Beyond the Cusp

January 24, 2018

Congress Allows Government Funding, for Now

 

Congress reached an agreement to fund the government, as most people have heard. Their idea of funding the government is a three-week stop-gap measure and not an actual budget. Reports told that DACA amnesty supporters were furious that the Democrats permitted funding without any guarantee of amnesty. In reality, it should be those supporters of the wall who should be disappointed with this so-called compromise. The DACA amnesty is not the main bone of contention when compared to building protection on the borders. We were wondering if anybody out there has kept count as to how many times the wall has been promised and then pushed off and never considered after gaining the promised prize of amnesty again. Does anybody remember when President Ronald Reagan exchanged amnesty for border security and a wall across the majority of feasible regions to be financed the next session of Congress? We fully expect at some point the Democrat leadership to offer holding a vote next year for funding building the border wall. This is the ruse used by before and even getting to the point of voting for funding initially but when the time was imminent for building, the funding was mysteriously diverted elsewhere. The Democrats have supported a border fence as stated by President Barack Obama in his speech in El Paso, Texas on May 10, 2011. Allow us to first quote the President and then show a picture of his completed fence for discussion. President Barack Obama stated fence along the border with Mexico is “now basically complete.” But he continued on to describe the whining he expected from Republicans over his wall stating,

“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.”
“They’ll want want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

Jim DeMint wrote the response to President Obama stating, “Five years ago, legislation was passed to build a 700-mile double-layer border fence along the southwest border…This is a promise that has not been kept. Today, according to staff at the Department of Homeland Security, just 5 percent of the double-layer fencing is complete, only 36.3 miles.” So, was the fence completed as stated by President Obama or do the Republicans have an argument that the fence was not built as promised. Below is a picture of the fence near San Miguel, Arizona, part of the seven-hundred-mile fence described above.

 

Picture of the Fence near San Miguel, Arizona

Picture of the Fence near San Miguel, Arizona

 

The promised double fence, does this really appear to be what was promised? Granted, there are two different sized posts but does that make it a double fence? Then we are told that this fence is designed to stop vehicles from crossing the border. We are willing to bet that most of us were under the impression that the entire idea behind a double fence was to prevent people crossing, with or without a vehicle not to mention it is doubtful that most people crossing at this location are coming across on vehicles from dune buggies to recreational vehicles but rather they would probably be walking. We seriously doubt anybody thinks that this fence would prevent people walking across the border or matches the concept of a double fence by any rational concept of a double border fence designed and built to secure the border. Surprisingly, we actually believe a double fence requires two distinct and separate fences in relative close proximity equally difficult to traverse with an enforcement dirt track between them providing an area for ease of enforcement personnel patrolling in vehicles and responding to sensors and other alarms (see image below).

 

This is What We Believe a Border Fence Looks Like

This is What We Believe a Border Fence Looks Like

 

Now we have cleared up the definition of a double fence, which is why we advise the members of Congress desiring a real double fence include pictures, diagrams and other necessities so there will be no confusion as to what they mean by a double fence. The coming debate over the fence and the DACA refugees who are, and never forget this part, illegal immigrants who face deportation for crossing the border illegally, granted not of their own choosing as their parents brought them when they crossed the border illegally. The pivotal word is illegally. All the claims to the DACA having Constitutional rights are a bogus argument meant to allow these illegal immigrants to get around enforcement by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agents. Constitutional rights are for United States citizens which illegal immigrants are not. If the government was to dispatch ICE agents to one of the rallies supporting the DACA individuals and they were to arrest those announcing their being a, “proud child of an illegal immigrant whose parents brought them across the border,” to hold for a hearing and potential deporting, they would be well within legal rights to do so. Such has not been done nor have the ICE agents been ordered to even monitor these events. We guess that perhaps those enforcing the immigration laws are not the heartless beasts described in the media.

 

The DACA illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity and understanding with always in the background the fact that they are illegal perched over the proceedings. Those who were too young to have some say in their being smuggled into the United States should have that taken into account. If a DACA individual has no other criminal record should be permitted to stay once they have shown proficiency in English, United States Laws, the Constitution, and American Customs. But those with further felony convictions or several misdemeanor convictions, those should be deported. It will not be up to us to decide their fate, but they should be given a brief and defined period of time to come and apply for asylum, thus having a hearing on whether they deserve asylum or deportation. Those who do not voluntarily apply for a hearing should be deported as soon as possible after the grace period has passed. Providing hope and a fair and reasoned approach with the promise of fairness is what should be offered but making the grace period’s beginning dependent upon completion of the border fence would also be fair. Exchange of a period of a few weeks or months while requiring the completion of the border wall is only a fair and true offer which if refused would reveal whether or not the Democrats are being honest about the wall and remove their ability to later pull the funding by placing the grace period after the wall being completed. The grace for the DACA “children,” as most of them have grown into adulthood, must be placed as secondary to building the wall so as to finally guarantee the wall being constructed this time around. Time will tell.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

