Terror Suspects in Domestic U.S. Courts?

Why shouldn’t terror detainees be tried in Domestic Courts? Perhaps because our government doesn’t have the full range of investigative tools that they need. I am pretty sure that you cannot use hearsay evidence in US courts. Also, the US does not have power (it being outside its jurisdiction) to just go over to any country these terrorist may have been in, and demand evidence be turned over – if that evidence is even still obtainable due to variations in each county’s law enforcement practices. Additionally, if terrorists are tried in US Domestic courts, and evidence would jeopardize national security, that complicates thing such that without the evidence, despite the reason for not having access to that evidence, detainees would have to be released.

So it would seem likely that the terrorists would have a great advantage even over your average US citizen and the American government would not be given a fair opportunity to prosecute at trial. This, I am sure, is part of why we have separate military courts as well; because there are likely to be national security concerns and information that cannot be placed in the public domain, and different sets of standards that need to be imposed because of the change in circumstances – war.

From Social Security to Distant Memory

So this is what I propose, with my very basic knowledge about economics.

We start phasing it out NOW. We do this by having everyone age 20 and younger, not receive social security, because this leaves them adequate time to make plans for retirement without in any way expecting to be getting government money through social security. Those who are 20 years old and younger, as they age, WILL still have to pay social security into the system, but this will be balanced out by the fact that money they put into a qualified retirement account, will not be taxed before it is put into the account, nor will it be taxed when it is withdrawn after they retire. This will help compensate for them not receiving benefits of social security despite paying into the system.

For those who are over 20, there will be a gradual reduction of the amount they would proportionately be receiving for social security had there been no change in the system. This will be balanced out by a decrease in taxes as they place money into retirement and later when they withdraw it, so that more money than they expected will be coming from their retirement account even as less money can be expected from social security.

This would prevent an unfair increase in the burden those 20 and under would be shouldering by paying into the social security system they would not be benefiting from. It also allows for a decrease in that amount they will have to pay into the system by reducing the amount individuals will receive based on age and our ability to compensate by not taxing what they put into, or take out of their retirement accounts.

We should also not place restrictions on how much individuals can place into their retirement accounts in any given year.

This way, the amount to be paid out in Social Security will not continue to rise, can be phased out without being overly unfair to any particular group, and will be cultivating a generation of more responsible youth. Is there some big reason I am missing as to why we haven’t done something like this already, other than political corruption and congressional disinterest in actually creating sustainable domestic policies?

Should Conservatives be taking a (highly sanitized) page from A.C.O.R.N.’s Book?

My general theory about combating your foes (political or otherwise), is to not try to be like them or change yourself (like recent Republican leaders have indicated), it is to understand their THINKING, and find the best way to combat their TACTICS, possibly utilizing a tactic derived from theirs – but this is not changing yourself and your purpose and message; it is changing the method you use to convey your message and fulfill your purpose.

Now, due to a few episodes on Glenn Beck where he interviewed some members of ACORN who were trying to reform ACORN – I learned that ACORN is, or has, an umbrella organization, and many of these are non-profits, unions etc… each of whom individually receive government money. That money can be redirected to other organizations under the umbrella that are not getting as much money from the government – to whichever one needs it at that moment to best forward the umbrella organizations’ agenda. Secondly, after thinking about that first thing, I thought about grassroots movements, and ironically enough, about my own social life while I was a teenager compared to now.

What does my social life have to do with American politics? Well, I matured since high school (and sadly I cannot these days even add “obviously”), but more importantly, when I make friends now, I am more engaged in the people I am meeting. I am interested in them and their problems for the most part, and when I was younger, I thought what I was saying was so interesting that I talked more than listened, and I only listened with half an ear. This is what I think the Republican Party is currently doing – it is talking too much, and only listening with half an ear. It is talking because it thinks that the way to get voters back is to persuade them that Republicans are hip, we’re interesting, we’re cool, and we’re not just a bunch of old white guys. They are only listening enough to hear half of what America is telling them – that the conservative movement is on the rocks, and they are missing the fact that a substantial number of people are conservative and that it is on the rocks because our MESSAGE isn’t getting out, not because of what our message IS. They are only hearing enough to think that we need to change to a party of political relativism and moral relativism, rather than paying attention to even WHO is saying that…. and hmmm isn’t that our political OPPONENTS who are saying that. What were we again, ohh yes – CONSERVEative – root word – CONSERVE (as in not change).

