Return from beyond Texas - A Prelude to Civil War

Okay, I haven't posted anything in just over four years. Why? you might ask. Because opining in written form is hard work. Once committed to a document with any kind of permanence, critics and nitpickers crawl out of the woodwork with factual corrections. If any such essay survives this ghastly process, it is then put on trial by history, as predictions, no matter how beautifully surmised, are ruthlessly slaughtered by factors which seemed trivial when the prediction was written. Posting takes a huge emotional effort, and I haven't felt that need for it in years. And yet, here I am again.

In my prolonged vacation, I've been hospitalized in critical condition for something I insisted was trivial up until the last minute. Don't wanna talk about it. If you're curious, just assume it was an STD from straight sex. With a supermodel. I've also moved out of what was my adopted home state of Texas back to my disgruntled and snappish previous home state of Arizona. (Shh! We don't get along too well!)

If you're wondering about the title, God bless you!! But it's there for a reason. The president has made statements recently saying that as the Chief Executive, he has the authority, "the phone and the pen" to enact de facto law at his desk in the Oval Office. Senator Feinstein has stated that the First Amendment "was intended for educated Americans", not bloggers without a degree in political science or law, that they should expect jail time for speaking ill of the federal government, its employees, political appointees, or its elected officials. Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona has stated that only "gun control" can stop the types of violence such as the [insert latest mass shooting here]. In other words, the Constitution is under attack by members of the government. They are seeking to throw off the shackles of Constitutional restraint of their actions. Christians are increasingly in the federal crosshairs, as are family businesses, property owners, and gun owners. It is not beyond possibility that America could reach a boiling point leading to civil war. This isn't an original thought on my part. In fact, this post is a direct result of a Facebook post from Jay Rowell of today, May 28, 2014.

And so, having already bemoaned the prediction process and its ego murdering aftermath, I will nonetheless indulge in it anyway! Masochist me, huh? Based on my study of history (what little I have access to) it will go something like this:

1. There will be a suspiciously successful general election which sees far more Democrats and RINOs elected and reelected than could possibly be accounted for in the polls.

2. tensions will rise as more and more incidents involving the use of excessive force against Americans by federal agencies, such as the IRS, BATFE, BLM, TSA, and dozens of others begin to pile up bodies. But wars don't begin by stacking hay. Wars begin by a "last straw" breaking the back of reason and restraint.

3. There will be a single act of war in which it can no longer be denied by any reasonable person that a state of war exists by dint of numerous attacks upon citizens due to their religion, race, means of employment, or political ideology.

3.a. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if, in this "last straw event", many children were included on the casualty list.

4. The immediate response by the federal government will be, "Proper procedures were followed, and an investigation will be conducted as soon as all the facts are in. And besides, the dead people brought it on themselves!"

4.a. The federal government will "impose order" by severely limiting Bill of Amendment rights.

5. This one horrible event will shock the nation into factionalizing. Pro-government? Or anti?

5.a. Given the love Liberals have for government, and the outright hatred they so often display for Christians, conservatives, Libertarians, and, frankly, those of European ancestry, the Left, the Democrat Party, the Liberals, will become the "brown shirts". They will be armed and equipped, and eager to teach the "Rednecks" a lesson.

5.b. The TEA party movement will be the focal point of the sedition side. Not the Republican Party. There are too many GOP officials who won't risk their power, prestige, and wealth in opposing even the most despotic of regimes. Even the most popular and consistently Conservative of Repubs will be too compromised by having been in politics to lead a rebellion.

5.c. The states will be forced into a faction, some kicking and screaming, such as New Mexico and Colorado. The "blue states" will start making lists of "suspicious persons", those who own firearms, vote Repub, or have posted anti-Obama comments on Facebook. During one of the following points, those persons will be arrested without warrant and held without trial. Possibly executed.

6. As Americans take to the streets to protest, the federal government forces will ruthlessly suppress it, leading to more deaths than the original 3.-event.

7. In no particular order,

7.a. the Federal government will announce a "curfew" and limitations on public speech and the press, with violators subject to deadly force; and

7.b. a revolution movement will explode into existence organization and action. One will happen, and the other will follow.

8. There will be

8.a. a harsh response towards "agitators, aggressors, and seditionists" from the federal government. Not like an angry lecture. More like killing an entire town in the heart of the "Red States";

8.b. followed by an angry response to the 8.a. "attack", a loss of federal agents lives in numbers unseen since...ever. At that point, it's war.

Perhaps I'm off on some of these points. Perhaps way off. Perhaps totally wrong on all counts. In fact, I hope so. I hope reason and restraint prevail. I hope there is never an innocent victim of federal zeal, much less, God forbid, children! If all this comes off as I've outlined, it means tens of thousands dead in a matter of days. If there is not a decisive victory in short order, there will be millions of dead Americans on both sides. I have a wife and two children. I have a mother I would defend to the death. Oh, I have friends I would be honored to fight alongside, but they also have spouses and children. No civil war is ever a victory. Sometimes the just and righteous prevail, sometimes not. And sometimes, despite the outcome, tyranny creeps in and takes over.

It makes no difference to the dead, or their families, or their loved ones, who is to blame.

Evil Relies on the Silence of the Good...and Usually Gets it

Perhaps it is a bit strong to refer to those who state their passionate opinion as evil, but then again, perhaps not. The opinion to which i refer is the charge that Teaparty members are "racist". This sounds merely quirky and lame at first blush, but after some reflection i have Humbly come to realize how vile this lie truly is. These false accusations cause innocent people to suffer.

It is disgusting how those who merely state their opposition to the current status quo are branded as racist, and even terrorists. Some of the members of the Teaparty movement are people of color. These allegations of racism against the general membership of the Teaparty movement end up causing shouts of "race traitor" to those members who are minorities.

In these unsettled times, fear is used as a political tool to herd the masses into the confined pens which the entrenched leadership control. The Patriot Act is a good example of this. "I will keep you safe if you allow me some little extra power until the danger is past," was the promise. Only, there is never any safety, so the little extra power ends up being permanent, and growing, too. And so, in these unsettled times, referring to any grassroots movement by such frightening terms as "racist", "terrorist", "militia movement", and "gun loving" is an OBVIOUS ploy to utilize fear--no! TERROR--to minimize and demonize that movement!