November 10, 2017

Bad Day for Guns and Gun Control

 

There was another mass shooting, this time in the small Texas town of Sutherland Springs. A known lunatic invaded the First Baptist Church with an AR-15 Semi-automatic rifle, which is modeled after the M-16 Military rifle, which acts the same as a modern hunting rifle, one pull of the trigger fires exactly one bullet. He murdered twenty-six and wounding another twenty all aging from five to seventy-two. Immediately after the shooting and before clear facts had been ascertained, the anti-Second Amendment and anti-Firearms ownership groups which want everybody disarmed and disarmed immediately as the sole way to prevent the next mass killing. Then the news started to come about the entire episode and we learned that two men in a pick-up truck chased after the killer and he lost control or somehow ran off the road and had died of a gunshot wound initially reported as self-inflicted. Then again, maybe not self-inflicted, there were conflicting reports that maybe he had been shot by somebody with a firearm, one of the men from the pick-up truck. He may have shot the fatal bullet. That became verified, the screams to disarm everybody ceased, and coverage waned from that point forward. Remarkable how the interesting fact that a citizen with their own firearm interrupted this shooting by engaging the murderer forcing him to turn tail and run and probably responsible for the police capture and eventual death of the shooter, and soon the media tires of coverage and those conducting the investigation quickly tie-up the loose-ends and put a bow on the closed box. Story is declared dead and dropped. Well, not quite yet, we have a hero, Stephen Willeford, to celebrate and if there is one thing our society needs, it is heroes (see below).

 

 

The day was actually full of heroes that day. There were the emergency responders who made their way to the Church to assist those needing medical care and taking care of the deceased. Then there was the local man who was stopped at the intersection and upon watching two men exchange shots and when one fled, the other ran towards his truck, breathlessly explained the situation and they then chased down the murderer and held him at gunpoint until and even after police arrived assisting them. The pick-up truck driver, Johnnie Langendorf, also was interviewed (see below). The attacker was pronounced dead soon afterward. Two heroes, one willing to drive and face danger and another with their personal firearm risking everything engaging the attacker and probably firing the fatal shot, were both engaging and gave media interviews. What a day.

 

 

The editorials were different this time because the knee-jerk response initially after the mass shooting at the First Baptist Church, they grabbed the attention of the people from the anti-gun side of the argument to sit up and prepare for their normal attempts to destroy the final restriction to invoking total control and establishing an iron fisted dictatorship. Whatever the real reason that people desire complete firearms bans, such will never be the case as unless the entire world is disarmed, there will always be firearms available to those determined to have them. That is simple to verify, as the terrorists always seem to have all the weapons they require, why every other person willing to illegally obtain them simply just would pay the price. That is human nature, to get that which they desire when they feel they need something. There are some unexpected by too many results when gun ownership rises (see graphs below). Accidental Child Firearm Deaths have dropped as gun ownership rose. The likely reason was more people became familiar with firearms and thus took the necessary care added to much publicity of warnings through Public Service Announcements (PSA’s). As gun ownership dropped in the United Kingdom violent crime and firearm deaths increased likely because the muggers and violent crime perpetrators knew that their victims would be unarmed and thus little to no threat to them. In the United States property crimes dropped once gun ownership passed a critical point, as now there was a better than average chance that the person being armed and able to protect their property. Finally, gun homicides dropped precipitously as gun ownership rose once again as people could now protect themselves and one another from the criminal elements. Guns prevent more crime than they are responsible for but the media does not desire you to know such. That is why they will harp upon a crime committed with a firearm for weeks on end but seldom speak of the crimes prevented by firearms, and the numbers are considered lower than actual as many people will not report prevention of a crime with a firearm as they fear the police attempting to disarm them and take their firearm as evidence never to be returned.

 

Unexpected Gun Statistics Gun Grabbers Rather You Not Know

Unexpected Gun Statistics Gun Grabbers Rather You Not Know

 

There is one final nail in the coffin for those wishing this crime would fit their cause and the need for evil use of guns and not heroes who utilize a private firearm in the hands of its owner preventing a crime from becoming even worse. The person who shot up the church, Devin Patrick Kelley, should never have been permitted to purchase a firearm as he had been convicted of spousal abuse. The problem arose as the United States Air Force never bothered to report his criminal conviction to the FBI as required by law. This failure to report his criminal past prevented the system from functioning as it is presumably set up to work. The federal database of people who are not to be permitted to purchase a firearm can only be as complete as the reports filed with the FBI and added to the computer logs. Devin Patrick Kelley being listed on the federal firearm database where the stores check to verify if one may legally purchase a weapon was prevented by not filing his conviction to the FBI. One can only wonder how many felons guilty of crimes which should prevent their ever owning a firearm are not listed for similar reasons. Maybe this event will make officers of the law and courts to be more dedicated in following procedures and make every required and necessary filing to prevent any such mistake in the future. Human error is a terrible reason for this tragedy, but that it may have come down to a United States Air Force Prosecutor or other officer of those courts not filing with the FBI a conviction to the FBI for inclusion on the Federal Firearm Ban Database; that is what the most regrettable revelation of this entire catastrophe is.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

