Is Edward Snowden or the Government the villain?

In 2001 the Bush administration secretly ordered NSA to eavesdrop on the electronic communication of Americans without obtaining the warrants required by criminal law. At the time it was reveals by the New York Times it had been going on for four years. Edward Snowden was not the first to reveal the dirty antics of the NSA or the Bush/Obama administrations.

The government justified its actions by saying the threat of terrorism gave the President virtually unlimited authority to do anything to keep “the nation safe”.  This unlimited power has led to abuse. Does this also mean martial law?

The Founding Fathers protested laws that let British officials ransack at will any home they wished. The colonists all agreed the British needed warrants to carry out such actions. They also believe the warrants must specify the name of the person being searched and what was to be searched. The Fourth Amendment enshrined this idea in American law. It was designed to prevent Americans from being searched without probable cause and a warrant. The Founding Fathers would not have agreed to the NSA abuse as Bush and Obama want us to believe.

The purpose of mass surveillance is to suppress dissent and mandate compliance. The procedure has been used by Syria, Egypt, Libya, U.K., French, Germany, East Germany, U.S.A., China, North and South Korea, Iran and most likely all countries that have the capability to do so.

The ability to eavesdrop on people gives immense power to the governments. It is almost certain human nature will lead those with that power to abuse it.

In 2006 Bush denounced American companies for cooperating with China to carry out surveillance of its citizens when at the same time the Bush administration was doing the exact same thing here in America.

The threat of terrorism and fear has given the government a wide array of ways to abuse their power with little dissent from Americans. The Internet should advance democracy by giving those without power the power to express their dissatisfaction with those in power.  But, when it is used by the government to stifle discourse freedom of expression is lost. The Fourth Amendment becomes worthless.

How many Americans know that the government has the capability to activate their cell phones and laptops remotely and use them as eavesdropping devices? How many know even after Edward Snowden made it public? In 2006 a Federal Judge presiding over a mobster case ruled that the FBI turned on cell phones and used them as listening devices and it was legal to do so.

 How many Americans know about the program called PRISM, which allowed the NSA to collect private communications from the world’s largest Internet companies, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Apple, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Skype.   How many know today even after Edward Snowden made it public?

The NSA does not operate alone the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand (the five eyes) are willing partners in mass surveillance.  They share information among what they call the “Five”.  What one of the “five” knows they all know.

In 1978 The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was created to prevent surveillance abuse that the Church Committee revealed. Eventually FISA itself became corrupt and rubber stamps anything the NSA wanted. FISA ordered Verizon to turn over all its records for communication between the U.S.A. and abroad, including any local telephone calls. That one decision made it possible for the NSA to collect private information on ten million American citizens.

For a one month period ending February, 2013 NSA collected more than three billion pieces of communication. Is it any wonder they missed the attack in San Bernardino.  They do not have the man power to handle that much information – no one does. The terrorist involved in that act had been communicating for over two years via telephones and Internet discussing their plans. Only after the fact did the NSA discover the records. The NSA “Collect it All” program was a complete failure in preventing the terrorist attack.

The Obama administration’s senior national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, lied to Congress when, on March 12, 2013 he was asked by Senator Ron Wyden: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans?” He lied under oath, but was never prosecuted. Edward Snowden confirmed he had lied.

The Obama administration made Americans think Edward Snowden was a liar by asking us to believe that it was impossible for a “HIGH SCHOOL” dropout to do what he claimed he did. They painted a picture of Edward Snowden as being inexperienced, young, seeking fame and “COCKY”.  If a “HIGH SCHOOL” dropout was not qualified then why was he hired in the first place? He dropped out of high school most liked because the public school system failed him. The curriculum probably bored him and the teachers were probably not qualified to teach him. Diploma or not he impressed government officials enough to hire him several times!

 In 2007 he applied for a position with the CIA in Geneva and got the job. He was given diplomatic credentials. He worked undercover. He was handpicked to support the President at the 2008 NATO summit in Romania. It was during his time with the CIA that Edward Snowden began having problems with what the government was doing.  He left the CIA in 2009.

Like many he thought Obama was going to bring transparency and change to government. He soon realized it was all campaign rhetoric and in fact Obama wanted more secret surveillance. It was at that time he began to think of becoming a whistle blower.

Edward Snowden was chosen by the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Counter-intelligence Training Academy to teach cyber counterintelligence at their Chinese counterintelligence course. This does not sound like the incompetent, unintelligent person media in cooperation with the government tried to make Americans believe he was. He was a cyber security expert that NSA was glad to have and had even stated they wish they could find more people like him.

