Thought on Memorial Day 2018

In the United States of America, Memorial Day was traditionally on May 30.  It recognized the ultimate sacrifice, on the field of battle, of military personnel.  Literally, for thousands of years societies have commemorated those sacrifices.  Death in the warrior’s service, for the benefit of society, has held a special place of honor.  Since the early 1970s, the USA has chosen the last Monday in May of each year for the day of remembrance.

Nearing the end of the Civil War hundreds of Union soldiers died imprisoned in Confederate captivity.  A retired member of Congress, serving in the army, declared the Memorial in May as the day to decorate the graves of the fallen.  The day, it is rumored, was selected as the one day when no Civil War Battles had occurred during the conflict.  Also rumored is the suggestion that the date was chosen because it was a time when flowers would be in bloom in all regions of the nation.

Yet, of greatest significance was the fact that ALL people ought to take a day of special remembrance.  For many of us, it was one day in 365.  For those buried in the silence of the grave, it was one of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of days in which their loved ones would always hold a piece of the deceased in the melancholy of their hearts.

What would cause men and women to rise to the occasion of war?  I seriously doubt that any of them enlisted to sacrifice their lives for their country.  I prefer to believe that each of them enlisted with a willingness to sacrifice all, if need be, for a higher calling.

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

This week we are celebrating something more than just won battles.

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 borderline that divided liberty from servitude.  When that tide receded it was blood red…from the blood of good men.

Of that massacre of men for the cause of liberty, 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“.

It should not be lost to the eye, ear, heart, or mind of the casual observer that 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”. (John F. Kennedy)

There is a doctrine unknown to much of the world.  I call it the doctrine of “original pride”.  Poorly summarized in simplistic terms it says that Lucifer fell from grace with God because of his pride.  He had the desire to force all men to be good.  Alternatively, Jesus Christ offered salvation not through force but through each person’s liberty.

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 trampled that eternal right of choice.  In the interest of forcing upon the people what was presumed 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 presumed 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”.  Colonialists 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 uttermost 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 thousands 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 the 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 pruning hooks: 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.

For each of us to hold a proverbial plowshare of liberty there must be some willing, though not seeking, to lay their very lives at our feet.  Such service and sacrifice deserve a moment or two of our time to dust off the ancient graves and place a Poppy thereon, of both the lions and the lambs which lie down side by side beneath our feet.


Why Not Neither

When, in the course of political events, one chooses to refrain from embracing any candidate, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the rejection. (paraphrased, with intent).

Orrin Hatch, United States Senator from Utah, finally decided it was time to hang up his Republican Jersey and head home to the Pennsylvania pastures which had been transplanted to Utah.  Of course being in the US senate has always been his choice since following his first election to the office.  The hounds of hopefulness always howled at his longer tenure, but neither Republican nor Democrats ever actually had the chance of a dying duck in a hailstorm of winning the seat from him.

Now, in 2018 Orrin has decided to put his political cleats in his locker for the last time.  And, what a running game he had.  Senator Hatch dominated the political field as few others in history ever had.  The super bowl of Utah politics will be named after him.  Every newcomer to the ballot may win the Lombardi Trophy (aka Hatch Trophy) at the game’s end, but the name will forever be associated with Orrin Hatch.

In 2018 multiple candidates are arising to claim the role as Republican gladiators.  Yet, there is one financial gladiator and many humble Christians for the crowds to scream for…until the lions finish lunch.

The gladiator of big finance and inevitability for billboard notices is none other than “also ran” Mitt Romney.  Though seen as a wealthy kitty cat slayer, surrounded by “also would-be” cheerleaders, dressed like a cheap pontiff, Romney does not offer much in the way of statesmanship nor a consistent reputation.  His claim to fame in Utah is that he held the cloak of other Christians while they entered the games to get stoned and devoured by lions.

In the other corners stands the hopefuls, a good intentioned Walter Mittys sweating profusely into their towels before the introductions have even been made.  Whereas as the gladiator is well-known, these lightweights have spent far too much time shadow boxing.

Now, I return to my opening stolen paraphrase.  I wish to explain why I reject Rambling Romney, heir apparent for the adulating Gods of proper Utah politics.

As Jefferson , the great anti-federalist suggested, long strings of abuses and miscreant governments deserve to have their chains severed from the necks of the people who place them in power.  Romney fails to offer the hammer, chisel and anvil needed to make that break.

The citizenry of this nation, and more importantly her states, have become so accustomed to being chained to the oars of the central government ship-of-state most cannot even recognize that nearly every discussion begins and ends with how to be managed nationalized power.  The founders wrote the great compromise into the Constitution which inevitably led to our international prominence.  Initially this nation, until the time that the devil (Woodrow Wilson) was elected to the presidency, was a fleet of powerful ships.  Today, because of a lack of consciousness about what we were intended to be, each state is nothing more than a rowboat with a flock of squawking seagulls as lackies at the helm.

As suggested, all things are spoken of in terms of how the states and people must comply with the federal government.  Yes, people like Mitt Romney are blatantly advocates of the Wilsonian progressive view that people are inferior to the wise, wealthy, and usually wicked.  The answer from his ilk is all things ought to be centralized.

Yet, many of his opponents, shouting from the rooftops in a hopeless harangue are no less guilty.  They may scream about over burdensome federal regulation but they also offers no specific alternatives to the rambling Romney.  With exceptions.

Most of the candidates simply scamper around the skirt tails of platitudes with nothing of substance to offer the electorate.  Why, because we have been trained as candidates that people won’t vote for a candidate that actually stands for something definable (until President Donald Trump).  All that we see is a posse of deputies riding hard into the sunset of another mindless monologue of “we need new ideas,” or “we need fresh leadership.”  Yet, few offer anything beyond cryptic casual caustic comments which can never be held against them on the stage of true leadership.

What is needed, and hoped for by this author, is a candidate willing to state clearly what he will champion…besides grand theories which hold little if any substance.

Where is the man who will say, AND MEAN,

  1. “I will devote myself to eliminating the entire Internal Revenue Service and push back such schemes to the states?”  Where is he or she?
  2. Where is the man or woman who will say “If the ninth and tenth circuit courts perpetually fail to bring rulings in sync with the US Constitution, I will advocate for a closure of that court.  There is no need for the expense of a court which cannot or will not comply with the Supreme Court.”
  3. Where is the man that will say, “The worst operated digital performance of this age exists within our government.  I will dedicate myself to insisting of reforming all necessary agencies to provide 98% flawless digital communication twenty-four (24) hours seven days per week.”

I could not give one whit for a perfectly funded candidates that is willing to boldly declare how he will stand up for the little guy and principles, when in United States of America there are NO “little guys,” and, when principles are without content and follow-through.  Simple-minded empty sales pitches by flamboyant and well-financed candidates serve no value.

I would sooner have a badger babysit a field mouse than have a candidate that places party before lively action toward actually minimizing the size and influence of government over the lives of individuals.

In light of these comments I see only three candidates worthy of election; Sam Parker, Larry Meyers, and Tim Jimenez.  Mitt Romney does not even make the middle tier.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary … men should rise up in opposition to the suppression of that government which holds them bound.  That necessity exists now, as never before since the Declaration of Independence.

That Is The Way I See It.


The LDS Church Stance

I am not a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor do I have any authority to represent the LDS Church.  I reiterate, these are my interpretations of public and authoritative documents.  I should not be cited as having any form of legitimacy.  These are my opinions alone.  Yet, my views ought not to be summarily dismissed either.

A friend, associate, of mine Kate Hefley Dalley, is a an afternoon talk show host on a local radio station with a broader audience via the internet.  Not only does she spend her weekday afternoons commenting on public issues she also posts her personal views on Facebook.

Among her personal views she posted the following: “When the Bundy’s were up against FED snipers trained on them and their children and the unconstitutional treatment by the Feds, Elected Officials both Federal and State failed to help them, their own constituents. Michele Fiore was the only one I can think of that listened to them and stuck her neck out for them. That means a whole lot of Elected Officials, Senators, Congressmen, even Sheriffs and Mayors quickly threw this family and LaVoy Finicum under the bus.”   That is not her statement in its entirety but it portrays her sentiment, I believe.  Kate is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referenced as the LDS Church.

Following her post several people jump on their own bandwagon of criticism of the LDS Church because of its stance regarding the imprisonment of several members and friends of the Bundy family over a dispute with the Bureau of Land Management.  In addition to that dispute charges were also set against the Bundy family members for participation in the occupation of a wildlife reserve in Oregon, which resulted in the shooting death of Lavoy Finicum by local officials operating in conjunction with federal law enforcement agencies.  At that time the LDS Church issued a statement encouraging people to refrain from the conflict.

Consequent to people’s reaction to Kate’s post, by bring criticism of the LDS Church’s otherwise non-position regarding the conflict, in Nevada, she posted a clarification that her comment (cited above) related to elected officials and not LDS Church officials. “I’m not addressing the Church in this post. I’m talking exclusively about the Elected Officials that we elect to SERVE us. Will they really serve us if we were treated as the Bundy’s were. Let’s stay on topic. Please!”  Yet, the people otherwise critical of the Church’s role continued their commentaries of complaint.  It is then that I felt compelled to comment on the matter specific to the LDS Church’s role.  Rather than a lengthy Facebook comment I chose to use this blog.

Again, one more time, I reiterate these are my singular viewpoints and are shared by others only coincidentally.

The role of elected officials and the media are substantively different from the role of religious leaders and organizations, in most cases.  At least I hope so.  In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints its mission is to “Bring Souls Unto Christ.”  Over the years the LDS Church has reiterated that it takes political positions only as they related specifically to that mission.  It is important to note that the LDS Church does not comment on every political issue, nor should they regardless of the strength of their influence.  As President Abraham Lincoln said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Likewise, I hold the perspective that a Church divided in its mission cannot long stand.  When the winds come it shall fall and great shall be the fall of it.

When the LDS Church encouraged membership to refrain from participation in the Oregon incident I hold the opinion that it did so to encourage peace and a well-ordered society.  The LDS Church leadership, with the perspective of thousands of hours on interactions with violence across the globe and seeking to fulfill its mission none-the-less, may have foreseen highly potential outcomes.  In fact, the outcome was in fact the death of a former LDS Bishop, Lavoy Finicum, whom chose to participate and even taken on the role of spokesman.

As a personal side note I was somewhat well acquainted with his brother, whom was serving as an LDS Bishop, and we discussed Lavoy at some length.  Correspondingly, I worked very closely with the father-in-law of one of Lavoy’s sons and had similar and even more in-depth conversations.  I lived next door to the home of one of the main parties involved in Lavoy’s shooting.  A week before Lavoy’s death I interviewed him for over an hour.  Although frustrating that I will not go into detail about those conversation because they are private and sacred I believe I am qualified to understand better than some the subtle roles played by various people.

The LDS Church maintained its position consistent with its mission, as directed by its ordained leaders.  Some people may disagree with that because of their own designs and desires.  They will likely continue with criticism.  Yet, they do not, like myself, guide the reigns.

With respect to those whom would criticize the LDS Church too harshly let me draw upon an easily overlooked or manipulated portion of LDS Church Scripture, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9)

That verse may be easily manipulated to defend or justify criticism or use of religious influence.  Some will attempt to twist its obvious meaning with personal nuance.  However rational minds will recognize that between the mission and this scripture of the LDS Church the intent is clear.  The LDS Church focused upon bringing souls unto Christ and commenting or unduly influencing publicly elected leaders, for all religious societies, clearly would have been inappropriate.

Further, “We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:11)

That does not suggest that the Church itself should be engaged such activities, but rather that men are justified in such behaviors.  Expectation for the LDS Church to step into the breach of every social issue is foolhardy.  However, in keeping with their mission it is wise to counsel people, through means of a broader perspective, to use wisdom to keep themselves from harm’s way both temporally and eternally.