The Republican Party is not confident enough in its message, because the Democrats, the jealous girls in our political high school of D.C., are saying nasty things to cut down our self esteem. But does that mean we should be LETTING it cut down our confidence in our message? No – it just means we need to ignore it and not change who we are to suit people who don’t like us.

How does this relate to grassroots movements? It’s about being engaged with your members. As a continuance of the initial analogy pertaining to my social life – do you think I had loyal friends in high school? If I didn’t listen to my friends and acquaintances enough to know what is going on in their life, do you think I knew how to be a good friend to THEM individually? I probably didn’t, I knew how to be an entertaining friend for the most part, but my actions were not designed to be particularly sensitive or to address their actual needs when they needed support. Do you think they were probably very loyal? Some were and some weren’t and I think it had more to do with the quality of the person than to do with my part in the friendships. But I did not start having a majority of truly loyal friends until I became engaged with them – and they knew I cared enough to find out what was going on in their lives and help them if I could when they needed it.

The Republican party needs to remember its members, it needs to remember to ENGAGE individually with its members, (which will remind it how our base is conservative and not moderate), AND it will engender loyalty – as long as it is SINCERE engagement. We need to also engage with people who are not our members to see what OTHER Americans need.

What do we need to do after listening? For example, we could start (or increase) conservative groups who are out fighting the need for welfare by helping provide job training for welfare recipients, offering childcare so that they can afford to work if they have young children; and then we need to have those groups BE visible and to VISIBLY align themselves with the conservative cause and party. This is how we SHOW that OUR policies ARE IN THEIR INTEREST – that it is in their interest just as much as any other stereotypical white wealthy male republican (which is somewhat ridiculous to be a stereotype since so many seem to have voted for Obama this past election). These kinds of groups may be in existence, but either way, we need MORE of them and for them to have MORE exposure. We need to harness the skills of the many people who are helping to plan tea parties, to also work on these kinds of projects.

Now going back to ACORN and its umbrella system. What is one way this is advantageous to them, they are CONNECTED and unified in their goals and in their message, and they can represent many different groups in the process showing the wide variety of types of people the party they support represents. But all these different groups are communicating in working towards the same goal in a coordinated fashion. But if nothing else, they are unified in their terminology and message.

The GOP seems confused about what their message is, and that is because we are letting ourselves be defined by our opposition. Again, questioning what Republicans should stand for is not really an issue, (if they don’t stand for conservative ideals, they aren’t going to be winning control of anything anytime soon) Republicans are now confused because WHAT we should stand for has not been represented, our elected officials for the most part seem to have been for big (not small mind you) rather than the enormously big government – and fiscally conservatism has been barely represented – to point out just one area of the Republican platform.

ACORN also has the capability of using their money – to fund an advertisement or mailer for another cause, for another organization under their umbrella. Perhaps what we need to do is to really investigate HOW the liberals are getting their message out, because conservatives are losing the communication war – and you know who won in the past in the “war of propaganda?” – the Patriots in the American Revolution. We need to be focusing on getting our message out – the liberals have the public school system and the colleges to help indoctrinate the youth – so we need to figure out what needs to happen to disrupt their ability to get out their message and/or enhance our ability to get out ours, THAT is what we need to be thinking about my friends, and we need to be thinking BEYOND what we can do for our own families – because it is going to take more than the people who are currently conservative, it is going to take turning people into conservatives because they see the value it has to this country AND most importantly – to them individually!

