711 The Question Is.... "Appropriate action."

Comments

Tom Garrett 8 months ago

For a time while I was in uniform — a fairly short time thank the Lord! — I ran a personnel office. Every once in a while I would get a nonsensical letter or memo from someone that needed a good pithy reply. Well, everyone in the squadron knew that one of my expressions was, "Roll it up, tie it with a ribbon, and put it where the monkey put the peanuts."

What that let me do was to take those nonsense letters and memos, roll them up, tie them with a ribbon, and attach a note that said, "For appropriate action." A few people went to the Commander about it, but he was a no-nonsense guy too, and he just told them that he too thought it was a good idea.

I recently read that the United States Mint is going to start minting special curved coins to honor the National Baseball Hall of Fame. I wondered what the hey "curved" meant, so I dug deeper.

While I was digging I was astounded to discover the number and type of coins we were going to be making. Here's a list:

• 50,000 $5 gold coins at $35 each

• 400,000 $1 silver coins at $10 each

• 750,000 half-dollar coins at $5 each

It turned out that the coins will be concave on the head side and convex on the tails side. I also wondered what the hey you could do with a coin like that? You sure couldn't put it in a vending machine, and if you could, and did, you have to close to crazy to pay $10 for a $1 coin and then buy a cup of hot coffee with it.

You know what I found out the coins are good for?

Honestly now. I am not kidding!

The U.S. Mint says they will be "authorized for payment to the Hall of Fame."

So, let's see if I understand this: We go to the mint, pay $35 for a five buck coin and the only thing we can do with it is give it to the National Baseball Hall of Fame, right?

The Question Is...

What action do you think would be appropriate for said coins?

0

Donald Cline 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Are you sure they were talking about the 'Baseball' Hall of Fame?

0

don evans 8 months ago

The part that I question about this is that the National Baseball Hall of Fame is a "private" owned entity with Non profit status. See the Wikipedia definition> The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an American history museum and hall of fame, located at 25 Main Street in Cooperstown, New York, and operated by PRIVATE INTERESTS. It serves as the central point for the study of the history of baseball in the United States and beyond, displays baseball-related artifacts and exhibits, and honors those who have excelled in playing, managing, and serving the sport. Is not BB a money making private professional entertainment business? Seems many BB club owners and related interests run the organization. So why and how does the Government US Mint have the time and money to strike these special non-currency coins at taxpayer expense, and give all sale proceeds to this private organization? It's not a federal grant? And, the cost of doing all of it does not pay back the taxpayers. Another feel good government waste at our expense. Now compare this deal to the Nevada Rancher grazing his cattle??? You know, that Nevada BLM land where Senator Harry Reid's son wants to build a huge "private" solar farm project, for profit. The cow's have got to go, so sonny boy can make some bucks. It all stinks.

0

Pat Randall 8 months ago

I think maybe the cowboys will win the one in Nevada.

0

Tom Garrett 8 months ago

Thanks, John. You have no idea how mad a few AF dummies got when they got their letters returned with that little ribbon around them. You know the kind of people I mean.

"It all stinks."

Amen to that! We fought a war to get rid of people with special privileges, and over the years they not only have managed to get them back, they now run the whole show.

"I think maybe the cowboys will win the one in Nevada."

I hope so. I've been reading about that, but haven't said anything about it because I've been waiting to see what happened. Besides being an idiot, Reid is a crook. I don't know who will win. We lost that war here in Arizona, where I have yet to see one single steer grazing on federal land up here the way I saw them not many years ago.

Do you know how much of this country belongs to the federal government instead of to the people? Brace yourself; this is an almost unbelieveable number. If anyone had told me this before I looked it up a couple pf years ago I would have told him he had his decimal point in the whole place.

Ready for this?

Your federal government owns over 1/4 of all the land in the nation.

In fact, it's way over one quarter; it's 28 percent, an unbelievable 635,600,000 acres. There's no logical reason for that. None at all. All land that is not needed for public parklands or for small, but necessary federal uses, such as military bases, should belong to the states or to people as individuals.

