Persecuted Prohpet ? or Plain Pedophile ?

                                               Warren Jeff's trial tends to bring some interesting questions to a very serious and important issue in our day. Religious freedom is a bedrock of the American way of life. The founders thought that is was so profound that an article of the Constitution was written to protect that freedom. Speech is often seen as one of the most important freedoms we hold as a people. It would be hard to argue otherwise, but the freedom to worship without the restraint of government in any way, shape or form is far more fundamental in my opinion, in fact I feel it rivals the right to life in many instances. To debate that is irrelevant however, a fundamental freedom is just that. A sacred covenant between the people, and those that establish laws, that there are some subjects that are untouchable. So sacred that the mention of establishing law on these matters should require the dismissal of any one who dares violate that fundamental truth. Apparently Mr. Jeff's hopes that a jury, and you and I the public will share that sentiment on his behalf, and acquit Mr. Jeff's of the charges that have been brought against him. To Use that covenant and trust to conduct an immoral, and illegal act that violates the rights of another human being is just as despicable. To take the freedoms that have been fought for over a period of centuries now, and to try to twist the meaning of such a foundational covenant to the end of pursing criminal behavior is some of the most vile  forms of behaviour a human being can perform, and to use freedom, and God as a means to accomplish that is the most appalling conduct of a human being.
                                                                                         His case essentially began with a phone call. A phone call that brought an accusation of abuse; and the presumed victim was a young lady named Sarah. Sarah claimed she was being abused by an elder that she was being forced to marry and was being locked in a room with no windows. Rozita Swinton was the fictitious Sarah. The fictional character had contacted Flora Jessop who belonged to the Child Protection Project  (http://www.childpro.org/ ) . Also Sarah was calling a shelter  in Texas which alerted authorities who then conducted a raid on April 3rd. This raid established some troubling patterns of abusive behaviour with the authorities, 400 children were removed ( although they were returned by court order ) and the person that the authorities were looking for a young lady named Sarah never surfaced, and no one had ever heard of such a person within the community. The raid for the search for Sarah produced other material that became direct evidence against Mr. Jeffs, including audio tapes of physical contact with a 12 year old child, and DNA that was extracted from the child of a 15 year old girl, which proved to be the child of Warren Jeffs.
                                                                                         Warren Jeffs has a conviction brought on by his faith that allows him to conclude that he is a Prophet, it is also the stated believe of the FLDS that for a man to be a god that he must have plural wife's. Young girls may be assigned to older men in the community and " Celestial Marriages" may be performed, these marriages are often in direct violation of law, and the ages of these young girls that are assigned to the elder men would make them in violation of State laws as well, some as young as 12 years old. Of course these young brides according to the doctrine of the FLDS may not refuse there " husbands" and are viewed to be gods, in fact in open court Mr. Jeffs has referred to himself as a God. This is not an insane man, but a man driven to action on an insane view of theology, which is not practiced my mainstream Mormon churches, but the fundamentalist believe that the Mormon church does not follow the proper doctrine of faith, however what Mr. Jeff's never addresses nor has addressed is a faith that violates the law of the land. It is the slight of hand that is being practiced in the courtroom and in the public arena that I am sure Mr. Jeff's hopes that the jury and the public will overlook. I once sat on a jury where an attorney tried a similar slight of hand trick, in which one of the witnesses of the case was an ATF agent, and the attorney spent an inordinate amount of time trying to discredit his testimony on the case just on the fact that he was a Federal Agent, the attorney even referenced actions by the ATF at Waco as proof of the Agency and it's agents from telling an honest account of a lawful situation.


