ReasonableCitizen

The role of the police?

November 30, 2008 · No Comments

Here is what I know:

1. In the past , the police were responsible for territory. They patrolled small neighborhoods and knew the problem kids and the  problem kid’s parents.

2. Somewhere along the way, the police stopped taking care of neighborhoods and started to focus on crime.

3. Police rarely walk a beat today. They drive around looking for traffic offenders or they are planning some large bust or they are responding to a crime instead of preventing one. 

4. Some police departments have paramilitary units today. Like SWAT teams only more so.

5.  Some police departments have purchased weaponry for “crowd control” or antiterrorism.

Question: What should the role of police be in today’s society?

→ No CommentsCategories: ReasonableCitizenSpeaks

Getting ready for a new presidential election?

November 29, 2008 · No Comments

Ouch.

If you have not been aware of it, there have been a number of people that are challenging Barack Obama’s status to be President. I have thought that all of these were frivolous law suits being led by sour and sore losers, or by racists determined to keep Barack Obama from assuming office.  And I guess that could be the case. However, I have just read a compelling article on why the Supreme Court should decide if Barack Obama meets the requirements to become President of the United States. It may be unconstitutional for Obama to be President.

There is no question that Barack is a citizen of the United States, at least not by any rational thinking adult. He has the birth certificate, he has had two comprehensive FBI background checks, and he had an American mother. If you want to read a good post about why Barack is a citizen, then I suggest you read Ed Darell’s piece over at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

The question is: Does Barack Obama fulfill the constitutional requirements to be President?

Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Barack Obama may not meet the requirement of ‘natural born citizen’ according to this article by Judah Benjamin over at TD Blog

Mr. Benjamin describes what was meant by the term ’natural born’ at the time the Constitution was crafted. Among other things,  it was a question of divided loyalty between the allegiance resulting from a place where one was born (and perhaps raised) versus one’s biological parents and their citizenship and allegiance.  Barack Obama possessed dual citizenship: British and US.

“Natural-born citizen” is a Common Law concept of the type known as “a term of art”. There are innumerable references to it and to its older cognate “natural-born subject”. In essence, a natural-born citizen is an individual born with only one, single, undivided allegiance or loyalty and who is, and has always been, subject to only one legal jurisdiction. There is not, and has never been, any real doubt that this is true and correct. The term itself is not vague, it is in fact, provably, quite precise and anybody who attempts to deny that is fudging the issue because they have an agenda.

Anybody born in territory over which the United States claims legal jurisdiction, at the time of birth, and both of whose parents are United States Citizens is inter alia, and by definition, a natural-born citizen of the USA.

Anybody born abroad of two US Citizen patents is a natural-born citizen, if they are born in a country which does not use ius soli law on birthright, if they are the child of a diplomat, or if the country in which they are born does not for whatever reason assert jurisdiction over them. A secondary condition is that the individual must not have been expatriated by any legal process.

Which leads the author to eventually conclude:

 BHO II is a much more straightforward case. Let us assume for the purposes of this article that the information on the so called “COLB” is correct, truthfully we have no evidence that it is not, though equally we have no evidence that it is, and even under Hawaiian State Law such an abstract is regarded as insufficient to fully establish one’s status in law. BHO II’s own surrogates have freely admitted that he was born bipatride under the UK Nationality Act of 1948 and that in virtue of his father he was a United Kingdom and Colonies Citizen and a Subject of the British Crown at birth. That would have been true had he been born on the moon. Assuming that he was born in Hawaii, BHO II was born a US Citizen under ius soli also. No act of volition was required in either event. Thus he was first a Subject of the British Crown and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and second a citizen of the USA.

I am not convinced that there is a heirarchy and that a person with dual citizenship is first one thing and secondly another. I would have to know more before I could accept that fact.

Yet Barack Obama does not appear to meet the test of possessing a single and undivided allegiance to the United States as intended by the Constitution, if you believe the assertions in this article. The idea that Obama may be declared ineligible to assume the Presidency is startling.

