinds of crazy intrusive laws that provide no value to civilized society.

I use Utah as an example, although any state would suffice.  In Utah it is unlawful to smoke is a vehicle that has children in it.  The idea is great.  The concept of not smoking around children is sound.  Actually, the idea of not smoking at all is sound.  However, that is far beyond the pale of good government.  Police officers exercising their discretion to give a person a warning, rather than a ticket, may be in violation of their duty.  Fire them?  Even if it is you that benefits from their discretion?

It is the law to wear a seatbelt.  If the enforcement officer gives you a warning (s)he should be fired.  No if, and, or buts about it. It’s the law, damn it, and there should be no allowance for deviation and discretion!  Right?  Unless, of course, it is you that is benefiting.  Then it is a whole different story.

But wait!  There is more.  What if the crime is serious.  Let’s say assault.  The prosecutor has the discretion to mitigate the charge…because it happened outside of a bar where everyone was drunk and throwing punches.  It is only rational that such discretion is NOT a good enough reason, in the logic of those that would force an elected official to follow the letter of the law for one simple reason.  The truth is that people who want her fired, jailed, drawn and quartered believe in something different from her.  Hence, the law should only apply to her…according to them, but not to themselves.

But Wait, there is even more.  There is NO LAW requiring that the clerk perform or issue licenses for the conduct which those “masters of all others” would mandate.  You see the United States Supreme Court, in responding to an issue, that they had no business being involved in to begin with, didn’t pass any laws.  They have no authority to pass any laws.

Now, taking this discussion to the extreme, where is the outcry for the SCOTUS to be arrested and jailed for violating their oath of office.  It is only reasonable that if we demand that a county clerk, duly elected to administer the law (nothing more and nothing less), be fire and jailed than the Supreme Court and all those that enforce their illegal requirements should be also fired and jailed.

If the demands of justice apply to one elected official than they should certainly apply to all appointed officials. The hate mongers of injustice excuse themselves by saying that Kentucky is a bunch of hicks, religious nutcases.  In the language those religious fanatic rednecks in Kentucky understand, but is beyond the mental capacity of deviants, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

If a county clerk in Kentucky is to be jailed I want to see jail cells across America bulging at the seams with errant public officials.  If she is to lose her job prematurely I want to see all errant officials lose their jobs also.

But Wait.  There is more.  As I have written previously the Kentucky clerk is specifically protected under the US Constitution and the multitude of employment laws passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court.  I shall not reiterate those arguments here.

Now, to deviate for just a brief few lines.

It is absolutely insane that this issue is even being pursued.  The state and federal government should have absolutely ZERO role in marriage.  None, nada, not a bit.  In the words of our illustrious golfer in chief “there is not a smidgen” of cause for the government to be involved in any marriage.

The cause of decadence is being advanced by elected officials across the nation.  Police officers, sworn to serve and protect, are being slaughtered in the street.  However, far too many of our elected officials are silent or ignorant of the consequences.  I prefer to call them complicit in their self-aggrandizing money-grubbing.

As the saying goes America is “going to hell in a handbasket,” while the Neros of the Say Anything Party fiddle amidst the flames.  They will not be satisfied until the last embers of civility and decorum have burned themselves ashes at the expense of political correctness.

That Is How I See It.

Denying history is actually denying one’s self.

I have watched with some curiosity a series of recent political efforts to change, even destroy reality; namely history.

My curiosity swam in the murky waters of “to what end?”  What is hoped to be accomplished by the destruction of history?  Yes, I will have a supposition at the end.

A couple of my favorite quotes by men, well established in history as relevant, set the stage.

“There is properly no history; only biography.”

Said Ralph Waldo Emerson. 

In a vague manner it echos the sentiments of Cicero,

“History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illuminates reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life, and brings us tidings of antiquity.”

My curiosity began to “bring [me] tidings of antiquity” with the clamor to tear down the Confederate flag, because someone lost in his interpretation of current reality killed faithful Christians in a church known to be predominate “black.”  That was tragedy of failed perspective.

Yet, I could not see the correlation between a Century and a half old flag and the acts of self-aggrandizing extremist.  I would not succumb to the idea that the flag perpetuated his hateful and anti-social behavior.

What followed was a cacophony of shouts to obliterate all things that reflected the “biography” of the past.

Silly ventures associated with political pandering followed the course of denial of those past events…which “provide guidance for daily life.”  The political cat-calls of “how can I join-in to the scuffle of over-reaction” led to such absolute ludicrous notions as digging up the dead in one city.  The dried rotting flesh and bone of long deceased southern military leaders presumably suddenly posed a threat which had heretofore floated by, unnoticed in the stream of daily living.

