Today I am going to share a letter with you that will not likely
see the light of day any where near the president, though it's
addressed to him,from a Marine that I know well. He is less of a
writer than I am but he asked me if I would clean this up a bit and
then post it on my blog. I will gladly do so. This Marine has spent
many years of his life serving his country in both war and peace, not
that we have had much peace lately, and has seen more of combat and
war than he would really want to see , if given the choice, but has
done his duty in an honorable and commendable manner.
His letter addresses the the idea that at a stroke of a pen, Mr.
Obama , has made it easier for doctors to submit information on
anyone who is even asking about mental health issues to the national
criminal back ground check for the intended purpose of possibly
denying them the right to own and keep fire arms.
Dear Mr. President,
I recently found out that your administration, at the stroke of a
pen, is trying to make it easier for doctors to violate their privacy
oaths, not to mention the privacy act of 1974, in order to be able to
submit names and information on any individual who even inquires
about getting some mental health help to the “National Criminal
Back Ground Check” data base for the purpose of keeping guns out of
the hands of “potentially dangerous” individuals.
I must commend you for showing your hand so boldly and for somehow
keeping this information out of most of the press. Very well played
Mr. President.
But here is where this all falls apart. By doing this you have
made absolutely sure that I, and many other combat veterans, will
never set foot any where near a mental health facility. Where would
be the incentive to do so? Many of us are gun owners. Why would I
want to risk losing my rights? I have spent most of my life as a
member of the armed forces and have been in more combat situations
then I care to remember, I have defended the Constitution that you
have sworn to uphold and have helped keep the proverbial wolf away
from the door. What exactly is my crime? Nightmares? Getting uptight
in a crowd? Being startled by loud noises? Of course , Mr. President,
you would not understand, because you have never served.
I don't suppose though that I should truly be surprised. Your
administration has done nothing for veterans and you have allowed for
DHS, amongst others ,to label all of us combat veterans as “potential
terrorists” while allowing real terrorists, The Muslim Brotherhood,
access to you in the White House.
When you ran for office ,the first time, many of us war veterans
were really hoping that you could actually bring about some hope and
change. You said you were going to end the wars and while Iraq
certainly has come to an end , for now anyhow, you have kept things
going in Afghanistan, even going so far as trying to keep us there
longer and have opened up new fronts in other countries bringing us
closer to an even larger scale war and ,as a result, have created
even more combat veterans ,of whom, you despise.
My humble advice to you is simple Mr. President. First end all the
wars and conflicts we are involved with, then stop with this nonsense
of putting honorable men and women at risk for mental health issues,
who might otherwise go for help, if it wasn't for your idea to make
their personal information available in a criminal back ground check.
We are Veterans not criminals.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Mr. Governor; Lets Try Tolerance
I am not a fan of cities. This is no secret. Give me woods and
wide open spaces and I become a rather happy camper, but close
quarters and tall buildings? No, I think not.
One of the cities I have avoided like the plague is New York. Growing up in the 60's and 70's all the movies portrayed New York as this gritty savage place ,full of violence and gang shootings ,and homeless wino's on every street corner. Not a very pretty picture.
Today, based on what I have been told, by folks who live there ,or at least nearby, and by friends who go there frequently that it's not so true anymore. In fact I have heard enough from them to convince me that not only would I like to go see it but that the people there are actually quite friendly to strangers and are most helpful.
But now, at least according to the Governor, I wouldn't be welcome in any NY city. It would appear that I may be to conservative for the governor and by extension the state it's self.
I'm not republican but I am pro guns. I am one of those guys who cling to my God and my guns. While I believe that every American should stand up for their gun rights I also recognize the fact that there are those who don't share that view and that is also their right. I believe in God , though I wouldn't be welcome in most houses of worship because of my very different views, but I understand and recognize that not everyone does and again that’s their right. This Mr. Governor is called “tolerance.”
I am pro life, though I make some exceptions ,as in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother is in danger, but again this is my view, my position. I might try to counsel a woman to have the child and give it up for adoption but I would not force the issue. I have many friends who are pro choice and I respect their right to be so. We may disagree, Mr. Governor, but my friends and I understand “tolerance.”