Sure, we can take our own kids out of the public schools – we can save them from being indoctrination and receiving an inferior education – and it seems we may have little incentive to change schools our kids aren’t in, or especially if we do not have kids. But how many OTHER kids are going to be LEFT in the public schools system, ripe for indoctrination and exposure to only one perspective – that of the progressive movement and their propaganda. And how great are our kids few votes going to be compared to all those votes of kids who went through public schools? What about our colleges and universities? Perhaps more conservatives need to go into academics, more conservative adjunct professors, more conservative deans. We need to start at the root of the problem here, and that starts when kids are most impressionable.

We are dealing with an, until recent years, subtle onslaught of psychological warfare. Traditionally a group trying to conquer a people, to take over their land, and covert them to their own religion, or to follow their king, etc… did so in an overt way – you knew you were under a clear attack, so you had your defenses ready, you were vigilant. Also, if you “converted” to a different set of beliefs or loyalties, you did so KNOWING you were doing it voluntarily or involuntarily or…. else you didn’t convert and maybe you were executed or enslaved… it happened tons of times to tons of different countries and groups of people. But in American, we have psychological guerrilla warfare on our founding Christian principles. Christian principles are what guided the writing of our Constitution, guided the enforcement of our law, and whether you are Christian or not, Christian principles are what gave Americans all these liberties and rights that so many people have sought for centuries by coming to this country.

My primary interest is in making sure it stays a Christian country where I can BE a Christian. As a Christian, I must be able to have freedom to practice my faith, which entails being able to speak of my faith, witness to my faith and share my faith with others. This is the way God works through people most, when people live Christian lives and lead people to the faith that way. We need LIBERTY to do this, which also means, people have the liberty to not be Christians if they don’t want to. I want to ensure the FREEDOM to rebuild our nation into an even more predominantly Christian nation, by changing hearts and minds, but to do that we have to ensure a sustainable opportunity to do so.

Musings on Contraversial Issues (Part 1 – Setting the Scene)

This is the first in a series of pieces, Part 1 serves to both elaborate on my perspective and reasoning in regard to some key concepts integral to my theories, observations, and proposed solutions.

As a preliminary point – much of our conflict over social issues is rooted in discussions over rights. Generally, most of our rights are based in the constitution, though states may expand individual rights beyond what the federal government protects, as long as it does not interfere with the interests and laws of the federal government that are enumerated in the Constitution, or deemed necessary and proper to the execution of enumerated powers. For this reason, a discussion is warranted, as to what approach is appropriate for interpreting the Constitution.

It seems to me that our societal structure, not just our government, was established through the creation of the constitution, with the overarching goal of balancing maximum individual rights and liberty (that inherently require personal responsibility) until those rights interfere with the individual rights of others, or are curtailed by the government’s (now ever-expanding) “interests.” Since it is a balancing, this requires maintenance of that balance in order to ensure that the Constitution and the government continue to function properly and as intended.

For this reason, while flexibility is a necessary consideration by the courts when interpreting the text of the Constitution – the Constitution’s integrity must be maintained as to the original intention of the text, and reasoning for a particular portions’ inclusion, in order to best CONTINUE to strike the correct balance. If we have determined the system (Constitution) does not work and feel the need to change it, the document needs to be changed itself, either in part or in entirety, or some other method of regime change or government structure decided upon.

A lack of consistency creates inequities in rights that cannot necessarily be rectified by the balances integrated by our forefathers, since those balances were not designed to function with interpretations based on whatever “principle” is in vogue at the time. The balances were only designed to function within the context of the founding principles.

It follows that arguments for and against policy changes should be confined to the structure in which they will be operating, that structure which was created by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Arguments that gain their primary traction in a societal structure outside one that based on a maximization of individual liberties, may have merit generally, but must still be filtered through the lens of OUR society. If we as a people do not wish to conform our society to the structure we have established, the entire thing needs to be scratched and reconfigured – because dismantling it slowly will create a flawed and ineffective process that will continue to produce a greatly flawed product. It will not be a cohesive “plan” designed to withstand abuses and imbalances.

Since humans are imperfect in our execution of our founding principles (for ex – slavery in existence amidst the guiding “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” mantra), we only sabotage future efforts by intentionally sacrificing the integrity of the document that is supposed to help protect us from ourselves, by rationalizing the adoption of excessive “flexibility” in interpretation, and addressing dilemma’s not expressly referred to in the constitution as “new issues” rather than as an old issue wrapped in new facts (which they often are).

