Patriotic Chaplain's Debates
What Makes a Strong Organization?
People want more than just a paycheck. They want significance in their lives and a good reason to get up and go to work every morning2 Posts
The calls for abolishing ICE are growing stronger. Who will enforce immigration laws?2 Posts
School Choice & Government Support
Should the government support school choice?2 Posts
What is a "Consensual" Police Encounter?
Does the average citizen really feel he is free to walk away from a casual encounter with a police officer, when it's initiated by the police officer?2 Posts
Homeschooling: Good or Bad for Children?
More and more parents are choosing to school their kids at home. Is this a good trend or bad for our future education system?3 Posts
Christians and Atheists: Peaceful Co-Existence?
Their views are diametrically opposed to one another. Does this mean a civil relationship is impossible?4 Posts
Has Our Political Sensitivity Gone Too Far?
History can be ugly, even politically incorrect. Does that justify scrubbing its very existence?1 Posts
What is a Sensible Immigration Policy?
The debate rages on, but the answers are few. Or are they?1 Posts
Fines & Punitive Measures:Do They Punish the Poor?
Poverty isn't a crime, and the state shouldn't be compounding the problem with punitive sanctions1 Posts
NFL: To Kneel or Not To Kneel, A Neutral Approach?
The NFL has come out with new policy that expects players to stand or stay in the locker room. Should they be getting involved?3 Posts
Do Felons Deserve a Second Chance?
How long do we hold bad acts against someone? Forever? Or Do We Need a Road Map to Restoration?1 Posts
Freedom & American Exceptionalism: Part III
Do we have the right to keep the fruits of our labor and freely engage in mutually beneficial economic exchanges without excessive government interference?0 Posts
Absolute Morality: Required for Good Government?
Divine laws are fixed in our universe; it matters not if you are a theist, atheist, or humanist.3 Posts
Race: Observations & Questions
If what I think in my heart, know in my head, and act in my life is not racist, how is it that I–or anyone else–can still be accused of being racist?1 Posts
Arm Teachers?: Let the Teachers Choose
I hear many teachers who are opposed to being armed say, "I'd die for my students." Without a strategy for self-defense? That may, indeed, be the result...21 Posts
Junkies, Addicts, and Society
It's becoming a big, big problem. Tough love or tough time?8 Posts
Was the Pope Right?
Pope Francis told the crowd, “God is the one who says who goes to heaven.”3 Posts
Immigration: Can We Ask Questions?
Do we have the right to assurances that immigrants, especially those from countries hostile to American ideals, are not a threat to our communities?2 Posts
Gorsuch Betrayal or Common Sense?
President Trump's tough on immigration stance is well known. His first Supreme Court justice appointment was supposed to help. So what happened?0 Posts
Legalize "Pot?" An Ethical Dilemma
It's a tough question to answer, especially for a society that makes billions selling legal alcohol0 Posts
Freedom & American Exceptionalism: Part II
Freedom, though self-evident, needed to be defined and understood for it to be truly exceptional.0 Posts
Freedom & American Exceptionalism: Part I
What happened to our inspiration? When did the American ideal become something we should be ashamed of?0 Posts
President Trump Right on Immigration Stance
Immigration, legal or illegal, is one the most important topics of national discussion. What's a fair answer?1 Posts
Perfect? No. Flawed? Like all of us. But my vote was an investment in a better & stronger America. In short, I voted for an ideal, not a man.3 Posts
Even in Tragedy, Support the 2nd Amendment
Evil will rear its ugly head and use whatever device is available. We seem to be unwilling, as a society, to admit that evil will occur regardless of the availability of firearms and we should have the right to defend ourselves from it.3 Posts
Why the 2nd Amendment is Still Important
In the ongoing debate about gun violence, we need to remember why gun rights are important and need to be protected.1 Posts
Patriotic Chaplain's Posts
I apologize for the formatting glitch.
Oh, boy! Don't get me started on this! I come from the perspective of a Master's educated (I have 3) and former college professor (recently resigned after 3 years). I presently work full-time in a job that doesn't require more than a GED (criminal justice career). I earned my first M.A. at 42. I earned the 2nd at 45, and the 3rd at 48. During that time I searched far and wide for better employment. As you article said, every employer was looking for better educated applicants, but none was willing to pay more for you. With a mid-30's starting salary? For a M.A.? Do employers think those things are free? As for the Bachelor's degree...in my opinion they are virtually worthless and given to whoever can pay the tuition. Schools WANT high graduation rates, so they move student along. I saw graduates this year who got terrible grades in my class because their writing skills weren't even junior high level. But they moved them along. For profit schools have cheapened the value of the B.A./B.S, too. If you pay, you pass. It's a business. Perhaps this has given rise to the demand for M.A.'s but the salaries haven't caught up. I'm sure I'll weigh in some more after others post, but this is a great article and very relevant.
