Supreme Court to hear Prop 8

Yesterday, President Obama and his administration sent the United States Supreme Court a friend-of-the-court-brief expressing their concern on gay-marriage ban instituted by the passing of Prop 8 in the state of California. The administration wrote:

They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death.

The administrations hope is that the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage and bring equality for all people to have the right to marry. United States Attorney General Eric Holder is on record in hoping the Justices will strike down the law in an effort to "vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law"

Trouble is that no where in the United States Constitution does it state that Congress or the Federal Government has the power to define marriage or the ability to enact law in any manner to it. Yet, the United States Supreme Court, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of our Federal Government has done that repeatedly in violation of United States Constitution. That being said, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that all other powers are reserved to the States.

To which I'd argue that the United States Supreme Court should not even have taken the case since this issue is not within the powers of the Federal Government to rule or legislate on in the first place. At the end of the day, marriage is a personal choice and ought to remain that. In the rule of law there are means for everyone - straight or gay - to enter into contract with another in a manner that mimics marriage - contract law.

Instead of trying to define marriage why are we not putting our efforts toward removing Government from the equation of marriage and leave it a personal choice and gain back our freedoms?

Former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner: Hero or Villain?

I will admit that when former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner uploaded his manifesto and decided the only means to clear his "good" name was to take to the streets of Los Angeles and enact revenge, I really didn't care to follow. People snap for various reasons and take vengeance out in any manner they see fit; unfortunately. As I read the various websites I routinely look at this morning, I saw on www.nbcnews.com (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/17/16990419-protesters-call-for-clearing-fired-lapd-officer-christopher-dorners-name?lite) that about 200 protesters went to LAPD headquarters yesterday to show support for former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner.

The protest raised my curiosity as to why might a pocket of our population take time of their day to advocate for a man that just terrorized and killed people in California. The NBC news article quoted one protester:

"We're protesting some of the police brutality -- not just LAPD, but all over the nation," said protester and Lomita resident Vincent Namm, a former Marine. "With Chris Dorner, habeas corpus just got thrown out the window.''


The article prompted me to search and see what else may be said in support of former LAPD officer Chris Dorner. In a CNN article a professor of English at Columbia University is quoted as (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/us/lapd-dorner-fans) :

"But when you read his manifesto, when you read the message he left, he wasn't entirely crazy. He had a plan and mission here, and many people aren't rooting for him to kill innocent people, they're rooting for somebody who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system." Hill added. "It is almost like watching 'Django Unchained' in real life."

Django Unchained! Before I continue here is a link to the manifesto in the event you haven't read it: http://christopher-dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-full-unedited-copy/ . Okay, former LAPD officer Chris Dorner is being compared to Jamie Foxx's character in Django Unchained? Now I have not seen the movie, yet it is on a long list of ones to see, but my understanding of the movie is a freed slave seeks to rescue his wife from a slave owner. How does this equate?

Not to digress to far, but what makes a manifesto sane or crazy? I mean if one reads the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels one will see that both men had a plan and mission. That being said does it wash away the tyranny and death that Marxist thought brought to Russia all okay? Dorner reflects, in his manifesto, of an altercation with Jim Armstrong on the playground at the Norwalk Christain elementary school as his first encounter with racism:

My first recollection of racism was in the first grade at Norwalk Christian elementary school in Norwalk, CA. A fellow student, Jim Armstrong if I can recall, called me a nigger on the playground. My response was swift and non-lethal. I struck him fast and hard with a punch an kick. He cried and reported it to a teacher. The teacher reported it to the principal. The principal swatted Jim for using a derogatory word toward me. He then for some unknown reason swatted me for striking Jim in response to him calling me a nigger. He stated as good Christians we are to turn the other cheek as Jesus did. Problem is, I’m not a fucking Christian and that old book, made of fiction and limited non-fiction, called the bible, never once stated Jesus was called a nigger.

Now the word "nigger" is a very powerful word. As with any word the definition of the word is dependent on the use of it. I agree with Dorner that Armstrong should not be using derogatory language and that Dorner should let it be known that usage of such language ought not to be tolerated. Equally intolerant to the derogatory language is the use of violence to illustrates one objection to intolerant language. Regardless of ones religious dogma to resort to violence as a primary mode of defense or objection is not acceptable in a free society.

