Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The Casey Anthony Verdict: Justice for Whom?

The problem for the prosecution in this case is that while they provided a lot of circumstantial evidence to support elements of their case, even if we accepted their evidence without question, there remained significant and reasonable doubt that Caylee's death may have been accidental. Take the elements one at a time:

A hair matching that from Caylee's brush and recovered from the trunk of Casey's car, had post-mortem banding consistent with a decomposing body. Experts also testified that air samples taken from the trunk of Casey's car showed evidence of a decomposing body having been in the trunk. One air sample was said to have high levels of chloroform present, while the other air sample, analyzed by a different lab, found low levels of chloroform present. One expert testified that chloroform would be expected to be found in a trunk air sample where a decomposing body had lain.

Because of the inconsistencies regarding chloroform testified to by experts, there is reasonable doubt that Casey administered chloroform to Caylee: the evidence for this part of the prosecution's theory is just not there. On the other hand, it is agreed that Caylee's decomposing body more than likely lay in the trunk of Casey's car for some time. However, it is possible that following an accidental death, Caylee's decomposing body was placed in the trunk until a permanent resting place could be determined

Whether or not Casey did a computer search for "How to Make Chloroform", there is no evidence that Casey had or exercised the capability to make chloroform or administer it to herself, Caylee or anyone else. There is insufficient evidence of Casey, or anyone, having administered chloroform to Caylee and this provokes significant and reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform.

The duct tape that was found attached to Caylee's skull is the same brand as duct tape found in the Anthony home, but we have no assurance that the crime scene duct tape was from the roll kept at the Anthony home. Testimony of experts and others who had visited Caylee's swampy grave, established that the site had been tampered with and that people, animals, and the elements may have moved parts of Caylee's decomposed body around. The prosecution theory that the duct tape had been applied by Casey to the nose and mouth in an attempt to smother Caylee was not proven in regard to the positioning of the duct tape or as to who might have positioned the duct tape. There has been no report whether Caylee's hands and feet were bound. If someone had placed duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose to smother her, Caylee would have pulled the tape off with her hands. The duct tape theory is another element of the case that provokes reasonable doubt.

The prosecution theorized that the motive for murdering her daughter was that Casey wanted to be a party girl rather than a mom. Reports have confirmed that Casey has been a "party girl" for most of her adult life, with little change in her partying after Caylee was born or even after Caylee was missing and presumed dead. She had no shortage of ready babysitters to take Caylee frequently so mom could party. Despite Casey's affinity for the high life, photos presented to the court documented a loving, happy relationship with Caylee; the child was well-nourished, well-developed, and well-dressed. There was no evidence or even rumors of neglect or abuse. In addition, scientists who study human behavior have noted that some people develop a psychologic disorder consistent with mania (which involves behavior such as that demonstrated by Casey during the thirty-one days when Caylee was "missing") as an expression of their deep and unresolved grief. Again, there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's theory of motive.

While in my "gut" I feel and believe, as many others do, that Casey is somehow responsible for Caylee's death, I cannot say that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution was unable or incapable of developing and introducing enough solid evidence to remove the reasonable doubts discussed above. The Jury produced a correct verdict given the dearth of convincing evidence and the reasonable doubts that remained at the end of the day.

In our American Legal System, a large percentage of those who are accused of deadly crimes have their day in court and receive justice (conviction or acquittal). Victims of the most violent and deadly crimes, on the other hand, rarely get their day in court. Victims are at the mercy of a legal system that is more interested in preserving the rights of alleged criminals and assuring they get justice rather than in seeking justice for the victims.

While our legal system may have provided justice, according to the law, to Casey Anthony, where is the justice for Caylee? I’m afraid that many innocent victims like Caylee will be denied justice in this mortal world without significant improvement in our society and our legal system.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Should God be Erased From the Public Square?

The latest effort to erase God from the Pledge of Allegiance was recently aired on the NBC network. The Founding Fathers believed that the people would only be able to retain their liberty and successfully self-govern under our unique Constitution if they remained a just, moral and virtuous people, living in accordance with the Laws of Nature (God's laws).

Elimination of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance aired by NBC is another attempt by some people to purge all religious references from the public square, often on the mistaken belief that the Constitution created a wall of separation between church and state. While the Constitution does not create a wall between church and state, it expressly restrains the federal government from establishing a “national” religion and from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Those involved in airing the Pledge with “under God” edited out, by censoring free speech and meddling in the free exercise of religion are clearly violating tenets of the First Amendment. These people wrongly believe that the constitutional ban on the federal government establishing a state religion requires the removal of God and religion from all civil discourse or public display, and that this peculiar interpretation of the ban supersedes and justifies counteracting the constitutional prohibition against interfering with the free exercise of religion.

If the majority of the people were to take a similar, extreme position on "separation of church and state" turned away from the Laws of Nature, ceased to recognize the Creator's hand in mortal affairs (including government) and the people failed to retain the character qualities of integrity, morality and virtue, constitutional guarantees could not prevent the degradation of liberties and civil rights, and “self-government” would dissolve into the tyranny of mob rule and ultimately result in chaos.

