Evidently the Current Administration is Omniscent

Please correct me if I get some of this wrong.

My understanding of part of the Patriot Act is that the president and his chosen representatives and/or agents can declare someone to be “an enemy combatant”. That doing so, negates any rights this person has for formal charges, legal counsel, and they don’t need evidence to try and convict this person. This person does not even qualify for the Geneva Convention rights of prisoners of war. When did we decide that some people are not human and do not deserve to be treated as such?

I guess the administration just “knows” who is guilty without the aid of evidence. Forgive me for being stupid, but I thought that evidence was what we used to figure out who was guilty.

Or maybe, this is just a convenient way to get rid of those the administration deems an interference. It certainly is a way to look like they are fighting terrorism. They can say, “See, we have all these enemy combatants in prison! We are protecting the country”.

I also read that after we went into Afghanistan, the people of that country were offered a reward of about $5000.00 for each Al Queda member they turned in. Without needing evidence, I have no doubt there were plenty of names turned in! I’ll even bet many of those names were of goat herders, and farmers, etc. I know I feel safer knowing that those nasty goat herders are locked up!.

This is Scary.

First, of course, there is the fear that eventually myself or someone I know will get declared an enemy combatant. What recourse would we have? Once those Checks and Balances are gone, there is nothing much to stop an unscrupulous (and evil) administration doing whatever they want. Even if this administration has no evil intent, this lack of any “balance of power” leaves us (the people) vulnerable to future abuse.

Secondly, it scares me that when goat herders are locked up without evidence, are the real terrorists going free. Without evidence, how do we know which is which?

Beginning of the End of Belief

My grandmother started me out with the Southern Baptist denomination. When my father remarried and I went to live with him and my stepmother, I continued to attend church even though my parents did not. I was a devout believer and was baptised at around age 10.

As a teen-ager, I even taught vacation bible school. I was involved with the youth group as well.

At age 16, I had a question about religion. I went to my pastor and asked. I was told that since I was female, I was not allowed to ask the pastor questions directly. He said I needed to ask my husband or my father. I was not married and my father did not attend church nor did he read the bible. I belonged to a very small church and my pastor knew these things. I even pointed them out to the pastor. He insisted I talk to my father.

How very unsatisfying! How demeaning! I ask you, does having a penis somehow endow males with spiritual knowledge? It made no sense to me (still doesn’t). After all, if I have a medical question, I ask a doctor, etc. I had a spiritual/religious question, so I went to the person who was trained in religion and spirituality.

It seems more of a way to make sure the females only know what their male “masters” want them to know. Maybe that pastor did not want to step on another male’s toes by giving the female any information her father or her (theoretical) husband did not want her to have.

That was the beginning of my deconversion from Christianity. I did not give up on Christianity yet, though. I have always had a deep need to seek Truth, and I am stubborn. I thought maybe it was just this church….

Checks and Balances and Why They Are Important

In support of Democracy and freedom, I submit this post:

I have determined that I prefer living in a Democracy. I value freedom above pretty much everything else. I am passionate about freedom. I believe freedom is worth fighting for.

If you also value freedom, please read this and think about it. I welcome comments. It is the beauty of a free society to be able to discuss these kinds of things.

It has often been said that: “Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.”

Humans are not perfect. No one is completely immune to things like ego, emotions, greed, etc. We all know this, right?

Humans get conditioned by their environment. Someone in power is in an environment where he/she gets his/her way most if not all of the time. Imagine getting used to having your own way.

Even someone with good intent can and often does become corrupted by power.

Someone with evil intent starts out with selfish goals and plans on using others in order to accomplish them. Imagine what this person could do with power.

It is not always easy to tell what someone’s intent truly is. Some are very good at presenting a charming and good-natured facade. So I have to conclude that sometimes persons with evil intent do get elected to power.

We think of corruption as being evil. This makes it difficult to determine when corruption is happening. I don’t think corruption is always evil of itself. Think of corrupted data. Also power does not corrupt all at once. Usually it is over time, in very small increments. It is hardly noticeable in the moment, but accumulates over time. In the end, it can become evil in its effects. Read on…

Absolute power means to have power over everything, and everyone. So by definition, there is no one else with enough power to confront the leader (who has absolute power) when he/she makes a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes.

Being human, no leader can know everything. He/she relies on his/her followers to keep him /her informed. However, have you ever noticed that people do not always tell their leader the complete truth. They don’t want to tell things that they perceive their leader does not want to hear. Even with a leader who encourages truth, some people cannot quite believe it is really what the leader wants. They want to please the leader. This is human nature.

How can one determine truth if one doesn’t have all the information? Even reason fails when you don’t have all the facts. Without honest feedback, one’s perceptions become skewed. We all need feedback from time to time.

Do we rely on each person we elect to power to be able to monitor himself/herself? I think the founders of the United States considered that to be unwise. After all, they wrote the Constitution.

In the Constitution is a system of Checks and Balances. What does this mean? In a general way, it means that in this government, no one is allowed absolute power. “The Three Branches of Government” have oversight rights and responsibilities over each other. You notice they are called “The Three Branches of Government”, not “One Branch of Government With Two Supporting Arms of Government”? I think our founding fathers realized humans are not perfect at their best, and are dangerous at their worst.

