All posts by Glennms

ENVIRONMENTALISTS-HURTING OR HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT

Have environmentalists gone too far? Back years ago they were instrumental in helping us save the trees. That was a good thing that provided for oxygen. Then it was coal. Okay that help clean up the atmosphere with cleaner burning coal. Cleaning up the water, okay yes we all need clean water to drink and to live with.

But now we have them calling for all these renewable energy sources. The problem is what happens later say 10 years, 15 years from now when all the solar panels, batteries (electric cars) and stuff reaches the end of its useful life. What do we do with all that hazardous material? Do we send it to a landfill? How do we recycle it? Have the environmentalist thought that far ahead or or are they just looking at today?

These are some very serious questions I am bringing up. As in less than a generation we will have to deal with all this problem. We see one of the problems already from what the green people wanted us to do and not don’t, nuclear energy. We now have megatons of nuclear garbage that will not be safe for 100 generations. What are we to do about that? While supposedly green energy may seem good, what do we do with what is left over after the lifespan of the product? Can anyone in the green energy industry answer this?

I have heard that solar panels have a lifespan of between 10 and 20 years. Battery typical life is 5 to 10 years. So what happens next? We also know that the manufacturer of these solar panels and batteries creates hazardous waste. So what is the answer?

Your comments?

DRAFT BRIEF ON CITIZENSHIP QUESTION

 

To: the Honorable justice

re: case #

census citizenship question.

Your Honor, I offer you this friends of the court brief in hopes to sway your judgment.

I am a simple man, not a lawyer, nor am I in any way connected to this case. I offer a simple persons thought on this subject based on a reading(many) of the 14th amendment. If I make some minor mistakes in my written oration, please forgive them.

The question before the court being, “should a citizenship question be added to the 2020 census”.

I would have the opinion that it should. As the 14th calls for it.

Your honor, in reading this amendment multiple times and asking myself some questions, I can see why no Judge wants to touch this question based on the constitution. To do so would surely overthrow previous SCOTUS decisions and create further issues with this precedence. I have gone thru this paragraph multiple times trying to find the law that is within. There is in the reading of this Amendment and a reading of the laws of the time an answer covertly hidden to most.

The answer I found is not what I was led to think. I found that in the writing they specified that only male citizens over the age of 21 were to be counted for representation. Thus over throwing previous SCOTUS decision that said all were to be counted. This surely would throw a monkey wrench into the works, As it would force the representatives to only consider this group of people. This surly will be an issue. But I can not, based on this amendment, support any other premise. Why else would they specify that which they did in the latter part of the amendment? That, quote “ the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

As you read the amendment please remember this was written in a time well before women had gained the right to vote (and also at a time that a married woman had few rights and were considered to be subservient and therefore near to property of the husband, and a single woman while enjoying more rights was not considered for legal reasons to be a full person and same as a man) and it was meant to make a small correction after the civil war to properly account for the newly freed slaves (original version showed a black male was only worthy of being 3/5ths of a man).

So by this writing they had made it so that only those that were male citizens over the age of 21 were deemed worthy of representation. And with out further amendment this is what is the basis of the law. They did not mean for non citizens or women or children to have representation in the house.

Even with the advent of the 19th and 26th amendments this did not change the wording of the 14th. The 19th simply says women can vote, and the 26th simply says the voting age is lowered. There is no mention in them of extending these rights any further in the constitution in the amendments. The lack of such a change while troubling, is the law. The underlying laws may have changed, but not the meaning of the amendment as it is plain and clear on the fact of whom it is meant for. It was meant to cover only males 21 or older that for other than rebellion or crimes had not had their rights to vote in a federal election abridged. The lack of such a change also leads to a conundrum in that persons that are able to vote for such representation will themselves not be represented.

Absent a change to the Constitution to be true to this amendment and to follow our oaths to protect and serve the constitution would beg to ask the following questions on the census, are you a citizen, are you a male, are your rights to vote in a federal election abridged for other than a crime or rebellion?

This case is such that it could be a major problem. And may overturn past decisions that ALL people be counted. I understand if in your wisdom you do not wish to decide this case based on the constitution and the 14th as it has implications further than a simple question.

However your Honor, based on all the above I would urge you to approve the question on citizenship on the census.

Your Honor, I thank you for the consideration to this Brief. May God lead your decision.

Thank You

Glenn

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

 

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

 

Is the National Popular Vote unconstitutional?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2019, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, which is 32.0% of the Electoral College and 63.7% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

By awarding the votes based on who ever gets more nationally this compact would virtually eliminate the electoral college. And allow 6 states to elect the President.

Now add in that this compact is unconstitutional. yup. article 1 section 10 says so. they need congress to approve it. I dare any good lawyer to take on these states when they eventually get this set to go against them.

article 1 section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainderex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And if that wasn’t plain enough there is this from the next paragraph

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

THE SKY IS BLUE

This post is marked group confidential. Do not discuss or release any information in it.

The sky is blue. A fun way to think about this.

Here in a fun way I am going to show you just how bad a confidentiality agreement is. This is just a way to think about things that seems far-fetched, but is the way it is done.