Imagine that. The federal government owns, controls, and wastes immense amounts of money on land that could otherwise be put to use.

When I first read that I thought someone was crazy. I thought it might be something like 2.8%. But 28%? That's sheer madness!

For what conceivable reason should the people of a nation — any nation — be denied the use of more than one quarter of the land in that nation.

Federal parks, fine. National monuments, fine. Military facilities or other necessary facilities, fine.

But what the hell is the federal government doing poking its nose into the business of running more than a quarter of the nation?

0

Tom Garrett 8 months ago

Do you have any idea how much of the thirteen original states the federal government owns? Here are the numbers:

State Federal Total Percent

Connecticut 8,557 3,135,360 0.3%

Delaware 28,574 1,265,920 2.3%

Georgia 1,956,720 37,295,360 5.2%

Maryland 195,986 6,319,360 3.1%

Massachusetts 81,692 5,034,880 1.6%

New Jersey 176,691 4,813,440 3.7%

New York 211,422 30,680,960 0.7%

North Carolina 2,426,699 31,402,880 7.7%

Pennsylvania 616,895 28,804,480 2.1%

Rhode Island 5,248 677,120 0.8%

South Carolina 898,637 19,374,080 4.6%

Vermont 453,871 5,936,640 7.6%

Virginia 2,358,071 25,496,320 9.2%

Compare that with Arizona

State Federal Total Percent

Arizona 30,741,287 72,688,000 42.3%

And it's: Alaska 61.8, Utah 66.5%, Idaho 61.7%, an incredible 81.1% in Nevada, and 25% to 40% everywhere else. What for? The states need to vote that all federal lands not needed for parks or other necessary areas go to the states. From there they can go to the people. THAT'S why the states have no power — NO LAND, NO MONEY!

0

Tom Garrett 7 months, 4 weeks ago

I notice that two of the four Letters to the Editor hit on the exact same subject, namely the high handed way the federal government literally stole the majority of the land in former western territories from the states created from them.

One, by Vicky Cool, says, "Feds stole state lands of the far west." The other one, by Don Cline, says, "Expert ill-informed."

You owe it to yourself to read them.

For the convenience of anyone who wants to see the entire list of the percentage of state lands being held by the feds, I'll post the entire list.

0

Tom Garrett 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Federal Land by State.

