Hope and Change

When did standing by the words of the Consititution of the United States become "probable cause" for detainment, search and seizure?

Multiple times this year people citing the constitution has been used as an example of those of whom you are supposed to be wary. They are potentially "domestic terrorists" and should be subjected to intense surveillance, detention, and otherwise un-warranted searches. These and other cautions have come from the heads of federal, state and local agencies as well as non-government groups and it's not just words.

If you think trying to adhere to your Consitutional rights won't get you in trouble these days it might be a good idea to check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFS7oZtE8Ks&feature=PlayList&p=254B3ADB194B895E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=51 .

In these cases the authorities cited "probable cause" as simply not allowing a search without a warrant. What? Yes, "probable cause" was knowing and requiring the authorities to abide by the provisions of the Constitution and the law in regard to requiring actual probable cause and a warrant before allowing a search.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In the above situation the person stopped at a checkpoint as required by law and refused to allow a search of his vehicle. Is refusing to allow a search without a warrant "probable cause"?

Quite simply, the answer is no. Any person subject to the Constitution of the United States has the right to insist that law enforcement be required to make their case to a judge to establish that law enforcement has probable cause to get a judge to issue a warrant for a search. Otherwise any law enforcement officer could at any time knock on your door and ask to search your house. If probable cause was established by citing your Fourth Amendment right to have them obtain a warrant the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningless.

Laws and Criminals

I've wondered for quite some time when it will be that some people "get it" then I saw the T-shirt. It said, "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy." This was obviously thought up by someone who gets it.

A lot of people think laws somehow prevent or discourage people from pursuing criminal behavior, and that simply isn't the case. Laws only tell criminals what might POSSIBLY happen to them IF they get caught.

I say POSSIBLY because there is a large chance of beating the system on a technicality even if you do get caught. I say IF because there is a large probability that they won't get caught at all. That's why so few people are responsible for such a large percentage of the crime. Criminals know this and they simply play the odds. The people who don't commit crimes because of laws already would not be committing them because to commit a crime would be at odds with their personality.

I don't steal, not because of a law, but because I simply don't steal. I don't burglarize homes, not because of a law, but because it's wrong. I don't put a gun in someone's face and rob them and maybe kill them in the process, not because of a law, but because its wrong. But what about the criminal.

The criminal doesn't care if anything is wrong, the only thing holding him or her back is realizing they have to avoid getting caught, or if caught; convicted. More laws don't hold them back. Stricter laws don't hold them back. So, what do more laws do? Let's consider gun control.

Will criminals abide by laws that restrict the ownership or possession of guns? Why would they? They already disobey laws because they commit crimes. What's one more law especially if disobeying it makes committing crimes easier. With a gun they might eliminate witnesses if necessary. They also do not depend upon obtaining guns "legally." In fact they prefer obtaining guns illegally since it makes them "harder to trace" which goes along with avoiding capture.

So, who would obey gun control laws? It would be the very people who would not be committing crimes with them in the first place. Does that mean gun control would simply have no effect? Quite the contrary. It means crime would increase.

Criminals would have all the guns they have always had, but the people they prey upon would be completely defenseless. Remember criminals "play the odds" and now the odds are shifted. There is less risk of being stopped or captured or leaving behind any witnesses. But what about the police? Can't we just depend on them to stop the criminals? No. We might depend upon them to catch a criminal after they have committed a crime, but unless the police have an immediate response time to a call for help, you are on your own for defense. And that's why the T-shirt made so much sense.

Ted Eickerman 2/2/1919-9/20/2009

My father, Ted Eickerman, passed away Sunday evening. He was 90 years old and a good father. He was one of those who came from "The Greatest Generation." He grew up in The Depression, was in WWII, subsequently owned his own business for a while, then worked until his retirement from Sturgeon and Beck (a car dealer) as a Body Shop man and later as Body Shop manager for many years. After being retired for a year he went back to work restoring antique tractors part time for the owner of Soults Pump & Equipment in Tulare until he retired a second time at the age of 79. Dad developed Vascular Parkinsons disease in his later years and it wore away at him and eventually left him unable to walk or take care of himself.