October 6, 2017

Religion Under Assault in America

 

A couple of hundreds of some of the most prominent Christian leaders in the United States who came from across all denominations came together in Nashville, Tennessee where they signed a missive called the “Nashville Statement.” They conveyed their total support for the New Testament reaffirming over two millennia of Biblical injunctions and directives declaring the reaffirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman, G0d made us male and female and therefore transgenderism is incompatible with the Christian faith, and that the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin thereby rendering its acceptance as incompatible with the Christian faith. This drew many denunciations from among which the condemnation by the Mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, seemed unexpected. The most preposterous condemnation came from those who objected to the timing coming as the people of Houston and surrounding areas of Texas are suffering from Hurricane Harvey. I’m sure when these leaders of faith planned their assembling months ago they did it with the divine providing them with information that a hurricane would have devastated a large area of the southern United States and this was included in their plans. Please, give the world a break and please, if you are going to object, please find something more believable and applicable, something more real than attempting to shame them for a natural disaster coinciding as if such could be planned. But these were the least of the objections and the least damning as well.

 

When the content of the “Nashville Statement” was officially released, there were numerous condemnations denouncing the signatories as hateful, homophobic, as well as deceitful and not speaking in the nature or with the passions of Jesus. The word “hate” appeared to be the favorite uncivil invective thrown with obvious intent to harm the signers. But not to worry, keepers of the faith in all ages share one remarkable quality, their ability to shrug off scorn over their treasured beliefs as they often have experienced far too much practice allowing such to pass without taking offense. Their skin has developed a tender strength allowing them to be sympathetic and to understand that the people are defending their pet political beliefs and, they hope, not their deep moral beliefs. Religious people have come under more and more rejection for their beliefs which is regrettable as they mostly are the ones least likely to reject those who show them disregard. Religious faith is supposed to allow for people to come together but in this instance, it appears to have had the opposite effect. For that reason, despite my not being anywhere near an expert on the New Testament or, unfortunately, the Torah and remainder of what is referred to as the Old Testament, I wish to contest one of the reported points and make a distinction as a matter of mending fences.

 

Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible

Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible

 

The accusation made that they stated that the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin has to be inaccurate. If my knowledge is near accurate, the Bible states that sodomy is a sin, not homosexuality. One may love whomever they choose but the act of sodomy, whether performed between two men and by a man with a woman are equally a sin as both are sodomy. The Bible teaches us not to hate anyone else but to love everybody. We are to love the person and hate the sin, and that makes a huge difference as we are instructed to love the person including homosexuals and to hate the sin of sodomy no matter whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Unfortunately, the fact is that the act is the sin, not the emotions between people, which are to be judged. But this is lost in the arguments because if an act which can be either heterosexual or homosexual in nature, thus applicable to all men and not just those attracted to other men, then the argument loses all its political clout. What good is the naming of an act as a sin which has no political application when one can make a political stand claiming that religious people hate a certain group of people. One of the major problems with society today is that a certain group of political positions have decided that religion is their enemy and that if their visions of the world are to come true, then the first step is to rid the world of religious beliefs.

 

The absolute worst result from the “Nashville Statement” would be its use in the political war against religion and to attack and besmirch people of religious faith. The war against religion is simply a manufactured war being used as a ploy to attract disaffected people to a certain political viewpoint. Those of the viewpoint that the state must replace religion because religion ties people to a false premise and the state can be and is better suited to caring for people, are ignoring the benefits which came from religion as the force responsible for caring for those in need and the government taking care of the structures such as roads and other inanimate objects. The war against religion desires to claim that man has no divine spark and is no different than an amoeba, just a few million years more evolved which permits eugenics and other forms of population control and the classification of people instead of treating all people with respect and love. The war against religion would reduce humanity to cold calculations and nothing more and that would be a sad world in which to live. But that is exactly how the cold of heart will interpret the “Nashville Statement” and make nothing more of it than claiming it comes from those who hate, but the real question one need answer is who are the real haters, the ones who wish to turn humanity into nothing more than statistics in a government ledger. When one has that answer, then they will understand which respects and treasures people more, the political or the religious. I know which group we would trust our future to between the two.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.