Further, willfully overlooked by some is that this verse does not justify insurrection.  It justifies just self-protection where governments cannot supply immediate and satisfactory means against criminal elements.  It is popular among some to suggest that governments themselves are criminal elements.  Yet, they are not.  They are duly elected and appointed by the established means,  If we are dissatisfied with the conduct of those elected we have a right, even an obligation to justly seek to replace them.  Again, not by insurrection but by legitimate means.

ps- Initially, I held the stance as many others.  I questioned why the LDS Church would refrain from raising a voice of warning against obvious and apparent government unjust intrusion.  However, accepting that the Church leaders had a broader and more experienced perspective than myself I was able, after some time, to recognize the deeper and longer merit of their course.

That is The Way I See It.


A Change in the Focus

Following is a commentary which I wrote on January 24, 2012.  It is not about CMV for a change, but rather about Mitt Romney.  Slight format changes have been made but the content remains the same.

This is in reference to Mitt’s conduct during the 2012 primaries and debates.  If you have paid any attention you will see that he has not change but only gotten more entrenched in his hateful rhetoric.

Mitt Romney is simply another Barack Obama.

Throughout the debates when a moderator asks a question Mitt uses a response similar to “That’s not the question I want to answer, so here is the right question”.  When an opponent raises an issue and asks him to actually respond (aka Rick Santorum in South Carolina) Mitt rudely responds with “I’ll answer the way I want to answer”.

Repeatedly throughout this election year we have seen Romney respond to people with the equivalent of “Shut up, it my turn to speak”.  Maybe a Dale Carnegie class is in his future plans.

Mitt’s speeches are filled with grand platitudes, but helplessly short on substance.  He is wonderful at blaming Obama, but if one listens closely to his comments he does not back-fill his criticism with what he will actually attempt to do…other than that he will hang Churchill’s picture back up in the White House.  I count that as slightly short on substance, symbolic as it may be.

He rants and carries on about not releasing his tax information.  Personally I don’t care.  However, this article is about how Romney is like Obama.  The president has refused again and again to release personal information.  Mitt is acting just like Barack.  The attitudes are the same; “I am better than the people that I ask to allow me to govern”.

Mitt Romney is fundamentally an arrogant candidate.  Pundits keep asking the question as to why Romney does not resonate with the voters.  The answer is rather simple.  Mitt Romney, just like Barack Obama, believes he is better than the rest of us.  He weakly attempts to convince us that he is one of us with his millions in annual income.  Then he speaks down to us, as opposed to Newt Gingrich that actually does resonate with the people.  Romney was Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and believes that means the people are “commoners” below his majesty.  We sense that and rightfully bristle.

An example of his arrogance is how he and his wrecking crew, led by the always hateful Karl Rove, slashed out at Newt Gingrich in Iowa.  Their ads were particularly hateful and misleading.  Then when the tables are turned and Newt demands answers from Romney what did we hear?  “I am shocked that Republicans would attack fellow Republicans (ME) like that.   I expect that from the Democrats, but not Republicans.”  Mitt Romney genuinely believes he is above criticism.  He believes that he is better than “we the people”.  Then last night in the Florida debate he repeated the same disgustingly shallow behavior.  He opened his comments by refusing to answer the question asked of him, and went on one of the most vicious personal attacks on Gingrich that has ever been displayed.   Then at the end of the debate decried how others doing the same thing toward him was somehow out of bounds.  There was man so consumed in himself that he didn’t even perceive what he was doing.  Some would say he “Obamaed” himself. His whole demeanor is that he can be distasteful, but others should respond by saying “Gee Mitt, thanks for that barbed stick up our collective butts”.

Let’s look at another example of Mitt’s mentality of meanness.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,”   Really?  Seriously, Mitt?  Then you are one of the few managers in the world that have that mentality.  Nobody likes being fired, and nobody except the mean-spirited like firing people, even non-performers.   I use another phrase by him last evening.  When talking about Fidel Castro, Mitt was gleefully sarcastic about how he would happy when the man dies.  I am not defending Fidel Castro, however the American people that I know don’t wish that despicable of a comment on others who have done them no harm (Oh, wait.  Maybe Castro was able to dip into Romney’s millions in the Cayman Isles, but overlooked the millions all the rest of us keep in Swiss banks).  Mitt Romney is out of touch with the average descent American.

Republicans are fond of pointing fingers at the unemployed minorities in inner cities and suggesting that they have an entitlement mentality and think the government should bail them out.  The reality is that it is people like Mitt Romney that have the entitlement mentality.  He believes that America owes him the presidency because he is efficient at killing jobs, because he came from a rich daddy, because he has others to do the actual dirty work for him such as lying about fellow Republicans.

I have a challenge for Mitt Romney.  Br. Mitt, why don’t you respond to the questions America wants answered, rather than suggesting we should worship you…just because you are you?  We have had almost four years of an arrogant president.  You look and sound just like him.


CMV: The Consummate Failure

The Count My Vote (CMV) initiative is proven historically to be the consummate failure of prudent government.


CMV seeks to establish direct primaries as the only, if not dominate, mean of selecting candidates for public office.  Of course the proponents argue the merits of how everyone, not just a few delegates choose their candidates in and open election.  They refuse to share actual historic information which demonstrates the inborn flaws.

In Early American (United States) politics term limits were self-imposed by most candidates.  Even those in office mistrusted their own instincts to eventually be influence by the allure of unbridled power.  Several originalist treatises, constitutions and compacts demonstrated disdain for a lack of rotation in public office.

It is often suggested that Abraham Lincoln’s early career was fraught with defeats and disappointment.  At some level that may be true.  But his own words suggest otherwise. Said he, “to enter myself (sic. for another term in the House of Representatives) as a competitor of another, or to authorize anyone so to enter me, is what my word and honor forbid”.

Yet, within a decade after the Civil War and obviously Lincoln’s death careerism or “homesteading” in political office was taking root.  By the 20th century long-term office holding and career incumbency was in full swing  rivaling the times of roaring “dance until you drop” era.

What has all that to do with CMV, you may well be asking?  Let me expand.

Not long after men began coveting career office holding came the infusion of Direct Primaries to substantially enlarge their “political capital” of life long incumbency.

The agenda of Count My Vote is to drive a nail into the coffin of the Caucus System. Which will perpetuate life long terms of wallowing at the trough of political slop.

History has taught us by sad experience it is the nature and disposition of just about all people who once at the levers of power will advocate for any form of public nuance to give themselves advantage to continue riding the gravy train.

Our forefather knew the ancient history of these truths and culturally rejected those tendencies through conduct and written constitutions.  Our consummate failure is that we refuse to take the time to learn from those men whom were learned.  In exchange we rely on the loud voice of wealth shouting down the warnings of the day…simply for their sole advantage.

Reject these modern megaphones and listen first to the voices of the wise men of the past who chose wisdom over political expedience. Said George Mason, of the Continental Congress, “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation”.  I believe he would have added that limiting the power of multiple layered vetting is equally essential, which is what the Utah Caucus system provides.

That Is The Way I See It.


CMV -Another Look

As I watched the deception about CMV (Count My Vote) unravel a couple of years ago and the legislature finally cave to the proponent’s threats I was fascinated by the shallowness of the reasoning.  The Utah State Legislature ultimately came up with a ludicrous compromise known as SB-54.

Now, the CMV folks, despite their assurances to cease the initiative effort have reneged and are pursuing an even worse version of Count My Vote (Yes, it can get much much worse, and they are intending to make it so) initiative.

In short CMV accomplishes one thing, despite their tales of public appeal.  Count My Vote seeks to open a pathway for wealthy candidates to buy access to the ballot rather than going through a legitimate evaluation process currently working with Utah’s political parties.

CMV, in more detail, is purported to allow candidates to simply declare what party they affiliate with and then buy access to a ballot position without being vetted by those who actually participate in the nominating process.

As in most cases with initiatives in Utah, once a group has established that they wish to change state law through a signature route, the State Legislature will step in and create some convoluted version of compromise. 

It is important to recognize that the State Legislature long ago established a law that in essence says “Which way did the public go…so we can get in front of them and lead them.”  In less caustic terms that means the State Legislature has reserved to right to override and prevent initiatives in Utah from taking effect simply by passing a related law.

Therefore my question come to this, how far will the CMV advocates and State Legislators go to take control of private organizations?  I raise the question because political parties in Utah are private organizations and should be allowed to establish their own operating procedures.

Consider this scenario.  If the State Legislature or CMV continues down this road of needless regulation  how far will they go?  Conceivably and realistically they could also mandate how party officials are selected.  What????  Are you Crazy, Bill?

Under the current Caucus/Convention system delegates select candidates for office or a primary during a legitimately held and open convention.  SB-54 has undermined that process.

Now, let’s look just a bit further down the road.  The party leadership, presidential electors, national committee members, et al are selected by the convention delegates elected in the neighborhood caucuses. With the direction that the CMV folks and State Legislature is moving it is conceivable and reasonable to believe that a consequence of this effort to appease wealthy candidates would leave party leadership in the hands of just a few well placed “I bought your Vote” incumbents.  If delegates are too unwise to properly select candidates for office these same people would advocate that party leadership should also be removed from the hands of delegates.

Here is my concern with that scenario.  In the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton had full control of the Democrat Party leadership.  Consequently, other viable candidates were systematically ousted or prevented from fair participation in their primary process.  The tales of the deceit are now legendary.  

Another example was the Mitt Romney campaign when he ran against President Obama.  His campaign and PACS systematically coordinated and used their influence and monetary resources to undermine Rick Santorum in New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich in S. Carolina/Florida.

As we look to the future in Utah these kinds of insider controls of private partisan organizations must be guarded against by preserving the best means of protection through the Caucus/Convention system.  In 2018 it is purported that one of the main supporters of backroom and public manipulation will be seeking the Republican nomination for the US Senate.  If the Caucus/Convention system is undermined further Utah will lose its ability to field well-informed and honorable candidates.
That Is How I See It


More on The Disaster Called “Count My Vote.”

I write regularly about the conspiracy being perpetrated upon the State of Utah by high roller gamblers, from out-of-state, pushing the Count My Vote Initiative.  I have highlighted the very obvious flaws with the corruption which insider rich boys and girls are trying to shove down the voters throats.

Today I address another relevant point; illegal voting.  One of the protections which the Caucus/Convention system  provides is a controlled election which keeps illegal voting at a minimum.

We have seen repeatedly where some states that rely exclusively on primaries then have legitimate claims of substantive illegal voting.  Most recently we have the case where significant and reliable stories of illegal voting took place in the Alabama Special Election for an US Senate Seat.  The stories range from vast numbers of voting precincts actually having more votes tallied that registered voters to verified stories of voters being bused in from adjacent states.

What makes this relevant is that there is no reliability among voters of the veracity of the voter turn-out or casting of ballots.  It will not be sorted out for months, if not years.

The cause of this phenomena is the wide open primary and runoff process used there.  It is in some fashion similar to the initiative being promoted by the Count My Vote (CMV) folks.  CMV is seeking to eliminate a vetting system that verifies the legitimacy of each delegate voting in a convention setting.  All political parties in Utah use rational processes to verify legitimacy of delegates in their conventions.  No such assurances exist with the system promoted by the CMV advocates.

For example, in Utah County just this year, thousands of ballots were sent out to non-Republican voters allowing them to vote in the Republican primary.  Had the Utah State Legislature left well-enough alone rather than jamming SB-54 down the throats of Utah voters the flaw would have been prevented.

What we shall see in future elections, if the next CMV initiative is successful, will be constant challenges to the veracity of election turn-outs and the casting of votes.  The confidence of the voters will be in constant doubt, especially when an under qualified  wealthy candidate that demonstrates their lack of understanding or interest in the views of the Utah electorate, is able to buy a position on the ballot.

Such wealthy candidates can (and there is no reason to believe they will not) buy transient voters to cast ballots in their favor, if a race appears close.

Now, the natural tendency will be to say “That could never happen in Utah.  We are too honorable for that.”  Well, folks, that is precisely what happened this year.

