cogitation_station

The Census Is Important: Obama's Trying to Change It

I have tried to warn people about the drastic appropriations of power that President Obama has garnered under the Executive Branch with his unprecedented use of the Executive Order.  I hope now you will do something!

The second nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Judd Gregg, withdrew his nomination for that office to return to his post as a leading Republican Senator.  This happened yesterday.  The reasons he left were basic ideological differences with the current administration over the stimulus bill and the national census.

The Census Bureau is under the provenance of the Commerce Department and controls such things as electoral votes (yes, those things that determine Presidents), appropriations, the number of Representatives in the House, and if skewed, even the party make up of those representatives.  Under the Commerce Department how these numbers are arrived at must be made public record.

What President Obama is attempting to do, and one of the reasons Sen. Gregg left, is to bring the Census under Rahm Emmanuel, his White House Chief of Staff, where NO TRANSPARENCY is required.

Instead of actual head-counting of every person in the United States, computer "sampling" can be used.  But the truth of the matter is the American public will have no way of knowing how their numbers are arrived at, virtually guaranteeing corruption at best, and rigging elections and the other matters determined by the census numbers at worst.

To put it simply, the President is not acting like the President of the United States, who controls the Executive Branch of government, but who does not control the other two branches, the Congress and the Supreme Court.   He is wielding the Executive Order as a formidable sword of Royal Decree, and he is doing it to disrupt the balance of power. 

If we allow this to continue, King Obama will have effectively changed (oh, yes, he did promise change) our republic into a kingdom of socialism, communism, or an absolute monarchy.

With the Democrats holding the majorities in both the House and Senate, the Republicans and Independents can do only so much without the support of principled and courageous members from the other side of the aisle, who serve the Constitution of the United States and their consciences before their pockets and political aspirations.  We NEED MEN AND WOMEN OF PRINCIPLE MORE THAN EVER.

Obama uses stick and carrot equally well:  threats that your political career will end if you do not go along with him are paired with promises of political clout and passage of favorite projects if you do, or so it would seem from his speeches and from the remarks of those who have crossed lines to support the insupportable.

As we have seen, many of those in Congress are more interested in their Pary and their pockets to stand up for what is RIGHT, or are too cowardly to vote no, when the bill in question is WRONG.  The corruption in Congress has been exposed and openly ignored.

Change is what you make of it.  So far, Obama has changed this country for the worse with more coming.  The Census is just the first of many--of course, we're not counting the so-called "stimulus" package, which is a travesty of obfuscation, taxation, and debt in the trillions of dollars.

TRANSPARENCY?  OBAMA HAS BANISHED IT FROM HIS (yes, HIS) WHITE HOUSE.  If we don't stop him now, there will be no chance to in 2010.  Why?  Because the manipulation of the Census will guarantee that he will win again.  Mark my words:  this is not a man who intends to lead and cooperate.  He intends to Rule!

Call your Congressmen and women; march on whatever government agencies you have; make your voices heard, before they are silenced....

Terri Schiavo, Rest In Peace

Terri Schiavo died late last night after a long and difficult battle. She leaves behind a loving husband, Michael, to whom I express my sincere condolences and best wishes for a happy life.

My sincere sympathies to the Schindlers and to Terri's siblings. Perhaps now that Terri's battle is over, yours can also end, and you can return to picking up the pieces of your lives. I hope so.

My fear is that although Terri's struggle has at last come to an end, the impact of this tragedy will reverberate for years to come.

I truly hope that I am wrong, and that people on both sides of this traumatic issue will "extract the precious from the worthless," and that Terri's death and the controversy which raged around her will produce good and not evil results.

Michael, if you can, forget the insults and insinuations which were hurled at you by unthinking people who never knew you. You did everything you could do to honor Terri's wishes.

This Is Important, People

An end in sight? With the Schindlers who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court has once more refused to rule in the Schiavo's case, meaning the lower court rulings stand.

I have to say I am concerned about the smelly, lake bottom this furor has turned up.

This is the first time in my life when I find myself siding with Democrats. I'm a life-long Republican, as you know by now, and I'm sorry, but the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania sounded more like a Democrat than a Republican.

Since when does the federal government determine and intervene in a civil case affecting one person's life? Since when does the Congress ignore the Constitution and insist on "a de novo case," meaning go back and start over in the federal courts and ignore 15 years of litigation and medical evidence?

The rapidity and urgency of the Schiavo case nullified any possible Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the legislation. A fact that seems to escape most people, and which seems not to matter much to the rest.

It matters.