As the article points out, Congress cannot pass legislation overruling the Constitution. This may become a Supreme Court case that involves determining what was meant by the term ‘natural born citizen’.

This is an interesting article to read in full. It concludes with a list of people who would have faced this same challenge of dual citizenship if they had been elected: John McCain and Bill Richardson.

It is quite possible the Supreme Court will decide not to hear this case at all in advance of Barack Obama becoming President. Because a risk exists to public order, they may choose to refuse the case until the lower courts have reviewed it. This may well delay this for years. To this point in time, all court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility have been dismissed for various reasons.  

It is all speculation as to whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear this case and it is speculation to consider how they would define ‘natural born’. However, this is the first that time that I have given a mote of credence to anyone’s claim that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President.

I would not like to choose between Obama and the Constitution. But if I did, the Constitution would win and I would be unhappy about that. It would lead to another federal election and Nancy Pelosi would become President of the United States until a new President is elected. You already know that I do not like the Speaker of the House. This result would be painful for everyone.

→ No CommentsCategories: Candidates · Presidential candidate · ReasonableCitizenSpeaks · SCOTUS · Washington · What I learned today

What the Immigration and Naturalization Service says…

November 29, 2008 · No Comments

Perhaps president-elect Obama meets one of these tests? Yes, he may actually meet more than one. If he does, does this mean he is natural born? Only SCOTUS will tell us if these rules apply to natural born status.

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

→ No CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

“More” and “Enough”

November 28, 2008 · No Comments

You may not know that economical system philosophers (like Hegel and Marx) were  considering how  to establish and maintain a society free from want. They thought about scarcity and abundance and economic systems in a society. 

When one comes from scarcity, one wants abundance. The ”more”, the better. You know from your own life that you like chocolate and you want more. You keep wanting ‘more’ until you have had ‘enough’. When we are talking about individuals, the person that controls his/her wants is said to be self-disciplined.  A person regulates his actions to have ‘more’ and determines when it is ‘enough’.

In society, there is a  different level of operation. Some people ask the question: Is it possible for groups of individuals to respond to a stimulus so that they can be manipulated to act in a predictable fashion? If so, then society can be structured to solve the traditional wants of the individual (food , shelter, clothing, companionship, freedom, etc.) by creating and stimulating the appropriate conditions, behaviors, and markets.

American democracy and capitalism have solved many/most of the traditional wants of individuals in a society. They have done so thru a variety of stimuli, of institutional structures, and of social mores. Yet all of these things come down to the concept of an individual deciding to take action for ‘More’ and deciding to take action when he/she has had ‘Enough’.

Today’s financial mess is a result of people manipulated to want More. More money, more home, more pleasure, more cars, more respect, and more freedom. This may not be a complete list of what we want More of, but it is a start. When individuals want More goods, it is called Consumerism.

Our ‘More’-oriented society is collapsing. All of the societal manipulations to entice you to have More, buy More, see More, do More, and experience More is under stress. Today Society no longer possesses a financial system that can deliver More to a person  because the system itself has pursued its own destruction.  Like a drug addict, our financial system has been pursuing More wealth to the point it can no longer function. It has pursued More to the extreme, actually,  to the point that it is no longer possible to have More because the banking system is saying Enough. They are concerned that the institutions that borrow money from them will not be able to pay them back. Why? Because the companies and people in general have too much debt. Risky debt. Bad debt.

Which brings us to the root of the problem. The inability to say ‘Enough’. I have Enough, thank you. Is it hard to say that? I have Enough cars, houses, and books. I have Enough money to live on and Enough money to meet my needs. I have vacationed Enough, thanks. I need no More. 

We are now at a point where many of us have Enough of what we need. Society in America has Enough wealth and deep inside does not really want More. How do I know this? We expect More to be given to us without any effort on our part. As soon as we stop working for the Mores we want and we start saying that others should give us More, we already know that we have Enough because we are not willing to work for it. Today we want More  without working for it. We want a More shapely body by paying for it, not working for it. We want More food without growing it, preparing it, and cooking it. We want More pleasure with drugs instead of working for our pleasures.  We want our money to make More of itself in investments (work done by others) rather than using our money to create More work for ourselves for More money.  

