Sunday, August 11, 2013

Hello Old Friend

Hello old friend. I've been away for quite some time. I think it's time we get re-acquainted. I do so enjoy writing, however sometimes it is just so very difficult to be inspired. 

I find myself once again at a dark place in my life. The world is collapsing in on me and I'm lost. I'm out of options and out of ideas. I don't think and reason as well as I once did. I think I really need to see someone again. I so hate all the pills they always put me on. I so hate reliving every single detail of those traumas in my life that they say they are trying to help me with.

If they are helping me, then why do I feel so terrible? If these medications are supposed to improve one's quality of life, then why do I feel so detached and lethargic? 

My financial life is collapsing. The months and years of juggling have now succumbed to the attrition of numbers. The current set of circumstances has me second guessing my decision to retire from the military. I found a full time job, finally after months of searching. Sadly it pays less than a third of what I was making as a Senior Non commissioned Officer. I am once again at the complete bottom of the food chain. 

I created an account on one of those fund raising or charity type websites. I don't know if that will work or help at all. I do know I have no other options at this point. It was the most difficult, most embarrassing thing I have done. I don't know what else to do. I tried the bank. I tried to get a loan to consolidate. My credit is far to poor for that. The reality is that would have been simply taking my debt and combining it into a single large debt. 

What I need is a job that pays enough to live on. Unfortunately contrary to popular belief and contrary to what the Army would have you believe as you are transitioning out, military skills, training and experience are not at all in demand or desirable. As nearly as I can tell anyway. 

So I have a stable, 40 hour a week job and I still cant pay my bills or live like a human being. It's a vicious cycle. I have to work to survive, I cant survive by working. I cant afford to finish school, both financially and time wise. Finishing school is no guarantee of better employment in the present climate. 

In any event, without another outlet for venting, I find myself back here. It's funny how things happen I suppose. So here I am writing, hoping beyond hope for charity and counting on the kindness of others. Mind you all the while still working. It's very disheartening to work so hard and have nothing to show for it. 

I promised my wife I would take care of her, and we'd get a house of our own... I promised to care for my children. The desire and drive is there. I haven't stopped trying. The opportunity seems to be avoiding me. I am not trying to be rich or famous, I am simply trying to be able to live comfortably. By comfortably I mean pay my utilities, bills and obligations, afford groceries and still be able to take my wife to the movies or out to dinner a couple of times a month. 

So, in an effort to wrestle back control and to prevent my wages being garnished, putting me even deeper into an unrecoverable hole, I set this up: http://fundly.com/new-start-for-a-veteran

I don't know if it's the right thing to do. I don't know if it's a good thing to do. I don't even know if it will work. All I know is I don't know what else there is for me to do. I have nothing I can sell. I have no property of value. I have been trying my best to get a second job. I have been applying for better paying jobs. I need a miracle. 

Now that you the innocent surfer has suffered through this depressing tome, I will say that I hope to begin writing again. Hopefully it will be far more cheery and inspiring material. Stay tuned for more.  

Thursday, January 06, 2011

People really piss me off.

msnbc.com U.S. & World News - Officer reported shot to death in Oregon
Sometimes I come across a story and read the posted comments. Sometimes they really get my dander up, which compels me to write a reply. 

I normally post these here on my own blog because often times no matter how long or short my posts are, they are censored or filtered. Especially when they contain lots of facts and supporting references.

Oddly enough any nutbar who posts completely bogus and inflammatory party line rhetoric always seems to get their words in.

It truly is amazing to me how people can turn anything into a political statement, and lay the blame for societal ills and their own personal problems or failings on the party they oppose. Sometimes it seems like people go out of their way to try and establish a political link and causation to a particular party or administration. (this includes anyone from any party) Even when the story or subject matter in question is completely politically benign or neutral.

I wrote the following response to a particular reply to the above news story, which somehow digressed into not only politics, but the Iraq war and even references to the economy, and it being the fault of the police because of the type of training that American police officers receive… Two of which I will post in their entirety because they were  just that silly.