I've said things are upside down and topsy-turvy, but it's more than that. This case, which should never have been aired publicly in the first place, has blurred so many lines among the federal government's role, the federal courts and the state courts judicial areas, federal versus state's rights, medical and religious issues, that the only ones who seem to adhere to some form of sanity number very few, who put emotion aside to deal with the facts of the case, not what they wish were the facts of the case.

This case turns my world on its head. Black becomes white, and white slowly changes to black.

Spiritual "leaders" rant like lunatics (I can't name names, but you've seen them); Michael Schiavo, who has acted well during this entire circus, is slandered, vilified, and called a "murderer" for sticking by Terri for 15 years, long after she ceased to know anything. Her responses are not conscious; they are reflexes. How much easier would it have been to just walk away and let the Schindlers deal with the trauma?

But he didn't. Why? Because if he did, he knew that Terri's parents would ignore her wish that she not live this way.

I have heard Terri's mode of death termed "starving" and "dehydration," "cruel and unusual," by people who should know better. How much more do you need air to breathe? Yet no one screams when a respirator is turned off and/or IV tubes are removed.

She is not in pain. How do I know? Because I've sat and watched my grandmother, who was conscious until a brain tumor overcame her faculties, die in the same way for six long weeks after the feeding tube and water were removed. Was she fighting for her life? No, she was trying to let go of her body.

Terri cannot swallow. You want to leave her death to God? Then let Him decide when to take her. Right now, everyone in that so-called "vigil" outside the hospice is trying to interfere with God's will. Trust me, if He doesn't want her to go, He can heal her with or without any extraneous or heroic efforts.

Some people hate "Christians" for this very kind of emotional and vitriolic display. You who are really Christians, stop! You are not witnessing for Christ; you are making a mockery of it and of my beliefs by saying and doing things that are not Christian at all.

I look at this mess, and I see planted the seeds of destruction for my country.

Wake up, PEOPLE! When chaos and emotion take over, order goes out the door, and the "rule of Law" becomes nothing but a nice phrase having no meaning.

This matter boils down to much more than one woman's desire to die with dignity, without the heroic measures which keep the body alive while the spirit longs to leave. It is about who we are and what America stands for.

Everywhere basic rights, guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and in the Constitution of United States, are eroding. We are willing to sell our birthright, bought with the blood of countless individuals over the last 400 years, for a mess of "safeguards" and "safety measures." Beware that the Freedom which we teach and preach in other countries and which so many have fought and died for is not bargained away in bits and pieces.

If you do nothing, you have contributed to our demise and to your own.

In The Book of the Revelation to John while John was in exile on the island of Patmos, Jesus Christ said to the Laodicean Church:

"The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God says this: 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eyesalve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.

'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me.

'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Revelation 3: 14-22 (NASV).

Immediately before dictating the letter to Laodicea, Christ dictated a letter to the church in Philadelphia.

I personally believe that these two churches represent the two kinds of "Christianity" left on earth before the Great Tribulation begins. When Christ comes for His Church, "churches" will still be doing a brisk business with most pews filled.

To Philadelphia Jesus Christ writes: "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: 'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied my Name.

'Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie--behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept the word of My perserverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.

'I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it any more; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which come down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Rev. 3: 7- 13 (NASV)

Notice the choice set before you. It is choice, not coercion. Even if you choose to reject this, it is by your choice that you do it.

Make no mistake: this is a choice that needs to be made now, for who knows what tonight or tomorrow may bring?

I shall leave you with one more quotation from 2 Peter 3: 3-9:

"Know this first of all that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.' For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

'But the present heaven and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

'But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.'"--NASV

For those of you wondering why I am talking about the "last days," and making such a big deal out of this, read Matthew 24 and following. Pay particular attention to the "Parable of the Fig Tree." Even this Spring, it is putting forth leaves.

Not Over Yet...Yes, Schiavo's Parents Do It Again

Well, there was hope for ending this saga...but now, the Schindlers have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court once again to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted.

Will nothing stop these people?

Perhaps they heard Justice Clarence Thomas's clerk on "The Abrams Report" and think they might have a chance. Here's hoping the prevailing wisdom of the Supreme Court holds firm, and they refuse to continue this madness.

Postcript to "Ripley"

In a follow-up article, "Federal Court Again Refuses to Intervene," by Ron Word, AP, March 30, 2005, 15:44 EST, Word reported yet another refusal by the 11th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals to hear any further arguments in the Schiavo case.

Word quotes Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr.: "Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper... ."..."While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate dischage of duty." Amen!

