Sosbee.com

If there are three constraints, above all else, under which the Supreme Court of the United States must operate, they are: non-partisan, impartial, and neutral. The Court cannot ever be permitted to pursue an agenda of any kind, as this Court has done, nor allow that agenda to influence the cases they choose to hear, nor the evidence or argument they allow regarding those cases. When the court ignores these constraints, there is only one remedy available to the citizenry and that remedy is IMPEACHMENT. The justices never need to face the voters periodically to atone for their misdeeds as do Congressmen. They can legislate freely, as this court has done, without fear of being called out, and can thumb their collective noses, as they have done, at the rest of the country. So, while the other branches of government are struggling to determine what kind of country the United States will be, the conservative justices on the court are snickering in their robes. They already know what they will do to the country’s laws, precedents, and traditions, and it will not be pretty. Our only defense against this continued assault on the Constitution will require the election of progressives in 2016 and impeachment in 2017.

Is there a tipping point in world affairs, and if so, have we reached it? The old saying was: “cheer up, things could be worse”, but could they? Could things be worse than they already are? In America and in the rest of the world, is this the way people will live in the future? If so, the whole educational curriculum, the way we train our children to cope with life, must be drastically changed. If not, what must be done and by whom to bring about whatever actions will effect basic improvements in the way civilization is supposed to work? For starters, go back to World War II when there was widespread agreement that the world really needed to do things differently. A movement emerged called “moral rearmament” which, as its name implied, showed how to live and govern on a high moral plane. The trouble was, not many people signed on. So we formed the United Nations. All the nations of the world joined and some remarkable work has been accomplished under the UN umbrella. The trouble here is:the UN has no teeth, no enforcement powers, and any one of the big nations in the Security Council can veto any action needed to settle any trouble anywhere.
Rogue nations now do as they please without suffering any consequences. If instead these rogue nations faced total banishment from the community of nations, would they change their ways? Banishment would mean no other UN member would have any trade, travel, or other business with that banished nation under penalty of similar banishment.
Imagine what could have been done by a strong UN police force comprised of trained personnel and equipment contributed by all the UN members in:
The Rwanda massacre, the coastal vole genocide (?), the Israel-Gaza conflict, Russia Ukraine, West Africa and the Sudan, Cyprus, ISIS, ISIL, Iran, Korea – North Korea, Vietnam – South Vietnam, high seas piracy, central American exodus, etc. there would be no need for armed troops to invade or occupy any errant country. Banishment would provide the necessary persuasion, such as China’s annexation of Tibet, Indonesia’s persecution of East Timor, Russians in Ukraine, North Korea and Iran’s nuclear armament, etc. Military force would only be necessary in situations like the “Jan Jaweed” massacres in Sudan, “BOKA HAROM” in West Africa, ISIS in the Middle East, and other outlawed groups or governments that terrorize their own innocent citizens. Any government could call on the UN for help, either to eliminate the internal terrorists or to mediate legitimate public unrest that threatens the peace, such as the Arab spring, Syria, Egypt, etc. As for America, the most powerful of the world’s nations, there is a legitimate expectation of a leadership role. However, except for the invasion by North Korea of South Korea, America has either ignored trouble or taken an ill-advised and destructive course: Vietnam and Iraq are the worst examples, of course. Now all the world is caught up in a boiling cauldron of trouble on almost every continent: Europe, Africa, North America, South America, Asia, you name it. And the UN is powerless to do anything to relieve the suffering of innocent people.
Regardless how these present crises are resolved (if ever), similar situations will keep cropping up again and again somewhere or other or everywhere. The world will stand by watching with much wringing of hands but no action. In the meantime, right now, if there is ever to be any hope for the generations to come, we must take action, Radical Action First, Obama must go to Russia, the sooner the better. He must sit down with Putin and acknowledge that our two countries, we who put down the Nazi menace together, are too important to the future well-being of the world to waste time trying to one-up each other. Together these two leaders must develop a plan for the revitalization of the UN:
First, eliminate veto power in the Security Council. All it does is obstruct progress.
Second, organize an international rapid reaction force to respond to uncontrolled banditry, genocide, state persecution of innocents, and protection of the UN’s humanitarian efforts.
If these two improvements can be accomplished, there is a chance that the founding principles of the UN can eventually be realized. However, don’t hold your breath. As long as the tea party is running the country, nothing constructive is ever going to happen, either here or at the UN. So, first things first: go to Russia, put the tea party in its place and then go to work on the UN’s enforcement capabilities. Until then, the militarists will continue to pile up the profits while the bad guys continue to pile up the bodies

Two specific things, and only these two, will reduce gun deaths in America: 1. First and most important, we must repeal the Second Amendment. It was designed for a different purpose at a different time in our nation’s history, and serves absolutely no purpose today other than to increase the proliferation of murder weapons throughout society. 2. Outlaw all handguns, assault rifles, and large ammo clips. Allow 30 days for people to turn in their murder weapons after which possession would mean automatic jail time, no excuses. Law enforcement and military would be the only ones allowed to carry, concealed or open, and stop and frisk would be permitted in high crime areas, but only for gun possession, not for any other reason. Gun lovers and the NRA have had their way for far too long. It is now time to get hard-nosed and quit knuckling under to the enablers of gun murder.

