Law, Politics, Uncategorized

Ford vs Kavanaugh

In the United States justice system, it is held that when a person testifies, they are speaking the truth under oath.  Truth doesn’t change.  It doesn’t morph over time.  It simply exists.  It is truth.  Now, a person’s memory of the truth may change, their understanding of the truth may change, their personal feelings about the truth may change, but the truth never changes.

When, after decades of time has passed, and a person wishes to impugn another person’s reputation or worth for an act committed so long ago, there are laws governing how long such accusations can be entertained by the courts because people’s memories, understanding, and personal feelings can change over time.  One of the very few acts a person can commit that is against the law and has no statute of limitations for bringing them up on charges, regardless of length of time passed, is murder.  Obviously, a victim of murder cannot recover from it, nor can society because that individual has been removed from the societal environment.  Most crimes do not cause such a loss and can, with time, be healed.

The reasons for this are obvious.  Society doesn’t want to destroy or harm a person’s reputation, community standing, family, ability to earn a livelihood, or subject them to possible threat or harm after years of being productive and harmless in the community.  Also, there is the cost of investigating and prosecuting for something that was either an aberration, had too little or no evidence to support the claim, or never actually occurred, so it wasn’t addressed all those years before.  In short, the person who may be accused isn’t and hasn’t been a danger to the community for so long, it would be pointless and not worth the money to prosecute them now.  It would not benefit anyone and would simply be a vengeful act.  That is not what justice is about.  A crime has a punishment attached because it is the goal of justice to not only punish, but to change the attitude and future actions of the criminal so that society will not have to be concerned about them in the future.  If their attitude and actions, years after, show such changes have already taken place, then there is no purpose in punishing them now.

Now, getting to Ms. Ford and her accusation of Judge Kavanaugh having accosted her 36 years ago, while they were both still in high school.  That might be a legitimate concern from her standpoint because, if her accusation is true, it may have had a detrimental and lasting effect on her in her personal life.  However, the statute of limitations ran out on it years ago.  If such an act were considered heinous enough, the statute of limitations would still be in effect on such a claim.  It isn’t.  Therefore, police and other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, are not authorized to spend tax dollars to investigate it.  That can only be done within the statute of limitations.  No citizen has the power to demand an investigation by public law enforcement simply because they want it.  She could hire private investigators at her own expense, if she felt it was warranted.  Imagine what would happen if each citizen could demand the FBI spend time and money to investigate a crime, real or imagined, decades after the fact, based solely on that citizen’s claim that something happened long after the law had run out on it.  If it’s not worth it to her to spend her own money on such an investigation, it certainly shouldn’t fall on the tax payer to fund it.  And she has had many years to do so.

Does this mean her accusation isn’t true?  Of course not.  But neither does it form the basis for evidence of truth.  Her problem here is that she has no evidence and cannot get any evidence.  Here is the real problem:  Ms. Ford doesn’t want to testify until there has been an investigation by the FBI.  If Ms. Ford is going to testify as to the truth, then the truth would not change in any way whether there were an investigation or not.  If she already knows the truth, then she doesn’t need anyone else to dig around to provide the truth before she speaks it.  That attitude on her part makes it appear that she doesn’t have the truth and is not willing to speak what she knows right now because, if there were an investigation, it may support her claim but it may not, and she isn’t willing to stand on her own testimony without such backup.  That would be totally unnecessary for her if she were sure of her own claim. 

No one who has been a victim of a crime ever needs to have an investigation into it before they can tell what happened to them.  They know what happened.  They were there.  They experienced it first hand.  No investigation can ever provide more evidence of what they personally experienced for themselves.  I cannot imagine a woman who has been raped needing to have the police tell her what happened before she would tell what happened to her.  And for anyone to make such a seriously damaging accusation against another person when they aren’t willing to testify about their own experience unless there is an investigation done first, is a disgustingly cowardly act.  If you know the truth, you tell the truth.  You don’t need someone else to muck about in the mud to hopefully find something to throw at the person you want to accuse.

