One of the most important roles of being a parent is protecting our children from danger. Unfortunately, more and more we are hearing of children put in danger despite the precautions that parents take. Let me tell you the story behind one family that learned through first hand experience that you can never take too many precautions.
I am sure that you are familiar with the case of the 38-year-old pervert named Orlando Paul Cisneros, who recently was granted 36-months of "supervised probation" in lieu of 13 years of prison for 17 counts of rape and sodomy of Kristy*, a 14-year-old local girl.
In September of 2006, Kristy went to a sleepover at the house of a long-time friend, Samantha*. This was not the first time that Kristy had gone to a sleepover at Samantha's house, so there was no way she could have guessed what that night had in store for her.
Samantha lived with her mother in the house of her mother's current boyfriend. Cisneros was a long time friend of Samantha's mother, and had been there on numerous other occasions when Kristy had attended sleepovers. Kristy trusted her friend, and by extension, her parents trusted Samantha's parents. That trust, unfortunately, was in the wrong people.
Samantha's mother may or may not have known what was going to happen. I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt, as I have not talked to her. I do know from Kristy that this woman had caught Cisneros lying in bed with children (including her own daughter) prior to this time. Kristy has also related other things that occurred in that house, things that should have set off huge red flags with any reasonable adult.
However, on the first sleepover after Kristy turned 14 (five days after Jessica's law no longer applied to Kristy), out came the house alcohol, and with a little marijuana thrown in by someone. At the urging of Samantha's mother and the man who would eventually be her rapist, Kristy got drunk and high.
Over the next month, Orlando Cisneros would go on to rape and sodomize Kristy at least 17 times.
Like any young person, Kristy was taught all the right things. She knew about "stranger danger," she knew what was right, and what was wrong. What she did not know was that those who were most dangerous were those she knew and trusted.
After the first rape occurred, Kristy was scared. She was scared to tell her parents. She was scared of losing her best friend. Most of all, she was scared to refuse the rapist what he wanted. She told him "No" and he coerced her into being an accomplice to more of his abuse.
Then came the night they were caught. If Kristy's mom had not gotten up hungry, and noticed that Kristy was not in her bed, who knows how much longer this would have gone on.
The police came, Cisneros was caught, he confessed, and yet… a failure in our justice system allows him to walk our streets today.
Ever since the abuse started, Kristy has been wronged by our justice system. The police and the twelve jurors are about the only people in this case who (in my mind) performed their duty. The judge let a pedophile go to rape again. To justify his liberation of the rapist, the judge lied (more on that in a moment), and to top it off, our legal system itself would not even let Kristy's father and mother sit with her in the courtroom.
That is correct, because of the DEFENSE attorney's subpoena of Kristy's parents (which had no purpose) as witnesses in the defense of this thing that raped their daughter, they were prohibited from being present during the trial, as they just might be called to testify on behalf of the man who confessed to raping and sodomizing their daughter.
Then we have the District Attorney's office, Robert Hecht. Overall, Kristy's father feels that he did an adequate job, however, many questions linger. Why did Robert Hecht NOT pursue charges against the mother who had provided Kristy with alcohol and marijuana on the night this first happened?
Then we come to her best friend's mother. Why did the mother of Kristy's best friend give her alcohol and marijuana? Why did she let Cisneros into her house during sleepovers even AFTER she had caught him asleep on a mattress with her own daughter and Kristy?
Worst of all, of course, is the criminal who committed these crimes against Kristy. How can a beast like that be allowed to continue walking the streets.
How? Let me tell you of how.
A 38-year old man, 17 counts of rape and sodomy on a 14-year-old daughter, can walk the streets if the judge lies.
In this case, Judge Matthew Dowd said,
"I am very appreciative of the harm and the difficulties caused by the defendant's actions to the victim and her family. However, the victim, I'm very much persuaded by * comments. She is, I think thankfully for everybody involved in this, not seeking any kind of vengeance, not seeking any kind of ill will towards the defendant herein. And I think that's important. It's important to me and it's important to the appropriate disposition of the case."
However, Judge Dowd never talked to the victim in this case. He never asked Kristy how she felt about the situation. He never found out the fear that Orlando Paul Cisneros brought into her life. He never even bothered to ask.
Judge Dowd stated in court that he has to take responsibility for his judgment, and I am hopeful that he will take responsibility for allowing a convicted child rapist to walk our streets.
I am also hopeful that Topeka District Attorney Robert Hecht will also pursue the woman who knowingly and willingly broke the law by providing alcohol and marijuana to this young people. As far as whether this woman aided and abetted the actions of Cisneros, I will simply give her the benefit of the doubt, by saying that she obviously needs to learn a few things about the people she brings into her house, and allows to "cuddle" with the children there.
A travesty has been committed, and we need to get it fixed.
*The names of victims and their family have been changed to respect their privacy.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Second Amendment – The Right to Bear Arms - Part 2
In part one of my discussion of the second amendment, I covered one of the principle reasons the second amendment was added to the Constitution. The motivation was to ensure that the government could not arbitrarily infringe on the rights of the people, and further, to ignore their petitions for redress. In part two, I will discuss the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Once again, the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In regards to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, there are two primary interpretations of the second amendment. The first interpretation is generally referred to as the individual-rights view, and the second is called the collective-rights view. There are some interpretations that combine some parts of both the individual and the collective rights, however, I will be limiting this article to the two principle interpretations.
The individual-rights view basically provides that every person is authorized to own and carry weapons. Some minor variations state that people have the right to own any weapon(s), whereas others believe that this right can be limited by banning the most dangerous types of weapons.
This view is generally based upon the key phrase of “the right of the people…”. Throughout the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a certain uniformity exists in the usage of language.
As eloquently stated in a Department of Justice memorandum dated August 24, 2004,
“… not once does the Constitution confer a “right” on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any “right” restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a “right of the people” discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures “right[s]” to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person’s “right” to a jury trial in civil cases. By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only “powers” or “authority.” It would be a marked anomaly if “right” in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.”
Additionally, the phrase “the right of the people” occurs in only two other places in the US Constitution, (first and fourth amendments), and there has never been any legal question or doubt that in these two cases that the “right” was being conferred to individuals, not to a state, nor to a specific subset of persons inside of government service.
George Tucker, one of the leading commentators on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the years after they were written, further links the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms to both the basic and natural right of self defense, and as a basic tenet of insuring the continued liberty of people. He states in his essay, ’View of the Constitution of the United States’:
“ This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
On the other hand, you have many who believe the right to “keep and bear arms” is limited only to members actively involved in government ‘militia’. This would include entities such as our standing military, national guard, police forces, et al…
As this does NOT reflect my view, and as I find no reasonable or justifiable support (though several district courts would dispute this) in any historical documents, I am going to let other people try and defend this view.
The last thing to address in this essay, is whether the government has the power to create laws which limit an individuals right to “bear arms”. In the Supreme Court case of US v. Miller, the Supreme Court, though not giving a specific ruling on the idea of individual rights over collective rights, did opine that states did indeed have the right to control those weapons which could not reasonably be used for legal purposes. In other words, if it was a weapon that you would expect only a criminal to have, then private citizens should not necessarily have a right to possess it.
Thus, the Supreme Court, while not deciding between the collective or individual rights to keep and bear arms, did decide that under certain circumstances, it was constitutional for states (and municipalities) to have gun control laws in place, though a complete ban on all firearms was held unconstitutional in Parker v. District of Columbia (9th Circuit, 2007).
Once again, the second amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In regards to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, there are two primary interpretations of the second amendment. The first interpretation is generally referred to as the individual-rights view, and the second is called the collective-rights view. There are some interpretations that combine some parts of both the individual and the collective rights, however, I will be limiting this article to the two principle interpretations.
The individual-rights view basically provides that every person is authorized to own and carry weapons. Some minor variations state that people have the right to own any weapon(s), whereas others believe that this right can be limited by banning the most dangerous types of weapons.
This view is generally based upon the key phrase of “the right of the people…”. Throughout the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a certain uniformity exists in the usage of language.
As eloquently stated in a Department of Justice memorandum dated August 24, 2004,
“… not once does the Constitution confer a “right” on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any “right” restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a “right of the people” discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures “right[s]” to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person’s “right” to a jury trial in civil cases. By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only “powers” or “authority.” It would be a marked anomaly if “right” in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.”
Additionally, the phrase “the right of the people” occurs in only two other places in the US Constitution, (first and fourth amendments), and there has never been any legal question or doubt that in these two cases that the “right” was being conferred to individuals, not to a state, nor to a specific subset of persons inside of government service.
George Tucker, one of the leading commentators on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the years after they were written, further links the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms to both the basic and natural right of self defense, and as a basic tenet of insuring the continued liberty of people. He states in his essay, ’View of the Constitution of the United States’:
“ This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
On the other hand, you have many who believe the right to “keep and bear arms” is limited only to members actively involved in government ‘militia’. This would include entities such as our standing military, national guard, police forces, et al…
As this does NOT reflect my view, and as I find no reasonable or justifiable support (though several district courts would dispute this) in any historical documents, I am going to let other people try and defend this view.
The last thing to address in this essay, is whether the government has the power to create laws which limit an individuals right to “bear arms”. In the Supreme Court case of US v. Miller, the Supreme Court, though not giving a specific ruling on the idea of individual rights over collective rights, did opine that states did indeed have the right to control those weapons which could not reasonably be used for legal purposes. In other words, if it was a weapon that you would expect only a criminal to have, then private citizens should not necessarily have a right to possess it.
Thus, the Supreme Court, while not deciding between the collective or individual rights to keep and bear arms, did decide that under certain circumstances, it was constitutional for states (and municipalities) to have gun control laws in place, though a complete ban on all firearms was held unconstitutional in Parker v. District of Columbia (9th Circuit, 2007).
Monday, June 18, 2007
Justice Overruled
I often hear people in Topeka complaining about crime. Of course, the Topeka Police Department and the Shawnee County Sheriff’s office receive the brunt of the blame for our high crime rate. However, events in the last several weeks have led me to believe that at least a partial cause of our high crime rate is tendency our local judges have to release convicted criminals on “supervised probation” rather than placing them in prison where they belong.
Take the case of Mark Bernard Cliver, the 50-year-old man who should have been in prison for 4 years, but was awarded probation by Shawnee County District Judge Jan Leuenberger. 10 months after he should have been imprisoned, he stabbed to death his 81-year-old neighbor Frank Craig, and after a high-speed chase, committed suicide by slamming the truck he stole into a bridge support tower. The blood of Frank Craig is on the hands of Judge Leuenberger for allowing this four time convicted felon to remain on the streets.
We then have the case of a 14-year old girl, who I had the pleasure of meeting the other day. She was attending a sleepover at a friend’s house, when Orlando Paul Cisneros, the former lover of her friend’s mother utilized a combination of alcohol and marijuana to get control over her. This 38-year old animal set his trap, coerced her compliance through fear, and abused her sexually for about a month before he was caught.