There are many other issues which I could tediously opine on that I shall leave for another day.  They are simply part of history.  They reflect this passion for living aimlessly in the present.

Yet, yesterday I read about a group of history bigots wanting to sever one of the vitalizing memories, which Cicero might have included, in their zeal to denounce racial bigotry.  I am hard pressed to see how one form of bigotry has superiority over an alternate form of …bigotry.

I refer to the bastion of bigots trying to remove a statue from the Smithsonian Museum because it portrays a real and salient point of reference to the past serious and decadent racial bigotry of the worst kind.  I am reminded of the statement by Frederick Turner,

“Each age tries to form its own conception of the past. Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time.”

What we are seeing is the blind ambition for political clout being played out across America.  “Conditions uppermost in [our] own time,” bear witness to a demand to deny what once was…, whether it was good, or evil.

Again as Emerson said “There is properly no history; only biography.”

If I may make a weak, at best, analogy please bear with me.  The biography of a great baseball player could be written from the perspective of his prowess, with let’s say a 2.50 ERA.  Without the perspective of his whole career (total innings) combined with a win/loss record such an excellent ERA is nearly meaningless.  My point is that his true greatness as a player is framed in both his glory days and his distasteful outings.

It is the same with political or social history.  The bright stage lights of tolerance are nearly indistinguishable without the corresponding dimming of the house lights.

What makes the achievements of racial equity salient is the very fact that those accomplishments were gained in the overwhelming shadow of bigotry.  Without the contrast the sorely won victory is a shallow echo of the true struggle.

Of particular importance are our full depictions of history in our schools and museums…even the National Smithsonian Museum.  To place statues of a historical figure in their proper biographical context sheds the contrast essential to fully illuminate the  accomplishments of civilization.

I am reminded of the Poem by Shelley, Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Please dear readers, read on.  One Morris Bishop followed-up on Shelley’s work with a somewhat similar poem entitled Ozymandias Revisited;

Ozymandias Revisited
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Also the names of Emory P. Gray,
Mr. and Mrs. Dukes, and Oscar Baer,
Of 17 West 4th Street, Oyster Bay.

Those that seek to tear down history with the intent to “form its own conception of the past” do little more than graffiti the work of others.

That Is The Way I See It.

Gold Cross Negotiations – St. George, Utah

Donald Trump is needed most in St. George, Utah.  He is the greatest and fairest negotiator in major business today.  That is of course unless you ask John Kerry, who negotiated so well with Iran that each member of congress will be obligated to wash Iran’s dirty laundry daily for the next ten years.

But, enough of my sarcasm about Johnny “why-the long-face” and The Donald.

St. George has been faced with a healthcare crisis for years now.  Our state senator Steve Urquhart decided that it was his prerogative to manipulate the state administrative structure to get his way.  In doing so, he drove one of his constituents out of business, namely Dixie Ambulance.  But, hey, in his own words he has a right to make a living.

I only wish he would have stuck to chasing ambulances, as an attorney, rather than running them off the road, as a state elected official, on loan from his lobbyist employer.  Lobbying by a state officials is nearly unheard of in sophisticated states.  Even the extreme liberal ones like California don’t allow that level of corruption.  One of Sinator Urquhart’s fellow classmates was mystified by his lobbying actions.

Following the successful drive to put Dixie Ambulance out of business, apparently for personal reasons, the senator then threaten St. George officials that if they didn’t kowtow to the demands of his paying lobbyist then the city would be sued.  All the city was asking for was that his client “meet the conditions” they agreed to if the state would just give them the chance to take over emergency service response in St. George.

That took about a year to actually get through a few paragraph agreement. The union has been faced with the same incompetent and/or obstructive delays.

Service delivery has been sketchy by his client.  That is not due to lack of skill by employees, but rather due to the general management of the company.

Now the community is faced with the alarming prospect of a work stoppage, because the legitimate concerns of quality employees are being dismissed. The senator and his client have been being dismissive of St. George all along, on many fronts.  Fortunately for the community of St. George, the unionized employees chose to continue to serve, at their own sacrifice, rather than place St. George or other Utah communities at the risk of inferior response to emergencies.  Their employer would simply shift emergency response personnel from other communities to partially staff St. George, leaving multiple communities at risk.

To the casual observer it appears that the senator and his client know the character of these employees well enough to realize that they themselves can act with questionable character…because they know these quality emergency care responders will place the health and safety of the community first.  I think that manipulative behavior is quite disgusting.