Those who thought to erase God from the Pledge were ill-advised and exercised poor judgment. NBC is encouraged to take responsible remedial action in this regard to assure that such a breach of the public trust does not recur.

Actively seeking to eliminate references to God and religion in the media and passively allowing this kind of censorship to go forward is no less bigotry than that exercised against race or gender, and is no less harmful to the nation, and to the confidence of the nation in the media.

Steve Burke CEO NBC Universal

Mark Lazarus Chairman of NBC sports

Liz Fischer Vice President, Corporate Communications (212) 664-4825

Kathy Kelly-Brown Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications & Media Relations (212) 664-3457

Adam L. Miller Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs (212) 664-7330

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Can the Twin Plagues of Inflation and Joblessness be Abated?

Recent unemployment figures show that we remain deep in recession despite the fake stock market gains due to the Federal Reserve propping it up. Money is being lent to Wall Street for non-productive activities to invest in bets on market trends and to speculate on and manipulate the price of oil and food commodities that increases the cost of gas and food to the consumer. At the same time, small businesses, the core of U.S. productive industry, cannot obtain credit to hire new employees or expand.

The government does not consider energy or food costs in reporting falsely that we’re experiencing little inflation. In fact, we’re experiencing significant inflation in the cost of energy and food because of Wall Street speculation and the Federal Reserve printing billions of dollars and creating trillions of dollars to give to big banking institutions to keep them afloat despite their being insolvent.

Many big businesses have a good reserve of cash on hand, but are reluctant to hire new employees or increase their productive activities because of uncertainty as to how new taxes and regulations will adversely affect their profitability. Many other businesses have been driven offshore by high taxes, stifling regulations and unreasonable Big Union demands, taking jobs offshore with them.

Another factor that’s increasing the cost of food is government subsidies for ethanol production from corn; a significant number of acres that used to be planted with food corn (both for humans and for animal feed), are now planted with different corn strains that are only useful for ethanol production. Government meddling in this respect has increased corn ethanol production with the adverse effect of decreasing food corn production driving higher prices for all foods that depend on corn (i.e. corn products, poultry, eggs, dairy, and other meats). The Obama Administration’s continued refusal to develop domestic fossil fuel energy resources prevents a lot of job creation that we could have in establishing energy independence from less than friendly foreign sources subject to regional turmoil.

To jumpstart our failing economy and put our people back to work, government must get out of the way with significant tax and regulation reform to bring jobs back to America, and the current imbalance of power between management and labor, in labor’s favor, promoted by government, must be reversed. Ethanol subsidies must be ended immediately, and an aggressive policy of allowing and encouraging domestic fossil fuel energy development must be undertaken.

Congressional audit and control of the Federal Reserve is essential to promote financing of productive small businesses instead of non-productive Wall Street gambling and to prevent further devaluation of the dollar by printing money and adding billions of dollars to the money supply. Each day that passes that we fail to take these first steps towards economic recovery prolongs the recession, ruins formerly successful businesses, stifles innovation, and incurs further catastrophic losses for individuals, both in terms of assets like homes and retirement, and in their personal lives.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Can Japan Weather the Storm of Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster?

Why the Japanese Government Can Afford to Rebuild: It Owns the Largest Depository Bank in the World, by Ellen Brown.

The excellent article, discussed in this piece, about Japan’s ability to recover from the triple disasters is has recently suffered by utilizing the considerable resources of the country’s public central bank is from Ellen H. Brown, author of “Web of Debt”. In her book, Ms. Brown exposes the corrupt and decaying underbelly of the international banking cartel’s (IBC) death grip on world economies through its near total monopoly on the creation of money as debt.

While the IBC creates nearly the entire money supply out of thin air as loan principal amounts (based on fractional reserve banking), the IBC does not create the money supply needed by those receiving loans to pay the interest on these loans. The additional money supply required to pay the interest on IBC loans must be obtained from the misfortune and losses of others. The IBC then pockets their earnings, usually moving this income to foreign shores, thus transferring over time the wealth of individual victim nations to a foreign oligarchy that only grows more powerful each day.

Japan and China are examples of nations that have resisted the slimy tentacles of the IBC’s debt-bondage by having their own public central banks. China has fueled its tremendous economic growth with low or no interest loans to businesses (many of which, it is understood, do not have to be paid back). This allows Chinese businesses to produce goods and services at very low cost, permitting them to set extremely low prices for their goods. Low priced Chinese goods have attracted worldwide markets leading to China’s booming export trade and rapid economic expansion.

Japan’s government owned central bank, Japan Post Bank (JPB), functions much the same way as the Chinese model outlined above. The Japanese government, through JPB, has a large amount of debt on its books, but there are important differences between the Japanese government’s debt and that of Portugal, Ireland or Greece.

These European countries owe their debt (principal and interest) to the IBC, which can increase the interest rate charged, refuse to rollover any loan or deny further credit if the IBC lacks confidence in the country’s ability to repay the loan. The Japanese government owes its debt to itself alone, not to any counterparty, and charges itself a very low interest rate. JPB, using government debt money, makes loans to the Japanese people to spur economic growth and productivity.

