|
PSALM 23/06
The Lord is my shepherd and I am truly beholden. He guardeth the soldiers who maketh safe the green pastures and the savoring of still waters.
Thou anointest my soul with courage, my body with strength and the capacity to stand tall. Thou preparest me as a mainstay of the intrinsic rights Thou has bestowed upon us all. My cup runneth over with gratitude.
Should Thou commandeth me into the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fend off evil for Thou art with me; and my Winchester comforts me.
The Lord restoreth my soul and showest me the path of righteousness. For His name's sake I shall strive to set the example for others to follow.
I am confident that my prayers to parallel Thy commandments will be answered and I will be permitted to serve Thee in the hereafter; forever and ever. Amen.
Copyright 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 13 April 2006) |
Back to Top
Let's say you and your family are enjoying an outing at a local retail store, public arena or government office. Let's further say that a person intent on wreaking havoc by taking hostages and/or killing all in your environ suddenly appears. If you're armed, you certainly stand a chance of at least protecting your family and yourself. If, of course, the location you are visiting is one that statutorily prohibits law-abiding, licensed gun carriers - you if you complied with this mandate - will be dependent upon the police to "save" yourself and your loved ones.
Used to be when a real emergency popped up, a police officer could be counted on to respond and take action. Today, it ain't necessarily so. The Columbine, Colorado high school tragedy brought to light that police doctrine has evolved into one of "officer safety takes precedent over all else." In the aftermath of Columbine, the sheriff is heard on national TV saying he didn't order his men into the building because he didn't want them to get hurt!
I was one of very few who criticized this trend with articles in The Law Enforcement Trainer and American Police Beat. Many officers responded to my critique with anger that I would dare to question their concern for "their" safety. Typical and most telling was an e-mail from a Midwest police chief who wrote: "Most officers have families, just like everyone else. Their main goal is to get home safely at the end of each shift, and I agree with that philosophy 100 percent." Excuse me, I was always under the impression that the "main goal" of a police officer was to serve AND protect. I have never advocated that police should sacrifice their lives for another, but we pay them to protect us - that should be their "main goal."
Recently, (March of 2006), an incident occurred that indicates there has been no attitude change in the American police world. Here, a man called the West Chester, Ohio 911 dispatcher saying he shot his wife. He then hangs up. The dispatcher calls back while dispatching police and the ambulance. The wife answers the phone saying her husband has shot her and himself and he's lying near her on the floor, moaning. She further states she is bleeding to death and "please hurry" urging them to "bust in" because the doors are locked. The first officer arrives four minutes later, but decides to wait for backup and a supervisor to arrive. All the while the dispatcher is still talking to the fading victim who has tendered the security code to the garage door hoping to speed the rescue. Three minutes later the ambulances and one fire truck arrive on scene. The police continue to consider options and dangers before finally forcing the front door to the home - 8 minutes after the arrival of the first officer. The woman is transported to the hospital where she is pronounced dead a few hours later. In a follow-up article in The Cincinnati Enquirer, a West Chester police Lieutenant, citing officer safety, stated: "Their [responding officers] actions were extremely appropriate."
A firearm might not have helped her, but the point is the police can't be counted on for anything other than post-incident, investigative tactics.
This country was founded on the premise that we must rely on ourselves for basic survival. These incidents show clearly the police, who have always touted they can't be everywhere, are now saying they won't even be there.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 6 April 2006)
|
Back to Top
At the risk of being presumptuous, I thought you might enjoy some recent additions to KLEIN'S LAWS - all of which may be found by scrolling down or by clicking on KLEIN'S LAWS.
"KLEIN'S COROLLARY TO EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: All matters that are not matters of matter, are matters of perspective."
"KLEIN'S MARITAL LAW FOR MEN:
Any man who admits to his wife that he can sometimes be dumb, can get away with a lot of dumb stuff."
"KLEIN'S LAW OF THEFT:
Never steal less than you can successfully hide and comfortably retire on - after you get out of prison."
"KLEIN'S LAW OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY:
When a judge imparts his opinions via instructions or charges to a jury; that jury, in conflict with the Sixth Amendment, is no longer impartial."
"KLEIN'S LAW OF COMMON SENSE: Some people seem to have more dollars than sense."
"KLEIN'S LAW OF DREAMS:
Never being able to satiate aspirations is better than not having any fantasies at all."
"KLEIN'S LAW OF OUTRAGE:
The resentment and contempt we gun owners have toward the anti-gunners is not that they are exercising their 1st Amendment right to redress our government - it's the outrage that they work to infringe our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms via laws and court orders rather than seeking to amend the Constitution."
"KLEIN'S 8th LAW OF SURVIVAL: If all the guns in the world could somehow be magically removed; the weak, frail and vulnerable would have no way of protecting themselves from the thugs with bats, bricks or knives."
"KLEIN'S 9th LAW OF SURVIVAL:
All Americans have the inherent right to be free of fear - even from legally armed fellow citizens. However, this right does not convey the power to infringe other American's inalienable rights to be free of the fear of being unable to defend themselves."
"KLEIN'S LAW OF QUID PRO QUO:
In a Republic, if the Government takes your property under their powers of eminent domain, they must compensate you. They also have the power to lay taxes to build and maintain roads, sewers and other needs that benefit the entire community. But there is no quid pro quo when your tax money is given to victims of hurricanes, floods or other natural - but insurable - catastrophes."
This last "Law," because of the current flap over eminent domain, needs additional comments: Under the Republic form of Government, the administration's levying of taxes for the purpose of providing the taxee with roads, defense systems (armies and navies) and other common benefits, is a fair and equitable quid pro quo. However, this has evolved into the expansion of their taxing powers to the benefit of individual victims of economic downturns (food stamps, housing subsidies even their losses due to catastrophic events such as hurricanes and terrorist assaults).
This same Government, by exercising its powers of eminent domain, have been taking private property to turn over to - and for the economic gain of - private developers. The only difference between the taking of money via taxes for the benefit of the poor and the taking of property to give to the non-needy is that under eminent domain at least the takee is compensated.
Therefore, and in order to comply with the 14th Amendment's due process clause, the Government should establish a quid pro quo for the money donated to victims of economic dilemmas, i.e., require them to perform some form of community service. This is what FDR did during the Great Depression of the 1930s with the Works Progress Adminstration.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 30 March 2006)
|
Back to Top
There are five provisions under the 1st Amendment, one is:
|
"Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." |
This says the Federal Government (state governments are included under the 14th Amendment) cannot pass a law to keep you from complaining about your government to your government. However, no where in the Constitutional or in any statute is there any requirement for the "government" to answer, react to or otherwise acknowledge your petition.
This was recently pointed out in a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decision (We the People, et. al., Plaintiffs vs. United States, et. al., Defendants, Civil action No. 04-1211). Here the court ruled that just because the government failed to respond to the plaintiff's complaint it was no reason for the plaintiff to be granted a favorable judgement against the government. Even a DEFAULT judgement is not possible when the government fails to respond to a suit filed in compliance with all laws.
|
In other words, though one has a right to complain to the government - that right doesn't mean the government has any statutory, constitutional, or even judicial obligation to respond to your "redress of grievance." |
The hard evidence of this elitist attitude is further propagated in the functioning of the Supreme Court. Though they are empowered as the highest court in the land, there is no legal obligation to hear any cases - and they do refuse to hear far more cases than they accept. The justices, being appointed for life, are immune to retribution (yeah, I know they can be impeached, but in reality it just doesn't happen). Whereas, elected officials are, at the least, subject to the ballot box.
In addition, and to add insult to injury, this highest court, being the SUPREME court for which there is no appeal other than legislative, have no obligation to rule upon ALL issues of a case. I offer a personal experience of this selective rulings from the Ohio Supreme Court case, Klein v. Leis. Here, we challenged the right of the state to forbid carrying concealed firearms under the Ohio Constitution which says:
|
"The people have the right to bear arms for their DEFENSE and SECURITY." (emphasis added) |
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that each word of a statute has a separate meaning and legislatures do not write redundancies into their laws. Using definitions found in common dictionaries, it was clear that carrying for DEFENSE means to carry openly such as in one's hand while under an attack. SECURITY means to be secure and one can't be secure with an exposed firearm that is subject to a thug grabbing it to use against you. Ergo, Ohio intended for one to carry firearms concealed if they wanted to be SECURE. The Ohio Supreme Court ignored - refused to address, comment upon or rule on - this point.
If you ever need to contact a government officials about something they don't want to be contacted about, keep in mind they might have to permit you to "redress your grievances," but they aren't required to reply, much less take any action.
SOLUTION: One method of controlling, at least the judiciary branch, is enactment of Judicial Accountability Initiative Laws jail4judges.org
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 23 March 2006)
|
Back to Top
This being SUNSHINE WEEK might be a great time to look at the Freedom of Information Act. This law was supposed to pointedly tell our elected officials - and the bureaucrats THEY control - that the First Amendment means what it says. There were, in the beginning, nine listed exemptions. However, there are now a significant amount of additional exemptions that have been added which are most difficult to examine inasmuch as the Department of Justice's web site list is current only through 2000. Guess you'll have to file a FOIA request just to learn if the subject of your interest has already been decided!
Some of these 9 exemptions include:
1) "...does not apply to matters that are…contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions"(if your bank charges or changes fees, you can't find out under what authority these changes are or what governmental controls they might be usurping) and;
2) "Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells" (if "big oil" is polluting your source of water, you can't find out why and where). |
Exceptions are needed for the protection of real situations where, if certain records are disseminated, another party would gain unfair advantage. In addition to the nine listed exemptions - which no doubt were heavily lobbied for - the federal courts have been issuing exemptions by judicial decree.
| It would be interesting to find out what exemptions certain politicians would claim if we filed a FOIA request to learn where and how they get their information that armed law-abiding, trained and licensed citizens are a threat to society. These are the same ones who think by posting a sign or signing a law barring firearms in certain locations that these places, magically, become gun-free zones. They don't, of course, they only become self-defense free zones. |
In other words, if a business has enough money to hire attorneys to petition the courts for a special exemption, then they might not have to ever disclose their cache of information. Okay, fair enough, that's American free-enterprise at work. The rub, the outrage, is suppose this record holder is a government agency that doesn't want certain secret, embarrassing or whatever details divulged. It now becomes our money (taxes) that is spent bringing the case to the courts. The FOIA was a great concept, but like most other bureaucratic ideals, it has evolved into a typical whoever-has-the-most-money-wins - and guess who has the most money?