Well, I agree AND disagree. Unfortunately, in the age we live in, no one gets the benefit of the doubt anymore. Everyone, it seems, is looking for a reason to get offended (maybe it's a our litigious society). Southwest may, indeed, be protecting against human trafficking. If so, that should be clearly in their policy or explanation to this woman. Then I might agree with them. However, this woman is entitled to presumption of innocence. She wasn't given that. We don't need to prove our innocence in America. YOU need to prove my guilt. In that, I most certainly disagree with Southwest.
Let me illustrate how "appropriate" a "life sentence" is. Free food, medical attention, gymnasium and leisure activities (movies, performances, shows), jobs, televisions with cable TV, gaming systems, unfettered access to libraries (some states even allow internet access), visits with families (conjugal visits with spouses in some states), and a host of other benefits. I am not sure where this Spartan notion of prison comes from, but it isn't true.
It's a character issue. I have worked with tens of thousands of convicts over the years. It may sound arrogant but I have much better perspective on the issue than a "documentary," which always have agendas. They DON'T want to work. I have heard it. "Why should I work? I make better money selling drugs." None of them are "trapped" in it. Doing time is the cost of doing business. They'll tell you that themselves. Now, adjusting the criminal justice system to allow ex-cons to work their way back to a non-felon status is something we need. But that's a different conversation.
Do people read the whole post before responding? Here is what I wrote: "Third, our school system has no business mandating that anyone should be forced to carry a gun when they are uncomfortable doing so." "What I advocate, and armed teacher proponents advocate, is allowing the individual teacher to make that decision. Many teachers are veterans, avid hunters or sportsman, or gun enthusiasts who are very comfortable with guns. Many of them grew up around guns. They can be trusted with them and they can provide an added layer of on-site security that law enforcement cannot. They should not be denied the choice to carry a gun on the job." "No one, myself included, expects an armed teacher to engage in a shoot-out or track and find a gunman whose specific location on a school campus is not known. That is an offensive strategy best left to law enforcement professionals. I do not advocate teachers running around campus looking to engage in a shoot-out. I do, however, advocate teachers who are comfortable with firearms having a defensive strategy that protects the students in their classrooms." It would seem, based on your comments, that would support a strategy such as this...?
Jefferson and Franklin are just TWO of the many who were involved in the founding of the country. Of course, they are conveniently the most often quoted by those who hold your opinion, and have other quotes omitted. Jefferson nor Franklin were atheists or agnostics. They were not fundamental or orthodox Christians, perhaps, in the sense we understand that. Both warned of God's judgment, called for prayer, attended church, and a host of other Christian practices. Franklin even boasted to a friend in France that one could live a long life in America without encountering an atheist or an infidel (non-Christian). Deism in the 18th century had a different application. It could not be described as agnosticism, it was more impersonal theism. Thomas Paine may have been an atheist in that he rejected organized religion, but I think he was more of a conventional agnostic, but he, too, was certainly a theist. "So much for your quotation of Calvin's 'mon dieu!' jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our ancient Colleagues, and receive with them the seal of approbation 'Well done, good and faithful servants." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Matthew and speaking of heaven, in a letter to John Adams in 1823. Probably not a Trinitarian, but certainly, by his own admission, a theist of the Christian persuasion. "I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this... I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, though without the smallest conceit of meriting such goodness." Franklin, in 1790, to Ezra Stiles. America was born on the heels of the First Great Awakening. Influenced by the "natural law" truths of the Enlightenment? Yes...as those laws supported Christian truth.
I made a post about this myself. I have worked in the prison system 30 years. NEVER have I wrestled, fought with, tazed, or a host of other violent intervention incidents, with someone who is stoned. Drunk? Cracked out? Tripping? Etc. You bet. Though I personally wouldn't indulge in any of the many forms of cannabis, I don't see the issue, compared to the above.
I have heard that concern, but I disagree. Having a defensive strategy is not "adding to it." It's being prepared for it, hoping it will never become necessary. I walk around damn near every day with a concealed pistol, not because I want to engage in a gunfight, but because I have spent nearly 30 years in the criminal justice system. I know what kind of animals walk the streets (2 in 100 adults is a convicted felon, many violent). My presence, and my firearm, make wherever I am safer. If I need to draw a gun where you are? The last you will be worried about is an "accident." My guess? You'll be relieved I am there, or millions of others like me, who do the same.