I am a woman.  I was a young girl in high school.  I dated.  I know that most men are not rutting animals and can conduct themselves in a reasonable way.  I know that some young men have to push the limits, but most are not aggressive beyond what a young girl can handle.  I had my share of sticky situations with boys on a date.  I was even nearly raped, but was, thankfully, able to handle the situation.  We are all different and some handle such upsets better than others.  But, in all honesty, I cannot accept that the experience she claims to have had traumatized her to such an extent that she has needed decades of therapy and couldn’t bring herself to tell anyone about it publicly until now.  The woman has proven herself to be quite successful in her career.  That doesn’t happen if you are a quivering mass of emotion and don’t possess the strength to fight and cope with all kinds of upset in job and family.  This is not a woman who can’t stand up for herself.  This is not a woman who can’t get past very difficult mental and emotional stress.  This is a woman with an agenda who has either been looking proactively for a way to cause a problem or has been convinced by those she is in agreement with that she can.  For her to be involved in this type of behavior shows her to be a person without integrity who believes others are so intellectually and logically impaired that she can manipulate and control them and other circumstances with impunity to achieve her personal goal.  She shows no respect for the justice system, and certainly no compassion for a man (who she would destroy as a means to obstruct a duly elected president’s agenda she disagrees with), his family, and his future.  She, in short, is dangerous and completely without integrity.

And all of that is blatantly true, whether her accusation is true or not.  Personally, I don’t listen to people of such low character, even if they have experienced trauma.  Too many decent people also experience trauma, so many, in fact, that there is no way to help all of them.  I wouldn’t waste a dime trying to help a lying, heartless, manipulator, and I certainly wouldn’t risk destroying someone’s lifetime reputation on the off chance someone of Ms. Ford’s poor character just might have been upset by him many long years before. 

 

 

Advertisements
Standard
Politics

What Do You Stand For and Why?

Some things are worth standing against. To compromise simply to avoid sounding a discordant note is to be spineless.

When people break the law, when they use powerful agencies to enable them to break the law in order to thwart the results of legal elections, when they threaten to destroy people’s livelihood, family, and good name simply because they disagree with them, that is more than worthy of a fight. The rule of law MUST be maintained because this is a nation of laws. It is not a nation of mitigating circumstances and kumbaya moments.

These things are at the bedrock of our nation. If we compromise on them, the foundation is built on sand. And it doesn’t matter which political parties or special interest groups are involved. What matters is the law. Those who break the law must be held accountable according to the law, not out of hatred, spite, or personal agenda, but for justice. If one is not up to the fight to preserve justice, then they need to get out of the way and let those who are willing to wage such a fight do so. “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”– Alexander Hamilton

There never was anything of value or consequence achieved that didn’t come with a hefty price and a lot of sacrifice and only when such a cost is paid can the benefit be realized.

We must put emotion aside and look at things logically. Frustration grows exponentially when logical minds butt up against emotionally reactive individuals. That frustration leads to bad consequences. Emotions are unstable and unreliable. Facts and logic are always far more stable. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. She isn’t swayed by emotion. Sad faces, arrogant smirks, rags, silk robes, none of that matters because she can’t see any of them.

Try to stay away from your emotions. Try not to worry about how you FEEL about things. Try to be unemotional. Loyalty is a fine virtue, but be willing to carefully and honestly examine why you are loyal to the beliefs you have chosen to align yourself with. If it’s simply to avoid a fight, you may want to think that over again. You must have strength in your convictions. Jesus said, if you are lukewarm, he will spew you out of his mouth. That should be a great indication to us all about the need for knowing why we agree with anyone or any idea and how important it is to be willing to stand against those who would degrade what we are committed to.

How strong is your faith in what you say you stand for? How far will you go to appease others just to avoid conflict? WHAT DO YOU REALLY STAND FOR AND WHY? How important is it to you? Is it all based on emotion? Is 80% of it based on emotion? These are questions every one of us must know for ourselves because, when what you really profess to stand for is threatened, you have to decide what you’re willing to risk to continue to stand.

Standard
Is it Constitutional?, Politics

Gun Rights

Another mass shooting.  Another day of sorrow and loss for many families and friends.  Another hue and cry to deny people 2nd Amendment rights as a solution.  Before a solution can be presented, the cause must be identified.  Otherwise, we’re chasing smoke.  And I will never surrender my rights in such a pointless endeavor.

So, let’s try to find the common attributes of those who have committed these kinds of crimes.