Doubt me? After the attempted Times Square car bombing, were there not theories flying around that it was a "white male in his forties", and "probably a right wing extremist" going around? Remember the guy who suicide-crashed his plane into a government building a few months ago? He was referred to as a "right wing extremist" even after his web site was exposed as really Marxist in nature.

Wake up! Use of fear--that is, terror--to accomplish political ends is TERRORISM! Those who tell their lies about the Teaparty movement are either part of a concerted effort to control our very society, or are dupes who believe whatever they hear from their beloved leadership with no effort to think critically. The Teaparty movement is racist??? HOW??? And think before you answer this question. Apply the same standards of "racism" to those you choose to follow.

There is a civil war IN PROGRESS in this country right this minute. It is being fought in the media. It is being waged in the Congress. Celebrities are virtual WMDs. Little people, like me, have almost no ability to make the slightest difference in the outcome. And when this civil war is over, the real bloodshed will begin.

Dear Lord, i hope i'm wrong.

Fatal Flaws Require Rethinking, Not Better PR

We bought a car once that we couldn't afford. It cost too much. We figured eventually we'd work it out. Never did. The bank took the car back. It was a bad idea. Fundamentally flawed. In its current form, so is Health Care Reform. Not just flawed. FATALLY flawed. Jumping into it anyway will cause ruin, chaos, devastation, and anguish. Just like that minivan did for my family.

The sentiment seems to be that, regardless of how flawed the Health Care Reform bill may be, it is crucial to pass it now, presumably because people are dying because of the flaws of the current system. My sentiment is horror. This was the same general mindset of the people of Germany in the early 1930s. They sold their humanity to the first one who promised a solution. Sorry, that's a bit extreme, but emotional arguments bring that out in me. A slightly less extreme example is our longtime friend, England, whose NHS is currently killing people because of the flaws in their healthcare system. Based on the news from across the pond, this is a constant occurrence. Emotional thinking, wishful thinking, unrealistic thinking, result in bad BAD ideas being tried, resulting in disasters, regardless of how saintly the intentions were.

I once painted a garage floor. I spent more time picking out the color than the right type of paint. After three weeks, the paint was still "tacky" wet. Yeah, I'm that kind of genius. I ended up moving out and leaving the landlord to deal with it. (I'm not proud of that!) This Health Care Reform bill will do the same thing to the American people as I did to my landlord. Not only will more harm than good result, the next few years will be spend undoing the damage, at massive cost to the American people.

There are a few flaws which must be considered as severe enough to kill the current form of Health Care Reform, if they exist. There can be no excuses, no plans to work it out later. If there is a fatal flaw, drop it, and redo it from the ground up.

First, Constitutional flaws. The Legislative branch derives its authority from the Constitution, and even take an oath to defend it. All actions taken by all branches of government, and all employees and agents, must adhere to the Constitution. No excuses. MUST.

Second, legal flaws. This hasn't been a big deal to Congress of either party in recent years, but it needs to be considered when the very weight of the act being considered can have catastrophic consequences. When the bill being considered is whether the Honorable Joseph T. Blow should be on a stamp, it is safe to skip this consideration. Already, there is a massive concern over whether this bill is in violation of the Hyde Amendment, forbidding the Federal Government to pay for abortions. Creating new law which violates old law is insane. Repeal the old law first, or fix the new law. Doing neither invites disaster.

Third, practical impossibility. If Health Care Reform will cost, as I suspect, several trillion dollars over the next decade, during a period of existing financial instability, the result can be unthinkable. US bankruptcy. Not even during the Great Depression did we face this prospect. We are seeing it in Greece now. We may face it this decade if Health Care Reform passes. More of the States may face bankruptcy. More local governments. Who is going to pay for millions more people's health care?? My wife and I decided we would cut spending on a few things to pay for that minivan. Perhaps we should have cut spending first, then bought a car. There is actually an existing law which states new programs must be funded before being implemented. Is it too much to ask for lawmakers to obey that law?

Fourth, social impact. Not quite what it sounds like. Cramming a law down the throats of people who don't want it, at best, is a step towards tyranny. Bad precedent. VERY bad. Eventually, there will be an election, people will get a chance to demonstrate their anger, but only after the damage is done. So, maybe there is a change in the majority party. Sounds good, right? Remember, this is after the precedent of passing a massive bill against the unanimous dissent of the minority party, and even the majority of the American people. The new majority party will now have fresh bitter memories and new superpowers to ram through unpopular destructive legislation. The term "nuclear option" will come to be business as usual.

Fifth, disenfranchisement. This flaw is really more of an effect. Passing a law that 60% of the people hate is saying, "You're little people. You're a nobody." What good could possibly come from that?

The Health Care Reform bill has been pushed from the beginning with secrecy and guile. The "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback" provisions are just the ones we know about. They were "gifts" to balky senators who would otherwise have voted no. So was the Stupak amendment, but he's going to get shafted out of that. My point is, Congress shouldn't have to give gifts to get a law passed. Not if it is good. Certainly not gifts that the American people are paying for. It's beyond sleazy.

Maybe it all doesn't matter anyway. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has enough votes to pass it now. She's not worried. It's a little odd that she passed the House version in the middle of the night on a Saturday, within minutes of knowing she had the votes to do it, but she is holding off on voting the Senate version, even though she says she has the numbers. Could she be less than honest? Schedule the vote, Speaker! Commit to your folly. Pass it and live with the consequences.

I don't know whether to dread the flood, or look forward to the cleanup which will follow.

You Have no Right to Live, Sicko, Revisited!

In a previous blog, i stated my Humble concerns about a Reformed Health Care system which penalizes those who are particularly in need of medical support, the smokers and the overweight. Since then, i've seen the penalties decline to a less draconian level. This greatly reassures me. Until i think about it again. ANY penalty on any aspect of lifestyle MUST be viewed as an insertion of control over YOUR life by a despotic regime! It is an attempt at control, social engineering, and tyrannical.

Please note i Humbly limited the scope of my accusation of tyranny to penalizing and controlling lifestyle. There are valid areas wherein a benevolent government must assert and maintain control. Commission of a violent crime may be viewed as a "lifestyle choice", but then, so too could being a citizen at all. Assault, as an example, is part of some cultures, sometimes to extremes. Yet, assault is a crime. Being fat isn't. Smoking isn't. Creation of anti-Constitutional civil law to penalize these where criminal law does not, is frankly evil.