Taking into account the inherent imperfection we as humans will never completely overcome – we should also not be afraid to correct ourselves just because it is burdensome on the current members of society to do so. For the continuance of societal functionality, maintenance is a necessary element which we cannot neglect.

Next Time: Societal Structure and its Implications on Current Events

Update – 3 New Polls….

“Republican’s Move to the Right” Cites Gallup…..

That was a subheading in a new Gallup Poll showing that more Americans in 2009 consider themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice” – which is a first since the polling began in 1995. Quoting from Gallup: “The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves “pro-life” rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.”

Additional Points:

• 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.”
• …the swelling of the pro-life position since last year is seen across Christian religious affiliations, including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among Catholics.
• Men and women have been evenly divided on the issue in previous years; however, this is the first time in nine years of Gallup Values surveys that significantly more men AND women are pro-life than pro-choice. (emphasis added)

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

This supports my belief that the conservative MESSAGE is not the problem, it is inadequate communication. Someone should also tell the GOP that this kind of data suggests that moving to the center on social issues is NOT what will win more elections. As I pointed out in a “debate” on Facebook – Republicans will only loose if they try to be Democrats because they will never be as good at Democrats as Democrats are (as defined by their current platform.) Republicans also need to be the party of SMALL government, not “slightly less than enormous” government. Right now, many Republican politicians are advocating big government and Democrats are advocating bigger government. Like morality – I maintain that the size of government should not be relative, but a standard that does not “change” with the times – as long as the definition of liberty and religious freedom has not changed, which it has not, neither should the definition of “big government” change.

Some Thoughts on Voter Registration (Fraud)

First, why are organizations allowed to solicit people to get them to register to vote? It seems logical to me that the best way to have a vote represent the will of the people is to have the people who vote be the ones who CARE enough about the issues, to go down and register themselves, or seek out an organization to help them. I am sure you can ask a local librarian and they can give you some idea of where to start. Otherwise, you have individuals who are voting who registered because someone stopped them on campus or on the street to sign them up. If a person cannot be bothered, or doesn’t care enough, to initiate registering to vote on their own when they turn 18 (or when an election that is important to them arises), then they probably aren’t going to bother to make an educated decision when casting their vote and they will be shirking their responsibility as a voter. You have a responsibility to cast a vote that is representative of your thoughts and beliefs – because your vote carries with it, part of the weight of what happens to the lives of all Americans and future generations. Your vote may be one vote – but all of the “one votes” cast in ignorance are responsible for a government that does not truly represent the electorate. So first – if someone wants to vote – they should have to take it upon themselves to register themselves to do it. If we are going to not count all absentee ballots, and not all states count ballots from soldiers oversees, and courts are not forcing states to do so in recounts – we should not be creating a situation ripe for voter fraud by allowing solicitors to register voters either. All votes are equal – but all voters should be equal as well – they should all have the same degree of commitment to the process – in that they each vote cast WOULD be more equally representative of the one who cast it.

Secondly, and though I loathe to say this – perhaps there should be some degree of federally standardized voting machines etc. I am against big government – but for national elections – uniformity is in the interest of ALL Americans, and every vote should be counted by the same standards. If this was the case, perhaps some of the Bush/Gore election mess could have been avoided – and Gore supporters could not still claim it was “stolen” by Bush.

Repainting America’s Canvas of Beliefs: Part II

Part 2: A little less talk, and Some Cries for Attention…

The next thing that needs to be addressed is WHY “liberal lies” resonate with people (for example…. that conservatives only care about money and not the poor, or how about that Christians are bigots because they are trying to deny fundamental rights to homosexuals). Because IF people thought they were patently absurd, they wouldn’t be able to stick the way they do. They are not perceived as patently absurd because conservatives have not TOLD people often enough WHY they ARE patently absurd.