Suppose I get a security clearance, I am shown a confidential memo that says the sky is blue. Now it is in normal conversation somebody asked me what color is the sky, I cannot say that the sky is blue. Why? Well that would be revealing information I got from a confidential document. Now how could you say that it was from the confidential document or could not be from confidential document? That is the question. Now, where it may be common knowledge that the sky is blue. I cannot say that the sky is blue because I am under a confidentiality agreement to not reveal any information I have received from the confidential documents. Sounds silly doesn’t it? But that is what we are left with when we sign or agree to a confidential agreement. So since I have marked this post group confidential, you are not ever able to say that the sky is blue again.

Does this have any national secrets in it? There is no way for you to know. It could be a password it could be a pass phrase, It could be anything. You have no way of knowing why it has been marked confidential. All you can know is it is confidential and you are supposed to respect that the originator has reason for the confidentiality.

Have fun and as always have a great day. PS the sky is gray. LOL.

WHY THE CHURCH LOST ME

I understand that this small missive may anger some. that is not my intention. It is but the thoughts of a small man that in no way is a religious zealot. These thoughts are meant to show my disappointment in the institutions that are supposed to make us better than what we are. If you disagree with this that is fine. But do not hold any that is said against me. And yes I am from an older generation than most that would read this.

In the past 20 years I have watched the slow decline of most organized religions. This started slow, as the next generation lost interest in church. Then we had the emergence of the 2% demanding that they get treated well. Ok, that’s fine, but then it started to be that the 2% wanted to make it that if you weren’t them you were bad. That if you thought different it was bad. At the same time the Church (and I will use that word for most of the organized Christian religions) decided that they needed to bring more people into the church so they could pay their bills or whatever.

When we were brought up in the church, we were always taught a few things. One was that God is infallible and perfect. another is that God created all of us in his (I use his not as a proper pronoun but as it has always been used) image. And we were also taught that God has taught us that a few things are wrong. He has even given us lessons about what happens when we go against these teachings. Now I do not profess to be a perfect Christian, the Lord knows I have plenty of faults. But I attempt to at least hold to the major teachings.

Among the wrongs are sexual deviations.(remember Sodom and Gomorrah?). And that God has joined man and woman to be one. That he created woman to be a companion and a help to man, and instructed man to be a companion and a help to woman. That with Gods help Man and Woman together could accomplish anything. that life begins at conception.  there is a lot more that He has taught us, but maybe that is for later.

Now we have the Church cow-towing to this group and leaving the teachings behind. They don’t even try to do as He wanted, to educate. They just accept and include. They have lost the word and I would suspect the connection to God.

For the church to say that a person of a gender created by God that feels like they are not of that gender, would seem to be that the church has forgotten a basic tenant. How can they reconcile that god is infallible and yet has made a mistake in the gender of the person? Or that same sex relations would be ok with the way he has taught us?

This is why the Church has left me. They have forgotten that they are the ones that are to be the spiritual leaders, and are supposed to show us the ways, if not the way to God. They have become no more than a business.

What do I think the Church should do? Embrace Gods teachings. Should we turn away those that are outside of these teachings? No. We should bring them into the Church and show them the path. Let them understand that which God has taught.  But we have to stick to the teachings. God took a prostitute and made her whole, and even made her his wife. He took a lier and taught him to tell the truth. He took a thief and taught him how to give.  He took the weakest of us, the sinners, and made them whole. This is what we are supposed to do. We are not, however, to abandon those teachings that we have already learned to accommodate those that would have us brought down to their level. And as always we have to show them God’s love. Go out unto the world and teach the way of the most merciful Lord God. Do not shun the smallest among us, rather give them a ladder so they may see.

I hope in some small way I have without malice in my heart, shown a glimmer of the light.

As always may the Peace of the Lord always be with you.

Glenn

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

I was having a discussion in one of the groups today, and the question of the First Amendment came up. This was after we were talking about how SCOTUS created an unconstitutional law. I was asked how can Scotus create a law. I answered back by ruling on a subject that there are no real current laws on. He asked me how that can be. I brought up the religious freedom stuff. And that by making the ruling they did, they created a precedent that other courts have to follow.

He asked me for specifics, so I gave him the 1948 case of McCollum versus board of ed. and then I explained on how three more cases were based on McCollum. I explained to him, in my opinion, Scotus had overextended the First Amendment and created a law that wasn’t there. The First Amendment is very clear in its language it specifies exactly who it’s talking about. It says Congress shall not, not to state, not the people. I also brought up how the 10th amendment gives the power to the states and the people for anything that is not in the Constitution. There was the usual back-and-forth of very serious discussion, and thankfully none of the two-year-old acting out stuff.

I don’t think he got it, but, that’s okay. It will give him something to think about later.

What about you, what do you think about how the Supreme Court created a law that wasn’t even there, unconstitutionally? This is a serious question and would appreciate serious responses. Thank you.

A QUESTION

To the leaders of the Church. I ask has the church abandoned God?

I ask this based on recent letters from the heads of the various churches. In their letters they have left us to believe that God has been declared imperfect, and that the teachings of the Bible are false. In the quest to keep the church afloat they  have become more interested in the almighty dollar than in the souls of their parish. Yes we want those with sin,(which is all of us) to come to the word of God.  It is up to all of us to take in the sinner and show them the way to the Light. But the church is now saying that we should just accept the ways of the sinner and allow for them not to change.

In this world of the politically correct, the Church has given in, instead of being the sturdy foundation. Please remember the tale of the 3 houses and how the house built of stone withstood all.  I fear that this version of the Church has been built of straw.

Thank you

Glenn

(one who feels that I have not left the Church , but the Church has left me)

Yours in Christ and God’s love