Such actions rarely happen suddenly, without any kind of changes in the person’s attitude or personality, and those changes are noticeable to people who are paying attention to them.  How many of the perpetrators, young or old, of these shootings have come from homes where the parents were really involved and noticed the aberrant behavior and personality changes taking place in them as they grew up? How many of them had parents who got them the help they needed?  How many of them came from homes where the parents were constantly busy making money to buy more stuff?  Do kids really need to have computer games?  Does each kid really need his/her own laptop?  Can’t such things be shared, thereby decreasing the amount of money needed to run the household?  Does everyone really need a cell phone?  And if a cell phone is available, does it really need to have umpteen thousand gigabytes of data (which costs a fortune in addition to the regular monthly cost) in order to play games and indulge in social media around the clock?  Could the family cut many costs down so that all the parents’ time and effort isn’t spent working to earn more money?  Wouldn’t that allow more time for actually talking to and paying attention to the kids?  Parents would be much more likely to notice changes in their kids’ attitudes and personalities and be better able to address the issues.  I mean, you aren’t going to notice such things if you’re living in a house that is run like a rooming house rather than a family home.

How about emotional dysfunction?  How many of these people were shown real affection and made to feel like they truly had a safe haven at home?  How many of them were pretty much left to come home from school and either spend their time in their room, alone, or run the neighborhood with their friends and no one at home knowing or even caring where they were or who they were with?  And knowing that most kids tell you what you want to hear so they can get you to say, “Yes”, did the parents take the time to verify what the kids told them?  How many of these people had parents who knew their friends and their friends’ parents?  How many of these people had a home life where they were encouraged to participate in music, school clubs, school sports, etc.?  How many of them were offered rides by their parents to such activities so that they could participate?  How many of them had parents who were proactive in their academic achievements and went to the school to meet and talk with their teachers?

How about morals and standards?  How many of these people came from homes where both parents were in the home?  How many of them had parents who showed each other respect and affection?  How many of them had homes where the family attended some sort of church every week and saw the things taught at church being practiced daily at home?  How many of them were expected to maintain a certain level of standards in their manner of speaking and in the way they treated others?

What about discipline if standards weren’t met?  Were they beaten?  Were they scolded?  Was there any consequence for bad behavior at all?  Were they taught how to cope with disappointment?  Were they treated with respect, but firmness when needed?  Were they taught values such as earning what you get, paying for what you damage, returning borrowed items in good repair and in a timely manner, taking care of their possessions, assisting others because it is the right thing to do, not because you might get something in return?

I haven’t done the research into these questions myself, but I would be willing to place a hefty wager on most of those things being negative in the lives of people who commit mass shootings.

Then we have to look at society and culture.  Not everything is learned at home.  Has society been devolving along moral lines?  Media, and now social media, have a huge impact on young minds.  Before we saw mass shootings, movies and TV didn’t portray bad behavior, sexual promiscuity, and aberrant sexual behavior as something to be admired and emulated.  In fact, movie and TV production was careful to show disdain and consequences for such things.  Since that has changed, we have seen a lot of really bad, and too frequently heinous, behavior in our society.  There have always been people who have no conscience and do horrible things, but the severity and frequency of such activities has a direct correlation to the changes in media portrayal and praise of this kind of behavior, as well as the lack of family involvement, and the lack of severe consequences for all of it.

So now that we’ve identified many of the commonalities of these criminals, how do we propose to resolve the issue?  Well, many people think no one should be allowed to possess firearms.  Some just think no one should be allowed to possess certain kinds of firearms.  Some think no one should be allowed to possess more than a certain amount of ammunition.   Somehow that is supposed to stop these events from happening.  Okay, let’s look at that.

People have been inventing ways of killing each other since the dawn of time.  As time goes by, old methods of killing are replaced by newer, more efficient methods.  No one needed to pass a law prohibiting the possession of spears dipped in curare or sabers.  They simply faded into history when “better” weapons were devised.  But, to be honest, a rock will do, if one is so inclined to kill.  Today we have guns.  Most people are sane and able to maintain minimum standards of respect for one another and the law.  But how is preventing the people from enjoying their right to keep and bear arms going to stop mass shootings?  The only people who could be expected to abide by such a law are the people who already self-govern themselves and don’t do such things.  Those who are inclined to commit murder, mass or otherwise, would still find a way to do it.  In the meantime, those who would need to defend themselves against those people would be left defenseless.  Their rights would be denied them and the killers would still find guns and still kill using guns.  I don’t see how that is a reasonable proposal.   Would you prefer that such insane people use homemade bombs to accomplish the same thing? You will never stop this kind of heinous action no matter what restrictions you place on society.