Liberals tend to also do a slight of hand trick, to distract the public from what they are ACTUALLY trying to do, by what they say. Their words are often vague, they often distract – because they do NOT have solid reasoning or sound moral principle behind their actions much of the time. Some of their “goals” may seem to be moral upright goals (help people with no healthcare, or no food, or pregnant women), but their methods are VERY often not in alignment with any conventional ideas of morals, or principles considered valuable by this nation (for example, individual liberty, freedom of religion, pursuit of life, liberty and happiness…).

However – that is generally NOT a problem with the conservative message – when the message is able to get out. And that is the problem. It does not. The problem isn’t that our ideas generally are not solid ideas that will benefit the American people – its that we are not communicating them often enough, clearly enough, or doing so confidently enough.

We need to Do stuff and then BRAG incessantly about it, explaining exactly WHY we have the right to brag about it.

Now – that REALLY goes against the grain for me – and it doesn’t promote humility – which I feel like is one of the most important virtues to strive for…. BUT – let me propose this hypothetical:

First this comes with a small disclaimer – this is not meant to be an attack on the progress or any specifics in handling with this on the part of the Republican Party – I do not remember it REALY well, since I believe in 1994 at the time of the Contract with America, I was starting middle school. But the point needs to be put it in some kind of context…. so here it goes….

What if, after the Contract with America helped cut down welfare in the mid 1990s –Clinton had not gotten so much of the credit? The republicans were successful DESPITE Clinton, not because of him. What if all of the republicans had talked in sweeping generalizations about the great good they did to help thousands upon thousands of people – and how their solidarity as a party helped herald in their success, how it helped them defeat a partisan opposition that was so out of touch with how to help those most in need – and how now America will be helping millions of citizens actualize their dreams of success, by helping provide solid resources to foster individual personal achievement and financial independence – how now millions can know that their children will be given a better future than they had envisioned for them just a few short years ago, and how humbling it is to be able to help so many people have new opportunities for greatness that had so long been denied to them!

What if such rhetoric was used, referenced and slipped in during debates, press conferences, and interviews with the media, for an extended period of time – being said with conviction and passion and tact – so that it is kept fresh in people’s minds? Notice there was no direct attack on any specific democrat that tried to block the reform in my little scenario – it was not a negative message – it was not a humble one particularly – but it wasn’t overly arrogant and prideful – HOWEVER– that is the method liberals successfully use to shape the minds of Americans with falsehoods and partisan inaccurate attacks – we will just use truths and uplifting sincere messages, to promote the value of personal responsibility and achievement that will lead to people respecting themselves more and taking pride in what they accomplish, the messages that will motivate people, not to settle for dependency and victimhood.

The thing is – these broad sweeping generalizations are what people understand – our world is a world that is fast paced and full of sound bites and minimal explanations. Considering the climate there is a lot of blanket trust of politicians among the average American – so we should of course continue to give them to the truth, but give it to them in a digestible form. At the end of the day, when watching the news after work, I am sure it is welcome by hard-working, tired Americans to hear something they don’t have to think too hard about, can understand, and that doesn’t require a long attention span. (This is good for television networks too – it is much easier for them if a politician tailors their own sound bite or short clip, and requires less explanation time by a newscaster – and it also helps minimize clips being taken out of context.)

I believe this kind of approach can be successful although it is something that must be done consciously because it is against the nature of many people because they are not prideful, and aren’t comfortable tooting their own horns, and have noble intentions – but, it may be necessary to adjust our methods of communication so that we can be more PRODUCTIVE and make larger steps towards success and actually succeed in COMMUNICATING our message and our accomplishments to the people.

Most of all I want to emphasize that all I have written about was written by keeping in mind that ends do not justify means and that principles cannot be sacrificed to further other principles. But that does not mean that we cannot, in a moral and ethical way, use intelligent alternative methods of communication that have been used dishonestly and unethically by others. The key is to understand the opposition, learn from them and find a way to do it better without making any ethical sacrifices.

Repainting America’s Canvas of Beliefs: Part I

A Note on Maintaining Productive Discourse in Politics:

Now I know many of you probably think this article is going to be about how America has strayed away from Christian values – but that is not what this particular article is about. This article is about re-orienting how we operate in the political sphere on a very basic level as conservatives – in an effort to better represent ourselves and be more effective.