We’ll start with  MtMike-571674 who writes:

“The US is using a military confrontational "style" of law enforcement!
Police, trying to ALWAYS "take control" of all situations, without compromise, quickly escalate confrontations to deadly shootings!

Police need to be taught better how to handle conflict situations and how to be "non-confrontational".

Many troubled people get the necessary "push" from police to turn a situation deadly! The police seem to like it that way.

The idea government police can never do wrong, is simply not realistic.
The results speak for themselves!”

Big Mike, had you read the story, you would have noticed that the police chief was shot and killed  AFTER a struggle with the suspect. There are three possibilities based on the story as presented, all of which disprove your thesis that the Police escalate things that result in a shooting.

Possibility 1, If you choose to  entertain the 3rd party statement that the journalist never should have included in the story, (“Dusty Rockwood, an employee at the Exhaust Shop and Tire Center, told the Oregonian newspaper that he had been told a man who had broken into a car wrestled with the officer, took his gun and shot him.”)  the Chief’s weapon was holstered (Which seems likely in a small town comprised of five officers and the Chief of Police who also actively patrolled.) and the Chief attempted to take the man into custody non violently which resulted in the struggle and the suspect taking the Chief’s weapon and shooting him. Clearly escalated by the suspect, who then turned murderous.

Possibility 2, the Chief attempted to take the man into custody at gunpoint, but rather than shooting the man, attempted to physically take him into custody and was shot after a struggle. If the Chief drew his weapon there must have been a reason, and since he was shot, the suspect obviously had a firearm. Again, an escalation by the suspect who was armed and  then turned murderous.

Possibility 3, the Chief’s weapon was holstered, he attempted to take the suspect into custody and there was a struggle, perhaps after the Chief discovered the suspect was armed. The suspected turned murderous and shot the Chief. The suspect escalated the confrontation into violence and murder.

Keep in mind this is all completely speculative, as the only piece of detailed information in the story came from a guy “who was told” that the suspect shot the Chief with his own weapon.  I was raised to respect authority and to respect my elders as well as respecting the police. If and when I am ever or have ever been approached by a police officer, I give them my full attention and do precisely as I am told until the situation is resolved. My momma taught me that.

I am quite certain, not even knowing the Chief, that he didn’t wake up that day and intend to get shot and killed, nor did he, in that small town decide at 1045 in the morning that he needed a little action and was going to randomly shake down some random person.

Had the man complied with the Chief’s instructions, he would have been cuffed and taken to the station. Non violently. No one would have died or even wrestled. Had the suspect been innocent it would have been cleared up at the station and he would have been released. Had there been evidence to hold him, he would have been provided an attorney to defend him. No one would have died or even wrestled AND the suspect would have been provided a bed and free meals.

I suppose the Chief after instructing the suspect to surrender and not receiving compliance should have just let the suspect go until such time as his disposition was improved to the extent that he would surrender willingly?

Hey big Mike, you may not realize it, but what you describe is in fact actually what the police get paid to do. Their job IS to ALWAYS take control and maintain order. I can assure you as well that the police do in fact receive a LARGE amount of training in the areas of conflict de-escalation, non violent or less than lethal responses and many other types of training dealing with human behavior and how to deal with and resolve problems. They learn things like reading body language and determining a persons mental state and whether or not they may be impaired by drugs or alcohol.

The police are also extensively trained in escalation of force and proper use of force. These types of training are just a small fraction of what types of training police officers routinely must complete to be a police officer in the first place. Additionally most states and cities require their officers to have at the very least completed several college course in criminal justice and criminal law, with some of the larger departments requiring a degree in that or a related field. This is so the police have an understanding of the law, and YOUR civil rights and legal rights before making an arrest, detaining or questioning you.

Improper procedure and conduct on their part means bad guys go free.  As a professional soldier I can tell you without a doubt that if they were being trained solely in a similar fashion to the military, then you are most likely correct. There would be far less confrontation. You see the body count would be much higher, and conflict resolution would be in the form of superior firepower and maneuver. Not letting the conflict happen in the first place by violently executing an assault or bringing the fight to the enemy and laying down fire and moving through to an objective.

