Happy New Year

Hello 2006, good bye 2005.

Everyone, have a happy and prosperous, and full-of-freedom New Year.

The Third Amendment

We don't hear too much about the Third Amendment, do we?

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Imagine how the men and women of the 1780's felt, the gunpowder of the Revolution still in their noses. They remembered the terrible mistreatment of the Red Coats, and they wanted to make sure this country wouldn't do the same to the citizenry. It is nice to know we don't have to face the same troubles nowadays, isn't it?

Or do we?

We viewed Hurricane response here in the US a few months ago and the illegal seizure of weapons from homeowners defending themselves and their property. Members of the National Guard also took control of a church (and used it as a command post) without securing the permisson of the pastor (reported by ABC News on September 8, 2005... see footage at http://www.gunowners.org/notb.htm) by clicking on the "video" link). Remember, we were not in a declared war, so this was at least a border line infringement of the 3rd amendment.

Now, to be fair, the members of the National Guard as I witnessed on the news were by and large extremely professional and helpful in a nasty situation. Many had just returned from service in Iraq, only to have to deal with this. And the Guardsman who seized the church did try to secure communications with the pastor to secure permission. Still, someone in government leadership gave these men orders that began, if nothing else, infringing on some terriory of the Bill of Rights (2nd,3rd, 4th amendments, at a minimum).

We don't hear much about the 3rd amendment any more, but don't think it is obsolete - you may need it to protect you one of these days.

The Second Amendment and the National Guard

I don't understand where all of the confusion surrounding the Second Amendment comes from.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I keep hearing from people that this means only the National Guard may own weapons (because they are the modern equivalent of "the Militia"). The 2nd Amendment provides no "individual right" to keep arms, according to this crowd.

Huh?

Let's go back to the 1780's. What was the "well regulated Militia"? The Militia was every able-bodied man under the age of 60 (excluding professional soldiers).

Also, "well-regulated" meant "disciplined" - not under heavy government control.

The Militiamen kept their weapons ready for battle at their homes and workplaces. The individual citizen was allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in firearms use.

The next clause states that it is the "right of the people" to bear arms. Now, if the "right of the people" is not the right of individuals like you and me, then we can throw the Bill of Rights into the wastebasket. Why? Because five amendments in the Bill of Rights includes that specific phrase - the right of the people.

Amendment 1 guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment 2 guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Amendment 4 guarantees "the right of the peopel to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and suezures, shall not be violated..."

Amendment 9 guarantees "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment 10 guarantees "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, if people want to hate the Second Amendment, fine. But if people want to falsly argue that the Second Amendment doesn't ensure an individual right, well, they might as well surrender their First Amendment freedoms - among others.

By the way, the National Guard cannot be the modern equivalent of the Militia, as described in the 2nd Amendment: Guardsmen are prohibited by Federal Law (32 U.S.C. sec 105[a][1]) from keeping their military arms. These arms are owned, stored, and inventoried by the Federal government, and required to be kept under lock and key in an armory. (source - David I. Kaplan)

Random Thought

Horses have four legs to stand on - that's four more than most politicians.

The First Amendment and the Ten Commandments

Can you recite the 1st Amendment? No, I mean the entire First Amendment. What does it say - beyond the "freedom of religion" or the "separation of church and state" or the "wall of separation" stuff that we usually hear in the news.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is pretty powerful stuff. Congress shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Congress shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion. Wow - there is no mandated "wall of separation" in this amendment, but rather a precious freedom. The State cannot establish a national church (such as The Church of England), and it cannot prevent Americans from exercising their religious faith.

It is nice to see the Court system realize that the 1st Amendment covers their actions, too. On December 20, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

In the particular case referenced, a display of historical documents in Mercer County, Kentucky, included the Ten Commandments (in addition to the Magna Carta, The Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner, the national motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice). The ACLU alleged this violated the "separation of church and state." Source http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48006

I applaud the Court for issuing a decision that respects our Constitution and the Rights of We The People.

Congress and Identity Theft

It looks like Congress is at it again - taking a bad situation and making it worse, yet calling it better.