Are teachers qualified to have personal firearms on their person, outside of school? In their homes? Your logic here is conflicting. A teacher is qualified to protect their family in their home, or in public, but not their students at work? I think this paragraph aptly addresses your concerns: "Third, our school system has no business mandating that anyone should be forced to carry a gun when they are uncomfortable doing so. What I advocate, and armed teacher proponents advocate, is allowing the individual teacher to make that decision. Many teachers are veterans, avid hunters or sportsman, or gun enthusiasts who are very comfortable with guns. Many of them grew up around guns. They can be trusted with them and they can provide an added layer of on-site security that law enforcement cannot. They should not be denied the choice to carry a gun on the job." No one is forced to, no one is mandated to, and only qualified teachers could. I have been in criminal justice nearly 30 years. I'm a veteran. I am WELL qualified to defend students, as are many others. I cannot depend on a police assigned to a school to be in every location at a school, or to respond in a timely fashion, especially on foot. The old adage "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is very relevant here. To apply your argument across the board? No one should have guns anywhere, because there might be an accident. Is that what you're suggesting?
Israel signed both the Wye River and Oslo Accords in an attempt to reach peace with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have yet to hold up their end of the accords. Israel must act in her own interests. American support will only strengthen her position.
The Palestinians and terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas don't need this declaration to stir up violence. Their have been two Intifadas in my lifetime and neither had anything to do with Jerusalem. To hang this in President Trump is a distortion. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all said that Jerusalem should be recognized as Israel's capital. They all said the American embassy should be located there. President Trump delivered on a promise made by 4 past presidents. Clear goal? Yes. We will stand by our friend Israel. President Trump has taken a huge step to restore trust in our American Republic. He has taken a huge step in reassuming the mantle of world leadership. As for "negotiating with Palestinians," that is Israel's job. Not ours. We have said we will stand with Israel, strengthening their bargaining position. That's what a nation should do for its allies.
First, we make a distinction between "addicts" and "junkies." And, believe me, there is a difference. Put those who violate the sanctity of their community for a drug fix in jail, where they cannot harm anyone else. Drug dealers? Simple. It's time for a harsher sentence, perhaps temporary until we get control of it, like the death penalty. Their poison kills people. They know it kills people. They sell it anyway. There is no dis-incentive to stop selling drugs. The profits are too lucrative. It's time to up the stakes. You sell drugs that results in a death? You're getting the death penalty. Give them something to think about. Let's start there and see what that does.
You cannot regulate or eliminate risk from life. More people are killed every year in car accidents but we accept those numbers for the convenience and efficiency of auto travel. Life is a path of risk analysis and trade-offs, in darn near everything we do. Scenario 1: If a school has an armed teacher, there is the possibility something may happen accidentally but there is a better chance that an armed shooter will meet resistance and lives will be saved. As opposed to Scenario 2: A school has NO armed teachers, so there won't be any gun mishaps, but is it certain that people will be killed if an active shooter shows up, intent on killing people. Two options...that's reality. Imagining Scenario 3...neither option will happen...is John Lennon B.S. Maybe Options 1 & 2 won't happen at most schools, but we know it will happen at some. I'll take scenario #1 when faced with that reality.
I do have some suggestions. I'll probably post them under a new debate, so watch for it! Thanks for commenting!
Your right...reverse racism is NOT "a thing." Racism is racism. Speaking out about oppression is one thing, assigning blame to all white people, many who are not responsible for, or complicit with, past transgressions (historic, systemic oppression you called it) against people of color is just as wrong. I know many white people who are treated as inferior because of their socio-economic status. You make too many generalizations here. Only black people are afraid to be arrested for fill-in-the-blank reason? Losing a job? Getting a job? People of all races may be a victim of that.
Some would say what you are advocating is socialism. I live in America. We don't know what poverty is in this country. Cell phones, SNAP cards, housing, education benefits, health care, paid for by people who work and given to those who don't. Childhood obesity rates are off the charts; there is no scarcity of food or quality of life.
