Picking sides

  Have we really reached the point where the purpose of the supreme court is to pick a side? That certainly seems to be the thinking of many on social media. With every ruling, every opinion issued by that court one side or the other rejoices, citing that as proof positive their ideology is the correct one. They won! Now that would seem normal enough in most situations but we are talking about the supreme court. A panel of legal experts whose task is to interpret what the constitution has to say about every and any question brought before it. They are supposed to be completely unbiased in their judgements and not on any side, yet the reality is they are labeled conservative and liberal. Each president, when the opportunity becomes available appointing a judge to their team. It's well known, an established fact, that it is an appointment for life and that judge can represent the team for many years to come, decades even. 

 The court establishes precedent. You can view that as the proverbial stone that laws are set in. Well the truth is even stone changes over time, the court has changed its' mind, reversed precedent an estimated 232 times since 1810. Yeah, looked that up and you can fact check it for yourself if you want. The last one was in June of last year. It reversed its' decision in the Chevron Deference Doctrine. Ever hear of that? I sure hadn't. It limits federal authority making it easier for business to challenge regulations in things like food safety, environmental and workplace safety. Was it a win for the conservatives?  Liberals certainly think so. The court overturned Roe v Wade, the one everyone has heard about. Another win for the conservatives? 

 However you want to view all of that the court has the final say, almost. Whatever opinion the court issues is generally accepted as final, but it isn't set in stone. The congress can pass amendments, a lengthy process requiring a two/third vote invalidating that opinion. It's all very complicated, as you can imagine, involving legal scholars and politicians promises. In my way of thinking, I see the court as establishing the moral authority for the nation. Those particular cases, ones where a ruling on morality is the real epicenter, are becoming more frequent. Back in the old days the "moral" code of the nation was understood by the majority, even though it had been plainly stated the government would not establish a state religion. 

 Still, the morality taught in the basic Christian doctrine and tradition was what was expected  from the populace. Only the manner in which the your "religion" was practiced was left uncodified. The supreme court wasn't involved in any of that. Interesting to note is that slavery was not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Was the 13th amendment the result of a moral ruling by the court? No, it was decision made by congress. In 1973 Roe v Wade went before the court. The court ruled that a woman had the right to privacy, that right included the right to have an abortion. They did not rule on the morality of that decision, just the legality. As we all know it was overturned in 2022. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, it was stated that the right to an abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition." In other words, not what is expected morally. The court doesn't rule on morality, just legality. They aren't on anyone's side. 

 That is what it is supposed to be anyway. Congress has the power to change the size of the court, limit its 'jurisdiction and determine the time and place of its' sessions. It can not directly overrule the court however, that takes an amendment to the constitution. Over the years the court has been increased in size, "packing the court" and reduced. Today we are all talking about establishing a set number of judges and establishing a term limit on their tenure. I believe that has become necessary as the "politicizing" of the court has become quite obvious to everyone. 

 The founding fathers never envisioned the state of the court as it now exists. Remember the founding fathers didn't feel like being a Congressman or Senator was a full time position, they didn't get paid, they simply served the people they represented. Perhaps those founding fathers were just a bit too optimistic. A bit too idealistic. They did believe in honor and fidelity. To serve the nation was an honor and a privilege. Today, well not so much I think, it's an occupation. A job to be done and nothing more. The objective being to extract as much wealth, power and prestige as possible from that position. The devil take the hindmost is that mindset. 

 I have to say it is a disappointment. I really did believe the court was a fair and unbiased forum. Now I'm seeing it is really about who you have on the team. That is expected from these judges by the powers that be. The congress and the executive branch both expecting the court to rule for their team, which "team" happens to control the majority in the house and/or senate. Who is the "coach" this term? That appears to be who is writing the rule book. Takes a lot to change the rules though, and I sincerely hope it remains that way. The question is, should we simply change the "rules committee" to determine what is best for business? We have established a Republic to run the "business" of government. Business is always controlled by the morality and ethics of those involved in that business. We can establish law to codify ethical business practices, to constrain the criminal actions of others, but we can not codify morality, that is solely the providence of the individual. That's what the first amendment is all about. That is what established that precedent. We the people established that.  

                                                                                     

 

History (a brief synopsis)

  Here I am, a quarter of the way into a new century. It is one of those things that you aren't really aware of, until you are. Born mid twentieth century I hear that time frame used as a reference in history books. The month before my birth the convicted spies and communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for their crimes. It was something I heard about whenever commies were mentioned, and in the late 1950's and early 1960's we heard about commies a lot. In 1961 there was the Bay of Pigs incident. The commies had to be stopped but the mission failed miserably. The conflict in Vietnam had begun in 1955 but it wasn't until 1965 that President Johnson committed ground troops to beating back those damn commies. In 1987 President Reagan implored Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." Then in December of 1991 the Soviet Union was dissolved, the end of the commies, or so we were told. Today we are still worried about the commies.

  So all of that happened in the twentieth century. Although I was there, I can't say I remember all of it as it was happening, but a good deal of it I can. The last year of the twentieth century in America was spent worrying about what would happen when the clock struck midnight on the new millennia. Many thought the economy would collapse, the computers would all break down and chaos would ensue. Computer programmers in the 1960's and 1970's had only used the last two digits to represent the year, ie: 97. Would the computer interpret 00 as 1900? If they do, all sorts of very bad things will happen. Nothing happened. 

  What has taken place in the 21st century? Well, I'd start with the attack of 9/11. It wasn't the commies, but it was who? At first we were told they were simply Muslims. Then they became terrorists and not necessarily Muslims. Islam was getting a bad rap and we were all urged to not place blame with that group. We got involved in the war in Iraq, again Muslims but not the real Muslims, just the bad Muslims. Social media began in earnest, as a common everyday thing, and began to permeate every aspect of our society. It has grown like a cancer, in my opinion. 

 My largest interaction with social media is Facebook, a platform that went from a place to go "farming" to the place for old people, you know us born in the last century. We had a pandemic! Covid was going to kill us all if we didn't comply with every vaccine mandate issued and keep up with our boosters. Mask wearing became a commonplace thing and is still seen frequently as the population has become more paranoid every year. There was the whole Black Lives Matter thing, a social upheaval on a grand scale. It began what I'm calling the "apology" tour for being a white person in America. 

