Blog Posts

Where do Rights Come From?

10/4/2015

Where do Rights come from?

God is the simple and correct answer, however for the non-believer and even the believer, let’s go deeper. Everyone has a solemn unspoken and unwritten agreement that, I do not harm you, and you do not harm me. So everyone has a right not to be harmed and comes from this agreement.

Laws emerge from trial and error, and society comes to have an understanding of a just punishment for harm (crime). The government codifies some of these with legislation, and others are just enforced by the people themselves. People enforcing includes ‘shunning’ or other social exclusion techniques that can be very effective in bringing people in line with societal norms.

Rights, here are described as something that is just protected, meaning government does not infringe (do harm) and also is involved in punishing perpetrators that harm others as defined in legislation. Unfortunately, our language also uses the same word ‘rights’ as ‘owed to people,’ as in someone or the government has an obligation to provide goods or services to people as opposed to just protecting them from harm.

If one’s rights stop when they start infringing on others rights, then the word ‘rights’ should not describe government providing goods. If someone has to work and do labor to ensure you have something, their right to their own labor and property are infringed. This type of ‘rights’ should be labeled as ‘entitlements’ or ‘government obligations.’

Certificate of need laws are protectionist policies and destructive to economic growth and advancements

9/15/2015

I do not need to write much here as this is a straightforward case of free enterprise versus protectionist policy. I fall clearly in the free enterprise camp, and Certificate of need laws are anti-consumer and has never proven to meet the goals of their proponents. They fear adequate capital, both human and monetary will not flow into an area if they cannot keep out the competition. That unfounded fear is used as a way to bully city councils to give special treatment. It is amazing how often those being protected show their appreciation with significant donations to campaigns.

Civil Asset Forfeiture only after a conviction

9/13/2015

Civil means without a criminal conviction. Asset forfeiture means the government taking (stealing) assets. This could be cash, cars, houses, boats or any other assets. This is clearly wrong.

Many people have done great research on this injustice; unfortunately this has not been fixed. Significant reforms are needed to protect people’s property. While crimes need to be punished, we need to abide by the Fourth Amendment. Nothing should be taken without a conviction.

Civil Asset Forfeiture "Has Created Serious Problems"Feb 16th, 2018

Civil Asset Forfeiture: Good Intentions Gone Awry and the Need for Reform April 20, 2015

Is the next president constitutionally allowed to follow the law as written and not give subsidies to people if their state did not set up an exchange?

7/19/2015

While the ACA (AKA: Obama-Care) is profoundly damaging in many ways, the King v Burwell 6/28/2015 case created many new problems.
First, the old problems, the ACA totally destroys the significant role of prices in the medical and insurance markets. The ACA profoundly increases the number and severity of regulations around health care. Every regulation is a law that restrict business models, and the ACA is continually ruling almost every health insurance policy people want illegal. The regulators are forcing or profoundly influencing buyers and sellers to agree to contracts that are less desirable then they have had in the past. To many, the contracts allowed are so undesirable, people choose to go without.

This decision went a long way in removing limitations on the executive branch from taking power away from the legislative branch. Chevron Deference gives the executive branch power to interpret the legislation to the executives liking; however, within limitations of the reasonableness of the language of the law. In King V Burwell, Roberts increases the executive power to overlook the clear, unambiguous language of the statute and ‘create law’ within the limitations of whether it is reasonable to the purpose of the law.

This is not just boring legal opinion stuff that never affects people. This has significant effects of taxing and benefits within the ACA that takes and gives big money through the tax system. However, with Obama’s history of going way beyond his power (because the other two branches fail to try to stop him), we have a high potential of Obama changing many laws and just claiming his ‘new way’ will accomplish the purpose of the law more efficiently.

These decisions create other significant concerns of over-reach of liberals in the executive branch.
In the EPA, there has been clear language holding back liberals from shutting done free enterprise and replacing with massive government control, which is their solution to many issues. This decision empowers the EPA to ignore the law and just make things up if they claim it would help the environment.

In the tax laws, is the IRS empowered to change rates, limit deductions, stop exemptions, expand their scope, increase tax welfare or make a host of other changes if they just claim they are furthering the purpose of the law?
The list is endless and very troubling.