Until parents go back to parenting and being involved in their children’s daily lives, until parents stop putting all their efforts into keeping up with the Joneses and instead sacrifice their free time to pay attention to their kids, until parents put out the effort to discipline and do what’s necessary to guide their kids and get them proper treatment when they display dysfunctional behavior, this will not stop, even if all the guns in the world were to disappear tomorrow. When families stop going into separate rooms to watch TV shows rather than watching something all can enjoy, or listening to music alone in their room or on headphones rather than sharing the experience as a family, when families begin attending church every week as a family, when families eat dinner together every night once again (not in front of the TV but seated around a table), when real concern and affection is shown for each family member every day, when society stops funding lecherous and titillating entertainment that edifies disrespect and moral decay, when serious consequences are consistently paid by those who break the rules, then we may see a big drop in this kind of mayhem and the deep hurt it causes. But restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens in an attempt to curtail the hateful, selfish, and insane actions of a few is not the answer. It won’t even slow it down.

Standard
Is it Constitutional?, Law, Politics

Second Ammendment

Even if every gun, knife, car, truck, and any other man-made item that could possibly be used to kill on a mass scale were completely removed from the face of the earth, man’s ingenuity would find a way to make something that would accomplish the same effect using rocks if nothing else. The idea that laws are going to prevent crime of any kind is absurd. Laws only punish bad behavior. They don’t, and never will, prevent bad behavior. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It simply is not possible to make mental illness a crime. To restrict the liberties of sane people because of the mental illness of a fraction of the population is ridiculous.

Standard
Politics

Comment in Response to Article on “The Hill” Website: Meghan McCain slams ‘felon’ Dinesh D’Souza over tweets mocking father’s captivity By Joe Concha – 06/22/17 11:58 AM EDT

 Meghan McCain slams 'felon' Dinesh D'Souza over tweets mocking father's captivity

First of all, she needs to get rid of the push-up bra. She’s far to (ahem) hefty to wear one.

Secondly, the men in captivity with her father were the ones who named him the “songbird” because it was her father who sang like a bird to his captors. Being a POW is no walk in the park and McCain undoubtedly suffered greatly, but no more so than any other captive. And they didn’t give information to the people beating and torturing them the way McCain did.

But all of that aside, McCain came home to a wife who waited for him and cared for him as he recovered. Then she was in a terrible accident and, when she needed him, this poor, abused POW (who should have known better than anyone else what it’s like to be alone, fearful, and in pain) told her she was no longer attractive to him and he left her.

Then he married a woman who had a lot of wealth so that she could finance his political aspirations. And to reach those lofty aspirations, he played the POW card. He’s a piece of crap and no more of a Republican than Hillary is. His POW status has been overplayed for years.

He doesn’t deserve any more sympathy for having been a POW than he gave his first wife. Now there was a true POW. I can only imagine the mental and emotional pain and anguish he caused her and never gave it a passing thought. He’s no better than the men who caused him so much pain. He’s worse because they were doing what they did as soldiers in time of war and believed in the cause of their country. McCain did what he did to his wife because he wanted to rise in politics for his own agrandizement, wealth, and power.

And what did he do with the power he gained as a senator? Nothing good. He has ignored the people he was elected to represent. He has gone along with the Democrats on every issue. He keeps getting elected based on his POW status and the money he has used to grease the palms of those who should be on the opposite side. He’s as slimy and corrupt as anyone else in politics, with the possible exception of the Clintons.

He has done nothing to keep Arizonans safe from the murderers who illegally cross into our state from the south. Ranchers and their families are in constant danger, real danger, of losing their lives, having their homes burned down, kidnapping, losing their livestock, and many other terrifying dangers from that southern border.

McCain ridicules Trump, but Trump is doing what McCain has never even attempted. McCain is nothing. He has no relevance and his past record in the Senate proves that he is a coward politically. So why would anyone think he was not a coward as a POW?