 That has passed by, somewhat, and been replaced. Replaced by what? An identity crisis is my analysis. We aren't supposed to be concerned with the commies or the Muslims. We can only blame everyone else for our problems, everyone! No more pointing the finger at specific groups or individuals, everyone is at fault. We are all being urged to embrace, empower and validate the LGBTQ+ community and the Muslim world. Those pesky communists remain on the watch list though, never take your eyes off them. It's fine to sell American land to them, to do business with them, especially the Chinese,  but never trust them. The last holdover from the twentieth century. Today we are battling pronouns and inclusivity. We are developing AI with the goal being; we won't have to think for ourselves anymore, how freeing will that be. Just trust the science. AI will provide all the answers. 

 It has been said that hindsight is twenty-twenty. That is certainly a true statement. It would be great to see into the future wouldn't it. In that way we would change what we see in the past. We could then modify our choice to provide a different outcome. Of course there would be no guarantee that that outcome would any better than the last one. That's probably why they also say history repeats itself. When they are only two choices that is bound to happen. It's how our computers operate, and that AI. It's just yes and no, go and no-go. If you want to enjoy the future, you have to wait until tomorrow. "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." That is something I heard from my grandmother, good advice.

                                                     

      

measuring time

  You just never know what will survive through the generations. I'm thinking about those little items that have a connection to your family and the past. I'm thinking about those objects that become treasure. I've had this particular treasure for quite a few years now, well over twenty at least, but rediscovered it yesterday. As I was sorting through my tools, making another attempt at organizing them, telling myself I really do need to thin that collection out, I picked up my fathers ruler. It is one of those six foot wooden folding rulers used by carpenters. I remember it well, playing with it and getting yelled at for that. That's not a toy, you'll break it! Put that down.

  I'm thinking dad would be amazed that it lased this long and that I would attach any value to it. It has become treasure to me. Now I'm certain he had several of them as they tend to get broken and the numbers wear off from use. He had a special pocket on the side of his coveralls designed to hold that ruler. It does have that little brass sliding bar for measuring inside measurements, a very handy little gadget. Those rulers have been replaced by the steel tape measures we are all familiar with today. It's funny how long ago those tapes were available, the steel self- retracting kind I mean, but I don't recall dad having one until sometime in the 1960's or so. He still used that wooden ruler most of the time, I suppose more habit than anything else. 

 That ruler is a connection to my father. You could say it is a measure of time. I intend to display and save it in some fashion only to please myself. That ruler would have no meaning to anyone else but me at this point. It isn't anything I have used, just something that survived all these years and all the moves. So many things get lost on the journey in our lives. My parents sold my childhood home while I was in the navy. As a result, many of the items in my bedroom didn't survive that move. Then after a twenty year career in the the navy more items have been lost or abandoned. Toward the end of her life my mother did begin to give items that she had saved over the years that were connected to me. Little things I had made in school or some curio I admired, along with things that she had made. All those things having survived the journey. 

 I've thought that may have been what it was like when those pioneers were traveling west. They had loaded up their wagons with all their possessions. All the things, big and small that they determined were necessary to take along. It wasn't too long before they discovered they had to lighten the load. Slowly they began leaving things alongside the roadway, other things just never survived the journey. The value placed on those items constantly changing, balanced against the desire to reach that destination. I think we do the same on an unconscious level throughout our lives. I've abandoned things along the way for a variety of reasons. I'm no different than most, grabbing at the new and abandoning the past. Nostalgia is for Christmas and that holiday season. 

 But now, now I'm thinking I have reached my destination. I can hold onto all the things I want without any pressure to abandon them along the wayside. The only pressure comes from myself, and an occasional "do you really need all that junk" from my wife. I'm holding onto the treasure! The struggle now becoming to convince others that it is treasure, not junk. The old adage one man's treasure becoming crystal clear in its' meaning. 

 But the reality is we don't get to assign your sentimentality. Sentiment is perhaps one of the most personal things we have. It's right up there with religion and politics in terms of importance. It's an integral part of who we are. I may have reached my destination but my stuff hasn't! I do need to attend to that before my next move. But I realize a simple truth, you never know what will survive, you don't get to know that for a very simple reason, you aren't here. The journey is over. I'll know where I am. Will I know anything about where I've been? Won't know that until I  get there. 

                                                                                   

Secrets, security and sanity

  With the latest report in the news concerning a high level meeting disclosing war plans and secrets I am more convinced than ever that there really are no secrets anymore. Then I hear 23 and me filed for bankruptcy and we are being urged to delete our information. If we do not that information may be sold to anyone and used for nefarious purposes or used by insurance companies to "tailor" any policies issued to you or anyone that shares your DNA. Yes, they would hedge their bets with that information. I'm quite skeptical that you deleting that information would in reality make it disappear. Maury or Karamo can "unlock" your phone and recover all the deleted stuff, I'm guessing the insurance companies can do the same. 

  I'm placing the blame on all this lack of secrecy or security, however you want to view that, on the advent of electronics. When we had to write it down, by hand or typewriter, it wasn't accessible by nearly as many folks. Before we started recording our every sound, every motion and every thought, secrets were easier to keep. Can you imagine the constitution getting written if while that process was going on it was being live streamed to the public. " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We would still be arguing over that preamble. We would still be arguing about who are "people." 

  Now I'm hearing from those that have been protesting and demanding transparency that this "breach of security" is outrageous. Pete should be fired, impeached, and run out of town on a rail! He told secrets! Remember last week those same people demanding transparency? Yeah, it was the same people. Well that may be but we weren't using electronics to hold meetings this wouldn't have happened. A reporter accidently added to a group chat? Could it be that that reporter gained access by some other means? I haven't heard that proposed but certainly seems possible to me. Or was that information "leaked out" misinformation? Well, now we don't know about that do we? You know you really can't have it both ways, full transparency and full secrecy. 

  The public in general has grown paranoid. That's my thinking. I also think that is a byproduct of the government itself. Consider how many warnings we are given every single day. For me, that seemed to begin back in 1964 when the surgeon general put that warning on cigarettes. We have reached the point were we have warning that when things are hot, they may burn you! The owners manual for your car warns you not to drink the battery acid! Masks and mandates. Vaccines and multiple boosters. Lead paint, asbestos, and PFE's. People are being misgendered, marginalized and discriminated against. SS is going broke, you won't get medical care. And now military secrets are being shared in group chats. There is a portion of the population now afraid of using the "wrong" pronoun when talking to someone. I'm supposed to ask what pronoun they prefer? And to top it all off the climate is changing! That's it, we are all doomed unless we go green. We all need to use electric cars, just not Tesla's, but the Chinese ones are fine. Secrets, security and sanity. It is becoming more apparent to me every day, we are losing all three in this country! 