                                                                                   I would be the first to stand in line to defend the rights of any individual to worship the Almighty as they see fit in this Nation, it is an unalienable right that exists just as your right to property, and liberty. No government should be able to enact, or enforce any laws that prevent the free exercise of religion, and that same government must show tolerance of the practices of many different forms of worship. However to use that sacred right as a means to violate the rights of children, and to perform acts and violations that would put any other individual in prison in the name of faith is one of the most vile acts a human being can commit, further more the damage that is done perceptually to individuals who may have deep convictions and may worship outside what may be called the mainstream is indefensible. Families whose children are home schooled, families who choose to believe outside what the majority of the country may worship are put in danger because of the likes of Warren Jeffs. Practitioners who have fundamentalist believes may be subject to undo law enforcement arrests because of a panic and fear that the actions that a man like this may take thus denying a right to worship. Violating the most innocent of our society to feed an insatiable appetite of deviancy is of the most appalling nature, and to justify it in the name of God shows a manipulation and indecency of the most base kind of behaviour we could ever know.
                                                                           If found guilty I hope he gets his full term in Jail. The sentence could be as high as 119 years. Even that is to short a sentence, but keeping pedophiles away from society and young children is the least we as a society can do to protect our children.




For more on this please follow these links:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-iIOWOblW0


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0730/Has-Warren-Jeffs-turned-his-trial-into-a-sermon-on-polygamy





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozita_Swinton#Rozita_Swinton

how you tell when a politician is lying

It has been an interesting week, I do believe we are on the edge of seeing history in the making. it is comical to see the theatrics and the contortions put into play. Speaker Boehner just can't muster votes to please the masses and his puppet masters. Oh the pain, how to raise billions in spending while calling it a budget cut, how he must root for the days of Tip O'Neil, wearing buttons on his jacket lapel that say " Reality is negotiable " ........ it's just not fair, why is this Congress faced with the hard task of living within it's means, while sessions of Congress in the past have just been able to pass the buck....... Oh the pain...... the pain...........

                                                                                   You just know this raising the debt is about spending more money on the hopes of paying later, check this out from the LA Times :



                                       Late in the evening, still about eight votes short, Boehner and his allies considered changes to the bill. One point of contention has been that the bill would allow billions of dollars for the Pell Grant program, which provides scholarships to low-income college students. That rankles conservatives who want to cut — not add — money. Cutting Pell Grants could win over a few conservatives, congressional officials said.


                This has never been about cutting the budget, it's not even about the excessive spending, it is a way to keep spending without having to pay the bill. It's like going to a restaurant with someone and they leave to go to the parking lot, waiting for you to pay the bill.You can argue the merits of any Federal program that uses taxpayer dollars, at the end of the day the Treasury collects 2.2 trillion dollars. They collective in Congress, and the Executive Branch want to spend just shy of 4. These clowns are in agony over a debt ceiling that was created by law, and for once Congress has to obey a law it has passed......... they must have forgotten to exempt themselves from their own law .......... which is how Congress gets to use accounting tricks that no other body in the country, public or private can use...

                                                               All the talk of cutting spending is pacification to keep the masses happy for a moment or two........ why look at the spending on Pell Grants. I am just wondering what other things to the LA Times forget to mention ?