We miss you Dad.

Beyond the birth certificate

Obviously there has been a lot of discussion about Obama's birth certificate(s). However, what is not discussed is what would happen if it did turn out that Obama did not actually meet the Constitutional qualifications for election to the Presidency. So, let's just consider what might happen if it turned out that Obama was actually born in Kenya to a U.S. mother and a Kenyan father which would make him a citizen only of Kenya.

One could argue that any bills that Obama signed are nullified. Also any agreements Obama entered into with any other foreign head of state would be nullified. This would mean something like an official "do over" would have to take place. How this would happen is anyone's guess since we would be in a situation which has never happened before.

Would Joe Biden become president? One could argue that Biden himself was also elected in what could only be deemed a fraudulent election. So, would that lead us to the Speaker of the House? Well, Nancy Pelosi signed DNC documentation indicating that Obama was offically nominated for President and met the Constitutional requirements to fill that office. Clearly that would not be true but would immediately call into question whether she was part of a conspiracy. One could certainly make a case for anyone associated with the certification of the nomination being disallowed from assuming the Presidency.

That takes us clear down to President pro tempore of the Senate (ex-Klansman Democrat Robert Byrd) and following him, the Sectretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who was appointed by Obama (uh oh). Interesting. In fact, almost all of the rest of the string of succession are Obama apointees.

By the content of their character

In Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

President Obama whose father came from Kenya and whose mother came from the United States (both members of the "human" race) has been subject to a lot of judgement recently. That has been particularly true in regard to his statements about the various healthcare bills circulating through the U.S. Congress. Sadly, there are people who apparently still cannot get past the color of his skin. No, I'm not talking about the people who disagree with him. I'm talking about the people who do agree with him.

The only people who can't seem to deal with President Obama based upon his actions and decisions are those who are trying to forward his agenda. They are the ones who insist on hearing things that are not said, seeing actions that never happened, and making racial based statements about things that have nothing to do with race.

I have my doubts that Martin Luther King would be very proud of them today. Racism is a two way street.

Thomas Jefferson was right

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson.

The other day Nancy Pelosi looked visibly shaken and said, "This kind of rhetoric was very frightening and it created a climate in which violence took place." She was speaking in response to the fact that Rep. Joe Wilson had the audacity to say, "You lie," to the President of the United States in public. She was noting how this sort of thing has lead to violence in the past.

Right or wrong, I think Rep. Pelosi is finally beginning to get the message. The next sentence in Thomas Jefferson's quote is, "Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Could H1N1 be a self fullfilling prophecy

Clearly there is a lot of fear based information being circulated about H1N1 and the vaccine to be used against it. We hear about the potential for contamination of the vaccine with other viruses. We hear about the potential harm that could happen to a person's immune system due to the use of adjuvants in some versions of the vaccine. You hear about the potential for people developing Guillain Barre syndrome. But not too many people mention the fact that the vaccine just might be the mechanism for turning H1N1 into the massive pandemic people are afraid of.

There is something known as virus vaccine shedding, and it is proven fact with certain live virus vaccines and the H1N1 vaccine is a live virus vaccine. In fact, virus vaccine shedding is the reason the Sabin polio vaccine (remember the sugar cube doses), were pulled from the market in the United States.

Polio was virtually eradicated through the use of the Salk vaccine which was based upon injecting a dead virus into people. The people developed a resistance but there was absolutely no danger of getting the disease itself because the virus was actually dead. Then came the Sabin vaccine which used a weakened live virus. But something went wrong.

Polio cases began reappearing. Worse yet the people getting the disease were family members or others associated with someone who had received the new Sabin vaccine. As t turned out every new case of polio could be connected to someone who had been vaccinated, but why?