Nothing good for Utah will come from the CMV initiative, but bad will certainly raise its ugly head once again….over, and over again.

That Is The Way I See It!


Let’s Examine the FACTS About the CMV Claims

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli’s works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Several other people have been listed as originators of the quote, and it is often erroneously attributed to Twain himself.”

That pithy quote is attributed to a variety of prominent folks through history;  Most frequently has been Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain.  It doesn’t make much difference, I suppose, who coined the phrase first.  It is there and rather accurate.

“Lies” are used to hide the truth about something someone said or did.
“Damn lies” are used to totally refute something which someone has claimed about a person.
“Statistics” are used to obfuscate the truth when mild or firm denial is just not sellable.

The Count My Vote Website, used to support an initiative to alter the form of nominating candidates for office in Utah, asserts various statistics that deserve further analysis than the site authors apparently wish for us to be aware of.  Let’s examine those “statistics.”

The CMV website asserts statistics to support their claim that the current caucus/convention system cheats the voters of Utah out of fair representation.

  1. Flaw # 1-They use data that is passed relevancy, but is statistically misleading. ”  In 1960, over 78% of Utah voters went to the polls. In 2012, only 51% of Utah’s voting age population cast a ballot, ranking Utah 39th nationally in voter turnout.”  Wow, that is just terrible…a twenty-one percent drop in voting.  The rape and pillaging has begun and is unstoppable, maybe.
    1. Response to their First Flaw – Note that they statistically use old data that is now 20 years out of date.  The problem becomes apparent when compared to current data.
      1. The old data they use is a fraudulent representation of subtlety.  They are comparing voters that went to the polls with the overall voting age population.  Nothing in their arguments suggests that the CMV initiative will increase voter registration, NOTHING.  The comparison is a deception, likely orchestrated by a professional advertising firm.
      2. CMV then fails to articulate the sources and application of their data.  Is it comparing state races, congressional district races, presidential races.  That is a well disguised anomaly likely intended to convey a false flag message.
      3. In current data (2000-2016) national data centers (United States Census Bureau and the Clerk of the House of Representatives) show much different information.  First, presidential election years, along with congressional elections years, the voter turnout for the past decade and a half have remained statically insignificant in terms of turn out.  The only exceptions are during the Obama elections which both had lower percentage turnouts.  That should be surprising given the LDS association of Mitt Romney.  All other years remain statistically insignificant in changes.
      4. Next is the matter of actual voter turnout compared to statistical percentages.  Between the years 2000 and 2016 (last presidential election year) the actual number of voters in the presidential, senatorial and Congressional district races has seen substantial increases.
        1. Presidential races = 360,563 additional voters (46.8% increase).
        2. Senatorial races =  345,879 additional voters (44.9% increase).
        3. Congressional races = 355,390 additional voters (46.84% increase).
  2. Flaw # 2 – The CMV site asserts opinion as though it were fact.  They offer no substantiation for those claims.  “Utah’s caucus system is least accountable to Utah voters
    • Utah’s elected leaders are more concerned with making policies supported by party delegates than policies supported by Utah voters.
    • Party delegates and activists have different priorities than voters and do not represent the views of average Utahns.
    • Utah’s system gives the most power and influence to those with the most extreme views.”

    1. Response to their Second Flaw –

    There is no evidence that elected officials show additional concern for delegate views than for primary or general election views.  A much longer commentary could actually demonstrate that in a multitude of scenarios state and congressional elected officials actions are contrary to those of delegates.

    Again, there is no substantiation for the assertion that delegates and activists have different priorities than the voters.  But the flaw goes further; there is also NO substantive evidence that elected officials, absent the caucus system, are any more responsive to the voters.  What is relevant to recognize is that those who run for office usually have an issue of great concern to them, regardless of how they achieve being on the general election ballot.  Of course they will centralize their actions around those issues.  There is a perfect case in point to verify that assessment.

    The assertion of the current system giving power to those with the most extreme views should be reversed 180 degrees.  It is the Count My Vote initiative that is the perfect example.  It is being pushed by special interests ahead of many other equally salient issues.  The state legislature in the passage of SB-54 demonstrated that they in fact were not adversely effected by delegates but were actually responsive to the special interests of CMV advocates, to the detriment of the citizens of Utah.

    That is The Way I See It.


Republican Vs. CMV

Let me attempt to confuse things even more. There is a battle going on within the Republican Party.  It extends from national to state to local partisanship.  I speak to the intra-party squabble in Utah.

It appears there is a contest of wills being exerted between the Utah Republican Party Chairman, Rob Anderson, and a sizable portion of the State Central Committee.  To simplify the subject there is an underlying issue referred to as Count My Vote.

On one side, long time party activists seek to maintain what is known as Caucus/Convention system for nominating candidates to run under the official banner of the Republican Party.  Contrary to that system is the initiative known as “Count My Vote”(CMV).  Under CMV any candidate could declare themselves a member and representative of a political party.  They would then have an opportunity to sidestep the   obligations of Caucus/Convention system and by acquiring sufficient petition signatures to have their name placed on the ballot…as an officially sanctioned representative of the party.

Under threat of an initiative process the CMV advocates persuaded the State Legislature to adopt a state law creating a blend of the two concepts.  The Utah Republican Party, in conjunction with other third parties in the state, sought to de-legitimatize the new law as inconsistent with the state constitution, via a lawsuit.

That is about as succinct as I can make the scenario.

The Utah Republican Party elected a chairman who campaigned for the position as a protector of the traditional Caucus/Convention system.  Since that time his actions have been called into question by several member of the State Central Committee of the Republican Party.  The reason for being called into question is the apparent shift in the chairman’s position on the entire question of opposition to the CMV effort.  They claim he has become an advocate of a system which will destroy the Republican Party of Utah.

The latest round of debates (overlooking recent intra-party knock-down drag-out fights) centers around the rights of the chairman to nullify the calling of State Central Committee meeting.

Here are the facts:

  1.  Despite claims by any party official the state central committee, under its (Republican Party) own Constitution and Bylaws, is chaired by the Party Chairman.
  2. In the absence of the Chair the Party Vice chairperson then conducts the meeting.  That is Very Clear, and to an extent substantiates the Chairman’s Claim of certain rights of operations.
    1. The Constitution and Bylaws of the Party DO NOT address directly the process to be followed if the Chair and the Vice Chair are absent.
  3. However, the Republican Party Constitution, Article XIII state “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party…”
    1. The question then becomes what is the meaning of the word (No, I am not pulling a Bill Clinton here) “current?”  Does it mean current , as in the time of adoption, or “present” as in right now?  Although that question could bear relevance fortunately for this matter it does not.
    2. According to multiple dictionaries the confusion between current and present is made clear.  Current means at the time of, whereas present means right now.  Perhaps the adoption of the Repubican Party Constitution did not take the nuance of those words into account.  I am.
    3. The current, date of the latest version of the Republican Party Constitution was May 20, 2017.  That suggests that the present version of the Constitution prevails, since 5/20/2017.
  4. What makes that particularly relevant is that the current and present edition of Robert’s Rules of Order state the same thing.
    1. In the absence of a chair and a vice chair the Secretary shall conduct the opening of the meeting.
    2. The legitimate participants then select a Chair Pro Tem to conduct all subsequent matters of the meeting.  Upon the presence of the permanent chairman or vice chairman the Pro Tem position is immediately vacated.

Nothing in the existing Republican Party Constitution or Bylaws, which are also subject to state statute, suggest that the absence of the chair or vice chair of any group, having adopted the current/present Robert’s Rules of Order imply that an officially called meeting of the State Central Committee would be illegal or inappropriate.

With respect to the Chairman’s right to cancel a State Central Committee nothing in the Party Constitution, Bylaws, statute, or Robert’s Rules of Order defend that presumption.  He may disagree with the meeting and reject, personally, all aspects of it’s proceeding.  Yet, his only legitimate course of action is to argue against it such proceeding.  He cannot even legitimately refuse to take action dirceted by the State Central Committee, without resignation.

Absent his resignation as chairman by a 60% vote of the State Central Committee, under the Constitution and Bylaws as presently written, that body may remove him from his role.

That Is The Way I See It.


We Need Moore Accountability

Did you like my play on words in the title of this article?  I thought it was clever.

What is not clever is the unruliness of the United States Central Government.  I seriously hope people will take the following suggestions seriously.

Dozens upon dozens of men have been recently crucified on the cross of intolerance and supposition of sexual misconduct.  Some of them members of the United States Congress or running for public office.  [Please read my previous post regarding this phenomena].

I do not opine on the veracity of any of the accusations nor their subsequent denials.  What I do opine on is the general acceptance which we give to salacious gossip being promoted by ne’er-do-well media talking heads and members of Congress.

The onslaught of accusations will only accelerate now that success has been garnered via the Judge Roy Moore defeat in Alabama.  We SHALL see every Tom, Dick, and Harry being accused for the exaggerated effort to destroy them politically.  It Can Be Stopped, at least in the political realm.  Here is how.

Confront it.  Confront it, not for the sake of proving the accusations are false or true.  Confront it to seek greater understanding beyond presumption of guilt for pandering purposes.

A) For every accusation leveled against an incumbent or  candidate for Congress the respective body of Congress, meaning the House and the senate should exercise their Article I-5 rights as a central government body; “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; “

Character destruction and election manipulation are among the worse behaviors of a people free to select their own governors.  Surprisingly (little known to the masses), the founders designed the Constitution with it abundant and in some cases redundant phraseology to prevent, best as they could, the mass of people from being momentarily persuaded to evil be designing men of a corrupt nature.  Yes, I know that some ultra conservatives who have read the US Constitution once will argue with me, but they would be simply incorrect.

B) Under Article 1-5 every accusation leveled toward an incumbent, Republican or Democrat, should be subject to true evaluation by the House or Senate.  Anyone refusing to provide testimony for any, and I mean ANY, reason to participate in such investigation should immediately be discounted and rejected as salacious.

C) Until such time as the respective house of Congress has made a determination of veracity, under A1-5, no elected official should be seated.

D) Further, though not articulated in the US Constitution, any member of Congress expressing views regarding the election of members outside of their respective states should be directly and publicly censured.  Further, they ought to be stripped of any role which they have in the respective governing body.  Why?

Because of the very nature of Article 1-5!  While they have the constitutional right to determine fitness for office of any member or candidate they ought not to be making prejudicial comments regarding such individuals.  Those that obstruct that intended unbiased approach should be directly and publicly censured to the extent of removal from office for non-corrective behavior.

Yes, I am fully aware of the restriction on rights which this places on incumbents.  But incumbency places a much heavier burden of propriety upon elected officials than upon others, or at least it should.  Their judgments ought to be without bias and public influencing.

E) Yes, there are a multitude of “what ifs” which would be used by psychologically weak members of Congress.  However, the premise of this proposal is to stimulate rational behavior rather than the gut reactions which govern our entire nation at this time.

F) Finally, just as with impeachment of the president, this provision of the Constitution was included because the founders recognized that the designs of evil men would exist in the hearts of members of Congress as readily as in the heart of the President.  Those founder recognized that wickedness was not reserved only to those in the executive branch but would also prevail, if unchecked, among their very own members.  Impeachment was such a viable option to the founders it was not even discussed at length.  They KNEW that impeach was an essential element of good government.

Consequently, like impeachment, such hearing and investigations would not be deemed judicial rulings, just fitness for office.  They would be assessments of legislative aptitude.  Any case which warranted judicial action would then follow judicial proceedings.

Today there is a multitude of assertions of inappropriate behaviors by members of Congress.  Each should be dealt with as described above, regardless of rumors or partisan affiliation.  Just as the current Majority Leader of the Senate has abused his power and authority in the Judge Roy Moore election other members, including himself, have used their position to inappropriately hold Al Franken accountable for unproven allegations.  Neither Moore nor Franken were given the respect warranted, but rather were crucified upon a cross of intolerance by lesser men who would be their colleagues.