In a Cincinnati Enquirer story (12 Mar 05) on this subject, Tim Smith, Director of Ohio Center for Privacy and the First Amendment, Kent State University, is quoted as saying, "The Government collects information that it doesn't need, and then decides to keep it private which is the worst of all possible worlds. Instead of stopping the intrusiveness, we'll just stop telling you about it." Scary. Of course, if the government offense is really offensive, you can always ask your Congress person or the courts to investigate...maybe, maybe not - See next week's editorial.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 16 March 2006)
|
Back to Top
We live in an extremely complex and dangerous society where there might not be solutions so some of our problems. Adding to our personal dilemma is the huge divide between the political parties. Our elected leaders must return to protecting our priority issues and refrain from getting bogged down with divisive matters. To help bridge this gap, I propose each candidate declare:
For the office of President and VP:
1) I will neither sign nor veto any bill, statute, regulation, act, etc., expanding or reducing any abortion issue;
2) I will neither sign nor veto any bill, statute, regulation, act, etc., expanding or reducing any religious issues in public places;
3) I will neither sign nor veto any bill, statute, regulation, act, etc., expanding or reducing any taxes;
4) All wire taps involving terrorist activity - here or abroad - shall be in writing and signed by the Director of the CIA or the Director of the FBI - as the case may be - within 168 hours of the beginning of the tap;
5) I will support a constitutional amendment that requires all federal employees and elected officials to swear an oath that they renounce any group, person or political entity that the US government has determined supports or advocates violence against the USA or any of its citizens;
6) I pledge not to render any American funds or goods to any group, person or political entity that the U.S. government has determined supports or advocates violence against the USA or any of its citizens;
7) I will not criticize the proposals or acts of any member of another political party without tendering my own alternative;
8) I will support amending the Constitution to restrict the term for President and Vice President to one 6-year term. |
For the office of Senator, Congressperson or Governor:
1) I will not criticize the proposals or acts of any member of another political party without tendering my own alternative;
2) I will support a constitutional amendment that requires all federal employees and elected officials to swear an oath that they renounce any group, person or political entity that the US government has determined supports or advocates violence against the USA or any of its citizens.
3) I pledge not to support the distribution of American goods or funds to any group, person or political entity that the US government has determined supports or advocates violence against the USA or any of its citizens.
4) I will support amending the Constitution to restrict the term for President and Vice President to one (1) 6-year term. |
Should these simple, basic, common-sense pledges be adopted , then, maybe we can all get back to the business of working together to keep America together.
If you support this proposal - pass it on and/or send it to your local newspaper. This might not be perfect, but it should generate related discussions. Now is the time to take some form of positive action.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 9 March 2006)
|
Back to Top
Recently, I attended the "Battle of the Talk Show Hosts" at the Grand Victoria Casino in Rising Sun, Indiana - and was thoroughly entertained by TV/Talk Show host Jerry Springer (for the liberals) and Nationally syndicated talk show host, Sean Hannity (for the conservatives).
Jerry was, as usual, articulate, very bright , entertaining and – like his fellow liberals more interested in faulting the Republicans than tendering ideas and methods of what he/they (the Democrats) would do to fix what they don’t like about the present administration. For instance, Jerry blasted Homeland Security and FEMA’s reaction to Katrina. Of course, we’ll never know how FEMA would have reacted under Clinton, but we can extrapolate - it wasn’t set up much different back then. As to Homeland Security – it didn’t exist then – however, we do know that the 9/11 terrorists were planning and training under Clinton’s watch and were not detected by his administration.
There was one exception to Jerry’s idea-less assault: He did push the Democrat’s concept on how to secure our ports. He suggested that we place our troops at every port in the world to inspect all ships/containers bound for the USA. He reasoned, correctly, that detecting a nuclear/bio device once it reaches our ports would be of little use because it would already be at a major city’s destination and detection would be of little value at that point. He failed to address the logistics and downside of such a plan, to wit:
* The 24/7 cost of staffing ALL the world’s ports would be astronomical;
* Suppose some rogue nation wishes to smuggle a nuclear/bio bomb in via containerized freight, they could easily get around the "inspection" by having a ship NOT bound for the USA meet – in mid-ocean – an "inspected" ship (one bound for our shores) where the transfer of deadly cargo would occur;
* The foreign ports might not cooperate to the full extent of any agreement;
* Loss of American jobs. |
MY SOLUTION: Set up two inspection points, one off the east coast and one off the west coast to inspect all foreign owned cargo ships BEFORE they reach our ports. For those countries that might find this detour expensive, let them ship THEIR goods on OUR ships (with trained crews).
Among Mr. Springer’s attack on GWB was a strongly urged curtailment of the Bush administration’s practice of conducting wire taps without securing a warrant. His point is well taken – That which GWB is doing today might be okay, but this precedent - if allowed - will in-turn permit a future President – one maybe not so honorable, to conduct surveillance on – who knows. In other words, if there is no record (paper trail) of who ordered the tap, then there is no way of knowing who was tapped and what was done with that information. That's scary.
Sean, and local talk show host Bill Cunningham (who joined the fray at midpoint), were, of course, in full support of the status-quo surreptitious method, but all parties failed to address the issue of SECRECY. If a covert agency is required to secure permission (even 72 hours after the fact, as the law allows) from a non-member of this covert group (independent judge – and his/her staff), then there is an opportunity for leaks. When dealing with international issues of extreme high risk, any leak is unacceptable. And, that's scarier.
On the Conservative front, Sean and Bill didn’t offer anything other than the same old Republican dogma of Keep doin’ what we doin’ – and success is difficult to argue with:
* The economy is improving;
* There have been no attacks on our soil since 9/11;
* We are engaging our enemy on the battle field of our choice rather than OVER HERE where our innocents would be in harms way; |
There was one point of agreement between all parties: Turning over the control of our ports to the UAE is NOT a good idea.
What was obvious - the huge divide between the Republicans and Democrats - and how it is pulling us apart. Next week, I’ll tender my solutions on how this country can be pulled together.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 2 March 2006)
|
Back to Top
Attention newspapers, cable companies, TV guides: There is no such time as 12:00 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. - it is a physical impossibility. The correct terms are 12:00 NOON and 12:00 MIDNIGHT, just plain Noon - Midnight or military time: 1200 hours - 2400 hours.
If it wasn't for American know how - the Arabs wouldn't know how to extract the oil under their land, much less that it was there in the first place.
Hybrid/electric cars are not the answer to reducing oil consumption for the following reasons - all of which the press, proponents and government seems to ignore:
1) When the batteries begin to wear out, where are we going to dispose of this toxic waste?
2) Our electric power grid is now at capacity (with black/brown-outs during peak times); just where is the extra power coming from to charge all these battery powered cars?
3) The proponents of the hybrid/electric claim these cars can go 50-100 miles between charges. What they don't tell you is this is under ideal conditions with a relatively new battery. How many miles do you think you can go if most of your commute is spent in bumper-to-bumper, rush hour traffic with the headlights, windshield wipers and heater/AC fan on? |
For the long term it is NOT Iran, Korea, China…that is our greatest worry:
* Depletion of the ocean's fishes;
* Global warming from the consumption of fossil fuels;
* Pollution from the residue of wars, pesticides, herbicides and human waste;
* Viruses and diseases that can jump from animal to human;
* Devastating hurricanes, blizzards and tsunamis;
* Continent wide droughts and famine just might be: |
G_d's message to us to Get-it-Straight - OVER-POPULATION is our biggest problem.
If all the guns in the world could somehow be magically removed; the weak, frail and vulnerable would have no way of protecting themselves from the thugs with bats, clubs and knives.
All Americans have the inherent and constitutional right to be free of fear from armed citizens. However, this right does not extend to usurping or disparaging other American's inalienable, 2nd and 9th Amendment rights to be free of fear from thugs intend on doing them harm.
Muslims who don't, won't or can't renounce their fellow Muslims for committing and/or preaching violence are wolves in sheep's clothing.
Speaking of wolves: President Bush might know something the rest of us don't know, but until he divulges the strategy behind assigning port functions to the UAE, he might consider applying a little common sense to the issue, i.e., Just because the UAE appears in sheep's clothing, doesn't mean they're NOT wolves.
Finally, and once and for all: We are NOT fighting in Iraq because of WMD (real or not), oil, Israel, Sadam's bad acts, etc. We are OVER THERE because if we pulled our troops out the insurgents/terrorists would carry their attacks OVER HERE or other places where it is not as advantageous to wage this war that has been declared on us. It is a tragedy that we have lost a few thousand soldiers, but they have lost 10s of thousands. Just think how many innocent AMERICAN men, women and children would be "lost" if the war was fought OVER HERE.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 23 February 2006 - Happy Birthday David Scott Klein)
|
Back to Top
Some of us have forgotten details to three very prominent Black American/symbols.
UNCLE TOM: A pious and subservient slave character in Harriet Beecher Stowe's, Uncle Tom's Cabin (1851). The term has come to mean anyone who is overeager to win the approval of Whites. Though, it is a very derogatory term, it is also a symbol of truth of how some Black's had to behave in order to survive - and that's what we tend to forget. This behavior is similar to how other minority groups have been forced to behave when under the thumb of a vindictive, controlling majority.
DRED SCOTT: This is more of a case about the man than the man himself. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken by his master, in 1834, from Missouri (a slave state) to Illinois and then to Ft. Snelling in the Minnesota Territory. In 1846, Mr. Scott sued to establish that he (and his family) were free because they had lived in a free state and free territory. The U.S. Supreme Court, embarrassingly, ruled:
1) Negroes were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal courts;
2) A slave's residence in a free state did not make him a free man;
3) The Missouri Comprise of 1820 (forbidding slavery in that part of the Louisiana Purchase - except Missouri) was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power. |
The case had a polarizing effect on the slavery issue and was a factor in the conflict between the North and the South. After the Civil War, the case influenced the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments - which gave freedom and citizenship to slaves.
JIM CROW: There never was a real person named Jim Crow. However, there was a song-and-dance, minstrel routine - preformed by a White man (Thomas "Daddy" Rice), who blackened his face with charcoal paste or burnt cork and danced a ridiculous and degrading jig that depicted Blacks as inferior (c.1830). The term, post bellum, along with other White popular culture "code words," such as Sambo or Coon, were used to define any "person of colour." Jim Crow soon became synonymous with segregation and thus any law segregating Blacks from Whites became knows as "Jim Crow Laws." Some rail cars carried the sign "Jim Crow" to designate cars for Blacks only. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court finally got it right by declaring segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. This led to similar decisions that outlawed any form of "Jim Crow" legislation.