This self-confessed pedophile should have been awarded 13 years in prison for the 17 counts of rape and sodomy that he inflicted on this young woman. Instead, Shawnee County District Judge Matthew Dowd gave him probation. This beast is now free to stalk yet more prey among the young women of Topeka.
Judge Dowd based the probation on four factors:
- The slimeball was depressed,
- The slimeball had a good work history,
- The slimeball had a supportive family; and
- The slimeball had not caused “permanent” or “long-lasting” harm to the victim.
However, in an interview with the victim’s father, it turns out that:
- Depression was never discussed during the actual trial while the jury was present. The depression did not “appear” until the 17 guilty verdicts were rendered and the sentencing phase of the trial was started. Thus, the prosecution was never provided a chance to dispute the “sudden” depression that had apparently been affecting the rapist for a long time.
- Judge Dowd himself determined that there was no permanent or long-lasting harm to the victim. According to the victim, no mental health professionals ever testified regarding the harm that was caused to her, either short-term or long-term. This brings into question the basis of Judge Dowd’s comments that there was no long-term harm.
Since these attacks occurred, the victim has been attending regular sessions with a private counselor. As there was sufficient evidence to obtain the conviction, it was decided that the counselor it would be better to protect the privacy of the young victim, and thus, the counselor was never called to testify. But would the knowledge of the harm this animal had caused have stopped Dowd’s decision? Based upon his own prior decisions, it is doubtful.
What has become apparent is that Judge Dowd has clearly decided that an adult can rape and/or sodomize a child, and walk out of his courtroom free based on the flimsiest of excuses. Justice does not exist for the victims in his courtroom, only more anguish.
Both Justice Leuenberger and Justice Dowd have proven they cannot be trusted to dispense justice. Justice Leuenberger has the death of an innocent man on his hands, and I certainly hope that Justice Dowd has not freed a pedophile that goes a bit too far with his next victim.
In closing, I would like to send a personal message to the young woman who experienced this. When I visited, you impressed me with your intelligence, your demeanor, and your toughness. I hope that we can all take to heart your advice to all parents who may unfortunately end up in these circumstances, and “Don’t blame the kids.” I believe that you and the rest of your family will all come out stronger from this experience, and I sincerely wish you the best.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Take the case of Mark Bernard Cliver, the 50-year-old man who should have been in prison for 4 years, but was awarded probation by Shawnee County District Judge Jan Leuenberger. 10 months after he should have been imprisoned, he stabbed to death his 81-year-old neighbor Frank Craig, and after a high-speed chase, committed suicide by slamming the truck he stole into a bridge support tower. The blood of Frank Craig is on the hands of Judge Leuenberger for allowing this four time convicted felon to remain on the streets.
We then have the case of a 14-year old girl, who I had the pleasure of meeting the other day. She was attending a sleepover at a friend’s house, when Orlando Paul Cisneros, the former lover of her friend’s mother utilized a combination of alcohol and marijuana to get control over her. This 38-year old animal set his trap, coerced her compliance through fear, and abused her sexually for about a month before he was caught.
This self-confessed pedophile should have been awarded 13 years in prison for the 17 counts of rape and sodomy that he inflicted on this young woman. Instead, Shawnee County District Judge Matthew Dowd gave him probation. This beast is now free to stalk yet more prey among the young women of Topeka.
Judge Dowd based the probation on four factors:
- The slimeball was depressed,
- The slimeball had a good work history,
- The slimeball had a supportive family; and
- The slimeball had not caused “permanent” or “long-lasting” harm to the victim.
However, in an interview with the victim’s father, it turns out that:
- Depression was never discussed during the actual trial while the jury was present. The depression did not “appear” until the 17 guilty verdicts were rendered and the sentencing phase of the trial was started. Thus, the prosecution was never provided a chance to dispute the “sudden” depression that had apparently been affecting the rapist for a long time.
- Judge Dowd himself determined that there was no permanent or long-lasting harm to the victim. According to the victim, no mental health professionals ever testified regarding the harm that was caused to her, either short-term or long-term. This brings into question the basis of Judge Dowd’s comments that there was no long-term harm.
Since these attacks occurred, the victim has been attending regular sessions with a private counselor. As there was sufficient evidence to obtain the conviction, it was decided that the counselor it would be better to protect the privacy of the young victim, and thus, the counselor was never called to testify. But would the knowledge of the harm this animal had caused have stopped Dowd’s decision? Based upon his own prior decisions, it is doubtful.
What has become apparent is that Judge Dowd has clearly decided that an adult can rape and/or sodomize a child, and walk out of his courtroom free based on the flimsiest of excuses. Justice does not exist for the victims in his courtroom, only more anguish.
Both Justice Leuenberger and Justice Dowd have proven they cannot be trusted to dispense justice. Justice Leuenberger has the death of an innocent man on his hands, and I certainly hope that Justice Dowd has not freed a pedophile that goes a bit too far with his next victim.
In closing, I would like to send a personal message to the young woman who experienced this. When I visited, you impressed me with your intelligence, your demeanor, and your toughness. I hope that we can all take to heart your advice to all parents who may unfortunately end up in these circumstances, and “Don’t blame the kids.” I believe that you and the rest of your family will all come out stronger from this experience, and I sincerely wish you the best.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The 2nd Amendment - The Right to Bear Arms - Part 1
The primary reason the United States exists in the form it does today, is that it was formed by people rebelling against tyranny. Additionally, the founding fathers realized that people, once free, would need a method of protecting that freedom from the overreaching arms of the federal government.
The Second Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
To understand the second amendment, you must realize that the Bill of Rights was created to protect the people from the government. The federal government has (should have) very little power over the manner in which the states governed themselves (this particular issue will be addressed with the 10th Amendment).
The basic premise was that the role of the federal government was to provide for a common defense, and manage all affairs that crossed state lines or dealt with the rest of the world.
The fear of the founding fathers was a government such as that we have now, whereby the federal government has usurped the power of the individual states and their right to govern themselves in accordance with the will of the people of those states.
In the initial part of this series, where I discussed the first amendment, it slowly becomes apparent that the founding fathers did not expect people to agree with everything the government did. As such, the first amendment guarantees the right of the people to have an opinion, express that opinion, and to peacefully attempt to persuade others (including the government) to their point of view. However, what happens when the government starts to ignore those voices?
What happens when the federal government starts to dictate to all how to live, how to believe, how to raise their children, and locks up those refuse to remain silent? What happens when the government starts to diminish the rights of the people one by one?
Thus was born the second amendment. The right of a well-regulated militia; the right for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. In the revolutionary war, it was not the “state” militias that got the ball rolling. It was the people standing up together. It was individual cities, and eventually, the organization of the militias inside the different states that allowed the minutemen of 1776 to defeat one of the most formidable armies in the world.
In all tyrannies, the first step taken is the removal of weapons from the populace. This is to protect the tyrant from an uprising of the people. So far, our country has survived 231 years as a democracy. However, with the current standings of our government, with a greatly unpopular president, an even more unpopular legislative branch, and a judiciary that is fickle at best, can you tell me one branch of the government that is working?
This may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but from my point of view, the foundation of individual freedoms in this country are constantly being attacked and weakened. It is not just the left, it is not just the right, it is both. It involves the abuse of individual liberties, the abuse of power, and the abuse of the freedoms that were guaranteed to every single American 231 years ago. I wonder, what will happen when enough people have had enough?
Is the second amendment applicable in our times? I would have to say that it is the one “right” that allows us to stand up and protect all of the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, and thus, I think that it is more applicable today then ever.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
The Second Amendment reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
To understand the second amendment, you must realize that the Bill of Rights was created to protect the people from the government. The federal government has (should have) very little power over the manner in which the states governed themselves (this particular issue will be addressed with the 10th Amendment).
The basic premise was that the role of the federal government was to provide for a common defense, and manage all affairs that crossed state lines or dealt with the rest of the world.
The fear of the founding fathers was a government such as that we have now, whereby the federal government has usurped the power of the individual states and their right to govern themselves in accordance with the will of the people of those states.
In the initial part of this series, where I discussed the first amendment, it slowly becomes apparent that the founding fathers did not expect people to agree with everything the government did. As such, the first amendment guarantees the right of the people to have an opinion, express that opinion, and to peacefully attempt to persuade others (including the government) to their point of view. However, what happens when the government starts to ignore those voices?
What happens when the federal government starts to dictate to all how to live, how to believe, how to raise their children, and locks up those refuse to remain silent? What happens when the government starts to diminish the rights of the people one by one?
Thus was born the second amendment. The right of a well-regulated militia; the right for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. In the revolutionary war, it was not the “state” militias that got the ball rolling. It was the people standing up together. It was individual cities, and eventually, the organization of the militias inside the different states that allowed the minutemen of 1776 to defeat one of the most formidable armies in the world.
In all tyrannies, the first step taken is the removal of weapons from the populace. This is to protect the tyrant from an uprising of the people. So far, our country has survived 231 years as a democracy. However, with the current standings of our government, with a greatly unpopular president, an even more unpopular legislative branch, and a judiciary that is fickle at best, can you tell me one branch of the government that is working?
This may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but from my point of view, the foundation of individual freedoms in this country are constantly being attacked and weakened. It is not just the left, it is not just the right, it is both. It involves the abuse of individual liberties, the abuse of power, and the abuse of the freedoms that were guaranteed to every single American 231 years ago. I wonder, what will happen when enough people have had enough?
Is the second amendment applicable in our times? I would have to say that it is the one “right” that allows us to stand up and protect all of the other freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, and thus, I think that it is more applicable today then ever.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Friday, June 15, 2007
What kind of atheist are you?
One of the people I have had numerous minor debates with (avowed agnostic vs. avowed theist) offered me a challenge the other day. It was an interesting challenge as she directed me to a website to take a test called, “What kind of Atheist are you?”. At first I thought she was kidding, but, I went out and took the test. The results were a surprise.
After all the times that I have been called an ignorant right-wing radical Christian, I expected to find out that I made for a bad atheist (at least according to atheist standards), however, much to my surprise, this test decided that I should be considered an Agnostic who believes in God. The results rather astounded me, so I took it again, with almost identical results.
Results:
Agnostic 100%
Theist 75%
Apathetic Atheist 58%
Spiritual Atheist 42%
Scientific Atheist 33%
Militant Atheist 8%
Angry Atheist 8%
You can try this little quiz out for yourself, and I have no idea what the accuracy of it would or should be, but, it’s all in a bit of fun:
The Atheist’s Quiz
Of course, once again, this gave me something to think about, so I did. And finally, all that I could do was just accept that this test was going to keep insisting that I was an agnostic.
Of course, no test of this type is going to be able to analyze the inner working of someone in a manner of five minutes or so, but it will be able to give you some food for thought.
So what is your score?
After all the times that I have been called an ignorant right-wing radical Christian, I expected to find out that I made for a bad atheist (at least according to atheist standards), however, much to my surprise, this test decided that I should be considered an Agnostic who believes in God. The results rather astounded me, so I took it again, with almost identical results.