As JPB has expanded financial services over the last several years, many and varied foreign and domestic financial institutions (all of which are ultimately owned and controlled by the IBC) have expressed concern about Japan’s fulfillment of international trade obligations and are pressuring the Japanese government to “privatize” JPB and institute “international competitive conditions”. In other words, the IBC wants to capitalize on and freely pillage the wealth and economy of Japan without any competition.

Current “international competitive conditions” for most countries of the world consist of a large number of banks that supposedly compete against one another for business. But the fact is, all these banks are owned and controlled by the country’s government chartered but privately owned central bank. The various central banks are, in turn, owned and controlled by the private IBC interests. The international standard of competition is the IBC monopoly (i.e. no competition).

Arguments that public banking is socialistic and anti-American, and that our current banking system is based on the free market, just don’t hold water. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make and control money in the U.S., and our Constitution does not promote socialism. As far as free markets, the international banking system monopoly never was “free enterprise”, and is the biggest example ever of crony capitalism gone wrong.

Disadvantages of our current international banking system include the fact that it is owned and controlled by IBC private interests, the IBC decides who gets credit at what cost (financing IBC friends and affiliates at favorable terms, while denying financing or reasonable terms to those less favored), the IBC manipulates money supply, most often increasing its supply out of proportion to productivity (i.e. by excess printing of money or by excessive creation of money as loans via fractional reserve banking), causing inflation and currency devaluation, and the workings of the IBC and its affiliate banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve go on in secret, behind closed doors.

Public banks are owned by the people and controlled by representatives elected by the people. Weaknesses with public central banking are similar to those seen with the IBC system: politicians are also prone to direct favorable financing to their friends and supporters as a form of patronage, they are usually unable to resist inflating the money supply to meet their insatiable desire to spend, and they also prefer that their horse-trading deals be conducted behind closed doors.

Where public banks participate in fractional reserve banking, the IBC system of creating money as debt, banks create ten times or more money as debt than they have in reserve and the money supply is expanded exponentially. Invariably, this practice leads to inflation, currency devaluation, and economic deterioration. To meet the needs of the people while avoiding these negatives, public banks should employ a system of 100% reserve banking.
While there is no redress or accounting obtainable from the private, IBC interests, politicians periodically have to face their constituents when they run for reelection.

If the people remain vigilant and demand restraint, fairness and transparency of their elected officials, the officials will respond appropriately or be removed from office. However, if people were to become complacent and neglect their responsibility to oversee their representatives’ actions, corrupt politicians controlling the public central bank could do little worse than the predatory IBC has done with the world’s money.

Japan will need every resource it can muster, including abundant cheap credit from the JPB, to recover, cleanup and rebuild from its triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear emergency. If the JPB can avoid the many pitfalls of public central banking, and provide a real service by funding economic productivity and growth, Japan will weather this storm even as it has historically weathered severe storms in the past.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Napolitano Takes Credit for Alleged Improvements in Border Security

When a radical Muslim jihadist, trying to blow up a plane over U.S. territory on a recent Christmas Day, failed to properly detonate his bomb, Janet Napolitano told us that government efforts to provide homeland security had been successful at preventing this terrorist attack. In point of fact, a number of red flags were raised to the government’s attention, predicting that this young jihadist would commit a terrorist act, but were ignored and the urgency and importance of the information available was not communicated effectively with the various U.S. intelligence units. Government failed in every way in regard to this terrorist attack. It was dumb luck and the courage of a few passengers on board that particular Christmas Day flight that prevented the tragedy that al-Qaeda had planned for America on that day.

In regard to illegal immigration, Janet Napolitano informs us that, due to her Homeland Security efforts under the Obama Administration over the past two years, illegal border crossings are currently at the lowest levels since the 1970s, and seizures of illegal drugs from illegals crossing the border from Mexico to the U.S. and of cash and weapons from illegals crossing from the U.S. back into Mexico have increased. The Obama Administration would have the American people believe that all of their hard work on border security has paid off with favorable statistics confirming the government’s successes in this area. But as it has been said before: In order of magnitude, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A slightly deeper look at these numbers reveals the spin that the Obama Administration is using to claim credit for what is being sold as improvement in border security. When the U.S. economy was growing and unemployment was at an all-time low, most illegal immigrants who crossed the southern border from Mexico into the U.S. came here to work; most found jobs that helped them earn money to provide for their families.

Because jobs for illegals were plentiful, there was a dramatic surge in the numbers of illegals entering the U.S. illegally during this period. During most of the G. W. Bush presidency, most illegals who found work in the U.S. had their families follow them to America, while those who were unable to find sustainable work returned home.

Towards the end of the Bush final term and during the past two years of the Obama presidency, our economy tanked due to the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie and other Bankster (think mobster) failed fraudulent, high-risk ventures and abuses at the expense of the American people. These high-rollers made trillions of dollars over the last decade by creating and manipulating their extreme-risk investments (think casino gambling) and secured huge profits and bonuses and for their CEOs, staff and shareholders.

When the bubble burst and all the Ponzi schemes disintegrated, the housing market collapsed and all the financial institutions were found to be insolvent. Even after an infusion of trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and billions of dollars from the pockets of those who were abused in the process of the financial bubble creation, the American taxpayers, these financial institutions continue to distribute huge bonuses to their management and staff and continue to remain insolvent despite unprecedented and unwarranted public bailouts.