I know that truly poor people do not have Enough and that they want More. They are working for it, too. Working hard for it, I might add. But are they working to have More or to enjoy More? And how did the world conspire against them to prevent them from getting More? 

The wealth of America is great. But our debt is also great and the debt is so great that it is Enough. It was the cheap credit that gave us More of everything that we wanted. The cheap credit permitted us to hock ourselves to our future instead of paying for our present as we go.

 Banks do not want More loans or more bad debt. They have said Enough. We should, too.

And many of us are saying ‘no’ to More debt. We have had Enough, too.

Some of us are being forced to say ‘no’ as our lines of credit are cut off, our homes are in foreclosure, not because of anything we did but because cheap credit is no longer cheap. Interest rates rose and ARM’s adjusted to a level that the collective ‘we’ could no longer afford. Housing prices fell because of the glut of homes on the market. All of a sudden we were paying $250,000 for a house that had a market worth of $180,000. And some of us said ‘Enough’. We went bankrupt.

Enough is driving the market now, not More. We have deflation: falling prices because business is afraid they cannot sell to consumers who have said Enough. We all have Enough now. We are not afraid about tomorrow and scarcity. We have Enough. Not all of us, but many of us have Enough.

This will drive prices lower until businesses are fed up with losing money and ultimately they will say ‘Enough’. Then they will lay people off and close their doors. The laid off workers will not be able to find other work. They will look for a job for a while and then they will say ‘Enough’ and quit looking for work. 

The economic death spiral will bring us all to a singularity of truth.  Too much wealth is just as bad as too little wealth but for different reasons. Then we will all ponder what too much wealth is and choose new economic models to give us control over poverty and wealth.

More and Enough will still be the triggers for us individually but our systems will attempt to control that. Welcome to the world of manipulated urges: More and Enough.

→ No CommentsCategories: ReasonableCitizenSpeaks · Society · Uncategorized

Thanksgiving (with Guest)

November 26, 2008 · No Comments

Gettin’ together to smile an’ rejoice,
An’ eatin’ an’ laughin’ with folks of your choice;
An’ kissin’ the girls an’ declarin’ that they
Are growin’ more beautiful day after day;
Chattin’ an’ braggin’ a bit with the men,
Buildin’ the old family circle again;
Livin’ the wholesome an’ old-fashioned cheer,
Just for awhile at the end of the year.

Greetings fly fast as we crowd through the door
And under the old roof we gather once more
Just as we did when the youngsters were small;
Mother’s a little bit grayer, that’s all.
Father’s a little bit older, but still
Ready to romp an’ to laugh with a will.
Here we are back at the table again
Tellin’ our stories as women an’ men.

Bowed are our heads for a moment in prayer;
Oh, but we’re grateful an’ glad to be there.
Home from the east land an’ home from the west,
Home with the folks that are dearest an’ best.
Out of the sham of the cities afar
We’ve come for a time to be just what we are.
Here we can talk of ourselves an’ be frank,
Forgettin’ position an’ station an’ rank.

Give me the end of the year an’ its fun
When most of the plannin’ an’ toilin’ is done;
Bring all the wanderers home to the nest,
Let me sit down with the ones I love best,
Hear the old voices still ringin’ with song,
See the old faces unblemished by wrong,
See the old table with all of its chairs
An’ I’ll put soul in my Thanksgivin’ prayers.

Edgar Albert Guest

→ No CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

The Minneapolis Missing…

November 26, 2008 · No Comments

KMSP In Minneapolis reports that Muslim men have gone missing and may be in Somalia.

They’re known in the Somali community simply at The Missing. More than 20 young Somali men, between the ages of 17 and 22, who have left the Twin Cities in the last few months, without a single word to their families.