Results:
Agnostic 100%
Theist 75%
Apathetic Atheist 58%
Spiritual Atheist 42%
Scientific Atheist 33%
Militant Atheist 8%
Angry Atheist 8%
You can try this little quiz out for yourself, and I have no idea what the accuracy of it would or should be, but, it’s all in a bit of fun:
The Atheist’s Quiz
Of course, once again, this gave me something to think about, so I did. And finally, all that I could do was just accept that this test was going to keep insisting that I was an agnostic.
Of course, no test of this type is going to be able to analyze the inner working of someone in a manner of five minutes or so, but it will be able to give you some food for thought.
So what is your score?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
First Amendment - Right to Assembly and Petition
Recently, I have had several people tell me that I am attempting to be “the moral authority”. My first though was that they must be nuts to even think that I might be the authority on morals. But as I considered what they were saying, I finally figured out how to determine what a moral authority just might be. Here are my thoughts:
Society has rules, which we call laws. These laws have been decided upon by the people in the form of a representative government which is called a Republic. These laws are what have always represented what I consider to be the “morals” of our country. As the moral values of our great country change, so do the laws.
Of course, when somebody such as myself hops on a soapbox, and exhorts people to follow the law, he gets criticized. I expect it, and in some masochistic manner, I even enjoy the criticism. I understand that people will try to take my words through their own viewpoint, and intentionally distort those words into whatever they want. I understand that some will try to play semantic word games to prove how ignorant and downright wrong I am. And Sometimes, I must admit, I make honest mistakes. These either come back as huge talking points from those who hold different opinions, but usually, they simply get overlooked because they are not obvious enough for the others to catch.
However, I never thought that anyone would ever think to call me a “moral authority”. Thus, it took me a while to figure out what a moral authority actually was. Keeping in mind that I hold our own laws to be a guide to moral authority, I think I may have come up with some reasons why people would accuse me of attempting to be one.
Maybe it’s because I feel that when the state legislature passes a law called sentencing guidelines, to help judges provide a standard sentence for a given crime throughout the state, the judge has an obligation to follow those guidelines except in extreme circumstances.
Maybe it is because I feel that if our current policy on legal immigration is good enough to keep, that maybe it’s also good enough to enforce.
Maybe it is because I feel that an individual has a right to hold their own opinions, and yes, to celebrate their own religion. I also believe that every individual has the right to speak their opinion, whether secular or religious, as long as the person is willing to accept the inevitable ‘slings and arrows’ that will come their way.
Maybe it is because I feel that those who cause harm, should be made to pay the price, not given an amnesty or a nod and a wink by a friendly judge.
Maybe it is because I regard prisons and jails as penal (as in the word “penalty”) institutions rather than rehabilitation centers.
Whatever the difference, many would be greatly appreciative if I would simply change the subject and talk about something else.
I tried that. I talk about America, and they talk about how I deride other people’s rights to protest (even with stones and bottles being thrown).
I tried to talk about the constitution, and all that most could discuss was how religion should be kept out of their sight.
There are millions of people in this country who disagree with my opinions. They think that activist judges have the right to rewrite the law. They claim to support freedom of private religion, yet warn of possible verbal attacks on any public display they find offensive.
We all do have a remedy however.
It is called a public and peaceful assembly. It’s called petitioning your government. These are the last two rights granted under the First Amendment to our Constitution. You have the right to gather in protest of what the government is doing/not doing, and if there are enough people who agree with you, then your updated morality standards will be passed.
There are many laws that I do not agree with. But I follow them. Those laws that I do not like, or those proposed changes to laws that I do not agree with, I contact my representatives in an attempt to get the changes made or not made. That is how the morality of America can be easily judged.
Personally, as most of you know, I am 100% against providing any amnesty for those have entered our country illegally. I will fight against any changes to the current law that would grant this amnesty. However, if a new law were passed, I would comply with it to the best of my ability despite the distaste in my mouth. I would also remember those who voted for the amnesty in the next election.
Why? Because that is truly the Traditional American way.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day
Society has rules, which we call laws. These laws have been decided upon by the people in the form of a representative government which is called a Republic. These laws are what have always represented what I consider to be the “morals” of our country. As the moral values of our great country change, so do the laws.
Of course, when somebody such as myself hops on a soapbox, and exhorts people to follow the law, he gets criticized. I expect it, and in some masochistic manner, I even enjoy the criticism. I understand that people will try to take my words through their own viewpoint, and intentionally distort those words into whatever they want. I understand that some will try to play semantic word games to prove how ignorant and downright wrong I am. And Sometimes, I must admit, I make honest mistakes. These either come back as huge talking points from those who hold different opinions, but usually, they simply get overlooked because they are not obvious enough for the others to catch.
However, I never thought that anyone would ever think to call me a “moral authority”. Thus, it took me a while to figure out what a moral authority actually was. Keeping in mind that I hold our own laws to be a guide to moral authority, I think I may have come up with some reasons why people would accuse me of attempting to be one.
Maybe it’s because I feel that when the state legislature passes a law called sentencing guidelines, to help judges provide a standard sentence for a given crime throughout the state, the judge has an obligation to follow those guidelines except in extreme circumstances.
Maybe it is because I feel that if our current policy on legal immigration is good enough to keep, that maybe it’s also good enough to enforce.
Maybe it is because I feel that an individual has a right to hold their own opinions, and yes, to celebrate their own religion. I also believe that every individual has the right to speak their opinion, whether secular or religious, as long as the person is willing to accept the inevitable ‘slings and arrows’ that will come their way.
Maybe it is because I feel that those who cause harm, should be made to pay the price, not given an amnesty or a nod and a wink by a friendly judge.
Maybe it is because I regard prisons and jails as penal (as in the word “penalty”) institutions rather than rehabilitation centers.
Whatever the difference, many would be greatly appreciative if I would simply change the subject and talk about something else.
I tried that. I talk about America, and they talk about how I deride other people’s rights to protest (even with stones and bottles being thrown).
I tried to talk about the constitution, and all that most could discuss was how religion should be kept out of their sight.
There are millions of people in this country who disagree with my opinions. They think that activist judges have the right to rewrite the law. They claim to support freedom of private religion, yet warn of possible verbal attacks on any public display they find offensive.
We all do have a remedy however.
It is called a public and peaceful assembly. It’s called petitioning your government. These are the last two rights granted under the First Amendment to our Constitution. You have the right to gather in protest of what the government is doing/not doing, and if there are enough people who agree with you, then your updated morality standards will be passed.
There are many laws that I do not agree with. But I follow them. Those laws that I do not like, or those proposed changes to laws that I do not agree with, I contact my representatives in an attempt to get the changes made or not made. That is how the morality of America can be easily judged.
Personally, as most of you know, I am 100% against providing any amnesty for those have entered our country illegally. I will fight against any changes to the current law that would grant this amnesty. However, if a new law were passed, I would comply with it to the best of my ability despite the distaste in my mouth. I would also remember those who voted for the amnesty in the next election.
Why? Because that is truly the Traditional American way.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
For the Love of Freedom!
It seems that wherever President Bush travels in the world, he encounters protests, anti-American crowds, hatred, and even violence. At the G8 summit, German police arrested numerous protesters for throwing stones, bottles, and nearly anything else available in a protest against President Bush’s visit.
That is… until the President arrived in Albania this past Sunday.
Yes, the same Albania that used to be a part of the old Soviet Union. One of several countries that remember repression and life in a country without freedom. A country that was given its chance to live free by the strength of the United States throughout the cold war, and its eventual defeat of the Soviet Empire.
As commentators said, “Albanians greeted our President as if he were a rock star.”
Those in Europe have forgotten their short period of oppression by Hitler. They have failed to remember the bloody lessons they learned through a couple of short years with their freedom removed. They ignore the fact that it was the blood of American soldiers on the shores of Europe 63 years ago, that led to their liberation from the occupation of Nazi Germany.
Now, the countries of Europe greet our President by protesting his liberation of yet another country by the force of the American military.
However, should we expect any better from those who are only 63 years removed from a tyrannical oppression? Americans have never known the oppression of a dictatorship. Americans have never experienced a country where they could not speak their mind. Americans cannot comprehend dark figures busting down doors in the middle of the night, making people “disappear” forever.
Albanians can.
The Albanians recognize that it was Americans who gave them their chance at freedom, and they now celebrate the visit of President Bush, the man who has given that same chance at freedom to millions of Iraqis.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
That is… until the President arrived in Albania this past Sunday.
Yes, the same Albania that used to be a part of the old Soviet Union. One of several countries that remember repression and life in a country without freedom. A country that was given its chance to live free by the strength of the United States throughout the cold war, and its eventual defeat of the Soviet Empire.
As commentators said, “Albanians greeted our President as if he were a rock star.”
Those in Europe have forgotten their short period of oppression by Hitler. They have failed to remember the bloody lessons they learned through a couple of short years with their freedom removed. They ignore the fact that it was the blood of American soldiers on the shores of Europe 63 years ago, that led to their liberation from the occupation of Nazi Germany.
Now, the countries of Europe greet our President by protesting his liberation of yet another country by the force of the American military.
However, should we expect any better from those who are only 63 years removed from a tyrannical oppression? Americans have never known the oppression of a dictatorship. Americans have never experienced a country where they could not speak their mind. Americans cannot comprehend dark figures busting down doors in the middle of the night, making people “disappear” forever.
Albanians can.
The Albanians recognize that it was Americans who gave them their chance at freedom, and they now celebrate the visit of President Bush, the man who has given that same chance at freedom to millions of Iraqis.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The First Amendment – Freedom of Speech and of the Press
Immediately after guaranteeing Americans the right to practice the religion of our own choice (or to not practice any religion at all), the next right guaranteed everyone the right to speak and/or publish their opinion at will. Though this right has been limited in certain cases (like the all too familiar “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”), the right to speak ones own mind in the United States is held in higher esteem than any other country in the world.
The first amendment specifically states:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
What this right basically means is that a person can say nearly anything (within limits as we will discuss later) without fear of being arrested, fined, or otherwise punished for what they are saying, or the manner in which they are saying it.
For example, I can publish in this blog nearly anything I want, such as calling the radical left a bunch of anti-religion, free-enterprise hating, communist/socialist-loving etc… etc… and there would be nothing they could do about it. However, they can also call us the radical religious fanatical, reich-wing, fascist, bigoted, etc… once again, there is nothing we can do about it. Of course, I would expect that neither of these phrases would be entirely accurate, nor applicable to anyone who reads (or writes) these blogs.
However, we must remember two things:
1. The sponsor does not have to accept or publish the comments/rhetoric; and
2. People cannot be forced to listen/read the comments/rhetoric.
Private organizations, such as the Topeka Capital-Journal, can make their own decision to print or not print any particular news item or topic. This also is a crucial part of freedom of speech and of the press. The government cannot mandate that any private organization publish anything, nor can they prevent (except in cases of national security) the publishing whatever they want.