There are well-meaning busybodies who wish to say that we have no inherent right to be fat or smoke. Well, actually, yeah, we do. The 9th and 10th Amendments say we have all rights not reserved by the Constitution to the Federal or state governments. We have the right to engage is all kinds of stupidity. We have the right to vote without the slightest understanding of the issues, or candidate's position on them. That, i Humbly assert, is more of a danger and detriment to the American people than a chubbo with a Marlboro.

As for "Health Care Reform", i Humbly expect only bad things from it. Politicians are creating it. They are a bunch of fatuous egotistic morons (with a few exceptions). Those in office who have medical experience are being ignored in favor of jackasses like Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer. We are allowing them to strip away, first, less popular rights in exchange for a hypothetical improvement in health care. After those rights are taken away, NEVER to be restored, we will find out, "Oops, we underestimated the cost of insuring those 36 million people Health Care Reform is covering! We're going to have to start cutting costs somehow." It won't be just the obese and smokers (other than those in office) who will find hard times in getting medical care.

It will be everyone.

Avatar: Why Make an Effort When the Effects are Hot?

I haven't seen the movie at this time, only the reviews. I do plan to see the movie, though. Still, what struck me the most from the review i read last (Associated Press), was the extremely easy-to-hate portrayal of the antagonists in this epic film. How easy it is to hate warmongers and nature rapers. The bad guys are both groups combined.

Apparently, there are natural resources located, of course, directly under the village of the nature-revering natives, and they must be taken even if it means the violation and destruction of paradise. Is there any ambiguity? Is there any reason to not hate the bad guys? Perhaps after seeing the movie, i'll change my opinion. Hollywood does, on occassion, surprise me.

In the real universe, people are a complex mix of good and evil. Human nature (and nature nature) is inherently selfish. Survival means never being sorry about who or what you eat. Survival means the weak get shafted, and the strong get the girls. It means killing rivals, and doing atrocious things to prevent problems in the future. Consider the lion. What the new male of the pride does to establish his leadership is heinous and horrible. But that's nature. Humans are (debatably) the only animals on this planet who make an effort to rise above their nature. (Although I've heard stories about dogs, cats, and dolphins that make me wonder.) The point is, any real examination of the motivations and mindset of most people will reveal some sympathetic traits, and some contemptible traits. Because goodness and evil coexist within us, individuals are rarely just one or the other. My favorite movies are those where the villains are the most lovable, the most appealing.

I don't know, having never written a screenplay, how hard it is, or if it would have been much harder to make the humans as sympathetic as the aliens they are in conflict with. So, i offer only my Humble opinion: we've been set up.

I've never wiped out a nature-loving village or defiled a natural paradise for scarce resources in my life, and have no desire to ever do so. But i get the feeling there's gonna be a line in this movie, or perhaps merely implied:

You humans are all alike.

Free Choice Doesn't Mean Your Choices are Free

Forgive me, readers, it has been two months since my last confession--er--blog. That last one was about the so-called Health Care Reform Act, and so is this one. Abortion proponents want a federal law requiring that insurance cover abortion. Senator Boxer considers this debate to be anti-woman, an assault on women's rights which could take women back to the 70's.

Seems like a simple issue to me, in my Humble opinion. Abortion is not being limited at all under this or any federal legislation. What is being debated is, who covers the cost? Boxer demands that all insurance carriers cover abortion, or there is no longer "freedom of choice".

I am aghast. This anti-logic comes from one of the Committee of One Hundred, some of the most powerful people on the planet. This is like when one of my two young children comes up to me and asks if they can have something, and I tell them yes, they then expect me to jump in the car, go to the store, buy it, sometimes assemble and test it, and hand it to them. Is that what the leadership of this nation have become? Five year-olds? If would be funny if the potential cost to my sons weren't so potentially catastrophic.

And yet, as a conservative, I'm almost tempted to concede this foolishness! Let 'em have all the abortions they want! Who are the fetuses being aborted most likely to become had they gone to term? Liberals? Most of those fetuses would have had a liberal mommy. Not all, true, but most. Abortion is a choice, but so is pregnancy, yet I have no qualms about demanding insurance cover ob/gyn, L&D, neonatal, pediatrician, and so on. My Humble opinion is that these things are actually good for our country. The practice of killing unwanted infants is not. Abortion diminishes the value of human life.

I would be willing to compromise this supremely moral issue to this extent: abortions covered as a result of the Health Care Reform Act would mandate reversible sterilization be performed at the time or shortly thereafter. The cost of reversing that procedure, however, would not be covered. Freedom of choice doesn't necessarily have to mean all the choices are yummy.

Ask my five year old.

You Have no Right to Live, Sicko!

In an article in the Washington Post, "Wellness Incentives Could Create Health-Care Loophole" there is a dire threat. Live by Our standards, or else. The health care "reform" package under consideration would allow employers to increase employee premiums by 50%. That's around $200 per month for a single person, $500 per month for a family. That is a HUGE penalty for being fat!!

Some fraction of those being penalized will drop their insurance, which may be in violation of the new law, resulting in a HUGE penalty for being fat.

Failing to be insured may also result in refusal of care, shortening the lives, productivity, comfort, and contribution to society by the despicable smokers, fatties, and poor lifestylers. "I shouldn't have to pay for porkers' health care!" people will scream. Some already do. "If you smoke, you deserve to die!" some cry. "I don't want gang members/gays/punks/alternative lifestylers/goths (or whatever group with some hypothetical health issue) taking up MY healthcare resources!"

People can come up with good reasons to hate the overweight, the smokers, and the other with health issues. Drug addicts, alcoholics, substance abusers will be given a bandaid and shown to the door at emergency rooms. There will be no compassion. It was a choice YOU made to be unhealthy! Only the wealthy will be able to get care. Poverty, likewise, is a lifestyle choice.

