Prison Reform v. Helping America
I loved your Rant on "Prop 47", akin to that I had/have the below idea, that may benefit the inmate, the prison, and American infrastructure. Description: Our deteriorating infrastructure needs attention while trying to provide the needed maintenance at a reduced cost. Inmates, once released, do not have enough money or they may not have experience in a trade to support themselves. We need to give them and incentive to NOT return to a life of crime perpetuating the cycle and possible return to incarceration. Today, Prisons are overflowing with inmates. Proposal: Create a work program where inmates who are approved can work (with oversight) for companies that improve our infrastructure. The companies are charged a minimum wage on behalf of the inmate. Accounts are set up so that the inmate will collect a portion of those proceeds. A portion of those proceeds can also go toward general prison reform, as well as, specific accommodations (ie: new or improved sleeping arrangements for the inmate who earned this income). The balance of the account can be paid to the inmate upon release in a lump sum or over time. The balance of the account can also be paid to the inmates estate should they die (without trying to escape) while in custody of our penal system. PROS • The inmate can have a skill when being released. • The inmate may have some “real” money to support themselves upon release. • Possible better morale for the inmate and / or prison overall. • Our infrastructure gets repairs that are needed to make it safe once again. • Companies can get some workers at a discount when compared to normal wages. CONS • Resources may be needed to oversee the inmate while working. • Transportation between the prison and worksite may be needed. Do you think this Out-of-the-Box thinking can get any traction? Who would be the better recipients be? What are your thoughts?
Abortion, Whose Decision is it? (updated)
Government should not be in the (direct) Medical Business. Whether to have an abortion and when, should be up to the patient and the physician. Period. If the Government forces women to go through with birthing a person when they do not want to, shouldn't the Government pay FULL childcare expenses until they are an adult? Again, I say, let medical and health decisions directly affecting a person (patient) be between themselves and the healthcare "professional"! Questions / Comments / Concerns: • Why the elimination of Roe v. Wade (1973 & 2022)? • Could abortion only be done with a severely deformed, nonviable fetus, an infant that was stillborn or that would die imminently? • Late-term abortions, those taking place in the third trimester, are also exceedingly rare. • Could this be performed where dangerous fetal abnormalities, non-viable fetuses, or threats to the mother's health are discovered? • "On late-term abortions, former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam did say that in cases of severe deformity or non-viable fetus, the mother and doctors would decide what to do once the baby was born". What about before the actual birth? • A CDC survey says that fewer than 1 percent of all abortions take place at or after seven months of pregnancy. • When does life begin, has always been a question. Is an embryo with a few cells considered cancer or a child? What about brain function? Even with a brain, the question is sentience versus mere stimuli response. Is a Venus Fly Trap plant sentient? I do not believe so. • On the other side of the coin, (SUICIDE, LEGALLY) when do we “pull the plug” on elderly patients nearing or at the end of their lives? Today: Taken From: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-host-fact-checks-donald-trump-after-interview/ar-BB1k3wXu?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a845588854da48b390b286bb003a8ece&ei=84 The Poll Shows According to a 2023 poll by Gallup – 34 percent of Americans thought that abortions should be legal under any circumstances; 51 percent believed it should be legal under certain circumstances; 13 percent believed it should be illegal in all circumstances. 24 percent of Republicans believed it should be legal in all circumstances. 66 percent of Republicans voters thought abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, 8 percent of Republicans believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances My Proposed Solution: Since the majority 85% (all) & 90% (Republicans) in that Gallup Poll indicate that Abortions should be legal, at least to some extent, remove any and all Government influence in this matter, compelling physicians and patients to decide what is best for the patient (mother to be) and fetus (baby to be). Your Thoughts?
How do we get their attention ?
Although I would rather see Biden for a second term of President over Trump, either way, we MUST get Government's Attention (Pres, VP, Senate, House of Representatives) that the current status of affairs our government is in is regretful. We must get all (of them) to realize that they work for us and not to take advantage of us. We need them as an ally to help improve all aspects of our lives, not proceed just for their own benefit. How do we interface with them so that they hear our wants & needs and figure out how to implement change so that we can get back on track to be a great nation once again. Too many things have been happening or have been neglected to this point putting us behind the curve when comparing U.S. to other nations. Suggestions?
JANUARY 6TH – INSURRECTION OR NOT?
Item Description: Was Jan 6, 2021 an Insurrection or not? Did Trump “participate” in that? Who else “participated”? Questions / Comments / Concerns: • Article 14 Section 3 – No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. • President Oath of Office – "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." • Vice-President Oath of Office – "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." • Why are the President’s Oath of Office and the Vice-President’s Oath of Office different? • support vs preserve protect and defend – The difference is semantic. 'Preserve, protect and defend', by definition, includes 'supporting' what one is preserving, protecting, and/or defending. • Insurrection – An act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government. • Act – Noun, 1. Anything done, being done, or to be done. Verb 4. To produce an effect; perform a function. • Preserve – 1. If you preserve a situation or condition, you make sure that it remains as it is, and does not change or end. 2. If you preserve something, you take action to save it or protect it from damage or decay. My take – If you incite a riot to attack the Capitol that is performing an act (Noun 1) as defined in the Constitution, you are NOT preserving that Constitution. • Did Trump incite the group (mob?) to attack the Capitol? You Bet. • Was the group’s objective to stop the voting process (an act) being carried out? Again, Yup. • Since Trump’s speech was to emotionally charge the group, was this considered an “Act”? By the definition above (Verb 4), I would say a definite YES. • Anderson v. Grswold, 2023 CO 63 at 221 (They conclude that the foregoing evidence, the great bulk of which was undisputed at trial, established that President Trump engaged in insurrection.) SO, WHY is this guy not legally defeated in our "Legal" system yet?