Most American police departments shy away from that type of law enforcement or so I am told.  With that being said, police often do in fact receive military style, or para-military training. This is a valid and important training requirement brought about by the fact that more and more criminals and gangs operate in large numbers and are in possession of military grade automatic weapons and military grade body armor. Things which incidentally you big Mike, the average citizen are not allowed to posses. Also you (if you are a law abiding average citizen) won’t ever be on the receiving end of a SWAT high risk entry.

There are of course bad apples everywhere, and you will always have that one abuser of the system and laws. That abuser of power. This is and has been an exception, however that is the type of thing that makes the news, slanders entire police departments and breeds public distrust. (Which in turn results in more offenses and violence directly against police officers, go figure.)

So while you talk down about American policing, and make blanket statements about the police and infer that it is they that incite people to violence I would ask this one thing: Do some research on non American policing and police departments. Outside of Canada and the UK (Which have similar policing styles and training to the US) You will find that in all the countries that have no constitution or guarantees of liberty and individual rights, far less tolerant and far more violent methods of policing.

I would encourage you to try and get lippy with a German Polizei, or a French Gendarme. You will catch the beating of your life for anything short of immediate and complete compliance. No understanding or conflict resolution involved.
I won’t even describe to you the methods of policing in the middle east, and Asia.  I would challenge you to find a single country that has anything even close to American standards, training and dealing with people on an individual level.

American police must abide by the Constitution, along with all local and state laws regarding civil rights. This even applies to those individuals actively being taken into custody. The police most often have such strict rules of engagement that they are trained not to even draw their firearm unless there is immediate threat of loss of life or personal safety.

When was the last time you were militarily assaulted while receiving a traffic citation?

Perhaps we would lose less officers in the line of duty if they DID NOT spend so much time assessing and trying to resolve and de-escalate conflict and instead went in straight away shooting and swinging? I much prefer the current style and standard.

Mike, please feel free to move to another country and experience foreign policing for a period of time and return and share with us your experiences and your change of opinion.

David in Kenosha, WI writes:
“And with Republicans running things, these situations will be a common occurrence. Remember: people with nothing have nothing to lose. It is very sad that our police officers will stand the brunt of this. It's too bad the conservatives (Republicans and their far right cousins the Tea Baggers) could care less - they just want it all for themselves. The streets of Iraq are now safer than the streets of America, thanks to conservative policies that concentrate all the wealth in the hands of the few. It's how empires were destroyed, and it is destroying America.”

Big Dave,

Bearing in mind that this story was about a thug shooting and killing the police chief and the fact that it was the second law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty in 2011:

"With Republicans running things"... Seriously? Crime / murder are now the fault of Republicans too? Have you missed that last couple of years? The Republican majority in Congress begins THIS MONTH (January, 2010) Prior to that Democrats had a supermajority. (This means they didn't need Republican support of votes to pass anything.) That being said, the Democrats still have a Senate majority and the Presidency. (Read veto power)

With those pesky facts out of the way, let’s get to some more. How precisely is it the fault of either political party that some punk chose to kill a police chief? It seems to me that you have to already have a complete disregard and lack of respect for authority to choose to commit crimes in the first place. Imagine how much more so it takes to kill a police officer (or another fellow human being) and more still the Chief of Police. It really has not a single thing to do with party affiliation.

It would be really nice if people would actually do some small amount or level of basic research before posting their opinions. It's difficult to have objective, open discussions when people post complete BS, as it serves only to incite people. My research, data, facts and info for this reply come from the fact that I am an American who has lived in several different American cities and states over the past 36 years and is presently spending a year, of which the better part of 10 months is complete in Iraq. Basra, where I am located is considered one of the “safest and most stable” areas and city in Iraq. We take indirect fire and IEDs constantly. Apparently it isn’t really news anymore, at least not until several soldiers or a large number of civilians are killed. The random single deaths of soldiers are apparently not worth discussing.