Let us fervently hope that this ends this seemingly endless saga.

I must add a "Yea, for sanity in the courts!" here.

It appears that Judge Birch also took the President and members of Congress to task as well. (Huzzah!)

While giving them more credit for altruism than I would, Judge Birch said, "...it is my judgment that...the legisilative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution." (Source: see above.)

It's nice to know that my opinions on these weighty legal matters are actually held by some members of the courts. Our Founding Fathers would be proud!

Well done, judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals!

(Gee, it feels good to say that.)

Believe It or Not, Ripley Is Watching This One

Yesterday added a new chapter to the lunacy surrounding the Schiavo case: Her parents are now selling the list of donors who contributed to their fight to "keep Terri alive." His reasoning? (I'm paraphrasing): Things like this cost money. Really? I wonder who pays the bills for other patients in the same condition, or their legal fees, for that matter.

This was followed by offers of videos of the dying Terri for only $100 each, although I do not think her father instigated that one.

I'll agree with Dan Abrams of "The Abrams Report" on MSNBC last night (March 29, 2005) and say with him that these actions are "dispicable."

Makes you think that Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, in an interview on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," wasn't exaggerating about the disagreement regarding Terri's care and "final wishes," which he stated began with a falling out with Mr. Schindler about money.

And Jesse Jackson was everywhere. It's difficult to imagine what religion the man actually believes in when he seems so able to go from being Michael Jackson's spiritual advisor (Jackson is an avowed Jehovah's Witness) to advising the Shindlers, avowed Roman Catholics... .

And then today I read--oh yes--an Associated Press Ariticle by Ron Word released about 10 a.m. CST: "Court to Weigh Schiavo Emergency Motion."

In this most recent travesty of justice and assault on Terri's dignity, Word reports: "A federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency bid by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect her feeding tube... ."

This allowed the Schindler's to file; it did not promise to grant the hearing. According to Word's article, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' deadline for final filings had been March 26th, but..."Its one-sentence order said: 'The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.'"

What possible grounds would they have now? Oh, but I left out creativity. This time the Schindlers argue "...that a federal judge in Tampa should have onsidered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law..."(and)"...that the Atlanta federal appellate court didn't consider whether there was enough 'clear and convincing' evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition."

I wonder how much more evidence one needs?

Ms. Schiavo has been disconnected from life support systems for 13 days. One wonders what "life" she could be restored to, as several well-known neurologists, who have thoroughly examined Schiavo, say she lacks brainwave function and has not had any brainwave function since 2002. (I listened to a dissenting view from another neurologist who has not examined Terri say that lack of brainwave function was not the issue, while contradicting the neurologist who had examined her. I also listened to several other experts who had recently examined Terri who said the same thing as the first. But they're only experts, right? The predominance of neurologists on their side can't outweigh the diagnoses of the one or two others, who've never examined Ms. Schiavo, can it?)

People who think a miracle will happen if Terri's feeding tube and water are restored lack faith in my opinion. If a miracle is a miracle, then God doesn't need any help from technology to restore Terri. Remember Lazarus?

Please...leave this poor woman to die in peace!

I am amazed at Michael Schiavo's forebearance. I'd be livid by now. His graciousness and willingness to allow an autopsy after his wife dies and before Terri's cremation is beyond the call. And I'm thrilled he's having her cremated. With all of this "Terri is Jesus...I thirst" sacrilege, the next thing would be "harvesting" Terri's organs, which would, no doubt, then become religious relics.

All this is a media circus with hoopla outside of the hospice where, evidently forgotten by those outside, other terminally ill people are fighting for their lives or a peaceful death. Where is the extra money for them, Right-to-Lifers? Excuse me, but you are giving "Right to Life" a bad name. Conservative Christians are being ridiculed because of you. Republicans are losing the support of their base because of this idiocy.

Emotions always run high in families where a loved one is dying. But I've never seen anything as crass, self-serving, political, and money-grubbing as this sideshow.

Ripley wouldn't have believed this.

The Government, the Courts, and You

Quote of the day:

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." --Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787.

I hope everyone has caught the news lately. Fascinating stuff happening, and most of it will have great impact on our lives...if not now, then soon.

Did you read that the courts recently determined bloggers, i.e., people like me, are not to be afforded the same protections under the law that "real journalists" are afforded? That applies even if you happen to be regularly employed as one in another area of journalism. We, bloggers that is, are being forced to reveal sources that other journalists would not have to. (See Apple Computer v. Doe No. 1 et al and the following appeals.)