Well, a weakened virus which enters the human body can indeed confer a level of protection for the person who has been vaccinated. However the virus does exit the body through feces, sweat, coughing, and just from the breath. Essentially the vaccinated person temporarily becomes a carrier of a no-longer-weakened strain of virus. The virus that is expelled is once again at full strength and capable of infecting anyone who comes in contact with it.

Will this happen with the H1N1 live virus vaccine? Who can say since the vaccines will start distribution and use before clinical trials are complete. After all it wasn't a detected problem with the Sabin vaccine either, because, guess what? No one was looking for bad effects to people who were not the ones receiving the vaccine.

So, think about it, if H1N1 is shed from vaccinated people, a pandemic of catastrophic proportions will have been CAUSED by massive vaccinations.

Response to Rep. Harry Mitchell 9/16

Below is my response to one of those form letter emails you get when you write to Rep. Harry Mitchell.
-----------------------

Mr. Mitchell,
I fully believe this is a waste of time, but I'm going to respond to your form letter email which is not an answer to anything I have sent to you.

You said, "Thank you for participating in my live telephone town hall on health insurance reform. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss what I consider to be the important components of health insurance reform, update you on the status of this legislation in Washington, and answer questions."

That thing you inappropriately refer to as a town hall was anything but a discussion. It was predominantly a presentation by you with extremely limited feedback from a handfull of people. A town hall is when you have the guts to get up in front of a whole auditorium of people and face real questions and get real responses. As I told you in the email I sent that very night, the purpose of a town hall is not for you to tell us the way things are but for you to get a real feel from your constituents for how we want things to be. No guts no glory Mr. Mitchell.

You said, "Throughout the August district work period, I have had the opportunity to listen to the thoughts and concerns of thousands of constituents about health insurance reform. This is an intensely personal issue that affects us all."

Does that include the time in August that you were doing your tour in Israel?

You said, "During the live telephone town hall, I was pleased to have the opportunity to answer many questions. However, with more than 14,000 participants in the town hall, I unfortunately could not get to everyone's questions."

In addition to your telephone travesty I personally attended both Shaddeg's and Flake's town halls which were real in-person meetings with constituents. Each of them easily received 10 times the direct comments and questions with a thousand times better feel from the constituents than you did regardless of how many people you were pontificating to.

You said, "I agree with Sen. John McCain when he says that we cannot afford to do nothing. More and more families are losing access to the care they need, and our economy is suffering as businesses try to cope with escalating costs. Individuals with pre-existing illnesses or chronic disease are often denied coverage."

Well, I disagree with both of you. In truth we can ill afford to do the wrong thing just so that we can claim we did something. Doing the wrong thing in haste can end up helping no one and instead hurting everyone. Hurt everyone that is except government employees like yourself who will be exempt of course. Have you signed on to that bill that would require all Congressmen to take the public option?

You said, "Insurance premiums are rising, due in part to the costs associated with millions of Americans who lack coverage. The average American family is paying an extra $1,100 in premiums a year to pay for the shifted cost. While I support reforming of our health care system, current proposals in Congress are still not complete."

Time for a little dose of logic Mr. Mitchell. Those costs don't go away. They still get shifted. They just get shifted to the taxpayers while making a little detour through the government so you guys get your cut. So, instead of $1,100 of shifted cost burden it will be more like $2,000. Great cost saving. Oh, you meant that **you** will get to save our money from **us**! I get it.

You said, "First of all, I believe that reform should provide more choice, not less. I would not support a plan that would make you change your insurance."

I have seen no version of the bill that would not result in the extinction of existing plans in five years or less. It's the old bait and switch. Sure you can keep your **existing** plan, it's just that your current plan won't **exist**. It's an old magician's trick to give people what seems like a choice when in fact no real choice exists.

You said, "I oppose a government takeover of the health care system, also known as a single-payer system. I would vote against any proposal that would result in a government takeover."
Of course you wouldn't. It is never presented as a take over even when that is what it is. You always get to pretend it isn't. Then you don't get stuck with the result, but we do and we don't want it period.