According to Robert Vamosi, Senior Editor at CNET, Congress is looking at legislation (HR 4127) to "ensure that personal data are accounted for, secured, and actively protected against breaches by empowering consumers and businesses to promote the notion that security sells." See this article at http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-6381707.html

Right now, the State of California has a law, SB 1386, which requires any organization doing business with California residents to notify those individuals should files containing their personal information like names, addresses, and other goodies you don't want out there have been breached.

This has happened millions of times since the law was enacted in 2003. These notifications have been embarrasing and costly to companies such as Visa and Mastercard. According to Vamosi, the FTC estimates that data breaches cost businesses about $48 billion last year. And, as he reports, it's the cost to businesses, not individuals, that appears to have motivated Flordia Republican Cliff Stearns to push through his recent changes to HR 4127, a.k.a. the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA).

Under the leadership of Congressman Sterns, the House DATA bill (which, as a Federal bill, would supercede SB 1386) would require companies to contact customers only when there is a "reasonable basis to conclude that there is a significant risk of identity theft."

Yes, no automatic or compulsory disclosure would be required. Just a threat, as defined by the company with billions to lose if the word gets out.

Hardly a day goes by when we don't hear about someone who is suffering from identity theft. It is growing at an alarming rate every year, and our protectors in Congress want to keep companies, but not consumers, safe? I guess the old saying is true - the opposite of progress is Congress.

Jose or Jesus?

The AP reports a judge in Manhattan allowed a man, the former Jose Luis Espinal, to legally change his name to "Jesus Christ", effective December 23. The former Jose stated "I am the person that is that name."

The judge allowing this change said she was "satisfied that this application is neither novel, nor would granting it pose practical problems." She also stated that name change applications usually are not denied just because the change might cause practical difficulties or be thought unwise, as long as a person with the same name does not object to the proposed change. She additionally stated that the former Mr. Espinal's "reasons were primarily those applicable to his own private religious beliefs and he stated no desire to use his proposed name to secure publicity, to proselytize, to fund-raise or advise others that he had been cloaked by the courts or government with a religious authority."

source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JESUS_CHRIST?SITE=MAFAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This may not sound very PC, but some guy changing his name to "Jesus Christ" is sick and wrong. His reasons for changing his name were "primarily those applicable to his own private religious beliefs"? I don't know what these "religious beliefs" may be, and something tells me I don't want to know. And isn't there something especially freaky about this man wanting the new name right at Christmas time?

He will not "proselytize...fund-raise or advise others..."? What is the point of changing your name to match that of Lord and Savior if you can't proselytize and offer advice. Does this gentleman think that the prayers of millions of Christians are now uttered to him? Does he consider these masses as his spiritual children? Does he know any of the Bible?

If you are in Manhattan anytime soon, don't drink any Kool-Aid offered you.

A Good Day

I had a vacation day, but still got up before the sunrise - not too hard to do here in the Midwest during the second shortest day of the year. I was outside as the sun began to rise. To the east there was the sun; westward there was a cloud ceiling. I watched as the clouds turned that early morning sun somewhat-pinkish-but-somewhat-purplish-but-not-yellow-or-orangish color. You know the sky I mean? Anyways, it was beautiful and the air was fresh and felt great in the lungs. One of those quasi-spiritual mini-events where I was just glad to have the moment to enjoy.

Do yourself a favor today. Take a few moments to just get away from the hustle and bustle, go outside and take a few deep breaths, and enjoy life. Find something out there that moves you.

The clock finally hit midnight. It is now Christmas Eve here in my time zone. Merry Christmas, everyone. And if you don't celebrate Christmas, have a Merry Day.

More Thoughts on Intelligent Design

What do scientists hold to be the truth regarding evolution vs. Intelligent Design (ID)? Obviously a majority of scientists still hold to evolution, but a growing percentage are examining and some even endorsing ID.

I don't understand why science teachers are afraid of mentioning that there are other ideas out there besides Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. If they don't want to teach about ID, fine. But is every theory challenging evolution really religion in disguise? Have we elevated Darwin to saint-like status and made evolution a de facto state-supported religion?