I believe Edward Snowden was willing to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of the greater good!

TO BE CONTINUED…

Do not take my freedom of privacy from me!

I want to begin this piece with saying I am not against ALL  government surveillance. Some spying in my opinion will always be necessary and all countries do it. I am for targeted surveillance, aimed only at those for whom their is substantial evidence to believe they are engaged in real wrongdoing.

It was decided in the 1970’s when the Church Committee revealed abusive surveillance being carried out by the United States government  that the government must have evidence of probable wrong doing before it can listen in on personal conversations. Unfortunately government officials did not follow the law. On their own without consent or knowledge of the people they began the unlawful practice again.

Until recently I was for hanging Edward Snowden. I bought the government's propaganda and the mainstream media’s line that he was a traitor and that he had put government operatives in danger. A close friend had been telling me for years I was wrong and I finally agreed to research the matter and I was shocked at what I discovered. I am sure there are many citizens just like me that are or were making judgments on Edward Snowden without really looking into the facts for themselves.

Is Edward Snowden a villain or not. That is a decision we each must make, but WE should make the decision based on what we learn from taking a critical look at the situation and not just buy into media and government hype.

Here's one definition of a hero: It's someone who, given a choice between doing the right thing at great personal cost or the wrong thing for great personal benefit, chooses the former. I now believe Snowden did the right thing and no one can dispute that he made a great personal sacrifice to do so. Snowden did not gain personally from what he did, he had to leave the country he loved, he had to leave behind his family and girlfriend and he gave up a potential income of around $200,000 a year.  Edward Snowden risk everything to let the American people know how their Constitutional freedoms were being violated by our government. We would most likely never know if not for Edward Snowden.

Unlike others who've controversially exposed government secrets — WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the latter facing life in prison — Snowden was at least somewhat more selective in his disclosures, and the journalists who received them. It is not true that Snowden’s disclosure put ANY government operative in danger – no identities were released by Snowden. The government has not shown one definitive examples of someone being put in danger. The only government entity harmed was the NSA and the Bush/ Obama administrations. The world became aware of the lies they have told for years regarding national security.

Edward Snowden has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created. If continued indefinitely, a secret government database permanently tracking the actions of every American would, indeed, pose a threat to democracy.

Some in media that are more loyal to the government than to the people did the governments bidding and tried to betray Snowden as a person who liked drama. They said He gave himself the code name "Verax," Latin for truth-teller, and he warned a Washington Post reporter that the U.S. intelligence community would be willing to kill to stop the release of the documents. I to would have taken a code name until I was ready to reveal myself – if ever. Most of us take code names when we use the Internet – Tom1942. If anyone believes someone in government is not capable of killing to keep their illegal actions from coming out they are naive. Why would the majority of mainstream media do the governments bidding - for future access to the politicians.

For years the UK and US governments broke the law. For years, they hid the sheer scale of their spying practices not just from the British and American public, but from other elected officials. I bought into the government line, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear.” There is no such thing as a risk free society. I now realize that  myself and most Americans have been dubbed by the government in allowing them to rob us of our guaranteed Constitution rights in the name of TERRORISM! More people are killed each year in automobile accidents than by terrorist and I do not think anyone is willing to give up their freedom to own a car and drive because of the risk of being killed in an automobile accident.

Snowden, now 32, remains in Russia under temporary political asylum after leaking classified National Security Agency documents in 2013. Former Attorney Gen. Eric Holder said Monday that Snowden has performed a "public service" by releasing the information on the agency's vast data-collection programs. This is the same man that wanted him tried, given life in prison or even executed.  This is the same man that lied about Snowden to make the American people and the world turn against him. This is the same man that said a high school drop out would never have access to such classified intelligence. This is the same man that called Snowden a traitor and a liar. Now this same man says Edward Snowden performed a public service, but still wants him tried in the United States for treason. Why would he want him tried for treason if he committed a public service BECAUSE it would be a deterrent to future whistle-blowers. I say pardon Edward Snowden.

I am going to continue this subject in stages, but I want to give you some things to think about as we go forward in days to come. FBI Director James Comey told a Senate committee on Dec. 9 that the two San Bernardino shooters were radicalized at least two years before the terror attack and had discussed on the Internet and telephone jihad and martyrdom as early as 2013. How does Comey know this? Comey was probably relying on communications intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Whether that’s true or he learned it some other way, the government looks bad. If Comey’s source is the NSA, then it means persons known to have radical sympathies still managed to enter the U.S. unhindered and stage an attack. So what are we taxpayers getting for the trillion dollars we have given these agencies for over a decade?

Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower who fled overseas in 2013, said the NSA was intercepting far more data than it could possibly analyze. It did so as part of General Keith Alexander’s “collect it all” campaign. The result was an intelligence agency drowning in so much intercepted data that it missed what Comey’s agents found in a matter of days – once they knew where to look. By then, 14 people were dead and 22 injured. We spent a trillion dollars and sacrificed hard-fought civil liberties so the FBI could explain a killer’s motive after the victims were already dead.

It may be that Comey uncovered information about the terrorists’ background by non-technical means. FBI agents knocked on doors and talked to people.  It’s old-fashioned, but still effective.

The NSA still looks bad in either scenario. It means that even with every possible legal advantage and a near-unlimited budget, the agency still missed very obvious signs of radical intent by people who then entered the U.S. and attacked us. That’s not basic security, much less “national” security. That proves Americans are not getting what we are paying for.

FBI Director Comey says it is all our fault – the citizens fault. He claims the citizens are at fault because we prefer to keep our private affairs private and in doing so we are endangering national security. You would have thought their government tactics had worked in San Bernardino. Government officials know how to blame others, but not accept responsibility for their failures.

Washington politicians and government employees serve Washington not the people of the United States. We are getting a bad deal!

Too  be continued…

Appointing Supreme Court Justices has become critical to political parties!

I will be surprised if the conspiracy stories do not begin soon over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. There were some very important cases about to be ruled on, cases that have tremendous political ramifications.

Among these is Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, a landmark case regarding the mandatory collection of union dues and their use for political purposes. The ruling could have meant the death of collective bargaining and the political might of America’s unions.

The Democrat Party has depended on the union votes for decades to keep them in power. Since Reagan the union’s power has slowly eroded and if employees were not forced to pay union dues their political power would have most likely ended. Without political power to threaten politicians with their block votes and large campaign donations politicians would no longer have a reason to rule in favor of union bosses even when the politicians know their decisions are not in the best interest of the country as a whole.  

After oral arguments in the case in January, The Washington Post indicated the court’s conservative majority, including Scalia, were leaning to rule against the union’s ability to collect mandatory dues. But, with Scalia’s passing and the news that the Republican led Senate will likely not confirm an Obama nominee means such cases could end up with a 4 to 4 decisions. Lacking a majority, the lower court’s rulings would stand in favor of the unions.

Had the Supreme Court ruled that union dues could not be used for political purposes, it would have dealt a major blow to one of the Democrat Party’s most powerful assets.

Another key case is U.S. vs. Texas, in which opponents challenged the legality of the president’s executive orders dealing with illegal immigrants. Signs are now strong that it will be decided at the lower court level and the Supreme Court will not deal with it.

Supreme Court justices take a vote on a case immediately after oral argument, cases that have already been argued, even if no opinion has been written yet, the Chief Justice has an obligation to include Justice Scalia's vote in those cases. In other cases where no vote has yet been taken, we may get tied votes which means the lower court decisions will stand. That means that a number of controversial issues will have to be brought back to the court in new cases when there are nine justices.

Not all legal experts agree with the view Chief Justice Roberts could issue a decision using Scalia’s vote.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, blasted comments by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader that the Senate would try to block President Obama from nominating a new justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ms. Warren said, “Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

That is not what Ms. Warren and other Democrats were saying in 2008 and 2004 when they were afraid that George Bush would appoint a new Supreme Court Justice prior to elections. The Democrats in 2008 and 2004 like the Republicans in 2016 threaten to block a new nominee for the Supreme Court.

In the 1840’s and 1860 the Supreme Court went two years without nine Justices. That is certainly not an ideal situation, but the Supreme Court operated during those periods and would do the same today regardless of what Harry Reid says about the Court cannot go one year without nine Justices.

There was a time when the Supreme Court exercised its role as final decider on important public issues, modestly, on a non-partisan, non-ideological basis and only when necessary to protect the Constitution from clear excesses committed by the political branches. In my opinion those days are long gone there is no denying the Supreme Court has become just another arena for playing out the same partisan and ideological warfare that dominates the other branches. This is why political parties and politicians fight so hard to have their president make these appointments.

The current size of the court, nine justices, is not established in the Constitution. It has varied over U.S. history from five to ten.  The changes in the size of the court were almost always done for partisan/political/ideological reasons. Constitutionally, the number of justices could be changed again. F.D.R. is the last president to try to change the number on the court, but he failed to do so.