The families and community leaders believe the men have gone back to fight in a bloody civil war, in which Al Quiada is a major player.

And we have this information:

From multiple sources in the Somali community, FOX 9 has learned eight men are believed to have left on August 1, and another ten on November 4.

Flight itineraries discovered by their families show they left Minneapolis to take the winding trip back, through Dubai, Nairobi and Malindi, Kenya, where they’re believed to have entered Somalia by boat.

There is a large population of Somalis in the area and the disappearances are being looked into by the FBI.


→ No CommentsCategories: In The News · Society

No Toil, but oh, the Trouble

November 25, 2008 · No Comments

Perhaps a little Shakespeare is needed at this time. Think of the economic crisis as a giant caldron into which we are adding ingredients to make our potion and cast our spell for a better economy.

Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
       2 WITCH.  Fillet of a fenny snake,
    In the caldron boil and bake;
    Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
    Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
    Adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting,
    Lizard’s leg, and owlet’s wing,—
    For a charm of powerful trouble,
    Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
       ALL.  Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
       3 WITCH.  Scale of dragon; tooth of wolf;
    Witches’ mummy; maw and gulf
    Of the ravin’d salt-sea shark;
    Root of hemlock digg’d i the dark;
    Liver of blaspheming Jew;
    Gall of goat, and slips of yew
    Sliver’d in the moon’s eclipse;
    Nose of Turk, and Tartar’s lips;
    Finger of birth-strangled babe
    Ditch-deliver’d by a drab,—
    Make the gruel thick and slab:
    Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
    For the ingrediants of our caldron.
       ALL.  Double, double toil and trouble;
    Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
       2 WITCH.  Cool it with a baboon’s blood,
    Then the charm is firm and good.

And so now we have given $500B of our national treasury to banks, financial institutions, mortgage companies, and soon to automotive manufacturing. The fire burns and the caldron bubbles from so much money. Th President-Elect is choosing to throw even more money into the fire and into the pot  to make it hotter to create more of what we had before it spilled over.

This whole thing reminds me of the three witches in Macbeth brewing up a potion for themselves and a disaster for others.

Almost all the economists are saying that the problem we have today is that the bubbles are popping: real estate bubble, stock bubble, cheap credit bubble. They imply that too many dollars were inflating the price of things. Like bubbles. Now the bubbles are bursting and so the wisdom is to create more dollars to keep the bubbles inflated. When your bubble pops, how does making more air available really help you?

So now we have all of these big financial companies with mountains of cash ‘available’. So what? What does that mean? 

The general idea is to have so much air, so cheaply,  that you, the consumer,  will blow new bubbles. Like a huge bubble blower, the cash available will cause everyone to make more bubbles. Or to make a bigger bubble, larger than before.

But the problem is not bubbles. They have burst. The problem is too much air and now we are going to add more. This problem will get worse. I am no economist but I think the problem is too many goods, too much wealth, and too much credit. Somehow we have to reduce the SUPPLY of goods and services and the amount of money chasing them, both at the same time. When the quantity of goods shrinks, when the number of dollars shrinks, and when credit is hard to get, then and only then, can we get back onto the road to recovery.  In short, we need a recession to reduce production, consume the goods we have,  and then to consume the wealth we have. When the wealth has been reduced, and the goods have been consumed, we will then have  a demand for more goods than we can produce.  That is an instant recovery to allow us to increase goods to meet demand, increase credit to increase production of goods and the purchase of goods, and then  to pursue increased wealth once again.

Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. That is the solution to our economic process, the destruction and consumption of wealth is the road to recovery. The capitalist bubble. Marx said the problem with capitalism is abundance. And we have a lot of that today. While capitalism produces abundance, communism produces scarcity.

We have a lot of wealth in America to burn through before we can start making wealth again. Just saying.

To rich people, all you need to do is to throw more money at a problem until it goes away. In real life, that is not the way it works. But now we are going to throw the national treasury into it, all the money we have. It will get much worse. Just saying.