As a government “Of the People, For the People, and By the People”; our “Right to Free Speech” and a “Free Press” are two more elements of the “Checks and Balances”. A “Free Press” keeps us informed on current events and issues. The founding fathers even wrote into the Constitution that no law is to be passed that restricts the free press. We have our free speech as a means of discussing our views with each other and conveying our wishes to our leaders. I am telling you, I really don’t think that we were given the right to free speech in the Constitution just so we can stand on street corners to recite poetry! It was intended to give us freedom to dissent, providing a check on the government.

It is a tyrant who does not want the people to be informed. It is a tyrant who does not want anyone to speak against his/her actions. Sound familiar? It should. These last several years, I have heard the current Administration call people “Unpatriotic” for voicing dissent. Is patriotism now to be defined as loyalty to individuals who hold office, or shall we keep patriotism to mean loyalty to the country and the principles upon which it was founded?

I fear I am speaking heresy as regards the current Administration. I argue that it should not be heretical to speak truth. It should not be heretical to defend the principles that created this great country! I say it is I and those like me who are the patriots, and that those who dismantle the Constitution are committing treason. Treason as defined as an attack on the very foundation of our government.

A tyrant wants to keep you in the dark and feed you propaganda. If a tyrant cannot silence the press, don’t you think he/she/they would discredit it, or even manipulate it? I recommend you check out Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. (Get the movie if you can, I rented it from Netflix).

It greatly disturbs me that the current Administration has been dismantling our “Checks and Balances”.

I have heard Bush on national T.V. say that he is going to get the Judicial Branch (of Government) under control. Just in case you missed it, the Judicial Branch of Government is one of those “Three Branches of Government” I mentioned earlier. I have heard him say “I am President, I can do what I want”.

Are these the words of someone who supports the Constitution? Of someone who supports “Checks and Balances”?

More Checks and Balances Violations:

Under Homeland Security Acts, it was made allowable for agents to search your baggage after it has been checked at the airport (without you being present). Although, it may have been written thusly for the best of intentions, it is a bad idea. I understand increasing security if there is a threat. I don’t mind having my baggage searched. I want to be present while it is done, though. Can you guarantee that every agent who searches baggage is honorable? What if they are angry at a particular group of people? What if they are dishonest?

Did you know that the President now has the power to have anyone (he wants) arrested? Also under Homeland Security Acts, all he has to do is declare them a terrorist. He can appoint any agent he chooses to have this same authority. This means that your local police can call you a terrorist and take you away. They don’t have to tell anyone where you are, they don’t have to have any evidence, and they don’t have to tell you the charges. We have been told it is so they can fight terrorism. I want to know what is wrong with needing evidence. Without evidence, how do you know someone is guilty? Again, even if this is written for the best of intentions, it is a bad idea. Can you guarantee that every agent, police officer, etc is honorable? I think not. I periodically see news stories of dishonorable officers of the law getting caught doing a wide variety of bad things. Certainly I believe the great majority are honorable, but not all of them. That is why we have “Checks and Balances” like needing evidence, making formal charges, allowing the prisoner to contact a family member, etc. Sure it is inconvenient, but it protects the rights of the innocent as well as the guilty.

I don’t understand. I don’t understand how we can impeach one president over a sexual act, but we allow another to destroy our Constitution and the principles it represents. Is sex a worse crime than treason?

Heresy

Again, I quote Wikipedia: Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.” (bold mine).

By this definition, especially that last statement in bold, I am a heretic. Of course, this is based on what I perceive as mainstream. Perhaps there are more like me than I know. I hope I find them. Maybe I will as this blog progresses.

The first few or several entries here will just be laying ground work. I plan to write some posts about generalities, definitions, etc. Then I will ease myself into specific opinions on various issues. I admit to some nervousness. I know well the criticism a rebel receives. Sometimes heretics are persecuted. The pressure to conform is tremendous .

In this current atmosphere of polarization in the U.S., it is especially scary. We have some serious currents flowing here. I believe they are dangerous. For the first time in my 48 years, I am afraid to speak my opinions to the “wrong person”. For the first time, I fear loss of livelihood (my job) if I speak “heresy” at work. I fear loss of friends and family members who seem to adamantly accept what they are told. I feel the loss of my freedoms.

Perhaps many of those accepting what they are told are so adamant because on some level they perceive the danger of saying otherwise. They need to be adamant so as to keep themselves convinced. Few people want to be seen as the “trouble maker” in the best of times. These are not the best of times as far as I am concerned. To remain silent, however, is to acquiesce. That I cannot do.

Yet, I don’t see any immediate personal danger. I just feel it looming on the horizon. An old anecdote comes to mind. If you want to cook a live frog, you do not put it in a pot of boiling water. The frog, alarmed by the sudden heat will try to jump out, perhaps successfully. No, to be safe, you put it in a pot of lukewarm water. Then you bring the heat up degree by degree. By the time the frog notices how hot it is, it is too late, The frog is cooked.

Yes, I will elaborate in future blog posts. It is too big and complicated to me to cover everything in one blog post. For now, I will say that my fears are about what is happening in our government. Religion is being used as well I fear. I will also say for the record that I am deeply patriotic. I love this country, and the principles upon which it was founded. As part of those principles I hold dear, I respect each persons right to their choice of religion even when they choose none. I love the people of this country in all their diversity.

It occurs to me that we may be polarized because someone(s) want us that way. Divide and conquer is a classic strategy. As long as we remain in conflict, it makes it difficult to see what is going on around us.

I don’t fully understand it all, and I may never fully understand it. I hope to gain some clarity through this blog. I hope to help shed light for others as well.