Personally, I do hope that journalists take note of items within Dorner's Manifesto for if he is telling the truth of events that took place as far back as 2009 then it should be known. Everyone understands that the LAPD does not have a stellar track record in relations with the public regardless of ones race, sex or other cultural divisions. Was this a cover up? Time will tell.

Although I am not one for conspiracy theories, I do find it a bit odd that Dorner would take his own life when he wrote:

If possible, I want my brain preserved for science/research to study the effects of severe depression on an individual’s brain. Since 6/26/08 when I was relieved of duty and 1/2/09 when I was terminated I have been afflicted with severe depression. I’ve had two CT scans during my lifetime that are in my medical record at Kaiser Permanente. Both are from concussions resulting from playing football. The first one was in high school, 10/96. The second was in college and occurred in 10/99. Both were conducted at Kaiser Permanente hospitals in LA/Orange county. These two CT scans should give a good baseline for my brain activity before severe depression began in late 2008.

If Dorner hoped for his brain to be studied then why shot yourself in the head? At the end of the day, society needs to address the lack of accountability, respect and candor that exists in our society today. There are numerous angles and topics of discussion to be had from this, but let's not make this guy a hero or a martyr just yet. Nor do we make the LAPD the bogey man just yet either regardless of the track record. For if we solely go on track record then to Dorner's own admission "Unfortunately I was swatted multiple times for the same exact reason up until junior high" then Dorner is a bully.

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Since taking office, President Obama has not signed nor has Congress passed a single budget. It is the Constitutional duty for the Senate to pass a budget which only needs 51 votes to do. President Obama has routinely complained that Republicans in Congress have obstructed his abilities to get things done despite having nearly two years of control of both the House and the Senate.

Yesterday President Obama's budget was put to the test again and again it failed to garner just 1 vote in either chamber of Congress. Why might this be? And how can Democrats continue to say that Republicans are obstructing passage of crucial legislation? Soon we will need, Democrats will argue, to raise the debt ceiling. Which begs the question - Why have one if all we do is vote to raise it again? Gov. Brown of California is facing a $16 Billion short fall this year. Is the US Dollar going to be the next Euro to crumble? I as a Minnesotan do not  feel that my or any other Minnesotan's taxpayer dollars should go to bailout California. Sounds a lot like Greece to me!

Proposition 19: State Rights being tested

California is at it again. Proposition 19 – Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act – is on the ballot for November. "Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration 'strongly opposes' a California ballot measure to legalize marijuana, warning that federal drug-enforcement efforts would be 'greatly complicated' if the measure passes" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554261952309990.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news). Putting aside the issue of marijuana as a control substance, a bigger issue is at hand. The issue is State Rights vs. Federal powers. Personally, I do not see why a state could not pass a law that would legalize marijuana.

America has spent trillions on fighting the drug trade. Not to say that is a reason to legalize it but those that I know that use marijuana are not a threat to society no more than the person getting behind the wheel that has been drinking. Then again I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation on the substance control aspect of marijuana. This is similar to the same sex marriage debate. If a group of people, as in California, want to legalize marijuana and are not going to sell it or advertise the sale of it outside of the state does the Federal government have jurisdiction? Does the Supremacy Clause apply? Is this an example of State Rights vs. enumerated powers to the federal government?

Remove Government from the Marriage equation

This past week Chief United States Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 that Californians passed last year that defined marriage between a man and a woman. The argument is that Prop 8 violated the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GBLT) community Civil Rights. Let's be clear here, marriage is not a right. The choice of any two people or several people for that matter, wanting to share their lives together is not a matter that Government needs to be a part of. I understand that the GLBT feels they have the "right" to marriage. I understand the religious proponents of the same-sex marriage are determined to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why is that we feel this dilemma needs government intervention. Am I alone to see that government created this mess by their co-op of marriage by giving tax breaks, requiring a license and collecting fees?

It is time for both sides to agree to remove government from the process. Remove marriage as an option in the IRS tax code. Remove the license requirement with states. The issue seems so simple solved by removing government from the equation. The barriers that the GLBT are looking to be removed are health care coverage, recognition of property rights that exist between married couples and having the same legal standing that is granted to married couples. Well, a number of companies, i.e. Target, already have recognized the health care situation by allowing coverage for domestic partners. My thought is that every health care plan should be label in this manner as the domestic partner can be anyone. The property of rights and legal standing is already obtainable through power of attorney and other legal writs and this is where all couples should be directed to.