Having been involved with negotiations with public safety personnel, sometimes acrimoniously, I can contemplate some of the issues in the current negotiations.  (Keep in mind I have NO first hand knowledge of those negotiation points.  This is only my supposition, from experience).

Point one

— If negotiations are similar to others a relevant issue is the adequacy of a private retirement or pension programs.  It would not be unusual for the union to be requesting the company to match employee contribution at about a 50% level, up to a minimal percent of the employees annual income.

Given the responsiveness of some (many) companies, such a request would be quite conservative.  Further, the issue of insolvency is always in the discussion of Social Security (which incidentally is becoming an issue nationally, as I write).  It is a reasonable request for supplemental benefits by employees.  It is worth noting that employers are already required to match employee Social Security earnings.  Serious leaders of large companies quickly recognize such benefits are also benefits to themselves.

Again, I am speculating.  But, inquiring minds would like to know if this is just more shenanigans by the senator and his client.

Point two

— Wage security and growth are probably a central factor in the negotiations.  A reasonably anticipated request for annual wage adjustment is between 2-5%.  Mid-point is a fair settling mark.  Both sides to negotiations know that wage adjustment is a flexible factor.  Both should be ready to “move a little” toward the middle.  If either side is unwilling to do so they should not be negotiations.  If the company is intractable on wages…they are not managing, they are dictating.

Point three

— Another matter that frequents negotiations is healthcare benefits.  This is a particularly tough arena since the adoption of “Obamacare.”  However, the healthcare act is too often used as an excuse.  Companies and employees are all over the board on corporate contribution rates to healthcare plans.  There is no “one size fits all.”  However, frequently companies contribute significantly toward premiums assessed to employees.  It is a standard element in the cost of doing business.  If the employees are asking for anything less than their 20% contribution they are not being unreasonable in the marketplace.  The company would do well to simply pass on that negotiation point.

Point four

— During the negotiations there is a phrase “best and final offer.”  What it basically means is that for all intents and purposes one party is making its best and final offer to settle, and is ready to end negotiations by “inking” the deal.  News reports suggest that the parties reached that point a while ago.  In fact some reports imply significant concessions by the union in order to bring the negotiations to fruition.

Of serious note, in negotiations it is not uncommon for resolved issues to be removed from discussion.  Once they are removed from discussion they are not considered open to be brought up again.  This is primarily because to do otherwise, without mutual consent, always leaves the door open for confusion.  I have witnessed where both sides of negotiations have use this tactic, and it has always ended poorly.

Some news reports and social media posts suggest that the company has backtracked to re-examine resolved issues, without that mutual consent.  If that is accurate, again the corporate managers are demonstrating, at best, very poor negotiating skills. It is likely they are demonstrating that they are willing to negotiate in bad faith…leading to a long-term mistrust among the parties.

Senator Urquhart’s client has been accused of negotiating in bad faith.  It appears that they are doing just that.  The senator, a licensed member of the bar, at last review, should know better and advise his client better.  There are consequences to negotiating in bad faith.

Presumably, the National Labor Relations Board has been contacted.  They do not take these matters lightly.  If they hold hearings, facts will come out.  Perhaps this scene from Absence of Malice may be applicable.

Wilfred BrimleyAbsence of Malice (opens in a separate window, be sure to come back and finish reading).

Involvement of the NLRB will be a step toward resolving matters.  But that is not the final rational solution.

The City of St. George has flirted with the idea of having their own first responder division of public safety.  The time has arrived for this to be given full, legitimate, and serious consideration.  Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t.  But it should be considered.

Our state senator has made a mess of public health safety in St. George with his conduct.  He exercises far too much undue influence for personal gain, and needs to be summarily removed from the picture.  An independent review of the history, strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities for a municipally operated emergency response division is justified.

Lastly, lest I should leave a subject near and dear to my heart unaddressed I offer one sidelight issue.

Utah has been embarrassed by state elected officials for far too long.  This whole mess with the senator and his client is just another example.  It is time for an independent ethics review board to be established within the state.  They need authority to look at the facts of situations, like the Urquhart/paid lobbyist connection, without hindrance from the self-interested elected officials.  The legislature is its own final review of its individual member conduct.  That is like letting Hillary Clinton review her own use of private email for official state business, and expecting an unbiased outcome.  It just makes no sense.

That is the Way I see it.

A Modest Proposal for the US Senate

114th Congress

1st Session

Senate Bill # 1728

A Bill For An Act Entitled:

Gender Advancement for Youth Protection from Unilateral Sexual Harassment

(Caitlyn Jenner Act)

 In the Senate

 July 21, 2015

Advocated to Senators Tammy Baldwin (D) and Lindsey Graham (R) introduce the following bill which is referred to Committee.