Post Script: JOHN McWHORTER, author of Losing the Race: Self Sabotage in Black America, has just published Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America. Both books take a hard look at the Black issues - by a Black writer. The bottom line of each treatise is: It is not racial or economic discrimination that causes Black students to underperform, but a "self-destructive culture of victimhood." McWhorter also believes the Race Can Be Won, but the "payback fantasies" that have permeated his race since the ill-fated social programs of the 1960s has to go.
Last week I asked the 200 or so on this list for comments in favor of prohibiting firearms in the work place. I got a total of two (2) responses - both predictable, i.e., the only reasons tendered were because it just didn't seem like a good idea. These touch-feely reasons are a direct result of the "main stream" media's decades of dissing guns. The truth is guns save far more innocent lives than they cost and though there are many reasons for allowing licensed and trained citizens to bear arms in the work place, there are no pragmatic or real reasons for excluding them.
KLEIN'S 9th LAW OF SURVIVAL: All Americans have the inherent and constitutional right to be free of fear from armed citizens. However, this right does not extend to usurping or disparaging other American's inalienable 2nd and 9th Amendment rights to be free of fear from thugs intend on doing them harm." |
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 16 February 2006)
|
Back to Top
I'm putting together a book, working title: GUNS IN THE WORK PLACE, A Manual for Private Sector Employers and Employees, and wish to include a chapter on the pros of NOT allowing employees AND patrons/visitors to possess guns in the work place (Table of Contents listed below).
I can come up with a lot of stuff FOR permitting firearms in any location, such as:
1) Posting a sign doesn't make a location gun-free, only self-defense free ('cuz only the law-abiding comply - the criminals don't pay any attention to signs/laws/rules, that's why they're criminals).
2) Since the state, through it's screening/training process has determined that certain citizens are qualified to carry concealed firearms in public, what screening process does an employer/property owner use to determine that those licensed citizens are not safe?
3) If one person had had a firearm at the time of the Columbine Colorado school shooting, numerous post office shootings, or other rampages by NON-licensed gun owners - lives might have been saved.
4) Almost all states allow some form of permitting citizens to secure a license to carry a concealed firearm - the records are clear that only about 1% ever have their licenses revoked - for minor infractions. There is no history of these decent law-abiding citizens using their legally licensed firearm to shoot innocent persons.
Please let me know of what advantages, reasons and arguments you know of for NOT allowing qualified persons (employees and/or visitors) to carry concealed firearms in a work place or any place so as I can include the information in my manual. I'm not talking about places that already have staffed metal detectors and/or armed security guards - they are, for all intents and purposes, true gun-free zones (airports, court houses, etc.). I'm referring to places that either by statute or sign restrict the carrying of concealed firearms therein, for example: Places of worship. Of what real-life purpose does it serve to forbid armed and trained members of the congregation from protecting themselves and their families should a terrorist burst in with deadly intentions?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
SECTION I Employer
I-1.0 LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I-2.0 GENERAL POLICY
I-3.0 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
I-4.0 CRISIS CONTROL
SECTION II Employees
II-1.0 COURT TESTS
II-2.0 CARRYING FIREARMS
II-3.0 C.C.F. CHECKLIST
II-4.0 REALITY OF SELF-DEFENSE
II-5.0 USE OF LETHAL FORCE
II-6.0 DEFENSE OF Self Defense
II-7.0 GLOSSARY
APPENDIX
Thanks for your input, I'll post the results next week.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 9 February 2006)
|
Back to Top
Lately, there's been a lot of press on the right of women to have an abortion. The proponents say it's a to privacy issue, while the opponents say the right to privacy isn't in the Constitution.
Without getting into whether or not a woman has the right to an abortion, the right to privacy is most certainly in the Constitution - along with all those OTHER RIGHTS that are not specifically listed in our Constitution. They are found in the seldom quoted and little understood 9th Amendment:
Even before the Constitution was drafted, our forefathers were concerned with protecting INALIENABLE, individual rights as early as when they wrote the Declaration of Independence:
"WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." |
The words, "among these," indicate that the signers were acknowledging that there are other rights, in addition to Life, Liberty, etc., that are reserved to the people.
When it came time to prepare the Amendments to the Constitution, the first ten being the Bill of Rights, the framers knew they couldn't possibly list all of the rights, so they very carefully worded the 9th Amendment to cover these other inalienable rights:
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
In plain simple words: Rights already listed in the Constitution are not the only rights we have, but these other de facto rights cannot be ignored or even lessened in value.
What are some of these other rights - none of which you will find listed in the Constitution?
THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That's not part of the 5th or 6th Amendment as many mistakenly believe.
THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR PROPERTY AND YOUR FAMILY. Next time some "rights challenged" person proposes or supports a gun control law, ask 'em if that isn't "disparaging" your right to self defense.
THE RIGHT TO OWN PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY. Can you imagine laws, or worse, some bureaucrat saying you must have their permission to own anything?
THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE AND BEQUEATHMENT. You think inheritance taxes are unfair, suppose the Government took it all!
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY - TO BE LEFT ALONE. Justice Brandeis, for the U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States (227 US 438, 478), declared: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . . They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man."
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 2 February 2006)
|
Back to Top
1) Since the Air Force Academy started admitting females into the student body there have been a number of sexual attacks on female cadets. These "victims" have claimed that their commanding officers have, for the most part, ignored these reports and/or have refused to conduct serious investigations or punish the offenders. It seems to me that if we are training these officers to be the leaders of our fighting forces they - the female cadets - should have put up one hell of a fight if they were subjected to an unwarranted and illegal attack. In no reported case or hospital record did one of these "victims" get physical with their attackers. I mean, what are we training them for? If a cadet whined to her C.O. that they she was assaulted and this future soldier DIDN'T have cuts, bruises and/or broken bones, she's either lying or is a coward and thus not fit to lead others.
2) Has our government become so aloof and egocentric that they are now the epitome of George Orwell's Animal Farm? It seems that, tragically, an employee of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Job & Family Services was recently kidnapped from the parking lot of her downtown CITY office and then raped. The Sheriff responded by placing deputies at all CITY locations where County employees work. Criminals and crime might be rampant in Cincinnati, but it is not the function of government to expend taxpayer funds for the protection of special classes of people. How about the non-county employees who live and work in "dangerous" locations - shouldn't they also be provided with taxpayer funded special protection? Just because one is a government employee, doesn't make their life worth any more than those who don't work for the government. Maybe Orwell was right: "… some animals are more equal than others."
Perhaps, a better solution, for those county employees (and others) who feel vulnerable, is to seek the state certified training for carrying a concealed firearm - and then carry one.
3) Recently a Black Hamilton County (Ohio) judge sentenced a white racist to spend time in a Black church. That might be an acceptable use of alternative sentencing if he had let it go at that. However, the judge stated: "…you have to understand that you are at the whim and authority of a black judge." There, of course, was no repercussions. One can only wonder the fallout if the judge issuing such an outrageous statement, had been white and the offender Black.
4) Every year our legislators (local, state and federal) gather to pass laws. Now, after 225 or so years, there are more laws on the books than there are facts in the encyclopedia. For example, the book containing the Ohio traffic and criminal codes - in small print - runs to over 1400 pages. That's just two of the 22 titles and that's just for one of 50 states. Add local and federal laws, statutes, edicts, ordinances, etc., and well, you get the picture. Maybe it's time for a "KLEIN'S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The Constitution should be amended to say: For every new law, statute or ordinance - two must be repealed."
5) I am troubled when my fellow compatriots claim that GWB is violating the Constitution with his terrorist-activity wire taps. Aside from the fact that this is a very complex issue for which there is no constitutional language specifically excluding such tactics by the Commander in Chief during war time, these self-proclaimed champions of the Constitution are the same ones who insist on passing laws that violate those very clear and simple words: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 26 January 2006)
|
Back to Top
There is at least one thing I'm sure we can all agree on: America is sharply divided. This root division is most likely caused by a failure of sticking to the fundamentals of what made us - of what should be our unique and unifying factor: adhering to the rule-of-law.
We should all be on the same page of expecting the people we elected, appointed and licensed to support, honor and comply with our constitutions. Unfortunately, many of our compatriots have used their positions and powers to pass laws or con judges to violate, usurp, twist or skirt these sets of laws to which all other laws must bend.
The writers of our most sacred documents knew that nothing stays the same, so they made provision within the wording of these constitutions should the necessity arise to make alterations (for example, see Article V of the U.S. Constitution). There is no provision for the changing, reinterpretation, ignoring or violating any portion of this rule-of-law other than via the specific amending language in a constitution. In other words, and in legal conflict with those who believe that a Constitution is subject to the whims of the legislature or even the courts, it ain't a "living - breathing document." It IS set in stone and only subject to interruption using common ordinary definitions. Contrary to what some believe, we are NOT a nation of laws - we are a nation of constitutions.
This false belief by some Americans that constitutional mandates can be ignored or usurped for the sake of political correctness or simple majority rules, is the leading factor that divides this great nation. Somehow, a significant portion of the citizenry think because they are in the majority in their city, state or region they can pass laws or seek the court's sanction in order to force unconstitutional edicts of their way of life on the minority members of their city/state/region.
The clearest example of this attitude (by some) is most evident in the issue of prayer in school. Here - and in conflict with the 1st Amendment (fortified by the 14th Amendment) it is obvious that public schools cannot sanction any form of religion - yet there is a significant number of citizens who attempt to use statutes and court orders to force their religion on others. If these people would expend their energies at changing our Constitution to allow for school taught religion, then there could be no complaints.
Likewise, firearms. If you don't like the fact that one has the right to keep and bear arms, do it the American way - change the 2nd Amendment. The decade long use of PUBLIC funds in attempt after attempt to force the gun makers out of business by causing them to expend huge amounts of their PRIVATE money to defend these frivolous, unwarranted and unconstitutional law suits is unconscionable. Those citizens, politicians and their lawyers who have championed this unAmerican tactic have generated distrust and contempt and thus dividing us further.