Criminals are criminals. If liberals and anti- gun nuts get their way, no one will have guns, except for the criminals (who aren’t getting them legally anyway) or if by some miracle guns are completely removed from everyone, the criminals will still commit their crimes with knives, other types of blunt force weapons or fists. This has nothing whatsoever to do with who's in office or what political party is in power.

As to your comments about the safety of the streets of Iraq, spent a little time walking these streets have you? How many 107mm rockets did you take last night when you were trying to get some sleep? Do you have to walk around in armed buddy teams in your neighborhood so you don't get kidnapped?

I'll take a stroll through the most dangerous areas of America's "dangerous" cities long before I'd go anywhere in Iraq. Sure I'm American, so that makes me a target. The problem is, Iraqis have the same problem based on their tribe, their religion and in the case of Muslims the particular brand of Islam they subscribe to.

How many Christian churches, Mosques, police stations and government offices were bombed, burned or attacked today in your city, county, state or the entire country? How many letters did you get today from your local chapter of ( XX insert terror group or religious sect name here XX) did you get today stating that if you owned or opened a barber shop, night club or sold American or European goods you would be beheaded? Or anyone caught assisting or working with Americans would be killed?

Do you feel the need to hide your face and name from your fellow citizens, the police officers you see, and even Army soldiers? It's really interesting to notice how many things the press is NOT reporting, now that the President has said that the "war is over" and we are in "Operation New Dawn". The problem is I don't believe the bad guys got that memo.

My interpreters have to wear disguises and use code names for fear that they will get turned in BY THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN to these terrorists and then be killed along with their entire families. The police are constantly shaking down people for money and property, and the Iraqi Army and Police turn blind eyes to the guys setting up the rockets and firing them at us. (And THEM)

We get incoming rocket fire pretty regularly, almost every night in fact, which involves spending lots of quality time in a bunker so you don’t get killed. End of the war notwithstanding. Please, I’m a huge free speech and personal opinion guy, but when you post absolute falsehood, that can easily be disproven or dismissed by FACTS and not something even merits discussion based on available facts, evidence and data, you simply present yourself as a fool with a political agenda.

Where do I get my facts, data and info? I’m here. I’d gladly trade this for an American inner city, time now.

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Taxes for Dummies

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this........


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Friday, November 05, 2010

Items for Congress to Consider Immediately

With sweeping GOP victories in the House, and across the country’s gubernatorial races, here are some ideas that congress should be taking a hard look at and vested interest in:

Term Limits. Why not limit them to a total of 8 years in either the House or Senate? This will clean house at least every 8 years and possibly every 4 years, preventing either party from building these entrenched political machines who's only goal appears to be getting re-elected, and ensuring their party's candidate gets in the White House. Force them to become focused on the business of the people.

Repeal Obama care! 25 percent of total spending by 2025? Seriously? The people didn’t want it to begin with, and it was passed via a procedural technicality called reconciliation. The members that “Deemed it passed”, (which is what happens with reconciliation) didn’t even read the bill. (Not to mention provided themselves with the ability to “opt out” of the program all together.

No lifetime pensions for any members of the Executive Branch except the president and vice president. (The rest of us Active Duty working stiffs and other Government employees have to serve for 20 years to qualify for 50% and 30 years for 100%) Why should these people receive a lifetime pension for service less than 20 years?

Congressman and Senators make more money then most Americans during their service, this is not unreasonable. The founders intent was that the House and Senate come from the people and return to the people. Presently they arrive in office, dig in and become wealthy while determining what the people can and can't do with their money and healthcare, while writing into law exemptions for themselves. No more congressional "opting out" of laws they seek to impose on the people.

Congressional Pay raises should be voted for BY THE PEOPLE, not by the members. That seems like a very clear conflict of interest to me.

No more pork added to bills. Bills must be introduced and passed individually, for the reason they were created. Bills should not be a place to hide projects that would otherwise NOT be funded. No more passing bills without them being read. If this means putting a limit on the complexity, or the amount of pages allowed in a bill so be it. Keep it simple stupid. We don’t need to pass laws that read like the tax code.

Defund and decommission all underperforming, cost overrunning useless government programs. Make congress identify and report the numbers to the people. Allow the people to vote on the creation of any new departments or offices.