Government has only made a mess of this issue. I know many will argue that the license in important to ensure the legal standing of the married couple – of age, not already married or citizens of the US. Do any of those reasons really matter? I understand that most religions see polygamy as a bad thing but who are we to dictate to another how they are to spend their lives? We speak of religious tolerance, and are backed up by the Constitution, yet we do not recognize the ability for a woman to "marry" several men and women. As I said before, it is time to get government out of the marriage business. By removing them from the equation we create a win/win situation. Marriage is not longer institutionalized and returned to Religious groups and all of us will have to develop legal writs with our partnerships.

New Jersey deficit fight may become Americans deficit fight

While sipping on some Chai Tea this morning and watching Morning Joe, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey was on explaining the cuts being made to balance the budget. An ad was also shown that is being run by the teachers union in New Jersey stating that cuts being proposed by Governor Christie will hurt the children in the state. Currently New Jersey is facing a $10.7 billion deficit and teachers are outraged with the proposed cuts to education. On Morning Joe, Governor Christie mentioned that part of his plan is to ask the teachers of New Jersey to freeze their pay for a year and contribute 1.5% of their salary toward health care. Currently the teachers in New Jersey pay nothing toward their health care benefits. Earlier in the year Governor Christie successfully implemented a similar 1.5% contribution from all state workers so why are the teachers balking?

Madeline Avery of Absegami High School said, "He could fix this problem by reinstating the millionaire's tax and restore the money Trenton has promised New Jersey schools" (http://www.nbc40.net/view_story.php?id=12844). David Rosen, legislative budget and finance officer, does not believe that reinstating the "millionaire's tax" will result in wealthy residents leaving the state and points to Maryland's 2008 tax increase on millionaires as proof (http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/new_jersey_analyst_says_rich_s.html). Can one make that assumption from state to state?

Many of you may be asking yourself why I am talking about budget deficits in New Jersey when I live in Minnesota. The reason for bringing this to light is that New Jersey has a Governor that is making tough decisions and is not looking for a Federal government handout. With other states, like California, teetering on the brink of Greece like trouble and looking for the Federal Government to intervene is alarming. Taxes are not the answer in every case. Residents of these states and Americans in general need to demand more accountability from our elected officials. Just as each of us understand that we cannot run our households with maxed out credit cards. When I was laid off last year, I didn't turn to the government to pay my bills or ask my neighbors to chip in extra to make my house payment. Instead, along with my wife, I sat down and looked at my savings, checking and budget to determine what changes were required.

Why do we not expect and demand the same from our government? Why do some feel the answer is just to tax the rich? States, to not fall like Greece, need their residents to buck up and demand more from their elected officials to be fiscally responsible. No longer can our States rely on the Federal Government for a bailout. That form of a bailout will impact every America as it will be States that are responsible to pay the bill. Or are we giving up on State Soverienty?

Marriage is a Rite not a right

Yesterday the courts, in California, took on the question if Proposition 8 is constitutional. For those who have lived under a rock or do not follow this issue, Prop 8 (as it is commonly called) was passed by 52% of Californians in 2008 to establish a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay right groups feel Prop 8 violates their rights and is unconstitutional. What we have here are two separate arguments being made but will be lumped into one. First point of discussion is if marriage is a right. Secondly, is Prop 8 unconstitutional? To answer the second question we need first define the first question.

Is marriage a right of all Americans? To answer this we must acknowledge the institution of marriage is rooted in religious dogma. To exercise one's religion is a right established and guarantee by the Bill of Rights. Since marriage is religious in nature, does that translate to a right for all Americans? Some religious sanction polygamy yet there are rules established that one cannot take on more than one spouse at a time. Even though the law exists those that practice religions that promote polygamy are still able to even if they are highly scrutinized by child welfare agencies. Now, we have laws against drug use in American yet certain religions are allowed to posses and use drugs as outlined in the rites of their religion.