These corrupt financial institutions were permitted by our government to privatize (and pocket) profits from their extreme-risk ventures while socializing their losses (sticking the bill for their bad behavior to the American taxpayer). In previous times, Wall Street and the monster banks provided investment capital and loans to all types of businesses that led to increased economic productivity and significant economic growth and prosperity.

Currently, these banks are holding onto their cash or cautiously investing in Treasury Bills. Most loans are being made to Wall Street firms or being used for the banks’ own investing, once again, in the same risky, non-productive and dangerous financial instruments. Small businesses, the life-blood of the productive American economy, are being denied the credit they need to innovate, grow, expand and create jobs. These banks have also severely restricted and increased the costs to the American people of consumer credit, leading to a dramatic fall in consumer spending. With demand for consumer goods plummeting, businesses, large and small, across the country slowed or were closed leading to our current, persistent high unemployment.

Enormous infusions of cash from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street banks and excessive government spending on pork-barrel projects, Stimulus, TARP and similar spending bills have temporarily propped up the stock market. However, government spending and the Fed’s “quantitative easing” have only made matters worse for the rest of the U.S. economy and the American people, prolonged the Great Recession with our jobless “recovery”, left millions of homeowners, drowning, underwater in their mortgages or facing foreclosure (the new “homeless”), and produced marked inflation that is currently threatening to collapse the dollar. Our government’s skyrocketing deficits and the Fed’s consistent abuse of the dollar will not only lead to continued devaluation of the dollar, but are likely to precipitate a switch from the dollar to another currency as the international currency of exchange and trade.

This ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy has severely limited the number of jobs available for illegal immigrants, most of who had previously come to the U.S. to work. With a scarcity of jobs in a bad economy, I can believe that many illegals that were here to work, if they had no job and no welfare support, would return to their home countries, and that fewer illegals would be motivated to immigrate to the U.S.

While I don’t believe Janet Napolitano has any idea how many illegal aliens cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. each day, I can accept that the number of illegal crossings may be decreased from the Bush years. If the absolute number of illegals crossing into the U.S. each day has really decreased, such a decrease is likely attributable to those seeking work deciding not to cross into the U.S. illegally, discouraged by the lack of jobs.

On the other hand, U.S. Border States report markedly increased illegal border crossings by criminals peddling illicit drugs, human trafficking, and violence. Such an increase in criminals crossing into the U.S. would naturally increase the odds that border patrol agents would intercept a larger number of these criminals.

Napolitano and Obama want to claim credit for decreased illegal border crossings. However, most of the decrease can be accounted for on the basis of policies put in place during the Bush Administration and the lack of jobs in the U.S. for illegals. When Napolitano boasts of increased border patrol seizures of illicit drugs and weapons from criminal illegals, she is unintentionally admitting to the current tidal wave invasion of illegal alien criminals bringing violence and lawlessness into the Border States with them.

The borders are really more porous than ever with a greater percentage of criminal illegal aliens entering the U.S., all because the Obama Administration is not really serious about border security. If the U.S. were truly serious about border security, we would have a fence the length of our southern border. If we really didn’t want illegals to climb the border fence, we would electrify it. If we really didn’t want illegals to cut electricity to or tear down the fence, we would build interval towers along the fence line with remotely operated sniper rifles to pick off any illegals climbing over, through or seeking to damage the fence.

Do we need to militarize our southern border like they have between North and South Korea with soldiers and artillery and drones? How serious are we about border security? Serious enough to do whatever it takes to stop illegal immigration?

If we ever did get truly serious and put into place such measures, it is doubtful that any would-be illegal alien would ever be harmed; once the word gets out that the border is defended by an electrified fence and sniper towers or soldiers, artillery and drones, few would be foolish enough to test these defenses.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Mandated Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulbs Are Environmentally Unsafe & Unsound

I’m passing along this email warning about CFL light bulbs that can start burning and spread the fire to your home. It should be noted that the ballast in these bulbs (what triggers the light bulb when you flip the switch) contains mercury, a toxic “heavy metal”. Any broken bulb or any burning of ballast releases mercury into the environment-your home. Disposal of used CFL bulbs cannot be with regular trash disposal, but they must be recycled and processed as a “hazardous material”. To date, there is no uniform protocol established for the safe handling and disposal of CFL bulbs.

Because CFL bulbs are slightly more efficient at producing light (they produce more light and less heat per unit of electricity) a nearly worldwide environmental movement is driving lawmakers to mandate conversion of home and business lighting from incandescent bulbs to CFL bulbs. However, despite all the hype about the theoretical benefits of promoting CFL bulbs, such conversion can lead to either cost savings and environmental benefits or to increased expense and pollution, depending on the particular circumstances.

Home or business lighting with incandescent bulbs provides significantly greater contribution to heating needs than CFL lighting. In a cool climate with hydroelectric power and fossil fuel heating, exchanging incandescent lighting for CFL lighting would shift a portion of energy consumption from clean and cheaper hydroelectric power, to the increased expense and pollution associated with burning fossil fuels.

