Wednesday, July 29, 2015

"Insanity" & The Second Amendment

There have been many words written and spoken as to "mentally ill" or insane persons obtaining fire arms and murdering/ maiming others. It appears that some closer attention must be paid to such mental defects as deal with guns. The following are offered as examples of such irrational thinking.

1. Maintaining that, in the USA, privately held and modern firearms can be eliminated as neither criminals nor those fearing political-tyrants and other criminals will give up their guns;
2.  The pool of such weapons is so great, especially in "gun friendly" States, that only the use of military level force and draconian punishments (Inflicted by courts martial or secrete courts?) would even begin to limit privately held arms (Here I note President Obama's military level arming of civilian agencies, whose personnel is loyal to him while the military is still, basically, loyal to the Constitution).
3. Ignoring the fact that such, privately held, guns prevent many times the number of murders/maimings than those caused by criminal use of firearms.
4. Ignoring the fact that those there are very many nations above the USA with higher murder rates as have much more restrictive gun laws than does our Republic.
5. Ignoring the fact that the criminal misuse of guns is, in the USA, largely a matter of Black thugs (Killing other Blacks, both probably with criminal records and involved in the sale of illegal drugs).

As SCOTUS has declared the Second Amendment as providing an individual right (Like voting) for adult citizens (And has extended that ruling to the States), any such right may be constitutionally removed only after a judicial finding (With full "due process", including a verdict by a jury if  individual citizens demands such) of such criminality or serious-and-dangerous mental disease/defect as would allow the limit to the right to "keep and bear arms" as well voting, holding public office, disposition of property, Etc..

In the last days of the Soviet Union opposition to the government was declared a form of insanity"and confinement (With abuses) in prison-line "hospitals" inflicted.

Friday, July 17, 2015

History (And Law) VS. "Deal" With Iran

If I am charitable, I will assign the proposed treaty with Iran to Mr.Kerry's, Mr. Obama's and their supporters very great ignorance of history as to treaties, Islam and that variety most held by the real rulers of Iran; The Ayatollahs who are supporting the ongoing Jihad throughout the world with its use of murder (Often of children), genocide, torture and other like crimes AND which targeted the USA as a special target in that war.

1. On September 30, 1938 the UK's Neville Chamberlain "celebrated" a treaty with Adolf Hitler as one which would bring "Peace In Our Time". Within one year Nazi Germany attacked Poland and began the multi-million death World War-II. Winston Churchill (Who had studied Hitler's writings) reacted by addressing Mr. Chamberlain with: "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.".
2. Those who study history will know that today's Ayatollahs very closely cleave to the philosophy and teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, as so clearly presented by the following quote: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”.
3. Those who study the history of Mohammed, Islam and the Koran will know that treaty breaking and lying to "unbelievers" are core and  binding principles of that criminal-terrorist ideology as based on Mohammed's own acts.
4. Those who study the history of the West's conflicts with those waging Jihad (From very large wars to such individual actions as the treason of Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood) will understand that the only effective means of "communicating" with those criminals is by the use of deadly force. [As at: Tours (732 D); Las Navas de Tolosa (1212 AD); Granada (1492 AD); Lepanto (1571 AD); Chocim/Khotym (1621 AD); Vienna (1683 AD); The USA's campaigns against the Islamist-Pirates of the Barbary States (1805-1815); Navarino (1827 AD); Israel’s various and defensive wars from 1948 on (Just in case you ask, I am not of the Jewish Faith nor do I have any financial interests in the State of Israel); Multinational mini-campaigns against the Islamist Pirates operating off the Muslim Sudan.]

[To these I add the most excellent shooting down of the worm who assassinated a ceremonial guard on Canada's Parliament Hill and by the armed citizen who liquidated the swine who beheaded a lady in Oklahoma. I can now gladly add the lessons of The Sniper!]

FROM George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Some opponents of that proposed treaty might honestly hold that it aids those waging war on the USA in violation of 18 USC 2381 as noted in Article-III, Section-3 of our nation's Constitution.

Monday, July 06, 2015

Which Rights Will Be Enforced????

Well, SCOTUS has declared "Marriage" a basis constitutional right of all (Adult) citizens without regard to gender---And, in oppositions to thousands of years of history, the lack of noting that institution in the Constitution and in opposition to Article-X of the amendments to the Constitution being the last and most abused part of The Bill Of Rights. 

"Adult" appears to mean someone 18-years or older; "Citizen" is someone born in the USA or who has been naturalized. Such rights should be inviolate except when a court of law finds a person guilty of some crime allowing removal of those rights or too mentally ill to exercise them.