This brings us back to the right of marriage by all Americans. Marriage is a religious rite that has specific guidelines for the married couple to live by. Being a Gnostic the concept of marriage takes place on a spiritual level rather than on the flesh and blood level. But I digress. Since the definition of marriage depends on one religion, then there should be very little discussion on the topic of marriage being a right. In essence marriage is not a RIGHT rather marriage is a RITE.

Now, if we view marriage as a rite, we can answer the constitutional questions in regards to Prop 8. To resolve this question we need to look at how the question is being phrased. The argument put forth against Prop 8 is the use of the 14^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process. The groups looking to overturn Prop 8 are equating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Is the argument one in the same? Is defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a violation of equal protection?

Since marriage is a rite then no one's equal protection or due process is being violated. Now, a better argument on the constitutionality of Prop 8 is if it violates the separation of church and state. The entire process and incorporation of marriage in the laws, IRS filings, and other legal writs are all violations of church and state in so far that marriage is a religious rite. That being said, every American should be outraged by Prop 8 as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The term marriage needs to be stripped from various use by the government and returned to religious dogma from which it was born. If we, as a society, require recognition of living with a life partner then let's rely on legal documents, i.e. power of attorney. The Constitution already allows for same-sex and opposite sex marriages in so far as it protects one's right to practice religion and all ceremonies involved.

Why are we all not demanding the removal of the institutional definition of marriage as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Is that not a more intelligent way to go about the issue of marriage? By taking this approach we solidify the sanctity of marriage for all religions while also removing government control over one's choice of a life partner.

What a weekend!!!

Crazy weekend. Not from the standpoint of the 4th of July or what was done over the weekend; rather the news headlines. I left Friday morning for the hinterlands of northern Minnesota where I would not have immediate access to news sources, email, or television. The radio kept us informed on the big topics and we did step in the house to see the final 10 laps of NASCAR on Saturday night.

To start the long 4th of July weekend, America saw increased attacks on insurgents in Afghanistan and woke Monday morning to the death of Robert McNamara. In between that time the political landscape saw major changes. Gov. Palin announced that she was going to step down at the end of July as Governor of Alaska. Rumors and speculation have swirled since her announced. The rumors got another boast on Monday morning when Joe Scarsborough suggested that perhaps Gov. Palin will have a television show.

Mr. Scarsborough mentioned on MSNBC that the timing was interesting that Gov. Palin is stepping down while FoxNews has not renewed Gretta Van Susteren contract. There is no arguing that Gov. Palin is a ratings boaster. The highest rated shows last year on Saturday Night Live took place when Gov. Palin made appearances. Politically, I do not understand her announcement to step down. Granted Gov. Pawlenty announced that he would not seek re-election as Minnesota Governor but he will at least ride the wave out. The move by Palin appears to be political suicide. If it is not it could usher in a new method of branding in politics.

The weekend also brought another earth moving headline when it was reported that Steve McNair was found dead from several gunshot wounds with a 20-yard woman who also was apparently shot by the same gun. Authorities believe the gun found at the scene was the murder weapon. Just this morning it was reported that McNair and the young woman had been "dating" for the past few months.

This week will finally, possibly, see the last conversation of Michael Jackson as a ceremony is planned at the Staples Center. The kicker of the ceremony is it expected to cost the city of Los Angeles $2M. Last I recall, the state of California had a budget shortfall in excess of $25M. Why is the Jackson family not footing the bill? Be interesting to see the fallout from that.

I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable 4th of July weekend.

Obama short sighted on summer job program

According to the Washington Post, “President Barak Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787B stimulus plan this summer.” The big picture question is how many of these jobs will be permanent versus temporary. Back in March of this year, President Obama attended the graduation of 25 police recruits in Columbus, Ohio. At that time the Administration herald the graduation as a success of the stimulus bill. The trouble is at year end, those 25 fresh graduates will be out of a job because the Columbus City Council budget will be $120M in the red and cuts will need to be made.

America needs sustained growth in the job force. As the $787 stimulus bill was being rammed through Congress, with not one person reading it, the President’s administration was claiming the unemployment rates would not rise higher “than 8 percent”. As of the last week, we are 9.4% with the expectation that we will top out around 11%. The Washington Post further reports that, “Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far.” Never mind the fact the economy has lost 1.6M jobs in the meantime.