Let us all return to the Rule-of-Law, the sticking to the common language of our reason for becoming the greatest nation in the history of the world.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 19 January 2006)
|
Back to Top
Regardless of whether you believe the liberals have been too lenient or the conservatives have been too strict, we, undeniably, have produced far to many government dependent, criminal idolizing citizens who have failed to assimilate to the American way of life. Of course, many children are the product of their home environment, a home where their parent's parents were the victim of the Great Society programs of 30-40 years ago. These adults are, for all intents and purposes, lost. If we can concentrate on the youth of today, tomorrow will be a better place.
1) TEACHERS: Selected instructors will stay with a class for twelve years. In other words, a first grade teacher will continue to teach the same group of students every year until graduation at grade twelve. This way each child will have at least one long term responsible adult to identify with and relate to during his/her formative years. A teacher, as a role model for twelve years, should have a very positive effect on any child. Parents, and this special teacher, will become de facto partners in the development of a competent citizen.
Probably the most beneficial attribute of this program is that the special instructor will also be in the unique position of being able to monitor his or her students for signs of parental abuse or other problems by observing year to year changes. A child who develops negative attributes would be easier to spot if observed over a long period of time. Likewise, year-to-year counseling (befriending) would have a greater and more positive impact when applied for the long term.
Two significant changes might be necessary to implement this plan: One, the school districts will have to return to neighborhood schools and, two, teachers selected for this special 12 year commitment should receive extra incentives such as one full year off - with pay - for each 12 year stint.
It is envisioned, that over a period of years, the bonding between students and teacher would evolve into a friendship based relationship. And, what could be more beneficial to our children than to be friends with one of the most respected members of society - a teacher?
2) CURRICULUM: Homeroom class time - everyday - should include discussions of ethics, morals, manners and anger management. Graduation from Junior High will require a written dissertation, presented orally, on the definition of Right & Wrong and what it means to the student. For graduation from Middle School, the subject shall be Manners, and for High School, Ethics.
3) COMMUNITY SERVICE: All high school students will be required to do some form of neighborhood aid after regular school hours and/or on weekends. Even those involved in sports and other sanctioned after school events will have to pay their dues in service to their community.
Parent/teacher approved community service could entail such duties such as litter patrol, reading to the sick and elderly or even assisting their own parents in home/church beautification projects. Some schools have already been involved in such a program - but it needs to be expanded.
4) DISCIPLINE: The right and power to discipline must be legislatively returned to line educators with the student's right of appeal limited only to the school principal, i.e., students/parents cannot sue the school or it's employees over matters of discipline.
5) CONSEQUENCES: If discipline problems involve violence, drugs, non-attendance, or disrespect of faculty; Junior, Middle and Senior High students will be sent to a special disciplinary school for up to six months, as determined by the Principal.
DISCIPLINARY SCHOOL, LEVEL I: Students sent here will wear issued uniforms and will not be allowed any personal property while in the school. The school day will be extended in order to include intramural sports and classes in morals, manners, anger management and ethics. After the sentence has been successfully served, the student will be returned to the school from which he or she came. If discipline problems re-occur the student will be sent to Level II.
DISCIPLINARY SCHOOL LEVEL II: Students ordered here by a school principal will have a hearing before a Juvenile Court Referee prior to admission. Level II students will wear an issued uniform, will not be allowed any personal property, will participate in school functions 12 hours per day and all students shall reside on campus.
· Recreation and entertainment will be limited to mandatory intramural sports. Television will be limited to news and educational programs.
· Daily student contact with parent/guardian will be required, but weekends at home will be optional. Any other off-campus activity must be supervised by a staff member. Permanent exit can only be accomplished by the student reaching the age of 18 or receiving a high school diploma. The student who reaches the age of 18 without earning a high school diploma will be restricted, for ten years, from owning firearms. |
6) MILITARY SERVICE: All American citizens, within six months of graduating high school or exiting Level II Disciplinary School, shall begin service in the military for a period of not less than two years. Those who do not enlist will be drafted at the end of the six month exploratory term.
Requiring military service will not only strengthen our military presence, but will present a more mature class of work/college bound youths.
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 12 January 2006)
|
Back to Top
Too many times I find myself in discussions with another person where we both might be on the same page, but end up comparing apples to oranges. In most cases, the difficulty with verbal intercourse is due to either a misunderstanding or unfamiliarity of certain terms. Many words have more than one meaning, especially in the English language, lending more confusion to communication. Some organizations, such as our military, "coin" or write their own definitions of words to fit a particular situation. Used to be the goal of a soldier was to kill the enemy. Today, the military talks about "servicing the enemy." Does that mean kill? Injure? Wound? Change his oil?
COMMON LAW: Principles of law which are based on custom or judgements of courts rather than upon an enactment of written law. Though our nation is based on custom and historical decree, we are not a common-law nation - we are a statutory country whereas only conduct expressly forbidden by statute is punishable by law.
CONSERVATIVE: A person whose political thinking is to the right side of the political scale. Capitalistic. Conservatives lean toward viewing less government control as being better than more control. One who tends to believe in conserving or preserving established rules and traditions and one who believes that when change is needed, the proper procedures should be followed.
CONSTITUTION: Basic and underlying system of rules of which all other laws and behavior is judged. The supreme law. The rule of law.
CONSTITUTIONAL CORRECTNESS: Sometimes called Strict Constructionist. Persons, who believe in a rigid adherence to the rule-of-law. These citizens believe that if the majority of the citizens wish to act in contravention to a constitution, the only legitimate method for doing so is by amending this Constitution.
CRIME: An act which has been determined (by enactment of a law) to be injurious to the public. We are a statutory nation inasmuch as unless there is a law against a certain act, the act is not a crime. If the subject law is in violation of any constitutional provision, it is not a crime to violate that law.
DEMOCRACY: A nation that is governed by the concept of majority rules. In a true democracy the people decide all issues by whatever the majority wishes. Without any guiding provision, such as a constitution, the rules of conduct change as the majority of the population changes. If the majority is comprised of X persons, they can repress or control Y persons. If there is a shift in population where Y persons suddenly become the majority, then they are free to discriminate (retaliate with their vote) against X persons. America is not a democracy, it is a republic (see REPUBLIC and RULE OF LAW) where this discriminating practice is negated. Some American erroneously believe they can enact and enforce any law (anti-gun, school prayer, etc.) merely by garnering the majority of votes to pass these statutes, regardless of constitutional mandates.
INALIENABLE: (aka unalienable) Something that cannot be taken away. An intrinsic right such as the right to life and with it the right to use what tools (firearms) necessary to protect that right.
LAW: Rules, customs and practices a society has established to regulate and control the actions of its constituents. The "pecking order" is: Ordinances (city/village laws) are subordinate to statutes (state laws) which are under federal acts and laws. All of which must be in compliance with the Constitution (see Rule-of-law).
LIBERAL: A person on the left side of political beliefs. Socialistic. Considers more government control to be better than less control. Persons who view our Constitution as a guideline inasmuch as they believe it can be circumvented and molded to fit the POLITICAL CORRECTNESS du jour - as opposed to amending the Constitution.
LIBERTARIAN: A person who believes in full individual freedom and a very limited size and role of government. It has been said that a REPUBLICAN is one who was robbed last night; a DEMOCRAT is one who was arrested last night and a LIBERTARIAN is one who shot the person robbing him.
MALA IN SE: (Latin) Acts that are wrong in and of themselves - morally wrong. American's don't need a law to tell us that murder is wrong. Championing (voting) to pass laws that violate one's constitutional or INALIENABLE RIGHTS is MALA IN SE.
MALA PROHIBITA: (Latin) Acts that are wrong only because society says it's wrong. Parking your car in a no parking zone is only wrong because society, via laws, has deemed it so.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: A rhetorician, with a virtuosity complex, who ignores the rule of law to further a political agenda. A slang catechism meaning the most expedient thing to do regardless of legalities. For example, those who desire to restrict or control firearms by passing unconstitutional laws, will justify their position with the pseudo belief that their actions are (in their opinion) in the best interest of society. (see RULE-OF-LAW)
REPUBLIC: A nation operating under a RULE-OF-LAW where its citizens have the sole power to elect representatives to enforce the rule-of-law and conduct the nation's business to the best interest of its citizens - in accordance with a constitution. The difference between a true democracy (see DEMOCRACY) and a republic is in a democracy the majority rules, i.e., there is no controlling factors (constitutions) to hinder the will of the majority of the citizens or their representatives. In a republic, the citizens/representatives can only act in accordance within the established RULES-OF-LAW. Of course if the majority wishes to act in opposition to their own rule-of-law (a constitution), they must first change this RULE-OF-LAW/Constitution.
RIGHTS: aka privileges or immunities. That which belongs to a person by law, nature or tradition. Some rights have been established by law, edict, court decrees and constitutions. Others are intrinsic (see: INALIENABLE).
RULE-OF-LAW: An organization (including a nation) that has agreed to live (operate) by a set of pre-established rules or laws and that these codes take precedent over all else. The U.S. Constitution is our rule-of-law inasmuch as it is the set of laws to which all other laws, statutes, ordinances, court orders and executive edicts must conform. It doesn't always work to perfection as witness how the Judicial Branch forces its uncontested opinion of the law upon juries in direct conflict with the 6th Amendment (see Past Editorials Government Corruption with Solutions, Part 3 - 29 Dec 05).
© 2006 Chuck Klein
(Posted 5 January 2006)
|
Back to Top
There is a serious problem at the trial level of the judicial system. This problem stems, not so much from corruption in the common sense, but from arrogance - of a usurpation of power - of ignoring a constitutional mandate. The problem is in the form of a practice that has grown among the judiciary to reserve, exclusively to a trial judge, the power of judging the law.
Judges, officiate in criminal jury trials for the primary purpose of ensuring a fair trial. They are referees or umpires whose duties lie in making sure the playing field is level - not to pass judgement. Judgements are reserved to the jury. Juries decide facts, and when appropriate, judge the law as well.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
The 6th Amendment to the U.S. constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...." It doesn't say by a judge; it specifies an IMPARTIAL jury. A government employee, using his or her powerful position to 'charge' or 'instruct' a jury, is violating the 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A jury that has been subjected to this usurpation of power is no longer impartial - it has been influenced to the judge's uncontested bias.
Our Constitution, our rule-of-law, was written by laymen for laymen. No where in its articles or amendments is the judicial branch empowered to TELL a jury anything, much less how to apply a law. Some states, in open confrontation to the Constitution, have even gone so far as to require jurors to report fellow jurors who refuse to follow the law as directed by a Judge!