Despite these and other confounding factors, the average energy consumer is likely to experience a small decrease in electricity consumption and a lower electricity bill which may or may not be noticeable to the homeowner. In addition, the manufacturing and handling of CFL bulbs requires more energy consumption than that of incandescent bulbs. The higher cost and energy usage in manufacturing and handling associated with CFL bulbs may offset or exceed any theoretical cost/energy savings from their use. Because of the false belief that CFL bulbs are good for the environment and conservation, incandescent light bulbs have been outlawed in the U.S. and in many other Western Countries and they will soon be unavailable for purchase here or anywhere.

Unfortunately, this is another misguided effort to control the people, from those who claim to want to do the right thing for the environment and who believe religiously in Global Warming and want to stave off its man-made effects. Typically, these people neglect to calculate the collateral effects and cost of action they propose, endorse and enforce on the rest of us. In this case, the Environmental Lobby and lawmakers subject to their influence, have irresponsibly neglected the full balance of negative effects on the world.

Obvious negatives include higher prices for CFL bulbs. Some have claimed that General Electric (GE) stands to benefit greatly from the sale of their CFL bulbs, and that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs was done mainly to help GE make money. While it is clear that with Cap & Trade, the Obama administration and the Democrats are colluding to enrich GE in return for GE support (see Crony Capitalism), GE recently closed their massive incandescent light bulb manufacturing plant in Virginia adding to high regional unemployment, and China is now the largest producer of CFL bulbs for the world. Outlawing incandescent bulbs has thus added to the steady loss of American manufacturing and jobs to overseas interests.

The increased cost of CFL bulbs is not just due to markup or to increased costs associated with materials and manufacturing, but is also due to the cost of necessary, proper hazardous waste handling from the collection of materials, to manufacturing, and through disposal. Disposal of hazardous waste is often contracted for and shipped to third world countries for storage.

Other negative effects include those on the environment of spreading mercury throughout our communities with potential human exposure, causing brain and other nervous system damage, and then ending up in hazardous waste landfills poisoning the earth. CFL bulbs also expose humans to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF), Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy, and low levels of UV light, which may have adverse effects on the human body. Additionally, CFL bulb light quality is inferior to that of the incandescent bulb, making all visual inspection, from that of patients by their doctors for signs of disease, to that of the subject of the visual arts and design, to that of products for defects by manufacturers, more difficult and less revealing. There are also a number of reports suggesting that CFL lighting can adversely affect health, mood, psychological well-being, and those with pain syndromes and certain skin conditions.

If you believe that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs should be repealed, please contact your government representatives and let them know your feelings on this issue. Howard M. Brandston, a lighting engineer who has done a great deal of research and referencing in regard to these issues, makes his efforts available on his website for the public. In addition, a group opposed to outlawing incandescent light bulbs, “Free Our Light”, has set up a website and Facebook page where you’ll find information about this issue and you can sign a petition and communicate with like-minded people.

Forwarded Email Warning

Below is a picture of a CFL light bulb from my bathroom. I turned it on the other day and then smelled smoke after a few minutes. Four inch flames were spewing out of the side of the ballast like a blow torch! I immediately turned off the lights. But I'm sure it would have caused a fire if I was not right there. Imagine if the kids had left the lights on as usual when they were not in the room. I took the bulb to the Fire Department to report the incident. The Fireman wasn't at all surprised and said that it was not an uncommon occurrence. Apparently, sometimes when the bulb burns out there is a chance that the ballast can start a fire. He told me that the Fire Marshall had issued reports about the dangers of these bulbs.

Upon doing some Internet research, it seems that bulbs made by “Globe” in China seem to have the lion’s share of problems. Lots of fires have been blamed on misuse of CFL bulbs, like using them in recessed lighting, pot lights, dimmers or in track lighting. Mine was installed in a normal light socket. I bought these at Wal-Mart. I will be removing all the Globe bulbs from my house. CFL bulbs are a great energy saver but make sure you buy a name brand like Sylvania, Phillips or GE and not the ones from China.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Is the Tea Party Ducking Social Conservative Issues?

There is broad agreement among Tea Partiers on issues of the economy, jobs, fiscal responsibility, Obamacare and adherence to the Constitution, especially in regard to cutting government spending. However, rifts in this coalition become apparent when the major cause of current government overspending and future insolvency, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), is considered for modifications that would produce real savings and sustainable entitlements.

Similarly, there does not appear to be as wide-spread support among Tea Partiers for a good number of constitutional issues that don’t involve commerce, fiscal matters, and smaller government, including many so-called conservative “social issues”. A good number of Tea Partiers believe that other priorities must take precedence at this time when our nation is in an extreme economic/fiscal crisis and the fact that our judicial system and leaders in Washington are moving the country away from our traditional constitutional republic towards a totalitarian and redistributionist “nanny” state.

Many, even members of the Tea Party movement, have been critical of other Tea Partiers expressing their belief that social issues should also be addressed. While I may not agree with all that’s said on social issues, I do commend anyone who stands up for freedom, the Constitution and other Tea Party values, and I stand fully behind their right to speak their mind as dictated by their conscience. Any honest person understands that no one person or group speaks for the entirety of the Tea Party movement. It is the Left that seeks to silence any opposition voice. There is no place in the Tea Party, or for that matter, among any people believing in freedom, for suppression of differing or opposing ideas.