                                                                              

Let's vote on it

  There is talk of removing funding for PBS and NPR. Should our tax dollars be funding these organizations? It's quite a question and one I really know little about. PBS I associate with sesame street and a few other programs. I haven't watched sesame street in quite some time, the grandkids are all grown up, but heard that it went woke a few years back. I hope that isn't the case. Well, whatever the case actually is I do think PBS is a great thing for children. As far as NPR goes, I have never listened to a single broadcast. In fact, I have no idea how I would even do that, what station or channel are they on? Do they broadcast everywhere? I would think that NPR would reflect the views and opinions of the government. NPR would be the "official" voice of America. Turns out, that isn't the case. It operates independently of any government interference, well, except for funding that is.

 The first thing to consider is are these necessary and vital services? If the taxpayers are paying for them, all taxpayers, then they are "free" services, like the postal service. Do these programs provide a service that isn't obtainable anywhere else? As far as radio goes, no one has ever had to pay to listen to a radio program that has been broadcast in the traditional sense. Many years back NPR may have been the only radio station people in remote areas could have received. That certainly isn't the case today. I'm thinking we really do not need NPR in todays world. It isn't like it is totally unbiased and fact based. Everyone has their own agenda. There reporting is as valid as everyone else's, and that is always suspect. But, I do think that the majority of the people would believe that NPR (National Public Radio) is the "defacto" voice of the nation. Strange that it would be financed by "de jure" if it isn't. 

 What about PBS. Well PBS does seem to broadcast the stuff no one else wants to broadcast. At least that was the case in years past. Beyond their content for children what is PBS known for? News, documentaries and "cultural" programming. It has always been somewhat of a joke. Sure the kids programming is great and PBS was the only place centered on that for years, kids love it. Before the internet that was about all we had besides the Saturday morning cartoons. The question is, would anyone pay to view the shows offered on that platform? Yes, they would. Sesame street has made billions of dollars alone. We now have channels devoted to documentaries, many free to watch. It's the same with "cultural" programming. Does any of that require state sponsorship? I don't think it does. 

 We have the Emergency Alert System to notify the public of any emergencies declared by the President of the United States. Most of us still call it the emergency broadcast system but that was changed back in 1997. That is the only "official" channel the government has to inform the public. Should we also have  state sponsored radio, television and internet based outlets, controlled by government officials? You know, to disseminate the official, real news to the people? National Public Radio to only state the official government position on any topic of discussion. Or should we continue to fund an outlet that is free to broadcast whatever opinion they choose to present? Should you have to pay for that?  

 I don't know, but I do know this: when funding is tied to your operation you have a tendency to please the one providing that funding. It is an inherent bias and can not be overlooked. If freedom of speech is truly to be free, it shouldn't be sponsored by the state. If I'm paying for it, I should get a say. But, majority rules and currently the majority is for providing that funding.

 Is it time for another vote? PBS gets about 500 million a year from congress and NPR gets about 1% of their total budget, but finding an exact figure is quite difficult to pin down. The government provides about 15% of the total budget for PBS programming. If NPR is already 99% funded without government funds how necessary is that? If PBS is already 85% funded by donations how vital is that 15% being imposed on the taxpayers? It's only 500 million dollars is what I read the argument to be. With a budget deficit of 33 trillion perhaps that 500 million could be put to good use elsewhere. I'm thinking that is what I would vote. 

                                                                                

the proof

  You can choose your own identity but that places no obligation on me. I will identify you in any way I choose. That's just how that works, like it or not. I recall as a child identifying as a lot of things, we called it making believe back then, and occasionally my brothers and sister would play along, sometimes even mom and dad did. I was a pirate, a cowboy, a professional baseball player, actor, artist and daredevil, just to name a few. But I always knew it was just make believe, the proof was right there before me. I wasn't any of those things. As far as personal identity, there was never any doubt about whether I was a boy or a girl. The proof of that was also right in front of me. I was always a boy pirate, boy cowboy, boy actor, boy artist and a boy daredevil. There is photograph of me, taken when I was about five or so, wearing a dress. My siblings thought it would be funny and dressed me up. Mom and Dad did laugh, took that picture and I understood immediately how ridiculous that was. That was the only lesson in "gender identity" I ever had. I was a boy wearing a dress, how silly is that?

 I never imagined that this notion of gender identity, or identity in general, would ever become such a hot topic of discussion. Look the reality is this; we all feel a certain way about ourselves and then there is the way others perceive us to be. The two rarely, if ever, are the same. Admit it, you know you are smarter, better looking, and in general a better person than the majority of those you know. You are so convinced of that you don't need to mention it at all, just knowing is enough. The proof is right there before you, you live it every day. The more insecure we become, the more we grab at things for validation. That's what all this "me too" stuff is all about. It is what drives people to join cults, religious groups and fraternities. It's assuming the identity of those groups. 

 The challenge we all face in life is becoming comfortable with our self identity. I feel fortunate to have grown up in a time when that was made easier by those around you. We all knew the difference between make believe and what was real. We gained that understanding of the way I feel may not always be what the reality is. We learned that when singing before others and were told, you couldn't carry a tune if it was in a bucket. We learned that when we tried to paint a picture and it was awful. Now I never had a pirate ship, a peg leg or a parrot, but I knew that was all just in the movies. I also knew, getting a ship, cutting a leg off and having a parrot wouldn't make me a pirate! No, that isn't how any of that works. 

 The challenge is in accepting your limitations and adjusting your expectations. Call me cynical if you will, but I don't expect much from others. I certainly don't expect to be able to dictate to them whether they should accept whatever I say or do. I don't have that authority. I learned that a very long time ago. Perhaps it was with this one sentence, "I'll give you something to cry about." I learned that when I didn't get that gold star on the board because I hadn't earned that gold star, no matter how much I felt that I should have gotten it. No, my feeling didn't matter then, doesn't matter now either. I learned to adjust and adapt. I've come to better know what to expect and I'm prepared for that. Not to say I don't find it annoying, sometimes infuriating when others disappoint me, but I'm seldom surprised. The proof is usually right there in front of me. All I have to do is look. And I sure do wish others would open their eyes! 