This article offers a different perspective. In much the same way hitting the heavy bag, or chopping wood, or any other activity that can channel aggression, anger, frustration, violent video games are thought by some to offer a healthy outlet(target practice, lifting weights, jogging, etc). Personal character plays a big role in these events. https://www.psychcongress.com/article/violent-video-games-may-provide-aggression-outlet
The "majority of Americans" will live in poverty? I'm sorry but you need a credible citation for a claim like that, especially when you use it to argue for a expansion of an already extremely generous welfare system. Some would argue "too generous." There are over 300 million people in this country. By your "claim" over 150 million people have lived in poverty. Patently ridiculous. Any cursory review of American welfare programs will see they cover darn near everything. Expand it to what? Total control of every aspect of American life? The War of Poverty of the Johnson Administration has been a miserable failure, only serving to create more dependency and government control of society. It's needs to be greatly reduced, not expanded. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-welfare-pays-better-work?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy6zwi5nB2gIVhmSGCh2rcg7dEAAYASAAEgKppfD_BwE
President Trump authorized the launch of 56 cruise missiles into Syria last year, in response to chemical weapons attacks. I wouldn't call that sitting "idly by," would you? Is this a deliberate omission? Of course, we know how Trump also responded to the most recent attack. It would seem that President Trump does have a consistent policy...to actually use force and project American power, where Obama only threatened it, seemingly with no will to actually carry it out. Sanctions always hurt the civilians, as the men in power always seem to make sure they have what they need, while the civilians suffer. Surgical military strikes seem the best course of action. https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html
The solution is a simple one. Allow capital punishment for irrefutable evidence: presence of multiple corroborative witnesses, DNA evidence, or irrefutable video evidence. Do not allow capital punishment is those elements are absent. As for whether or not the death penalty is "effective" is irrelevant. Our justice system is about "justice." The death penalty is justice. The system needs to be streamlined through the legislative process. Convicted murderers shouldn't be waiting on death row for 25 years. Any manner of imaginable legal arguments, regardless of how ridiculous, earn stays of execution, increasing the costs and lingering pain of justice denied the families of the victims. We should be seeking justice for victims, first and foremost. Pointing out that murderers "spend years on death row" is not a clinically sound way to evaluate its effectiveness. If the death penalty was swiftly and efficiently applied, it would have the same deterrent on crime as the criminal who thinks twice, or three times, before committing a crime against someone who is likely to be carrying a gun. The death penalty is fine, it has its place. Our application of it is what's wrong.
Thanks for checking in, Bob. Exposing the hypocrisy of all sides is absolutely right. The press and Democrats are pillorying him for things Bill Clinton said, almost word for word. The Republicans are opposing him for trying to push through an agenda they have said they wanted for years. There is no "two-party" system in D.C. It's them versus the rest of us.
I have spent 30 years in the correctional system, as a an officer, chaplain, training officer and supervisor. I have taught "The Corrections System" at the university level. No one is "forced" to work in detention centers. Jobs in correctional facilities are highly coveted, paid an unpaid. Jobs help inmates pass the time, create a predictable routine, and keep their minds occupied. Certain jobs (i.e. the kitchen) usually afford extra privileges like rations or out-of-cell time. Paying jobs allow inmates to purchase phone time (video visits and contact with family members), purchase stamps and writing material, plus a host of other things like commissary items to make the stay more comfortable. It's nowhere near "close to slavery." No one in punished for not working and no one is forced to work, simply because there are too many inmates who want to work, for the reasons I gave.
And where is the presumption of innocence? We throw it out the window? I have MANY high capacity magazines (my property). You want to deprive me of those? Based on what? What someone thinks I might do with them? You want to give the government the ability to deprive you, without due process, of the ability to defend yourself or own something? The article is pretty clear, even had it reviewed by a Constitutional scholar. No, sir. No restrictions or deprivations of the 2nd Amendment without due process of law. We get the presumption of innocence in this country.
We don’t take away driving privileges from all drivers because some of them drive drunk and kill people. We don’t deny 1st Amendment rights to all reporters because one reporter libeled someone else. Society would not tolerate it. It should not tolerate it when it’s applied to lawful gun owners, either. Gun control advocates, however, are not deterred by this. Instead, they try and make an end run around the court system. It’s clever, really. They use the legislative process to introduce “evidence,” evidence which would never be allowed in open court, to pressure legislators to enact restrictive gun control laws targeting law-abiding citizens as a group. This method, however legitimate it may appear, still denies individuals their presumption of innocence and circumvents due process of law. Shame on our legislators who fall for it.
I studied Donald Trump’s business and executive models in graduate school—alongside many others. I read three of his books and countless articles about him (long before he was a candidate for president). These articles offered both praise and criticism. I have researched beyond the sound bites given on the various news stations in our 24-hour news cycles. I have concluded that Trump is far from crazy. Flamboyant? Arrogant? Hyperbolic? Sure. But not crazy. As a tactician in business and politics Trump is brilliant, much smarter than the career politicians in Washington who never built anything but debt, debt our kids will have to pay long after these politicians retire with a fat government pension. He is much smarter than the mainstream media pundits, and authors like Wolf, who claimed to have all of the answers, but didn’t have a clue about what Americans were really thinking. Trump’s record of business success (and failures) and political success in his presidential run speaks for itself. Incompetent? Says who? The politicians and pundits who created the mess to start with?
Leaders become great because of where they are placed in history and the circumstances that exist at the time. Would a military leader make "better" presidents? If the time calls for it, yes. If not, no. A military president in the roaring 20's? Probably not. During the 1940's? Probably. Various moments in history call for different strengths and traits. The best example of this, I believe, is Winston Churchill. Neville Chamberlain was weak and nearly led to Great Britain's capitulation to Nazi Germany. Churchill was a military man who was willing to confront a bully. He quite possibly saved England from Nazi invasion.