WHAT THEY DON'T TELL PERSPECTIVE JURORS:
During jury selection the prosecutor, or the judge, will always ask prospective jurors, "Will you swear to follow the judges instructions and apply the law as he gives it to you?" Those answering in the negative or with words to the effect: "I agree to follow all instructions, laws, rules and statutes if these instructions, laws, rules, and statutes are not in conflict with this state or our Federal Constitution," will be summarily dismissed.
Most first day jurors are required to view a very professionally produced 18 minute video tape: "CALLED TO SERVICE," a Federal Judicial Center Production. During which, the narrator says:
* "The accused's right to trial by jury is protected by the U.S. Constitution's Article III and the 7th Amendment." [There is no mention of the 6th Amendment.]
* "Judges decides all questions of law." [This is an assumed power - in direct violation of the 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments. When practiced, this is indicative of prime facie judicial misconduct.]
* "The jury is a panel that is made up of impartial jurors." [It is not possible to expect jurors to be impartial if the judge forces them to accept his opinion of the law.]
* "If anything is in conflict with what the judge says, jurors must follow the instructions of the Judge." [This is the scariest statement, i.e., if the facts of the case are clear to the jury that 'A' did it, but the judge instructs the jury to find that 'B' is the guilty party, are the jurors obligated to do so?]
* "During the judges charge or instructions to the jury, the judge will explain the law that you must follow." [That's because the judge doesn't think you're intelligent enough to figure out what the law says nor will he allow the representative attorneys to explain it to you.]
SOLUTIONS. See the following:
1) Creation of the Civil Crime of Corruption law which lowers the standard of proof required to reign in corrupt public officials. Please see Government Corruption and Solutions (Parts I and II) PAST EDITORIALS;
2) There is a nationwide move, J.A.I.L., to make judges more accountable for judicial misconduct. Please visit their web site: JAIL 4 JUDGES for additional information;
3) A full expose' on the subject: A Dirty Little Judicial Secret
© 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 29 December 2005)
|
Back to Top
|
CHRISTMAS
There Is No Other Day Like It
Christmas is an American National Holiday. It ALSO might be a religious holy day, or a holiday in other countries, but it is a de facto National American Holiday. To wish someone a Merry Christmas, doesn't necessarily mean that you wish them anything other than they have a happy 25th of December. Nor does it mean that you, if not a Christian, are accepting their beliefs or forsaking yours.
THE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS WISHES:
1) For a Christian to wish a non-Christian a merry Christmas is the epitome of what this special day is all about. The Christian is saying, "This is my special day and I wish that your day will be as wonderful as my day promises to be;"
2) Likewise, for a non-Christian to receive such a wish is a great compliment as in, here is a fellow American who is a G_d-fearing, decent, Judeo-Christian valued person who is wishing me a good day. Thank you;
3) When a non-Christian wishes a Christian a merry Christmas, he or she is saying, "I respect and honor your right to celebrate this day that stands for the good in mankind and our common values that make this country what it is. Oh yeah, and thanks for the day off."
My sisters and I grew up in a gentile neighborhood and attended a private school where we, and maybe two or three others, were Jewish. Some of my fondest memories are singing Christmas carols, including the religious ones. I still can, and do, sing along with "Oh Come All ye Faithful," "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" and others. Enjoying the songs, Santa Claus, Christmas decorations and trees didn't do us any harm. We enjoyed the "holiday" because our non-Jewish friends, in the true spirit of Christmas, shared their joy with us. Though the Lord's Prayer was recited everyday, it was evolution that was taught.
MY PERSONAL CHRISTMAS WISHES.
* To my Christian friends: I truly and sincerely wish that you have and enjoy a very merry Christmas.
* To my non-Christian friends: Please join me in honoring this day by reflecting on how fortunate we are to live in a country that not only allows us to choose and practice our own religion, but protects this right.
* To religious fundamentalists, be they Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, etc.: Please recognize that when you try to force your beliefs on others with guns, government sanctification or "majority rule" you're not exhibiting American values, merely, your own basic insecurities.
* Finally, to the little kids who are able to grasp Santa Claus and really don't understand religious matter: Enjoy. It's the only time in your life you will be happily conned and guilt and pressure free.
Next week, Making Judges accountable? © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 22 December 2005)
|
Back to Top
Last week proposed a new standard for dealing with corruption of elected and appointed government officials: The Civil Crime of Corruption. Today, in order to detect such activity with the lowest possibility of contamination; a watchdog organization, the Board of Licensed Investigative Reporters (BLIR), is hereby tendered.
Much has been written about allowing reporters to enjoy the privilege of shielding their confidential sources. However, unlike police, clergy and doctors, reporters are not licensed and thus have no one to answer to should they abuse this privilege. Therefore, the BLIR should be formed to license and monitor these special reporters, who must comply with the following privileges, immunities and rules:
1) In addition to other investigations, each licensee is obligated to investigate corruption of elected and appointed officials at all level of government;
2) All reporters licensed under BLIR shall have the unrestricted right to withhold confidential sources from anyone - except information relating to a future event that will cause death or great bodily harm to others;
3) Because we are dealing with corruption, these licensed reporters shall come under the same The Civil Crime of Corruption rules as elected and appointed government officials as laid out in last weeks blog ( Government Corruption with Solutions Part I);
4) Licensed reporters, or their employers, shall pay a set yearly fee for these privileges;
5) All licensed investigative reporters and their employers shall be immune from liable and slander judgements when acting within the scope of their duties.
Of course, there will always be the temptation to abuse this power for political and/or monetary gains, thus BLIR shall be made up of the most honored and trustworthy American citizens: Retired Police Officers. The following criteria for members of the Board of Licensed Investigative Reporters shall apply:
1) Officers must be retired with 15 or more years as a full-time certified police officer;
2) They shall have not less than five years at the rank Detective;
3) Their pay shall come exclusively from membership dues of the BLIR;
4) They shall be term limited to eight years;
5) The officers, in addition to their investigative duties, shall also issue periodic public reports on each licensed investigative reporter.
Yeah, I know this might seem extreme, but hey, we have to do something. My guess is, after a few years of this, the amount of corruption will be significantly reduced and the problem of downsizing the BLIR bureaucracy will become the problem. Next week, Making Judges accountable? © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 15 December 2005)
|
Back to Top
It has been said that a government career is comprised of four distinct phases: Idealism, Pragmatism, Ambition and Corruption. For some the slide takes decades, others a significantly shorter period.
Recently, a mix of these types, in the name of safety (Idealism), but in the Pragmatism of reality (increasing government revenues), have invented the Stop-Light camera. This unmanned device photographs the license plate of a vehicle that runs a red light. The government then mails a ticket to the person to whom the plate is registered - regardless of who's actually driving. Up until now a police officer, to get a conviction, had to "place you behind the wheel" at the time of this criminal offense. To get around this sticky issue, the government has classified stop-light-camera violations as a civil infraction and thus no jail time or "points" are attached to your driving record should you be caught by the camera. Therefore, the only penalty is monetary.
A civil crime requires a significantly lower standard of proof, i.e., only a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond-the-reasonable-doubt requirement of a criminal matter. In other words, they don't have to prove - beyond- a-reasonable-doubt - that you were driving the car, just the preponderance of the evidence that you were most likely the driver of the vehicle. Think the O.J. case, where he was found not guilty in criminal court, but found responsible in the civil suit filed by the victim's family and had to pay big money. In the stop-light-camera incident, for all intents and purposes, the burden of proof will be on you to prove that you were NOT driving the vehicle, i.e., to beat the rap you'll have to produce the actual driver or evidence that you couldn't have been the driver.
Perhaps, we can apply this same analogy to those who make the laws. Local, state and federal statutes against corruption, such as lying, cheating and stealing, should be amended to create a Civil Crime of Corruption. Therefore, instead of expending huge resources to prove a criminal corruption case against a government official to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, we create the Civil Crime of Corruption. This new crime would, as in the stop-light-camera, require a much lower level of proof. Of course, those found guilty of the Civil Crime of Corruption can't be jailed, but we can fine them and prevent them from ever receiving government funds (employment, grants, etc.) again.
To facilitate catching these violators we, the people, need a "stop-light-camera," to wit:
1) All elected and politically appointed officials shall be required to post on the Web their tax return and that of their spouses, if filing separately, while they are in office and for three years thereafter.
2) All elected and politically appointed officials shall be required to post on the Web a daily account of where they were and who they were with.
3) Those charged under the Civil Crime of Corruption shall be required to submit to a polygraph test (lie detector tests have not generally been allowed in criminal proceedings, but are acceptable in civil cases).
4) Establish an Investigative Reporter.... See next week's blog. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 8 December 2005)
|
Back to Top
|
RHETORICAL BIBICAL QUESTIONS
Part II (continued from 17 Nov 05)
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE ONE IN THE SAME INASMUCH AS WE ALL SHARE AND BELIEVE:
There is only one G_d and he is all-knowing and all-powerful. Other peoples, Buddhist, for example, have their G_d. Are they worshiping the "wrong" G_d? Or, are we? Is there more than one G_d for inhabitants of this planet?
The Old Testament of the Bible and all that it contains: In the very beginning, it says that G_d made Adam and Eve and that they had three sons. Two of these three men proceeded to produce many children. Where did their wives come from? It doesn't say G_d DID or DIDN'T make other people or that Eve produced other children - female(s), of which at least one (a sister) married Cain and Seth? Or, were the "other people," Canaanites and/or other races and/or on other continents? If our G_d did make other people, did these people also have a Garden of Eden and did they eat the forbidden fruit? If they didn't have such a garden, were they a lessor or better people? If there were other people, did they have a G_d who made them in his image?
Semantics and The Ten Commandments. The 6th Commandment has a major difference of agreement between the Jew's Torah and the King James (and other) versions. In the Torah, the Commandment is not to commit murder while in non-Jewish bibles, it is written "Thou shalt not kill." This significant difference can be attributed to interpretation and/or the result of copying the bible (early verbal or later print versions) from one language to another.
The bible is a historical accounting of the human race as we know it. Its history was passed - verbally - human to human for thousands of years before the first printing press recorded these stories. The people living and passing these events along did not have a dictionary and thus the meaning of words could have changed over time. The question is: What other meanings and events have been changed due to semantics, re-telling inaccuracies or to adjust for the "political correctness" of the times?
Regardless, Kill/Murder seems to be not only committed by G_d himself (killed people who were gluttonous, Numbers 11:33,34) but he ordered Moses to have his followers "...kill every male" Midianite (Numbers 31:7). What does this say about living the Ten Commandments today? Are they commandments or merely suggestions? Under what circumstances are we mortals permitted to kill? To murder?