 So, what is the proof of identity? Barring any documents we will take your identity at face value. Yes, some call that profiling, prejudicial and judgmental. But that is how we identify each other. What do they look like? That isn't a question about their internal psyche, their feelings. It has nothing to do with that. True, it will identify them as belonging to a certain grouping , any number of groupings in fact. Then after we identified what group we perceive them to be associated with, our personal experiences with that group will determine our reaction. Without any personal experience we will rely on what we have been taught. If you google "proof of identity" you will be provided with a list of acceptable proofs, such as a birth certificate or drivers license. There is no proof of how you identify yourself. The reason is a simple one, you are the only one that gets to do that, everyone else gets to decide on your identity for themselves. Me, I'm an absolute delight, educated, good looking, generous, kind, honest and trustworthy.

 I'm a male of the species and can prove that if necessary with a simple dna sample. I have xy chromosomes. Science has determined that identifies males. They could have decided it was XX but they didn't. Now it's true there are aberrations, deformations, and abnormalities found in human dna. Each one is associated with either the xy or xx chromosomes, determining whether it is a male or female problem. That's how that is identified. At least in the present moment it is. The reality being even if scientist decided to change those designations it wouldn't change what I am. My identity remains the same, you really can't change that at all. At best, you can change what others perceive you to be. Generally speaking though, it has to benefit them for them to accept the "new" you. Whether it is for entertainment or business, it has to benefit others for them to accept that. It doesn't necessarily have to do them any harm to be rejected though, and that, that is just the straight out truth. The proof is right in front of you. Won't do you a bit of good to make believe. 

                                                                                  

It's not what it is, it is what you see. 

service?

  Saw where the postmaster general resigned, effective immediately. Well, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen is what I've always been told. With a salary upwards of 345,000 I suspect he has saved some for a rainy day. The post office hasn't been doing very well in recent years as we are all well aware of. Now you can argue that it is a service, not a business so the fact that it is bleeding money isn't an issue. Hey, the taxpayers don't mind that as long as they get the service. Thing is, we aren't getting anywhere near the service we are expecting. The postal service is expected to self-sufficient, that is the sale of the product should cover the expense. It is rather unique in that it also isn't supposed to make any money, that is to say, surplus. So the reality is it is half business, half service.

  I've heard talk of stopping mail delivery on Saturdays. Personally I wouldn't have any issue with that at all. I'd say 90% of the mail I do get is junk mail anyway. I've gone paperless for most things. Yes, I do enjoy the ease and convenience of online banking, doing my part for the planet and all. Now it is just the marketers killing all the trees. I have gotten Christmas cards over the years, a traditional thing and we all feel a bit nostalgic in mailing them. I admit my mailing list has gotten smaller the larger the cost of the stamp became. No longer does Hallmark mean you care enough to send the very best, now just sending a card from the dollar general shows true affection.

 There has been talk of putting a delivery tax on all packages delivered by Amazon, UPS and Fedex. Seventy five cents was being proposed in the last budget talks and negotiations. It didn't get passed. I don't think any of those outfits are impacting the postal service however. The postal service is centered on letters. Yes, I know they send packages, I know they have always sent packages, and their prices have been competitive, for the most part. Their delivery has never been. A stamp now costs seventy three cents. They are "forever" stamps. Buy them now and they are good forever! Yeah like I'm going to buy a book or two, at $13.60 a piece to save money a year or more from today. Yeah, right.

  Keep those cards and letters coming. That was a saying back in the day. Mass e-mails are the thing today. E-cards, video chatting and instant messaging have almost completely replaced cards and letters. Honestly, when was the last time someone wrote you a letter? I have a very old friend from my school days, when letter writing was taught in English class, that has never used or owned an electronic device other than his cell phone. And he uses that cell phone for only one thing, to make a phone call. I know, it's amazing. I will occasionally write him a letter. Occasionally he writes me back. Heck I'm so old I remember when having a pen-pal was going global. Overall the reduction in the number of cards and letters is what is costing the postal service. They cannot cover that operating expense. 

  It was clear from the beginning that the postal service was not to be a business for profit. It was to provide a service to the citizens of this country, funded solely by the sale of stamps. That was made even more clear in 1958 with the Postal Policy Act of 1958. The postal service is a public service. The question before us now is can we afford this service? The postal service receives no revenue from the taxpayers! 

 That is the official statement you will hear over and over again from multiple sources. The post office is self-sustaining through the sale of stamps. The reality is the last time the post office broke even was in 2022 and that was simply on paper, not in the real world. So how does this "service" continue to operate, losing millions of dollars every quarter? They take out a "loan" from the treasury. The postal service has an open line of credit there, you know, like a preapproved credit card offer, just sign here. Where does the treasury get that money? Well, it's the taxpayers money, but we aren't funding the postal service they are just borrowing it, they'll pay it back. Any other business would have long ago been bankrupt, but it's a service. Can we continue to fund this service? 

 My thinking is we should retain the postal service but it does need to be revamped for the modern world. Mail delivery, perhaps once a week. All that third class junk mail, circulars and flyers, gone, we don't do that anymore. All packages will be picked up at the nearest postal facility. If you don't like that, use Amazon, UPS or Fedex. The postal service is only for FIRST CLASS mail. No more marketing mail. 

 That would certainly reduce the number of employees required. Labor costs for the post office consume 76% of the budget! Seems to me, and I'm no business man, that is where the fat needs to be trimmed. Reduce the volume of that junk mail and reduce the number of workers required.  "While labor is the largest, other expenses include costs related to amortizing unfunded retiree pension liabilities and non-cash workers' compensation adjustments." I got that from a source on the internet. I'll leave it to a professional to explain exactly what that means. Sounds like money promised that they don't have is my understanding. May not be payroll but it comes out of the budget nonetheless.

 Is the post office a necessary and vital service? Given all the technology today, you do have to question that. Should it continue as a service? Perhaps we should just simply change that model to operate as a business, you know, make money instead of borrowing money. Currently that is the modus operandi. Borrow and spend: borrow more, spend some more. But it isn't costing the taxpayers anything. Only a politician could understand that, or a lawyer. What is the incentive to change any of that? If I can just keep borrowing money to keep my service running why be concerned at all. But the story will be it's just awful! We shouldn't change anything at all, it's a power grab!