Should Anti-Discrimination Laws Force Young Actresses to do Porn?

7/16/2015

There is a rash of lawsuits regarding people refusing services to willing buyers of goods or services. Bakers, florists, caterers, farm owners (venue), among other people are being targeted in lawsuits for refusing service to a same-sex wedding. The public accommodation laws and anti-discrimination laws are in direct conflict with the constitutional protection of The Freedom of Association.

Pornography is legal, and some willing producers would love to go into actress agencies and pick young actresses and purchase their services. With the same logic as caterers refusing services when they object to the content around their services of a gay wedding, likewise many actresses would object to the content surrounding performing in a porn movie.

Just as customers are free to discriminate on what services they purchase and whom they purchase it from, so should businesses offering services. Free enterprise means both sides must agree on the contract or sale. Just as there does not need to be a genuine religious belief in order to deny services to a gay wedding, there should likewise be of no need for a heartfelt religious reason for an actress to refuse to do porn. An atheist should have all the rights as a true believer.

We need to be very cautious of trying to pass laws granting rights or restricting government when we already have those rights, restrictions, and laws.

We need to be very cautious of trying to pass laws granting rights or restricting government when we already have those rights, restrictions and laws.

7/15/2015

When liberals find freedom and liberty obstructing their goals of controlling citizens in order to ‘protect them,’ they often violate standing law, statutory or constitutional. For example, laws requiring city police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE is not regularly done because the president ‘stated’ it was optional. The word ‘shall’ was used, clearly meaning must.

Some people want all illegals turned over to ICE and too often their solution is to pass another law. This new law replicating the existing law has to overcome another vote and a veto to become law. If the new bill does not successfully become law, the executive branch is morally empowered to not only ignore that current law but expand the same tactic on other laws.

This is not only used in the negative, but in the positive. While the executive often ignores properly enacted laws, they also go far beyond the law and implement programs or procedures not authorized by law. There are many instances where the EPA or the ACA (Obama-care) among many other agency created “laws’ that was not authorized by legislation. The KING V. BURWELL (U.S. SUP. CT.)

Too often legislators try to pass laws to ‘stop’ them. They are creating a system where the executive does what they want until the legislature passes a law and overcomes a veto to stop those in the executive versus the constitutional way of the legislature creating the law and the executive department executing the laws passed.

Much of the ‘Convention of the states’ (COS) movement is doing this with the constitution. They see the Supreme Court not protecting the constitution, as is their duty when the Congress, the executive, or even the judiciary infringes on rights clearly in the constitution or creates ‘rights’ clearly not considered during the ratification of the Constitution or Amendment such as gay marriage or abortion.

The COS leaders see Congress acquiring power beyond the enumerated powers such as Social Security, welfare, education and regulations and think that they need to pass an amendment to the constitution to clarify what the constitution clearly states. If the 10th amendment were not in the constitution, it would be the perfect new amendment to clarify the limited nature of the federal government’s scope of power and authority. However, it is in the constitution!

Given the entrenched nature of decades of infringements with little pushback from the states or the legislature, much less the judiciary, the COS is needed. However, it must be very carefully done. See the page: Fighting Federal Control

Big organizations need the ability to observe issues and correct them quickly, and the government is clearly not good at this. The government is often a monopoly which compounds the problem by not allowing new innovative business models to emerge and compete for the business of regulations. Congress’s bad job is not a reason to give more latitude and leeway to the regulatory bureaucracy of the executive department but the reason to turn over these services to the free enterprise system. Please see Competitive Regulatory Agencies.

This is not a call to ‘never’ pass these laws but to do so only after exhausting all judicial remedies and using the power of the executive when ‘We,’ who favor limited government, are in the executive.

Other current concerns are liberal interpretations and implementation of anti-discrimination laws when we have very powerful Freedom of Association Rights clearly stated in the US Constitution.

The KING V. BURWELL (U.S. SUP. CT.) (2015) case clearly shows judicial incompetence and unwillingness to protect the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. While the court has upheld the ACA twice in significant decisions, the ACA violates the constitution in dozens of other very profound ways.