I have no doubt that the Federal (And some other) courts will be fierce in enforcing the noted, judicial, amendment of our Constitution. But, how have other "rights" fared (Or are likely to fare) in those courts and by the administrative branch of many/most governments?

OWNING PROPERTY:  The right to keep lawfully obtained property has been all but destroyed by SCOTUS by:
1. Allowing the seizure of real property for the benefit of private developers under a "legal fiction" that such will benefit the "common good"; And, 
2. Not suppressing the seizure of private property by government bureaucrats without prior judicial approval OR a clear-and-present danger of harm to others or "probable cause" that a crime has been committed.

VOTING: As for other basic rights of citizenship, this now is provided all citizens 18-years of age or older except where a court of law has ruled otherwise.
       Yet, too many Federal judges (And others) use every means to deprive all citizens of the value-and-weight of their votes by attempts to block verification of citizenship before casting ballots.

FREE SPEECH: The Obama Administration has abused the too-great powers of the IRS to abuse the free speech rights of those who oppose his misrule.
      Some have reasonably claimed that the worst abuse of that right is by public universities who punish students for "political incorrect statements" made as public speech and in academic documents OR set, as has the University Of California, "prohibited language" as a work rule for non-tenured faculty allowing firing for their violations---As a gross violation of what was once "Academic Freedom".
      Under the present Administration a US Attorney has threatened those who peacefully ask questions about the "Dark Side" of Islam.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: It should be remembered that: The religious provisions of The Bill Of Rights were established to keep the Federal Government (Only) from setting up an official religion; Some of the original States maintained "official religions into the 1830s---Without judicial interference; And, the author of the current misreading of that  provision was a long time member of the KKK and a life-long hater of the Catholic Church.
      Since the establishment of our Republic until very recent years the public expression of religion by such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and very many other public officials was not only allowed but expected.
      The various courts' prohibition of such public statements as The Ten Commandments: Is in violation of those traditions; And, does not seem to have moved SCOTUS to remove such symbols from its primary building.
      The Seventh US Court Of Appeals have given Atheists the same "religious" protections as other "believers". Therefore, their "religion" must not be given the power to remove the symbols of other "faiths" from "the public square" (And schools).

SEARCH & SEIZURE:  The forced (At gunpoint) police entries into homes after the Boston-Marathon bombings, by Federal officials without probable cause  to believe a wanted criminal was within a home (Where a "hot" tear-gas bomb was thrown into the occupied crib of an infant yielding serious burns to that baby), the taking of property (Not contraband as such and not described in search warrants) by police everywhere---Including that initiated by Milwaukee County's PERsecutor against supporters of Governor Walker) are too many to list here.

KEEPING & BEARING ARMS:  SCOTUS has declared the the rights under the Second Amendment as the individual rights of every citizen and that without membership in any "Militia". It has extended that right to all the States.
       Yet, that and other Federal (And State) courts have not ruled against Federal, State and local actions which "INFRINGE' (To use the Second Amendment's language) upon those, under 21-years of age, citizen's exercise of those rights.
       As special cases: The Federal Government (And State governments) do not allow full citizens who are 18-to-21 years of age to purchase firearms; And, most public universities (Bound by The Bill Of Rights) do not allow such in buildings without lockers for securely checking-in arms lawfully carried on campus grounds.


This can be done by amending The Constitution:
1. To allow a simple majority of both Houses of The Congress OR a 2/3 majority of those present-and-voting of one House to vacate a SCOTUS decision;
2. To Allow any 20 Members of the Senate or 50 Members of the House, by signing a "Complaint" or like document to have "standing" to bring any action before the US Courts;
3. To allow the House or Senate, by a majority of those present-and-voting to independently bring criminal charges against any Federal official or employee and likewise prosecute such matters without interference by the Judicial or Administrative branches of the Federal Government.
4. Make themselves and all other Federal officials bound by the same laws (eg "Insider Trading") as bind other citizens.

Friday, June 12, 2015

Bigger AND Better Pool For New Teachers

The recently proposed changes in Wisconsin's teacher-licensing laws offers various-and-great opportunities to distill (NOT "Dilute") the qualifications of Wisconsin's teachers.
  1. Teachers would have more college-level course work (Or, for vocational arts training, practical experience) on the subjects to be taught rather than such “how to teach” and “politically correct” courses as have lead the way to such academic disaster areas as MPS.
  2. It appears that 90%-plus of university teachers very much support and teach the anti-principles of”The Left” as is very unlike the conservative-liberal divisions in Wisconsin as expressed in our elections. (It seems likely that those in Schools Of Education are at the high end of that group.)
  3. The proposed changes in licensing should/must require the very active recruitment of retired military teachers who (In the DOD's excellent technical schools, the military academies and its advanced schools/institutes) have knowledge-bases and teaching-experiences much greater that the vast majority of new and, also, of many senior teachers as now licensed in both “vocational” matters and in such subjects as history and civics. [Those retired military teachers will also offer examples, by precept and example, of self-discipline, duty and sacrifice for the “common good” as so lacking in our general society.]