The private right to publish anything is balanced by the inability to force people to purchase or read what is published. If the readers do not like it, they simply will not buy it.
The same applies to television. We have various options for our local news. If the local newscasters do not provide a newscast worth seeing, we simply change the channel, and they lose their source of revenue. If they want to keep their revenue up, they must provide the news content that will attract viewers to their station.
Despite the right to freedom of speech and of the press, and the natural balance provided by the free enterprise system, there are certain times that speech can be limited either by law or by rules/regulations. Here are some of the types of situations where speech can reasonably be limited:
1. Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater when no fire is actually present;
2. Communicating a threat against another person;
3. Talking about terrorism or attacks in highly sensitive places (i.e. start talking about a ‘bomb’ inside of an airport and see what happens);
4. Clothing deemed “inappropriate” in a specified setting, such as a school, private meeting, etc…;
5. Abusive speech in most situations;
6. Suggestive or harassing speech in business situations; and
7. Intentionally malicious statements, either verbal or written.
In general, most speech that indicates intent to cause harm, or is intended to incite others to cause harm to another person, or in which a reasonable person would expect harm to come to another person, then that speech is limited or prohibited. In the case of shouting “fire” in a theater, any reasonable person would expect this to result in a general panic among the patrons of the theater and a rush for people to escape. In the rush to escape the perceived threat of fire, people may be injured or even killed.
The second situation where speech can be limited is in closed environments, such as schools or businesses. Prohibitions exist in some places for students to wear clothing with suggestive or provocative slogans, or clothes recognized as “gang colors.” Additionally, most companies generally prohibit sexually suggestive speech or “hate” speech. The motive behind these types of rules is to ensure an environment amenable to people of all types, and to limit the amount of disruption caused by provocative speech or displays. The US Supreme Court has ruled at various times that organizations have the ability to control speech within their own environs.
The last situation where free speech can be curtailed is when the things said are lies meant to cause some type of harm to a person. The harm in this case is not physical harm, but includes harm to the reputation of a person, caused an economic loss to the person, or caused some other type of quantifiable harm to the person. However, this speech is controlled only under certain conditions:
1. The information must be false or reasonably known to be false by the person/entity that makes/publishes the statement;
2. The person/entity that makes/publishes the statement does so in a malicious manner; and
3. There must have been a quantifiable harm done to the person maligned.
On a closing note, the right to free speech is one of the most important rights granted to Americans by the Constitution. We are almost unique in the world in permitting almost any type of speech or expression. However, the right to free speech does not guarantee that others using their free speech will not offend you. If what a person says offends you, you can choose to ignore it, or you can use your own right to free speech to defend yourself. Whichever option you take, it is your choice to be offended… or not.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
What this right basically means is that a person can say nearly anything (within limits as we will discuss later) without fear of being arrested, fined, or otherwise punished for what they are saying, or the manner in which they are saying it.
For example, I can publish in this blog nearly anything I want, such as calling the radical left a bunch of anti-religion, free-enterprise hating, communist/socialist-loving etc… etc… and there would be nothing they could do about it. However, they can also call us the radical religious fanatical, reich-wing, fascist, bigoted, etc… once again, there is nothing we can do about it. Of course, I would expect that neither of these phrases would be entirely accurate, nor applicable to anyone who reads (or writes) these blogs.
However, we must remember two things:
1. The sponsor does not have to accept or publish the comments/rhetoric; and
2. People cannot be forced to listen/read the comments/rhetoric.
Private organizations, such as the Topeka Capital-Journal, can make their own decision to print or not print any particular news item or topic. This also is a crucial part of freedom of speech and of the press. The government cannot mandate that any private organization publish anything, nor can they prevent (except in cases of national security) the publishing whatever they want.
The private right to publish anything is balanced by the inability to force people to purchase or read what is published. If the readers do not like it, they simply will not buy it.
The same applies to television. We have various options for our local news. If the local newscasters do not provide a newscast worth seeing, we simply change the channel, and they lose their source of revenue. If they want to keep their revenue up, they must provide the news content that will attract viewers to their station.
Despite the right to freedom of speech and of the press, and the natural balance provided by the free enterprise system, there are certain times that speech can be limited either by law or by rules/regulations. Here are some of the types of situations where speech can reasonably be limited:
1. Shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater when no fire is actually present;
2. Communicating a threat against another person;
3. Talking about terrorism or attacks in highly sensitive places (i.e. start talking about a ‘bomb’ inside of an airport and see what happens);
4. Clothing deemed “inappropriate” in a specified setting, such as a school, private meeting, etc…;
5. Abusive speech in most situations;
6. Suggestive or harassing speech in business situations; and
7. Intentionally malicious statements, either verbal or written.
In general, most speech that indicates intent to cause harm, or is intended to incite others to cause harm to another person, or in which a reasonable person would expect harm to come to another person, then that speech is limited or prohibited. In the case of shouting “fire” in a theater, any reasonable person would expect this to result in a general panic among the patrons of the theater and a rush for people to escape. In the rush to escape the perceived threat of fire, people may be injured or even killed.
The second situation where speech can be limited is in closed environments, such as schools or businesses. Prohibitions exist in some places for students to wear clothing with suggestive or provocative slogans, or clothes recognized as “gang colors.” Additionally, most companies generally prohibit sexually suggestive speech or “hate” speech. The motive behind these types of rules is to ensure an environment amenable to people of all types, and to limit the amount of disruption caused by provocative speech or displays. The US Supreme Court has ruled at various times that organizations have the ability to control speech within their own environs.
The last situation where free speech can be curtailed is when the things said are lies meant to cause some type of harm to a person. The harm in this case is not physical harm, but includes harm to the reputation of a person, caused an economic loss to the person, or caused some other type of quantifiable harm to the person. However, this speech is controlled only under certain conditions:
1. The information must be false or reasonably known to be false by the person/entity that makes/publishes the statement;
2. The person/entity that makes/publishes the statement does so in a malicious manner; and
3. There must have been a quantifiable harm done to the person maligned.
On a closing note, the right to free speech is one of the most important rights granted to Americans by the Constitution. We are almost unique in the world in permitting almost any type of speech or expression. However, the right to free speech does not guarantee that others using their free speech will not offend you. If what a person says offends you, you can choose to ignore it, or you can use your own right to free speech to defend yourself. Whichever option you take, it is your choice to be offended… or not.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Fair Trade?
China, on June 9th, rejected a shipment of pistachio nuts from the United States because they said it contained ants. However, there has also been some speculation that this may be in retaliation for some shipments rejected by the US due to safety concerns.
So let me get this straight. We get a shipment of wheat gluten from China that has been tampered with to increase the value of the wheat. That contaminated wheat gluten is then shipped to various pet food manufacturers, and the contaminants end up killing dozens of animals throughout the US. Additionally, some pigs are found that have eaten feed with this same contaminant, which could have ended up in our own food supply, and theoretically killed dozens of people….
And China wants to “retaliate”…
Does this sound like a fair trade? They can ship us poison, and expect us to simply accept their contaminated cargo even though it has been proven deadly, and then they want to retaliate?
Something is seriously wrong with our trade agreement with China when they feel free to poison our animals (and possibly our people) for their own profit.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
So let me get this straight. We get a shipment of wheat gluten from China that has been tampered with to increase the value of the wheat. That contaminated wheat gluten is then shipped to various pet food manufacturers, and the contaminants end up killing dozens of animals throughout the US. Additionally, some pigs are found that have eaten feed with this same contaminant, which could have ended up in our own food supply, and theoretically killed dozens of people….
And China wants to “retaliate”…
Does this sound like a fair trade? They can ship us poison, and expect us to simply accept their contaminated cargo even though it has been proven deadly, and then they want to retaliate?
Something is seriously wrong with our trade agreement with China when they feel free to poison our animals (and possibly our people) for their own profit.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
The First Amendment – Freedom of Religion
The First Amendment found in the American Bill of Rights grants several rights to Americans. The first right mentioned is normally referred to as “Freedom of Religion” (or for some, freedom “from” religion). Of all the rights established, I believe that the promise to keep government out of religion was considered the most important right in the minds of the founding fathers. Why do I say this? Because it was the first right granted!
Specifically, the first amendment addresses freedom of religion by stating:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
What does this mean? At face value, this means that the US Government cannot create any law that mandates a specific religion as if it were the “national” religion, nor can they create any law that prevents or prohibits people from following the tenets of their own particular religion, nor can the government force you to even profess a religion.
Many of those who criticize religion point to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, in which then President Jefferson addressed the first amendment stating:
“… building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The notion that the “wall of separation” prevents any connection between the state and any religion is ludicrous. James Hutson, a curator at the US Library of Congress wrote an article titled, “A Wall of Separation”.
To summarize this article, the two main purposes of this letter were to:
1: Issue a condemnation of the alliance between the church and state, thereby preventing the Federalists Party (predecessor to the modern day Democratic Party) from imposing a British style monarchy, with the strong possibility (or so the Republicans of the time averred) of a church established by law, with the end result becoming an ecclesiastical tyranny, similar to that practiced by the British monarchy of the time.
2: Explain why he (Thomas Jefferson) did not support state sponsored days of “fastings and thanksgivings”, as these also would be indicative of the state sponsoring “religious exercises.”
Jefferson successfully addressed the first issue in his letter; however, upon the recommendation of a confidant, he removed the portion of the letter that addressed the second issue.
So what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he wrote those now famous words regarding the “separation of church and state”? In reading the letter, it appears more to be a guarantee to the Danbury Baptist Church (and all churches) that the state had neither the authority nor the ability to meddle in opinions tied to traditionally religious beliefs. This was not, as many today wish to believe, a prohibition on the church practicing influence on the state.
Another reader graciously provided another quotation from James Madison (also known as “The Father of the Constitution”), to wit:
“The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (James Madison - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).”
This statement by James Madison pleases me in that in confirms, using parallel logic, the conclusion I reached in my entry just a few days ago. This statement from James Madison, and my posting of the other day, both conclude that a government run by religion, or run in the complete absence of religion, are doomed to failure. The only way for the state to be successful is the presence of religion, and the only way for the church to be successful is to coexist peacefully with the state. If either religion or the state is subsumed by the other, that which remains will suffer from the loss.
The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to worship the God of their choice, in the manner of their choice. Attempts by the left to eradicate all semblance of religion from the public are at the best ill founded, and at the worst, unconstitutional.
On one last note, another reader made a comment the other day stating that groups such as the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LBGT) should be permitted to hold meetings at schools, but religious groups should not. The reasoning posed was that since LGBT was not a “religion” that this would be acceptable. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that if one group of any type is provided access, that all groups must be provided a similar ability to access. If access to school facilities were to be provided to one group based upon the fact that it is not a religion, and denied to another based upon the fact that it was a religion, this would violate the first amendment’s clause which says, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” One must treat religious groups as private entities, the same as any other private group.