Republicans and Democrats have been obstructionist, mean-spirited and unfair when it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices. Be careful of what you believe coming from the mouth of politicians from either political parties during this time of replacing Justice Scalia and be careful of the conspiracy stories that will likely begin over Scalia’s death – no autopsy, no heart failure, death due to natural causes, enjoying a hunting trip and vacation the day before he died will only feed them.  

Ted Cruz is a good talker, but can he win a General Election?

To my knowledge Donald Trump has never said Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States. He has said repeatedly there is a question and someone would most likely file a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility. It turns out once again Donald Trump was right.

An attorney in Houston, Texas has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Canadian-born senator's eligibility to be president. Newton Schwartz asked the Supreme Court to decide if Cruz's birth to an American mother and Cuban father while they lived in Calgary, Canada violates the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement.

Ted Cruz argues that because his mother is American, he became a U.S. citizen at birth. But the Supreme Court hasn't previously considered the eligibility question. Until recently, Cruz held dual citizenships in Canada and the United States. He renounced his Canadian citizenship to run for President of the United States. I have always questioned the loyalty of a man who wanted to be a U.S. Senator, but did not want to give up his Canadian citizenship to do so.  I never understood why my fellow Texans elected a man Senator who was not sure if he wanted to be a citizen of the United States or Canada.

The issue could harm Cruz. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken from January 7 to January 14, a quarter of Republicans, along with a quarter of independents and voters in general, said they believed Cruz is unqualified. Only 47 percent of respondents said that Cruz is qualified and 26 percent said they weren’t sure.  The matter needs to be settled before the General Election.

The Tea Party Republican from Texas has continued to seek out a spot at center stage in politics by being divisive. His enemies characterize him as power-hungry and self-righteous. I do not consider myself an enemy of Ted Cruz, but from all I know of the man I think his enemies have defined him well, but I would add to it ruthlessly ambitious. I also believe he would be another power hungry, self-righteous, ruthlessly ambitious clone of President Obama.

Ted Cruz brags that his three years at Harvard Law School, from 1992 to 1995, sharpened his political vision and trained him for his intense sparring with liberals. Sparring has become his signature style as a national politician. I think one of the main problems with our government today is there has been too much sparring between conservatives and liberals in Washington and not enough discussion of what is good for the American people.

 Ted Cruz says he has mellowed since his days at Harvard, but frankly if he has he must have been a monster at Harvard.  Ted Cruz’s father was happy his son was going to Harvard and said Harvard was a place that would allow his conservative son to preach to the liberal elite. It is obvious Ted Cruz and his father has an ‘us vs them’ attitude so Ted Cruz came by his naturally. I do not want a President or any politician preaching to me. I have had eight years of a President preaching he knows what is better for me than I do.

Ted Cruz claims that after working on George W. Bush's 2000 campaign then being passed over for a senior position with the new administration was "a crushing blow."  That is not true. Cruz was offered a job as White House associate counsel, but he rejected it. Cruz thought the job was beneath him and that he should have had a more senior role of deputy White House counsel. The incident is an example of how his personal ambition rubs colleagues the wrong way. If Cruz would have taken the position instead of letting his pride stand in his way the position would have better qualified him to be President. Later Ted Cruz acknowledged his refusal to take the position was a mistake and said, "I was far too cocky for my own good." His stint in the Senate tells me that he is still too cocky for his own good.

When Ted Cruz mocked what he called Donald Trump's "New York values," in the debate the other night, some New Yorkers have taken it very personally and I don’t blame them. The Daily News hit the streets with a big front-page illustration of the Statue of Liberty giving Cruz the finger. The headline: "DROP DEAD, TED." New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, took to the airwaves to denounce the Texas senator and demanded an apology for comments he called "obnoxious on every level." During the debate, moderator Maria Bartiromo asked Cruz to explain his comments on "New York values." Cruz replied, “You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.” Bartiromo said, "I am from New York. I don't."

Cruz was playing to the Iowa voters, but it may have just cost him the New York Republican voters. It should! Representative Steve King, a conservative Iowa Republican who supports Cruz, suggested on CNN that Cruz's remark may have backfired, saying, "It would have been better on the part of Ted Cruz not to have had that exchange." One New Yorker, Wall Street hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer, contributed $11 million last April to a super PAC that supports Cruz. Cruz doesn’t have any problems bashing New Yorkers, but he certainly will take money from Wall Street.  New York has 29 Republican Electoral Votes to Iowa’s 6.