SUPREME COURT OR SUPREME BEING –

WHO WILL YOU OBEY?

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

Ricki Pepin© - July 2015

Since the Supreme Court rendered its irrelevant and irreverent opinion approving homosexual marriage, the mainstream media has been gleefully declaring that it is now “the law of the land.” Is it? Several “conservative” organizations are calling for political action: “Call your Congressman and get a Constitutional Amendment passed that defends/defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” Should you?

Though their sentiments may be sincere, this is NOT the right way to approach this Unconstitutional/criminal act on the part of five Supreme Court justices. If Americans want to restore our Constitutional, republican form of government, we the people need to do so within the boundaries of the Constitution, not within “conservativism.”

What is the difference, you may ask. What would Constitutional action look like?

The Supreme Court does not make law. Article I, Section 1 clearly states that all legislative authority rests with Congress.
Congress, who does have the authority to make law, has no authority over marriage. It is not within their 18 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.
Any marriage regulations/laws (e.g. bigamy, polygamy, incest, etc.) are the State government’s jurisdiction. See Amendments 9 & 10.
Many states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts - DOMA – their citizens voting to define marriage as being a union between one man and one woman. The federal government has no authority to overrule State governments and their citizens in this regard. Once again, see Amendments 9 & 10.
Lastly, but actually primarily, no one…repeat - NO ONE has the authority to overrule the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God – the foundation for all law in America as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Marriage between one man and one woman was established by God as both natural and scientific law. No man can overrule this law any more that they could overrule the law of gravity. Our founders referred to any such attempts as “pretended legislation.” Check out grievances 13 & 19 of the Declaration of Independence.

Sir Thomas More, during his trial for treason for refusal to acknowledge Henry VIII as head of the Roman Catholic Church in England, expressed this principle well:

        “Some men say the earth is flat. Some men say the earth is round. But if

        it is flat, could Parliament make it round? And if it is round, could the

        King’s command flatten it?”

Sir William Blackstone, renowned English jurist who played a leading role in forming the basis of law in America said it even more succinctly:

“…This law of nature dictated by God himself is…superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.” [emphasis added]

Simply stated, man cannot alter God’s created order – the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God - by “pretended legislation” or bogus, arrogant court decrees.

It is time for Constitutional action! To seek a Constitutional amendment is a “conservative” idea and validates the federal government’s counterfeit claims to have authority over marriage. Bad idea! To invoke State sovereignty to rein in lawless federal mandates is both appropriate and Constitutional.

What if all the State representatives whose citizens have voted for DOMA would properly represent those citizens by initiating Nullification resolutions or legislation, letting the feds know their States have no intention of obeying an Unconstitutional, therefore illegal, federal mandate. Five individuals have no authority to overrule the will of the people. Five individuals have no authority to overrule the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

What if other State representatives followed the lead of Alabama whose Senate just passed SB-377, ending State-issued marriage licenses? This changes marriages to contracts that are filed with Probate Judges to constitute a legal record. This eliminates both State and federal law, a best case scenario as individual citizens should not be required to ask permission (get a license) from any government official before they marry. Marriage is a highly personal matter between individuals and families. Removing civil government involvement also means there can be no lawsuits or court cases filed regarding marriage because no law is broken if anyone chooses NOT to perform a marriage ceremony, or chooses NOT to participate in any other way in this wedding (providing flowers, cake, etc.).

What if every patriotic American contacted their State Representatives to share this information, demanding immediate action on their part to slap down this Unconstitutional usurpation? Haven’t law-abiding Americans’ rights been trampled long enough? We the people have the power and authority to overturn this IF we will exercise it. Who will you obey? The Supreme Court or the Supreme Being? Isn’t it time to push back?

Something to think about.

Learn more about your Constitution with Ricki Pepin and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Ricki Pepin© - July 2015

The Court Has the Power to Find Laws Unconstitutional and Strike Them Down, Not Change the Law

7/7/2015

On the Gay marriage ruling on June 26th, 2015, the Supreme Court did not find the state laws on marriage unconstitutional and strike them down; they changed the law. I do not know why experts are not referencing this; however, if they believe the laws are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court should have struck down the marriage laws (meaning the laws are null and void).