Don't get me wrong. Too many times journalists hide behind "unnamed" or "confidential sources" to say and report anything. However, I'm speaking here of legitimate journalistic practices as taught at say...Columbia?

So, let's assume that some bloggers are legitimate journalists following in the best ethical traditions of the profession. It would then seem that if they write like journalists, even if they happen to write what are now considered "blogs," and they act like ethical journalists, then they should be accorded the same Constitutional rights and legal protections, with their attendant legal penalties, as "working" journalists.

This, according to the courts, is not to be. Their logic seems based on a faulty foundation. All bloggers are not journalists; Keith Olbermann writes a blog; therefore, Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. Please. (I just picked Olbermann's name out of the air; I could have picked Dan Abrams or anyone else.)

I would agree that some standards of journalism should be applied to certain kinds of blogs. (There are different kinds, you know.) A diarist, for example, should not to be held to the same standards as someone writing an investigative piece for the Wall Street Journal. However, bloggers who comment on current events, politics, other topics which would normally fall within the scope of any reputable newspaper, e.g., reviews, op-ed pieces, features, gossip columns, etc., should be aware of the ethical norms for those kinds of topics and follow certain guidelines, such as: libel laws and how they apply, quoting sources accurately, and not engaging in vitriol for the fun of it.

But to paint all bloggers as non-journalists regardless of topic or writing quality smacks of paternalism. If withdrawing protections of free speech and free press from bloggers is Constitutional, (please refer to my piece on bloggers as the new journalists, much as the scandal sheets of the 18th Century referred to in William Safire's novel, The Scandalmongers), then are we also subject to the same tort laws which govern such things as libel?

It seems to me that the courts can't have it both ways: Either distinctions with public standards for any blogger who want to be accorded "journalist" status need to be decided, defined, and disseminated widely, or bloggers in general should be given the First Amendment Rights of free speech, without worrying about the freedom of the press restrictions and privileges.

Then to add to the complexity of the conundrum along comes a Pennsylvania civil case in which a newspaper journalist accurately quoting slanderous remarks of a borough councilman against another councilman and a mayor is sued, along with his paper. The lower court judge said the borough councilman owed the other two men money, but said that the paper and its reporter were not liable under a widely accepted "neutral reporting privilege" which allows members of the media to report a credible public person's defamatory remarks, as long as those remarks are conveyed neutrally and accurately. (Source: The Wall Street Journal, (WSJ), AP article, "Justices Let Stand Ruling Rejecting Journalist Privilege," March 28, 2005.)

The two allegedly aggrieved men appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which overturned the lower court's ruling. The Court stated that "no such privilege exists under U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions," and ordered a new trial to decide the journalists' liability under an "actual malice" standard..." (Same source.)

The newspaper appealed the case, now called Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Wolfe, to the U. S. Supreme Court which allowed the lower court's ruling to stand. That ruling "asserted that journalists lack constitutional protections allowing them to safely report defamatory comments made by public figures, even when the comments are described in a neutral way." (Same source.)

So as things now stand, journalists, i.e., by definition non-bloggers, in quoting the slanderous remarks by both sides of a controversy may now find themselves guilty of the defamatory statements they quoted. It is yet to be decided whether or not the standard of "actual malice" should also be applied and what that verdict will yield.

Excuse me. How are these rulings possible? If I am a reporter covering an election and report potentially slanderous claims one candidate makes against the other candidate or candidates, and I then turn around and give the other side their chance to rebut, and they do, and I report their rebuttal remarks exactly, am I then to worry about whether I am going to be sued for their slanders or even libel because I accurately reported their remarks? Preposterous, right? Not anymore.

Does anyone remember the CBS debacle concerning certain falsified documents regarding President Bush's service record? Who broke the story that the documents were false? A blogger. But now the blogger is not accorded the status of journalist, while the reporters involved in the false reporting are still considered journalists.

I'm feeling like I've been on a merry-go-round too long...a bit queasy.

The Congress takes a civil case away from the state courts, puts it into the federal system, only to have the lower courts upheld. Then we see it begin again with even less credible claims than before.

Anyone recognize the Schiavo case? And I thought it was all over, but I was wrong. More today.

My point is, if I can stop reeling long enough to sharpen it, that lines are being blurred that should not be. Definitions, duties, decisions become a gumbo of wrong-thinking by people whose responsibilities for those actions lie elsewhere.

Courts making laws, lawmakers acting like courts on no evidence but emotion, and logic and reason are out the door with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights being dragged out with them.

Thomas Jefferson warned:

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."--Letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820.