Is it treason to plot to overthrow the Government of the United States?

7 Oct

When someone plots against the government of the United States, then carries out the plot; that is treason!  We find out who is plotting against the government, and as soon as the plot is discovered the culprits are arrested.  They are then tried for treason or sent to Guantanamo for interrogation.

 

This is correct and the way it should be.  We now have people who campaigned and were elected by their accomplices to congress with the promise to shut down the government and overthrow the present administration.  The larger majority elected the President for a second term because the accomplices of the traitors could not get a majority to agree with them.

 

We stand now with a partially shut down government with the possibility of going into financial default.

 

It is now time for the justice department of our government to step in and arrest those advocating the overthrow of our government, the ones that backed them in the election and is supporting them now, and if votes were not private, the accomplices that voted them into office.

 

Each one of those advocating all the above is also guilty of fraud.  They swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States after they swore to the people who elected them that they intended to shut down the government.

 

The question is not, “Should we intervene?” The question is, “should we honor our treaty?”

11 Sep

It is confusing to us that try always to be strong and stick to our convictions when the congress agrees to sign a treaty that has a clear intent to interfere when someone uses weapons of mass destruction against civilians, then turn the other cheek when the time comes to stand behind the resolution to sign the treaty and its many amendments.

 

The UN Security Council is, as always, a joke.  After concluding that the chemicals were used, it does not go forward honoring its own treaty.  England then followed the process by denying the support for the US that trying to follow treaty.  As usual Russia and China are on the other side with their usual objections to help anyone but themselves.  Come to think of it they may be Republicans. 

 

If we are not going to honor our treaties then we should not sign them.  I believe if a treaty is proposed and ratified by congress, it simply has to be kept.  The president only has to be certain in his mind that the weapons of mass destruction were used then give an order to stop it.

 

If the Representatives and Senators want to stop this action they must vote to be removed from the treaty with whatever repercussions that brings. 

 

This isn’t rocket science.  I can’t believe that 300 or so lawyers can’t understand the procedure or the consequences.

Imagine a world

27 Aug

Imagine a world where you spend a couple thousand dollars on your present automobile or truck and increase your fuel mileage as much as 100%.  That is without becoming a hybrid.  Using that type of technology to build a hybrid and the most efficient batteries would increase average fuel mileage for cars and trucks to a point that it would give us ample time to convert to renewable energy worldwide without further damage to the environment.

 

The car manufactures are ridiculously claiming that they are making good progress on fuel economy.  This is simply a lie of great proportions.  This technology has been offered to the three major US car manufacturers, and they did not even consider it.

 

You ask, “is this possible?”

 

I am reporting to you that this is not only possible; it is a fact now.

 

Imagine a world where we could order fish either at the market or off a menu that is free of decease but has no meds present in the fish when harvested and has no mercury or any other waste present at competitive prices.  Beef or Chicken without meds present and no growth hormones that corrupts our bodies.

 

I am report to you that this is not only possible, but the technology to do this is present now.

 

Imagine a world where the drinking of water can reach every cell of your body and could be a great in staving off cancer.

 

Imagine a world where you money could not be stolen from the bank.  Encryption to personal information you control could be safe from anyone.  Messages could be encrypted so they cannot be broken.

 

Imagine a world where solar energy would keep producing energy 24 hours a day utilizing one of the most common elements on earth.

 

Imagine a world that allows a property owner to get a low interest mortgage that paid the purchaser a rebate on his purchase that could help with their children’s education and retirement simply using the value of a dead asset, the home.

 

Imagine a world where you purchase a life insurance policy which protects you loved ones that you only pay three years premiums then it pays for itself and make a profit.

 

This RV blessing that is about to come to fruition could be the answer to our brothers and sisters that have not been able to involve themselves in this could benefit from our efforts if we take a different avenue that the present power broker that run this country.

 

I am only one consultant that observes these and many other opportunities coming across our desk every day.  Once one achieve’s a certain level of wealth it is then easy to earn profit.  However, when many people who have come into new wealth both profit and blessings described above are possible.

 

If a leader would come forth now has the trust by all became a leader in this venture we could not only change this country, but the world.

 

Will we have enough money to do this? 

 

The answer is no, but if we only took ten percent of the money we will get and apply it to a project that would support amplifying such technologies, we could change the way economics work in the US and maybe the world.