Senate Proposal


Making certain language offensive and illegal in all states, federal lands, territories, military installations (domestic or foreign), all government buildings wherein is conducted any form of public or private business, or other locations broadly construed to under the general or specific jurisdiction of the United States of America; herein specifically designated as the Gender Advancement for Youth Protection from Unilateral Sexual Harassment Act of 201, and hereinafter referred to as the Caitlyn Jenner Act.

Senate Proposal

Resolved by the U.S. Senate of the United States of America, that the following Bill is proposed as federal law under the jurisdiction of the Untied States of America, enforceable by Executive action.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:”

Section 1: The following terms shall have the general or technical meaning as described

Gender choice; any self-identified sexual or social orientation which a person uses to describe themselves in the comfort and safety of their personal or public locale.

Offensive; any word, written or oral, which any person deems to make them feel insecure emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, physically, or otherwise.

Gender specific; any reference, written or oral, used to distinguish one person from another as to sexual or social orientation to whether resulting from birth or not.

Examples of specific words or phrases, variants thereof, or by interpretation by any person offended by its usage prohibited under this bill; balls, man-up, grow a set, etc.

Section 2: This bill will prevent direct and inadvertent language, common in use within the United States of America broad community from being used around any person or persons that may become offended thereby. This bill will levy fines for the first violation hereof and/or additional fines, at the discretion of the courts in conjunction with mandatory periods of incarceration following a second violation hereof. This will sets forth mandatory periods of incarceration in a federal penitentiary, no less than five hundred (500) miles from where such violation occurred.

Section 3: The Gender Advancement for Youth Protection from Unilateral Sexual Harassment Act of 2015, or Caitlyn Jenner Act, shall be of full force and effect in all fifty states of the United States of America, all federal lands, territories, military installations (domestic or foreign), all government buildings wherein is conducted any form of public or private business, or other locations broadly construed to under the general or specific jurisdiction of the United States of America, or any state consisting thereof.

Section 4: The Gender Advancement for Youth Protection from Unilateral Sexual Harassment Act of 2015, or Caitlyn Jenner Act shall be funded annually, as a first priority of the executive branch budget, or by a special tax on all institutions designated as religious in nature in an amount not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the average of said religious organizations previous three (3) years revenue from any sources. Such organization without a three (3) year history of operation shall be eligible, at the sole discretion of the President of the United States, or designee, to contribute no less than thirty-three percent (33%) of monthly revenues for the enforce of this act.

Administration of this act shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who shall have full authority to call upon the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America to apply immediate confiscatory power over religious organizations to meet their funding obligation. Further, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall have immediate authority to require all law enforcement agencies of any federal, state, county, or other local jurisdiction to administer this act in the sole discretion of the Secretary to any extent essential to preserve the dignity of non-offense to all persons aggrieved under this Act.

Section 5: Penalties for violation of this act shall be mandatory for all courts, federal, state or local, as follows:

First violation: Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each incidence of use of offensive language.

Second violation: Two year confinement in a federal penitentiary, located in a locale no less than 500 mile from where the first violation occurred. It shall be at the discretion of the court to impose a fine of no less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per violation.

Third violation: Imprisonment of no less than seven (7) year, nor, more than twelve (12) years in a federal penitentiary, located in a locale no less than 500 mile from where the first violation occurred, three of which years must be in solitary confinement.

Subsequent violations shall be at the discretion of the court, but shall be no less than twice the full sentence of the third violation.

All criminal sentences for violations of this act shall be construed to be punitive of violent criminal acts of the first degree and not subject to probation, parole or other forms of early release from incarceration.

Section 6: This act shall take effect on October 11, 2015.


Donald Trump: On Illegal Immigration

In the words of my friend, William, the whole discussion about Donald Trump’s comments about illegal immigrants is “Much Ado About Nothing.”

Noting, or as we say in more modern parlance “nothing,” is a process of acknowledging as relevant something that has no relevance.  In our time we might use the phrase “getting caught up in the thick of thin things.”  The main objective of “noting” is to create the appearance of relevance for some obscure reason, which is intentionally hid from readers or listeners.  The secondary objective is to get people to “go along with” the first objective.

Regarding this second objective I believe that Paul said it best in his second epistle to Timothy with these words:

“…they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women [and men (sic)] laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

The media, which generally supports a socialist view of political issues, wants the world, and the American electorate in specific, to believe that Donald Trump said something outrageous.  Silly political pandering men and women, like Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Hillary Clinton, and Carly Fiorina in their lusts for influence grab onto the media philandering like a group of leaches at a sick vampire convention.