Two specific things, and only these two, will reduce gun deaths in America: 1. First and most important, we must repeal the Second Amendment. It was designed for a different purpose at a different time in our nation’s history, and serves absolutely no purpose today other than to increase the proliferation of murder weapons throughout society. 2. Outlaw all handguns, assault rifles, and large ammo clips. Allow 30 days for people to turn in their murder weapons after which possession would mean automatic jail time, no excuses. Law enforcement and military would be the only ones allowed to carry, concealed or open, and stop and frisk would be permitted in high crime areas, but only for gun possession, not for any other reason. Gun lovers and the NRA have had their way for far too long. It is now time to get hard-nosed and quit knuckling under to the enablers of gun murder.

Margie Fraiser’s contention (October 3, 2015) that government shutdowns are “the work of both parties” needed some near-ancient history to make her point. She selected shutdowns from over a generation ago (38, 37, and 36 years) when Jimmy Carter was president. However, she failed to describe the reasons for, or instigators of, the shutdowns. Today, Republicans are ready to do it again (over the flimsiest of reasons), but since Obama is still president, Ms. Fraiser would also blame this one on the Democrats. Tsk, tsk.

Margie Fraiser’s contention (October 3, 2015) that government shutdowns are “the work of both parties” needed some near-ancient history to make her point. She selected shutdowns from over a generation ago (38, 37, and 36 years) when Jimmy Carter was president. However, she failed to describe the reasons for, or instigators of, the shutdowns. Today, Republicans are ready to do it again (over the flimsiest of reasons), but since Obama is still president, Ms. Fraiser would also blame this one on the Democrats. Tsk, tsk.

Headline, October 3, 2015: “US alleges suburb discriminated against Muslim group”. Is it possible that Muslims are simply not entitled to First Amendment protections against religious expression? Could any group of “believers”, no matter how large or dominant, whose fundamentals include the extra judicial murder of nonbelievers and apostates, the subjugation of women and girls, and a universal refusal to assimilate, could such a group be considered a legitimate religion? And could any community be required to house such a group against their will?

Headline, October 3, 2015: “US alleges suburb discriminated against Muslim group”. Is it possible that Muslims are simply not entitled to First Amendment protections against religious expression? Could any group of “believers”, no matter how large or dominant, whose fundamentals include the extra judicial murder of nonbelievers and apostates, the subjugation of women and girls, and a universal refusal to assimilate, could such a group be considered a legitimate religion? And could any community be required to house such a group against their will?

Theodore F Meyer, III, made statements in his letter of September 27, 2015, that indicates he knows precious little about Christianity, (as expected). Meyer implies that refusing to issue marriage licenses to couples who should not marry fulfills the Kentucky clerk’s “personal commitment to the creator” and “covenant with God”, plus her “right to practice and obey her Christianity.” As if this gross misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus were not enough, ( No where in the Gospel does Jesus advocate judging others for any reason whatever. No Christian is expected to make a “covenant with God” to deprive people of their basic rights.) Meyer also wants us to “never mind all the verbal exhaust (emphasis mine) about separation of church and state. So now we know why the Bill of Rights starts right off with the First Amendment. It is to protect us from people like the Kentucky clerk and Theodore F. Meyer,III.

Theodore F Meyer, III, made statements in his letter of September 27, 2015, that indicates he knows precious little about Christianity, (as expected). Meyer implies that refusing to issue marriage licenses to couples who should not marry fulfills the Kentucky clerk’s “personal commitment to the creator” and “covenant with God”, plus her “right to practice and obey her Christianity.” As if this gross misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus were not enough, ( No where in the Gospel does Jesus advocate judging others for any reason whatever. No Christian is expected to make a “covenant with God” to deprive people of their basic rights.) Meyer also wants us to “never mind all the verbal exhaust (emphasis mine) about separation of church and state. So now we know why the Bill of Rights starts right off with the First Amendment. It is to protect us from people like the Kentucky clerk and Theodore F. Meyer,III.