And then there's the issue of religious influence on health care. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, wisely or not, that the Biblical injunction against taking blood doesn't mean only drinking it, but accepting transfusions as well. This can be argued to mean they are at greater risk, require specialized (i.e., more expensive) treatment, and are more likely to die anyway, so why waste public health care resources on them? "Let 'em pray for health!" There are those who believe God can literally heal them when He chooses to. They are already under attack in the courts. I don't know who's right. Maybe they should be imprisoned for letting children die. Maybe they should be free. Maybe the state should take away their children for their protection. Maybe there should be some marriage license "do you believe in using doctors and hospitals" test to allow marriage. There's no easy answer here, other than perhaps the Reader's opinion. Are You a "Jail 'em!" or "Free 'em!" type?

This scares the crap out of me. I'm obese. And I, contrary to the supercilious opinion of 200 million non-obese people, can't stop being obese tomorrow! If I made a sincere effort with reasonable support (nutritional guidance, physical trainers, medical advice) I might be able to get off the obese list in a year. More likely two. But as the Washington Post article points out, there won't be any support. Health care will be reserved for the healthy. And as soon as an argument can be made that any particular health condition can be blamed on lifestyle, you'll be targeted too. Or perhaps just a family member, loved one, or friend.

What will you do when your mother tells you she's been denied medicare because she's "too active, and at risk for injury"? Say your goodbyes? Council her to stay home and be silent? Go through nursing home brochures for your entirely healthy mother, effectively ending her life because of a lifestyle choice? How about when you receive a "believed to be currently using tobacco products" letter, with an invitation to pee in a cup? Don't believe in "false positives"? "These tests are reliable, smoker! Get ready for a big cut in your pay!" Thinking you can sue? Yeah, see how that works for ya.

I know I'm obese. I know I need to change that, and I will, in my own time and my own way, with the best expert advice I can find, and without forcing my wife and children to make sacrifices, too. If this healthcare "reform" travesty passes, the right to make those decisions will be taken away from me, or I and my family will be penalized into submission.

It is extremely troubling when the government can dictate personal, private, and lawful behavior, and that day is coming when a bunch of misguided ivory tower politicians who won't be subjected to their own stupidity take over that ubiquitous industry, health care, and run roughshod over our rights. Think you won't be affected? If so, I Humbly think you're a fool.

My prediction is, people will be suiciding to spare their families. We'll read horror stories about the grandpa who was kicked out of the hospital after being caught smoking, and died soon after. We'll read about women who decided to abort rather than quit smoking cold turkey. The health, finances, families, and very lives of American citizens will be held hostage to the benevolent despots of the healthcare industry. And some politicians will hand them the power of life and death.

They're lining up the votes in D.C. right now.

"Rights" and Wrongs

This is a strange one. In Maine, a woman was being arrested under an active warrant. She believed, without seeing the warrant, that it was bogus. She went in her house to, the officer on the scene believed, lock the house. She had apparently grabbed her "stun gun" electric dischage device, rated at 975kV. When the officer moved to assist her, she turned and allegedly fired on him, jolting the officer, but not disabling him. The officer took the noncompliant woman into custody.

This woman, 65-year-old New Sharon, Maine, resident, Carol Murphy, has had a history of bad relations with all levels of law enforcement, all levels of courts through State courts, even chastising a judge in court. All warrants, according to Murphy, were flawed as a result of an earlier "void" order. I Humbly assume this was in Murphy's head when she went to get her stun gun.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when the "knowledge" is regarding Law, the danger level can be off the charts. There is a legal precedent for resisting arrest when the attempted arrest is unlawful or materially flawed. With this in mind, a citizen facing an arrest warrant grabbed a weapon and (Allegedly) used it on a law enforcement officer while he was executing a warrant.

The thing is, that precedent applies firstly to "false arrest", being held without warrant or cause. In this case, there was a warrant. Murphy was told about it, and without asking to see it, (Allegedly) grabbed a weapon. Clearly she cannot argue there was no warrant, since she didn't ask to see it and was refused. The precedent also applies to warrants not sworn to with just cause, as is required of arrest warrants. And again, having not seen the warrant, she had no basis for establishing the validity of the warrant, other than the wording of the officer, and her own experience with the court which issued the warrant.

About that "void ab initio" order. It is apparently maintained by Murphy that the order obviates all previous fines, fees, penalties, and court orders resulting from the charges for which the order was handed. Therefore, I Humbly theorize, an arrest warrant for "unpaid fines" might sound flawed. However, the legal council voice in my left ear says, the officer was not actively pursuing Murphy when she (Allegedly) attacked him, and perhaps the just cause statement was demonstrably false, but in that case ALL arrest warrants made against innocent people are flawed, and arrest may be resisted with up to deadly force.

A just cause statement is an opinion sworn to that a law has been broken, and that someone is believed to have done so. Only when this opinion is known to be false by the person making the statement on the warrant, is the warrant flawed. All that would be necessary under this Humble legal theory is that the subject believe him or herself to be innocent. Not just mostly innocent, but really truly innocent. Thing is, innocent people can be wrongly convicted, sent to prison, and even executed. If we say, if you know in your heart you are guilty, you can't fight arrest, you make a presumption of guilt, AND are de facto admitting guilt by failing to resist arrest! Instead of fighting charges in court, they will be fought EVERYWHERE.

The precedent was intended to maintain the right of self defense even to those who are being wrongly arrested by corrupt law enforcement personnel, who may be acting under the unconstitutional authority of a oath breaking judge. By stretching the facts, Murphy will probably make just this argument. The officer on the scene might not have known any of this until the handcuffed, peppersprayed Carol Murphy was under lock and key.

The thing that really perturbs me is that people with less understanding of the law than I Humbly possess (which is pretty miniscule) are saying "Way to go! Too bad you didn't kill the nazi stormtrooper!" and "He deserved it, because in 2004, they killed one of her horses!"

What I Humbly fear, is that Murphy may be exonerated for retrieving a deadly weapon and using it to (Allegedly) assault a law enforcement officer executing a warrant. Instead of the "flawed warrant" test, she will create the "reasonable belief in lack of faith" standard. And that will allow hundreds of thousands of assaults upon police officers in the line of duty.