“Social issues” can indeed be controversial and divisive, as many of the primary principles espoused by the Tea Party movement can be; but being controversial or divisive does not make them any less valid. In addition, these issues are not foreign to rights expressed as God-given in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution puts into law the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights cannot be limited in any way except by “due process”. Due process in consideration of the right to life is exemplified by the lengthy court process involved in the eventual execution of a person sentenced to death under the law. This kind of consideration, which we provide to the most evil of criminals, is entirely lacking in abortion, where the life of the innocent unborn is terminated without a hint of due process.

No one educated in the field of biology rejects the fact that, at fertilization, life begins with a full complement of genetic material that identifies the life as human. It is clear that at some point after fertilization and during gestation, this life becomes a living, breathing, self-aware and feeling person. Controversy surrounds the question of exactly when a human life becomes a person. Traditionally, life was thought to begin at “quickening” when the baby’s movements inside the womb are first felt by the mother, and personhood was thought to begin at birth.

Today, we know that life begins at fertilization, and that the fetus develops, in utero, qualities that confer personhood. With modern ultrasound we can see the fetus startle in response to a loud noise, some will be sucking their thumb, and during abortions the fetus is seen to grimace, scream, and recoil with physiologic pain responses to the operator’s probe. In addition, it is apparent that even the tiniest of premature infants in Newborn Intensive Care, are born with their own personalities and clear cut likes and dislikes, respond to parent’s faces and voices, and respond to positive and negative stimuli in an organized fashion.

The dialogue about abortion has been co-opted by those in favor of abortion by expressing the two predominant viewpoints as either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”. Since the choice they are talking about involves the willful termination of a life, the correct term for those who want to be able to choose abortion is “Pro-Death”. Abortion takes the life of a human being based solely on the interests of a second party, the pregnant woman, without any regard for the baby’s rights. The aborted baby is denied his right to life, his right to enjoy liberty, inheritance rights he may have had to property, and his right to pursue his own happiness, all without due process. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Death sentiments continue to run hotly among the American people, and controversy surrounding abortion is unlikely to diminish over time. Abortion is very much a constitutional issue that involves the freedoms of everyone and cannot be ignored.

Gay activists insist on special rights and recognition that are contrary to many peoples’ religious views. These activists want to change the definition of marriage, force full fellowship with organizations that are opposed to the gay lifestyle, and silence “hate speech”, which includes reading scripture or preaching in church against the destructive gay lifestyle. Gay activists want to be able to “marry” the same-sex partner they love, and that gay “family” to be recognized and appreciated the same as traditional marriage between and man and a woman with a real family. These activists claim that all they want is equal rights, when they already have equal rights and what they are asking for is special or “more-equal rights”.

In conformance with the Constitution and most state laws, all citizens have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, while no one has the freedom to “marry” someone of the same sex. There is no inequality inherent in these laws. There are many established cultural norms (often founded on religious beliefs) written into law, that few responsible adults would question.

For example, adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with a child, even if they love each other and the child or family give their consent. Adults do not have the right to marry a sibling or parent. Adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with animals. This fully conforms with the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution, with Natural Law upon which the Constitution is based, and with thousands of years of multi-cultural tradition that has worked successfully to preserve and sustain society and culture.

Another example is adoption agencies that hold religious beliefs that oppose gay adoption and raising children in that environment, being forced to allow gay adoption or cease doing adoptions. This is a violation of the constitutional rights of free association, free speech and the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. The Left also seeks to nullify or restrict the constitutional right to free speech by suppressing any views that oppose the current administration, the right to “keep and bear arms” (where keep means possess and store and bear means carry, display and use), and the right to work free of union control if so chosen by the workers with a secret ballot and without intimidation. While these anti-Constitution attacks do not deal directly with the economy, jobs or fiscal responsibility, the persistent assault on liberty cannot be ignored and must be countered.

Once the country is back on the path to restoration of economic/fiscal and governmental constitutional practices and principles, these social issues will need to be addressed with some urgency. Basic human inalienable rights can be put on the back burner only so long and at great risk to freedom. True freedom and our Constitution cannot exist if some in the country are more free than others and where any constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridged.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egyptians Protest Against Mubarek and For Freedom

There's little question that the Egyptian people are protesting in resistance to tyranny, or that Mubarek has abused human rights and exercised totalitarian oppression of the people in the process of maintaining his 30 year rule. The Mubarek regime justifies its oppression as the only effective means of preventing the violent overthrow of its government and its replacement with an even more tyrannical regime. The people have clearly suffered under Mubarek’s rule, they no longer (if ever they did) subscribe to this justification for oppression, and are seeking a change in government. The Egyptian people, as all mankind, have a Natural Law right to the liberty and self-determination that they seek and that has long been withheld from them.

