Enough Said

 

Enough Said

So What if Elon Gave to Charity

There are several posts floating around Facebook pointing out what a great human being Elon Musk is for having made a $5 + billion donation to charity in 2022.

If Elon Musk wishes to engage in charitable works with his own money, that's his prerogative. Praise him if you like. 

However, let's be crystal clear: he is NOT a member of the Cabinet. He has NOT been confirmed by Congress. The Administration is actively resisting all efforts for transparency regarding his actions. He is NOT accountable to Congress, as outlined by the President of the United States.

We operate as a REPUBLIC—derived from the Latin Res Publica, meaning "for the People." We have three CO-EQUAL branches of Government, each designed to serve as a check and balance on the others.

Musk's "move fast and break things" approach, combined with a glaring lack of accountability and secrecy surrounding his operations, raises serious red flags. His blatant disregard for the checks imposed by the Judicial Branch cannot be overlooked, no matter how much he contributes to charity.

Let’s not forget that Al Capone ran a soup kitchen in Chicago during the late 1920s, costing him $300 a day. Stalin implemented a social welfare system and state-sponsored charity. Both Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il were also known for their charitable donations.

History has taught us that some of the world’s most notorious figures have used philanthropy to polish their public image. It’s important to remember that true generosity often goes unnoticed, much like the "Widow's Mite," which was said to be of greater value than grand displays of wealth.

So What if Elon Gave to Charity

Goodbye to the VOA

For those who did not live through the Cold War and only know about it from “American History” classes, it’s crucial to understand that one of the United States' most potent weapons was Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. RFE/VOA boldly broadcast news from “the West” behind the Iron Curtain.

VOA/RFE and their sister stations, such as Radio Free Asia, were (and still are) despised by Communist regimes. In fact, listening to their broadcasts was considered a crime punishable by death. In a shocking example of this, a North Korean fisherman was publicly executed in 2020 for listening to Radio Free Asia while at sea.

Yesterday, former political candidate and two-time looser Kari Lake suspended over 1,000 employees of VOA and its sister stations— all of which are federally funded—effectively shutting them down.

The official Communist Party “news” outlet in Shanghai hailed this move as “EXCELLENT NEWS," proclaiming that Radio Free Asia is “one of the US's most insidious anti-China propaganda outlets." This action has pleased not only Beijing but also Moscow, Budapest, Tehran, and other anti-American regimes.

Were there problems at VOA? Yes, there were issues and controversies. However, it’s essential to recognize that VOA has enjoyed bipartisan support from Congress and the White House for generations, except during the Trump administration.

ANY US government action that is praised by the governments in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, Tehran, and Kabul—along with other anti-US tyrannies—should NOT be welcomed by American citizens, regardless of their political affiliation.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/15/nx-s1-5329244/bloody-saturday-voiceofamerica-radio-free-asia-europe-trump-kari-lake

 

Goodbye to the VOA

Time For Republicans To Make a Choice

We are now deep into January 2024, and it is time for me to get off the bench.   

It is no secret that I have always posted about politics, and I have always shared my opinions.  That will not stop.   With New Hampshire’s primary days away, I am compelled to give my opinion.  

Former President Donald Trump MUST NOT be the Republican Nominee for President.   

I was against then candidate Trump in the 2016 primaries and in the general election, I voted AGAINST Secretary of State Clinton, more than I voted in favor of President Trump.   I was hopeful that President Trump would grow into the job.  But I became gravely concerned as the obnoxious Tweeting continued and for the first time we had a President who in no way, shape or form brought any dignity to the office and whose “policy by tweeting” caused untold damage to foreign policy and our relationships with our allies.   

Like MANY Republicans in Arizona, I refused to vote for President Trump in 2020 despite the consequences of putting President Biden into office.  I believe that President Biden was the lesser of two evils and therefore I voted for the Libertarian candidate.   

For the first time since at least 1964, no one in our family (with the exception of my dad, who would die of complications of dementia less than 50 days of the election) voted for the Republican presidential candidate.   I was grateful that Dad did not live to see the abomination that was January 6, 2021. 

I WILL NOT VOTE TO RE-ELECT DONALD TRUMP.   

The time has come for Republicans to make a choice.   We can return to being the Party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln or we can destroy the party with anarchy and chaos.  

It is time for Republicans to get behind Ambassador Nikki Haley.    It is time for the Grand Ole’ Party to nominate our First Woman Candidate for President and first Asian Candidate.  Ambassador Haley IS a Republican in the mold of the Republican “greats of old.”    Governor DeSantis’ campaign has imploded.  He is polling in single digits in New Hampshire and South Carolina.   As of this mornings polls in New Hampshire, Ambassador Haley is tied/within the margin with President Trump.   She is the former Governor of South Carolina.  She is beating President Biden in head to head polling.   