The fault is not with this woman, who might or might not be playing with a full deck, but with whoever issued that warrant, which may or may not be total garbage. If it is, the first shot has been fired on the dismantlement of law and order in this country. What cop will happily face attacks by criminals without the backup of the law? It takes a special kind of hero to go to those doors in the first place, knowing they might face a weapon. After an incident, though, they have a right to see their attackers prosecuted. The attacker can say, "I know I'm innocent, so the warrant was in bad faith, giving me the right to grab a gun and use it."

Not only cops will die. And Maine, you will be to blame.

A Little Thing Called The Constitution, or How I Stopped Worrying About Forced Innoculation

According to a news story in New York, anyone in New York working in the health care industry is required by the State Department of Health to be immunized against both seasonal influenza and H1N1 (Mexican Swine) flu. The real news story is that there are thousands of health care professionals who are opposed to this mandate.

Well, cheer up, doctors, nurses, therapists, techs, and everyone else! I'm here to Humbly give you some ammunition for your fight. What the State of New York has forgotten is that you have constitutional rights. Specifically, the fourth and fourteenth amendments protect you against government intrusion of this sort.

The fourth amendment limits the government's ability to search and seize persons and property without due process of law. Subjecting citizens to a vaccination is equivalent to placing those citizens' lives at risk. There is no possible way to give a flu vaccine without risk. In fact, given the risk, and the government's perception of the necessity of immunizations, they decided it was necessary to immunize the manufacturers of the flu vaccines against lawsuits. There is a near absolute in law called strict liability in tort which says that any product used properly by consumers which causes harm to those consumers will be cause to hold the maker of that product liable for damages. But not flu vaccines. So, when the inevitable few have harmful side effects, they will not be able to hold the makers liable. And states don't allow their citizens to sue them in their own courts. A New Yorker who takes that vaccine, voluntarily or not, and is harmed, is therefore deprived of life and freedom by the state, without due process. No warrant was issued, no judge shown just cause. No study showing rates of harmful side effects were presented to those who made the decisions. In fact, those studies have been buried by the CDC!! Mention to your lawyer this little tidbit. This will be evidence usable in court. Being in a federal court, the State of New York is gonna have to explain why they didn't bother doing their research, and the CDC is going to have to cough up the original study, not the fudged up one they posted on their web site.

Also, consider the fourteenth amendment. It's the one that says individuals will not be discriminated against because of the group to which they belong. Health care workers, I'm pretty sure you have the same rights as prostitutes. This is a tougher issue to push in court, though. It's scary! The big bad low-mortality H1N1 virus has people scared, and their fear can only be alleviated by having YOU get a shot. Understand that this is exactly the same as putting Americans of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during World War II?

This post is NOT legal advice. I am not a lawyer. If you have legal issues, find a lawyer. Ask him when the fourth and fourteenth amendments were repealed. And consider moving out of New York. Your fears as an individual, justified as they are, are of no concern to the entity of the State of New York. Nor will your losses be of concern if you have some bad side effect from the shots. May I Humbly recommend Texas?

Notes From My Father's Eulogy

Okay, you're afraid of a depressing, ponderous, mournful post here, and I Humbly do not blame you. Rest assured, Humble Reader, that I will try to keep this from being a dirge.

My father served in the Navy for 22 years, retiring as a Master Chief Petty Officer after relinquishing his Warrant--his officer status--to gain a greater set of retirement benefits for his family, not for his own prestige.

A navy career is almost always a great sacrifice. Either your family stays home waiting months for your return, or sometimes they don't wait, and you lose your family. Some sailors just don't start a family, putting it off until the leave the service. In all of these, the serviceman (or woman) makes a huge sacrifice. It's not unique to the Navy, but it's probably the worst service for family.

The sacrifice is often just as great a load upon the family of the serviceman as it is on himself. The proper place for a husband and father is at home, not floating in a boat halfway around the world. It is so hard, you can barely imagine it if you have not lived through it. On top of the deprivation of half of the parental support, there are frequent relocations. Imagine what happens to kids whose efforts to make new friends is completely wasted, demolished, because their father was assigned to a new duty base. Imagine what happens to these children after the 3rd or 4th time, how they just give up on having friends. Imagine the loneliness. If you do, you have a small idea of the sacrifices made by a serviceman and his family.

My father made those sacrifices. My family made those sacrifices. Why? For the furtherance of my father's career? To gain prestige, status, rank, pay, authority, or personal sense of accomplishment? NO! My father paid this price to keep his family, his homeland, his nation free and safe. Dad was the best at what he did--it doesn't matter what his specialty was, he was a professional, and one of the best in the world at his occupation--and he chose not to leave his assigned tasks to a lesser person.

As I said in front of a room full of friends and family, part of the reason they were there to honor him, part of the reason they were safe and free and alive, was because my father and millions of servicemen like him, made sacrifices.

I asked those at the service who had served to please stand, and help me honor my father. They stood. And then something happened that I was not expecting.

Everyone there who was sitting, applauded.

To the servicemen out there who have made sacrifices in honorable service to this nation, AND to the families who have made sacrifices, as well, I Humbly salute you, just as I and those standing in the church saluted my father.

Sacrifice, service, and honor. For all these, all you get is a flag on your casket.

And the sincere gratitude of more people than you would ever believe.

They Put Up!!

Again, forgive me for not having posted recently. (I Humbly assume there is someone out there who cares. Arrogant of me.) We suffered a loss in my family. The only hero I ever had in my life, my father, passed away on Wednesday, May 13, in his sleep. I do not say this to garner sympathy, but to explain where I have been. In this difficult time, I have been with my family, as I always will be during any trials that arise.

In my last post, Put Up or Shut Up, I told you about the decision to save money in our local school district by releasing the best teacher I've ever seen. I submitted a letter to the editor in the local newspaper.

While I was out of state, working out funeral arrangements with my family, I got a call from the principal of my son's school. He thanked me for having spoken up about the situation, reassured me that the termination was only due to low seniority, not any lack of competence or any cause for termination. The teacher was to be kept on as a substitute, and given high priority when hiring resumed. But there was some good news. The former kindergarten teacher had just been reassigned and put on contract for next year as a first grade teacher.

Now, I am not saying my Humble letter to the editor had any effect. I don't know if anyone who makes decisions was at all aware of it. Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that I opened my yap, and spouted my opinion; that the principal of the school stated that he considered it to be a well-written opinion; and that the day after it was printed, Miss Redacted was re-employed. In order to maintain my Humble standing, I have to believe it's all coincidence. But I got a very nice thank-you note from Miss Redacted.