Part 1: Built in Bias?

Part of the reason that Republican conservatives have struggled – is because their image to the country is being painted by the brushes of those who disagree with their ideas, beliefs and policies. (Not all Conservatives are Republicans and not all Republicans are conservative – I would like to make sure to acknowledge that to begin with – since until the recent past – they have been nearly synonymous.) Now although conservatives are not usually characterized as being the ones to play the victim card – when it concerns media bias – this could be an easy time to do so with some degree of legitimacy. But that is neither productive, nor does it represent taking personal responsibility – which conservatives value and promote. So in the interest of putting our money where our mouth is – I propose we reshape the direction with which we are approaching advocacy of our positions.

Yes, the typical media outlet is biased towards the left, but most people who are not to the right (even moderates) most of the time do not realize or acknowledge this. Obviously our tactics are not working for exposing the fact that truth and reporting are not being done objectively or accurately anymore – it’s almost all commentary and entertainment. We cannot likely change the profession (at least not any time soon – unless it dies out with the newspapers that are all failing – but there are other mediums). We cannot likely change the opinions of the people who are faithful CNN or MSNBC watchers – who are loyal to and even get defensive and protective when those stations are attacked when people attempt to discredit their reporting. It is reasonable for those who are loyal viewers to be insulted, since they trust the particular news source enough to rely upon it and we are saying they have poor judgment and are being misled because they don’t realize they are being lied to.

What needs to be done is that we have to examine all the tactics used against us – anticipate new ones, and preempt them. Easier said than done I know – especially while maintaining your integrity and honesty by not using the same tactics.

However, one tactic being used is creating associations between ideas by repetition. You link same-sex marriage – and fundamental right enough times, people start to believe it if they are not careful – you link republicans as greedy and heartless – people start to believe it, you link pro-lifers with not caring about women and wanting to put the women in jail for having abortions – people start to believe it. It does not make any of it truth – but it makes people think it is.

So how do we combat those associations that evolve into a conception of reality for a large part of America’s population? We have to combat repetition with repetition – because exposing isolated facts does little good, since the opposition will just claim we are lying, or create their own “facts.” Emphasizing and creating constructive, accurate, and TRUTHFUL associations by way of repetition is not dishonest. But the points of repetition must also be designed in a way to disrupt the CURRENT associations, and they must also be positive. We need our own short sound bites.

For example:

In response to the mantra “Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction” one could perhaps say something like, “The CIA lied about weapons of mass destruction.” [Note: THIS IS NOT ONE I AM ADVOCATING SAYING – I HAVE NOT DONE THE RESEARCH TO ACCUSE ANYONE OF LYING – THIS IS TO POINT OUT SENTENCE STRUCTURE. – In fact – I think what happened is that Saddam was so successful at making all his neighboring countries think he had WMDs that he tricked the CIA too…]
– Rather than saying Bush didn’t lie, and bring up the negative association with Bush, we only bring up the damaging/untruthful statement and then RE-ASSOCIATE it with something else. Though I do not thinking focusing on Bush is productive or helpful for anyone at this point anyway.

So the general idea is to think about how to frame statements so that can combat misconceptions in a way that can work – specifically the misconceptions based on people being given incorrect facts under the guise of truth. We need to use a multipronged and not a unilateral approach – some people react well to facts and some people discredit facts as being “partisan” ploys or just plain lies if they are not from the sources they typically rely upon; some people react well to arguments based in ideas or beliefs, but others do not; but some people don’t even consider other perspectives ever – unless they are mentioned enough times to enter into their minds as a valid perspective. This is not a frontal, confrontational attack on misconceptions and lies (about people, policies or motivations), it is a way that may help people become more open to THINKING about what they hear by using accurate, truthful, positive statements in a manner that doesn’t direct the person TO the misconception we are trying to dislodge, but nonetheless interferes with their inaccurate associations.

Criminalizing “Hate Speech?”