Natural Born Conundrum

By now the Supreme Court of the Unites States (SCOTUS) has conferred to consider whether to hear a growing number of claims that Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to become President. The Constitution says, "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." The only exception is those who were alive when the Constitution was signed.

There are more than a few opinions on this issue, partly because the courts have apparently never defined "natural born Citizen." For weeks the consensus among the media and various state and federal courts was that this claim didn't pass the kookiness sniff test.

The other end of the spectrum says something stinks. Some say Obama knowingly defrauded the public and was never even eligible for the Senate seat he recently resigned. The suit faults various state and federal officials for neglecting their duty to confirm candidates' eligibility.
One case, Berg v. Obama, questions Obama's birthplace. Obama says he was born in Hawaii. The suit says Kenya. If born in Kenya, Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for President.

Obama's campaign has offered a scanned image of a short-form "certification of live birth" from Hawaii. This form does not name the attending doctor or hospital. Detractors say it is inadequate documentation for a passport or even a driver's license, much less the Presidency. Some suggest that the certification image itself is a forgery, demanding that only an original "vault" copy of a birth certificate should be considered.

Thus far, all witnesses on record, including Obama's paternal grandmother and Ambassador Peter Ogego of Kenya have asserted that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to provide his original birth certificate and has hired attorneys to have his birth, medical, and scholastic records sealed. Maybe Obama has concealed these records for good cause.
Berg, a life-long Democrat, claims that, even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he lost his US citizenship when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father. His suit further asserts that Obama must have visited Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport, since Pakistan did not allow US citizens into the country at that time. If true, this indicates a possible dual citizenship problem for Obama.

Another case, Donofrio v. Wells, claims that Obama could not qualify as President even if he were born on the Washington Mall. Obama's father was a native of Kenya, a British colony at the time of Obamas' birth. Even Obama's camp agrees that Obama held dual citizenship at birth. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they must decide whether "natural born Citizen" allows for dual citizenship. Donofrio further argues that a military base is not US soil but merely a US jurisdiction, meaning that McCain, born on a US military base in Panama, is also ineligible.
The easiest but perhaps worst outcome might be for SCOTUS to refuse this case since the issue is unlikely to just fade away. Our country could use some unity right now, especially a break from the "not my President" undercurrent of resentment that has marked these past eight years.

I hope and expect that SCOTUS will hear the case and resolve it based on the facts, giving no consideration for any potential social or political fallout and I'm confident that we citizens can handle that. SCOTUS ruled boldly when they decided that 100 years of segregation after the Civil War had been quite enough. That is the kind of courage and faith in American's sense of justice that we need right now.

How to count your blessings

Some of us may feel challenged to count blessings these days. In life's difficult moments I take a strange comfort from knowing that things can always be worse. Applying this practice with the slightest imagination makes blessings easy to spot. I'll illustrate:

Not too long ago, and certainly not long enough, I'm walking the dogs in the woods and notice Coonhound Bob has disappeared. This isn't unusual. After all, that's why we're there. Soon he comes trotting up, grinning and obviously pleased with himself. Bob stinks to high heaven and back. From his jowls to his flanks, Bob's coat bears a sickly green slime he has acquired from very ripe deer carcass.

I get queasy. As we head back to the car and I insist that Bob remain downwind. I get my lovely wife on the cell phone and gasp, "Bring the pickup. There's no way Bob is getting in my car."
Once home I begin dousing, scrubbing and cursing Bob in the yard while Lovely Wife starts dumping cans of tomato products into a blender. Though Bob gets fully treated he still stinks. I put two nylon leashes on him, each secured near the juncture of a chain link fence, his naughty nose pointed toward the corner to keep him stable and standing.

From the neighbor's house the tomato goop must look like we are field dressing the dog. Bob is left to contemplate his misbehavior while the tomato goop does its magic. I go in to check email.
Five minutes later Lovely Wife screams like she herself is being slaughtered. In the next room both she and Bob are frozen in time. Bob really hates to be chained, having used super canine strength to rip through both nylon leashes, he has entered the house through the dog doors. He is tip-toeing onto the white living room carpet beside the wood paneled walls where my prized big screen TV and home entertainment components and speakers are enshrined.

You can see the wheels turning in Bob's head. He's conflicted. He so wants to shake stinky tomato goop all over our vulnerable interior. However, he is confronted from across the room by Lovely Wife, silent and motionless as a statue, a cooking utensil in her hand and terror in her eyes. Someone carefully and forcefully commands, "No. Stay."

Here's where the elusive blessings come in. Sure, Bob's stench made me gag. And yes, he interrupted our afternoon in the most unpleasant way possible. On the upside, Lovely Wife and I have cell phones and a pickup, the neighbors did not report us for slaughtering our dog, and Bob's understands "no" and "stay," preventing him from strewing disgusting tomato goop onto countless valuable and difficult-to-clean surfaces.

Sometimes blessings are hard to find, but they are almost always there. If you will have a Thanksgiving dinner, that's a conspicuous start. If loved ones will share it with you, life doesn't get much better than that. In my personal situation, I live in a beautiful corner of a relatively free country, most folks I meet are friendly, kingfishers still find our river fit enough to skim it for dinner, and proper dog training inevitably pays off.

Happy Thanksgiving to us all!

Failed Financial Geniuses

Five weeks ago Wall Street joined various federal officials in sounding a fire alarm to convince taxpayers to support more than $700 billion to buy up the bad mortgage loans that caused the economic mess we're in.