I guess what throws it way off though is that I am all for gay rights or should I say equal rights. If a gay or lesbian couple are consenting adults and they wish to be married then fine so be it, but I also respect the rights of those who oppose my views. Aside from it being a matter of free speech, it's called “tolerance” Mr. Governor.
My guess is that the NY governor could learn “tolerance” from my liberal friends in Vermont.
Vermont is a very liberal democrat leaning state. Conservatives are something close to an endangered species, yet though I was a self described conservative, when I lived there, 99% of my friends were, and still are, liberal,yet we can talk about everything from religion to politics, have friendly disagreements and still have a burger and a beer together. 20 years into these friendships and we are all still friends. In fact I just back from the long weekend with them. If anything their political points of view have helped shape my own view and over the course of 20 years I have become more open minded about many things both religious and political This is what tolerance can be like Mr. Governor.
But I guess that's the crux of the problem. He finds that anyone who doesn't share his view offensive,and he doesn't want them in NY state. That's fine I simply won't spend what little money I might have there, not that that should worry him much, but what about all the conservative groups and people who have businesses in NYC, and other parts of the state, that are religious in nature or at least conservative? Not to put to fine a point on it Mr.Governor, but if they decide to leave, your state will loose substantial revenue. Is that what you really want? All over a disagreement of political opinion? That's not “tolerance” that economic suicide.
I am a believer that most good hearted people are, especially in today’s world, accepting of others points of views and positions. Really it comes down to a few disgruntled individuals and groups who seem to make the most noise and make all the rest of us look bad, so in this case I don't think that he really reflects the views of all liberals, but just as a reminder to all of us consider;Tolerance is the accepting of someones views( not that you agree with them) even when they differ from yours.
My friends and I in Vermont have learned that, how about it Mr. Governor, want to give real tolerance a try?
One of the cities I have avoided like the plague is New York. Growing up in the 60's and 70's all the movies portrayed New York as this gritty savage place ,full of violence and gang shootings ,and homeless wino's on every street corner. Not a very pretty picture.
Today, based on what I have been told, by folks who live there ,or at least nearby, and by friends who go there frequently that it's not so true anymore. In fact I have heard enough from them to convince me that not only would I like to go see it but that the people there are actually quite friendly to strangers and are most helpful.
But now, at least according to the Governor, I wouldn't be welcome in any NY city. It would appear that I may be to conservative for the governor and by extension the state it's self.
I'm not republican but I am pro guns. I am one of those guys who cling to my God and my guns. While I believe that every American should stand up for their gun rights I also recognize the fact that there are those who don't share that view and that is also their right. I believe in God , though I wouldn't be welcome in most houses of worship because of my very different views, but I understand and recognize that not everyone does and again that’s their right. This Mr. Governor is called “tolerance.”
I am pro life, though I make some exceptions ,as in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother is in danger, but again this is my view, my position. I might try to counsel a woman to have the child and give it up for adoption but I would not force the issue. I have many friends who are pro choice and I respect their right to be so. We may disagree, Mr. Governor, but my friends and I understand “tolerance.”
I guess what throws it way off though is that I am all for gay rights or should I say equal rights. If a gay or lesbian couple are consenting adults and they wish to be married then fine so be it, but I also respect the rights of those who oppose my views. Aside from it being a matter of free speech, it's called “tolerance” Mr. Governor.
My guess is that the NY governor could learn “tolerance” from my liberal friends in Vermont.
Vermont is a very liberal democrat leaning state. Conservatives are something close to an endangered species, yet though I was a self described conservative, when I lived there, 99% of my friends were, and still are, liberal,yet we can talk about everything from religion to politics, have friendly disagreements and still have a burger and a beer together. 20 years into these friendships and we are all still friends. In fact I just back from the long weekend with them. If anything their political points of view have helped shape my own view and over the course of 20 years I have become more open minded about many things both religious and political This is what tolerance can be like Mr. Governor.
But I guess that's the crux of the problem. He finds that anyone who doesn't share his view offensive,and he doesn't want them in NY state. That's fine I simply won't spend what little money I might have there, not that that should worry him much, but what about all the conservative groups and people who have businesses in NYC, and other parts of the state, that are religious in nature or at least conservative? Not to put to fine a point on it Mr.Governor, but if they decide to leave, your state will loose substantial revenue. Is that what you really want? All over a disagreement of political opinion? That's not “tolerance” that economic suicide.