Republicans need to make a choice.   A primary vote for President Trump is a General Election vote FOR President Biden.  

President Trump got one thing partially right after the 2020 elections.   President Biden did not “win” the election.  What President Trump did not understand- and will never understand- is that PRESIDENT TRUMP LOST THE ELECTION.   Republicans did NOT vote for Biden - We voted AGAINST DONALD TRUMP- and a HUGE number of us (not to mention independents) WILL DO SO AGAIN.

Time For Republicans To Make a Choice

Arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen

Today’s hearing by the Court is literally one of the BIG cases of this year that WILL affect everyone in the US.  

This case may well decide the issue of “What does the Constitution mean when it says the ‘the right to 

keep and BEAR arms hall not be infringed’  (capitalization added).”  While most people may think this is a question that was decided 100 or 200 years ago, the fact is, the Supreme Court has not ever ruled on the issue.  

Amazingly, only recently has the Supreme Court decided what the 2nd Amendments means.  Until 2008 the Court had never said what it means to KEEP arms.  The issue of KEEPING arms was not actually ruled by the court to be an individual right until District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008).  Until 2008 there where many that said the 2nd Amendment meant the only right to keep and bear arms was for those in the Militia or National Guard. 

Does the 2nd Amendment apply to the States? Or does it only apply to the Federal Government?  That question was not decided until 2010 in Mc Donald v Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) when the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual states because of the 14th Amendment. 

The Heller decision DID say the 2nd Amendment meant Americans had the right to arm themselves for Self Defense.  However, the Heller Decision did not specifically state when, where or under what conditions allowed an individual to be armed for Self Defense.  

Generally, the Heller Decision DID say a person had the right to carry a firearm for self defense.  There are two ways to carry a firearm- open carry, where the firearm is visible or concealed- where the firearm is not visible.  

At issue in NYSRPA v Bruen is the New York concealed carry license system.   New York prohibits open carry or “non-concealed” carrying of firearms.  For Concealed Carry, under  NY law, a person must be of good character, must have certain training and meet other requirements in order to get a concealed carry permit that would allow the individual to carry a concealed weapon in most places.  

Additionally, the person must show CAUSE;  the individual must show a specific and SPECIAL need for self defense that significantly differentiates the individual from the general public.  Saying “I travel through high crime areas” is NOT a reason for a permit.  Saying “there have been several muggings in my neighborhood” is not sufficient.  Saying “I go to this specific area on these specific nights and have received this specific threat” MIGHT be sufficient.  But as we see in this case, that could mean you get a permit that allows you to carry to that ONE location- but no where else.   Largely, in New York, your right to carry a weapon, may just depend on WHO you are and WHERE you live.   

New York’s system is NOT unique- but it is rare.     The “exceptional cause” or “good cause” rule exists in seven states- California, Hawaii, New York, California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New Jersey.   In the remaining 43 states, there are SHALL ISSUE laws.  If a person meets the legal requirements- whatever they are- a carry permit MUST be issued.  In the SEVEN jurisdictions with “good cause” laws, it doesn’t matter if you meet ALL requirements, have all the training, and live your life as an angel.  The the hearing officer or sheriff or whoever the licensing person is MAY CHOOSE to reject your application.   

For example, in 1956 Alabama was a “may issue” jurisdiction- just like New York is today.  In 1956, A black minister applied for a concealed carry permit because he had gotten threats against his life.  His concealed carry permit was denied - even though he met EVERY requirement under Alabama law.   Because Alabama had a MAY issue law that allowed the Sheriff or local official to decide if they “wanted” to issue the permit, the permit was denied.  In the past, many states passed “may issue” and “good cause” laws, so they could refuse to allow blacks, immigrants, union organizers and other “undesirables” their right to carry a gun.    If the state said “you can only carry with a license” and the state was a “may issue” state, they could deny the right to self defense- the Second Amendment- to anyone the ruling people did not like.   The black minister denied a concealed carry permit was a person that many in 1956 Alabama hated.  His name was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Today, 43 States in the United States are SHALL ISSUE States.   If you meant all the rules, have a clean background , take the right classes and pay the fees, you SHALL be issued a concealed carry permit or license.   It doesn’t matter your race, sex, religion or any other factor; if you meet the requirements, you must be issued a permit or license.   

In the case before the Court, the NYSRPA and it’s members argue that since there is NO open carry of firearms allowed, the only option is to carry concealed.  The state of New York agrees.    The State of New York says they  issue concealed carry licenses to anyone that has good cause, so we are not violating the Second Amendment at all.   NYSRPA and its members say you should NOT have to prove you have “good cause” to exercise your 2nd Amendment Rights.  They say since it is so rare that permits are issued, the state is denying 2nd Amendment rights to almost everyone in New York. 