Throughout the world today Christians and Jews are the epitome of decent, law-abiding, productive citizens. And as such, we have raised the moral, ethical and living standards of all peoples. Is raising the standard of living something we should be proud of when it creates pollution and wars over finite resources? Is the world over-populated and dying in its own pollution because we have learned to live longer, waste more and not control our population? Or, is the globe dying because we have become so jaded and unethical, that we promote and condone abortion on demand? Are there any exceptions, i.e., any form of birth control, to G_d's command to "Be fruitful and multiply...." (Genesis 1:28)? Or, are we to over-populate the world to the extent that we suffocate in our own pollution or die of lack of food?
Biblical History & Science: One of the usual sticking points is the declaration by the "scientific community" that the earth is millions of years old and thus the claim that the bible dates our globe at 5766 years old (in 2005 c.e.) is wrong. As so interestingly pointed out in the 1960 movie, "Inherit the Wind," the earth was created BEFORE the sun, thus the first "day" - without a sun to measure the length of the day - could have been millions of years long. Perhaps there were other G_ds that produced people, plants and certain animals long before the G_d of Abraham made the sun and Adam and Eve. Maybe the other G_d's source of light failed and the G_d of Abraham stepped forward to make the sun along with his race of people?
The Promised Land?
When Moses leads his people to the "Promised Land," he is under G_d's orders to take this land from those who are living there, the Canaanites. What about these Canaanites, don't they have the right to this land? Are today's Palestinians the descendants of the Canaanites? What does this say about a G_d who hands down a set of commandments forbidding murder and demanding "Thou shalt not covet..." and then orders the taking of an entire country?
Christians and Jews are under a threat of annihilation by another group of people who do not pray to our G_d. They pray to Allah. Is Allah really a G_d? If so, is Allah and our G_d using us to fight their war? Is there a G_d called Buddah? If so, where does he figure in?
© 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 1 December 2005)
|
Back to Top
SIMILARITIES, DIFFERENCES & HISTORY
PREFACE: Because of recent threats from a nonJuedo-Christian religion and the proliferation of inter-faith marriages, with the following introduction of spiritual teachings to the next generation, a brief comparison of Jews and Christians is being tendered.
A) SIMILARITIES OF THE TWO RELIGIONS. Jews and Christians are one in the same inasmuch as we all share and believe:
1) There is only one G_d and he is all-knowing and all-powerful.
2) The Old Testament of the Bible and all that it contains:
a) The Ten Commandments. These Judeo-Christian Values: Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, Thou Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, etc., found in the Ten Commandments, is the basis for our common moral and ethical aspirations;
b) The concept of reward and punishment both on earth and in the hereafter;
c) We both have symbols and watch words - words we live/pray by - Holy Words;
CHRISTIANS. Symbol: The Cross.
Words: "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost)."
JEWS. Symbol: Star of David.
Words: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, The Lord is one."
3) Throughout the world today Christians and Jews are the epitome of decent, law-abiding, productive citizens. And as such, we have raised the moral, ethical and living standards of all peoples.
B) BIBLICAL HISTORY:
We are all descended from Abraham, the first Jew, who lived in Canaan (modern day Israel).
G_d makes a covenant with Abraham, that if his male descendants are circumcised, these descendants shall inherit the land of Canaan and G_d shall be their G_d.
Isaac, Abraham's son, marries Rebekah and they have twin boys: Esau and Jacob. G_d renames Jacob, ISRAEL. When Jews say the Holy Words, "Hear, O Israel...." they are not referring to the country Israel, per se, but to all those who are descendants of (seed of) Jacob/Israel - all Jews.
Jacob/Israel has a son, Joseph, who is sold by his brothers to Egypt. G_d comes to him and gives him the power to interpret dreams. He is called to interpret the King of Egypt, Pharo's, dreams. Joseph tells of seven years of plenty to be followed by seven years of famine. He is put in charge of hording food and when the famine comes he is able to not only save Egypt, but his family and his fellow Jews; all of whom came to Egypt from Canaan/Israel when they ran out of food. Joseph ignored the opportunity for revenge against the people who had forsaken him by including them in the distribution of the horded food. [Was this not the first example of turn-the-other-cheek moral, ethical and charitable behavior?] Now, however, all the Jews are in Egypt and become enslaved by the Pharo.
Between 1500 and 1000 years before the birth of Jesus, Moses, an Egyptian Jewish slave leads his people out of Egypt when G_d parts the Red Sea to allow them to escape. They wander the desert for 40 years during which time Moses receives the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. He then leads his people to the Jordan River where, as promised, all, except Moses, enter the Land of Milk and Honey - their homeland, Canaan/Israel, as promised by G_d to Abraham.
Jacob/Israel also had a son named Juda. Fourteen generations later (over 1000 years), Juda's descendent is Joseph, the husband of Mary (mother of Jesus). In a dream, Joseph is visited by an angel who tells him that the Holy Ghost has conceived, in Mary, a son whose name will be Jesus and he shall save his people from their sins.
As Jesus grows into manhood, he labors as a carpenter until the age of 30 when he is Baptized by John the Baptist. Jesus then began to preach and some, though not the majority of the Jews, followed him and his teachings. At about the age of 34, the Romans, who controlled most of the known world and were not Jewish and were not followers of him, feared he would become more powerful than they, so they killed him. Jesus is risen from the dead, ascends to Heaven and then appears to his disciples telling them to go forth and preach the gospel.
Though many followed Jesus during his life, the word of his being the Son of G_d spread and many, many more became believers after his death. Those who accepted his teachings became Christians and, eventually, even the very people who had murdered him, the Romans, became followers.
C) SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEWS AND CHRISTIANS:
1) Christians believe the Messiah has already come to earth (Jesus Christ). Whereas the Jews believe he is yet to come. Jews don't deny there was such a person as Jesus - a Jewish man - it's just that Jews don't believe that he was the Messiah. This difference may be insignificant because the Christians believe Jesus will return and, when he does, he may then be accepted as the Messiah by all (since no one knows what he looks like).
2) Jews only accept the Old Testament (Genesis thru Malachi) portion of the bible, which includes the first five books called: The Torah. Christians, in addition to the Old Testament, believe the New Testament (St. Matthew thru Revelation) is part of the Bible.
D) WHAT/WHO ARE WE?
1) A Jew is anyone who is born of a Jewish mother or father or one who has acknowledged that they are a Jew. A Jew is one who believes in the historical teachings of the Jewish people, that the Messiah is coming and the State of Israel is their homeland as promised by G_d to Abraham.
2) A Christian is a person professing belief in Jesus as the Messiah and one who also believes in and accepts his teachings.
E) PERSECUTION:
None of us are perfect. All humans, individually or in groups - from the Garden of Eden to today - have, at times, failed our fellow man. Surely, where Jews and Christians are concerned better efforts could have been made to live up to the Ten Commandants. For example: The Jews might have united behind Jesus and protected him from the Romans - whether they believed him to be the Messiah or not. The Christians could have been a better model than what was exhibited during The Inquisition. If we are to survive as a people we must all learn from past unJudeo-Christian behavior.
Though both religions have experienced their share of persecution, today they share a common threat. Christians and Jews must be united in their efforts to protect themselves against another religious group that has made it clear that they intend to destroy us by converting us to their faith or by killing us. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 17 November 2005)
|
Back to Top
ODD: It seems VP, Dick Cheney, has been asking Republican law makers for support on allowing the CIA to be exempt from any legislation barring "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners when the President believes it necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. Without getting into the matters of ethics, morals or even legalities, the reality is that the President - if he would have to order such "treatment" - would be getting his information from this agency. The CIA is the same gang, that while using identical tactics all along, failed to learn in advance of the fall of the USSR, the Berlin Wall and the 9/11 attack. Scary!
ENDS: It seems the President has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material. Hmm, wonder how they will address the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners issue? Either the President and the VP should attend these classes or the definition of "cruel, inhumane or degrading" will have to be changed. Of course, the real solution might be to just dump the CIA and assign all internal and external espionage to the FBI . . . no wait, weren't these the guys who brought us Waco and Ruby Ridge?
ODD: France, the great stalwart of humanity, the nation that chided us for attacking Iraq and supporting Israel, has somehow been experiencing massive riots. How can it be that these holier-than-thou people have been suffering widespread urban insurrection by the very people they welcomed with open arms - Muslims. Of course these religious zealots could continue to populate France (it's estimated they're 10% of the population now) until they take control by legal vote, but that would be out of character for these violence preaching fundamentalists. Somehow, as the French get their comeuppance, I can't muster any sympathy.
END: On the same subject of immigration, most other countries of Europe are enacting and enforcing strict immigration policies including tight borders, requiring new-comers to learn the local language and have sufficient funds in the bank to ensure they will not become a burden to the natives. Is there a lesson here America?
ODD: The EPA has been awful quiet over the recent Gulf Coast hurricane clean-up. Where's all the ordinary household pollutants such as motor oil, paint cans, pesticides, bleach, tires, etc. that are found in every household - not to mention industrial chemicals from retail, wholesale or manufacturing plants - going? In the name of expediency, is all this "stuff" just being dumped into some swamp where it will leach into streams, rivers, oceans and aquifers? © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 10 November 2005)
|
Back to Top
The recently released George Clooney film, "Good Night, and Good Luck," is significant not so much for its good acting, directing, editing and historical accuracy, but for the ignoring of sovereign reality. The story is about the heroic stand Edward R. Murrow and CBS news took to challenge the abuse of power of U.S. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's hunt for communist in America (circa 1954).
Murrow, one of the early TV news anchors, hosted a half hour program where he reported the news of the day. But, he also slanted his reporting with editorial commentary - at least where it related to actions of the Senator's committee. Though Murrow was told by the head of CBS, "we report the news, not make it," his assault on McCarthy, nonetheless, was condoned at the highest levels. And, even though President Eisenhower was shown delivering a patriotic speach at the end of the movie, the cold fact remains that he and his administration were silent during McCarthy's reign. As a result of Murrow's stand, others in the news media jumped on his bandwagon and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin was eventually silenced. Is this is an example of two wrongs making a right?
Though today's news anchors are not as blatant as Murrow was they are out of the same mold, especially CBS and ABC. These networks have mastered imparting a subtle spin on subjects they wish to twist. I have some expertise in firearms and thus can easily pick out the negative slant these networks put on that subject every time they address it. This leads me to wonder what other "news" are they tainting? (at least, going in, we know CCN is as liberal as Fox is conservative).