I am a believer that most good hearted people are, especially in today’s world, accepting of others points of views and positions. Really it comes down to a few disgruntled individuals and groups who seem to make the most noise and make all the rest of us look bad, so in this case I don't think that he really reflects the views of all liberals, but just as a reminder to all of us consider;Tolerance is the accepting of someones views( not that you agree with them) even when they differ from yours.
My friends and I in Vermont have learned that, how about it Mr. Governor, want to give real tolerance a try?
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Fair Market Value?
There are certain terms and catch phrases in the English language
that can seriously drive me mad. Take for instance the word
“whatever” if used properly the word “whatever” can be a good
word such as in a sentence like “whatever happened to old Bob” or
something silly like that, but when used by a sarcastic teenager as
in the singular “whatever” with a disdain full look at their
parents or siblings I suddenly want to break some or all of the
child abuse laws. Some words can have that effect.
The latest set of words that have me wanting to slam my head into a wall are “fair market value.” Three times I have heard those words used when it has involved me and my family over the last couple of years and I am just a bit on the frustrated side.
Now I understand the term. It simply is in reference to the value of, in this case homes, compared to others in your area and their relative value. I understand the words. But I don't like them and I am never going to understand how a piece of property can sell for one price one day and then the next it cost three or four times as much or, in the opposite extreme, much less.
Four years ago I first heard the term used in reference to the house that we had owned; the price that you are asking for your house is above the “ fair market value.” A few years earlier our house had been worth what we paid for it but now not only was it not worth what we paid it wasn't even close to what we owed. Many of you who have read my blog posts in the past know how that all turned out, but for you who don't ,lets just say it wasn't good ,and a large, federally bailed out bank, made out like a bandit.
The last two times I have had this term directed at me has been in the last year or so. In both instances it has been used as an excuse to raise the rent, the most recent being about 3 weeks ago.
Who exactly is it that determines this? Why is it that a small 3 bedroom duplex can be rented out for almost 20 times more than what my grandparents mortgage was for their house? How can it be that the same type of housing out west or in the south would cost less than half of what I am paying now?This is insane and it puts me and my family in a tough spot. Can we pay for it once it goes up? Technically yes, but the problem is is that costs keeps going up but my paycheck isn't keeping up.
Considering the high price of living here in New England and the ungodly high property taxes making a mortgage almost impossible, we may be forced out of this area of the country, where all our friends and family are, simply because we have the misfortune of having a limited income.
So my conclusion is that “fair market value” is not terribly fair and the value is simply subject to those who want to dig more money out of our wallets and “fair market value” is only fair if you can pay for it. Just my Simple Minded opinion.
The latest set of words that have me wanting to slam my head into a wall are “fair market value.” Three times I have heard those words used when it has involved me and my family over the last couple of years and I am just a bit on the frustrated side.
Now I understand the term. It simply is in reference to the value of, in this case homes, compared to others in your area and their relative value. I understand the words. But I don't like them and I am never going to understand how a piece of property can sell for one price one day and then the next it cost three or four times as much or, in the opposite extreme, much less.
Four years ago I first heard the term used in reference to the house that we had owned; the price that you are asking for your house is above the “ fair market value.” A few years earlier our house had been worth what we paid for it but now not only was it not worth what we paid it wasn't even close to what we owed. Many of you who have read my blog posts in the past know how that all turned out, but for you who don't ,lets just say it wasn't good ,and a large, federally bailed out bank, made out like a bandit.
The last two times I have had this term directed at me has been in the last year or so. In both instances it has been used as an excuse to raise the rent, the most recent being about 3 weeks ago.
Who exactly is it that determines this? Why is it that a small 3 bedroom duplex can be rented out for almost 20 times more than what my grandparents mortgage was for their house? How can it be that the same type of housing out west or in the south would cost less than half of what I am paying now?This is insane and it puts me and my family in a tough spot. Can we pay for it once it goes up? Technically yes, but the problem is is that costs keeps going up but my paycheck isn't keeping up.
Considering the high price of living here in New England and the ungodly high property taxes making a mortgage almost impossible, we may be forced out of this area of the country, where all our friends and family are, simply because we have the misfortune of having a limited income.