Please note, I have views and opinions regarding both Franken and Moore which are substantially different from what I have expressed herein.  However, fairness and reason must prevail and must be insisted upon by the population…else we are destined for the oblivion of a failed governing system, as predicted by the English so long ago.

That Is The Way I See It.


Getting Back to Basics

The election of Jones over Moore in Alabama, along with commentaries by some friends on Facebook, has me thinking about where we are as a society.  Let me try to be succinct.

First and foremost the question needs to be raised, “Do you still agree with the US Constitution?”  Be honest, do you?

Here is the thing.  In order to agree with the US Constitution you MUST first understand it.  I contend that most of our society (population of the USA) do not even understand it.  Yes, there are many that bark at the shadows of the Constitution, but few that actually internalize its full meaning.  Unfortunately, for this writing, that is not my main subject.

The US Constitution displays a new political philosophy for the time of its writing.  In short it asserted that the rights of self-government came from those that were to be governed and not from the “divine right of kings.”

What is self-government?  It is the condition under which each and every man may freely choose to conduct himself in a manner of his desires, without undue social restraint or gift.  Note, restraint and gifts, under the US Constitution, come in equal portions.  It comes down to that eternal premise that everyone is entitled to be agents unto themselves and none other.  They choose the course they will follow and correspondingly reap the benefits or losses.

The American society, long before the Constitution was written, embraced that concept of self governance.  The Pilgrims first instituted a limited sense of self governance.  But, with the arrival of Roger Williams it began to take full root…culminating in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.  The Articles of Confederation were the first articulation of self-governing liberty.  They were quickly followed by the US Constitution.

So, we come back to the question (because I don’t want it forgotten) do we still agree with the premise of the US Constitution?  The answer makes significant differences in the lives of people and The People.

I use the phrase “bootstrap democracy” to articulate agreement with the original Constitution.  Every man from whatever entitlement or lack thereof he comes from has the right and ability to grab his own bootstraps and pull himself up in society.  His level of rise, and to stay risen, depends entirely on himself.  That is what is written in the Constitution.

Contrary to that is the premise that every man is somehow entitled to gifts from the masses of society.  Those gifts may be society, through government, restricting the ability of some to rise or plundering some to give others a lift-up.  It is really that simple.

In every election from the most local to the largest national prominence the first and foremost question we ought to be asking ourselves is whether the basis for a man seeking a public role will advance bootstrap democracy or inequity of resources.

So, one more time the question is which do you favor?  Do you embrace a society which government dictates the gifts delivered, OR, do you embrace a society wherein each man rises or falls on his own merits?

We may not like being “called out” for our stance because of some embarrassment but the question always remains the same and each of us determines how we shall answer it.  Yet, honesty is the best response, at least to ourselves.

If you reject the premise of the US Constitution for whatever reason, that very Constitution as originally written entitles you to do so.  Equally if you are willing to embrace the full concept of that Constitution you also have that entitlement.

Now, for the kicker.  If you reject the basis of the US Constitution you, in a good moral sense should loudly and boldly assert that it is an antique concept.  Don’t hide behind transient issues like taxes, budgets, moral conundrums, and foreign wars.  Just stand up boldly and declare that you reject our Constitution.

Yet, on the opposite hand, if you honestly still embrace the concepts embedded in the US Constitution you certainly ought to come to their defense…even when doing so may temporarily injure yourself.  Why?  Because the concepts of the Constitution guarantee nothing in the short-term.  Yet, in the long-term they are far more beneficial than all the government mandated gifts of society.

“Chose ye this day whom you will serve.”  The choice is between the Philistines and the Freemen.

That is the Way I See It.



My recent observations at the US Postal Service

I stopped at the post office on Friday, grumpy and complaining because I wasn’t feeling well.  That’s important for two reasons.  First, I was sick so you should give me sympathy.  Second, when we are sick we tend to notice irritants more.

Let me describe what transpired.

Entering the parking lot there were multiple signs ordering me which way to drive.  To put an emphasis on that control over me the government had built a barrier to actually prevent me from going where they said not to drive.  Two more signs gave instructions on speed and parking.

The handicapped space was marked handicapped with a threatening message that violators would be towed and fine (of course some federal statute was cited as authority).

Entering the building there were certain doors labeled as entrance and exits.  The exit doors had no handles on them, presumably to prevent ingrates from misusing the doors.  But, to emphasize once again that the feds meant business the building was designed so that the doors could not be opened inward.  By heck they were not going to risk some moral reprobate going IN the OUT door.

Now, that was not the end of the door situation.  Four feet ahead of these controlled entrances were another set of doors with the same exact commandments.  The only difference is that there was now a railing which prevented postal patrons from “crossing over” to gate-crash through the out-door.

Inside various cameras were stationed to ward off any misbehavior on my part.  Signs lined the walls advising me of the multitude of federal statutes that existed to incarcerate me for eternity if I dared exhale in the wrong location.

Of particular interest to me was the fanfare of waste receptacles.  Some for unwanted mail, some for the garbage advertisements that routinely were delivered at a discount far below the price I pay for a stamp but received unsolicited.  More signs advising about the anti-social behavior of littering and/or using the wrong can for the wrong reason. And, naturally there were the ever present recycling bins to assist in tainting our collective moral compass.

 “And, naturally there were the ever present recycling bins to assist in tainting our collective moral compass.”

Yet, what was remarkably absent was there were no signs indicating where certain box numbers were located.  And, that is such a friendly gesture to a truly service oriented service.

Once I had made a hasty retreat from the hallowed halls of the public mailroom and escaped from USPS cell-block and returned to my car, which I suspected would have been confiscated by the Gestapo for some minor infraction of central government mis-marching on my part, I beat feet for the nearest exit of the sacred shrine of federal land control.

As luck would have it I then needed to go to the UPS store.  UPS  does NOT equal USPS.  I parked where I was asked in a sign to park “for the convenience of their less mobile patrons.”  I walked inside and was welcomed.  Everyone treated me like someone there to do business; in other words professionally and not like a criminal.  I left happy, safe, and satisfied.

Here is the point…if you haven’t figured it out on your own (I respect your intellect and good will).

Government was exercising in it most egregious manner its second primary directive;  Regulate Everything. “Regulate Everything” carries with it the presumption of control over others.  That is poor and unnecessary government intrusion!

The alternative is private enterprise where businesses trust themselves to provide a valuable service needed by the public.  Therefore they attempt to earn repeat customers.

We need far more privatization of government functions…so that government actually FUNCTIONS.

That is the Way I See It.


Sexual Tension in a Day of Righteous Indignation

The wrong things are being emphasized about the sexual harassment issues facing just about every celebrity in America.

Society is shocked by the vastness of the accusations.  Of course, defenders crawl out of the woodwork depending on which celebrity is being accused.  Likewise, the squad of judges and juries line up to sound off about the accused. Frequently, those judges and juries have some grinded axe ready to flay the dastardly dumbcoft who got himself (occasionally herself) caught in a compromised accusation.

That is all wrong thinking, narrow-minded and short-sighted.  We ought not to be at all surprised by such licentious behavior.  It has been promoted and advocated for decades.

Now, I can only speak to that period of time when I was alive to witness the licentiousness of society.  I can surmise it was occurring previously, but nothing more than supposition.  Yet, again, in my lifetime it has been ever present.  AND, today’s apparent depravity is the logical outcome.

During the 60s when I was coming of age as a teenager opposition to all the old norms ran rampant.  Social norms of my parents were challenged on every front.  “Drugs, sex, and rock-n-roll” were the emerging normative social construct.  I will bypass drugs and rock-n-roll and simply comment on the public sexually promiscuous attitudes that entered that braveless new world.

We ought not be at all surprised that a full generation of men and women raised with the “free love” mentality would believe and act out on the premise that personal invasion for sexual gratification is anything but normal.  For instance, Senator Al Franken was raised under the guise that any form of personal aggression was not only acceptable, but also encouraged as a right.  Further, much of his failed comedic career was based exclusively on licentious aggression toward others.

Should we really be surprised that he conducts himself in a manner that is disrespectful of women…or anyone…having been raised in a society dedicated to making sexual whim superior to the of the person?  I believe not!

I do not know what any of the other subjects of ridicule and or accusation have done or did not do.  I have not been asked or required to make societal ruling on the matters.  But, I do know one thing about the entire group of them…every one of them.

They grew up in a time and culture where licentiousness was prevalent.  Any man or woman had to be raised by extraordinary parents to ward off those decrepit influences assaulting them on a daily basis.  One such man raised that way appears to be Vice President Mike Pence.  I hope I am correct.

Now, lest anyone get the idea that I am excusing the licentious behavior be absolutely and undeniably clear about one thing.  The behavior is not excused.

Yet, the behavior of which I speak is twofold.  First, the aggressive physical intrusion onto another is and always has been unacceptable to good society.  The actual quality of society is another matter.  It may be good society, or it may promote salaciousness as the norm.  But, in good society aggression ought not to happen nor to be encouraged.

Second, and this is where I will lose some that are easily offended for a word.  Those people that ever permitted such aggressive behavior toward themselves to any degree encouraged the continuation of such behavior.  They are not at fault for their aggressor’s behavior, but they are certainly at fault for allowing it to go unchallenged.  Thousands of excuses which translate into fear exist to defend “doing nothing.”  But none of them endure the test character.  I will say no more on that matter.

I will conclude with an analogy.  Society is broken by embracing the permissive licentiousness which surfaced with a vengeance fifty years ago.  For half a century we have danced with the devil in the pale moon light.  Now, we have reaped the whirlwind of that very real evil.

The whirlwind which we have reaped is not as you may suspect from my commentary; that sexual perversion, which it is, is the outcome of snubbed ancient norms which beacon us when we deceive ourselves into thinking we are wiser than ancestors simply because we have rejected their ways and teachings.  The whirlwind is that our society has embraced a point where they seek pleasure in the domination of other…in whatever form it may take.

Another way of phrasing that little gem of wisdom is to say “They cannot take happiness in sin.”  Thus society goes about feigning anger, outrage and offense for being treated in a manner as they have placidly invited into the lives.  Then the abusers flaunt penny apologies pretending outrage at themselves, not for misconduct, but their own failure to hide such misconduct adequately.

That is The Way I See It.


Has Congress Lost Its Relevance

Today my wife and I stopped at a restaurant for lunch.  The TV was on one of the news  channels.  A congressional hearings with Jeff Sessions was being broadcast.

I listened as one member droned on and on with a long-winded speech leading up to a question.  Of course he had fashioned the question along the lines of “Are you still beating your wife?”  The upshot of it all was that a member of Congress was using his position for illegitimate reasons.

This is no longer unusual, but customary.  Member of Congress, state legislators, even some local officials use these opportunities of public hearings to promote an agenda rather than seeking after facts.  The Way I See It that is irresponsible and boorish.  But it is worse.

Another example was just a few days ago.  Senator John McCain was sourly chastised by the media and a few of his self-serving comrades in the senate for his questioning of former FBI Director Comey.  I like to go back to the source on these matters knowing that the media and members of Congress can be less than honest.

Additionally, I am no longer the fan of John McCain that I once was.  In fact I believe he is seriously detrimental to the governing process in America.  Nothing convinces me that he was ever a “hero” in Viet Nam.  My preference would be for him to be removed from the US Senate forthwith haste.

Yet, for all of my displeasure with Senator McCain I also consider myself to be at least moderately fair.  I listened to the exchange between the senator and Mr. Comey.  Senator McCain pontificated like the other 99 lost sheep in the upper chamber.  Yet, once his rambling was set behind him he ask cogent question sand it appeared to me that Mr. Comey was severely disingenuous in his responses.  the Arizona Senator called him out on being a phony (not in so many words…because that would unbefitting of a sitting US Senator…on national TV).  I agreed with McCain.  Something was rotten, not in Denmark or even Russia, but right here in the good old US government’s former FBI Director.