State Federal Total Percent

Alabama 871,232 32,678,400 2.7%

Alabama 871,232 32,678,400 2.7%

Alaska 225,848,164 365,481,600 61.8%

Arizona 30,741,287 72,688,000 42.3%

Arkansas 3,161,978 33,599,360 9.4%

California 47,797,533 100,206,720 47.7%

Colorado 24,086,075 66,485,760 36.2%

Connecticut 8,557 3,135,360 0.3%

Delaware 28,574 1,265,920 2.3%

District of Columbia 8,450 39,040 21.6%

Florida 4,536,811 34,721,280 13.1%

Georgia 1,956,720 37,295,360 5.2%

Hawaii 833,786 4,105,600 20.3%

Idaho 32,635,835 52,933,120 61.7%

Illinois 406,734 35,795,200 1.1%

Indiana 340,696 23,158,400 1.5%

Iowa 122,602 35,860,480 0.3%

Kansas 301,157 52,510,720 0.6%

Kentucky 1,083,104 25,512,320 4.2%

Louisiana 1,330,429 28,867,840 4.6%

Maine 209,735 19,847,680 1.1%

Maryland 195,986 6,319,360 3.1%

Massachusetts 81,692 5,034,880 1.6%

Michigan 3,637,965 36,492,160 10.0%

Minnesota 3,469,211 51,205,760 6.8%

Minnesota 3,469,211 51,205,760 6.8%

Mississippi 1,523,574 30,222,720 5.0%

Missouri 1,675,400 44,248,320 3.8%

Montana 26,921,861 93,271,040 28.9%

Nebraska 549,346 49,031,680 1.1%

Nevada 56,961,778 70,264,320 81.1%

New Hampshire 777,807 5,768,960 13.5%

New Jersey 176,691 4,813,440 3.7%

New Mexico 27,001,583 77,766,400 34.7%

New York 211,422 30,680,960 0.7%

North Carolina 2,426,699 31,402,880 7.7%

North Dakota 1,735,755 44,452,480 3.9%

Ohio 298,500 26,222,080 1.1%

Oklahoma 703,336 44,087,680 1.6%

Oregon 32,665,430 61,598,720 53.0%

Pennsylvania 616,895 28,804,480 2.1%

Rhode Island 5,248 677,120 0.8%

South Carolina 898,637 19,374,080 4.6%

South Dakota 2,646,241 48,881,920 5.4%

Tennessee 1,273,974 26,727,680 4.8%

Texas 2,977,950 168,217,600 1.8%

Utah 35,033,603 52,696,960 66.5%

Vermont 453,871 5,936,640 7.6%

Virginia 2,358,071 25,496,320 9.2%

Washington 12,173,813 42,693,760 28.5%

West Virginia 1,130,951 15,410,560 7.3%

Wisconsin 1,865,374 35,011,200 5.3%

Wyoming 30,043,513 62,343,040 48.2%

Total 628,801,639 2,271,343,360 27.7%

0

Donald Cline 7 months, 4 weeks ago

I, too, think national parks are nice and should be preserved, but not by the federal government. They are not "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, (or) other needful Buildings" and to use public treasury for that purpose is embezzlement and theft of the people's money. Of course, practically everything the federal government does today is an embezzlement and theft of the people's money for the government's failure to restrict itself to that which it is authorized to do, which makes the federal government, by definition, a rogue occupation government that governs at the point of a gun.

0

Tom Garrett 7 months, 4 weeks ago

"I, too, think national parks are nice and should be preserved, but not by the federal government. They are not "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, (or) other needful Buildings"..."

Amen!

If we lived by the original intent of the Constitution — by the principals embodied in it — most of our problems would be gone. Why bother to have a constitution unless you live by it? Wasn't that why it was written?

It only takes a few minutes of thought to realize how our government is different from almost every other government around the world. If you go to the UK, Germany, France, or almost anywhere else, what do you find? You find ONE government. Oh, there may be a constitution, but the authority starts at the top and flows downward from there to lower levels. No area of the nation, no county, or city has any inherent authority; it all originates at the top.

But our nation, by the grace of God, was formed from independent states where "states" meant sovereign governments. For that reason, our forefathers wrote a Constitution which was intended to LIMIT the power of the federal government even though it said that in some areas federal law has "supremacy."

But it is clear that the "supremacy clause," Article Six, Clause 2 of the Constitution** ONLY applies where the federal government was granted powers by the Constitution. Other than that, the states reign supreme within their own borders. Supreme Court decisions make that plain.

But the current administration, and some administrations in the past, seem unable to read.

**Article Six, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Please read the first 16 words again: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...."

That clearly says that the authority of the federal government to make laws is limited to those powers granted to it by the Constitution.

0

Pat Randall 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Arizona cannot keep the parks open that they have now. They don't even keep the right of ways of the highway cleaned up. What would they do with more land and more people? Raise our taxes?

0

Tom Garrett 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"What would they do with more land and more people?'

I don't know about the people, but I know what they would do with the land.

Sell some of it for mining et al, use some of it, lease some it for ranching, and at least let us get into the rest of it without seven million trillion rules about how we could use it.

Why should all non-private land be looked upon as parks, or as something that needs to be tended to like a backyard? Why not just leave it alone? Isn't that what we were doing with it before we became a state? Worked back then; why wouldn't it work now?

0

Donald Cline 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"Other than that, the states reign supreme within their own borders. Supreme Court decisions make that plain."

Well, not entirely, such as when it comes to private rights. While the federal government is specifically prohibited from doing anything the subject matter jurisdiction for which is not delegated, the States are prohibited from doing anything the U.S. Constitution prohibits, plus a little more: The 10th Amendment makes it clear the prohibitions exist with its clause "nor prohibited by it to the States..." and the prohibitions include the entire Bill of Rights, a few clauses in Article I Sections 8, 9, and 10, and a couple of others here and there. The "plus a little more" is where Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." and Article VI, which you quoted.