A World of Two Realities

                                       Limited government, sovereignty of the individual, the rights of man. Principles that set this country apart from any other nation on this earth. It is a rich legacy, it was or rather is an enlightened legacy handed to us in our contemporary time thru literature, and documents debated, analysed, scrutinized by some rather prophetic individuals. It has been historically the nature of most established governments to increase it's power, and control over it's citizens, or people depending on the form of governance, until the system implodes. The power that any government has as it pertains to the money it collects comes from the individuals that are productive within the society. I realize I am being simplistic, however it seems to me that in our day and age we as a country are so bogged down with the idea that it is imperative, it is essential, that the scope, size, and intervention of Washington D.C. in our daily lives is crucial to the very republic, that if it were not for the intervening, controlling, regulating, or mandating,  that emanates from the Central Planners in Washington that we as individuals would fall apart, and die. If the President did not put on his royal robes, and the Lords of the Senate were not contemplating the depth and breath of our existence then we the citizens of what I had presumed to be of this great nation, why we would cease to exist. Our lives and our good fortunes would cease to exist with out the meddling interference of Lords of the Manor from on high on the mountaintop called Washington D.C.
                                                                     At least that is the view I believe the political class has of things. Our debt, our deficits, both of the past, and what we will incur in the future stem from the view that without the interventionist, welfare system that is currently in place the entire economy will collapse. I have news for anyone that will listen. At it's current trend, it will collapse any way. It is a model that cannot exist at it's current pace. What is even more alarming is that a sitting United States Senator has the audacity to ridicule the citizenry, and call them " Hobbits "  and act as if reigning in the spending and reducing the power of the Central authority is anathema to being ignorant, shows that those in power have no desire to curb spending, or reduce the influence over the lives of those who put them their. There are two different realities that exist in our country, one that believes the money belongs to Washington, and should be dispersed as they see necessary and in the form they deem appropriate, and the other is that those in Washington need to step back a let free people live their lives as they see fit. I cannot understand a sitting Senator who actually believes going deeper in debt to save money down the road, actually believes, or more importantly thinks he can convince us to believe a scenario where Our Federal Capital will not spend more than they take in. An American Empire lite has taken place. The only resolution is to refuse to send money to Washington. If the checks start to bounce, then objective reality will start to take place, and the money will no longer be there to spend and play with, and our Lords of the manner will then have to take their place in history as one more band of anti conceptual  lunatics who have refused to see the forest thru the trees.
                                                                Persuasion I feel is useless, the welfare state and it's sycophants will try to reduce freedom to Washington granting favours. If the cost is more than is being generated, the plan will be to confiscate more from the productive, and if the productive cry for their rights to ownership of property, and sovereignty then they will be demonized, and coerced into submission. Compromise is the word of the day, after all how can any proper government operate with anything less than 4 trillion dollars in the next year or two. Sitting Senators will think you are a kook if you are not willing to hand over your savings, your labor, your individual comfort so that they may rule from on high. Congressman who snap pictures of themselves nude will ridicule any one who balks at paying more taxes, after all the Social Security taxes individuals pay is only 7 %, heck whats a percentage or two more from the working class who dare rebuke our authority.
                                                                   As long as we the people allow this type of arrogance to exist, as long as we succumb to the statist argument that more is needed, then we the people should forget about liberty, and recognize with honesty that this is not a republic, but a fascist mixed economy. If an enlarged Welfare State is what the majority of the people want, then all I can offer is be prepared to pay for it. I think your gonna be real surprised at the cost you will have to bear.
                                                                               

Your Gonna Pay Now.........

In January of 2012 The incandescent light bulb will no longer be a legal product to manufacture in the United States. It will also be illegal to purchase a 60W A-19 incandescent lamp in the United States of America. This is not right wing conspiracy theory. It is the Law. What the President and the Congress has mandated to the American public is in essence a decree, the only thing missing is a fur lined robe, and a staph made of Gold. The thought behind this royal decree, ...... well I should be accurate, the thought behind this law was to encourage the American public to change their habit from using the old style light bulb and to start using the Compact Fluorescent lamp instead. Now in full disclosure I have been an advocate of those lamps myself for well over 20 years, both professionally and at home. I like the color of the light, I like the longevity of the bulb, and I like the fact that you can produce light with 15Watts rather than 60 watts, which is a huge savings. I have stood by electric meters rigged up to test the usage of the compact fluorescent versus an Incandescent, and there is a huge savings in usage. I have done it voluntarily. I would always encourage someone to do it as a choice that is well reasoned. I would never demand that someone use them. I cannot fathom the idea of requiring someone to use a fluorescent lamp while pointing a gun at them  ( after all isn't that what happens when you violate the law, some one with a badge and a gun comes looking for you ? )  it confounds me that there are servants of the public who derive their power from those that elect them, that such a mandate exists in what is presumed to be the " freest " nation on the planet. Does any one have a dictionary on hand....... ? I want to look that word up and check the meaning again.