GOOD NEWS CLUB et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
What does this mean? At face value, this means that the US Government cannot create any law that mandates a specific religion as if it were the “national” religion, nor can they create any law that prevents or prohibits people from following the tenets of their own particular religion, nor can the government force you to even profess a religion.
Many of those who criticize religion point to Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802, in which then President Jefferson addressed the first amendment stating:
“… building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The notion that the “wall of separation” prevents any connection between the state and any religion is ludicrous. James Hutson, a curator at the US Library of Congress wrote an article titled, “A Wall of Separation”.
To summarize this article, the two main purposes of this letter were to:
1: Issue a condemnation of the alliance between the church and state, thereby preventing the Federalists Party (predecessor to the modern day Democratic Party) from imposing a British style monarchy, with the strong possibility (or so the Republicans of the time averred) of a church established by law, with the end result becoming an ecclesiastical tyranny, similar to that practiced by the British monarchy of the time.
2: Explain why he (Thomas Jefferson) did not support state sponsored days of “fastings and thanksgivings”, as these also would be indicative of the state sponsoring “religious exercises.”
Jefferson successfully addressed the first issue in his letter; however, upon the recommendation of a confidant, he removed the portion of the letter that addressed the second issue.
So what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he wrote those now famous words regarding the “separation of church and state”? In reading the letter, it appears more to be a guarantee to the Danbury Baptist Church (and all churches) that the state had neither the authority nor the ability to meddle in opinions tied to traditionally religious beliefs. This was not, as many today wish to believe, a prohibition on the church practicing influence on the state.
Another reader graciously provided another quotation from James Madison (also known as “The Father of the Constitution”), to wit:
“The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (James Madison - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).”
This statement by James Madison pleases me in that in confirms, using parallel logic, the conclusion I reached in my entry just a few days ago. This statement from James Madison, and my posting of the other day, both conclude that a government run by religion, or run in the complete absence of religion, are doomed to failure. The only way for the state to be successful is the presence of religion, and the only way for the church to be successful is to coexist peacefully with the state. If either religion or the state is subsumed by the other, that which remains will suffer from the loss.
The first amendment guarantees all Americans the right to worship the God of their choice, in the manner of their choice. Attempts by the left to eradicate all semblance of religion from the public are at the best ill founded, and at the worst, unconstitutional.
On one last note, another reader made a comment the other day stating that groups such as the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LBGT) should be permitted to hold meetings at schools, but religious groups should not. The reasoning posed was that since LGBT was not a “religion” that this would be acceptable. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that if one group of any type is provided access, that all groups must be provided a similar ability to access. If access to school facilities were to be provided to one group based upon the fact that it is not a religion, and denied to another based upon the fact that it was a religion, this would violate the first amendment’s clause which says, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” One must treat religious groups as private entities, the same as any other private group.
GOOD NEWS CLUB et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Our Rights and the Constitution
Many Americans go about their lives blindly, learning about their Constitutional rights from shows such as Law & Order, COPS, et al… They also hear on the news people complaining about losing their “right to free speech”, while also “pleading the fifth”.
What are our rights, and where did they come from?
In 1787, the US Constitution was created in a process called a Constitutional Convention. This Constitution was an extremely important document to our country as it outlined the authority and the responsibilities of the government of what was then the brand new country called the United States.
The Constitution told us how to elect a president, it told us how to make our laws, and it told us how we were going to try to ensure that laws were enforced fairly. In essence, the Constitution created our government.
However, the Constitution told us how the Government would work, but it did not give that same government any guidance on what the rules should be. To fix this, the same convention created ten “amendments” to the US Constitution. These first ten amendments we now commonly refer to as the, “Bill of Rights.”
The Bill of Rights is an extremely important part of the Constitution, as it provides guidelines that all new laws and ordinances MUST follow, but it also tells every single citizen and resident the things that they can reasonably expect the government to protect on their behalf.
One big mistake that people make is that they consider the Bill of Rights to be something applicable throughout the entirety of the United States. However, they are not. The Bill of Rights is something that protects citizens from the Government. It does not protect anyone from the actions of other private citizens.
How it works is that the government itself makes the rules (laws) by which people must live. If a person is affected by a law, and thinks that the law breaches one of their personal rights granted under the US Constitution, that person can then argue the violation of their rights before a court. The court will then either uphold or overturn the law by finding either that it complies with our Constitutional rights, or that it violates them.
I am going to attempt to write a series of essays on what our rights under the Constitution are, and explain some of the impact that these rights as granted have on our everyday lives. I am not a constitutional scholar, and I am sure that somebody out there will say that I cannot “assume” to teach knowledge which I do not have, but…
I plead the first; it is my right to free speech that allows me the privilege. Simply follow along, and you, as well, may learn a thing or two.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
What are our rights, and where did they come from?
In 1787, the US Constitution was created in a process called a Constitutional Convention. This Constitution was an extremely important document to our country as it outlined the authority and the responsibilities of the government of what was then the brand new country called the United States.
The Constitution told us how to elect a president, it told us how to make our laws, and it told us how we were going to try to ensure that laws were enforced fairly. In essence, the Constitution created our government.
However, the Constitution told us how the Government would work, but it did not give that same government any guidance on what the rules should be. To fix this, the same convention created ten “amendments” to the US Constitution. These first ten amendments we now commonly refer to as the, “Bill of Rights.”
The Bill of Rights is an extremely important part of the Constitution, as it provides guidelines that all new laws and ordinances MUST follow, but it also tells every single citizen and resident the things that they can reasonably expect the government to protect on their behalf.
One big mistake that people make is that they consider the Bill of Rights to be something applicable throughout the entirety of the United States. However, they are not. The Bill of Rights is something that protects citizens from the Government. It does not protect anyone from the actions of other private citizens.
How it works is that the government itself makes the rules (laws) by which people must live. If a person is affected by a law, and thinks that the law breaches one of their personal rights granted under the US Constitution, that person can then argue the violation of their rights before a court. The court will then either uphold or overturn the law by finding either that it complies with our Constitutional rights, or that it violates them.
I am going to attempt to write a series of essays on what our rights under the Constitution are, and explain some of the impact that these rights as granted have on our everyday lives. I am not a constitutional scholar, and I am sure that somebody out there will say that I cannot “assume” to teach knowledge which I do not have, but…
I plead the first; it is my right to free speech that allows me the privilege. Simply follow along, and you, as well, may learn a thing or two.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The People Spoke, But did they listen?
SB 1348, the bill which would have given those who entered our country illegally amnesty for violating our immigration laws, committing identity theft, and forgery and/or possession of false documents is now dead.
I have to admit, Senator Brownback has now successfully straddled the fence. He voted no on the first cloture vote (which helped keep the debate going), then didn’t vote at all on the second cloture vote. Either he wasn’t present to vote, or else he simply decided not to vote to show his support towards those who violate our laws.
At the least, I am glad to see that the US Senate listened to the American people and shut this bill down. Sorry all of you who support rewarding people who violate the law. Maybe we can start again next year by actually securing the border first, working on an employment verification system, then starting to discuss the other, more contentious items.
Until then, Adios!
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
I have to admit, Senator Brownback has now successfully straddled the fence. He voted no on the first cloture vote (which helped keep the debate going), then didn’t vote at all on the second cloture vote. Either he wasn’t present to vote, or else he simply decided not to vote to show his support towards those who violate our laws.
At the least, I am glad to see that the US Senate listened to the American people and shut this bill down. Sorry all of you who support rewarding people who violate the law. Maybe we can start again next year by actually securing the border first, working on an employment verification system, then starting to discuss the other, more contentious items.
Until then, Adios!
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Is it a global war on terror? or a holy war against the infidel?
September 11, 2001. Ask any American when we initiated our global war on terror, and they will tell you of that horrific day now simply referred to as 9-11. But was 9-11 really the opening shots of our war on terror? Or was 9-11 simply the event that finally woke the sleeping lion?
For decades, the entire world has suffered attacks from various radical groups that utilized the deaths of innocents in an attempt to demand the capitulation of those who held power. This could be seen in places such as the United States, Ireland, Iran, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, et al…
The vast majority of the acts of terror carried out in the last several decades have been based upon religious differences or perceived religious persecution. Examples of religion-based violence can be seen in the Catholic/Protestant conflict that raged in Ireland, or by looking at the ongoing Jewish/Arab confrontations in the Middle East.
However, the Jewish/Arab conflict is simply a minor part in modern worldwide terrorism. The confrontation between Arab and Jew has morphed over the last three decades into a radical Islamic jihad against both the United States and Israel. Whether the takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran, Iran could be considered a terrorist act or not, the holding of American diplomats as hostages for 444 days can only be classed as state-sponsored terrorism.
This is what I personally consider the beginning of the global Islamic jihad against not simply the Western countries, but also against all other countries that do not accept the tenets of Islam or the teachings of Muhammad. This is amply demonstrated by recent attacks in Bali, Spain, England, Indonesia, the Philippines, et al…
The sitting leader of Iran has threatened in no uncertain terms the very existence of Israel, has kidnapped American citizens, has sponsored Islamic terror groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, and is currently doing everything possible to become a nuclear armed power.
The government of Syria has been the leading sponsor of groups such as Hamas, providing both money and weapons in an effort to force Israeli and Palestinian capitulation to their demands.
Al Qaeda groups around the world have been active attempting to keep Iraq destabilized, while also maintaining active cells located around the world.
Senior Islamic Clerics and Imams around the world have either encouraged the terrorist groups through both public speeches and money, or have remained silent, giving their tacit consent to the atrocities being carried out. It is rare to hear of any person in the Islamic hierarchy condemning the groups that kill innocent men, women and children.
But how can this be happening, especially in a country such as the US that believes that all religions have the right to coexist in peace?
It is simple. Islam teaches that all Muslims must be faithful to Islam first. There is no country, there is no family, all is Islam. Islam also teaches that all who are not followers of Islam must be converted to Islam, subjugated to the will of Islam, or killed. The word "Islam" itself means "subjugation". And those who do not comply, should be killed.
There are also numerous international recruiting efforts being carried out in local mosques and via the internet. These efforts are directed at creating "grassroot cells" in various countries. Recently, these types of cells have been discovered plotting to attack Fort Dix, NJ, a US military base, and a further plot to blow up a jet-fuel pipeline at NYC Kennedy. Though both of these plots were stopped, they are both indicative of the influence that Islamic teaching has had on Muslims living inside of the US.
The premise of the Koran has been described as "peaceful" and "tolerant", however, I must emphatically state that everything that is heard or seen here inside of the US indicates that the true belief in the Koran is anything but "peaceful" or "tolerant". It seems to me that the Koranic teaching of biding your time in peace while weak, until you are strong enough to overwhelm and destroy is what we are currently experiencing, not just in the US, but also in Europe and other parts of the world.
Some people will call me a bigot for my views, but at this time, I have no evidence available that indicates to me that Islam is truly a religion of peace. The threats by the extremists combined with the lack of response by the "moderates" indicates to me that we do indeed face an extreme threat to the future of the world.