While the current mass protests in Egypt may indeed precipitate a change in government, the use of violence by either the protesters or the government is deplorable and is only destructive to the causes of either party. The use of violence in this type of mass popular uprising, where an unarmed people face a heavily armed and mechanized military force, the people will suffer more casualties and a higher rate of defeat, unless there is a significant mind-set change in the troops, military and other political leaders. If the current protests do lead to a change in government, it remains unclear whether such change will improve or diminish liberty for the Egyptians.

As freedom loving Americans, we can certainly identify and empathize with the desire of the Egyptian people to be free. However, regardless of American commercial or political interests in Egypt (which are undeniably significant), it is not our place to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, one way or the other. The question, then, is how do we support the Egyptian people in their quest for freedom without intervening inappropriately in internal, sovereign affairs? While we can provide moral support in terms of world reporting on the protests and our government and public opinion leaders, and the American people speaking out in support of the people, anything more than this could easily be interpreted as inappropriate meddling, and could actually be detrimental to the cause of freedom.

The Egyptian Army and Police have kept Mubarek in power all these years. While the U.S. has worked with Mubarek by default, in order to have dealings with Egypt, the U.S. has in no way "propped-up" the Mubarek regime at the expense, or promoted its oppression of the Egyptian people. Continued efforts to encourage the Egyptian government, whether changed or not, to conform to the principles of freedom and human rights, including the right of self-determination, must be maintained.

The real danger is that many groups and organizations that do not have the best interests of the Egyptian people at heart, including their right to freedom and self-determination, are seeking to co-opt
the current power of the people for their own designs of imposing different tyrannies. If the current government is incapable or unwilling to supervise the peaceful transfer of power to a new government that will hold free elections and respect the rights of the people, it is likely that the Mubarek government will disintegrate, leaving a vacuum that will be filled by one or the other of these totalitarian groups, leaving the people no better off, and perhaps even worse off, than they were under Mubarek.

Egyptian President Sadat, a leader who was largely responsible for Egypt signing on to a major agreement of cooperation and peace with Israel (the first such agreement between an Arab nation and Israel in modern times), was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time Alman-al-Zawahiri
was a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. After being jailed for his terrorist activity, he became the mentor of Bin Laden, and currently serves as second in command of al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood, despite Mubarek's tremendous oppression and counter-terrorism efforts, has continued to spread blood and horror throughout Egypt, spread terrorism beyond Egypt's borders with Hamas, al Qaeda and others, and continues to pursue the violent overthrow of the Mubarek government so they can impose an Islamic Totalitarian State. These folks, and many others like them, are not the good guys. Egypt is at great danger at this time of ending up like Gaza (ruled by Hamas), or more recently, Lebanon (ruled by Hezbollah).

Whether or not countries seeking freedom and self-determination succeed in their efforts, or fail, leading to more tyranny, is of considerable interest and import, not only to the citizens of the countries seeking freedom, but to the peace and security of all nations of the world. But the truth may be that there is precious little peace and security in store for the future. Perhaps the world is fated to descend into terrorism, anarchy and totalitarianism, and resistance is futile.

I pray for people everywhere seeking freedom, and especially now for the people of Egypt, that they may achieve their righteous goals and enjoy the blessings of liberty.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Power to Make & Control Money Derives From Natural Law

In the charter documents of the United States, the Founding Fathers highlighted Natural Law from which mankind’s unalienable rights are derived, including the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These natural and unalienable rights, especially with regard to property and the pursuit of happiness, necessarily involve economic freedom and free enterprise. Natural Law, the Founders related, also defined and restricted the role of government to that of securing these natural rights to the people, without otherwise getting in the way of the individual’s pursuit of happiness. The Constitution, based on Natural Law, grants specifically limited powers for the sole purpose of enabling the federal government to protect and preserve these rights.

One of the major tasks of government is to protect the nation’s lives, liberty, property and economic freedom from foreign invasion. Primarily for this purpose, the Constitution provides the federal government with the power to raise and command military forces in the nation’s defense against foreign military attack. The Constitution, in granting the government the power to make and control money, also provides for the defense of the country from another form of foreign invasion and attack, that of the International Banking Cartel, which through its ownership and control of the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve’s absolute monopoly to make and control money, seeks to ensnare all Americans in debt-bondage and precipitate boom and bust cycles that lead to the systematic, legalized theft of American property.

The monopoly power to make and control money was usurped by the Federal Reserve while the nation’s leaders stood by helplessly, silently complicit in the construction of this most egregious form of Corporate Statism. This wholly, privately owned business (there is NO government ownership or control of this business) is strictly controlled by foreign banking interests, who operate this government-granted monopoly with the singular goal of acquiring America’s wealth without respect to natural rights. Only by restoring the power to make and control money to the Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution, can the federal government fulfill its Natural Law role in defending the nation against this form of foreign invasion and in securing our natural rights to economic freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Some see the call for restoration of the power over money to government as a departure from free enterprise principles in favor of centralized, typically inefficient and imprudent government control. However, the Federal Reserve banking system, as a government-granted, Corporate Statism monopoly, never was free enterprise, it selectively dispenses financial advantages to its crony businesses thereby removing the effects of free market competition, and its persistently imprudent actions have led to massive erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power and to recurrent periods of economic chaos and collapse.