At least the percentage is better than the less than 1% trimming of his $1.2T budget touted two weeks ago by the President. The vast majority of the 600,000 new jobs are for temporary work. The tasks slotted to see the majority of the 600,000 jobs are improvements in the national parks, upgrades to Veterans Affairs medical centers, establishment of new rural waste and water systems, and the cleanup of Superfund sites. The one potential long lasting job creation will be the funding to the Justice department for an additional 5,000 law enforcement jobs.
Why are we not creating sustaining jobs that will contribute to our nation’s health and recovery? Instead of focusing the temporary projects, see above; let’s focus on something more permanent and benefitual. President Obama stated in his address in Cairo last week that he had no trouble with Iran power themselves with nuclear power. Over 80% of France’s energy comes from nuclear power. Why are we not moving forward with nuclear energy?

If we repeal the Carter law on re-using spent rods, we can recycle the rods and use them an additional time thus reducing the waste product by nearly 80%. Experts say that if this is done, it would take over 100 years to fill up the approved storage site in the Yucatan Mountains. Besides, if the unmanned military space craft, which was announce yesterday, is successful we can eventually launch our waste into space.

The experts say it takes 8-10 years to build a nuclear plant that is fully operational. That is sustaining growth in job creation. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a nuclear power plant generates “approximately $430 M in sales of goods and services in the local community and nearly $40M in total labor income.” Nuclear power plants employ between 400 to 700 permanent jobs while offering, according to NEI, “36 percent more than average salaries in the local area.” NEI estimates that during the construction phase a new nuclear power plant will create “1,400 to 1,800” jobs with a peak of 2,400.

So, why is nuclear energy not a top priority in the energy policy of President Obama? The numbers above are just for one nuclear site. Now if we start projects in every state we can increase the work force and establish roughly 35,000 permanent jobs and 900,000 jobs during the construction phase. Also, America would be creating a clean source of energy that will not increase our heating, cooling, and electric rates like the “cap and trade” energy policy of President Obama will do. Why stop at 1 new site per state? Nothing to stop us from expanding this policy to adding more and creating more jobs. California is looking at a huge budget deficit and already experiences rolling black outs, it would be two-fold for California. Let’s create jobs that have more bang for their buck.

Instead our President wants to start projects this summer that will create no revenue for the local communities and will only be a temporary job. I agree with the President that we need to secure our future on energy and become less dependent on coal. Then let’s get started. Lift the moratorium on nuclear power and repel Carters executive order on recycle spent rods so we can create sustaining jobs while creating an energy source that is “green”.

Californians: LGBT issues do not belong in the K-5 curriculum

According to KCBS News in San Francisco, elementary school teachers in Alameda, CA, plan to add lesson plans that will address gay and lesbian issues. The goal of the plan is to introduce students to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) issues in hopes to mitigate bullying and teasing of LGBT children. The classes will be offered to K-5 students. Parents who oppose the addition complain their children are too young to be exposed to the material.

Elementary school is not the proper place to discuss the complex topic of LGBT issues. Since the Alameda school district’s legal team deemed the curriculum not health or sex education prevents parents from allowing their children to opt-out which is something California schools require for all health or sex educational classes. Requiring all students to participate in LGBT issues is not core to the elementary curriculum.

The LGBT issues, at least at this age, ought to be left to the parents. Understandably there will be a set of parents, for various reasons, oppose the LGBT lifestyle and will not educate their children as others may. American schools already see their budgets stretched thin and face new threats as budget cuts loom. The public school system needs to get back to the basics and re-think the system.

Public schools, especially K-5, need to focus on math, reading, writing, and science in order to create a solid foundation. Once the foundation is established complex classes, like LGBT issues, can be understood. For K-5 a shift away from the tradition classroom setting needs to take place. Too many kids are restless in class then ultimately get labeled. Part of the reason for the restlessness is boredom.

Bring back the one room school house. Having a single teacher responsible for K-5 studies that concentrate on the basics will allow students to progress at their own pace. For instance, a 6 year old entering Kindergarten may already be at a 2nd grade reading level. Why not allow that child to learn what the 2nd graders are learning while participating with in math, writing, and science at the Kindergarten level? It is time for teachers to become educators.

Classes dealing with LGBT issues have no business being taught to K-5 students; rather the proper place is during normal sex/health education classes. Educators are required for our K-5 students that have the ability to move the child along based on their abilities.