It's hard to be Humble sometimes. Especially when you're being bombarded with praise.

My father would have been both amused and proud.

Put Up or Shut Up

Forgive me, readers, for I have sinned. It has been almost a month since my last blog post. My child has had some medical issues, and as he demands attention, I have less to spare for You, the Humble readership. Am I up to 2 yet?

Not too long ago, we had elections for municipal offices in the town where I reside. For months before that election, I had people drop by my home, and tell me how I should vote for them, because they were dedicated to the people they would represent, and to their platform. EVERY ONE MENTIONED EDUCATION as a top priority.

Think about that. Education is important. Who would dare say it wasn't that big a deal? Who would destroy their political aspirations by saying children were their parents' problem, not the taxpayers. Who would even contemplate saying educated people are everywhere, so if we don't produce any locally, some will move in from other places with well funded schools.

Okay, fine. Some got elected. All of those elected claimed education was a top priority. Last week, my son's kindergarten teacher mentioned that she wasn't being renewed for next year. I Humbly admit to some bias, because this lady treated my son with all the care and compassion I could have ever dreamed of, sparing his feelings and dignity, while gently guiding him through his first school experience. I Humbly admit my bias when I say she has to be one of the best teachers in the entire state. But she got pink-slipped. Budget cuts were required because of the economic climate. Tax revenues are down everywhere, and our town is no exception. In fact, please bear with me as I paste in a copy of my letter to the editor:

My son has been in kindergarten this year at the local elementary, and another will follow him in August. When we requested my son's teacher for his younger brother, we were informed that Miss Redacted won't be renewed in the coming year. I was floored. Ms. Redacted is a super example of the outstanding professionals teaching our children, and part of the reason why the local elementary is a highly rated school and credit to this community.

I know the weak economy has caused a drop in tax revenues, that belt tightening is required in every department of every level of government, and that schools are not excepted from the budget scalpel. But this strikes so close to home that it feels like an axe!

I'm confused. Someone out there made decisions involving the termination of teachers. Presumably, after all the lesser means of cutting costs were exhausted, the school staff budget was cut. Yet, during the last election, EVERY candidate told all of us that education was the highest priority! Obviously no elected official would have allowed one of the finest teachers in the state to be let go. So, who did? Who made the decision to axe Miss Redacted? Was any public discussion held, or was this a decision made behind closed doors?

To simply say that firing teachers is a cost cutting measure is very shortsighted. our town attracts families partly because of the superb reputation of the schools here. If this tragic decision is an indicator, the loss of this one teacher is just the beginning of the end of the superior rating of our town's schools. Whoever it was who pink-slipped Miss Redacted, please reconsider. The cost to this community is higher than the meager salary you are saving.

Okay, bottom line, either EVERY cost cutting measure was tried without eliminating budget shortfalls, or SOME elected official lied about education being a top priority. TEACHERS are getting axed??? TEACHERS??? We're not talking eliminating frills here. We're talking about taking the most critical members of the educational team out, and playing shorthanded. I know I don't need to say that the opposition isn't a competing school.

It's ignorance.

Hail, Barak Caesar!

All my posts are my own Humble Opinions. This is just a warning that this post is more Opinion than commentary.

President Obama enjoyed a historic rise to power. From "community organizing" to state level government, to a Senate seat, and then the White House. No one remembers the political enemies whose wreckage was strewn in his wake, however. No moral or legal considerations prevented Obama's teams from furthering his career. If Jim Ryan was going through a difficult divorce, and his ex-wife accused him of lewd conduct, it didn't matter if the court records were sealed, and a child might suffer, it came out! The point is, his historic rise to power came at a cost that many others paid.

Now he sits at the apex of the United States government. He can dictate a memo, sign a hardcopy, and millions of people will be affected. Executive orders are notoriously difficult to balance. It takes a majority of the Supreme Court, or a supermajority of the Senate. Neither is likely to happen unless Obama is caught being tyrannical. Look at the recent Statue of Liberty "photo op" fly-by. No paper trail leads to Obama. His team made the call and takes the blame, even if it was President Obama's own idea. That's power.

Recently, the president announced both the Chrysler bankruptcy, and then the Chrysler-Fiat merger. He sees no conflict in an elected executive announcing the actions of a corporation. It is his divine right. He is a god-king. He remembers those who anger him, and deals with them. He rewards those who sing his praise. Anyone who speaks ill of him pays a price.

The rights and freedoms we enjoy as American citizens are daily encroached upon by his Praetorian guard. Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton all do his bidding, and sound oddly alike. Biden is usually off-key, but when was he not?

Bear in mind that even the most despotic of the Roman Empire's caesars were very popular. They held circuses more frequently as life got harder for Romans, and tossed bread to the audiences when the economy soured, or the caesar emptied the treasury. Hence the phrase "Bread and circuses" as a means to mollify the masses.

Those masses worshipped the caesar as a god. The caesar demanded it as his due. Other gods were allowed, as long as the proper ceremony and sacrifices were made to Caesar. Christians defied Nero. Lions ate Christians.

Oh, perhaps Obama won't kill those who fail to worship him properly. But he has the power to destroy lives. It's been 100 days. The honeymoon is over. The price for defying Barak Caesar will come due soon, and his Praetorians will collect brutally.

This is all just my Humble Opinion. Maybe he will be a benevolent ruler. But right now, I'm kinda glad I'm a nobody.

Sorry, New York, He's New!

The whole "photo op" thing, where the backup Air Force One and a F-16 buzzed the Statue of Liberty, sending Manhattan folks running into the streets in terror that 9-11 was being repeated, all that was just a misunderstanding. President Obama is really sorry, and it won't happen again.

And that $320,000 pricetag, on top of the hundreds of millions lost by panicky traders, that's just awful, says Obama. He'll look into it. Promise.

Is it even worth mentioning my Humble skepticism?