No more Czars, congressional and public oversight or no job.

Expand drilling, and other forms of acquiring natural resources, nuclear energy programs, and coal fired plants while concurrently tightening up on safety and environmental hazard protections, and creating a driving force toward alternative and renewable resources.


Whoa that horse that is the EPA. They have gone far beyond common sense and practical, and its been going on for so long they don't know how to stop. (Environmental policies should be peer reviewed by NON governmental scientists to ensure appropriateness, effectiveness and validity)


Enforce border security and stop illegal immigration. Hold businesses that hire illegals accountable for the hiring of illegals through fines and other penalties. No more anchor babies.

To prevent the higher cost of employment being passed on to consumers through the price of goods, Cut Taxes! Move to a flat tax system, or a commerce only tax system. (On products SOLD not on products manufactured or the businesses manufacturing them) Such a tax system would collect taxes even from illegals, and those being paid "under the table." Every dollar spent on goods and services will return revenue.


No more bailouts. Pass a permanent law preventing the Federal Government from funding, bailing out, or otherwise keeping in business private enterprises and banks. That's how the system works, let it work. This will force banks and corporations to themselves be more fiscally responsible, and less apt to bow to unreasonable union demands.


Return U.S. Currency to the "Gold Standard", that is the U.S. Dollar being backed by something of real physical value. (Whether that be gold or other precious metals, or other products of value produced in the United States.) Protect our currency. No more writing checks on empty bank accounts. The people aren't able to do it, nor are States, so why should the Federal Government be allowed to?

Increase trade with other nations, and ensure fairness. No more special deals and incentives for them to trade with the U.S. unless the U.S. gets the same deals in return. Fair and equal marketing and trade practices or no deal.

Penalize American companies that send jobs overseas. Provide incentives for American companies to keep the jobs at home. The United States is capable of sustaining itself without dependence on foreign goods and services. We need to return to that standard.

Medical insurers must be free to compete in America. More options for care and more companies to choose from means competitiveness. That translates into better care at lower costs. It's how the system works once again.

The salaries of public educators should be directly proportionate to test scores. Underperforming teachers should be paid commensurately, or fired. Teachers AND Students should receive regular assessment test to ensure the Teachers know the subjects they are teaching and the students are learning what is being taught.

These are just a few of the things that Congress needs to look at immediately.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Why Sharia Law has no Place in American Courts

I wrote this on the 5th in response to reading the following article and the comments made regarding it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/muslim-sues-oklahoma-anti-shariah-ballot-measure/?test=latestnews#dsq-new-post

Joshua Steen
5 November 2010

First let me begin by clarifying a common misconception about the Constitution of the United States, and “Separation of Church and State.” The Constitution makes no such provision, at least not in that precise language and the term is often mischaracterized as a Constitutional protection. This has been a source of debate for years, and was indeed ruled on by the Supreme Court which found that there IS a need for and a separation of church and state.

The intent of making that distinction is for clarity relating to the issue of Sharia Law being allowed in U.S. courtrooms, and not to spark a separate debate on the “Church and State” issue or how it should be interpreted as written in the Constitution.

The actual term “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut. This phrase is often misquoted, and certainly taken out of context. Here is the letter in its entirety:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

As Thomas Jefferson was one of the framers, his interpretation is most likely accurate and correct and hence the source of confusion for the modern courts, since the Constitution doesn’t specifically use that precise language.

During his Presidency, Thomas Jefferson did not follow the example of the previous Presidents and refused to issue proclamations of Thanksgiving and Prayer, due to his belief that the Church and state should be separated. The problem is the modern interpretation of the concept lacks the nuances in Thomas Jefferson’s understanding of the issue.

That being said, there are several larger more defensible positions against Sharia Law in U.S. courts, which have constitutional basis. These articles completely remove the ambiguity of the 1st Amendment (if any exists) and clearly and definitively prevent the institution of Sharia Law in ANY U.S. Court.

1. Article V of the Constitution prevents having to answer for a “Capital or otherwise infamous crime” without an indictment from a Grand Jury, and without due process of law. Sharia Law clearly violates the Constitution in that regard, particularly in cases involving women.