 The bottom line is that this is a "government" run operation. Are any of us really surprised at how inept and inefficient it is? But for many, that doesn't matter, it's a free service! We don't pay for that service we just buy the stamps. It's like buying stuff on "Deal Dash" where you get that item for 50 cents! Well, their fifty cents that you paid fifty dollars to get so you could bid. Yeah, you paid fifty cents alright. With fortune 500 companies labor costs, wages, benefits, etc., are generally 50 to 60% of the cost. The post office is at 76%. But, no taxpayer money is being used to provide this service. Google it. Net loss for the postal service last year was 9.5 Billion dollars! I'm thinking it really isn't doing much of a service to the taxpayers! 

                                                                                 

mind your business

  At the core of things, people just want others to mind their own business. The difficulties arise in defining what that business is. Whenever you attempt to make your business someone else's, you risk that. It makes no difference what the business actually is, that the strangest part in all of this, it is simply the imposition. Reactions will vary from person to person. Some will react violently while others remain passive. It's my feeling that it is those things that touch the core values of the person that create the strongest reactions. Threaten that, and the defenses go up. It isn't difficult to understand really, no one wants to be told they are wrong. Beyond that, people don't want to be told what they were taught was wrong either. We call that, traditional values and customs. 

 At this moment the big business is transgenderism. Yes, it's a business, your business, not mine. No one one is disputing that there have always been people that experience these "feelings" described as being "misgendered" at birth. We have scientists attempting to explain all of that and developing "treatment" and "remedies." In reality those treatments and remedies are just an enabling. If you can declare something as normal, then there is no need to treat it, problem solved. And the thing is, it was never my problem, not my business, until you decided that it should be. Now that you have made it my business you are dissatisfied with my reaction to that. I'm dismissing it altogether. I'm declaring, it isn't normal. 

 That is just one glaring example of business gone wrong. Another is this notion that the wealthy people have some obligation to share their wealth with the poor people. Charity is their business and you don't have a say in that. It is their business! As far as taxes and fees go, they are paying exactly what the law compels them to pay. If they do not, they are subject to the same laws and punishment as you and I. They have to take care of business same as you. We are endowed with certain inalienable rights, one being the pursuit of happiness. Research has shown that money doesn't guarantee happiness. Trust the science on that. Happiness is something you have to create for yourself. You accomplish that by minding your own business. Happiness is to be pursued, actively sought after by practice. It is not dependent upon anyone else, or more money. 

  Generally speaking if you are putting your business out there; you are making it everyone's business. Isn't that why we created laws in the first place? The laws, codes and ordnances define the business of living in a society. It's why you can't drive 120 mph on the highway and why you can't walk naked down the street. It's public business. Minding your business involves ensuring it doesn't involve mine. The civil war centered around business. No where in the constitution or bill of rights, there were only twelve at that time, did it say slavery was illegal. States had declared it so, but not nationally. It's like marijuana, "legal" in some place "illegal" in others. So depending upon where you are in the country, you do need to mind your business. That's true with any number of things, what you can do in San Francisco is different than what you can do in Omaha. Business is handled differently in those places. 

 There are those that will say minding your own business involves remaining silent about others. That is true, until the others make it your business. Then you have every right to express your opinion on that business. Granted, you have an absolute right to present whatever business you wish for public debate. You do not have an absolute right to public acceptance of that business. The degree of offense defines the degree of punishment. It may vary from a simple rebuke, to a violent reaction. What is it that you have offended, exactly? Well, that brings us right back to the beginning. Just what is that business? The question being, does this business offend the public in general. The business of living within a society. 

  

                                                                                   

symbolic

   Heard some complaining that some of those deported where only deported because of their tattoos. They had gang symbols identifying them as members of that Tren de Aragua or whatever it is called. I don't know anything about them and whatever customs and traditions they have in their little club but I suspect having those tattoos without being an actual member won't go over well. Try wearing a Hells Angels patch on your motorcycle jacket and see what happens. So I'm saying it looks like a duck and walks alike a duck it is probably a duck. They were in this country illegally and need to go! I'm not going to entertain any notion that they snuck into my country to join the church and become model citizens. Yeah call me judgmental or whatever you like, it just makes good common sense.

  You see that's the thing with all these signs and symbols. They are indicators of what you support. I should just take them at face values and believe it. If you're flying a pride flag you support that lifestyle. Doesn't mean you are actively engaged in that, but you certainly don't have an issue with it either. In fact, you are promoting that. If silence is consent, flying a flag is a proclamation. That applies whether it is tattoos, articles of clothing or hand gestures. Strange how those supporting that stuff complain that gang tattoos don't mean you're in the gang but Elon Musk extending his hand automatically made him a Nazi. By the way AOC has been photographed making that exact same gesture. But that is being defended as "taken out of context" and she was just reaching out to hug someone. Yeah, context matters doesn't it? Yes, but only when you need to explain your actions because someone else is upset. 

  It's an old argument this idea of getting tattoos. I'm thinking it has reached its' peak in popularity in recent years. We have reached that point where people are getting tattoos on their face. The fight to have that as a normal thing continues. I hear the complaints from those that find it difficult to get a job, they say, because of that. Well that may be, but without the employer saying that directly you can only assume. And you shouldn't assume right? I mean I'm terribly wrong, a very bad person for believing a Latino man with certain gang tattoos is a member of a gang. I shouldn't assume that at all. But you can assume I'm being prejudicial. It's all about context isn't it. 

 It really isn't about the tattoos. They are just the identifier. Perhaps the person has changed, perhaps they no longer support that cause or affiliate with that group. I'm not saying that is impossible but it is unlikely when viewed in context. They are in the country illegally, associating with others displaying the same symbols. Yes, looks like they are still active in all of that to me. I suppose if you can wake up one morning, after having been a man for thirty years, and discover you believe you really should be a woman, anything is possible. I'm old enough to remember when a man wearing a dress was proof of mental illness. Tattoos and transgenders! It's all about identity. I even wrote a poem about that some years back.

                                                                          INK

Faded tattoos once new and bright

time and age take their toll, they

begin to fade from sight

When new they made a statement,

confident and bold, now the 

conversation changes, stories go

untold

Wrinkled skin and thinning hair, ink

colors the soul, memories fading,

shuffling feet, confident and bold

Old men, faded tattoos, the things

that have been, remaining still, just,

distant and dim 

   

                                                                             

change my mind

  Read a rather long posting on the constitution. This was written by someone claiming to be a constitutional scholar. I take that with a grain here on Facebook and didn't embark on some intensive investigation to determine his qualifications. So I read what he had to say and he did explain the separation of powers and the roles of each branch in government. I didn't read anything that I wasn't already aware of and I have to say, I'm no constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination. What I read was a lesson in basic civics, about the tenth grade or so. 