I don’t believe Cruz can win in a general election. Americans don’t typically elect politicians who are seen as polarizing to become president, but I must confess 2012 with Obama’s second win contradicts that statement. Goldwater was a hardcore conservative who was also seen as polarizing, and he got destroyed in a general election.  I see Cruz as being a Goldwater Republican. I just cannot imagine over 50% of the country coming together and voting for Ted Cruz to be our next president.

Americans look for someone who will unite the country, not divide it even further. That’s why they voted for Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Obama ran as one who would unite and the media pushed that narrative. He was perceived that way by many Americans, who didn’t know the details of his past, or the radical policies he supported in the past. LET US NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN - know who you are voting for!

How would Ted Cruz work with Congress to get bills passed when he admits that most politicians in both parties of Congress can’t stand him? Cruz has always said both parties in DC are like a cartel who only care about staying in power, but if he’s elected president, he is going to have to find a way to work with that cartel.

+++Ted Cruz proved who he was and what he was at the Republican Convention.  Republican's should be proud of the fact they found him out before they elected him their candidate for President in 2016.  Win or lose in November I am thankful Cruz is not on the ticket and I hope his political career is over.

Kim Davis is 'NO" Christian hero!

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, who spent five days in jail for defying federal court orders and refusing same-sex marriage licenses, was given tickets to the president's final State of the Union address, an invitation-only event. Why?

Regardless if her religious beliefs are right or wrong she is divisive. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus, acknowledged that his staff gave Davis a ticket. Was it a childish ‘tit for tat’  political move because First lady Michelle Obama invited Jim Obergefell, lead plaintiff in the case in which the United States Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage across the nation. A lot of our politicians and religious leaders act like school yard bullies. They continue to perpetrates ‘us vs them’ in America.

After the Supreme Court's decision, Kim Davis cited "God's authority" and refused to issue marriage licenses, despite a series of federal court orders. She quickly became the hero of some in the religious right. Politicians, including presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, flocked to a rally on the jailhouse lawn during her brief stay behind bars to be seen supporting her in hopes of gaining a few votes. The very two candidates that complain the most on Fox News that President Obama does not obey the law or the constitution was supporting someone who advocated breaking the law.  

Mat Staver, founder of the law firm Liberty Counsel that advocates against gay rights, said he and Davis would be seated in the House chamber "to stand for religious freedom and to represent Judeo-Christian values." Whose religious freedoms were they representing and whose Christian values were they representing – not mine! Kim Davis violated the First Amendment by trying to force her religious belief on everyone. Kim Davis violated a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Kim Davis violated a number of legal court orders.  

Where was Mat Staver? I guess he had a better seat because he was not shown with Kim Davis. Kim Davis is nothing more than a pawn being used by some in the religious right.  

She took an oath of office to serve the people of Rowan County she violated that oath. A Christian who felt they were being forced to violate their religious beliefs should have resigned, not violated her oath and not violated the law of the land. I would have respected her resignation, but I do not respect her defiance of the law. I think Jesus said, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” The law of the land belongs to the ‘emperor’ not any particular religious group. Kim Davis took an oath in order to work for the ‘emperor’.

She chose to work for the government and she vowed to uphold the law and serve people. When you take an oath for the ‘emperor’, you are also swearing to play by the ‘emperor’s’ rules. If you do not like the rules you try to bring about changes in the rules. You do not ignore them or disobey them. That is what Obama does and people like Kim Davis do not like it, nor do I.

Kim Davis is no Rosa Parks. It does not advance Christians in the public arena to have one of our own attempting to enforce her illegal bigotry and then being rallied around like a modern-day Joan of Arc by our religious leaders. Kim Davis is not a hero; she is a law-breaker, a criminal and a poor role model for Christians.

Kim Davis told a reporter on Tuesday that she attended, Obama's State of the Union address to provide "encouragement" to "all Christians." What is she trying to encourage us to do – revolt, disobey the law, ignore laws we do not like or disregard our promise and oaths? If Kim Davis can violate her oath then why is it wrong for Obama to do the same? If Christians are going to glorify Kim Davis for ignoring the laws she does not like then we not attack Obama when he does the same. 

The three Supreme Court Justices who dissented to marriage equality and who probably did not approve of Obama’s childish attack on the Supreme Court in the 2015 State of the Union  — Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — showed class and maturity by not attending Obama’s address. Their absence spoke louder than Kim Davis’ presence.