A few questions come to mind: What if there had never been a Joseph McCarthy? Sans his witch hunt, what impact would unchecked proliferation of communist influence on our government, news and film making entities had on America? Would we have won the Cold War? If not for McCarthy, would the Communist Party be a powerful political force and would they be a major factor, if not in control of America today? I'm not condoning or condemning McCarthy's tactics, because on very rare and momentous occasions the ends sometimes might justify the means.
Some say that President George W. Bush abused his powers by ignoring, spinning and twisting certain facts to justify attacking and occupying Iraq. Maybe. But, the Congress went along with him and none have called for his impeachment or championed an official reversal of policy. Perhaps they believe GWB's simple statement, "We can fight them here, or we can fight them on their shores." It's clear, so far, that we have duped the Islamic fundamentalist into expending all of their resources to engage our trained and equipped troops into fighting over there rather than over here.
Today's questions: Would we be fighting an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency on this continent had GWB not attacked Iraq? Was there a conspiracy - a case of sovereign reality - by the FBI, CIA, military intelligence, Congress and the President to ignore and cover up the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Surely, without the WMD ploy the American people, not to mention world opinion, would never have stood for invading a country that was not a real and direct threat to us. Especially if the sole purpose of engaging the enemy any place other than our shores was at the cost of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We will never know if McCarthy's vendetta kept America free of Communist control, just like we may never know if Bush's snookering the enemy saved more American lives than it cost . . . or if FDR knew of Pearl Harbor in advance. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 27 October 2005)
|
Back to Top
Questions that usually begin with, "I heard" or "I understand," or questions that are inappropriate, embarrassing to you and/or are none of the questioner's business can sometimes prove difficult to deal with. I've always found the best way handle such inquisitions is, first wait a few seconds to gather your thoughts and then answer the question with a question.
Inquiries that are based on rumor, innuendo or untruths might best be handled with the question: "Where did you hear this?" Or: "What prompted this question?" Once that information has been obtained or refused, your next response might be: "In this state [pause for effect, and then say] slander is punishable by law." This reply not only puts the offender on notice that he or she could be sued for slander (a spoken statement, in the presence of another, of a false statement or statements that are damaging to a person's character or reputation), but it stops the subject matter from being perpetuated without your having to admit or deny the veracity of the information.
If you're unsure of the inquisitor's motive, simply say: "Why do you ask?" This might allow you to gain information that you might not otherwise be privy to. If the answer to your question is to the effect, "Just curious," a reply of "not a sufficient answer," again, puts the onus back on the inquisitor. If the question is one you don't wish to answer because it is none of the person's business, or could put you at a disadvantage, simply say: "I can't (or won't) comment at this time [stop, or pause, and say], but I will provide an answer when I believe you have a need to know."
To keep matters from escalating or generating hard feelings always speak with a smile on your face. If a questioner has the audacity to rephrase the question or demand an answer, your next comment could be a light and friendly response to the effect: "Tell you what. I'll make you a deal. You can ask me any question you want, as long as I have the right to refuse to answer any question I want." If this still doesn't register; wipe the smile off your face and look the person in the eye while saying: "The subject is closed."
One exception to these rules are personal questions (health, marital, family, etc.) asked by very close friends that you do not wish to answer. To them, simply reply: "It's too painful to talk about, now. Could we discuss something else?" And then ask them a question or bring up a new subject.
One final word: When alone in your car or other private place, practice standardizing replies for responding to boors. Hey, these tactics, most of which I've learned for seasoned business executives, police officers and detectives, have worked for me. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 20 October 2005)
|
Back to Top
O.J. Simpson has been in the news lately due to it being the 10th anniversary of his acquittal of criminal charges for the murder of two innocent persons. Though he was found not guilty of the crimes against his former wife and a delivery person, he WAS found responsible, in civil court, for slashing these two to death. Note that the significant event hyped is his acquittal - not the heinous crime itself. Ain't that America.
The media and the Jesse Jackson's of the world have always insisted that the police doctored the evidence because The Juice was black and his victims were white. There is little doubt that the cops did taint the crime scene, but the real reason why they did it - has nothing to do with race.
My experience in the police world, coupled with observations and correspondence with police officers, is that the LADP was trying to avoid the embarrassment of a not guilty verdict. They were worried - even though they had a good case against him - that he would obtain powerful attorneys who might be successful in having some of the evidence tossed out. Therefore, they desired to make this good case better by "enhancing" the evidence. Also, knowing that their main suspect was a high profile figure and the trial would draw a lot of media attention, a loss in court would not only cause the police to lose face, but they might be suspected of racial motives in charging O.J. in the first place. These weren't beat cops. These were detectives and ranking officers that conspired to make sure the guilty person was punished. This, of course, is not the function of the LAPD or any other police agency.
The larger the agency and the higher up the police hierarchy you go, the less demographics becomes a factor and the more politics, covering your backside and saving face become the driving force for criminal investigations.
Though there will always be crooked cops, there are far too many American police departments that condone and/or practice unethical tactics on a regular basis. One example: Statistics kept by police agencies sometimes are "adjusted" to yield targeted results. Suppose the cops want to demonstrate that their policing efforts are reducing robberies. One way is to change the reports (or method of reporting) of a Robbery to the crime of Theft (when no shots were fired). Or, of course, if the police wish to show that robbery is increasing, they do the reverse and then whine to the politicians that they now need more officers/guns/radios/whatever to combat the "statistically proven" increase in crime.
SOLUTION: Require police officers, including ranking officers, to submit to periodic polygraph tests - conducted by a non-police affiliated agency and under the control of elected officials.
© 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 13 October 2005)
|
Back to Top
Whose right is it? Yours to stay during a hurricane or other emergency condition, or the government's to force you to leave a place you own or control (business) and have every legal right to be in?
To some it might seem simple, e.g., if there is a threat to you of imminent death or great bodily harm the government should have the right under emergency conditions to remove you, forcibly, if necessary. But, who defines "emergency conditions" and "imminent." Further, if the government has this right, do they also have the right to confiscate your guns (to keep them from being stolen by looters?) and/or demand you come with them unarmed?
On its face, it would appear that it would be to your advantage if everyone was evacuated and placed in a gun-free zone. Of course, "everyone" includes criminals and thugs and if you are aged, frail, of slight build or in anyway vulnerable to attacks by younger, stronger thugs then you, sans guns, are in a de facto self-defense free zone. Suppose your guns are a collection that is highly prized and valuable and tossing them into a box/bag/bin with other's guns will result in significant loss of value (assuming you are ever able to reclaim them after the "emergency conditions" have abated).
It should be clear where I'm headed with this - the government, under the 4th Amendment (and other constitutional restraints), has no right to take your property without due process. Nor do they have the right to force you to leave for-your-own-good.
However, what if by your staying includes your insistence that your minor children or others you have legal custodial power over, also stay with you? Should the government have the power to remove a 17 year-old physically strong son - a person you are counting on to help secure and protect yourself and the property? Suppose the 17 year-old, the one you forced to stay, is killed as a result of the "emergency conditions," are you then subject to child endangering or other felony crimes?
Obviously, this a complex issue and one that is basically unprecedented. Recently, during Hurricane Katrina, some police agencies in New Orleans did confiscate firearms from some persons who were legally in possession of them. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation sought, and was granted, a temporary restraining order from the Federal District Court to restrain the police from continuing this practice until it is adjudicated by the court. This case might resolve one issue or part of one issue. But what about the other matters?
Of the few court cases over forced evacuations brought by survivors, have all came to naught ( Waco/Branch Davidians and FBI sniper/Ruby Ridge). The lesson is, government agents are given the benefit of the doubt - even when there is no doubt, because they will be judged by other government agents, i.e., members of the judiciary branch. Additionally, it is well established in the courts that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. In other words, if they evacuate you, you're still on your own to provide self protection - only now you'll be without any means (weapons) to do so.
My suggestion: Establish that you are a prudent person (are prepared for such emergencies, i.e., have water, food, weapons, plans, etc.) Then, if in your opinion, your life and the lives of those under your control are safer where you are or where you can transport everyone; resist offers by any government agency to evacuate you - especially if you are prevented from taking your weapons (the only exception is if under martial law). There's lots worse things than dying, one might be living under tyranny. Another might be, knowing you and/or your family will be placed in an area where they will be unarmed and subject to rape, death or torture at the hands of thugs. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 29 September 2005)
|
Back to Top
|
|
Memorial, Veterans and Independence;
Are American tear producing days;
When we honor our soldiers;
Past and present.
We are so blessed;
To have such patriotic citizens;
Who have unselfishly "served" this country;
So many times.
But right here on our soil;
And in highly visible positions;
Are others who "serve;"
this great nation.
Everyday our first line of defense;
Our police officers and firefighters;
Unflinchingly "serve" at risks that cost some;
Their livelihood, and lives.
There are, of course;
Far more who "serve" America and Americans;
In monetary ways.
Fellow citizen-members;
Of the many "service" organizations;
Such as Kiwanis, Lions, Elks;
And countless other philanthropic groups
Regularly contribute;
To our common good.
Complementing these benevolent associations;
Is a multitude of unorganized volunteers;
Who quietly "serve" at hospitals, libraries and the vast number of eclectic, charitable fund-raisers.
|
America is unique;
Inasmuch as this cadre of unpaid citizens;
Take such good care of each other;
That the impersonal socialization;
Found in other countries;
Is not needed here.
The over-whelming majority of Americans;
Are decent, law-abiding citizens;
Who also "serve" their country;
By challenging unjust rules, standing up to wrong-doers;
Or facing down bullies.
Our political leaders have "served" us well;
By keeping war far from these shores.
It is, however, the soldiers;
In time of combat;
Who must "serve" with their lives.
But there are worse destinies;
Than being killed by the enemy;
One is;
Living under a tyrannical despot.
If warfare ever threatens our front door;
There should be no doubt that our neighbors;
The ones who keep and bear arms;
Will stand back-to-back and shoulder-to-shoulder;
To tender their "service."
May God bless America;
And every American where ever they may be;
And in whatever capacity;
They may "serve."
© 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 22 September 2005)
|
Back to Top
GENERAL WELFARE
Attention teachers, members of the
media - special attention, President Bush.