  Now I question this notion that you are "teaching" the constitution. I can read quite well and know what the words are. Yes some of them aren't used everyday and are a bit archaic but we have google, dictionaries and plenty of means to obtain a definition. It's my feeling any teaching you are doing is simply sharing your opinion of what those words mean. There are a little over 4500 words in that document. It isn't all that long really. The typical novel falls between 70,000 and 100,00 words. We can each read and interpret the constitution and a novel and come away with a different understanding. 

 It is the function of the supreme court to decide and issue an opinion on the constitutionality of proposed legislation or existing legislation. The opinion does change occasionally. But that is what precedent is all about. It is accepting the decision made in the past as justification for the decision being made today. The law of judicial precedent. Just because the precedent was set doesn't mean it remains in effect forever and can't be changed. There are two kinds of precedents. There are binding and persuasive precedents. Binding precedents are created by a higher court than the court that established that precedent. In other words, the only real binding precedent is set by the supreme court, it being the court of last appeal. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that. And even then it requires congress to agree with that opinion and set that precedent. That's the separation of powers thing. 

  A constitutional scholar is an expert in constitutional law. That is what they study and offer their opinions and insight upon. Mostly I view that as, this what it says, but this is what it means. You won the argument. That's what you do before the supreme court, argue with them. Your objective being to convince them that your opinion is the correct opinion. That's why precedent is so important, it always helps when you can say, well, so and so said so, this judge agreed, and that must be right, been that way for years now. It's like when you were  kid, everyone was doing it. 

  Now this scholar that had posted was arguing that a federal judge has the authority to overrule an executive order. It was in regard to the deportation of those illegals sent to El Salvador. The president did so using a legal precedent, the Alien enemies act to protect the United States of America. Seems to me it would take the supreme court and congress to revoke that power. That power was established in 1798, approved by congress. It would take the supreme court and congress to overturn it. That's just how it works, like it or not. Until that happens, the law remains in effect. Don't need a constitutional scholar or a law degree to understand that, it's just civics 101. 

 It is at this point the argument should begin. Regardless of your feelings about that power and Trump using it, in order to change, modify or revoke it, it takes the supreme court and congress to do so. A federal judge does not have that authority. The rule of judicial precedent applies. That federal judge is a lower court than the supreme court. That's just a simple fact. The authority presently rests with the president of the united states. That's the precedent here. The supreme court and congress said so, in 1798. Now it is up to you to change their mind should you not agree. It's like trying to change your mothers mind when you really want that toy, you may convince her, but then there is dad. The court may change their opinion but congress has to agree with that too.  

                                                                                  

another flag down

  Been hearing about the removal of the BLM mural in D.C. I'm hearing a lot of complaining, moaning and groaning about that. It's the removal of history! Reminds me of what I heard while they were renaming military installations and removing statues. I guess you'd have to say it only matters when it is your history being removed. What the mural, statues and naming actually meant isn't the important part in any of that, it's the virtue signaling that matters. Now, another signal flag has been taken down. We're going back to 1963. It's a giant setback alright, no mural on the road in D.C. 

  It cost the taxpayers an estimated 7.8 million dollars to construct. It was constructed in response to, or as a part of, the George Floyd protests. And just what was that all about? Well that certainly depends upon your point of view. The media and the general consensus is that George Floyd was murdered by the police. It is one of those turning points in time. Was he murdered, or did he die as a result of an overly aggressive police reaction? Whatever the verdict is in your mind, it was a pivotal moment. That moment is now being relegated to history. It happened five years ago. The same thing could have happened to anyone, and probably has on more than one occasion, but that incident sparked a riot, really, a series of riots. It began the "defund the police" campaigns. Yes, if we defund the police and just let everyone fend for themselves we would all be safer. That is what was being said. 

  It will go down in the history books as the murder of an African American man by the police, by civil authority. Dereck Chauvin was convicted of second degree murder along with other charges. Whether it was because of Floyd being an African-American isn't known, and never will be. Because Derek Chauvin is white it is assumed that is the case. Was the verdict influenced by threats of civil unrest if he was acquitted? Was the verdict influenced by the city reaching a 23 million dollar settlement with Floyd's family before hand? 

 These are all factors that should have been considered but his appeals were denied. Do I think he was responsible for the death of George Floyd? Yes, he was. Was it murder?  In Illinois second degree murder means you intended to kill the individual but there were mitigating circumstances. Did Derek Chauvin intend to kill George Floyd? No, I don't think he did. It was a reckless disregard for human life, no doubt about that, he has a history of excessive force, maybe a bit pathological, but I don't believe he intended to kill Mr. Floyd. He did cause his death however. 

 There is so much more to all of that that what can be written. We are talking about human emotions, feelings, biases and prejudices. A single incident that can not be definitely explained by anyone. It's like trying to explain the reason for the civil war. History will define that and history will be rewritten many times in the coming years. This is rather fresh, only five years ago, but with todays fast paced media the majority has moved on from that. The BLM mural has been dismantled. That movement has declined in support considerably overly the last five years. People are moving on. Just as civil war veterans from both sides held reunions, shook hands and shared the sorrow and horror of that conflict BLM is becoming history. 

 "We envision a future fully divested from police, prisons, and all punishment paradigms, a future whish invests in justice, joy and culture." That is the official statement on the BLM website. It's quite a vision. A future without accountability. Just everyone being happy and enjoying their culture. If I believed such goals were attainable I would join that movement. They are not. You can not have a society where everyone just gets to do whatever they like and there is no accountability. No punishment for anything! Just do as you please. I don't think that is going to work. Black Lives Matter! Yes indeed, all lives matter regardless of race, creed or national origin. And when others are injured, someone has to be held to account! Derek Chauvin was held accountable and justly so. BLM states their goal as no police, no prisons and no punishment. Under what conditions would that be possible? If that contains two or more people, you are going to need all three. 