If there are some Muslims who would like to stand up and proclaim the evil that the radical Islamists are doing, and condemn their actions against not simply the US, but against the world, I would be very happy and pleased to assist.
I do not believe that every single Muslim is involved, nor that every single Muslim is "out" to kill or convert unbelievers, but I do believe that on the whole, the religion of Islam is attempting to become the first globally mandated religion.
For decades, the entire world has suffered attacks from various radical groups that utilized the deaths of innocents in an attempt to demand the capitulation of those who held power. This could be seen in places such as the United States, Ireland, Iran, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, et al…
The vast majority of the acts of terror carried out in the last several decades have been based upon religious differences or perceived religious persecution. Examples of religion-based violence can be seen in the Catholic/Protestant conflict that raged in Ireland, or by looking at the ongoing Jewish/Arab confrontations in the Middle East.
However, the Jewish/Arab conflict is simply a minor part in modern worldwide terrorism. The confrontation between Arab and Jew has morphed over the last three decades into a radical Islamic jihad against both the United States and Israel. Whether the takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran, Iran could be considered a terrorist act or not, the holding of American diplomats as hostages for 444 days can only be classed as state-sponsored terrorism.
This is what I personally consider the beginning of the global Islamic jihad against not simply the Western countries, but also against all other countries that do not accept the tenets of Islam or the teachings of Muhammad. This is amply demonstrated by recent attacks in Bali, Spain, England, Indonesia, the Philippines, et al…
The sitting leader of Iran has threatened in no uncertain terms the very existence of Israel, has kidnapped American citizens, has sponsored Islamic terror groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, and is currently doing everything possible to become a nuclear armed power.
The government of Syria has been the leading sponsor of groups such as Hamas, providing both money and weapons in an effort to force Israeli and Palestinian capitulation to their demands.
Al Qaeda groups around the world have been active attempting to keep Iraq destabilized, while also maintaining active cells located around the world.
Senior Islamic Clerics and Imams around the world have either encouraged the terrorist groups through both public speeches and money, or have remained silent, giving their tacit consent to the atrocities being carried out. It is rare to hear of any person in the Islamic hierarchy condemning the groups that kill innocent men, women and children.
But how can this be happening, especially in a country such as the US that believes that all religions have the right to coexist in peace?
It is simple. Islam teaches that all Muslims must be faithful to Islam first. There is no country, there is no family, all is Islam. Islam also teaches that all who are not followers of Islam must be converted to Islam, subjugated to the will of Islam, or killed. The word "Islam" itself means "subjugation". And those who do not comply, should be killed.
There are also numerous international recruiting efforts being carried out in local mosques and via the internet. These efforts are directed at creating "grassroot cells" in various countries. Recently, these types of cells have been discovered plotting to attack Fort Dix, NJ, a US military base, and a further plot to blow up a jet-fuel pipeline at NYC Kennedy. Though both of these plots were stopped, they are both indicative of the influence that Islamic teaching has had on Muslims living inside of the US.
The premise of the Koran has been described as "peaceful" and "tolerant", however, I must emphatically state that everything that is heard or seen here inside of the US indicates that the true belief in the Koran is anything but "peaceful" or "tolerant". It seems to me that the Koranic teaching of biding your time in peace while weak, until you are strong enough to overwhelm and destroy is what we are currently experiencing, not just in the US, but also in Europe and other parts of the world.
Some people will call me a bigot for my views, but at this time, I have no evidence available that indicates to me that Islam is truly a religion of peace. The threats by the extremists combined with the lack of response by the "moderates" indicates to me that we do indeed face an extreme threat to the future of the world.
If there are some Muslims who would like to stand up and proclaim the evil that the radical Islamists are doing, and condemn their actions against not simply the US, but against the world, I would be very happy and pleased to assist.
I do not believe that every single Muslim is involved, nor that every single Muslim is "out" to kill or convert unbelievers, but I do believe that on the whole, the religion of Islam is attempting to become the first globally mandated religion.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
From the frontlines of Baghdad
I found the story from the front lines of Baghdad to be a very interesting view into how life in Baghdad is going. I think everyone, whether you are for staying in Iraq or for getting out to read this blog and maybe... just maybe... you'll gain some insights into what is actually going on.
http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3430
http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3430
Black and White! No Grey!
It always amazes me the vehemence with which the radical left makes personal attacks on those who dare to stand up and say that wrong is wrong. They battle over semantics, they try to baffle with falsified facts, and they do everything possible to paint those who would do “the right thing” as hypocrites, bigots, or worse.
Fortunately, there are a still some people that believe that “wrong” means “wrong”. Those from the radical left would love to have us believe that there is no black or white, but simply various shades of grey. They believe that extenuating circumstances provide an excuse for those who knowingly and willingly violate the rights of others. But, I believe they are really trying to say is that they have the right to cause harm to others.
The people who complain about someone using the word “God” in school because it might “offend” their children, are the same people who defend the right of adults to rape and sodomize children. Of course, to them, it is simply an “alternate lifestyle” or a “personal choice.” They won’t openly admit their support of these types of “alternate lifestyles” that victimize innocent children, but they certainly come out fighting for the rights of those found guilty of it.
They demand that we remove our “offensive” religion so they do not have to see or hear it, while demanding that we must be “tolerant” of their views. They force their perversions on others through violence and coercion; they force their belief (or lack of belief) on others through the courts, and then, when somebody shows them their own bigotry and intolerance, they fabricate lies and innuendos to attack the values, not simply of the individual who said it, but of the country that Americans built.
But I have a message for radicals out there. Whether you like it or not. Americans, on the whole, are the most compassionate and tolerant people in the world. And the vast majority of Americans truly believe that the law is something that is to be followed. There is a “black” and there is a “white”, and the moral relativism of those radicals who who insist everything is grey, simply demonstrates their own values, morals and ethics. It shows their incapability to actually distinguish the right from the wrong.
There is a black, there is a white; there is a right, and there is a wrong. And if you or your family are ever the victim of one of these people who want to say that wrong is right, maybe then, you’ll understand. There are some things worth standing up for.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Fortunately, there are a still some people that believe that “wrong” means “wrong”. Those from the radical left would love to have us believe that there is no black or white, but simply various shades of grey. They believe that extenuating circumstances provide an excuse for those who knowingly and willingly violate the rights of others. But, I believe they are really trying to say is that they have the right to cause harm to others.
The people who complain about someone using the word “God” in school because it might “offend” their children, are the same people who defend the right of adults to rape and sodomize children. Of course, to them, it is simply an “alternate lifestyle” or a “personal choice.” They won’t openly admit their support of these types of “alternate lifestyles” that victimize innocent children, but they certainly come out fighting for the rights of those found guilty of it.
They demand that we remove our “offensive” religion so they do not have to see or hear it, while demanding that we must be “tolerant” of their views. They force their perversions on others through violence and coercion; they force their belief (or lack of belief) on others through the courts, and then, when somebody shows them their own bigotry and intolerance, they fabricate lies and innuendos to attack the values, not simply of the individual who said it, but of the country that Americans built.
But I have a message for radicals out there. Whether you like it or not. Americans, on the whole, are the most compassionate and tolerant people in the world. And the vast majority of Americans truly believe that the law is something that is to be followed. There is a “black” and there is a “white”, and the moral relativism of those radicals who who insist everything is grey, simply demonstrates their own values, morals and ethics. It shows their incapability to actually distinguish the right from the wrong.
There is a black, there is a white; there is a right, and there is a wrong. And if you or your family are ever the victim of one of these people who want to say that wrong is right, maybe then, you’ll understand. There are some things worth standing up for.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Presidential Myth Busters #2
As I stated in my last posting, President Bush has published numerous “Facts” in an attempt to dispel certain so-called “myths” about SB 1348, the Senate Bill to provide comprehensive immigration reform. Here is the next segment on “Myth and Facts” from our President:
“2. MYTH: This proposal repeats the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act failed because it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants, did not adequately secure borders, did not include a workable employer verification system, and created no legal avenue to meet the labor needs of the American economy. ”
“FACT: This proposal addresses every one of the shortcomings from 1986: ”
“No Amnesty: Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law and pay a fine to be eligible for a Z visa.”
“Border Security: Border security benchmarks must be met before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. These triggers include: constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and increasing the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents.”
“Employer Verification System: An Employment Eligibility Verification System must be ready to process new hires before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect." “Temporary Worker Program: A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act offered green cards after just 18 months, but under this proposal, green card applicants must meet a number of responsibilities – something which will take most candidates more than a decade. ”
RESPONSE:
As I pointed out in Myth Busters # 1, this is indeed an amnesty program. Additionally, though it provided amnesty to 3 million, it was originally projected to provide amnesty for only 1 million people. It did indeed fail to implement a workable employer verification system, however, the current bill cannot guarantee the implementation of a workable employment verification system either. As far as meeting the "labor needs of the American economy, I’ll go into that a little bit later.
The reality, despite the President’s desire to state that this Senate proposal addresses all of the errors made in 1986, is that it does in fact repeat some of the most egregious errors.
Based upon the estimate of about 9 million applications for the new “Z” Visa, the following calculations are made. Please note, the 9 million applications could become as many as 27 million based upon the experiences of the 1986 amnesty program.
According to Chris Kobach, former counsel on immigration to US Attorney General John Ashcroft, the GAO in 2006 reported that the Immigrations and Customs Service (ICS) currently has a backlog of about 6.3 million immigration cases. This case backlog was already strained almost to the “breaking point” in processing the normal immigrant applications. Now, the plan is to more than double the number of pending case? (Or quadruple if we use the full 18 million).
Additionally, with the need to perform “background checks” on each applicant in under 24 hours, just how are they planning on doing this? How are you going to do a background check on someone from San Jose, Guatemala (beautiful little town on the Pacific coast) in under 24 hours? Fax? E-mail? Carrier Pigeon? The background investigation on my wife took us about 24 hours to complete as we happened to be IN the country of origin. Now we expect a bureaucrat in Washington DC to complete one in less than 24-hours? Especially when you consider that they will have an average of about 34,615 additional background checks to process EVERY DAY!!! At least we could assume they would attain plenty of practice in the performance of background checks.
One of the biggest fallacies of this bill is the assumption that it requires that certain “triggers” in the increase of our border security prior to anybody receiving their amnesty.
Unfortunately, there is a clause in the bill that states that upon the concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, the border can be “certified” secure at any time, and thereby bypass any issues that have occurred in the completion of the actual “triggers”. With all that we have gone through with this bill, and the deceptive way in which it was assembled and attempted to be passed without any debate or discussion, I personally do not feel confident in trusting either this administration or the next in waiting until the actual triggers are “met” before certifying the security of our borders.
The last fallacy is that the presence of a temporary guest worker program will reduce the number of people flowing across our border, or the desire of people to illegally enter the US. However, that discussion shall wait until another time.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
“2. MYTH: This proposal repeats the mistakes of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act failed because it provided amnesty for 3 million immigrants, did not adequately secure borders, did not include a workable employer verification system, and created no legal avenue to meet the labor needs of the American economy. ”
“FACT: This proposal addresses every one of the shortcomings from 1986: ”
“No Amnesty: Illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law and pay a fine to be eligible for a Z visa.”