 

The growth will be supported as long as bank and other companies borrow money for growth and projects.

 

Will this idea work if it were a public company?  Again no is the answer.  Public corporations have a different idea of how business works.  A humanitarian prospectus for a public company is impossible, but it would be as hard as a camel going through the eye of a needle or (eye of the needle), depending on how you interpret the passage.     

voting regulations

21 Aug

It is unfortunate that the politicians and Judges in power don’t have the intelligence to assess the problems to make proper decisions concerning anything.  In this case I am referring to voting.

 At the present time we have the states making decisions on how to vote in federal elections.  Since all the total population is eligible to vote for all federal policy makers in the legislative branch of government and the president and vice president in the executive branch of government, I believe the federal government should have the right to adjust the voting rights for those elections.

 

If I am voting for President or Vice President, if anyone anywhere in the United States is disenfranchised from voting my vote is either enhanced or impaired which should not be the case ever.  My vote should be on an equal playing field with all the others voting for candidates for those offices.  If I am voting for a senator or representative to sit in the United States Congress,   if anyone anywhere in my state is disenfranchised from voting my vote is either enhanced or impaired which should not be the case ever. My vote should be on an equal playing field with all the others voting for candidates for those offices. 

 

In any other scenario of voter control only a few persons are manipulating the system to elect only those they want to be elected.  Therefore this ability of choosing representatives on a national level should be regulated by the Federal Government.  

 

The states then could set the regulations for state and local representation.  This however in many states would result in two elections and to sets of voting cards.  In many cases it would case two separate elections to be held.  This would be more expensive, but it would be the only thing that would come close to the intentions written in the Constitution. 

 

If my argument holds then the Federal Government in its elections should make the rules of election uniform throughout the United States so we don’t end up in a situation that allows the Supreme Court to elect the president. 

 

I checked into American Values First website because I was happy someone was thinking, at least I thought, outside the box to discover they were probably working the same way everyone else is working.  This description refers to individuals and organizations that simply have an idea and sell it.  They are afraid to allow people to give real input to address problems faced.

 

The present administration is doing the same thing.  They want change, but not from the ground up.  They solicit people that caused the problems to solve the problems without input from the people that are working within the conditions that resulted from the problems caused by the people in power that caused the problems.

 

I suggest someone read the definition of grass roots and instead of just saying grass roots, follow the definition principles.   

The Tea Party is officially a cult

9 Aug

I have been thinking about the Tea Party that has positioned itself within the Republican Party which is the more closely aligned group and easily manipulated.  I have determined that it is officially now a cult. 

 

A cult is a group that thinks about, talks about and takes on no projects or actions with the exception of those activities which promotes the goals of its members.  Cults have murdered people and/or just taken its members on a ride which has been unhealthy and sometimes dangerous for the community in which they reside or operate.  Normally we think that all the power of the cults is normally directed to the members within its influence, but just think how powerful a cult would be if it could affect change outside its influence.  A cult with power?  What a thought.

 

Normally we hear a spokesman from a cult and shake our head and wonder what happen in this person’s life to make them think like they do.  When we hear how the individuals inside the cult were manipulated, we feel sorry from those individuals.

 

Now think about what I have just written and think about the Tea Party.  Their spokesmen make outrageous statement on a constant basis.  We then think politically instead of logically how we could bring them into our fold of negotiations allowing us to get some work done.  Instead we should be thinking of them as a person in a cult that will not think any other way.  They are controlled by some entity, entities, or thoughts that will not allow them to move from their position.  They tell us it is the bible, but those of us who have read the bible know it is not.

 

Now let’s think about a cult with power.  John Banner is not in the Tea Party, I do not believe. However in his effort to accommodate all the members on the Republican side of the isle, He has caved in to begin pacifying the cult, Tea Party.  This caused things that have damaged the bills that have been passed, and kept bill that should have gone forward to be stopped in its tracks.  This power could keep its reign over Congress until Tea Party Justices could be placed on the Supreme Court. 

 

This cult could damage the presidency of Obama or even a conservative republican it he were elected.  I am an independent business consultant and former branch manager of a very large company plus many years of sales experience.  I have the ability to sell people things they don’t need, but that isn’t a salesman, that is a con artist.  However during my years of work, I study people, so that helped me write this note.  As a consultant, I am presented with problems.  My job then is not to find a way out of a difficult situation but to find the cause of the problem then find a way out. 