They should clearly state the reasons why the laws are unconstitutional and allow the state legislatures to pass new laws. If the law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s only remedy is to strike the law so that there is no marriage law and no one can legally get married. The state of Virginia NEVER passed a law authorizing same-sex marriage licenses to be issued.
The Supreme Court is not authorized by the US Constitution to force that change by writing the law. They can only strike the law and declare if states pass a marriage law they cannot discern by gender; then the state legislature decides how to create or not create marriage laws within those new guidelines. A grandfather clause would be a very big issue; I will not address that at this time.

As a general rule and within reason, the court could strike down a portion of a law instead of the entire law. Normally good legislation is written with these clauses in them called non-severability clauses. A legislator has to determine if he wants to pass a law and has to look at it in its entirety. If a part of a law is missing, it could change whether or not it was supported.
Legislators will often want the entire law voided if any piece is missing because in their view it was vital. In this marriage law, it is overwhelmingly clear that when the law was passed, marriage was between one man and one woman. It is almost certain that those legislators would not have passed the legislation if marriage was redefined to include gay unions.

Offshore Drilling Is Pro-Environment, Pro-National Security, Pro-Economic Growth and Pulls People Out of Poverty

2/15/2015

Drilling U.S. Oil Is Pro- Environment

Oil is constantly seeping out of the ocean floor at rates we currently do not know. Oil is very old ‘dead stuff’ from thousands of years ago. There is similar stuff that currently coats the bottom of the ocean from recent ‘dead stuff.’ Oil is made from organic material under pressure for thousands of years. It is natural for it to make its way back to the bottom of the ocean and has always been part of the water makeup.

At different times, depending on many factors such as plate tectonics, different amounts of oil mixes with the water. The ideal amount cannot be determined. However, I do believe in not increasing how much mixes with the water because too much in one spot can be very detrimental.

I believe that technology derived over the last 70 years and substantially since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon issue has made drilling very safe. We have to get our oil somewhere, and America simply has the highest standards for safety. The less we get from our own shores, the higher amounts will be needed from countries with lower safety standards, thus creating greater risks.

On top of higher risks of drilling overseas; there is added risk of shipping the oil to our shores. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was from an oil tanker and did damage in Prince William Sound when it ran ashore, and the ship spilled oil. Only two large oil spills in about 70 years against thousands of oil rigs and tanker trips is a testimony of our safety.

In 2015, we have better standards than ever before and always increasing our knowledge of standards. Since the time the world began using oil in large amounts, about 100 years ago, the economic benefits of oil has allowed the world to have far greater environmental standards and the resources to clean many polluted areas. Studies have overwhelmingly shown those countries using the greatest amount of oil has the cleanest environments and best able to handle natural climate variations.

Drilling For Oil Is Pro-Economic Growth

Quite simply, oil is a commodity that is in demand worldwide. There is a certain amount of labor needed to collect and transport the oil. Where ever the oil is obtained, jobs will be created. Higher economic growth always pulls people out of poverty.

A simple supply and demand analysis will show how labor rates will rise when the supply of jobs increase, bringing economic prosperity and opportunity to the areas that collect the oil. Again, oil is demanded across the globe, if we have some in our area, it makes sense to bring the jobs and cleaner environment that comes with greater prosperity to our region.

Energy from drilling transforms work like this to far better work with a much better standard of living.

Drilling US oil is Pro-US Security

Many places that have oil around the world are hostile to their neighbors and to America. Quite simply the more we in America collect from our own territory, the less is demanded from hostile countries.

The greater the amount of energy that is produced overall, the lower the overall cost of oil, simple supply and demand. Many countries had hostilities in their own countries when oil prices spiked up in 2009-2012. These hostilities are never good for America for many reasons that are too numerous to go through here. Two major benefits deriving from peaceful countries is that they make better trading partners and have less violent extremism in their countries.

Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner: Education, Ignorance, Context and Perspective

12/21/2014

The biggest travesty of these racial protests is young African-American children learning at a very young age to distrust the police. This distrust will create another generation of hostilities and animosity between people trying to protect a community and the people in the community.

This distrust harms race relations in this country.