In the case heard today, one specific exchange between Supreme Court Justice Alito and New York Attorney General Underwood distilled the issues to their core: 

(From the Transcript of Oral Arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen on November 3, 2021):

JUSTICE ALITO: Could I -- could I -- could I explore what that means for ordinary law-abiding citizens who feel they need to carry a firearm for self-defense? So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan, it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes. None of these people has a criminal record. They're all law-abiding citizens. They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight. They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus. When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high-crime area, and they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has told -- has said I am going to mug you next Thursday. However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses, is that right?

MS. UNDERWOOD: That is in general right, yes. If there's nothing particular to them, that's right.

JUSTICE ALITO: How is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?

MS. UNDERWOOD: Because the core right to self-defense doesn't -- as -- as this Court said, doesn't allow for all to -- to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.

JUSTICE ALITO: No, it doesn't, but does it mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves?

MS. UNDERWOOD: Well, if that ordinary person -- Mr. Nash had a -- a concern about his parking lot, and he got a permit. I think the extra problem in Manhattan is that you – your hypothetical quite appropriately entailed the subways, entailed public transit, and there are lots of people on the subways even at midnight, as I can say from personal experience, and the particular specter of a lot of armed people in an enclosed space --

JUSTICE ALITO: There are -- there are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, aren't there?

MS. UNDERWOOD: I don't know that there are a lot of armed people-

JUSTICE ALITO: No?

MS. UNDERWOOD: I think there are people --

JUSTICE ALITO: How many -- how many--

MS. UNDERWOOD: -- there are people with illegal guns if that's what you're --

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

MS. UNDERWOOD: -- referring to. Yeah.

JUSTICE ALITO: How many illegal guns were seized by the -- by the New York Police Department last year? Do you -- do you have any idea?

MS. UNDERWOOD: I don't have that number, but I'm sure there's a -- it's a substantial number.

JUSTICE ALITO: But the people -- all -- all these people with illegal guns, they're on the subway --

MS. UNDERWOOD: I don't -- I don't --

JUSTICE ALITO: -- they're walking around the streets, but the ordinary hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can't be armed?

Justice Alito really brought this case into tight focus.  This case is REALLY about one issue - Does the Second Amendment mean ALL law abiding citizens have the right to carry for self defense? Or does it mean that only the select few, who a New York official feels are worthy, have the right to carry for self defense. 

Do we, as a people, live in a Country where a Constitutional Right can be conditioned upon Special Need?   We certainly never would say “you must show you have a ‘special need’ or ‘good cause’ to give a speech.  We would never say, “you must show a ‘special need’ to require the police to have a warrant to search your home.  

This case addresses that issue.  We will find out the decision, when the Court announces its ruling - mostly likely in June 2022.  

Arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen

To Boldly Go…

There are a few completely modern movie and TV phrases which have become a permanent part of our culture; phrases which one can say which anyone in the US would immediately recognize.   “I’ll be back,” “Make my day,” “Here’s looking at you, kid,” and “we’re not in Kansas anymore” are a few.  

But there is a phrase, or verse, that is known not just in the United States, or the English speaking world, but globally, that a very large percentage would know; and it was heard for the first time some 55 years ago today. 

“Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!”

Star Trek first premiered on September 8, 1966 on NBC.  The show was canceled after only three seasons and seventy-nine aired episodes.  

The show would not disappear from the airwaves, as many others would.  It would eventually give birth to 13 major motion pictures, 7 television and streaming series of 755 episodes and counting, 3 animated series, and well over 1000 authorized books.

But, the importance of Star Trek is not its television, streaming, theater, and literary success.  The importance of Star Trek is how it has changed, and continues to change, the world we live in.   

There is no doubt that other works have made major impacts on the world.   Jules Verne's Captain Nemo and the Nautilus inspired generations of submarine designers, oceanographers and explorers.  Upon Sinclair's "The Jungle" has been credited with the drive for food safety regulations in the US.  Admittedly, not all of these changes have been positive; the 1915 film "Birth of a Nation" was the inspiration for the birth of the modern KKK.

Yet it can be argued that no other modern dramatic work, no other work of science fiction, no other television show, has changed the world as much as Star Trek.  