A good example of the above relationship is illustrated by observing that the federal government has no authority whatever to legislate, enforce, or adjudicate murder, robbery, assault, rape, or any other crime unless it occurs in Washington, D.C., or on a legally-held (and legally-obtained) federal property. Nor does it have the authority to monitor, oversee, interfere with, impose pre-conditions upon, interrogate any citizen about, or issue or deny permission to exercise, the fundamental right of citizens to keep and bear arms. States, on the other hand, have the Police Power to legislate, enforce, and adjudicate crimes as well as the proper and improper USE of arms, but have no authority whatever over the keeping and bearing of arms except over the militia when called to service and the call is answered: It is a power prohibited to the States by the 2nd Amendment.

0

Donald Cline 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Another illustration of a Power prohibited to the States is the Power to make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts. Imagine what would happen if every judge in a State recognized the Article VI requirement of being bound to the U.S. Constitution and refused to recognize the terms of any contract not based upon payment in gold or silver Coin. This is why the 17th Amendment was declared ratified when it was prohibited from being ratified unless every State agreed, and ten did not: It deprives the States from having legal standing to enforce the U.S. Constitution in court.

0

Tom Garrett 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks, Don. You're right, of course. That statement was a bit too sweeping.

How nice it would be if we could get our legislators to do more than give lip service to the fundamental law of the land. The principals are clear. Their intent is obvious. We fought a war to obtain our freedom and preserve our rights. And what do we have today?

You tell me.

On another string (751) we are talking about some poor man who spent 24 years in jail for a crime he could not possibly have committed because he was more than a thousand miles away at the time — and the authorities knew that but kept the evidence hidden. One honest man came along and now he's free.

On that string I just mentioned a book written by a prominent NY district attorney who flatly states that things like the presumption of innocence are fictions in the actual administration of justice.

What, I ask, is more precious to any of us than our individual liberty? And why do we put people in office who seem to care so little about it? When those in power get away with bending one rule it just seems to encourage them to bend the rest of them.

On another string (737) we are talking about a charge being filed against a man in Alaska based entirely on conjecture. How can that be? How could any jury convict him of a crime when the scenario suggested by the police is nothing more than something someone made up to explain a few facts?

I will never forget the juror who said she voted guilty in the Harold Fish case because he "had such a big gun." How can a rational human being make a decision based on that kind of evidence? I'd be scared to death to have a trail by jury.

0

Pat Randall 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Whose law is it that says someone can be tried and convicted for a murder when a body has never found?

0

Tom Garrett 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Our law, Pat.

For a long time under English law (and hence ours too) the rule was "no body, no murder." You should read about some of the gruesome things that came out of that. There were people who decided to dissolve people in acid so that there couldn't be any body, for example. And lots more. Reading about it was no fun. For one thing, they always used a barrel full of sulfuric acid. Ever tossed a piece of meat in sulfuric acid? It's like tossing a wet pork chop in sizzling hot grease — va va voom!

I read about all that some time ago, but do not remember the famous English case where someone was hanged for killing someone and then the supposedly murdered man turned up alive and well, which led to the rule. the odd thing about it was that the supposedly murdered man was being held prisoner in Turkey at the time he was supposed to be dead, but don't ask me how that managed to get into the act. I haven't delved into any of this stuff since back in the days when I was teaching a law class for Chapman University (a California school.) I read a lot of forensic medicine back then.

Right now, a body is no longer needed if forensic evidence can be found that leads to no other possible conclusion except that someone is dead, and hence could have been murdered.

Say thanks to modern DNA science et al. :-)

Hey! I just remembered a great book! It's called "Mostly Murder," was written by Sir Sydney Smith in 1959, is his autobiography, and so is about his cases. It's not free like the ones I keep mentioning, but a lot of the things he did, and learned, happened back in Egypt around 1917.

I'm telling you folks, you want to read a fascinating book written by someone who knew how to write? That book is it!

In fact, I'm going to order a copy today!

PS: It is NOT gory or unpleasant to read!

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.