I personally wonder why any science teacher confident in the theory of evolution would mind a challenge from ID. If ID is so inferior, or simply repackaged creationism, shouldn’t smart, young students be able to figure this out? At what point does the education system feel safe in letting a student critically think for themselves?

I would like to see a head-on clash between the best of the scientists who back evolution and the pro-ID scientists. Let's have a very public debate and see all the evidence as presented by the best minds and communicators on both sides. I am tired of the portrayals of pro-ID scientists as minor league brains who fall for repackaged creationism. I am equally tired of seeing portrayals of pro-evolution scientists as evil athiests who fear their career and work will be forever invalid if they are wrong on Darwin.

Don't attack ID in court. Bring it to the forefront of scientific and newsworthy analysis and break it into pieces. Do the same with evolution. Investigate the teaching materials. Analyze every bit of the theories in microscopic detail. Put the investigators on shows like CSI to shame; be an example to them on how to do critical, open-minded, methodical, careful and thoughtful research.

When all is said and done, I imagine we would find strengths and weaknesses in both theories. Who knows, maybe we could make some significant advances in science education if both sides remember they are dealing with theory.

The Patriot Act renews

Everyone remembers the awful imagery of that fateful day, September 11, 2001. Four years later, it still sends chills up the spine. Suddenly the US was at war with a new enemy, a villain much different than we'd faced before. An enemy without a nation.

To help us fight this new type of war, Congress passed the Patriot Act, legistlation that broadened law enforcement abilities and dramatically reformed the ways we could legally gather intelligence. A sweeping reform of the "way we do business" when fighting terrorism, but also unfortunately, giving the government more authority to act as Big Brother. As a guarantee our civil rights would be protected, and as insurance that nothing was passed as a frightened knee-jerk reaction in an time of incredible duress, the Patriot Act was set to expire at the end of 2005.

Yesterday the Senate approved extending the Act for another six months.

The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Among other things, The Patriot Act, in a rather un-Patriotic way, allows the following:

1. This law provides for indefinite imprisonment without trial of non-U.S. citizens whom the politically appointed Attorney General determines to be a threat to national security. Note that at least two U.S. citizens, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, have been designated as "enemy combatants" and imprisoned without trial - so don't say it won't come back to haunt citizens.

2. The government is not required to provide detainees with counsel, nor is it required to make any announcement or statement regarding the arrest.

3. Law enforcement agencies are now allowed to obtain a warrant and search a residence without immediately informing the occupants, if the Attorney General has determined this to be an issue of national security.

4. Intelligence gathering is now allowed at religious events.

And now Congress has extended the Act. For some reason, I don't feel a lot safer.

I guess Big Brother looks a lot like Uncle Sam.

Merry Christmas???

Is it just me, or is the anti-Christmas thing way overblown this year?

I appreciate that many people do not celebrate this holiday, but the venomous attacks on Christmas just stun me. I am rather pleased, not insulted, when someone says "Merry Christmas" to me. This phrase is akin to someone saying "God Bless You" after a sneeze. It isn't ramming their religion down my throat. It is just a pleasantry, a polite social utterance. "Merry Christmas" is a pleasantry, too. If you don't want to celebrate Christmas, no big deal. Don't. But at the same time, realize there are millions that do, and it is a very special time of year for them.

That reminds me, to all the stores who rake in the big bucks during Christmas but don't believe it is appropriate to say "Merry Christmas" because after all, Christmas is a Christian holiday, and "we don't want to promote a religion": please stop using this time of year to cash in on Chistianity. A store employee saying "Merry Christmas" doesn't offend me. A store making oodles of money off a holiday it refuses to acknowledge for cheap anti-religious reasons - that offends.

Christmas and Government

I used to believe there was a war on all things Jewish and/or Christian by the US Government - all three branches. I'd think of the many court cases including the recent Dover Intelligent Design decison, the "is the display of the Ten Commandments constitutional?" fights, the ACLU vs. every municipality in America over the manger display battles, and so on.

We are daily reminded, especially by the ACLU, that there is a wall of separation between the church and state in our Constitution, or at least a wall is alleged wall to exist. And the government, by and large, appears to agree with the ACLU in most court cases.