In addition, there is a clear duty of government to protect and preserve Americans’ natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in defense against economic invasion, manipulation and conquest by the foreign, International Banking Cartel. Protection of economic and property rights by the constitutional power over money is no less a Natural Law role of government than that of maintaining military forces to defend against military assault.

The federal government has the responsibility, duty and authority to protect America’s property and economic freedom, and can and should restore the power to make and control money to Congress. The concept of the individual States sponsoring their own public banking system, minimizing the power and negative effects of the Federal Reserve banking system monopoly on a Statewide basis, and promoting State commerce, industry, employment and prosperity, is a natural function of State’s rights and sovereignty in the protection of its citizens’ rights, and is complimentary to and does not conflict with the federal power over money.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Why Michael Steele should be re-elected Chair of the RNC

The truth is that elections in 2009-2010 represent one of the greatest routes of the Democrat Party in history with huge Republican gains across the country. While Michael Steele presided over the RNC during this incredible period of Republican success and he should be commended for his hard work and the successes of the Republican Party, Mr. Steele cannot be given all the credit for this. On the other hand, the greatest complaint about Mr. Steele is that he failed to raise sufficient funds that might have permitted even more Republican candidates to successfully campaign for office, and even went into significant debt in an attempt to help these candidates. While it is true that RNC fund raising suffered under the direction of Mr. Steele, he likewise does not deserve most of the blame for this.

Throughout the period from 2008-2011, the people rose up in a nationwide grassroots movement (Tea Party, 9/12 Groups, and others) to protest, not only the policies, edicts, principles and lack of listening to the people of the Democrat Party which had shifted markedly to the Left, but also those of establishment Republicans, who had abandoned many of the basic tenets on which the Republican Party was based and “lost their way”, primarily in regard to fiscal responsibility and morality (especially in reference to political corruption).

“We the people” determined to promote, from the grassroots, the nomination, campaign and election of good, honest candidates we believed would adhere to constitutionally conservative principles and shun corruption, and candidates that would listen to and act based upon the will of the people. This people’s movement intentionally functioned largely within the Republican Party rather than forming a third party which would be likely to dilute and divide conservative will and benefit the Left. This grassroots strategy was calculated to replace both Democrats and establishment Republicans who had failed the American people.

Unfortunately, establishment Republican Party leaders, acting primarily through the RNC in a top-down fashion (RNC decisions imposed from the top down to the local levels), based their strategy on a singular goal of Republicans “winning elections” at the expense of promoting higher quality candidates. This strategy was directly at odds with that of the people, and in many instances the RNC supported establishment candidates across the nation, even in the nomination and primary processes, in direct competition with grassroots candidates supported and promoted by the people. The people quickly learned to support quality individual candidates and the myriad cause groups accepting donations, rather than contributing to political parties that would use those funds to continue establishment people and practices and thwart the American people’s struggle to reform American politics.

This alienation of the American people by the establishment Republican Party (RNC), coupled with the people’s movement strategy of donating to individual candidates and causes, is the single most direct cause of the RNC’s failure to raise the desired funds. Of all the establishment Republican Party leaders, at least Michael Steele, more than most others, appropriately acknowledged and supported the people’s Tea Party movement where he could; this support for the people cost Mr. Steele dearly in terms of establishment Republicans supporting his chairmanship of the RNC. In addition, Mr. Steele provided support to non-establishment candidates once they had won Republican nomination.

The fact that Mr. Steele took the RNC into debt leading up to the 2010 elections, rather than reflecting fiscal irresponsibility, is evidence of his deep commitment to helping elect Republicans to office despite sagging donations to the RNC. Similar commitment was echoed by many of the citizenry who, having exhausted available funds, made donations to worthy candidates from their credit cards. In addition, nearly every candidate for public office goes into debt for campaign expenses. Do detractors contend that this depth of commitment, where people, organizations and candidates are willing to go into debt to support their cause (an expression of free speech), should be condemned?

During the 2008-2011 season there has been dramatic “climate change” to the political environment, I believe for the better. There is a new crop of leaders across the country determined to carry out the will of the people in changing the direction of the country from a freefall into the abyss of socialism and poverty to a return to the Constitution, harmony with Natural Law, preserving unalienable rights, and to recovery of American economic prosperity and employment, not just for Wall Street, Giant Banks and Financial Institutions and other Favored Large Corporations, but for Main Street and the small businesses and the people who live and work there and continue to suffer under the heavy hand of misguided government intervention, profligate deficit spending and excessive taxation.

With due public diligence and oversight, future election cycles are likely to further improve the numbers of quality leaders elected to public office. American political parties that respect, honor and respond to the will of the people will thrive. Those that refuse to reform will continue to suffer the consequences.

Michael Steele’s RNC Chairmanship, while at times considered corrosive by establishment Republicans, cannot be justly criticized for having managed a Republican landslide with severely limited funds. In addition, the restricted ability of the RNC to raise funds is directly due to establishment Republican practices and attitudes, not to Mr. Steele’s chairmanship.

Given the circumstances under which Mr. Steele had to function, his performance as Chair of the RNC has been exceptional. Based on this performance, and if Mr. Steele truly is the face of needed Republican Party reform that he seems to be, I believe Michael Steele has more than earned another term as Chairman.