 

I believe I have found the infection in this government and it is the cult known as the Tea Party.  They will say it is the deficit or this or that.  Those problems can be worked out by normal thinking people.  A cult can never work out solutions.  If something isn’t done about this cult we will be in this fix for decades and maybe never return to normal. 

 

The solution is to ignore their rhetoric and just consider their goals as a negotiating point they should be considered, if reasonable.  They should be taken out of any powerful position on any committee.  Lastly their private goals should be exposed and they should not have a forum.  Most of the latter has been the fault of the media.  The media covers much of what they say because it is so ridiculous it makes good sound bites.  

 

If I had my way everyone would be forced to read and study the bible.  However that is not America.  My pray to my God is that we feed the poor, help those that want to change, and expose God and his principles to everyone that will listen.

What is the difference in fussing and arguing?

8 Aug

I am sure that many people don’t know, but he lawyers in congress should know.  They don’t practice what they know.  As with many of us it isn’t that we don’t know what to do; we don’t do what we know.

 

In the mid 1900’s when I was growing up I knew even then that the statement many fools even in my own family would say, “I don’t argue about the bible or politics.”  Even then I knew that was a stupid statement.  However, I had and still have many arguments about both, but I don’t fuss about either. 

 

To fuss means we say I’m right and you’re wrong.  An argument says that I believe something and this is why.  In other words we make a point using some degree of logic.  The fussing category is what we hear from Washington and many of my friends.  We need more arguments the campaigns.  We need arguments in Congress.

 

Constantly we have opinions instead of facts and conclusions, too many times, bases on the wishes of controllers.  If one cannot listen to an opposite view, take a position, and enter facts or suggestions that will bring that opposing view and his own view closer together; one should not be in Congress. 

 

In the history of democracy we learn that everyone cannot agree on anything no matter what the subject becomes to be.  Our republic has its drawbacks simply because of control of numbers.  If one owns ten percent of the stock of any company and has a reasonable influential position over another forty one percent, one has a better than even chance of controlling the chairman, several board member, and thus the policies and procedures of the company.  As a result the company’s goals become the goals of the one rather than the many.

 

This is the way of congress now.  The Tea Party fusses about nonsense in order to keep the rest of Congress from debating the issues.  The way this works is Congress over many years has taught the public to listen to phrases and other sound bites instead of doing some research themselves on the issues.  The Team Party uses this fact to keep up the rhetoric which seems to be strong enough to keep the more reasonable members of Congress from fearing the electorate. 

 

I wanted to find a group of people trying to fight the ridiculous methods and laws produced by Congress, but I find that they are using the same tactics of sound bites they are trying to fight.

 

I plead with the electorate first to grow your numbers and become involved in the process, but be careful.  Now the organization best to lead this revolution is the White House.  The problem there is that they use the same people who are causing the problems of our country as advisors.  They will not look for people that think outside the box. 

 

When I say think outside the box, I don’t mean people that have radical ideas.  There are no new ideas.  There are only idea expansions.

 

The people that run these United States made their money and/or gained their power within a system they refuse to change because it will hit their bottom line.  Of course their bottom line is so large that it doesn’t matter what they give up, so the threat then becomes losing power.

 

The electorate’s problem then becomes to be to elect and/or direct those in Congress to think of the electorate’s best interest then the interest of the country with emphasis on how the national laws passed effect their particular electorate’s interest and also protect the country’s power to keep the structure created by the founders safe from outside influence.  

Is the Far right – right

13 Jul

I am very concerned about the direction our conversations of government and religion are going.  I will concentrate on this for a time.  Many of my fellow citizens do not seem to follow closely enough the shallow interpretation of the ones with the loudest voices.  At this time the Tea Party says we should always follow the bible teachings in life and force government to place those interpretations on all citizens. 

 

If we look at the Middle East right now we will see that the approach of a Theocracy government will not work.  If we follow the line thinking presented to us by the Tea Party, we will eventually become governed by the religious right.  It hasn’t worked in the Middle East and it isn’t going to work here.

 

Jesus never said to anyone you must follow me.  If he has said that to the people that everyone would have followed him, it would not have meant anything to Him or them.  He said you must choose to follow me if you want to go to heaven, but there is not a mandate to go to heaven.  It is a choice.