→ No CommentsCategories: In The News · ReasonableCitizenSpeaks · Society

The coming Poverty Class

November 25, 2008 · No Comments

In my last post I mentioned that 1 out of 6 people will have no jobs next year. Goldman Sachs says I am wrong. I hope they are right but then they have been wrong before. And so have I. Who do you believe?

→ No CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Living within your means

November 25, 2008 · No Comments

Who actually knows what that phrase means?

We use that phrase to render a verdict upon those who fail to maintain an economic status that they outwardly portray. We are all so smug when an apparently upper economic class person falls to  the middle class. Or if a middle class person falls to a lower economic status.

So tell me, please, how does a person who makes $12/hr live within their means? What kind of cars do they buy , what houses do they live in, what do they eat, what do they own, how much debt do they have, and where (and how) do they spend their time? (After all, we all have the same amount of time.) 

This ought to be easy, yes?

is it too difficult? Then let’s talk about a person who makes $15/hr. Or $18/hr. What advice do we give to people who have poor paying jobs about how to live within their means?

We will need to know this because after prices fall ( deflation), there will be job layoffs because businesses will close. People will be out-of work and you may find yourself with a family member living with you. How will you live within your means if you have an extra mouth to feed? How will you handle having an extra person lying around your house because they cannot find a job?

We all like to think that this cannot happen to us and believe that it will happen to somebody else that we know.

Yet, the economists are talking about 15% of the workforce that  will not have a job NEXT YEAR. 1 out of 6 people. Today it is 1 out of 20 people. Look around your neighborhood and know that of the six houses around yours, one of the owners will lose their job, their house, their possessions, their dignity, and their ability to feed, clothe,  and shelter themselves. (And economists are likely undersestimating the problem.)

What will you tell the jobless about living within their means?  Will you say ‘Don’t use your credit cards’ to buy food? Or don’t sell Grandma’s jewelry to pay the rent?

More than advice, what will you do when your friends and neighbors need your help? Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves that question.

We are living in a historical time now. The Great Depression of 2008. Be prepared to live within your means for the next five years and possibly more. Whatever that means.

If you have advice, leave a comment.

→ No CommentsCategories: ReasonableCitizenSpeaks · Society

An example of Executive Branch Legislation

November 24, 2008 · No Comments

You can read it here.

The Environmental Protection Agency seems on the brink of issuing a new regulation that would make it easier for power plants to operate longer hours — and emit more pollution.

Under the proposed rule, power plants would be able to measure their rate of emissions on an hourly basis instead of their annual total output. As long as the hourly emissions stay at or below the plant’s established maximum, the plant would be treated as if it were operating cleanly — even if its total annual emissions increased as plant managers stepped up output.

This is good example of how the President and the Executive Branch can make up their own legislation without the will of Congress and the people. 

In the beginning when the United States of America got together to decide upon a Constitution, they separated the power of legislation from the power of enforcement. Yet our Congress has seen fit to give the legislative power to the Executive Branch. Why? I don’t know, except to say that both parties want to create a dictator, a Caesar, or some other type of single-ruler government.

One more point about allowing the President to control ”rule-making ” legislation in agencies:

 The proposed power-plant rule marks a final attempt by the Bush administration to radically revise the way environmental laws are applied, especially the Clean Air Act. Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has sought to weaken the traditional regulatory authority of many federal agencies — like the Food and Drug Admin. and Consumer Product Safety Commission — to make them more friendly to business. This anti-regulatory stand has had perhaps its most sweeping effect on the EPA.

But the administration’s drive to weaken environment safeguards has gotten it into legal trouble. Since Bush took office in 2001, the EPA has issued 27 air-pollution regulations. Seventeen were either partly or entirely thrown out by the D.C. circuit court, which oversees cases involving federal regulation. One, the Duke Energy case, was reversed by the Supreme Court.

It is time for Congress to revoke the power of the President in making rules and legislation. Don’t you agree?

→ No CommentsCategories: In The News · ReasonableCitizenSpeaks · Society · Washington