There is real racism, and there are real concerns African Americans and the white population need to address. This distrust is a destructive way to address the real issues that hamper African American progress. Parents have the right to teach their children how they wish. However, without taking that liberty away, society should heavily urge African American parents to consider how and what they teach so as to heal the racial divide.

This has to stop !

These Are Highly Destructive Signs

We need to stop teaching African American children that police are the enemy. The police are bending over backward to try to heal the wounds and have better relations with the African-American community.

We should all urge parents to put aside harms from their past experience and try to understand why others think so much different than they do. What were they taught and how were they treated? Realize that there is confirmation bias on both sides, meaning that one often focuses on the cases that make their point and overlook the cases contrary to the lessons learned at a fundamental age.

I fully realized I did not grow up in the inner city, I did not walk a mile in their shoes. I grew up in a mostly white, middle-class neighborhood and schools. I have witnessed good and sin from all population groups. Everyone can concentrate on the wrongs they experienced and think they are justified in doing wrong because of what they experienced. Everyone needs to learn and challenge themselves to building bridges to heal the racial divide.

At a very young, impressionable age, too many learn that this is a racist country that will keep the African-Americans down and the police are the enemy. They get this mindset from their parents and many African-American leaders. Many believe that America was making progress on this. These protests are putting race relations back many years by teaching their young children they are oppressed. Unfortunately, too many will believe that and will live in an oppressed state of mind.

Parents told many children in the white population in the first half of the 1900s at a very young and fundamental age that ‘Blacks’ were inferior to whites. It was and still is very difficult to overcome that racism for that population. As experience, education and social norms taught the error in that thinking; many had to overcome their racism by their actions, not necessarily their fundamental feelings. While many had a fundamental change of heart, others rely on just changing actions to match education and social norms.

Education and Ignorance

Ignorance does not mean stupidity, just the lack of knowledge. There is too much out there for anyone to have all knowledge. However, it is important to gain a certain level of knowledge in what you are protesting. In all three of these cases, no one can point out where these three men were sought out because of the color of their skin.

Learn the Facts of the Case

Often throughout history, groups of people who ‘rightly or wrongly’ hate another group will make up lies of atrocities about the hated group. Others in the group are too eager to believe the lies readily. The members of the hated group look at the lie and say it did not happen and they start to hate back for the injustice of their disparaged group’s reputation. This can spiral out of control with retaliation and more misrepresentations.

This situation has been proven in Israel and Palestinian conflicts for ages with many documented cases where Palestinians kill their own people and frame Israel for the atrocity. Many believe the lies and have their hatred grow. Native Americans and settlers have a long history of stories of slaughters of both sides, and it is very hard to dig through history to learn the truth.

First-hand witnesses who wrote about the event could be very biased. Many could claim firsthand knowledge to make themselves sound more credible. There is a real temptation to stay loyal to one’s group by stating only the positives for his own group and only the negatives of the other group without giving proper context. Throughout history, mostly the victors of conflict wrote the history books. It is normal, not correct, that the victors would downplay their negatives and spotlight their enemy’s negatives.

There is also a time-tested tactic in war to tell your soldiers that their enemy is much worse than reality. Many young men do not want to kill good moral men that are good dads and husbands just fighting for their country. Military leaders tell their soldiers how reprehensible the men they are fighting against are and how if they lose, the enemy will come and rape, enslave and kill their loved ones back home. This has proven to create more determined soldiers that do not hesitate in killing their enemy. Many of these lies are written down and forever putting false records into the history.

Profiling

Many people think that profiling creates final conclusions, but they do not. They are odds or statistics, sometimes accurate and other times very inaccurate. Often, they are from one’s own experiences and sometimes from stories they hear. There is a real problem of confirmation bias in that one only listens or believes the stories that match what they already believe, true or not.

African-Americans are more likely to get pulled over by the police. Many have heard this statistic. Let us not refute the stats, however, put into context and salted. Statistics are often misleading, and many give these statistics false conclusions. First, not all African-Americans have experienced this. Teenagers to mid-thirties are pulled over at higher rates and males more than female. Police place more cops in higher crime areas thus raising the observation by police in those areas.