POP QUIZ. Which of the following is the correct answer to the question: Where, under our Constitution, is the mandate for the Federal Government to feed, clothe, evacuate, repair and/or provide money to victims of natural or other disasters?
a) Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress).
b) Article II, Section 2 (Presidential Powers).
c) Amendment XIV, Section 4 (Public Debt).
d) None of the above.
If you selected (d), go to the head of the class. It is NOT a function of the federal government to respond to natural or other disasters with food, water, shelter, evacuation, etc. No where in the Constitution is it allowed, much less required, that federal money (taxes) or employees (military troops, et al) be used to "help" victims of disasters such as witnessed in the recent Gulf States calamity. Other than providing troops to maintain law and order, under martial law, there is no justification or expectation that our federal tax money be utilized for offering $2000 debit cards, transportation, direct payments to victims of 9-11 or anything of like value.
I'm outraged, not shocked or surprised, just angry that the media - and our President - has shown such ignorance during a time of catastrophe. The lessons learned by the younger set (to expect the government to "take care of them") will not be lost and this is the real American tragedy.
The Preamble to the Constitution mentions "General Welfare" as a goal of forming a more perfect union. The Constitution then spells out exactly what powers, duties and controls this "more perfect union" has in attaining these goals. There is no empowerment, obligation or requirement mentioned in this, our rule of law, to feed, clothe, evacuate and/or conduct any other "general" much less specific welfare.
If the good people of America wish for its funds to be spent in such a way perhaps it is time to consider a constitutional amendment to cover these acts. But, until then, it is the sole responsibility of the individual states (see 10th Amendment) to decide if and how they wish to protect and care for their citizens. If you live in a state, or one of its political subdivisions, that is so incompetent as to leave you stranded during a catastrophic event (for example: school buses left standing), perhaps it's time to move or replace your elected officials - but your misfortune it is not the fault or obligation of the federal government. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 15 September 2005)
|
Back to Top
Last week I observed the consequences, given today's technology, of remaining a reactive nation - where our moral and ethical Judeo-Christian values have always required us to wait until we, or our allies, were attacked before taking punitive action (see below: Worst Case Scenario, 2 Sep 05).
PREFACE: We've maintained open borders, shared our wealth and ingenuity with the world under the false belief that other nations would take our lead and try to emulate us. This liberal, century-long experiment has failed. The oil producing countries used us to find and show them how to extract the oil, after which they formed cartels to demand exorbitant prices, thus wreaking havoc with our economy. China has enjoyed our universities and studied our manufacturing processes so they could produce the same goods, using slave labor, thus putting our citizens out of work. Now they mass an army and navy while building nuclear bombs as they threaten economic (buying up oil companies) and violent expansionism (Taiwan). Therefore, it is imperative that: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish …." these
SOLUTIONS:
Under powers of the Constitution's General Welfare Clause:
1) Bring home all troops from outside the USA and deploy them to seal our borders;
2) Establish auxiliary police units and firearms training at the senior high school level as our second line of defense, lest we be invaded;
3) Require all 18 year olds to spend one year doing manual labor (such as replacing the illegal migrant workers that have been coming from Mexico) and then spend a minimum of one year in the military service (this way they will be more mature when they enter college or the work force);
4) Begin rebuilding our railroads for passenger travel and greater freight traffic - restrict truck deliveries to 100 miles;
5) Begin drilling for oil in Alaska and off-shore California and construct more coal and nuclear power plants;
6) Notify all oil producing countries that have enjoyed our expertise in finding and extracting their oil, that the price of oil - to us - is $20/bbl (If they balk, see Solutions to the Solution below).
DRAFT AND PASS: A New Constitutional Amendment to require/allow:
1) All persons convicted of their third felony crime shall be deported to a country that hates us. (If the target country refuses these criminals, see Solutions to the Solution below);
2) Expel from the United States and its territories all Muslims, non-American Chinese and non-American Mexican citizens, commandeer all property and businesses they own;
3) Re-establish America as a country based on Judeo-Christian values with freedom of peace-loving religion for all and where English is the official language;
4) Forbid all trade with any country that subsidizes exported goods or doesn't actively pursue our enemies or enemies of our allies.
SOLUTION TO THE SOLUTIONS:
OPTION CHINA: The forgoing "Solutions" might bring unintended consequences such as a ramped up time-table for an assault from China either directly or via suit-case nuclear bombs as noted in Past Editorial (2 Sept 05). Therefore, to make sure there is no misunderstanding that America will not be subject to attack WE MUST LAUNCH A PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE ON A MILITARY TARGET IN CHINA. This will serve notice that they, and other aggressive nations, must immediately destroy their nuclear weapons, cease any and all expansionism plans and return to pre-2000 levels of oil importation. If, within 30 days they have not complied to our satisfaction, launch additional ICBMs.
OPTION IRAN: Obliterate Iran while sending formal messages to China, India and other aggressive nations that they are to immediately destroy their nuclear weapons, cease any and all expansionism plans and to return to pre-2000 levels of oil importation. The danger in this option is that China, the only country (currently) with the means to launch a retaliatory strike and without having suffered any loss, will be in a better position to attack us. On the other hand, not having suffered any loss, they might be more inclined to enter a prolonged "cold war."
POST SCRIPT: No two wars are ever the same. By adjusting to the times, America for the past 100 years has managed to survive all six wars. Since WW I we have gone from trench warfare with machine guns and poison gas, to conventional fare with airplanes and submarines, to the Korean/cold war with stalemates and amassing nuclear weapons. In the 1960s we adjusted to jungle war with carpet bombing and Agent Orange followed by desert war with smart bombs then to a terrorist/insurgents war with suicide bombers to…what now must become a nuclear pre-emptive war.
If we fail to take strong, massive and violent action in a timely manner, a book will be published, titled: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire - in Chinese. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 8 September 2005)
|
Back to Top
Note: This treatise was published in the Ft. Fairfield [Maine] Journal, 12 Oct 05
Far too many people are fixating on the Iraq/Islamic-terrorists war. Though this is a serious SHORT TERM issue, we have it well at hand (see below: Israel - American Defense Plans, 26 Aug 05). The real worry for the long term, 10 +/- years is China/India/Japan, but mostly China.
China/India/Japan have decided they too, want the good life and are striving to become more consumer oriented. This, in a word, means greater consumption of OIL - and there ain't enough to go around. Their demands for fossil fuel are most worrisome, especially China 'cuz they're actively and significantly increasing the size and modernization of their army and navy. If they can't buy enough oil companies, they'll be forced to take them.
Probable outcome - worst case scenario - China (because they have the means, motive and opportunity) will (or have) ship(ped) a dozen or so nuclear bombs, via containerized shipping container, to select businesses (empty warehouses) they own in strategic locations in the USA and other nations they perceive as threats. These Trojan Horse bombs, set to explode simultaneously, will have the effect of establishing China as the de facto world leader. And, more importantly, this assault will reduce demand for oil by these devastated countries. The beauty of such a plan is that the victims will not have any way of knowing who launched it and thus retaliation, if possible, is not an option, especially if China also claims to have been attacked. The invasion will be focused on our "bread basket." They don't need anything else.
These hidden bombs may already be in place and there's nothing we can do about it! Of course, they don't have to explode them all at once - just one with the warning that there are a dozen more hidden would be enough to cause our capitulation. Okay, so maybe we should start inspecting inbound shipping containers. Of course, if our enemies used "suitcase" nuclear bombs placed on the upper floor of rented downtown office buildings - set to go off by remote, timer or motion detector.... Next week: Solutions plus the solution to the solution. Have your own solutions? Send 'em. © 2005 Chuck Klein
(Posted 2 September 2005)
|
Back to Top
The Israeli people are, once again, setting the standard. Those being ousted from their homes in Gaza are complying with their duty, albeit with non-violent protests, to their duly elected leaders. The old war horse, Sharon, is a tactician of the first class and is certainly no fool. His unilateral withdrawal is surely not sans a long range plan. He could be setting the Palestinians up - expecting them to increase attacks when they perceive, wrongly so as they have in the past, that Israel is showing a weakness. Then, when the Palestinians do escalate, Sharon will have the right to retaliate with enough force to garner additional land.
Although those Americans who champion for troop withdrawal from Iraq have every right to do so, they are failing to comprehend the reasons we're there in the first place. Unlike Israel, our leader GWB, spelled out the reasons for the war and it's location. 1) GWB stated America will go after terrorists AND the countries that harbor them. 2) If we don't fight them "over-there" we will surely fight them here.
GWB is correct on both counts: 1) Iraq was harboring terrorists (supplying arms and money to Palestinians in their illegal and unwarranted assaults on Israel, and 2) The terrain in Iraq is a better place to wage war than the mountains of Afghanistan - much less the USA. The Islamic terrorists have been snookered into expending all of their resources in attacking our trained troops rather than sending their suicide bombers over here to strike at our civilians. The goal of establishing a democracy in Iraq is a pretext and our troops must remain there until the insurgents figure it out. (Posted 26 August 2005)
|
Back to Top
POLITICAL CORRUPTION:
Recently, the sitting Governor of Ohio, Republican Robert Taft, plead no-contest and was convicted of numerous misdemeanor crimes (Cincinnati Enquirer front page story). The good news is, none of the crimes for which the Governor was convicted were felonies. The bad news is, he committed crimes while in office - doing things, such as, in Taft's case, playing golf (and not reporting the gift) while he should have been tending to state business. The really bad news is, he's no different than far too many other politicians - Republicans as well as Democrats - "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton, 1887). The solution? Much swifter and stiffer punishment for those caught lying, cheating or stealing. Unless the consequences are significant, for example, impeachment and loss of retirement benefits, government officials, elected and appointed, will continue to line their own pockets, scratch their fellow bureaucrats backs and favor their friends.
|
Back to Top
RACE ISSUE:
Recently, a speaker for the National Council for Community Justice (NCCJ), in response to a question from the audience, confirmed that: "[the] NCCJ is more about adjusting the attitudes of the majority than helping the minorities to assimilate." In a follow-up e-mail this speaker went on to say: "Why haven't all Blacks "assimilated" yet? We're all operating in an invisible and self-perpetuating system of norms and practices based on the dominant group." Yeah, that's right - that's what makes America the melting/melding pot and is the reason for its greatness. I find their position to be counter-productive to being an American. The full e-mail correspondence between this speaker and me is available on request. (Posted 1 August 2005) For more on this subject, please see my Enquirer article, "The Race Issue"
|
Back to Top
|