So my conclusion is that “fair market value” is not terribly fair and the value is simply subject to those who want to dig more money out of our wallets and “fair market value” is only fair if you can pay for it. Just my Simple Minded opinion.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Nuns, NSA and Guns
The Nuns, NSA and Guns
It would seem that an order of Nuns has filed a petition to not provide birth control in any form stating that to do so would be a violation of their conscience and religious beliefs. Supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a stay late Tuesday preventing the government from enforcing the so-called contraceptive mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Apparently she agreed with them and gave the Obama administration until Friday to appeal her ruling , which they did, arguing that they, the Nuns, could get out of it by certifying that they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage. In that case, it would be up to a third-party administrator to decide whether to provide it. The Nuns lawyer responded with a 17 page appeal suggesting that by having them sign the paper it essentially means that they are advocating that someone else “sins” on their behalf.
But it's not just about the Nuns. The administration has called for all catholic groups to be forced into providing contraception (and in effect any religious group or organization) even though it goes against their religious beliefs.
Some of you reading this may think well that's just to bad for them but the law is the law. It may be,that it now a part of the law,but it's not morally right to force people into either violating their conscience or being seriously fined. I will also remind you that if they can force you to violate your religious beliefs, in violation of the first amendment, whats going to stop them from forcing everyone to violate their consciences? Would you be OK if the government passed a law saying that you had to cheat on your spouse, even though most in our society would disagree and all holy writings say no? What gives the federal government the right to force you or your religious group to violate your conscience? Seems to me the constitution says they don't.
In NSA related news, the Obama administration has asked for the FISA court to allow for the continuation of the NSA programs of mass collecting all of our digital data.
“The Obama administration moved on two fronts Friday to preserve the National Security Agency's controversial spy programs, appealing a major ruling against the agency while winning permission from a secretive court to continue collecting Americans' phone records.” (AP)
To start with we shouldn't have secret courts, this isn't the Soviet Union or North Korea, but the fact that the Obama administration would request that such a program continue (I know that Bush started all this but he resides in Texas now not DC and is of no importance to this discussion) tells me just how little regard that they have for the constitution and the rule of law, not that this is their only violation but it is one of the more blatant examples. This request follows the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon in which he called the NSA program "almost-Orwellian technology" and challenged its constitutionality. In the judges words:
"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast.”
I don't think I could have said it any better.
On a side note Senator Rand Paul ® of Kentucky will be filing a class action law suit against the Obama administration and the NSA for their violations of the 4th amendment via the NSA programs. He reportedly has hundreds of thousands of people joining him in this action, Ill keep you posted as I hear more about it.
I guess this wouldn't be complete if we didn't add another back door effort to regulate gun ownership. The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system,both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
If I believed that this was really about keeping guns out of the hands of truly insane people I would be all for it but the wording is a bit vague. First “those seeking mental health treatment.” Why would they want information just based on someone who is seeking help? Why would you put that in a “ Criminal background check?” Does the fact that I have sought out mental health treatment for PTSD, and I am likely to again in the future, make me some sort of criminal? I can understand that perhaps those that have been institutionalized might need extra scrutiny but by doing this you are going to make a whole lot of war vets very leery about seeking mental health for PTSD if there is even the slightest chance that they could loose their guns or the ability to buy them.
The second part “out of potentially dangerous hands” is also a bit vague. It wasn't that long ago when the politically correct thought was that “every man is a potential rapist” so using that argument would suggest that all of us gun owners have potentially dangerous hands, If having a Penis makes me a potential rapist, then having a gun surely must make me a potential killer. I'm no more dangerous then anyone else who legally owns and carry a firearm but who exactly determines that, which leads to my third point.
This would be in violation of the HIPPA law, giving your doctor the right to report you with no warning to you and , from what I can tell, you will have very little recourse once your mental health issues have been sent. So I go in to see my doctor because I am depressed or having more nightmares then normal, due to PTSD related issues, and he is anti gun, all he has to do is submit my information to this data base and it could stop my ability to own or posses a firearm. No crimes committed, no laws broken, yet my name would be entered into a criminal background data base all for seeking help.
One last note, totally unrelated to the above.