So imagine my shock when I found out the US Government actually endorses religion - specifically the Christian and Jewish faiths. And as a concerned American, I want to make sure my government does not come out and endorse religion.

You can see the US Government's blatant endorsement of Christianity and Judaism for yourself. Go to the web page for the US House of Representatives (www.house.gov) and look at their schedule. It states very clearly that they break for Christmas and Hannukah. Further investigation reveals that the Judicial branch of government is closed, too, as are most members of the executive branch. Even state governments and local municipalities share in this atrocity, although usually only on Christian holidays. Are you shocked and appalled, too?

What kind of political leadership brazenly taunts it's taxpaying and voting base like this? How dare they violate the separation of church and state. Who are they to take their religion and cram it down our throats?

Join me in demanding that our government make a bold statement and work both during the Christian holy day of Christmas and Jewish holy time of Hannukah. I don't want to see a tacit endorsment of religion, either, through some slick semantic game like changing the name of the vacation to "winter break."

It gets worse - Congress also takes vacations on Passover and Easter. Thank God (I mean, thank the deity of your choice if you choose to believe in any deity, but if you don't it is ok, just be thankful in general) they do not take off Good Friday.

It is time that We The People stand up to the US Government. No more endorsment of religion. Stop celebrating religious holidays.

Intelligent Design

What in the world is a court of law hearing a case on Intelligent Design (ID)? Why are the courts determining what is education and what is science?

If you are not familiar with the court case I am referencing, let me explain. A school board in Pennsylvania adopted a policy in October, 2004, stating that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said that Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they set this policy. Judge Jones also noted that several of the Board members professed religious beliefs.

According to CNN, “the Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is ‘not a fact’ and has inexplicable ‘gaps.’ It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, ‘Of Pandas and People,’ for more information.”

Judge Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, but, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

We have several important pieces of the Constitution that should have been at work here. According to Article III, Section 2, this case should not have been heard in court as it is out of the court's jurisdiction.

The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here is how things should have panned out, according to the Constitution. The Dover School Board of Education required ID must be taught as an alternative to evolution. The people of the community, exercising their First and Tenth Amendment rights (petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, and enjoying the powers as delegated in the Constitution), don’t like this decision and vote eight of the incumbents into retirement, replacing them with anti-Intelligent Design board members who, according to the will of the people, will remove ID from the science curriculum. End of story, or at least, it should have been.

The court system is not the place to develop science education.


Tags Intelligent Design , Justice

On Saddam's trial

I don't know about you, but I am really tired of all this coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. Today, the former dictator complained in an outburst that American forces had been beating and torturing him.

This outburst, by the way, was after witnesses testified that Saddam's agents tortured people with electric shock and (there is no non-gross way of writing this) by tearing the skin off of unfortunate prisoners.

When I look at this thug on the television set, I see a well-groomed man who looks like he eats well.

Remember the lice-covered Saddam right after he was captured in 2003 ? Look at him now - how he can claim he was tortured? No bruises. No missing teeth. Skin is all in tact. Torture? Come on.

Saddam will most likely be found guilty at the end of this trial, likely will appeal for a few years, and ultimately will be sentenced to death. There is ample evidence that this man was a cold-blooded killer who terrorized Iraqis for decades. There is no doubt this is an evil man we are dealing with, not some poor sap that the US is beating up on.

Perhaps we should call Saddam's bluff. According to the Associated Press, after Saddam complained of his "torture" at the hands of Americans, Chief Prosecutor Jaafar al-Mousawi promised to investigate, and if any evidence of abuse was found, al-Mousawi would have Saddam transferred to the custody of Iraqi troops.

Hmmm. Would you rather be in the custody of Coalition troops, eating well and living in a comfortable cell with television; or would you want to be in the custody of the people you tortured, orphaned, disfigured and mutilated? The Iraqi people are impressing the world with their resolve and determination; they will not give in to the constant evil around them in the form of terrorist attacks, they are bound to overcome the infrastructure problems that still plague them daily, and they have successfully ran and participated in honest, meaningful elections that puts the US to shame. Still, chances are good that at least one person in the group of millions of good people abused by Saddam might like to repay the favor. Saddam would be wise to keep his mouth shut.

Tags: Iraq , Saddam Hussein