2. Articles VI, VII and VIII provide for speedy public trials, Jury trials and disallows cruel and unusual punishments. Does anyone dispute that beating a spouse or woman for some violation of Sharia Law, by a rod or hand to be cruel and unusual punishment? The U.S. would call that assault and has long since abandoned “the rule of thumb” as being acceptable practice.

3. Article IX preserves the rights of the individual. As such, if Sharia Law was somehow applied in a U.S Court, then the defendant could demand the right to a normal trial by jury.

4. Article XI: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

5. Article XIII: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

6. Article XIV: Section 1. No state can make a law that abridges privileges or immunities of citizens, nor deprive any citizen of life, liberty or property without due process. The state must provide equal protection under the law. Sharia Law by its very nature violates this article.

Using these articles and excluding the 1st Amendment all together, removes any ambiguities regarding the institution of Sharia Law. As such, passing a law that bans the use of Sharia Law does in fact support the State’s Constitutional obligation to protect its citizens as provided for BY the Constitution.

Including the 1st Amendment, while unnecessary, makes the “Freedom of Religion” argument moot, since the Oklahoma law does not preclude any Muslim from practicing their religion. The Oklahoma law does not prevent Muslims from practicing, or establishing their religion, nor does it abridge their freedom of speech. The law does nothing more than prevent the Muslims from imposing their religious laws into our legal system. The Oklahoma law provides for the separation of church and state. The church being separated in this case is the church of Islam.

The very nature of Sharia Law would cause the United States to take a giant leap backward, as it upholds the treatment of women as property, demands cruel and unusual punishments for all manner of infractions, including those that are very minor. Removes the rights and protections from women in cases of divorce, and demands that homosexuals be put to death.

Is this the direction we want American courts to take, even if these laws and rulings are only being applied to Muslims? What happens to a non Muslim citizen who becomes involved in some sort of dispute or altercation with a Muslim? Does the non Muslim forgo their rights and acquiesce to Sharia Law? What if the non Muslim in question is a woman, who is taken to court by a Muslim man?

Once you open the door to Sharia Law, you must then allow all other religions to have a separate set of laws tailored to their particular practice and beliefs. Equal protection under the law would be the driving Constitutional precedent for all religions getting their own courts.

References:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-courts-in-the-uk-these-privatized-legal-processes-were-ignoring-not-only-state-law-interventi.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

http://www.trosch.org/moh/sharia-law.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://www.answering-islam.org/Sharia/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1091.htm

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q7.html

http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/

Taxes; It’s Math Dummy!

I always hear and read the same tired argument and statements from liberals regarding tax cuts and taxing the rich, however none of them can actually explain HOW it would work or help.

Conversely, if the rich have less taxes to worry about, they are more apt to spend their money and invest in ventures such as business creation, (Read job creation) and on luxuries such as gardeners, housekeepers, contractors for home improvements etc. (Again read jobs)

In case you are having trouble understanding out there in Lib land, that doesn't mean that the rich solely create new businesses. The rich can do and afford to do it a number of ways, two of which are 1. Creating the businesses themselves or 2. Investing in the average American with a great idea and good business plan. When their money is threatened, they protect it and hold on to it more tightly by cutting back on extras and using various methods to shelter it. (Rich folks can afford to do this with tax attorneys etc.)

What you Libs don’t seem to understand is that most of the middle and lower income families pay very little if any taxes as is, being that if you have a family with children and a mortgage, you get most if not all the money you paid in taxes back in your refund check every year.

The rich get no such breaks. The problem is that money is taken throughout the year, which causes most middle and lower income families to live paycheck to paycheck, with most or all of that refund check immediately going toward bills or debts, rather than discretionary spending. When the rich spend less, and are taxed heavily they are less willing to invest in businesses that may fail due to the economic situation, which means fewer jobs. This spans all sectors.