Thank you to my fellow Iraq vets for securing hell. Apparently our blood and tears were not payment enough and the minions of hell crawled back out of their caves and have returned. Never forget.
It would seem that an order of Nuns has filed a petition to not provide birth control in any form stating that to do so would be a violation of their conscience and religious beliefs. Supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a stay late Tuesday preventing the government from enforcing the so-called contraceptive mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Apparently she agreed with them and gave the Obama administration until Friday to appeal her ruling , which they did, arguing that they, the Nuns, could get out of it by certifying that they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage. In that case, it would be up to a third-party administrator to decide whether to provide it. The Nuns lawyer responded with a 17 page appeal suggesting that by having them sign the paper it essentially means that they are advocating that someone else “sins” on their behalf.
But it's not just about the Nuns. The administration has called for all catholic groups to be forced into providing contraception (and in effect any religious group or organization) even though it goes against their religious beliefs.
Some of you reading this may think well that's just to bad for them but the law is the law. It may be,that it now a part of the law,but it's not morally right to force people into either violating their conscience or being seriously fined. I will also remind you that if they can force you to violate your religious beliefs, in violation of the first amendment, whats going to stop them from forcing everyone to violate their consciences? Would you be OK if the government passed a law saying that you had to cheat on your spouse, even though most in our society would disagree and all holy writings say no? What gives the federal government the right to force you or your religious group to violate your conscience? Seems to me the constitution says they don't.
In NSA related news, the Obama administration has asked for the FISA court to allow for the continuation of the NSA programs of mass collecting all of our digital data.
“The Obama administration moved on two fronts Friday to preserve the National Security Agency's controversial spy programs, appealing a major ruling against the agency while winning permission from a secretive court to continue collecting Americans' phone records.” (AP)
To start with we shouldn't have secret courts, this isn't the Soviet Union or North Korea, but the fact that the Obama administration would request that such a program continue (I know that Bush started all this but he resides in Texas now not DC and is of no importance to this discussion) tells me just how little regard that they have for the constitution and the rule of law, not that this is their only violation but it is one of the more blatant examples. This request follows the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon in which he called the NSA program "almost-Orwellian technology" and challenged its constitutionality. In the judges words:
"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast.”
I don't think I could have said it any better.
On a side note Senator Rand Paul ® of Kentucky will be filing a class action law suit against the Obama administration and the NSA for their violations of the 4th amendment via the NSA programs. He reportedly has hundreds of thousands of people joining him in this action, Ill keep you posted as I hear more about it.
I guess this wouldn't be complete if we didn't add another back door effort to regulate gun ownership. The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system,both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
If I believed that this was really about keeping guns out of the hands of truly insane people I would be all for it but the wording is a bit vague. First “those seeking mental health treatment.” Why would they want information just based on someone who is seeking help? Why would you put that in a “ Criminal background check?” Does the fact that I have sought out mental health treatment for PTSD, and I am likely to again in the future, make me some sort of criminal? I can understand that perhaps those that have been institutionalized might need extra scrutiny but by doing this you are going to make a whole lot of war vets very leery about seeking mental health for PTSD if there is even the slightest chance that they could loose their guns or the ability to buy them.
The second part “out of potentially dangerous hands” is also a bit vague. It wasn't that long ago when the politically correct thought was that “every man is a potential rapist” so using that argument would suggest that all of us gun owners have potentially dangerous hands, If having a Penis makes me a potential rapist, then having a gun surely must make me a potential killer. I'm no more dangerous then anyone else who legally owns and carry a firearm but who exactly determines that, which leads to my third point.
This would be in violation of the HIPPA law, giving your doctor the right to report you with no warning to you and , from what I can tell, you will have very little recourse once your mental health issues have been sent. So I go in to see my doctor because I am depressed or having more nightmares then normal, due to PTSD related issues, and he is anti gun, all he has to do is submit my information to this data base and it could stop my ability to own or posses a firearm. No crimes committed, no laws broken, yet my name would be entered into a criminal background data base all for seeking help.
One last note, totally unrelated to the above.
Thank you to my fellow Iraq vets for securing hell. Apparently our blood and tears were not payment enough and the minions of hell crawled back out of their caves and have returned. Never forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)