You said, "In order to for any independent insurance option to be effective, I strongly believe it must operate on a level playing field with other private options-in other words, it cannot have any competitive advantage that could lead to unfair competition."

There is nothing that can ever be a level playing field between a government run system that takes it's losses out of the taxpayer pockets competing with insurance companies which don't get to tax people or print their own money.

You said, "I will not vote for legislation that would lead to rationing of care."
Systems are self regulating based upon cost or by rationing. There is no third alternative. If the cost is not in part carried by the person being cared for they judge the service to be free and the demand goes through the roof. Then the only way to keep costs down is by rationing. This kind of system involves rationing, official or unofficial, everywhere it has been used.

I'd go on, but like I said at the beginning, it's probably pointless. You are going to do whatever you are going to do, and in 2010 I'm going to do what I'm going to do at the voting poll.

Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona
Democrat, 5th District

Bill of Rights birthday

I just found out yesterday that the birthday of the Bill of Rights is December 15th. On that day in 1791 the first ten amendments became part of the Constitution of the United States of America. This came up because our family was talking about the whole 9/12 demonstation in Washington DC. We were talking about these things because it came to our attention that White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the demonstrations in Washington, D.C., Saturday did not represent the views of the broader public when it comes to health care reform.

You know, when you tell that to a bunch of people who are trying to get you to hear what they have to say you are asking for more of the same. You think people would have learned that from all the demonstrations in the '60s. If one demonstration didn't get people's attention there were more and they got bigger.

So, if the Whitehouse is going to be that dense, what if next time not only do you clog Washington DC, but every state capitol? That would give all the people who couldn't get to the U.S. capital a closer place to go to so that they can also participate. What date do you do this? What are we trying to get through to these people? Ultimately it is all about freedom and... RIGHTS! What better day than December 15th which is the birthday of the Bill of Rights!

Political Discussion at Gun Show

Last Saturday (9/12/09) my wife and I went to the Crossroads of the West Gun show at the fairgrounds in Phoenix. There were a lot of people there, and no I'm not some kind of maniac. My wife purchased a stunner she could carry with her while attending night classes. I bought a flint/steel/Magnesium fire starter. You can always have it with you and never worry about needing a lighter or matches or having matches that get wet.

Anyway, while working our way through the buildings there was a group having people sign a petition for Senator McCain to run for Senate again. I politely said no, but was asked, "Why?" Well, since he asked I said it was because I think McCain is a Liberal in conservative clothing. He said OK and I walked on. Then he asked my wife not realizing we were together and she called me back to where they were standing. He said, "Oh, he's not going to sign I already asked him." Then my wife asked why and I told her the same thing. At that point one of the other guys standing there decided to engage me in further discussions.

We probably talked another 10 or 15 minutes on a variety of subjects. I'm not sure how it came about but at one point we were talking about the Joe Wilson ("You Lie") situation. I told him I didn't like the way McCain wanted Wilson to apologize. His point was that during a Presidential speech to the Congress was not a proper place for such a thing, to which I responded that I though it was about time someone called Obama on all the lies he has been telling. The bottom line here is that I don't have much patience for people who lie regardless of their supposed position. As I said at the time, I respect the office of the President, but that doesn't mean I have any respect for a person occupying that office when he is telling lies.

In the end we agreed to disagree, but I told him that if the choice next time around was between McCain and someone more liberal I would vote for McCain even though I wasn't interested in signing the petition.

First Blog Posting

I've speculated about doing this for quite some time. In the past I have been a presence on a number of newsgroups and forums, but my participation there has waned in recent years. Now I'm thinking about producing some postings on new topics and thought this might be a good approach.

I go by my real name. I almost always have done so. I figured if something is worth saying it's worth standing behind it and letting the chips fall where they may. Hopefully that is a good decision because recently I have become one of those "sleeping giant" people who have been awakened by the current political turmoil. I didn't realize how much until I spent a lot of time the other day engaging a political supporter for McCain in regard to the recent Joe Wilson situation in the Congress.

Well, let the games begin.