“Border Security: Border security benchmarks must be met before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect. These triggers include: constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and increasing the size of the Border Patrol to 18,000 agents.”
“Employer Verification System: An Employment Eligibility Verification System must be ready to process new hires before the Z visa and temporary worker programs go into effect." “Temporary Worker Program: A temporary worker program will relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy. ”
“FACT: The 1986 Act offered green cards after just 18 months, but under this proposal, green card applicants must meet a number of responsibilities – something which will take most candidates more than a decade. ”
RESPONSE:
As I pointed out in Myth Busters # 1, this is indeed an amnesty program. Additionally, though it provided amnesty to 3 million, it was originally projected to provide amnesty for only 1 million people. It did indeed fail to implement a workable employer verification system, however, the current bill cannot guarantee the implementation of a workable employment verification system either. As far as meeting the "labor needs of the American economy, I’ll go into that a little bit later.
The reality, despite the President’s desire to state that this Senate proposal addresses all of the errors made in 1986, is that it does in fact repeat some of the most egregious errors.
Based upon the estimate of about 9 million applications for the new “Z” Visa, the following calculations are made. Please note, the 9 million applications could become as many as 27 million based upon the experiences of the 1986 amnesty program.
According to Chris Kobach, former counsel on immigration to US Attorney General John Ashcroft, the GAO in 2006 reported that the Immigrations and Customs Service (ICS) currently has a backlog of about 6.3 million immigration cases. This case backlog was already strained almost to the “breaking point” in processing the normal immigrant applications. Now, the plan is to more than double the number of pending case? (Or quadruple if we use the full 18 million).
Additionally, with the need to perform “background checks” on each applicant in under 24 hours, just how are they planning on doing this? How are you going to do a background check on someone from San Jose, Guatemala (beautiful little town on the Pacific coast) in under 24 hours? Fax? E-mail? Carrier Pigeon? The background investigation on my wife took us about 24 hours to complete as we happened to be IN the country of origin. Now we expect a bureaucrat in Washington DC to complete one in less than 24-hours? Especially when you consider that they will have an average of about 34,615 additional background checks to process EVERY DAY!!! At least we could assume they would attain plenty of practice in the performance of background checks.
One of the biggest fallacies of this bill is the assumption that it requires that certain “triggers” in the increase of our border security prior to anybody receiving their amnesty.
Unfortunately, there is a clause in the bill that states that upon the concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, the border can be “certified” secure at any time, and thereby bypass any issues that have occurred in the completion of the actual “triggers”. With all that we have gone through with this bill, and the deceptive way in which it was assembled and attempted to be passed without any debate or discussion, I personally do not feel confident in trusting either this administration or the next in waiting until the actual triggers are “met” before certifying the security of our borders.
The last fallacy is that the presence of a temporary guest worker program will reduce the number of people flowing across our border, or the desire of people to illegally enter the US. However, that discussion shall wait until another time.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Presidential Myth Busters #1
Since Senate Bill 1348 was introduced, there has been a lot of feedback from both the conservatives and the liberals on how bad this bill is. I have heard some people foolishly use the thoughts that because both sides were complaining, that it meant that this was a good compromise agreement that screwed both sides equally.
Over the next few days, I’ll provide some myths about this bill, and some of the “facts” that President Bush has released to address these myths. I’ll also present some “facts” that the President has conveniently failed to disclose in trying to disprove the “myth”.
“1. MYTH: This is amnesty. ”
Presidential “FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status. ”
Presidential “FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.”
Presidential “FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal
Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.”
RESPONSE:
The truth behind the facts, as discovered in actually reading SB 1348:
A $1000 fine in this case, is described in the bill itself as a filing fee.‘‘(2) FINE.—An alien who files an application under this section shall pay a fine commensurate with levels charged by the Department of Homeland Security for other applications for adjustment of status." – SB 1348, Page 477
‘‘(j) APPLICATION FEE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An alien seeking a grant of Deferred Mandatory Departure status shall submit, in addition to any other fees authorized by law, an application fee of $1,000." – SB 1348, Page 499,
Though called a “fine” or, as our President says, a “penalty”, even inside of the bill itself, it states that it should be commensurate with the fees charged for “applications for adjustment of status” while later calling it an “application fee”.
You be the judge? Fee? Or Penalty?
Additionally, the President states that a worker must pay an additional $4,000 fine. As of yet, I have found no $4,000 fines in this bill other than the fines for employers that are found guilty of utilizing persons unauthorized to work.
On the last note, the President wishes to emphasize that persons provided the “Z” Visa will not be eligible for welfare benefits or to sponsor relatives to enter the US, however, what he fails to indicate is that those persons who have US born children will continue to be eligible (as they are now) to receive welfare benefits based upon the citizenship of their child(ren).
Is this an amnesty? So far, it seems so to me. Those who are here illegally are being asked to pay the appropriate application fee, nothing more, nothing less. Simply because you call it a “fine” does not make it one when you also refer to it as an “application fee”.
Is the President trying to mislead us on this bill? I think he may be getting some bad information from people who have not yet read the bill. You would think that at least they could find SOMEONE on his staff who could have read the bill for some accurate information.
Tomorrow… (or maybe even later today), I’ll cover President Bush’s next “myth buster” fallacies and mistruths.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Over the next few days, I’ll provide some myths about this bill, and some of the “facts” that President Bush has released to address these myths. I’ll also present some “facts” that the President has conveniently failed to disclose in trying to disprove the “myth”.
“1. MYTH: This is amnesty. ”
Presidential “FACT: Amnesty is the forgiveness of an offense without penalty. This proposal is not amnesty because illegal workers must acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a $1,000 fine, and undergo criminal background checks to obtain a Z visa granting temporary legal status. ”
Presidential “FACT: To apply for a green card at a date years into the future, Z visa workers must wait in line behind those who applied lawfully, pay an additional $4,000 fine, complete accelerated English requirements, leave the U.S. and file their application in their home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States.”
Presidential “FACT: Workers approved for Z visas will be given a temporary legal status, but they will not enjoy the full privileges of citizens or Legal
Permanent Residents, such as welfare benefits and the ability to sponsor relatives abroad as immigrants.”
RESPONSE:
The truth behind the facts, as discovered in actually reading SB 1348:
A $1000 fine in this case, is described in the bill itself as a filing fee.‘‘(2) FINE.—An alien who files an application under this section shall pay a fine commensurate with levels charged by the Department of Homeland Security for other applications for adjustment of status." – SB 1348, Page 477
‘‘(j) APPLICATION FEE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An alien seeking a grant of Deferred Mandatory Departure status shall submit, in addition to any other fees authorized by law, an application fee of $1,000." – SB 1348, Page 499,
Though called a “fine” or, as our President says, a “penalty”, even inside of the bill itself, it states that it should be commensurate with the fees charged for “applications for adjustment of status” while later calling it an “application fee”.
You be the judge? Fee? Or Penalty?
Additionally, the President states that a worker must pay an additional $4,000 fine. As of yet, I have found no $4,000 fines in this bill other than the fines for employers that are found guilty of utilizing persons unauthorized to work.
On the last note, the President wishes to emphasize that persons provided the “Z” Visa will not be eligible for welfare benefits or to sponsor relatives to enter the US, however, what he fails to indicate is that those persons who have US born children will continue to be eligible (as they are now) to receive welfare benefits based upon the citizenship of their child(ren).
Is this an amnesty? So far, it seems so to me. Those who are here illegally are being asked to pay the appropriate application fee, nothing more, nothing less. Simply because you call it a “fine” does not make it one when you also refer to it as an “application fee”.
Is the President trying to mislead us on this bill? I think he may be getting some bad information from people who have not yet read the bill. You would think that at least they could find SOMEONE on his staff who could have read the bill for some accurate information.
Tomorrow… (or maybe even later today), I’ll cover President Bush’s next “myth buster” fallacies and mistruths.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The nature of the beast
The other day, I heard a ruckus out back, and investigated. I watched my apparently crazy dog trying to eat his way through our chain link fence. After a few seconds, I noticed that a turtle was on the other side of the fence, and the dog was trying any way possible to get at the turtle.
To quiet my dog (and to allow him to keep his nose and tongue in place), I went around the fence, got the turtle, and took it to a nearby creek and released it.
Then I started thinking. Why, with so many other places to be, was the turtle right up against the fence, and why didn’t it try to get away from the dog that wanted to eat it? Then I realized that what I was observing was the nature of the beast.
The turtle, with its protective shell was simply going about its business, hunting for food. My dog, as well, noticing a smaller animal, decided that he wanted to play with and/or eat the apparently weaker animal. The only thing separating the two was a simple chain link fence.
I realized that what happened was actually very similar to the situation in our country where an invisible wall called the first amendment separates the forces of religion and the forces of anti-religion.
On one side, we have those who believe in God; on the other, we have those who believe there is no God. Despite the supposed freedom of religion and its implicit right to believe or not believe in God, each side seems intent on forcing the “enemy” to acknowledge their point of view.
Though the vast majority of those who believe in God simply want to go about their own business, some fringe elements believe that they are the personal harbingers of God’s wrath on man for their sins. Likewise, the vast majority of those who do not believe in God simply want to live in peace and go about their daily lives as well. Yet there also exists the fringe element of those who disbelieve in God who feel that their only goal in life is the personal destruction of all things religious.
With each group, you have an extreme minority of radicals that cannot see past their own prejudice, either for or against God, that they simply cannot permit others to hold their views in peace. They claim they are “under assault” by the (zealots/atheists) and justify their personal attacks on their chosen enemy by claiming that they were “attacked first.”
These fringe elements are like my dog, snapping futilely at its prey. The first amendment protects both the freedom to practice or not practice religion, while also guaranteeing the right to speak ones opinions freely. The radicals of both sides have the right to their personal opinion, however, rabid attacks against those on the other side of the fence may result in unintended consequences.
Sometimes, the turtle bites back.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
To quiet my dog (and to allow him to keep his nose and tongue in place), I went around the fence, got the turtle, and took it to a nearby creek and released it.
Then I started thinking. Why, with so many other places to be, was the turtle right up against the fence, and why didn’t it try to get away from the dog that wanted to eat it? Then I realized that what I was observing was the nature of the beast.
The turtle, with its protective shell was simply going about its business, hunting for food. My dog, as well, noticing a smaller animal, decided that he wanted to play with and/or eat the apparently weaker animal. The only thing separating the two was a simple chain link fence.
I realized that what happened was actually very similar to the situation in our country where an invisible wall called the first amendment separates the forces of religion and the forces of anti-religion.
On one side, we have those who believe in God; on the other, we have those who believe there is no God. Despite the supposed freedom of religion and its implicit right to believe or not believe in God, each side seems intent on forcing the “enemy” to acknowledge their point of view.