But here is the main point senators and House member alike misuse their power and their role for self applause and pontificating rhetoric.  They talk much and say nothing.  I believe there is something sort of like that in the Bible where the phrase I remember is “They think they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

Now, I will go to a point just a bit further.  Not only should these self-congratulators get to the point with their questions, such as “Secretary Sessions, were you aware of any complicity within the current administration?  Don’t waste my time, YES or NO?”

However, that is simply a procedural solution.  It still misses the real target.

” One heads east an one heads west, Though ever the same wind blows;

For it’s not the gale, but the set of the sail That determines the way she goes.”

The real target, contrary to some folks, is that Congress should not even be holding these hearings, which are a waste of time and money.  Determining criminality of one branch of the federal government is the venue of the Supreme Court, alone.  No, it is not as sexy as your congressman bragging about how he pontificated for hours but it is the correct way of doing things.

“But, the Supreme Court is too busy.  Congress must do this sort of preliminary investigation” some may bellow (especially the self-servers of media caviar in Congress).

Here is a thought.  Have the Supreme Court do its constitutionally described job and stop diddling around with abortion, school lunches and bathrooms, healthcare and a slew of other nonsensical issues it entertains itself with because it fears actually doing its real job.

So there you have it kids.

That is The Way I See It.


Arianna Grande, in her naiveté claimed to hate America.  I suspect she had no clue what she was saying.  She just repeated what her crazy publicist told her to say.

Are we to conclude that some terrorist hates her music, which led them to kill almost twenty of her fans and injured half a century of her devotees. OR, maybe the mad men just hated America also.  They simply got confused by their master manipulators about who to attack.  Oh, wait.  How does that saying go?  “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy”… or some simpleton statement like that.  Maybe it is as simple as hatred breeds hatred.

Manchester is generally a peaceful place.  No better nor worse than any other European city of its size.  But not today!  Today it is a city in devastating turmoil.  A city of over half a million people wondering if or when the next shoe (or bomb) will drop.

To the south of Manchester is the Cheshire Plain.  Maybe no cats are grinning there, but pussies in the region are casting their empty smiles of approval in a Wonderland where all others wonder “why?”

The answer to that question why is quite simple.  The evil that men do lives beyond them…in the hearts and minds of self-absorbed haters.  Unfortunately, the grinning copy cats are not the only culprits.

The media simply can’t wait to broadcast their “I got the story first” rendition of applause for yet another new and egregious headline.

But even the haters and the promoters of “man bites dog” advocates is not the sole of soulless beings.

The other group is the ner-do-well political class that lacks manhood, womanhood, and humanity.  It is the cowardly potentates of pretentiousness that sit and do nothing while ringing their hands in helplessness.  Or as the story goes:

Leaders asked the Cheshire Cat, who was sitting in a tree, “What road do I take?”

The cat asked, “Where do you want to go?”

“I don’t know,” Congress answered.

“Then,” said the cat, “it really doesn’t matter, does it?”

The destination is clear.  They all want to eliminate terrorism.  However, they are more terrified of losing an election than potentially losing a vote or two from assassinated constituents.  Oh, how conveniently they weigh the true consequences against another day on the public teat.

The path to the destination is clear we must momentarily walk among the crazy people, as crazy people (“I’m not crazy, my reality is just different than yours.”  “But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”).

By walking among the crazy people we must stop being naive. We have learned from sad experience it is the nature of just about all men to join in misbehavior…when such misbehavior is tolerated.  We have learned that mankind is addicted to repeating evil, while shunning the light of goodness.

I have nothing against Islam and the Muslim followers.  However, without question the greatest threat to world peace and the strongest advocacy of terrorism lives among that culture.  Innocent people who have committed no violence against them are too frequently becoming victims of the terrorist mayhem.

YES, the United States of America should be the policeman of the world.  Simply because no other culture has the will to stand against evil.

As a nation the USA has an obligation to defend every citizen anywhere in the world. Whether that citizen is supportive or hateful of the USA, this nation holds an obligation to persuade the world that violence against any of our citizens is violence against the most powerful human force in the history of mankind.  We ought not to abide by acquiescences to the theme that we can do nothing.

This nation should tell the world plainly and without reservation they have an obligation to avoid violence toward any non-combatant citizen of the USA.  They must be made to understand that entire nations will pay a dear cost for the uncontrolled behavior of a few of their reprobates.  Every nation should feel the wrath of the USA when any of our citizens or allies are threatened or harmed.

Every nation should understand the unequivocal outcome of permitting terrorism to export from them will result in a clear and absolute import to them of the wrath of an angry and intolerant nation with the power to exercise its will with finality.

The president should invite both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to join with him in a united effort to root out terrorism by any means.  He should humbly concede to congress that he will receive and genuinely consider their views and input.  YET, if they falter, as they are well known to do, he should make it equally clear that if they do not act united against this threat than he will act independently on behalf of the nation.

The President is the commander in chief.  He should consult with congress, but act in a forward manner with or without their first interest being the security of our citizens.

That Is The Way I See It.



Whose Terrorism is It?

It seems natural to think that the cause of growing terrorism around the country and world is the result of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The continual parade of endless slaughter worldwide is the enormous effect of a weak president and weaker-still former Secretary of State.

We wonder “why” all of the carnage comes at us like thunder and ends in enormous flashes of blinding destruction.  As a people we understand frustration.  Yet, our experience repeatedly tells us the viciousness is uncalled for.  And, intuitively we understand that failed leadership is at least partially at the root of such animosity.

Before this past week we wondered if President Obama’s administration really lacked direction and purpose.  But Dallas, and now Nice France, are seared into our consciousness.  Right now we no longer doubt either the incompetence, or, disregard which the current presidency has for human life; white, black, brown, or red.  First we presumed there was a bias in favor of the black population.  As rational people we immediately acknowledged that of course things such as race cannot be 100% overshadowed by political reasoning.  After this week a very large portion of the population perceives that somehow, for some purpose, intention is involved.

Among the apparent isolated incidents of the past few years our better selves slid into the comfort of assuming coincidences.  We, you and I, are beyond that, to where we now have no other conclusion to reach but that the national leadership is out-of-bounds either with incompetence  or deceit.

What started with this Obama administration as a grass fire of subtle manipulation has exploded into a raging inferno of mean-spirited hatred.  This administration lit and then fanned the embers of discontent.  Lack of a plan for building leaves only the perceived acomplishment of tearing down.  As the flames grew from their added fuel and rhetoric massive numbers of people felt endeared themselves to the idea that destruction was the rational course.

Stopping this cycle of anger, mistrust, hatred, blaming, and contempt can only come from you, and me.  National leaders no longer have the mental, emotional, or moral resources to stop the landslide of mutual contempt they have caused.  We must break that chain of random acts of anger, link, by link, by link.  We must act now before it is the only example humanity has remaining for future generations.

The yelling over each other must be dialed back

to conversing with each other.

Rather than finding faults, as do the politicians, you and I must return

to the foundations of our goodness.

It is within you to be civil.  It is within me to be civilized.  Our religions are founded in civilizing principles of societies. They have always been reflections of values of empowering one another, while politics have been reflections of power over one another.

The days of consuming each other must be put behind us!  Let us empower each other through comprehending each other and our great capacities.

That Is The Way I See It.


Fishing America With Grandpa

Fishing America With Grandpa is an elementary level story which discusses the Bill of Rights, as found in the US Constitution.  Chapter Two:Independence introduces the main characters to the US Declaration of Independence.  Chapter two of my book, Fishing America With Grandpa, follows in anticipation of Independence Day 2016.

Chapter Two:  Independence.

The boat glided gracefully along the smooth surface of the lake.  Jimmy was at the wheel, while Tommy stood letting the wind race across his face as he held to the top of the windshield.  The waters were so calm that there was neither pitch nor roll as grandpa proudly watched his two young master seamen.

Having come to a full stop, with anchor drop, even though there would have been minimal drifting, the anglers cast their lines among the grassy mat just peeking above the surface along the west shoreline.

The conversation started the same as it usually did with Grandpa asking the protégés what new things they had learned in school.

Tommy piped up first.  “Grandpa, our teacher was telling us about The Declaration of Independence.  It sounded pretty cool, but I didn’t think she really knew much about it.”Declaration-of-Independence

“Yeah, that’s right, Grandpa” chimed in Jimmy.   “She wouldn’t answer any of my questions.”

“Well, now boys you two DO have a lot of questions.  Maybe she didn’t have enough time.”

Tommy got a little more serious in his tone.  “It sounded really important Grandpa.  Will you explain it to us?”

“That is just what I was hoping you would ask”, the old gentleman grinned.  The bass lines were left dangling as the eager young men hung on every world of their wise grandfather. “Let’s start by talking about our fishing trip this morning.  We had to drive from our town and our county half way around the lake to get here.  Now we have fishing licenses that we bought earlier this summer, at the little store by the dock.  The government approves the sale of those licenses.  The money supposedly goes for causes like making sure the fish supply is here for everyone to enjoy.  We can fish and take home our limited number of bass which is the same as all the other fishermen.  That is intended to be fair.”

“How would you feel if we got back to the dock and the sheriff was there asking us how many fish we caught.  Jimmy, you would proudly show him your catch and I would explain we had caught only our limit.  Then, Tommy, what if he asked where you lived.”

“I would tell him, Grandpa.  It’s the right thing to do.”

“Yes, my boy it probably is the right thing to do”, smiled the family patriarch. “When he found out that we live around the lake in a different town from the county supervisor should that make much difference?”

Both boys quickly answered a somewhat confused “no”.

“Well, when the sheriff learned where we lived I know I would not be very happy if he then told me that I had to give him one of the fish I caught, so he could give it to his county boss. How about you,” he pressed on without taking an answer? “Then we would go to the county leader and explain that the lake served all of our little towns and we should not have to give up fish simply because we didn’t vote in his city?”

He continued, “then he might say that neither we, nor anyone we ask to represent us, would get to even talk to him about what’s right.  Does that sound like the right way for you to be treated?”

This time there was a more understanding and an emphatic “no” in unison from both boys.

“I agree with you two wise young men.  It is pretty evident that you understand what is fair and right.”

“But, grandpa”, Jimmy protested, “what has this got to do The Declaration of Independence?”Grandpa and boys fishing

Be just patient for just a little longer the old man pleaded.  Then he went on with his story.

“If everybody, except the people in his town, were treated like us would that be fairer.”

“Grandpa”, exclaimed Tommy!  “Just because more people are also treated wrong doesn’t make the wrong treatment right.”  Grandpa Don beamed with pride at his grandson.  He saw some wisdom beginning to surface.

“Let me go just a little further with the story, boys.  Let’s say that there were more people in the supervisor’s town than in all the other towns together.  Just imagine if those people said we want this supervisor to be in power for as long as he wants, so they made him the ”supreme”  supervisor for all time.  I don’t think we would ever get the same amount of fish we caught as the amount of fish that people in his town caught.  Tommy, what do think?  Am I probably right? “

Tommy was thinking about it hard for a minute, when Jimmy inserted his opinion.  “I don’t think he would be likely to change, Grandpa.”

“Yeah”, Tommy quickly agreed.  “We have a teacher that sometime won’t let us go outside for recess, even if our work is all done.  She says it’s because she is the teacher and gets to make the rules different everyday if she wants.  That doesn’t ever feel like she is fair.”

“That’s just like the county supervisor”, added Jimmy.

“You boys are a smart pair.  Yes, indeed you are.”

“One last thing about our fishing story.  After a while all the smaller towns would decide together that they wanted to be a new county, with their own supervisor.  Does that sound like a good idea?  Silence ensued as both youngsters slipped into deep thought.

“Grandpa”, Jimmy finally said, “That would be a good idea if two things happened.”

Tommy jumped in “the first county supervisor would have to have a chance to act fair, right?”

“The second thing”, added Jimmy “is all the people would need to be told why we were making such a big change and promised that in the new county they would be treated better.”