The last advantage is likely to be one most rejected by the present “Professional Educators”, their supporters in teachers' unions and bought/leased politicians as it offers a very great threat to their political orientation AND their over-blown senses-of-self-worth.

A. I am a graduate of UW-Milwaukee and of US Navy technical schools.
B. The active recruitment of such retired/retiring DOD teachers could be expedited by: Sending “job announcements” to all such schools; Advertisements in newspapers published on or near those DOD facilities having schools; And, by special-and-ongoing lobbying with the DOD and VA (Who have, I believe, relevant placement programs). A central "clearing house" for such vacancies in Wisconsin's Public AND other schools could be, by statute, given the duty for such recruitment.
C.  Since retired members of the Armed Forces already have very hard-earned retirement-pay and medical-benefits, they may be willing to be "more flexible" on pay and fringe-benefits as teachers.

Sunday, June 07, 2015

A Bill Of "Anti-Rights"

             'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'
              ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth.  More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
              ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of dummies, and probably always will be.
              ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy. Your being armed may likely prevent you from harm from criminal attacks and allows you to exercise you right to self-defense AND avoid being guilty of aiding in your being harmed.
             ARTICLE IV:   You do not have the right to free food and housing.
Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
             ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of your care of public housing, you are just not interested in public health care.
              ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you in a cell with a 275# body builder with the "hots" for you OR meet some citizens who will provide you with "two to the chest and one to the head".
            ARTICLE VII:   You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,  don't   be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
             ARTICLE VIII:  You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. If you fail to oppose politicians allowing floods of job-stealing “Illegals” to enter OUR nations, you have forfiting your job.

             ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

             ARTICLE X: You do not have a right to have our citizens communicate with you in some foreign language.              This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it!
             ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, sorry if you are uncomfortable with it. If you are too unhappy with that I suggest you move to places controlled by ISIS or to North Korea.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Tsarnaev Undercharged

Yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Like Nidal Hasan of Ft. Hood infamy) was found guilty of multiple murders and sentenced to death.

Yet, he (And Hasan) were under-charged.  Both were, very clearly, "waging war against the United States" and should have also been charged with the more serious crime of TREASON: As defined in Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution; And, noted in s. 2381, 18 US Code Chapter 115.

The real-and-basic reason for those  under-chargings was to allow the Obama Administration to avoid even the hint of the following truths: True-believing Muslims must obey that fellow Mohammed's command to wage "perpetual war" (Jihad) against "unbelievers"; And, that that the targets of that Jihad now includes the USA and 99% of its citizens and legal immigrants---As demonstrated by various "lone-wolf" and small-group Islamist attacks in the USA over recent years.

As there is no "Statue Of Limitations" as to TREASON, it might be best to:
!. Now charge them with that most horrid of crimes as an "object lesson";
2. To likewise charge those US citizens now engaged in waging military Jihad overseas for any organization which has declared the USA one of its enemies--Even if not yet in custody; And,
3. To try such critters before the same type of "military commission" as, most exactly, tried those who were involved in the murder of President Lincoln---As resulted in their quick and certain execution (Which should be by "long drop hanging).

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Marriage: The Constitution & The Courts

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States as addresses marriage. For most of our Republic's history the regulation of that civilization-sustaining institution (Of one man and one woman) was left to the States in obedience to the Tenth Amendment to that base of our government, that being a part of The Of Rights.

Those who claim that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the courts to bypass the democratic votes of the People and require that the States recognize and government enforce (By punishments) "Homosexual Marriage" forget that the intent of the authors of that provision was only to provide the then recently freed Black slaves with a certain minimum of political rights----And NOT to give judges the power to "make law from the bench" and amend the Constitution without going through that Constitution's, internal-and-democratic, means of change.

The same provisions apply to the States deciding who is a qualified voters and, if the People of the States so chose by democratic  voting, what proofs  of such qualification they may require.

Such persons also fail to admit that religion parts of the First Amendment were only to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a single "official church" [Some of the States maintained official churches, without constitutional challenge, into the
1830s---As is the current Administration's present-and-unconstitutional support of the "Religion-Of-Atheism" (And Islam) against Christians, Jews and others].

Of course, that is not unexpected as those same persons (Especially Federal judges) will not admit that the "shall not be infringed" clause of the Second Amendment is the most severely worded-and-intended limit on Federal government (And, now, lesser governments.)---And do everything to, most undemocratically, deny the enforcement of that provision as was supported by the patriotic Founders of our Republic.