There is less demand for goods, further reducing jobs, (Those job losses are the average American jobs) which in turn reduces demand further, since no one can afford anything other than paying the necessities. This again reduces jobs, while at the same time inflating prices, further depressing the economy. The point and problem with all of this is that the only people affected, are the average American workers. The rich remain rich, and continue to protect their money. (They have families too)

Just a look back at history and doing some simple math will show you that increased taxes, (any kind) depresses an economy, no matter when or where it's done. Combine that with big government and excessive spending and what you get is bankruptcy. Just because I have checks left in my checkbook, doesn't mean I have money to spend. You libs don't seem to understand that. I can be arrested and prosecuted for writing checks without having the money to cover the amount. This doesn't seem to apply to the government, and it's a fairly common sense principle.

Tax cuts in the 1920s increased revenues 61 percent by 1928, President Kennedy (D) cut taxes and increased revenues by 62 percent, President Reagan cut taxes and increased revenues 99.4 percent in the 80s. Those figures are the increases in personal revenues collected. In each of these cases of tax cuts, the wealthy top 10 percent saw their tax burden increased from 44.2 percent to 78.4 percent, 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent and 48.0 percent to 57.2 percent respectively. The top 1 percent of the wealthy saw their burden increase from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.


I haven't even listed the increases in GDP and personal wealth, manufacturing and general increases across the economy in its entirety. Tax revenues increase and the rich pay MORE taxes when tax rates are cut, with the middle and lower income Americans sharing far less of the burden.

By reducing taxes the rich do indeed get richer, putting them into the next higher tax bracket, increasing their tax burden. These  are facts, not rhetoric. You Libs need to wake up and take a basic budgeting class.

Monday, August 23, 2010

The Journey Continues

Well,

As is normally the case and my excuse, events and basically life itself keeps me away from regularly updating my blog. This years excuse is Iraq... What's that you say? All combat troops have left Iraq? They said so on the news? Did they? Funny, I am relatively positive I am sitting in Basra, Iraq at this very moment, writing this blog. (and getting rocketed on a regular basis I might add)

In any event, things are hoppin and poppin and I stay pretty busy. I am going to try to make it a point to spend some time updating and posting. Don't count on much if anything being about Iraq. Us free Americans get into far too much trouble these days about posting things about the war, the military and our free speech protected opinions.

Dont worry, I dont have long till I retire, and I will have lots to say then!!

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Things that can be done now to relieve the gasoline price crisis:

Broadening my earlier post, here are some things that can be accomplished right now to help relieve the supply and demand issue with crude oil and gasoline:

The United States Government could mandate that all vehicles designed for the purpose of hauling and transporting cargo be hybrid, alternative fuel, or pure electric.  This would include tractor trailers, locomotives, panel trucks and vans, flat bed and stake bed trucks, and any other purpose built vehicle for cargo carrying.

The law can be made to stipulate that it applies to vehicles used for the purpose of hauling any goods and supplies for the purpose of commerce. Basically if you earn or charge money to haul cargo, then the vehicles used to do so must be hybrid, alternative, or electric.

Vehicles which routinely haul over longer distances would likely benefit from hybrid engines or alternative fuels, while inner city and short haul transports would probably do well as pure electric. This would reduce inner city pollution as well as reduce noise produced by large vehicles.

Locomotives can use hybrids easily, since there is plenty of space and capacity for batteries. Hybrid engines are not a new thing, and have been used in naval applications for years. (Submarines have used hybrid engines in several forms nearly from their birth. Diesel electric, Nuclear steam turbine and electric...) 

If the government would take some simple common sense steps, they could enact a plan that would dramatically reduce pollution, dramatically reduce consumption of fuels, dramatically reduce spending on fuels, and immediately create an infrastructure for alternative fuels and electric powered transportation. These things in combination would FORCE the oil cartels to lower prices in order to continue to sell their products.

If the American consumer is provided several lower cost alternatives to the standard internal combustion engine, that will be good for the environment as well as resulting in costs savings over time, the you can be sure they would choose the alternative in a heartbeat.

Mandating that Taxicabs be alternative fuel vehicles in every city in America for instances would dramatically alter consumption nation wide, not to mention providing a cleaner ride.

More food for thought!