My Humble guess is, Rahm Emanuel, in his role as Chief of Staff, suggested updating all that Bush era publicity material. Coming as it did from the god-king's head priest, no one was about to say, "Gee, your holiness, won't that cause widespread panic and mayhem?" Louis Caldera, the White House Military Office chief nervously signed off on it. No need to tell him that if it blew up, he was going to "take one for the team". In statements to the press, Caldera is quoted as having "approved" the fly-by. This is HOT! Caldera used code for "it was my superiors poor judgment to do this. I was just the unlucky bastard who had to sign the order." Who actually requested the fly-by that Caldera approved? We'll never know. Caldera is taking one for the team.

Caldera is an interesting case. He's a West Point grad and a lawyer. He has to be as smart as they come. Obama, lacking executive experience must surround himself with experts. Right? Yet this particular expert has been tossed under the bus. His service to this country in the armed forces has been essentially thrown out the window because of this blunder.

So, all in all, sorry, New York. Sorry thousands of terrified financial district workers. Sorry, tourists. Messina is looking into how it ever could have happened.

What a load of crap.

Terrorism Enables, Justifies More Terrorism

Governments and dictators throughout history have used the violence of their opponents to justify the tightening of their grip on their own people. Call it the Reichstag effect. My Humble study of history is admittedly weak, so I may have a detail or two wrong, here. Hitler's opponents were blamed for torching the Reichstag, the German equivalent of Parliament or Capitol Hill. He used this act to justify expanding his powers, and weakening the rights of the German people. By my definition, this made Hitler a terrorist.

Gun haters continuously make obscene statements about those who want to preserve their gun rights. In 1981, an emotionally disturbed loser took shots at President Reagan. One of his shots went wide and struck Jim Brady, nearly killing him. He and his wife used their status as victims to justify a campaign to, in essence, repeal the Second Amendment. Now, they fuel the hatred of gun owners.

And today, I see anti-Semitic people using every Palestinian victim of Israel's self-protection as a justification for allowing another Holocaust. Ahmadinejad once again condemned Israel today, calling the entire nation "racist". For a would-be nuclear power, this is a chilling stance to take. This is the rise of a genocidal movement in progress. More chilling, many anti-Semites are thrilled about the looming threat of mushroom clouds over Israel.

The hatred of anti-Semites gives them strength, motivation, determination, and, as far as they are concerned, all the justification they need to wipe out a million or so people. Yet, that diseased toad, Vice President Joe Biden, has the gall to tell Israel that they would be "ill-advised" to use military force to defend themselves.

This administration has been hailed as historic due to the ancestry of the President. I Humbly suggest that this administration is historic due to its incredible lack of testicular tissue. After millions die in Israel, I'm sure Obama will write a sternly worded protest to the UN Security Council.

My applause to those delegates who walked out on Ahmadinejad's rant. That took some guts which Obama lacks. Let's pray he grows a pair before a world war starts.

I'm a Suspect, I Guess

In my profile, I proudly state that I am a veteran. I cannot and do not claim to be a veteran with combat experience. I've never been within 3000 miles of "action", never been under arms other than firearms familiarization in basic training, and never once put my "life on the line" for my country. I can claim that, having enlisted, I signed up for whatever my country and my service asked of me.

There are millions of veterans of whom was asked the endangerment of their lives, loss of body parts, and even their lives. Now, the Obama administration has made a point of asking more of them. The injured were being considered for a program where they would pay for their own treatment. Fortunately, the Obama administration realized the political cost would be too high, and scrapped that little fund-raiser idea. Now, the Secretary of Homeland Defense, (former governor of my state) Janet Napolitano, signed off on a report to local law enforcement saying that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were ripe for recruitment by "right wing extremist" groups.

Some people actually fail to see the harm in this. "If they are the most likely to commit violent acts, they should be watched!" was on actual comment I read on the Fox News site. It seems obvious to me that calling groups who have differing ideology from that of the reigning administration and majority parties in both the House and Senate, is a slippery slope which may lead to suppression of free speech, even up to political imprisonment.

Napolitano graciously admitted that she really ought to apologize (someday maybe), and will meet with the leaders of veterans groups. Nevertheless, she signed off on that report to law enforcement, remember? Saying local police and sheriffs were smart to target returning combat veterans, right wing extremists, and "pro-life" radicals. Is it just me, or do left wing extremists tend to view even moderate right wing positions as "extreme"? And is it not just barely possible that the words "returning" and "from Irag and Afghanistan" could be left out of the "people to watch" profile?

I'm a former long-haul trucker. A couple of weeks ago the FBI reported that most unsolved crimes on or near highways are probably committed by truckers.

In the recent reporting of the tragic murder in Tracy, California, whose main suspect is a woman, the reporter pointed out that most murders are committed by men.

I oppose casual termination of pregnancies where other options exist, and the mothers life (NOT lifestyle!) is at risk.

I keep guns, and enjoy target shooting.

According to the Obama administration, all this makes me a suspect.

This nation is in peril, alright. And the source of that peril is the one pointing the finger.

Hey, Ruth! C'mon!!

I Humbly find those two words to be the most irritating of arguments: C'mon! It's a synonym for "No intelligent person could possibly disagree with me." Should we not register guns? C'mon! Should taxpayer money not go towards college educations for the disadvantaged? C'mon! Shouldn't all medical care be administered by the federal government? C'mon! Shouldn't tobacco be flat-out banned? C'mon! Shouldn't Constitutional rights be limited whereever there exists a potential for abuse? C'mon! You're a fool and a jerk if you disagree with the C'mon argument.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg used essentially just this argument, recently. She referred to an argument from an Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, to wit, "Torture? Never." C'mon! Nope, no legal discussion necessary. No careful reasoning, no thought, just the raw emotion of that passionate appeal. Torture prisoners even under the most dire of circumstances? C'mon!

Ordinary people saying, "C'mon!" are signalling a closed mind. They clearly have a prejudice. They have decided, and YOU are the fool if you do not, upon hearing those two words, agree with them. Ordinary people do not have the extraordinary power of Supreme Court justices.

Justice Ginsberg, responding to a question about citing foreign law, said, essentially, "C'mon!" Yeah, of course the Supreme Court should hear citations of foreign law. Oh, she stated arguments that, early in this nation's history, foreign law was commonly cited. She appealed to the desire for status and popularity within the world community, saying Canada was cited more in foreign courts then we are! I try hard not to use profanity, but this kind of high-school argument has me biting my Humble tongue. The framers of the Constitution should have foreseen this idiocy, and put in a clause saying, "Whereas other nations upon this earth shall find it agreeable to jump off a cliff, the Supreme Court shall not do so."