Rather than studying and learning the truth they are “ever learning about how to bend the truth to they personal desires.”  I want to interject a story here about the father of one of my high school friends as it relates to “bending.”

This man was well learned in laboratory knowledge, but lacked any practical knowledge or skill.  He could spend hours explaining how that when you bend a piece of metal enough times it will ultimately break.  Yet, if you handed him the piece of metal you could come back years later and he would still be folding it back and forth, being no closer to breaking it than when you left.

The growing mob of the “wannabe president” crowd are ever learning the liberal mantra, but never actually coming to knowledge of the truth about Donald Trump’s comments.  That is why Donald Trump is in the hearts and minds of the electorate, while these others are fading into has-beens, once-weres, and use-to-bes.

So let’s look at what is relevant.  Let’s examine what Donald Trump actually said, rather than the reported deceptions by the media and hand-wringing bed-wetters in the Republican Party.

“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. … When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Has the USA become the dumping ground for everybody else’s problem?  Absolutely yes!  And, the citizens of this country know it!  The politicians in Washington are just afraid to say it out loud because someone might point a finger at them and say “shame, shame, shame.”  The worse possible thing in the mind of a pandering politician is the potential for being shamed.  That happens because they lack the mental and moral stability to stand for anything that might cast a shadow on their re-electability.

Nobody with a bit of common sense, including the four mentioned above, would possibly interpret Donald Trump’s words as meaning that it was inclusive of ALL immigrants.  In fact, if they were as interested in learning truth as they are in repeating the media mantra of the day, the would see he immediately made that clear.

The evidence is more than clear and studies and statistics have borne it out as FACT that the Mexican government for years has avoided doing anything significant to stem the northward flow of illegal immigrants.  Yet, that same government is very active in stemming the tide of north moving immigrants along their southern border.

The point is that regardless of how it is phrased Donald Trump is absolutely correct.  “Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best”, by acquiescence and feigned at being overwhelmed, through the corridor to the United States of America.

Those arriving in fact do include criminal elements.  Nothing, and I REPEAT, nothing in Donald Trump’s word should be remotely construed by an intelligent person as suggesting that every immigrant is a criminal.  Only a fool or self-serving politicians seeking the perks of the presidency would draw the conclusion that is what he meant.

Now, one of the harping points by the media and these “Oh, I wish I was a popular as The Donald” politicians is that the percentages don’t support the claim that vast numbers of immigrants are criminal.  Not only do they intentionally misconstrue his words, they deny the reality of what does happen.  Rapists and murderers are migrating to the United States,  So, I have a test for those who argue that the numbers don’t support Mr. Trump.

Here it is.  Invite ten people to spend three nights in your home, alone with your attractive teenage daughter.  However, one of those people must be a rapist and another must be a murderer.  Give it a try.  My heck, the numbers suggest that she would be perfectly safe.  Why worry, why fear?  You opened the door to them and they certainly will appreciate that sufficiently that they would never steal from you or injure your daughter.  Afterall, we have proof of that from…a pier in northern California.

Go ahead, give the test a try!  What have you got to lose?

As a follow-up to his original accurate statement Donald Trump reiterated his comment in a nationally televised interview.

“I like Mexico. I love the Mexican people. I do business with the Mexican people, but you have people coming through the border that are from all over. And they’re bad. They’re really bad,” he said. “You have people coming in, and I’m not just saying Mexicans, I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they’re coming into this country.”

Again, by reading what Donald Trump actually said it is clear that those attacking him are motivated by something other than sincerity.  It may just be stupidity.  It may be the desire to undermine him for their own personal political gain, it may be any number of deceptive reasons.  But, what it is not is a fair representation of what he said.

Now, here is the key point.  The immigration policy of the United States of America is a hodge-podge of convoluted thinking by years of special interest politicians seeking to feather their nests, at any cost.  The policy is an abysmal failure virtually from top to bottom.  It needs serious and fundamental corrective action.  As much as every election year bring a herd of politicians screaming about the failed policy, after that magic November day has passed the incentive to do anything other than campaign for money to retire prior debts or collect money for future runs is all that matters.

Donald Trump is a doer.  He accomplishes things because he can, does, and will stand eye-to-eye with anyone on the planet.  He will assemble a Cabinet that will know it has a duty far beyond self-actualization to get things done.  Contrary to our current president that literally does not know the difference between truth and lies Donald Trump will work with the members of Congress that want to accomplish something, and not just Republicans.

Take note, while others are whispering in the shadows about how to defeat Donald Trump, for their own private agendas, the electorate is becoming more and more convinced he is the man who can defeat the doldrums of Washington.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 775 other followers