                                                                                         There was a notion on the part of those issuing the law that by economies of scale, the cost of a CFL as it is commonly known would start to come down as the bulb became more mainstream, and because there was a national standard put into place, every manufacturer would be producing the same type of light bulb thus passing on the cost savings to the consumer, the utilities because of reduced electric loads, and a reduction of oil and coal usage by the power plants that produce the electricity. Of course you and I know that the political class in this country doesn't know diddly squat about economics, Hell Ben Bernanke doesn't even know what is real money. So I am not surprised that our great leaders and our President has not taken the time understand Praxeology, or the importance of understanding Praxeology especially in economics. In this case the worlds largest producer of Phosphor is China. Without Phosphor there are no fluorescent lamps. That material is what is ignited with in the glass tubes to produce the light. You see the Chinese have figured out that since they produce 97 % of the world's supply of phosphor, they want to use the restriction of rare earth materials against the United States which happens to be the largest market for the material, ............ you guessed it because we have painted ourselves into a corner on this matter.

                                                                                  If the Federal government had not intervened in the market place in regards to the manufacture of Light bulbs you and I would not be facing the price increases ( as much as 50 % ) for a mandated lamp. In fact had the President and Congress left well enough alone, there would be a wide variety of competition on the types of lamps available, and no one style would have a monopoly and the laws of supply and demand would take place. Hey can't get phosphor, no sweat, tungsten is readily available, and cheap to ........... and it happens to make a great filament. Time and again intervention in the market does more harm than good, and this is a classic case. Look these are the same guys that are telling us that they need to borrow more money in order to spend less in the future.................



                            ahhhhhhhhhhhh OK !


For further reading on this please follow these links :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/for-rare-earths-an-abundance-of-interest/article2099191/


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm

Stay tuned..... Sorry for the delay.......

I have been sitting on this story for a few days doing some research, I have been trying to get a hold of one of the authors of the article, but have not been able to get in touch with her, I have also been trying to get a hold of the person that the  article was about. His name is Ronnie Bryant, and there were a few articles in various news outlets about him. In fact he is being referred to as the new John Galt. Perhaps that is true, but I have some immediate reservations, in particular with such a use of  a fundamental figure ( albeit fictional ) and I have not been convinced that it is an accurate reference.
                                                                            Ronnie is a miner. He does have a coal mining buisness. He did have a permit. There are indeed 3 Federal agencies that have tried to block him from starting to mine for coal, even though he already has a permit. Those facts are undisbuted. There are many unanswered questions in regards to the story, poor writing ? I am not sure. It is true Ronnie said he would quit. That is a stroy itself.

                                                    If I can get the details I want....... I promise a good post..........








Here is the story I read :


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8357-environmentalists-halt-plans-for-new-coal-mine-near-birmingham-ala

Compromise

                                   In the course of our public debate over the debt ceiling the word compromise continues to surface, it is a mantra that politicians like to use as if by not allowing certain positions within a debate on a political matter one may be construed as narrow minded. There is some merit to the position that compromise is essential to our Republic. It was Ben Franklin himself who could be called the original compromiser at the Constitutional  Convention the following is a quote from the good Doctor      " When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artists takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides must part with some of their demands "    There was also the compromise of 1850 which came about during the discussions of admitting Texas to the Union.
                                                            Certainly though not all compromise could be construed as good. For example there is the 3/5 compromise in our constitution which gave slaves the 3/5 status of a white person, would anyone today suggest such a compromise of principle is a good thing ?  Henry Clay was considered in his time to be the Great Compromiser he ended up proposing legislation that would allow one Free State into the Union for every Slave State, again would we wish to compromise on the issue of slavery today ? Being 3/5 of a person, or persuading the assembly's that a little bit of bad is okay as long as we let in a little bit of good, that stands reason on it's head, and certainly takes liberty and equality and bastardises the very concept.

                                                                                         When you have a scenario for example of a buyer and a seller, both parties come to the table with an equal share. The buyer comes with a medium of exchange ( hopefully a medium of objective value ) and knows at what point he will no longer be willing to purchase the object of the seller. As well the seller knows at what point he can no longer afford to sell his object for he will be losing money. What can reasonably happen at that point is a compromise on price. Please note however at no point is any one being asked to accept the price of the other as a starting point and then is given a demand to compromise from there.