 

Mohammad on the other hand conquered his way into power and forced people to live the way he purposed or die.

 

What we do have in the United States are laws, at least originally, that put forth the values of the Christian religion without the rule that we must submit ourselves to the Lord.  That is what our founding fathers saved us from.  We don’t have to serve the Lord, but we must follow His principles in our society.

 

There is no statement that says separation of church and state.  The church is all over our constitution with the exception that the state cannot declare that we have to follow one or the other religious paths to heaven.  That is left up to the individual.

 

Let us suppose that the Christian far right wins, and we become a Theocracy.  Let us also suppose that in the future the Muslim religion becomes dominant in Congress.  Let us then assume that the far right Muslim (Taliban) which would be like our Tea Party interact with our Congress the way the Tea Party is reacting now.  We would not get the reasonable activity of the Muslims in our government now.  It would be a nightmare as compared to the actions of the Tea Party’s escapades. 

 

This type of government could evolve into a police force enforcing the laws of the land and another police force enforcing the Muslim laws.  Several years ago I was with a Christian businessman in Casablanca, Morocco.  He pointed to the very large Mosque down town and said, “Even though I am a Christian I had to help pay for the building of that Mosque.”

 

Jesus said feed the poor, but at the same time said, through Paul, those that do not work should not eat.  There is always work that can be done, so work can be mandated unless the people are incapable of working because of physical ailments.  This does not mean children have to work.  They should be feed and schooled properly, learning about the responsibilities they will later face.  Children should not be denied exposure to shelter, food, clothing and education.  We have the money to do that either through the church, where it should be, or the government who was given that responsibility by the church who didn’t want it.

 

It’s not complicated.  It is simple.  We should use the KISS method of governing.  KISS is an acronym for Keep It Simple Stupid

 

Simple – vote for those people that share your values.

Simple – Prioritize our federal budget to reflect the responsibility of the federal                                        government to the people.

Simple – Throw out those in government that are not doing their job.

Simple – We fire every Congressman every two years.  Think before you vote.

Simple – We fire every Senator every six years.  Think before you vote.

Simple – Love your neighbor

Simple – If you believe, Love your God

Simple – If you don’t have God in your life find him and read his word.    

This is a sad day

26 Jun

1962 Supreme Court decision took prayer out of our schools. This action was brought about by someone that didn’t believe in God and wanted their child not to be exposed to such prayerful activity. The truth is that if they didn’t want to pray they didn’t have to do so. Also even if someone held a gun to their head, no one can make a student listen to what is being said. If that were a possibility I would favor teachers having guns just to get the students attention. I have said many times that if you don’t believe and don’t want to believe, I will pray for your, but what I do should not make any difference to the unbeliever.

I don’t remember the word prayer being given a legal definition. Everyone just assumed that we all knew what it was and it just didn’t need to have a definition. Prayer is a private conversation between one person and their God. If I am involved in a public prayer the person leading the prayer cannot pray in my place. They can pray for me, but that can’t pray in my place. I have to do that myself.

I don’t want to infringe on anyone else’s religion, so they should have the right to pray by themselves or not pray. However if they say that I can’t pray any time or anywhere I want, they are infringing my right to honor my God. In that situation the state is trying to force me to become non religious. Nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase ‘separation of church and state’. This is a phrase that is repeated by representatives of our government and the media constantly that simply does not exist.

Later the court decided that you could pray but not out loud. These actions were brought about by a suite from the right which was badly orchestrated and didn’t go far enough to correct the wrong done years before.

Religious symbols on public property was also a problem. We could not display a manger scene, but we could have the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court Building. We have a chaplain in congress. This is another mixed signal that is sent down by the Supreme Court. In none of the cases above is the problem clearly identified before a solution is rendered.

In Roe vs Wade the court decided that they knew when life begins instead of leaving that definition to the expert scientists. The Court decided that didn’t begin until the second trimester. Another short sited decision.

Now the Court has legitimized Gay Marriage. Again they didn’t identify the definition of marriage. Marriage throughout time has been the union of a man and woman for the purpose of producing a child. All married couples didn’t produce children, but the equipment was there. Women produce eggs and men produce sperm. This is the natural way of things. The court did not define they thing they were trying to control. I am not saying that gay unions should not be legitimatized but not as marriage.