“Wow!” Exclaim Grandpa Don.  “You two boys are as wise as everyone thinks you are.  But, let me tell you about the Declaration of Independence, but only if you promise to read it seven times and give me a report on what you learned.”

“During the almost three hundred years after Columbus discovered the American Continent on October 12, 1492 Britain ruled where we live.  There were thirteen states or colonies as they were called in those days.  King George, the third, was the king of England and Scotland.  He also was the ruler of the colonies.  King George and his supporters began acting like the county supervisor in our fishing story.

He treated the people of the colonies unfairly.  He did things like taking extra fish and other goods from the colonies as taxes.  He didn’t let the colonies have adequate representation (that means he didn’t let them talk to the government of Britain, just like the pretend supervisor of the county in our story).

After a long time of being treated unfairly the people of the colonies decided they didn’t want him for a king any more, but they wanted their own type of government.  They did just what you two boys suggested.  Because what was right then, is also right now, and you understand that.  The colonies declared to the world what their intentions were and why.

When the thirteen colonies voted to no longer be under a government which mistreated them they all agree together.  The Declaration of Independence says “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.”  Unanimous means that all the states (or colonies) agreed, through their representatives.  The representatives of the states were known as a Continental Congress.  Congress simply meant to walk together.  The states walked together in opposition to being under King George’s rule.”

‘Jimmy do you remember what you said about making a new county and what the people should do.  I think your words were “all the people would need to be told why we were making such a big change”.  That is what the thirteen colonies did.  Listen to this explanation from the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

‘Now, Tommy, I have not forgotten what you said either.  The King, just like the county supervisor deserves a complete opportunity to change their treatment of others.  I think your words were “the county supervisor would have to have a chance to act fair and right.”  Here is what the Colonies said in The Declaration of Independence.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

And also

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

The King had been given a chance to change his behavior toward the colonists, but he didn’t.  In fact the colonies had gone to war, known and the war of independence, to assert their claim of being treated fairly.  The king chose, with support from other leaders in England, to not change.”

‘Jimmy I think it was you that also said “the people would need to be… promised that in the new county they would be treated better”.  You were very right.  But the states Declaration of Independence had more to do with how we are treated in all things, rather than just fishing.  Listen to these important words.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”’

“Tommy and Jimmy”, remarked the now tired older man, “the understanding in those few words are what has made and still makes the United States of America a nation worth shedding tears of joy for, and if necessary the shedding of blood to maintain.”

“The Declaration of Independence, boys, is the single-most assertion among all the literature of the world that men are free to think and feel as they will, and to act however they may choose, so long as they do not violate the same liberty given by God to all men.”

“Tommy, you may be interested to know, if your teacher did not tell you, that the man given credit for writing the Declaration of Independence was also named Thomas Jefferson.  Jimmy, one of the men close to him was name James Madison, whom also believed strongly in the Declaration of Independence.  img_5878

Both eventually became Presidents of the United States of America, serving out their entire lives in the protection of the rights of all men.  That is why we don’t need to fear too deeply our right to fish and keep that which we have rightfully caught.

Mr. Jefferson made this statement:

img_5881“May the Declaration of Independence be to the world, what I believe it will be…the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which … ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves… That form, which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.”’

Boys, you live with a curiosity to know and understand so very very much.  While other lesser men may want you to be silent I again encourage you to Fish America, and catch all that you can about what sets her apart from all other nations.

“Let’s go home”, said the precocious Tommy as he reeled in his empty line, “today was a good catch.”


Suicidal Republicans

It is literally pathetic how some Republicans act.  I am not a Republican, so I may be jaded, but here are some questions.

To: George Will, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham…and the list goes on.

Who do you seriously think will be president if not Donald J. Trump?

The only realistic alternative, because of our corrupted self-serving electoral system, is Hillary Clinton.  Of the 1800 plus candidates vying for the presidency it really does come down to only Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  That is not even debatable!

So, is Hillary who you seriously want as president?

If she is who you want just admit it and stop blowing smoke up everyone’s skirts.

If Hillary is elected this year, history shows that there is an 83.7% chance she will be re-elected in 2020.  NO, a different Republican candidate in the next election cycle is extraordinarily unlikely to unseat her.  As proof, just look at Mitt Romney’s dismal failure in an election where Barack Obama was hated.

After eight inevitable years of Hillary Clinton do you actually seriously believe that the nation will be better off than if Donald Trump were president?  If you believe so you are stupider than you sound most of the time with your slander about Donald Trump.

Do you seriously believe that under Hillary Clinton the nation will get a “better” Supreme Court?  If you do than you are deluding yourselves into a fantasy world.  Change your names to Alice because you have jumped down a rabbit hole of abnormal reasoning.

The senate, which will be Democrat controlled by early 2017 will ratify any Judicial appointment Hillary sets forward.  Yes, it is that simple and the results WILL BE catastrophic.  You are probably whistling you way through a scary deep dark forest of wishful thinking that the Republicans can hold-off any judicial appointments for three-quarters of a decade.

Simply to go along with your delusion of obstructive legislative action, let accept the completely irrational case that the Republican maintain control of the Senate.  In just the past couple of weeks the nation has witnessed the Supreme Court fail to make any definitive decision of relevant issue.  They have been tied 4-4.

Hence, lower court rulings have remained intact.  That has provided “conservatives” with moments to dance in the streets cheering like a ticker-tape parade.  It will not last!

The political elite whose main agenda is to exercise “power over” the populace rather than “empowerment of” the people will learn quickly.  They will begin pressuring lower courts to make unconstitutional rulings. [It will happen.]

When that occurs the liberal imposer in the SCOTUS will simply “tie the vote” on any reviews of lower court decisions.  A tie vote will result in victory over the rights of the people and the sanctity of the US Constitution.

It is time for the failed Republican self-appointed judges, such as Romney, Bush, and Graham to buy some new hat racks…because their heads should be used for something better.

I began by saying I was not a Republican.  All the mental health counselors say that when a person threatens suicide…take action to get them assistance, whether they sound believable or not.  The Republican Party has some suicidal contributors threatening to lead the lemmings over the cliff.  I am here to assist by offering sound advice.

That Is The Way I See It.


Prospective liberty

Several years ago a line in a movies stuck in my mind.  I have the sentiment correct, if not the exact phrase:

“Killing the dog because the fox ate the chicken does not make sense.”

Lavoy Finicum was murdered .  We are well past whether he was resisting arrest.  We are well past whether he posed an immediate threat to law enforcement or the public.  He was neither resisting arrest nor posing any immediate threat!

In partial consequence of his murder some two dozen civilians now languish in prison, without trial.  Among those held, with rejected pleas for adequate legal counsel and basic Bill of Rights entitlements, some were not even present at the scene of the shooting of Lavoy.

In a most suspicious series of events those incarcerations are related to resistance to central government usurpation of rights and property long before the shooting incident.  It is curious to some people, not myself, why the arrest of these people occurred nearly a year later several hundred miles from the family’s support group.

At issue is a fundamental principle:

Does the US Constitution hold to original intent and the Bill of Rights or is it a fluid document subject to the whims of each succeeding generation?

Such a question should be viewed in the light of the original authors and adherents of the Constitution.  According to Pfander and Wardon, “the Framers of the Constitution and the members of Congress who applied its terms in the early years were strongly committed to norms of prospectivity, uniformity, and transparency. (emphasis added).”

The early years consist of the “Federalist” period following the ratification of the US Constitution.  Prospectivity was an inclination of considering the long-term effect of legislative action.  The framers, ratifiers, and first twenty to thirty years of Congress tended to legislate in a manner which would be consistent for an extended period of time.

Further the originalists rather than relying on the historical merit of private bills (legislation) sought to establish prospective uniformity.  Legislation was not written to protect certain citizens, but rather all citizens equally.  The purchase of legal rights was anti-thema.

One small step for mankind away from a transparent uniformly applicable statute for the future is private enactments.  Any and all laws written and enacted to provide private benefit are factually inconsistent with the originalist’s intentions.

Laws which bless, or curse, particular individuals or classes of individuals would be abhorrent to the founders.  For example, laws giving privilege or restriction to gender, race, religion, marital status, and particularly national origin would be repugnant.

But there is another class besides those well-known ones,  which should also cause dizziness for us all.  It is the class of citizen identified here as the political potentate.  A political potentate is an elected or bureaucratic figure given a little more protection under a law…intended for equal treatment, under the law.

Without detail, but with presumptions, included among those political potentates are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid…and just about everyone else under the protective influence of the proverbial Washington DC.

Enough pontificating for now and back to the commentary at hand.  A sizable group of citizens committed to “live in peace. To live, and let live, while we provide for our families, and participate in normal community activities.” *

Bundy, along with 45+ others are being held in jail for professing their constitutional right to petition the government for grievances.  Contrary to political and main stream media accounts at no time did the group of petitioners cause any real threat to the public.  If the entire situation were examined from beginning to end, without preconceived conclusions, it was only when bureaucrats stepped-in that the risk stepped-up.

If the entire situation were examined from beginning to end, without preconceived conclusions, it was only when bureaucrats stepped-in that the risk stepped-up.

We like to believe that government intentions are always appropriate. Retrospective of Chief Justice John Dillon’s Rule governments cannot be presumed to act in the public’s best interest, simply be virtue of being elected.  Too frequently the opposite is reflected.

Under the sixth amendment (Bill of Rights) to the US Constitution defendants are entitled to a speedy trial.**  The US Supreme Court has defined criteria to determine adherence to the sixth amendment.  Yet, as in almost all legal and legislative matters convened outside of the initial Federalist Period, bureaucrats, elected officials, attorneys, have sought to twist those very rules to their own special interests (private).

Such is the case with these constitutional loyalists.  Twisting is more than lyrics by Chubby Checker.

Virtually all of the principles which this nation originally held as sacrosanct are being violated by the cadre of political potentates. Inherent innocence, liberty, “being left alone,”are a few of those violations.

Historically King James, his son Charles, and devotees to their doctrine of “divine right of kings,” caused the popular relocation from the old world to the North American continent.  Archbishop William Laud was anything but laudatory in his slaughterous actions toward Puritans.  He exercised dominion over the both the bodies and souls of men.

The great men of our history sought to abolish such meanness.  For a period it worked.  However, today we have all but returned to the “divine right of politician and bureaucrats.”  All that is left for the circle to be completed is the killing and maiming of people because of what they believe. {Wait, have I forgotten the case of Lavoy Finicum; unprovoked assassination precisely because he dared to “petition the government for grievances.”}

Ryan Bundy, with his companions in liberty, sits confined contrary to all that the Bill of Rights, because they are dogs (no insulted intended).  Ryan Bundy familyThey are being condemned to seclusion from their families and justice because they are dogs in a bureaucratic cat-fight.

Central government elected officials and bureaucrats are foxes presuming the divine right of mastery over the citizenry.  On more and more frequent occasion and with broader and broader disparagement they prevail against the people.

Yes, it is foolish for the media and the public to any longer embrace “Killing the dog because the fox ate the chicken.”

As was true when the American continent was settled, and portrayed in the Moses movies it is time “to let my people go!”  Special interest politics has swayed rational living to absurdity, and needs to become once again a closed chapter in the history of mankind.

I finish with a quote from Ryan Bundy:

“I have a bright picture of hope for our future. The Lord led us to where we are now. I believe He will bring us back home as well. I surely do miss my little ones. I believe that we will enjoy freedom again. Personally and collectively as a country, but it is going to take some work and commitment on your part. We can’t just lean back and let God do it all alone. He can, but he holds us accountable and expects us to do good works of our own free will and choice. So go and do something good today.”

That Is The Way I See It.

*Ryan Bundy, letter to Governor Herbert and other public officials at the Utah State Republican Convention 2016.
** Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”



Justified Shooting???

Lavoy Finicum was shot and killed in Oregon on January 27, 2016.