Standard
Is it Constitutional?, Liberalism, Politics

The REAL Reason for Gun Control

Response to online comment by calebsmum to article on Blue Lives Matter website, article titled “Nationwide Manhunt For Michael Bullinger After Multiple Dead Women Found On His Property” dated June 21, 2017

Some background:  calebsmum was responding to someone who disagreed with his/her favorable stand on gun control which morphed into what his/her true issues seem to be.

calebsmum How do we pollute less? Lots of way. 🙂 Live close to your work so that you can walk or bike instead of commute 30 minutes to an hour, like many people do. Use carpools, public transportation, bikes; use solar or other alternative energy sources to heat/cool your home. If you don’t need it, don’t use it (air conditioning). Many people use it just to be comfortable when it’s not necessary, instead stay cool by closing doors and windows during the heat of the day, using deciduous trees to block the sun during the summer but allow heat during the winter…we CAN do more, it’s just that many people feel selfishly entitled to what they want, instead of what’s best.

My response:  You are a very dangerous person.  You presume to know what’s “best.”  Best for whom?  Everyone?  The entire world?  Just who the hell are you to make such assumptions?  You think that everyone should live as you choose to live and everyone should agree with your ideologies.  And if they don’t, you call them selfish?  Selfish according to your personal judgment?  Again, just who the hell are you?  You think that you have all the answers to save the world and mankind.  You see no problem with infringing on others’ rights or freedoms when it will enforce your personal beliefs.

That is the definition of fascism.  You feel it is just fine to tax, fine, and even imprison people if they don’t adhere to your ideas of what is right for all of mankind.  God made this planet and presented it to man.  God Himself gave man the freedom to choose who to worship and obey, and you weren’t on the list of choices.

Who or what the hell gave you the superior authority to overrule anyone on how they should live, where they should live, how they should heat or cool their homes, what form of transportation they should use or how comfortable they should be while doing any of that?

And none of that has anything to do with whether people have the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions being placed on them when they purchase such weapons.  But you think you’re so morally superior and have so much more knowledge that you should be able to dictate that as well.

And when people refuse to comply with all your high and mighty edicts then the punishments are visited on them.  Well, if you wish to call me selfish, that is your label not mine.  I am an individual and I have the freedom to make my own choices.  I will not comply with enforced morality based on computer models and junk science and consensus rather than empirical, factual evidence.  Not when it is in regard to how I live my life or how I defend my life.

You, and those who think as you do, are pompous asses.  You seek to rule over people in every aspect of their daily lives and control them completely because you think you have that superior right, much as Islam rules over people.  Well, if God didn’t seek to force me to agree with Him and gave me dominion over the earth, if He didn’t try to force me to worship Him, I sure as hell am not about to bow down to you and your ideas of what is important or necessary for the earth to survive and I’m never going to be forced to worship at the altar of man-made computer models which pose as science.

As for your ideas on gun control, stop fearing your fellow-man.  The only reason you want gun control is because, when people refuse to do what you tell them to do, you don’t want them armed and able to defend themselves to prevent their being imprisoned for not complying.  Even God didn’t go that far.  So who the hell are you to think your ideas are more worthwhile than His?  You are a fascist and you label others as fascists for not agreeing with you.  That’s what the left always does.  They paint others with the identifying label before it is used against them.  Saul Alinsky much?

You know perfectly well that it isn’t safety against unhinged people having guns that is at the heart of this gun control argument.  It sounds all compassionate, but it’s really about keeping the populace under control so that other restrictive rules can be pushed down people’s throats and then, when they refuse to be pushed any further, they won’t be able to defend themselves from being pushed the last few steps into complete domination by tyranny.  This isn’t NRA talking points.  Read history from ancient times through to the present day.  It’s always the same pattern.  As I said in the beginning, you are a very dangerous person.

Standard
Uncategorized

Response to Imam’s Claim That “Westerners Are Like Pigs”

My question is: How would they know? They aren’t allowed to own pigs. They aren’t allowed to eat pigs. They aren’t allowed to touch pigs. They aren’t allowed to have any type of contact with pigs at all. Therefore they know absolutely nothing about pigs other than what they look like. So how would they know if westerners are like pigs? We don’t look like pigs. We look like the Imam himself. We have one head, two arms, two legs, and we walk upright on two feet. No pig can fit that description. So again, I must ask, how would they know if we are like pigs? Since we appear to look much more like them than like pigs, and since they know nothing else about a pig other than what it looks like, I would say we are much more like them. And if we are like pigs, wouldn’t that make them just as much like pigs as we are? Just sayin’ . . .

Standard