I have heard the argument that our values have changed. Our values haven’t changed. Values are what they have always been. We have just allowed the devil’s goals to replace our values. My Lord God can take this country away from us in an instant. Our values have to be His values, or there are not values.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU THINK

24 Jun

I just wrote the Supreme Court a note that said they should thing more broadly when considering the decisions they hand down.  I was especially referring to abortion, ethnic problems such as Affirmative Action, and gay marriage.

 

For instance abortion is simply a matter of deciding when human life begins.  The court made a decision that life begins after the first trimester.  There was no way they could have possibly known when life begins.  At the time the decision was handed down there was not enough knowledge about pregnancy to determine when that is.  If the decision was handed down that said that abortions were illegal except in the defense of the life of the mother and left the determination of when that moment is to the scientific experts, an abortion would now be anytime after the fourth day the egg is impregnated by the sperm and the organizer shows up. 

 

However, because the Supreme Court determined that they are God, this decision stands to this day.  Should it take another case to revisit this travesty or could Congress make a law that says life begins when the AMA says it begins based on good solid Intel that could be revised further as me know more. 

 

In the case of Affirmative Action, again the Court handed down an absolute ruling that covered the minorities.  It was so ill-thought out that it has caused everyone that is in any way subject to any odd activity to be able to use this to challenge decisions.  Using the law to micromanage situations such as these is a message from the workers of these United States that we refuse to negotiate without government stepping in to take the load.  However there are many (I would say the majority) of those people with grievances not being serviced by these decisions.

 

The decision does not protect the majority.  As system that would protect the majority would be a group that would protect the whistle blower and the employees that are being treated badly.  The ACLU would be a good source, but they only want cases that promote their agenda that usually does not have anything to do with the protection of the subject.  The federal government cannot micromanage every citizen plus every company and every decisions maker inside those companies.

 

Laws passed by Congress and rulings handed down by the Supreme Court have in common the ambiguousness in laws and rulings that have to be interpreted by courts instead of the experts in the field ruled upon.

 

Another example is the gay marriage situation.  To say that  gay marriage is legal because gay is a sect is like saying that drug addicts should be able to take drugs with no consequence because they cannot help it, or a person should be able to smoke anywhere they want because they have a habit.  If a person is gay they are gay.  They should have equal rights under the law to protect each other from undue financial problems, but to say they need marriage to do these is nuts.

 

The gays have imposed their will on me and cheapened the sanctity of my marriage.  They have stepped on my religious rights by taking from my bible the word marriage and making is something that my God says is despicable.  They have just crossed the line of dictating to me that I have to abide the concept of gay marriage even though it is specifically not allow in my religion.

 

In these cases the state legislators have said to God we know better than you.  We will do what we want.  I would be afraid to say to God such a thing. 

 

The Declaration of the Constitution says that I am endowed with certain inalienable rights, which among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I AM NOT HAPPY WITH THESE LAWS AND RULINGS.

Privacy Protection and Treason

18 Jun

The discussion about privacy in all cases I have heard even from Congress and other political persons concern the symptoms instead of focusing on the real discussion of protecting the rights and safety of our citizens.  I don’t understand why we have been, as a people, put in a position of protecting terrorist and other criminals above the welfare of the citizens.  First we should determine if the laws protect law abiding citizens from harm. 

 

Don’t misunderstand accused citizens have rights which generally are stepped on my all law enforcement agencies.  This is another point and should be discussed separately.

 

If a person or persons plot to overthrow the government, kill one or more individual citizens whether in country or citizens in foreign countries, these persons should be considered terrorist.  At the point the plot exists, the citizenship of the perpetrators should never protect them from retaliation from our government.  Whatever it takes to protect the innocent citizens should be on the table. 

 

It is the plot or declaration that should make the difference.  If a person says to another person, “I am going to kill you or your family, or otherwise bring harm to them or their assets.”  The declarer just announced a plot to do harm to someone else.  At this point in time these people are declared not to have done anything yet.  This is a lie.  They have probably struck fear in the heart of the recipient of the declaration.  If this can be cohobated the declarer should be arrested as a terrorist.  That is an act of terror whether domestic or foreign.  The person could be reacting and not proactive, but this can be sorted out in the investigation.  