                                                                           

Choosing sides

  Just a short observation for historical perspective. I do hope that these blogs of mine will be read in the future, stumbled upon perhaps on the information superhighway. I was listening to the news this morning and the question was; do you think setting Tesla's on fire is going too far? I turned to my wife and said I think anytime anyone is setting fire to other peoples property, that's going too far. 

 Since Elon Musk has taken the reigns in leading DOGE in uncovering fraud, waste and abuse in the government his product, Tesla automobiles, has come under attack. Actual physical attack on the vehicles and dealerships. This in protest that Musk is looking for fraud, waste and abuse in government. What is interesting to note, from a historical perspective is the people committing these crimes, just a short time back these same people were urging everyone to buy a Tesla, to go green, to save the planet. The liberal people that support all of that, along with the LGBTQ+ community, transgenderism, transitioning and gender identities. The same people proclaim abortion is simply a choice on the part of the mother. 

 What strikes me about that is, that is the very people that probably own the tesla's being set on fire. So, your protest is really just harming those that agree with you. It isn't hurting Elon Musk one bit. He has literally billions of dollars and if this continues he may decide to just declare bankruptcy for that company and be relieved of any debt associated with that. I liken all this to those that rob the local pharmacy and grocery stores multiple times, then riot and set fire to them. Then they protest that they don't have a pharmacy or grocery store in their neighborhood. 

 This has to be one of the stupidest times in American history. My god, we are arguing with each other over how many genders there are! We are using computers, machines that are now asking us to prove that we are human. Millions of people are deeply concerned, upset to the point of violence, because an agency of the government is attempting to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. We are 33 trillion dollars in debt and one faction in government wants an additional 4 trillion dollar increase on the government credit card! There are those advocating for open boarders, just come on in and receive all the benefits and privileges natural born citizens are entitled to. Just because you are a rapist and murderer in your home nation, doesn't mean you will be here. Yes, that's how stupid it is.

 Look I get it, but when the lead in to a story on the news asks if you think setting fire to other peoples' property is going too far, that's stupid. The implication in that question being; maybe it isn't. That's how deranged some of our media outlets have become. I mean it is only the burning of Tesla's and we should all hate Elon Musk and Doge, so he deserves that. Could be that isn't going too far, maybe even not far enough! I have come to understand that a "peaceful" protest and an "insurrection" may be exactly the same thing, depending on the media outlet. For the historical record I am stating that it is going too far whenever you set fire to other peoples' property for whatever reason you may have. That's the side of history I'm on. I'm on the side of common sense! Don't overthink it, it's just wrong. I'll repeat what I have said many times before, "emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides" Get a grip people.   

                                                                                 

      This is an image from a peaceful protest 

We judge

  I'm expecting all the experts on the Supreme court to appear on Facebook. That will be in response to the deportation of criminals, without due process. If you are in my country illegally the only due process you are entitled to is the process of being deported, and that is the court of Ben. That process involves loading you on a bus or plane! But the experts will all weigh in on Facebook and other media platforms declaring the power of the court and federal judges. Thing is, the constitution gives the "power of judicial review" to that court. The constitution actually says little more than that about the court. It is the lawyers over the years that have defined those powers, subject to change over the decades. The power of the court was quite different 100 years ago as compared to what it is perceived to be today. Remember this is a court that decides what cases it will or will not hear. That's convenient. It's also necessary as the court would never be able to get anything done if they had to listen to every case that wasn't settled to someone's satisfaction in the lower courts. 

 I make no claims to knowing a great deal about all of this. I'm quite certain however that a lower court judge doesn't get to establish national policy. I really don't think he/she has the power to overthrow the decision of the president. The supreme court may rule on the constitutionality of a presidents actions/decisions but even the supreme court doesn't get to change those decisions. That power is vested in the congress, the only body that can make law. But all that is just civics 101. That is simply how the system was designed to work. The power of judicial review, the ability of the court to declare  law or executive action unconstitutional is not in the text of the constitution itself. The court established that in 1803. Yes, it was the opinion of the court that they should have that authority. Still, it isn't what the constitution says. I leave all that to the lawyers.

 The supreme court is often called the court of last resort. When you have failed to make your case anywhere else that is where you make your last appeal. You don't start there! You have to go through all the lower courts first. That's how it works. Then , if all those courts failed to give you satisfaction you can ask the supreme court to hear your case. The court will request all the documents from the lower courts, review them and then decide on the merit of the case. Generally it takes four Justices to say the case has merit before it will be heard. Now this "case" of deporting criminals without due process may indeed make it to the court. It does have to "get in line" like everyone else though.  The case will have to center on whether federal judges have authority over the executive branch. 

 The constitution does not explicitly mention deportation or immigration. The supreme courts function is to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. I can't see where that is possible when it isn't a constitutional question. The constitution doesn't say anything about that. You have to look elsewhere for that. The court can hear arguments that you can't deport illegal criminal aliens without giving then due process of law but they haven't done so, yet. So, the decision stands as it is until such time as the court either decides to take the case or dismiss it. A federal judge does not hold that power. I'm no expert on any of this but I can read. 

 The supreme court usually takes anywhere from three months to a year to decide on a case. A federal judge doesn't get to decide that in one day! That isn't how that works at all. If you wish to protect the "due process" of criminals in our country illegally the supreme court is the authority on that. Get in line, file your brief, and let the court decide on hearing that or not. Until then, the deportation of illegal criminals continues! Period. That's how it works. We all have to wait for an opinion from the court. Then, and only then, can congress act on the constitutionality of a law. You know they don't have to agree, they have the power to change the law, change that constitution. We the people decide that in the end, not a judge.  

                                                                                 

Human nature

  Sometimes I offer my thoughts on things in general. I'm just writing out loud, that's how I think about that. I guess it is a form of self-help therapy only difference being I'm writing the book. I have always thought self-help books were amusing anyway. You can't get professional help from yourself, even when you are the professional. Reminds me of that old adage, physician heal thyself. Tough doing surgery on yourself, especially after the anesthesia kicks in. I'm okay, you're okay is one that I did read. I decided after reading that, that I am okay, it's others that need help. I suppose that was the point of the book.

 Other times, when I'm writing about a particular subject, I will go to google to check certain facts. I will read what others have had to say about the topic as well. I'm surprised how often I find others saying pretty much the same thing. I'm amused when I realize the only difference is that they have some degree of fame and I don't. That is why I thought there isn't much anyone can say that hasn't been said before. I believe that and it is only the choice of words that differ. I'm beginning to think that all you really need to do is use words that others don't understand. When others have to look up the meaning it makes you appear smarter somehow. It's an old tactic, but effective sometimes. 