Let us not forget Kim Davis does not always tell the truth, she has a tendency to embellish the truth. Do you remember she and her attorney once boasted of a private meeting with Pope Francis and he embraced her and blessed her? The Vatican later clarified the secret rendezvous was a public meet-and-greet with Pope Francis where a dozen or more participated.

If homosexuals are allowed to marry or not in no way “tramples” on my religious liberties as Kim Davis stated. I am not forced to participate in same sex marriages; I am not forced to change my religious beliefs one way or the other; my denomination is not being forced to perform same sex marriages. I’ve become increasingly convinced that there is no Biblical justification for Kim Davis’ disobedience of the law.

I stand by my claim that government officials who fail to enforce the law are not practicing civil disobedience, but instead are simply violating the rule of law and their sworn obligation to enforce it. They are not forced to hold office or work for the government. They have an option to enforcing a law they do not like — they can resign and then take their cause to the media.

I do not have to do business with someone who uses their freedom of speech to say things that disagree with my religious beliefs. Likewise, I would personally argue that Christian business owners should not have to perform services that they believe violate their religious beliefs. If I felt strongly enough about it I should be trying to get likeminded people to get the Civil Rights Law changed. Unfortunately, I do not have an alternative law that I think would work better. If not forced some business owners would discriminate against race, gender, weight, height, religion, etc.   Kim Davis is a paid government employee, paid by all taxpayers, she is does not own the County Clerks office.

Let us not forget that the Civil Rights Laws are PRIMARILY the results of Southern States (some Christians) refusing to end discrimination against blacks in business, schools and CHURCHES on their own. They had to be forced to do what was right and it was a bloody brutal battle to accomplish it.  

We Christians cannot appeal to the authority of the Constitution or laws when it suits us, but take the law into our own hands when we do not like the determinations of governmental authorities. This does not mean we should violate our consciences or the higher laws of God, but it means we suffer the consequences of conflict between faith and law respectfully, remembering that God’s kingdom is not of this world.

Summary killings are a crime regardess of who does it.

A free society regardless if it is a Federalist or Democratic cannot allow elected officials or their agents to perpetuate violence upon people they suspect of committing a crime. If we do we eventually will have to look over our shoulders to see if we are being watched. Politicians are eager to capitalize on our fears.

It is becoming more common for police and elected officials to see themselves as judge and jury dispensing inappropriate summary justice on the streets. It is also becoming more common for citizens to look the other way because they fear crime taking over their community. The Constitution does not allow those who are there to enforce the law to be put in the position of becoming judge and jury.

Politicians are supposed to make the laws, police officers are supposed to enforce the laws and the judiciary is supposed to determine what happens when evidence is presented to them of lawbreaking. This separation has become blurred over the last few years as more and more politicians are winning elections playing on the fears of the citizens, but citizens need to understand we will eventually lose our freedom if we allow this to continue. Americans or citizens of any country must never sacrifice their liberty for false security.

Politicians will claim that the reason they act as they do is because the judicial system is flawed and criminals are not being convicted. That is not justification to ignore the constitution and laws. Politicians should be taking action to reform the judicial system not become judge, jury and executor of suspected criminals. When politicians and police become judge, jury and executor they also become criminals.

I am not sure killing drug dealers without giving them an opportunity to have their day in court or offering any rehabilitation programs or adequate rehabilitation programs is a humane process. This subject is very personal to me and I realize my views may be influenced by personal family experiences. My brother who died in 2004 of cancer in the ninth grade started smoking marijuana. He did use and sell marijuana to friends to supply his needs. He could have been a victim of summary street justice. He was fortunate that he received a trial and spent time in prison. He got out opened a business and became quite successful, married and raised a family. I just do not think any elected official or police officer would have been justified of robbing him of his life.

I do not accept the end justifies the means. I do not accept short cutting the legal procedure as a valid solution to crime. I do accept and whole heartily believe those involved in summary killing are criminals themselves and should be tried in the judicial system they flaunt. Their sentence should be severe since they are suppose to be role models for regular citizens.  

I realize a lot of citizens disagree with me.

We know that some who have been sentence to death for crimes were eventually found to be innocent. Mistakes are made even when the accused is given a 'fair' trial. How many suspected criminals killed by summary killers were innocent and they were denied a 'fair' trial.

What is the difference in Martial Law and summary killings? Both deny suspects of their international human rights. Politicians involved in or who encourage summary killing cannot guarantee laws will apply equally to all.