Several people have offered opinions on the shooting, questioning the necessity, motivations, intentions, etc of all involved.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a video and held a news conference explaining their conduct. One comment that was offered is that the untimely death of Mr. Finicum didn’t have to happen. Blame is laid at the feet of the occupiers of a national wildlife refuge in Harney County, Oregon. Specifically stated is that if the occupiers had not been there the shooting would not have occurred.

Impetus for action

It is time to examine reality. The federal government attempted to prosecute two men under state statutes and then under federal statutes. Ultimately the federal prosecutors use the infamous Homeland Security Act to prosecute the men.
The federal government asserted that under the law the two men were committing acts of terrorism. What was the act? They lit a backfire (a fire designed to stop the spread of uncontrolled wild fires) supposedly on public land. Backfires have been used as effective firefighting tools for decades.

It should be amazing to anyone that a federal laws design to track terrorists would be used to prosecute and persecute citizens living in the middle of vacant range land. The only threat from the fire was to fire fighters who were there as part of their assignment to put out a fire that was burning before the men started the backfire.

To begin with there is no rational justification for these men to have been prosecuted under the Homeland Security Act, which has been used as a weapon to control people standing up for their rights. A personal example is a few years ago I bought an airline ticket and was double charged for it. I called the airline (a simple phone call) and asked for a correction. I was told by a clerk that he could nothing. I politely requested to speak to a supervisor and was told “No.”

His explanation was that he had authority and I didn’t need to speak with anyone else. I am not patience with incompetence. I freely admit that. I raised my voice and told him to get his damn supervisor on the phone. What was his response? “Sir, if you raise your voice to me again I will contact the HSD to report you as acting like a terrorist.”

That is what the government agencies have turned the law into; a weapon to force submission by citizens. When they use this legislation there is a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. In the prosecution of “free” citizens over a brush fire even the judge in the case recognized that the minimum sentence of five years was stupid, so he sentenced the men to much less.

The vindictiveness of the Bureau of Land Management decided to punish the men further once they had served their time in prison. Consequently these men were placed in double jeopardy and sent back to prison for three more year. Again their crime was setting a brush fire to do the job the BLM was in capable of doing.
Consequence of second incarceration.

After multiple, in other words several, similar tactics by the federal government a group of men occupied a national wildlife refuge building in Oregon. I call them occupiers because that is the term used by Mr. Finicum who was shot and killed by the national bureaucrats, (I interviewed Mr. Finicum at length two weeks ago in preparation for a news article I was writing).

People say these occupiers should not have been there. Of course like the ever present list of excuses for violations of the US Constitution the FBI started the defensive trash talk toward the men. “They never should have been there!”

The only problem with that argument is that thousand upon thousands of citizens should have been there with them. The society of the United States has failed Lavoy Finicum, the occupiers, the states…and most egregiously themselves. Said Patrick Henry “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

We the people have failed!

Have we forgotten that men of character and understanding wrote the Declaration of Independence? Foolishly, we presume that Thomas Jefferson the sole author. He was not. Many other men gave input. Here is the question. Did those legislators declaring liberty from an abusive King and his henchmen bureaucrats only in their own kitchen and farmers? No, they stood bravely, IN BUILDING ASSUMED TO BE OWNED BY a dictatorial king and bureaucrats.

For some to foolishly say the occupiers ought not to have been in a government own facility (letting alone the government never should have owned it to begin with) are they also rejecting the Declaration of Independence. A day never intended to represent stuffing our faces with hot dogs and hamburgers.

Not only should the occupier have been there…thousands of citizens should have been at their sides. Today millions of Americans should be standing not simply as occupiers, but as angry voices against a government as corrupt and brutal as faced down by Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al. I want to hear NO MORE from presidential candidates prepared to slaughter thousand in the Middle East in the name of national safety, while ignoring the slaughter of citizens at home.

The Killing Field of Oregon

In 1984 a movie was made entitled The Killing Fields. It articulated, is cinematic style, the evil perpetrated on the Cambodian people by the Pol Pot regime. It was so name for the multiple fields where millions of men women and children were slaughtered for government interests.

To imagine that a wild life refuge in Oregon is the only field where aggressive bureaucrats beat down free people is a fantasy. The road side in Oregon where a Terrorist FBI murdered as citizen is one of many many incidents. Just as in Cambodia where the killing began in a field and spread to many fields, these acts of the FBI and BLM will escalate as well. The bureaucrats will lie that it is for national security. That was case Hitler argued as he rose to power and dictatorship.

People will cry that I am an extremist by comparing our current bureaucracy to Hitler. “That not going to happen here in the United States. We know about Hitler and what to watch for.” News flash, children, Hitler used tactics of deception which the people were inexperienced with. Our national bureaucracy also uses tactics and technology as distractions that the public is unaware of. We should not delude ourselves into believing that promises equate to reality. Ostriches don’t make good citizens.

The slaughter of Lavoy

I have watched the video of the use of force by law enforcement. I watched their own 26 minute distraction, and I have listened to their “heartfelt” news conference.

Mr. Finicum, in a vehicle with other people, evaded arrest by “making a run for it.” Ultimately, he attempted to drive around a barricaded road and became trapped in a snow bank. Keep that in mind.

He then excited the vehicle with arms raised in a non-threatening manner. He is accused of reaching for a gun. Let’s examine all of that more closely.

When Finicum drove off the road into a snow bank. The SUV he was driving did not even exceed its own length in the snow before being forced to stop. That is how deep the snow was.

One popular anecdote is that he almost hit an FBI agent while driving off the road.

“As the white truck approaches the roadblock, there is a spike strip across the road but it appears Finicum missed it as he attempted to drive around the roadblock. He nearly hits an FBI agent as he maneuvers to the left.” FBI Special Agent Greg Bretzing (previously investigated for mismanagement while working in Salt Lake City).

Reviewing the video released by the FBI show an incompetent FBI agent running in front of the vehicle, as if he would stop it single-handedly. That is a fact, and the agent was a fool for doing it. Even if the snow had not been the cause of Finicum’ s vehicle being stalled a rational person would conclude that he voluntarily stopped to avoid hit the idiot racing out in front of him.  Bretzing’s feeble attempt to make his agent’s dumb actions seem like Finicum’s fault is pathetic.

It should be noted that Special agent Bretzing issued a statement immediately following the shooting.  The following day Bretzing made a second statement which was substantively different from his first statement.  In some specifics there were precise contradictions between the two statements.

It is also relevant to note that the news releases were scripted.  Bretzing who has previously been investigated for mismanagement of critical in formation of FBI cases was smooth talking and practiced in his eloquence.  Yet, the county sheriff, barely articulate (no insult intended, just the way it appeared), used almost the exact same phraseology as the Special Agent in Charge of Propaganda.

One of the more innocuous lies told by the Special agent is that those at the wildlife preserve would be allowed to leave, after checked for weapons.  That was proven to be an outright lie as some have been taken into custody.  Another question is why the two of the occupiers, one the driver of one vehicle, were not taken into custody, charged, nor will they be named.  What nefarious plans does the FBI have for them?

Factual details

As noted above Finicum was driving an SUV. The average length of an SUV is 18 feet. Finicum exited the vehicle and walked through the snow, which was deep enough to halt a the SUV, the full length of the SUV in one direction. He also walked at an angle away from the SUV an equal distance. The entire time he had his hands raised. That is a minimum of 25 feet in a surrender position.

Directly behind the SUV is an agent apparently pointing a gun at Finicum. Unfortunately the FBI video is inconveniently a little blurry, even though they were able to keep the moving objects ( at a high rate of speed according to Bretzing), in earlier segments of the video stationary and almost clear enough to read license plates. Lavoy Finicum was about 20 feet away from the vehicle.

The placement and direction of agent behind the SUV is very relevant. Lavoy drops his hands momentarily, while facing that agent. To my vantage point the agent had reaction even though some people claim that agent fired at Finicum. Lavoy again raise his hands and turns further to his left, where another officer is exiting the wooded area. Again for unknown reasons Finicum’s hand go down.  Some assert that Finicum was grasping at a wound inflicted by an over zealous officer. The agent exiting from the woods shoots him.

Within three seconds Finicum’s hand moves slightly to his chest and then there is no further movement by him, contrary to reports that he continued to reach for a gun while down.

More observations

The FBI spokesman said that Finicum was reaching for a gun. Given the angle of the shooter it would have been impossible to determine if a weapon was being reached for.  That is a blunder in the FBI narrative, or they were just being as careless with their report as they were while shooting. It is hard to keep their lies straight.

As will be shared below suspicion, without a direct threat, is an inappropriate reason for a law enforcement officer to assassinate someone. If the shooter saw him going for a gun he jumped the gun himself. Since the FBI says the gunman was on Finicum’s left side the flap of the coat on the left side would have made the killer’s view impossible. Finicum was slightly turned away from the shooter, obstructing the agent’s view even more.

The question remains as to why the agent behind the SUV, with a clearer view, never presume Finicum to be a sufficient threat to make the shot himself.  Again, some people say he did in fact take a shot.  Nothing in the the momentum of Finicum’s body suggest that is the case.  I can neither verify nor discredit the presumption.  What is obvious is that a shot from the officer in the woods cause Lavoy to immediately fall away from the shot.

Additionally, by watching the video, another agent can be seen in the road. As the agent most directly in line with Finicum he turns his back to and takes NO evasive action to avoid potentially being shot. This happens only after the sniper appears from the woods.

Nothing in the video appeared to imply any actual or eminent threat. The FBI narrative was constructed first to lay guilt.  But afterward they reviewed the video and concocted a story to fit what they had actually filmed.

Because I wanted to get an assessment of my bias (yes, I have one, if you didn’t notice) I contacted two former police chiefs who also reviewed the video.

One chief is in California, far from both Oregon and Finicum’s home. The other is in an eastern state.

One chief stated

“I too viewed the video repeatedly. The tactics used by law enforcement were designed for a triangulated shooting response at the roadblock. Not with a control and arrest approach. (Emphasis added).

Further the chief says

“If the officers had maintained an arrest and control approach, through the use of verbal commands from a position of containment, the outcome most likely would be different.

After the shooting, the officers’ actions spoke volumes. They retreated. They might use the argument, they still had a threat from within the vehicle. The officers unnecessarily exposed themselves, to begin with. They can’t have two separate arguments to justify their actions.”

What the chief and I both saw was severe negligence on the part of law enforcement.  Now, unfortunately the FBI conveniently doesn’t have, or refuses to provide, an audio of the shooting.

What we do know is that Agents wandered around for over ten minutes while a wounded man lay in the snow. The video displays a laser point on the victim’s head after he is shot and down. That is standard police procedure, while other officers approach to remove weapons and see if medical assistance is warranted. The agent’s cavalier attitude is a blatant disregard for human life.

This chief concludes with

“Summary: Poor tactics, unlawful use of deadly force, care for the injured not performed. These officers wanted a fight and from the command staff on down, they should be ashamed of themselves. Though man may not judge them and hold them accountable, God will.”

What did the other chief (speaking strictly to tactics) says

“In the video you can’t see where his right hand is at because of the angle and distance. Things happen so fast during a time like that. I saw Mr. Finicum move after being shot, and within a few seconds he stopped moving. I don’t know why they didn’t go over to him. Usually officers will move in cautiously while one is covering the person shot. The officers usually want to remove any weapon from that person for safety and check for medical needs. If it’s obvious they are dead (gross injuries) they will leave the weapon where it’s at for the investigation team.”

With respect to the timing of the response it took less that two minutes for the officers to choose to kill Finicum, who had approached them, hands-raised.  Yet when other occupants of the vehicle acted in the same manner they were literally ignored by law enforcement for three time that long.  In fact NO efforts were visually apparent of any concerns for the others in the vehicles, as law enforcement nonchalantly turned their backs to potentially armed people.

This second chief, responding to the entire scenario (not just the shooting) further says:

“The whole thing is sad, the government has over stepped their authority, that is the cause of this death. This is one of the times we question the legal authority of the stop, arrest warranty etc.”