On average, African-Americans live in higher crime areas compared to white people. Those living in higher crime neighborhoods are looked at closer than those in neighborhoods with lower crime rates. The majority of the African-American population which live in higher crime areas express a desire for more police presence in the neighborhood.

African-American and Caucasian store owners using their decades of experience might pay closer attention to those that match descriptions of previous shoplifters. A person’s skin color is just one factor, a person’s attitude, appearance, dress, language, and age among others are factors many consider. A person's inculcation at very young ages become fundamental. Parents and others need to be very careful regarding what they communicate to their children.

Six stats from this interview:
1. Blacks are killed 2.5 times as often by cops compared to whites.
2. Blacks are 35 times more likely to commit robberies compared to whites
3. Blacks are 38 times more likely to commit murders compared to whites

The YouTube video of the interview is no longer available.

4. Blacks are 51 times more likely to engage in shootings compared to whites
5. Police withdrawing after riots results in higher crime rates.
6. Black cops are 3.3 times as likely to shoot black suspects compared to white cops.

Reactions to a Perceived Wrong

Throughout history, many people have reacted to perceived wrongs in many ways. Violent overthrows of governments have been the norm. Violent mobs and destruction were very common. Little thought was given to what was to replace the current government. Many people just thought, and often rightfully so, that the current authority was unjust. Often the overthrow just left a void that was filled by worse authorities.

In America, our representative republic is bound within a constitution of liberties. Our system relies on a moral people that uphold their responsibilities and hold politicians accountable. Elections are how the people address wrongs. Peaceful protest, sometimes peaceful civil disobedience, and elections have created a society that thrives by having a long-serving government that goes through reforms by way of the electoral process. Our country does not need to start back at government square one after a violent revolution. We vote.

Stand Your Ground

In the Trayvon Martin case, many protesters criticized the stand your ground law just because it was claimed (wrongfully) to justify the ability of Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon. Many people believe that many took this opinion just because some sold it as a law that allowed people to shoot a black person in cold blood. This was a very misguided look at this law.

This poster is highly one-sided. This poster shows how destructively bias certain activists can take facts and add in lies to confused the public. These activist have not fully considered all the issues. A credible storyline is Trayvon was killed by Zimmerman fighting back in self-defense.

From this liberal article:

Given all this, it’s not unreasonable to argue that, in America, you can be shot and killed, without consequences for the shooter, for playing loud music, wearing a hoodie, or shopping at a Walmart. The question is whether the wave of “stand your ground” legislation is to blame.

This article is misguided and damaging. A conversation needs to happen without anyone’s voice silenced. However, this was written from the context that is very one-sided.

If the protestors’ story of Zimmerman stalking and shooting Trayvon in cold blood were true, then the ‘stand your ground law’ would not apply to Zimmerman, it would apply for Martin. Everyone should support Martin using deadly force on Zimmerman if the protestor’s story was accurate. However, the evidence and witnesses support a storyline that Zimmerman was keeping an eye on a person he suspected as a possible person of mischief.

He rightfully called the police to investigate a person that matched the description of previous mischief. It is suspected that Trayvon took offense at being looked at as a criminal and decided to confront Zimmerman. There is no clear evidence of what words and actions precipitated Zimmerman having his head pounded against a concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman’s life was in danger. During the fight, Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin. There appear to be two reasonable storylines from the time Zimmerman was keeping an eye on Martin to the point of the head pounding.

One, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin and approached him and threatened his life in cold blood and Martin fearing for his life, fought Zimmerman. In that storyline Trayvon Martin, if he won the fight, could have used the stand your ground law to justify fighting and even killing Zimmerman. The second story-line would be that Trayvon approached Zimmerman, upset at being watched as if he were a criminal, and started to attack Zimmerman without any other provocation from Zimmerman other than watching him.

Everyone has positive and negative pictures of themselves. I am not trying to show a bias, I am trying to show here that both sides can have biases.

In this case, Zimmerman could use the stand your ground rule. The stand your ground law does not protect an aggressor. Looking at Zimmerman’s life, one does not see evidence of racism or randomly stalking and attacking anyone. While no one can be sure how this went down, the evidence and storyline of Zimmerman attacking in cold blood do not approach going beyond a reasonable doubt needed for conviction.