                                                                                  The debt ceiling being raised is simply the United States government borrowing more than a level than they have already set for themselves as a limit. This borrowing is in addition to an already exorbitant amount of money. The Federal Government takes in 2.2 trillion dollars already. If that is not enough to provide for the defense of this country, provide for the general welfare, to provide for standards of weights and measures, to provide for secure borders, then it appears to me that what we have is an ineffectual Federal Government that should be abolished. There is no empire that has existed on this earth that wastes as much of the public treasury as the United States Federal government does today. There should be no compromise on the debt ceiling, there should be no increase in the debt ceiling, and there certainly should be no more increase in taxation to attempt to raise more revenue.

                                                                                       I will leave you with a quote to think about on this matter, and you can decide for yourself the value of compromise        "  A compromise is an adjustment  of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal. "         Putting future generations into an impossible debt to be repaid because of a lack of integrity today offers no value, and no government can by right make that claim.

The Space Race ..... What it meant and what it should be

Starting in the 1930's the Nazi war machine was looking for a way to use rockets as a means to improve on long range artillery, in such a way as to not violate the Treaty of Versailles. According to the treaty, the Germans could not conduct research on long range cannons, nor could they develop such cannons, rockets however were never mentioned in the treaty, thus research began to find ways to enhance the strength and capabilities of the German forces so drastically reduced by the standards of the treaty. Eventually the research and development created the V2 rocket which was used to bombard England. It was fast, very fast and could barely be seen by radar, it was also used as a weapon to create terror on the British people and in part in that particular vane was successful. Thus the space race was born.
                                                                              The Space race in it's infancy was more about weapon superiority than anything else. Rockets that carried bombs.The United States for the first few years after the war was the sole nation on Earth to have atomic weapons, the Soviets although a former ally feared the status of a sole superpower, who had bases and weapons near the Soviet Union. The Soviets had acquired technology and scientists from Germany as did the United States, but most of those scientists were sent to the United States, the Soviets began to work immediately on the designs the Nazi's had created, and worked feverishly to improve on those designs, as they saw it for the defense of the Motherland, never trusting the intentions of the United States.
                                                                                       The Soviets developed the R-7 rocket which was used to launch Sputnik the very first satellite put into earth orbit, it was a simple radio transponder that could be heard on shortwave radios as it revolved around the earth. The race to space was still more about missiles and carrying nuclear weapons, than communications or cameras which could be used for spying. Somewhere in the back of the minds of the various engineers though was the notion of putting a human being into space. It was the dream of these engineers to allow man to travel thru the stars and to explore the universe.

                                                                                            The technology of today allows for more than placing humans into orbit around our planet, we have travelled to the moon, landed there and even brought back samples of the soil. We have sent probes to Mars, and have even sent probes beyond our universe. To explore that which is beyond our tiny little globe. What we need is the courage to challenge ourselves. Our only knowledge of the universe is that which we can see with a telescope, or at night with the naked eye. Space as far as we know is infinite. But that is only what we know. To solve the problems needed to master the complexities of long range space travel would require immense study and mastery of a whole range of issues including health, energy, time, mechanical, environmental problems that would appear during long range travel whether it be to Mars, or beyond the effort should be a global approach, utilizing the very best of the Human race. A cooperative approach in engineering, finance, technology. Putting our resources to their best use for a common goal, for a common people. Given our history as a people we have accomplished a lot as it pertains to flight, and travel into space, but our imagination is limitless. Thus our ability is limitless. For all the goals we have achieved, the goals that we have not are just waiting for us to reach them.

                                                                                   The United States and it's people have always been a catalyst for change, let the change begin here in our hearts, let us vow to change the way we think of Space, and where we shall go. Let it be the United States and it's people that initiated the effort that leads an entire people in to a great leap, that will transform travel, energy, communication, all the complexities that are inherent in travel into space are complexities that we face here on Earth. It is the frontier of our time. It is the frontier of our future. Space is indeed, the new frontier.