Okay, not every issue facing the Supreme Court was considered by the Constitution. What remains is for the Supreme Courts to do what we pay them to do: decide the law. Are the actions of the other two branches of the federal government allowed by the Constitution? That's ALL.

C'mon!

Just Come Out and Say It! Let Israel Die! Part 2

You know, when I said "just come out and say it: Let Israel Die," in response to Secretary Clinton's bizarre comments about who caused the Gaza violence, I really wasn't expecting the Obama administration to step up and do it! They did it!

Vice President Joe Biden, that silver-tongued devil who teamed up with Barak H. Obama, decided to threaten Israel if they even thought about attacking Iran. He said "I think he would be ill-advised to do that" when asked about Prime Minister Netanyahu's possible option of attacking Iran if threats of nuclear weaponry are sufficiently realized.

Biden essentially said, "You can't do anything just because they're getting a gun, and have said they want to kill you. You have to wait until after they do kill you." The idea that hundreds of thousands men, women, and children, whose only offense is to be alive and living in the middle east, would die, that's not enough of a threat to Biden.

I am disgusted. I am nauseated. Vice President Biden, you are a traitor to the human race. Your kind allowed Hitler to kill twelve million or more people. Your kind allowed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda. You, sir, are a vile, pathetic, useless stain on this nation. Some portion of every life lost in an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will be YOUR fault. You are giving aid and comfort to enemies of mankind, enemies of peace, and enemies of justice.

I wish I could tell this to the Veep's face. I wish I could get the press to hear me tell the people of Israel that this is NOT our leader. This is just a gutless piece of crap who managed to get on the winning team. I wish I could tell Ahmadinejad to his face that any more terrorism out of his country, regardless of who the victim is, will result in a "regime change" in his own country. I wish I were still young and fit enough to run with a rifle and a pack into action, and defend my ideals, and the best ideals of the United States, with my life on the line. I'm nobody, though. This isn't false Humility. It's just the way it is.

If mushroom clouds form over Israel, Biden, you may see a lot of "nobodies" stand up and do something about it. And you.

Sorry, U.K.! He's New.

Here in the States (probably works the same everywhere) whenever you receive utterly, horrendously, egregiously bad service, the purveyor is usually new at the job. A humble, "Sorry. I'm new," is usually all it takes to explain the situation. Quite often, an experienced coworker cleans up the mess, and deals with the problem. It's all just part of learning the ropes.

Of course, when a newbie can't seem to get the hang of it, they are usually invited to find other employment.

Our new president is entirely inexperienced at international politics. When, for example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom comes to visit, the President usually does a few things to show a warm official welcome to a major ally. President Obama handed back the Churchill bust, and gave Brown a classic movie boxed DVD set...that didn't work. And now, on his first official state visit to Britain, he presents the queen with...an iPod. Oh, it was an iPod worthy of a queen. It had 40 Broadway musical showtunes on it. Perhaps Andrew will like it.

Okay, GB, so our newly elected president seems to be a blithering idiot when it comes to showing courtesy to major allies. The thing is, he wasn't hired on a probationary basis. We can't just kick him out. We'll have another election in three and a half years, and if he hasn't improved by then, well...honestly, the Democrat party will find some new scandal to blame on Republicans, causing the majority of us to forget the last three and a half years. It's called "wag the dog" and it worked great for Clinton. Short of declaring war on England, Obama has a pretty secure job.

Don't be too critical of the U.S. as a whole, though. During the November election, we heard a lot of adulation for Obama coming from your side of the pond! So, how do you like him now???

Most of the people in the U.S. feel warmly about the U.K. We have always enjoyed our relationship with you since we got that "colony" thing sorted. It's ancient history. Almost anyone else, in this country, would have gotten Brown and QE2 far better gifts than cheap electronic crap.

Perhaps a nice pen.

All Hail Obama Caesar!

The President has powers granted by the Constitution. That is his source of authority. Other powers are voluntarily granted by those who choose to do what he suggests. Take the former CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner. GM has been having problems staying afloat in a free market (with some government involvement). They asked Congress for some monetary help. It wasn't enough. They made it known that they needed more. The President decided that part of the problem was their top management, and suggested that, if they wanted ANY more financial assistance, it would only come after Wagoner's resignation. He gave it.

Now, the President is saying that no amount of help is going to keep GM afloat. They're bankrupt. No use throwing good money after bad. Oh, maybe if GM, the unions, and the pension plan all make a few little concessions, they can talk some more. How idiotic would they have to be??? Wagoner tried that!

Obama, make 'em a deal. Put it in writing. If they do A, B, and C, you will given them $D. Failing that, quit telling them how to run their business!

I would Humbly suggest that what Caesar--er--President Obama is doing is illegal and unconstitutional, except that his commands are voluntary. No obligation to comply. Oh, except for that thing about money needed to stay alive. Hmm. Isn't threatening to withhold lifesaving treatment unless conditions are met called coercion? I'm no lawyer, but our government was never intended to use our tax money to coerce people and companies into complying with their agendas. They have other powers to use to coerce people and businesses.

My own (admittedly Humbly optimistic) opinion is that GM will do whatever is necessary to stay alive, get past this current crisis, and in five years, will be better than ever. Unless they let Barak H. Obama, a man who never ran a for-profit business in his life, be their de facto leader. Some of you actually believe that the President has highly experienced and intelligent advisors. Those of you who believe this aren't using your ears or your brain. They all sound alike. Even Secretary Hillary Clinton, the world's smartest woman, sounds like a mouthpiece for the President.

The Nixon administration was often accused of "groupthink" (a term from Orwell's 1984) because they invariably advised Nixon to do what he wanted to do anyway. Anyone who spoke up and disagreed ended up packing up and leaving. Perhaps the Obama administration is doing the same. It's hard to say for sure. The "most transparent administration ever" isn't exactly letting anyone in on how they do things.

Get out of the business world, Obama. It's not like "community organizing" in Chicago. You have to actually produce.

Or else, people of America, your president is starting to grant himself unlimited power. Get used to saying, "Hail, Obama."