All it takes to see Star Trek's impact is for one to look at their mobile phone.   Or perhaps take a look at a tablet computer. Kirk and Spock had and used both.  Touch screens, 3-D Printers, Smart Watches, have proliferated across the planet; all were seen, years- decades even- before their time, being used by the crew of the Enterprise.  Lt. Uhura and Cdr. Spock's single-ear, wireless earphones are certainly not much different than the Bluetooth headsets millions use. According to Jeff Bezos, the voice of Alexa was inspired by the voice of the computer on the Enterprise 1701-D (voiced by Majel Barrett-Roddenberry).   Private space transport is here, and there is a $10 million X-Prize for the development of the "Medical Tricorder."  The Autonomous Vehicles used to explore everywhere from under the oceans to space are not much different than the probes launched from Enterprise.  Even tractor-beams and transporter technology have moved from the theoretical and are currently under development.

Beyond the inspiration for new technology, Star Trek as certainly been an inspiration for exploring "strange new worlds" and seeking out "new life and new civilizations."   NASA and the ESA are filled with scientist, engineers and technicians who freely state that watching Star Trek inspired them to join NASA or the ESA.   And for those that may not be old enough to remember, the test vehicle of the Space Shuttle Program- an actual space shuttle, without rocket engines aboard- in which manned test flights were flown, was named Enterprise; a name demanded by a letter writing campaign of Trekker's in the 1970's to then US President Gerald Ford.  Enterprise (OV-101) was supposed to be refitted after the drop tests to fly in space, but structural changes during construction of Columbia (OV-102) made it cheaper to build Challenger (OV-099) from scratch.  A refit of Enterprise was considered once more, after the 1986 Challenger disaster, but again, the cost of refit made building Endeavour (OV-105) the better option.

Perhaps the both the greatest impact, and the least easy to measure, is the incredible social impact Star Trek has made.  In 1966, the racial diversity of the lead actors in the show was unheard of in American Television.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. told Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek was one of the only shows he would allow his children to watch.  When Nichelle told Dr. King she was planning to leave Star Trek for Broadway, she said he told her that was not acceptable. Dr. King said she couldn’t leave because she was a role model for millions of young girls and women – the only African-American on TV in a role worth having.

The social impact goes beyond just the first interracial kiss on American Television (between Kirk and Uhura).  Star Trek used problems on alien worlds as parallels and parables for issues we were facing when the show aired.   Issues like racism, the risks and dangers of war, eugenics, genetic engineering, and the dangers of unbridled automation were addressed in the original series.  When Star Trek returned to the television screen, they continued to address social issues, such as apartheid, colonialism, terrorism, drug addictions, aging, the right to live, as well as continuing to address themes that mankind struggled with when the show began in 1966.   Above all, Star Trek presented a world of hope, a world that could be, where the social issues of today were no more.

The world has changed and science has advanced since the first broadcast of Star Trek, the night of September 8, 1966.   We landed on the moon.  Mankind has sent space craft to explore every planet in our solar system and even a "planet" that was demoted to a dwarf-planet while the space craft was  in route (Pluto).   We have landed a spacecraft on the moon Titan, orbiting Saturn.  We have sent space craft out into deep space, beyond the reaches of our solar system.  We can communicate around the globe electronically, and there is practically nowhere on Earth where we cannot maintain communication with our friends, family and home.

Technology has advanced, and we have in the 21st Century, many of the things Star Trek set in the world of the 23rd Century- although I am still waiting for the food station I can just talk to and tell what I want for dinner, and have it beam right in.  

Despite all our advances, and maybe because of them, the dream Gene Roddenberry showed us in Star Trek 55 years ago, remains:  The dream of a better world for all, as well as the goal and mission, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

To Boldly Go…

Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?

The White House is expressing frustration about what it terms “misinformation” about COVID and vaccines on Social Media.  Expressing frustration is one thing,  but directing the suppression of statements the White House believes are wrong is quite another.   

The White House is very close to an old, historical precedent: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

I wish this was unbelievable- but it is not.    I do not care if individuals are saying the Earth and Moon are flat and that dancing naked in Times Square will cure cancer, the White House has NO BUSINESS restricting, flagging, correcting or doing ANYTHING to ANY US Citizen or Resident’s Facebook Posts (or the statements of anyone protected you the Constitution).    

I do not care WHO is in the White House- the White House MAY NOT direct, decide or even influence the statements of anyone but themselves!!!    

Once the Government gets involved with saying content should or should not be allowed, they have crossed the line.    This is a plain and simple free speech and free press issue. 

To make matters worse, the White House is actively trying to make sure if a user is banned on one social platform they are banned on others.   THIS IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to have the White House use Social Media Platforms as a stalking horse!!!!  

While Facebook itself is NOT bound by the First Amendment, the White House is- and if Facebook is acting at the direction of the White House, then Facebook is acting as an agent of the Government.  Just as the The White House cannot directly censor individuals, it may not use a third party, acting at the White House’s direction, to violate the First Amendment either.   

Will No One Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?