 I'm just amused when I can quote some great figure from history and everyone will agree on what a profound and insightful observation was made. Then when I say the same thing using regular every day words I'm told how stupid that is. And today I'm just seeing the meaning of words being changed to suit the narrative. That is what it says but that isn't what it means. A lot of that going on, especially among all the constitutional scholars on social media. Combine that with the disparaging of historical figures to discredit them and here we are. It's almost as though these highly educated people are shocked and surprised that those historical figures were simply human beings like all the rest of us. Jefferson created on his wife and Washington owned a brewery. Some of those people even held slaves! 

 I also wonder why it seems like some talented people are only talented for so long. What I mean is, take a songwriter for example. The ones that go on to record there own songs and have big hits always seem to fade away after a while. Oh, they may still be around performing, but they are just doing their old songs. Willie Nelson is a great example of that. Name the last big hit he penned. Unless you are a true diehard fan you most likely won't know. Yet, he wrote plenty of classics, songs that will continue forever. Neil Sedaka, Carol King and Kristofferson also come to mind. I suppose that is why they say fame is a fleeting thing, the public is fickle. Always looking for something new, something different, but in reality rediscovering the past. There really isn't much new in the world.

 And that statement isn't new either, it's an old adage. Human nature really hasn't changed all that much over the centuries. It is just the technology and availability of resources that change. People are still the same. Some call it the survival instinct. We will do whatever is necessary to survive in the world. We will also do whatever is necessary to advance our position in this world. That is where the question of  morality and ethics enter the picture. That is the reason for the spiritual! It's an appeal for help, and a justification for your actions, the proverbial double edged sword. We see that taking place in the world every single day. The middle east is the breeding ground for that. It has been since biblical times. Nothing new about any of that. 

 Much has been written about human nature. Nature or nurture? That is a primary issue that is in constant debate. I'm in the nurture camp, believing you will act pretty much the way you were taught. It's my feeling we are in a period where a lack of nurturing is causing civil unrest. In short, people just don't know how to act right! Yeah, not a big scholarly thesis or statement backed by "science." I'm not referencing past scholars, famous philosophers or phycologists. Just telling you what I see and think about it all. 

 A commonwealth is a political community established for the common protection of those in the commonwealth. You really do have to have the same objectives for that to be successful. Yeah I know, that doesn't seem scholarly enough now does it, too obvious, so therefore it can't be right. I probably need to attend a universities and earn a doctorate degree before making any such bold statement. A commonwealth must have shared values and goals.

 I'm not seeing that today, in our republic. That was a choice of words as well. When we broke away from Britain some "states" chose to call themselves a commonwealth, ie: Virginia and Pennsylvania are two. Others chose to call themself a state, as in state meaning government. It's all a matter of very subtle semantics. In the constitution when it refers to states that includes the commonwealths, although I'm certain that has been challenged at some point. Well, whatever name you want to use but I'm thinking we are losing that commonality that inspired the revolution in the first place. A sentiment that was inspired (nurtured) by the colonists. Or, was it just human nature? History repeats itself.  

                                                                     

             

liberty of conscience

  What is the role of government? “The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their [lives, liberties and property]” (John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690). That is the founding principle of our republic. Yes, Jefferson echoed those words in the declaration of independence. Words that we all have heard and known since we were small children. John Locke philosopher and medical researcher. A proponent of capitalism. Locke argued for government by the consent of the people and that when government went against that, it should be replaced. Yeah, what the revolution was all about. 

  Today a great deal of argument centers around the "charitable" role of government. Does the government have an obligation to extend charity to those that are unable to fend for themselves for whatever reason? Well, that obligation lies with the people doesn't it. The governed have to decide upon that. And that is where the separation of church and state enters the picture. The establishment clause of the constitution. Locke advocated for a strict separation of government and religion. Government was to deal with civil matters, not with personal religious issues. Locke called it the "liberty of conscience." We are all free to exercise our conscience in whatever way we see fit. If we wish to be charitable that is an individual choice as well as the function of religious groups. In fact "liberty of conscience" is an inalienable right.

 Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were deeply religious men. You can argue about that all day long, some saying they were deists and that isn't religious. The belief in a higher power is all that is required to be a religious and spiritual person. The precise doctrine you may or may not follow does not define that. If the United States had established Christianity as the "official" religion what "version" of the Christian Bible are we going to use? The King James version? That was created to settle disputes regarding reforms in the church and to deal with those pesky Puritans. There are over 450 versions of the Bible in English alone! Pick an edition. Are we to follow the Old Testament, or the New? If the old can be replaced, so can the new. Todays interpretation of the new testament is certainly quite a bit different than it was just fifty years ago. Granted, not in all "churches" but that's the point isn't it? What does it mean? That meaning is what Locke and Jefferson were concerned with as the meaning is an individual thing. That is the "liberty of conscience." 

  Consider Islamic nations. They all use the Koran and Sharia law as a basis for their government. But, the amount of influence that text has on actual civil law varies widely between nations. Why is that? I suspect they too are exercising their "liberty of conscience." I suspect a great deal just has to do with commerce, the securing of the "pursuit of happiness" eluded to in our founding documents. Why are all of those nations identified as Islamic Nations and yet the United States is never called a Christian nation? Because of the establishment clause, that's why. 

   Luke 12:33 ("Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail").  If we were to adopt the Christian bible as our guide for governance that would be the law. Sell everything you have and give it away. Is that what we need to do to secure eternal life? That's what the book says, but we all agree that isn't what it really means. That's how that works. That is why we must not have a religious doctrine on any type as the government doctrine. It is up to the people, not the government.   "when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic,"    (Benjamin Franklin) He's talking about extending charity to yourself! And don't you deserve that! Well, you are expected, as a citizen of this nation to exercise your "liberty of conscience" as a means of controlling the expenditure of public funds. It isn't the denial of charity, it is the prudent exercise of that. Should you "sell your possessions and give it to the needy" as the text plainly states? If you answer no, why not? If you answer yes, why haven't you? 

                                                                                  

 "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"  

Remember this is a sonnet written for a contest to raise funds for building the base of that statue. It isn't a proclamation from the government. Not an official policy. It expresses the "liberty of conscience" of Emma Lazarus in November of 1883.