 

Most all domestic crime is money oriented.  In general people either want something someone else has or are taking advantage of people in secret.  There are the killings of rage and robbery killings.  There are the killings that are caused from drugs and other crime related causes which could fall into the definition of a plot.  Targeted killings whether domestic or foreign are a different category.  These are people either foreign or domestic that have decided to kill, maim, or otherwise violently disrupt our way of life.  I my opinion these people have renounced their citizenship. 

 

As a naturalized citizen that has taken an oath to uphold the constitution or a natural born citizen that is bound by the oath your fathers or even ancestors took to make this nation an independent republic, we have agreed to live by the laws of the United States “inadvisable with liberty and justice for all” which we all say when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.  Once we ignore the principles of the Constitution of the United States, we should not expect to be protected by them.

 

For instance Edward Snowden is a traitor.  He has and/or is putting the wellbeing of many people at risk.  This is a plot to undermine the principals of our government.  Instead of pussyfooting around, this man should be apprehended and summarily executed. No one can undo what he has done, but there should be no way he should be able to justify his actions.  He is not a whistleblower.  He is a traitor.  A whistleblower brings some wrong to the attention of those that can do something about the plight of injustice they have discovered.  Clearly not enough protection is given whistleblowers for they serve a very useful purpose and should be compensated for what they have done.

 

The problem seems to be what should be controlled by the states and what should be controlled by the federal government.  As soon as it is discovered that a crime either planned or committed is discovered or simply executed that is indiscriminately planned or carried out, the activity should be declared terrorism and be tried under the laws of treason.  As soon as the act is classified terrorism and/or treason the federal laws should prevail.

 

There are many examples of this type of crime. Now with the internet becoming a tool, we cannot allow the abuse of the internet unless it is regulated properly.

 

When the internet became available to the public and the search areas included finding people you wanted to find, it was basically free to all.  As the money hungry people began to see the possibility of making a profit from this great tool.  Agreements were made between governments and certain companies to let the governments deal with these companies, blocking the access to certain information from the general public.  The internet, in my opinion, is just like the radio waves, or the telephone frequencies owned by the people.  The internet must be regulated to a degree that we cannot become victims of all this information available.

 

First we must take control of the internet to the degree that it cannot be manipulated to indiscriminately allow personal information to be exploited in any way.  This would include the marketing use of the internet.  If someone wants to know what I buy, send me a survey.  I have discount cards, and if I buy milk from Kroger’s then they have a right to use that information.  I applied for their card.  However, they should not be able to give or sell that information to anyone else.  The act of volunteering my information by applying for the card should settle that point.  This should apply to all cards including credit cards.

 

However, if it is determined by a judge that I need to be watched or investigated, the government should be able to access the Kroger data base and determine whether or not the fact that I buy milk is important to the investigation going on.

 

Now how would we get there?  Before a judge would issue such an order patterns would have to immerge to show cause.  This would come from normal investigation using what is and has been available to law enforcement taking care not to overstep the citizen’s protection rights.

 

When a person that normally does not buy nitrates suddenly or continually purchases nitrates, there could be system that allows a store owner to report such abuse much like people are reported for buying excess amounts of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride.  This type of data base should be legal and expected.  If citizens buy guns or large amounts of ammunition they should be reported by the store owners.

 

There should be no exceptions to these rules.  Information should be free to all from the data base.  This should not be a database that requires joining.  It should just be a database on the internet protected from anyone accessing the information to alter the results of the posts made to it.  Such protection does exist.

 

In the case of what would be terrorist or traitors, the federal government tends to want to keep this information secret, but it should not be.  It should be that I, as an average citizen, I notice someone doing something that seems to me to be abnormal.  I could look on the internet database and see that this person has been reported before for odd activity.  I then make my report.  My identity is protected as an informant from the general public, but not to the government agency that reads the report.  From this information the government can begin making a case for an investigation.  Only during a trial would the names of the reporting citizens be used if necessary.

 

We must change the way we look at criminals, terrorist, and traitors in the country if we want to protect it.  We must change the way we protect the rights of privacy.  We are in a different age of information.  We must at all costs change the way we approach privacy without giving a benefit to a few corporation to make money.  Any system we create must be owned and controlled by the federal government.  The state governments must not be able to control it away from the federal government because the state might be trying to plot against federal lawt.

 

Our prison system is so antiquated and confused as to who should be in jail for what purpose we desperately need to redefine the classification of who we now call criminals and house them separately with help to those that can be saved while just keeping the hardened criminal sequestered from the public.