A society that does not demand that their police officers who shoot without legal justification face conviction are condoning summary killing. A policeman recently shot a young man in Chicago 16 times killing him. The young man is said to have had a knife in each hand while walking down the street. It took one year before the Chicago elected officials brought charges against the policeman and they only did so after pressure from the black community was put on them. How can any society justify 16 shots by one policeman in one victim?

The 6th Amendment states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” The right to a jury trial was designed by our founders to be a fundamental right bestowed upon our citizens and a means to keep the government under control of the people.

When a defendant exercises his right to a jury trial, it is the jury of his peers that decides whether the defendant is guilty or not. In these circumstances a great deal of control is relinquished by the government and put into the hands of the citizens.

The right to trial by jury takes the control of the outcome of a criminal case away from the government and gives it to the citizens. This right, though it has its limitations, is essential in maintaining liberty and imposing restraint on the government.

Let us not forget the summary killings in the South perpetrated by the KKK. The membership of KKK consisted of a lot of Southern policemen and politicians. They were self-appointed vigilantes who regarded themselves as both outside and above the law when they perpetrated their crimes. Do we want to return to those days?

The KKK did largely bring their barbaric justice to the black communities in the south, but blacks were not the only ones lynched by the KKK. They lynched Jews, foreigners, rapist (black or white), northerners, wife beaters (black and white), Catholics, homosexuals, communists and thief’s (black and white). I am sure today drug dealers and drug users would be their victims. They were white men, consisting of a lot of politicians, that thought they knew best how to deal with society’s problems. Their illegal actions were accepted by the citizens out of fear of the blacks which then became fear of any and all suspected law breakers or people they disagreed with in general.

At an early age I was introduced to public officials acting as judge, jury and executors. I was twelve and went to spend the summer with relatives in Alabama. My cousin by marriage was the sheriff. One Saturday night his son and I were allowed to ride with him in the patrol car.  He arrested a young black man for “standing” on the corner in the downtown area at night. He put the young man in the back of his patrol car under the pretense of carrying him to jail.

On the way to the jail we stopped for coffee at the local café. He opened the back door of the patrol car and he told the Blackman to stay in the car while he drank coffee. The car door was left opened.  I kept watching the man from the café window and later I realized my cousin was watching to. I finally had the courage to ask what if he gets out of the car and runs away. His reply came with a hardy laugh, “I hope the ‘nigger’ is that stupid then I will shoot him and we do not have to take him to jail.” The young man was smart enough not to run and he was turned lose in the café parking lot. A few years later he was returning for the summer from college in Tuskegee and got off the bus on the highway and was taken by the KKK and lynched.  That is what they did to 'uppity niggers' that went to college. I have never forgotten that and have since had a real distaste for injustice regardless of who inflicts it - bullies, police officer, politicians, judges, religious leaders or citizens.

 

The Supreme Court did not rule on how Christians must view homosexuality.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered an historic decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry in the United States.  Their decision reflects a shift in U.S. public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Prior to the Supreme Court decision, nearly two-thirds of Americans favored extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court interpreted the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible.  The Court did not try and discern God’s will, or what constitutes Christin ethical or moral behavior and Christians should not determine their morals from public opinion polls.

The Supreme Court ruling did not define how Christians should or must view same-sex marriage.  Churches are still permitted to refuse to marry same-sex couples, and to see the love of a same-sex couple as incompatible with Christian teaching.

I know that many if not the majority of Christians will disagree with me, but I will state my personal views anyway – I am not sure that CHRISTIANS should expect non-Christians to think and live like Christians. I think it is far better to let our lives do our preaching than to try and force others to accept our beliefs. As a Christian I do not expect the government to force my Christian values or morality on me. Of course, I would love for all people to think and act like Christians “SHOULD”. It would be a better world in which to live, but I know laws will not change a cold, hateful, bitter, selfish, bigoted heart only a work of God’s Spirit will.  I think Christians should work for just laws that are fair to all and protect the rights of the minority, bring dignity to people and work for the common good of the nation and world.

What is the will of God concerning same-sex marriage?  Franklin Graham made it clear he opposes same sex marriages in uncertain terms and made it clear in his opinion it is a sin. I do not claim to be as versed in the Bible as Franklin Graham after all he had a great mentor – Rev. Billy Graham, but I know the Bible is complicated and intelligent people who read it with an open mind will find things that they might question. Some things found in the Bible seem to me to reflect the culture of the authors more than the will of God.