There are other equally outrageous and egregious actions by the Federal government, following the assassination of Lavoy Finicum, which I am not at liberty to disclose. Perhaps following subsequent family new release my restrictions will be lifted.
This incident, contrary to the media and bureaucratic narrative is not a “sad situation.” This is reckless endangerment by federal officials at a minimum and intentional assassination by a terrorist bureaucracy at its worst.

That Is The Way I See It.


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?”


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.


Definitive Russian Collusion

Dear Friends:

Occasionally a close friend of mine seeks a platform to share his knowledge. Following is an expose, on the “Russian Collusion,” as observed by my friend.  Please read it carefully and take it to heart.  Thank you Jonathan Swift for your insight and courageous display.

Since being legitimately elected President of the United States of America Donald Trump has been under investigation for Russian Collusion.  We may discount the FACT that far more evidence exist of the Clinton Russian Collusion than for any Trump Russian Collusion.

As a long time supporter of Donald Trump, who was very very pleased by his legitimate election, I now step forward with a confession regarding collusion.

I am diabetic dependent on constant blood sugar readings and insulin injection.  Day after day for years I have been subjected to needles insertions to run those tests or inject insulin.  It has been terrible, to say the least.

Well a miracle occurred on both fronts.  Donald Trump was elected president, AND, one of the big pharma companies invented a monitoring device for blood sugar.

The monitoring device means that I only need to inject one needle every ten days and then read my blood sugar levels fifty times per day if I want to.  A very serious improvement.  There is a downside.

The new monitoring device must be changed every ten days.  Once it has been changed there is a several hour delay process while the monitor calibrates to my blood sugar levels.  Still substantially better than the old finger stick method every couple of hours.

Yet, there is a relationship between Russian Collusion and the new monitor.

The development of the monitor was completely funded by secret Russian financial interests.  Initially, their objective was to simply monitor how Americans health was generally.  But like every conspiracy minded state they quickly expanded it.

The new monitor records the data and stores it “on-board.”  Then every ten days the data is transmitted, via satellite to a secret data retrieval system housed in three site around the nation (one is right here in Utah).  The data is then secretly passed to the Russians through another secret channel controlled by none other than Donald Trump…PERSONALLY.

But the collusion does not end there.  The device also has the ability to reverse the process.  Russians can secretly download information into the monitoring device.  Once the information is downloaded into the device it is circulated through the blood stream.

In 2016 the Russians downloaded mind-altering information to the millions of American citizens.  The altered information was instructions that they were to vote for Donald Trump for president.  There is no other reason, besides potential incompetence and undeniable corruption, that Hillary would have been defeated.

Imagine the influence this must have.  Over 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with diabetes every year.  The numbers are almost as staggering as the number of people associated with the Clintons, that have died unexpectedly.

Most recently, through highly sophisticated program description, I was able to “hack” the incoming data from the Russians.  Over the past several months they have been downloading secret subtle messages that Americans should not trust Mueller, and several other Deep State operatives.  Hence, there is a growing mistrust for the incompetent and unnecessary special prosecutor.  The evidence it there, people.  The evidence is there.

Beware!!  Your liberty no longer belongs to you, but to the Russians.

Modestly submitted,

Jonathan Swift

The ins and outs of Article V of the US Constitution.

I recently posted the following on Facebook:

There is a lot of discussion regarding an Article 5 convention, or convention of the states.

A clarification is needed.

A Constitutional Convention may only be called by Congress. Congress may submit a constitutional amendment to the states, of which 3/4 must ratify. Alternately, 2/3 of the states may “apply” to Congress to hold a convention.

If Congress consents to hold a convention it is the determination of Congress to set the parameters of Amendments to be considered. It is clear that no restrictions exist as to what amendments can or cannot be considered.

Once the Convention has completed its work 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. It is the disposition of Congress to determine how ratification shall be completed. Two apparent alternatives are: 1) Congress may choose to have all amendments ratified jointly, or severally. 2) Congress may dictate whether the ratification process shall occur by the state legislatures or by conventions in each state. Those powers of Congress are stipulated in Article I of the Constitution.

The question for each of us to answer is whether a convention will be support by those whom we elect to Congress. The power rest solely with Congress to call such a convention, while the obligation to apply for a convention rests solely with the state legislatures.

Hope this is of assistance.



That commentary generated a little discussion, and of course challenges to my conclusions.  I will here attempt to provide a little more detail.

By way of definition when I speak of Congress I presume both Houses, unless I state otherwise.

Furthermore, the original colonies, under the Articles of Confederation, were more of a union for defensive purposes rather than an actual unified nation, even though there was a president (Not George Washington).  Due to rebellion (See Shays Rebellion) in some states leaders at the time, particularly James Madison, sought to strengthen the union of states by creating a more powerful central government.  This should only be viewed as a need for operation improvements.

However, some advocates for a Constitutional Convention, were much more progressive toward a more “Powerful” central government.  Among those with that intent were Alexander Hamilton.  Multiple sources claim that he even preferred that the Chief Executive (president) be entitled as “King.”  They were not quite ready to fully leave all of the British customs behind them in a new nation.

Not to become too historical, but to clarify, there were generally two groups of thought;  The Federalist and the Anti-federalist.  The Federalist pursued ratification of the new Constitution, which gave the central government greater authority.  The Anti-federalists wanted to curtail centralized authority as much as reasonable.  Neither group opposed revisions to the existing compact between the colonies, just the limits on centralized power.

Hamilton was among the Federalist in persuasion.  His writings, in The Federalist Papers, reflected his own tone of wanting a stronger central authority.  Just as a personal observation I would propose that many of the “conservative voices,” quoting The Federalist Papers, of today would in fact have been Anti-federalists back then.


Under Article V of the US Constitution (hereafter only referred to as the article) Congress was given the power to propose amendments to the Constitution, when they deemed it necessary.

Congress retained the right to:

  • Propose amendments
  • Call a convention
    • The convention was to propose amendments, not impose amendments.
  • Propose how ratification of amendments is to be conducted.
    • Such ratification could occur by
      • either the individual state legislatures, or
      • by convention within the several states.

States retained the rights to:

  • Have their respective legislatures “Apply” to Congress to convene a Convention
    • Such convention would only propose Amendment
    • Two thirds of the states must be a party to the application
      • For today that means thirty-four states.

Either by the direct congressional process, or by convention, any amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.  That equates to thirty-eight states.

Now, let’s examine the sentence structure regarding the setting of a convention.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;…”

  • The Congress, modified by its component houses, shall propose amendments.
  • Congress may do so only upon a two-thirds vote. [This modifies congressional proposal authority]
  • The legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34) must apply to Congress to call a convention. [This modifies how amendments may be proposed, as an alternative to congressional proposal authority.  It is not a stand alone process independent of Congress]
  • The Convention may propose Amendments to the Constitution.
  • Congress must “deem it necessary” to call a convention, based upon the application of the requisite number of states. [This is a further modification of the sentence.  Congress has authority to call a convention, IF they determine it to be necessary.]
  • Three-fourths of the states must ratify any amendments.

Now to a final point.  There are two concepts in the first sentence which create a great deal of confusion.  The first is the phrase “deem it necessary.”  The second is the word “or” in the second line above.

The trouble with these two items is what they mean when used together in this sentence.  The problem stems from the use of the comma in the English language.  There are ten rules of construction for use of a comma in a compound sentence.  Only one of those rules apply:

Separate independent clauses joined by coordinating conjunctions.[1] 

The coordinating conjunctions are andbutfornororso, and yet. Independent clauses contain both a subject and a verb that function as a complete sentence.  Thus, the sentence in the Constitution (under standard English grammar) must contain a subject AND a verb for each clause.  Otherwise, it is simply a series of items dependent upon the initial subject and verb.  Let’s examine the sentence’s initial clauses, removing superfluous content..

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”

Here then are the two apparent clauses:

The Congress (subject) shall propose(verb) Amendments to this Constitution (predicate).

on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States (subject).  Note there is no verb, thus making this statement a dependent rather than an independent clause.

Now, finally, the way in which this second statement becomes a independent clause (possibly a separate sentence) is to take it in it’s full context on the entire sentence to read as, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…”


It is important to remember that the intention of the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen the alliance between the states, by providing needed authority to the central government.

Keep in mind that neither the people, state legislatures, Congress, nor SCOTUS are the supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution itself is the supreme Law of the Land. All judges of any court presuming authority within the central government are in fact subject to Congress. See Article III Section 1. first sentence. [2]

Only the states by a 3/4 majority may amend the Constitution (as described above), which would thereby modify the supreme Law of the Land. It is one of the checks and balances within the central government, proposed by the founders and ratified by the states. It does not diminish the powers and authority of Congress, but only makes them subject to a super majority of the states in rare cases.

Now, in conclusion, neither the authority of the states, people, or Congress is negated by the balancing of interests between those three branches of government (there are other branches also but they don’t explicitly relate to this matter).  To amend the Constitution requires them all to work together, in sync, with separate duties, to modify the Law of the Land.

The intent is to protect the nation from frivolous changes which may occur when people of nefarious designs want to push their agenda upon the entire population.[See my various discussions of Count My Vote and SB-54 in Utah.}

That Is The Way I See It.


  1.  https://www.brighthubeducation.com/english-homework-help/22944-the-use-of-commas-in-written-english/
2. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.


Rand Paul Statement

I am somewhat known among Utah Republicans and self-identified Conservatives.  Sometimes I appear to be very conservative and at other times almost left-leaning.  Some would toss me into the mix as a libertarian.

Appearances are deceiving. I am a Constitutional originalist.  Conservatives assert that they are also, and some make good money and bigger notoriety for themselves capitalizing on that perspective.  Senator Rand Paul is one of those whom I too often disagree with.  Recently on Facebook this meme was posted.

Rand Paul

I believe just the opposite is true.  Yes, I am well aware of various statements by Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, et al.  On the surface their comments appear to contradict what I am saying and to verify Senator Paul’s assertion (if the meme is accurate and within context).  Yet, that is not the case at all.

The intention of the founders was to actually establish a stronger central government.  They, especially Madison, recognized the central government weakness within the Articles of Confederation.  That weakness nearly undermined the Declaration of Independence, setting the colonies backs into servitude to Great Britain and like France also.

The Founders were studious men well versed in the theories of John Locke, even though the foundation for their expose in good government came most strongly from The Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu (a lengthy but intriguing read).  Their intention was to establish a stronger government which would be responsive to the populace.

The ultimate design of the US Constitution, which came from these very learned men, was not whimsical.  Virtually, every word was scrutinized and often debated.  The founders were, in a word, conscientious.

They recognized that both individuals and the masses were subject to personal design and “flamboyant” flattering words…respectfully.

Their object was NOT to create a government which the people would mistrust, but rather a government in which the people could more definitely trust.

That trust had to be based in self-trust by the states and the people respectively.  In previous societies, the government was envisioned as a window through which people gazed on potentates with awe and deference.  Under the Constitution, the government was viewed as a mirror reflecting the will and rights of the people.  In short, the new government was in a very real sense the states and the people.

To suggest that the founders advocated for mistrust of government is naive at best.  They were all far too wise to consider government as a separate entity on the far side of a shatterproof window.  The government was a constitution of people selected from the states and the populace.

A statement that the founders (inclusive of a bulk of the population) created a government to be mistrusted would have implied that the premise of independence ought to have been abandoned and subservience to eternal forces was preferable.  Obviously, that was not the case before, nor the result of, the Constitutional Convention.

We are and have been since well before either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution a people under self-governance.  Occasionally we elect untrustworthy men and/or women, who misuse the entitlement which we willingly give them.  Of those elected officials, and them alone, we should mistrust.  Further, it is incumbent upon every citizen to stand in the breach when it is discovered.  It is our duty to correct and repair a defect in government rather than to flippantly suggest that government as a whole should be mistrusted.

Being faint of heart has never been an attribute of the US citizen.  Rhetoric is a folly of ambitious people.  We ought not to be deceived by it … in the name of a cliché label.

That Is The Way I See It.