Every law needs to be analyzed and debated after it has a history of use. There is not good evidence that this stand your ground law needs to change. We need to always look at when it can apply to a case that was not life-threatening. The balance point will always be debated, and tough cases will always test those limits.

Michael Brown

The case of Michael Brown is very different from Trayvon Martin. First, the police were involved in the Brown case. There is a lot of evidence out there from multiple witnesses that support the policemen’s story. However, many protesters want to just rely on very few witnesses that confirm their bias.

Although Brown’s friend, who helped Brown ‘strong-armed’ steal from a store, the story of ‘hands up don’t shoot” was discredited from the evidence and many witnesses, many are holding to that narrative. Again, in this story, there is no evidence that the police officer had a history to suggest he had an animus against a black man.

The Grand Jury

Just like the Stand your ground law, many are suggesting we need to get rid of the grand jury system. They do not claim a better system, just that we get rid of it. Sharpton claims to want to take it to the federal level. This overlooks the great benefits of the grand jury. Many just know they did not get the result they wanted and wrongly blame the grand jury system.

Many people claim that we need a trial to get the truth and do not realize that a trail is a punishment in and of itself. The grand jury was to spread the power away from prosecutors. It was a reform dealing with too much power in one office. It is also a policy that shows that power can be in the hands of the citizens and it is a check on the power of government.

I agree with many who say it was wrong to leave Mr. Brown's body out there so long. I know they needed to get evidence; however, it took too long, and there are sterile covers they could have used.

Stereotype

The African-American population has brought to the attention of everyone, and rightfully so that we should not take the actions of a few in a group and expand that stereotype to a whole class of people. African-American leaders need to take that lesson and realize that they are too often portraying all cops as racist and out to get them. The statistics on out of control police officers are very low. African-American parents should not tell their teenagers that the police are out to get them.

Eric Garner

The Eric Garner case was tragic, however, like the others, no one has presented evidence that race played a role or that the police acted intentionally to kill Mr. Garner. The police arrest thousands of people a year in New York by using force due to resisting arrest. I believe that the police should have taken more time to talk him down as Mr. Garner was not attacking them. However, at some point, if he was not going to be arrested peacefully, the police at that point cannot step away.

This is a highly destructive stereotype

The risks of bad things happening, while still statistically low, rise as he resists. The internal affairs and police trainers should definitely look at the video and interview the cops and determine best practices. The fact the video camera picked up on Mr. Garner stating ‘I can’t breathe’ is evidence that the cop was not cutting off his breath with a choke hold. While the arm was clearly around the neck, it cannot be concluded that was the cause of death.

No Justice, No Peace

The ‘No Justice, No Peace’ philosophy is ill-educated and full of destructive emotional passion that is misplaced. It is truly without rational thought or logic to claim that you want justice and if you do not get it, you will take an innocent person's peace, property, and liberty away. This new victim would want justice for himself by punishing you for taking his peace away.

It was never stated by anyone that African-American lives do not matter. This slogan is highly offensive because it implies that whites do not value the lives of those in the black population. This is highly divisive for race relations. A college president was highly criticized for writing that all lives matter and she sheepishly apologized. A high majority of those that hold that sign or chant this slogan, vote for politicians that do not extend the right to life to millions of African-American babies. I believe that every life matters.

The Importance of Fathers

6/15/2014

Fathers are critical to the fabric of society. While the overall fabric can withstand a few snags of absent fathers, when the snags become too numerous, the fabric unravels.

When the rate of fatherless homes in a community is low, another father can at least be an example. While those few children without a father are disadvantaged, many other fathers around mitigate the harm.

The government's policies that reward young mothers with government aid when she does not have a wage-earning father in the house encourages fatherless homes. Moreover, this problem compounds when grouped. There are communities with very high percentages of fatherless homes. These mostly fatherless communities have proven to be highly destabilizing with significant adverse effects on education, crime, employment, and many other societal ills.

Click here to read about Bill Haley's journey through fatherhood.

Discipline comes from discipleship. While occasionally this may come with a firm hand, it primarily comes from the modeling of Godly men throughout life.

<<Previous

Forward>>