Women in the Bible were often seen as second class citizens. Slavery was found to be morally acceptable in the Old Testament and slave-owning Christians in the early church were not asked by the apostles to set their slaves free.   Priests were commanded to burn their daughters alive if they became prostitutes, and rebellious children were to be stoned to death. Women who were raped were required to marry their rapist.  And when Israel went off to war she believed God called her to destroy every man, woman, and child among the nations she conquered.  The Apostle Paul teaches that women are to pray with their heads covered and to not wear their hair in braids.  Women were not permitted to teach a man, and Paul notes that it was “shameful” for a woman to even speak in church.

We are not always able to discern God’s will, simply by quoting a handful of verses from the Bible.  If it worked that way we would still embrace slavery, polygamy, and concubines.  Victims of rape would still be forced to wed their rapists. All denominations would still be like Catholics and not allow women to serve as pastors and would require women to remain silent when it comes to church doctrine.

I am not going to argue the point if God makes us gay or straight.  I do know sexual orientation is developed in most of us at a very early age if not from birth.  Could it be possible that God looked at His gay and lesbian children and said, “It is not good that this one should be alone; I will make them a helper as their companion”? That is what God said in Genesis regarding a man and woman.

Spousal relationships are more about sharing lives together as one another’s helpers and companions than sexual.  It is about holding hands, sharing dreams, helping one another when one or the other is struggling.  It is about shared memories, companionship, and a warm embrace. The Supreme Court has said that this kind of committed love should not be legally denied to same sex couples.

The Catholic Church even after the recent synod in the Vatican says that gay and lesbian couples cannot enter into this kind of covenant.  They cannot receive God’s blessings upon their love within our church and from our priest because, according to our doctrine, to share their lives together as companions (engaging in sex) is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” They claim this knowing that many of our priests are homosexuals.  We teach that God says gay and lesbian people should be alone.  I really wrestle with this doctrine.

Pope Francis has instructed our cardinals, bishops and priest to welcome and love gay and lesbian people.  Catholic Christians should certainly be able to do that and remain brothers and sisters in Christ in the same church.  Unlike Protestant churches we will never be able to leave it to each parish to make their own individual choice for this would require a new type of governance and that will never happen in the Catholic Church and I do not think it should.

The famous love chapter, 1 Corinthians 13, was Paul’s answer to divisions.  In verses 4-8 he taught the Corinthians what love looks like, “I will show you a still more excellent way:  Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrong doing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things.  Love never ends.”

In Philippians Paul offers these words to end the division: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.”

We must always remember that those with whom we disagree are human beings, children of God and it opens the door for us to see them not simply as adversaries, but as friends.  And this may lead us to work harder to find solutions to those issues that divide us.

The real issue for the church is not homosexuality, but the Bible. What kind of book is the Bible?  How has God spoken to us through the Bible and how does He continue to speak through it.  The answers determine how we read the handful of passages in the Bible that seem to speak to homosexuality. 

Rev. Adam Hamilton says:  some scriptures express God’s heart, character and timeless will for human beings and some express God’s will in a particular time, but are no longer binding and some never fully expressed the heart, character or will of God. I agree with him!

I certainly believe we are for all times to love God and love our neighbor and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  I do not believe males must be circumcised or  that most of the other hundreds of passages found in the O.T. regarding the Law must be obeyed. I do not believe God ever spoke the words found in Leviticus 21:9 which requires  - if the daughter of a priest becomes a prostitute she must be burned to death or in Exodus 21:20-21, God permits slave-owners to beat their slaves with rods provided they don’t die within the first 48 hours after the beating “for the slave is his property,”  or God commanded the destruction of every man, woman, and child in 31 Canaanite cities and later killed 70,000 Israelites in punishment for David taking a census. These passages seem to me to be completely inconsistent with the God revealed in Jesus Christ who cared for prostitutes, commanded that we love our enemies, and gave his life to save sinners.

I question what category does same-sex intimacy fall into?  Consider Leviticus 20:13 in which God is said to command: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”  Anyone who has a child that is gay would rightly ask, “Did God ever really command that gay and lesbian children be put to death?”  They might also ask, “Does God really see my child, or the love they share for their partner, as an abomination?”

Do these passages we use to condemn homosexuals describe God’s heart and timeless will, or do they address specific forms of same-sex activity in ancient Israel and in the first century world, or perhaps they may not captured God’s heart and character at all?

How we answer the questions of what scripture is, how when and why it was written, and the way in which God influenced its human authors shapes how we make sense of issues like homosexuality.