Though the vast majority of those who believe in God simply want to go about their own business, some fringe elements believe that they are the personal harbingers of God’s wrath on man for their sins. Likewise, the vast majority of those who do not believe in God simply want to live in peace and go about their daily lives as well. Yet there also exists the fringe element of those who disbelieve in God who feel that their only goal in life is the personal destruction of all things religious.
With each group, you have an extreme minority of radicals that cannot see past their own prejudice, either for or against God, that they simply cannot permit others to hold their views in peace. They claim they are “under assault” by the (zealots/atheists) and justify their personal attacks on their chosen enemy by claiming that they were “attacked first.”
These fringe elements are like my dog, snapping futilely at its prey. The first amendment protects both the freedom to practice or not practice religion, while also guaranteeing the right to speak ones opinions freely. The radicals of both sides have the right to their personal opinion, however, rabid attacks against those on the other side of the fence may result in unintended consequences.
Sometimes, the turtle bites back.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Pedophilia? And Justice unserved!
The other day, I discussed the heinous acts of a pedophile. To rehash, a 38-year old man was convicted in Shawnee County District Court of 17 counts of the rape and sodomy of a 14-year old Topeka girl. The penalty for these convictions, according to sentencing guidelines, should have been 155 months (13 years) in prison. Shawnee Country District Judge Matthew Dowd however, sentenced the 38-year old to 36 months of probation.
In response to my earlier posting, one reader stated that I was calling for a harsher punishment simply because of the name of the crime. I have to agree with him. Whenever a 38-year old violates a 14-year old girl like this, it is called pedophilia. Anyone convicted of pedophilia deserves to pay for the degradation, humiliation and long term psychological damage they cause to young children.
There are no excuses that should allow a judge, who supposedly is there for the purpose of justice, to heap the insult of leniency onto the head of the 14-year old girl and her parents by letting the animal who committed these crimes back onto the streets of Topeka.
There are no excuses for a judge, responsible for safeguarding the rights of the victim as well as the perpetrator, to simply ignore the will of the people and release a pedophile onto the streets of our city to possibly commit this atrocity on another innocent victim.
Maybe this is another example of my personal bigotry against criminals who prey on the innocent, but I do indeed believe that any 38-year old man that has sexual relations with (especially the sodomy of) a 14-year old girl, does indeed deserve significantly more than 36 months of “supervised probation”.
Of course, maybe it is my simple view that thinks a 14-year old girl could be easily manipulated by an adult. Maybe it is yet another simple view that says our children must be protected from pedophiles. Maybe I am just simple for assuming that a 38-year old should be capable of making rational decisions.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
In my simple view of life, this is an outrage. Our children have life hard enough that we don’t need to open the door to more suffering because a Judge won’t do his job.
In this case, there were no extenuating factors in the perpetration of the crime. There was no doubt of his guilt. The judge simply ignored the sentencing guidelines passed by our legislature, and based his decision upon the fact that the perpetrator claimed to be depressed over his parents divorce 30 years before, and that the animal had a good job history and “good” family support.
Unfortunately, with Judge Matthew Dowd, this wasn’t the first time that he gave a convicted pedophile a slap on the wrist and probation. In two other cases, one of which a 27-year old had relations with a 15-year old and a second case where a 34-year old was convicted for solicitation of sex with a 13/14-year old girl via the internet. In both cases, Judge Dowd found reason to believe that probation was the appropriate punishment.
In the case of the 27-year old, we fortunately had the animal put into prison by a different Judge who sentenced him to 54 months in prison for yet another charge of aggravated indecencies with yet another child. Obviously, Judge Dowd did not consider this person to be a threat to society.
Matthew Dowd (I’m sorry, I can’t bear to call him a Judge any more) has shown such a softness in his heart towards pedophiles, I am wondering if he has any hidden motives behind these weak sentences that he has handed out. Or is it that he simply thinks that the violation and abuse of our children is acceptable behavior.
Our only hope until we get this person off the bench, is for District Judge Nancy Parrish to ensure that all cases such as this are kept out of the incapable hands of Matthew Dowd.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
In response to my earlier posting, one reader stated that I was calling for a harsher punishment simply because of the name of the crime. I have to agree with him. Whenever a 38-year old violates a 14-year old girl like this, it is called pedophilia. Anyone convicted of pedophilia deserves to pay for the degradation, humiliation and long term psychological damage they cause to young children.
There are no excuses that should allow a judge, who supposedly is there for the purpose of justice, to heap the insult of leniency onto the head of the 14-year old girl and her parents by letting the animal who committed these crimes back onto the streets of Topeka.
There are no excuses for a judge, responsible for safeguarding the rights of the victim as well as the perpetrator, to simply ignore the will of the people and release a pedophile onto the streets of our city to possibly commit this atrocity on another innocent victim.
Maybe this is another example of my personal bigotry against criminals who prey on the innocent, but I do indeed believe that any 38-year old man that has sexual relations with (especially the sodomy of) a 14-year old girl, does indeed deserve significantly more than 36 months of “supervised probation”.
Of course, maybe it is my simple view that thinks a 14-year old girl could be easily manipulated by an adult. Maybe it is yet another simple view that says our children must be protected from pedophiles. Maybe I am just simple for assuming that a 38-year old should be capable of making rational decisions.
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
In my simple view of life, this is an outrage. Our children have life hard enough that we don’t need to open the door to more suffering because a Judge won’t do his job.
In this case, there were no extenuating factors in the perpetration of the crime. There was no doubt of his guilt. The judge simply ignored the sentencing guidelines passed by our legislature, and based his decision upon the fact that the perpetrator claimed to be depressed over his parents divorce 30 years before, and that the animal had a good job history and “good” family support.
Unfortunately, with Judge Matthew Dowd, this wasn’t the first time that he gave a convicted pedophile a slap on the wrist and probation. In two other cases, one of which a 27-year old had relations with a 15-year old and a second case where a 34-year old was convicted for solicitation of sex with a 13/14-year old girl via the internet. In both cases, Judge Dowd found reason to believe that probation was the appropriate punishment.
In the case of the 27-year old, we fortunately had the animal put into prison by a different Judge who sentenced him to 54 months in prison for yet another charge of aggravated indecencies with yet another child. Obviously, Judge Dowd did not consider this person to be a threat to society.
Matthew Dowd (I’m sorry, I can’t bear to call him a Judge any more) has shown such a softness in his heart towards pedophiles, I am wondering if he has any hidden motives behind these weak sentences that he has handed out. Or is it that he simply thinks that the violation and abuse of our children is acceptable behavior.
Our only hope until we get this person off the bench, is for District Judge Nancy Parrish to ensure that all cases such as this are kept out of the incapable hands of Matthew Dowd.
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Communism, Theocracy and choice
The one thing I find most amazing, is the number of people who will bash Fred Phelps for his idiotic rants in one breath, and in the next, they fling the same type of generalized insults at another group. Take for instance, the ongoing attack that have regularly appeared in the comments on my blog. Comments that attack not just Christianity, but attack and insult any person that dares to believe in a higher being. These attacks which are wrongly made by Fred Phelps, are also wrongly made by those who wish to rid the world of organized religion.
Fortunately, in the United States, the right to believe or disbelieve rests with the individual, and not with society, not with the government, and definitely not based upon the opinion of a few morons on the internet. The right to believe or disbelieve is now, and in the United States, has always been a free choice.
Of course, there are many examples of countries that took away the individual right to believe in God. For example, the old Communist empire of the Soviet Union, religion, while not forbidden, was strictly controlled, and “having religion” barred an individual from rising in the ranks. In modern China, that same strict regulation of religion still exists, but government is slowly easing the regulations that virtually ban religion.
On the other hand, there exist many countries that are theocracies, and are run by a religious leader/council. Two of the more famous are Iran and Syria.
I am not sure about you, but I don’t believe that I would like to be living in any country that either prohibited the practice of religion, or that mandated the practice of religion. Just from the examples shown, both the total government that lacks religion and that government based upon religion could be considered not-so-nice places to live.
In both cases, the free will of the people is removed, with the intention of the individual serving the state, and only the state. In both cases, the outcome is same, you either toe the line of the leadership, or you end up imprisoned (or worse).
One of the best parts of the United States has always been mixture of both the secular and the religious. The base nature of secular man mixed with the morality taught by religion. And men were given the choice to be who they are, and to believe as they wished, rather than having a particular religion or a lack of religion shoved down their throat.
Unfortunately, there are many out there who would see all religions destroyed. Why? Because it offends them. They have made their choice to not believe, but they also think that they should ridicule others into denying their belief. Simply remember, when they attempt to offend, you have a choice to make. Will you choose to be offended?
I used to be offended by Fred Phelps and his message of hate. Now? I choose to not be offended, and indeed, I have used Fred and his cohorts as an example to my children of what intolerance is. The same as I use those who hate religion have shown me that it isn’t only religious zealots that are intolerant.
Think about it, and the next time a person starts to insult your belief, or flings names at you because of your belief, will you choose to be offended?
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Fortunately, in the United States, the right to believe or disbelieve rests with the individual, and not with society, not with the government, and definitely not based upon the opinion of a few morons on the internet. The right to believe or disbelieve is now, and in the United States, has always been a free choice.
Of course, there are many examples of countries that took away the individual right to believe in God. For example, the old Communist empire of the Soviet Union, religion, while not forbidden, was strictly controlled, and “having religion” barred an individual from rising in the ranks. In modern China, that same strict regulation of religion still exists, but government is slowly easing the regulations that virtually ban religion.
On the other hand, there exist many countries that are theocracies, and are run by a religious leader/council. Two of the more famous are Iran and Syria.
I am not sure about you, but I don’t believe that I would like to be living in any country that either prohibited the practice of religion, or that mandated the practice of religion. Just from the examples shown, both the total government that lacks religion and that government based upon religion could be considered not-so-nice places to live.
In both cases, the free will of the people is removed, with the intention of the individual serving the state, and only the state. In both cases, the outcome is same, you either toe the line of the leadership, or you end up imprisoned (or worse).
One of the best parts of the United States has always been mixture of both the secular and the religious. The base nature of secular man mixed with the morality taught by religion. And men were given the choice to be who they are, and to believe as they wished, rather than having a particular religion or a lack of religion shoved down their throat.
Unfortunately, there are many out there who would see all religions destroyed. Why? Because it offends them. They have made their choice to not believe, but they also think that they should ridicule others into denying their belief. Simply remember, when they attempt to offend, you have a choice to make. Will you choose to be offended?
I used to be offended by Fred Phelps and his message of hate. Now? I choose to not be offended, and indeed, I have used Fred and his cohorts as an example to my children of what intolerance is. The same as I use those who hate religion have shown me that it isn’t only religious zealots that are intolerant.
Think about it, and the next time a person starts to insult your belief, or flings names at you because of your belief, will you choose to be offended?
You can email Alan at alan@alanfernald.com twenty-four hours a day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