I am not old enough to remember the crash of 1929. I had to learn from history books not to borrow money to buy stocks. Too bad today's financial geniuses skipped those lessons. They leveraged bundles of bad loans to invest in other securities, diluting the value of the mortgage bundles and over-inflating the value of the other assets.

Now Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has changed his mind about how to use the bailout funds. Apparently Paulson figures the best thing to do is give the bailout money directly to the same failed financial geniuses who got us into this mess.

And now the Federal Reserve refuses to disclose what they did with more than $2 trillion in additional taxpayer dollars or to disclose what assets provide collateral for the loans. Bear in mind that Congress chartered the Federal Reserve in 1913 specifically to avoid exactly the same kind of massive bank failures we have seen in recent months. And now they refuse to account for two trillion dollars?

These reports come immediately after 80% taxpayer-owned AIG is caught trying to conceal a third post-bailout executive bash at a posh resort in Arizona which cost AIG, and therefore taxpayers, $334,000. AIG execs justify these lavish events by explaining, essentially, that this is how they are accustomed to doing things.

Meanwhile, since US auto manufacturers haven't managed to make competitive products for 20 years, Congress wants to open another bailout fire hose for them without even waiting for any bankruptcy filings.

Is it just sheer gall that qualifies these fat cats for their exalted positions? Will we bailout Hollywood next? Is there no pattern of brazenly irresponsible practices that our elected officials are not willing to reward at taxpayers' expense?

What about responsible citizens who lived within their means and planned for a future which has now been shredded by these failed financial geniuses? They didn't buy stock on margin, like the fools who caused the 1929 crash. What should prudent Americans learn from this? What can we do to avoid this kind of debacle in the future?

Some say, "Nothing; there's nothing we can do." But that is wrong.

The ultimate culprit here is Congress. Congress deregulated the financial industry, then strong-armed lenders to make risky loans to unqualified homebuyers. It is Congress which can't think of any solution that does not involve confiscatory tax rates and profligate spending. Congress gave Paulson the power to override Congress itself. Congress empowers the Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal nor a reserve) to defy the people's will for federal governance conducted with transparency.

Yes, we are another marathon two-year reelection cycle away from our next opportunity to toss these jackals out on their ear. Meanwhile, voters should begin now to invest time, talent and treasure toward building a third party into political viability to permanently eliminate any single-party majority. That is our lesson. That is the only way to ensure that the two major political parties cooperate to serve taxpayer's interests rather than those of big campaign contributors.

Until then, elected officials in Washington deserve all our calls and letters explaining how we feel about bailing out failed financial geniuses.

Illegal Immigration/Aliens

The US immigration system is so broken that it threatens the integrity and resilience of our democratic republic. What's more, the US government is the primary culprit in this debacle.

Let's keep these concepts in mind as we focus on resolving immigration's core issues:

• First, if you are in the US illegally, you are not an immigrant - you are an illegal alien. Immigrants intend to come to America to be Americans. Aliens intentions are to "cut in line" ahead of those seeking legal immigration status. This takes up social services and other opportunities that would otherwise go to legal immigrants and natural citizens.


• 12 million illegal aliens – the number most frequently bandied about – is equivalent to 10% of Mexico's population (15% of the Mexican workforce) living illegally in the United States. There is no way US taxpayers can or should sustain this burden.


• By a large and increasing percentage, Mexico is operated by illegal drug cartels. If this seems incredible, just hide and watch - or research news stories from the past several years. War-like conditions inevitably crop up in Mexican border towns every time there is a shake up in the Mexican drug hierarchy and law enforcement seems powerless to stop it.


• Drug cartels in Mexico and other South American nations are expanding their wealth and power by letting terrorist and other illegal smuggling operations capitalize on established drug distribution routes and networks in Mexico and the US. See here: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf


• Although it seems counterintuitive - assuming a reinvigorated government effort to secure US borders since 9/11 - illegal entry into the US has actually increased by 40% since 9/11. Based on demographic statistics of those who are caught, an estimated 6% of this illicit traffic is from "countries of interest" – terrorist or terror-sponsoring nations. See here: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf


• Illegal aliens are responsible for siphoning approximately $24 billion in cash each year off the US economy by wiring money outside the US. This money is gone; it does not get recirculated here from one retail merchant to another. In some Mexican states, these funds comprise a top economic resource, right up there with US tourism. What's worse, the federal banking system offers a special program to help non-english speaking people wire money to Mexico. “Directo a México” is a service mark of the Federal Reserve Banks in the United States and of the Banco de México. See here: http://www.frbservices.org/Retail/pdf/FedACHiMxManual.pdf


• By the way - when illegal aliens earn wages, what happens to tax withholding?


• If the worker is paid completely under the table (no withholding), that is tax evasion on the part of the worker and the employer - isn't it?


• If an employer withholds taxes, but pockets the cash, isn't that fraud, theft, or graft?


• If an employer withholds taxes and submits the funds to the Treasury Dept. - which has no valid account against which to apply the credit - and does not prosecute and seek to arrest the worker, isn't that fraud and governmental collusion in harboring illegal aliens?


• And, since we are in a "war on terror," and we are convinced that 6% of illegal aliens are from terrorist nations, isn't anyone who aids an illegal alien in entering or hiding in the US potentially guilty of treason?

Enough about the problems ...

Here's how to fix the broken US immigration system:

• Secure the US border. (Duh!) If we can't control our borders we will inevitably lose them, if only by the process of natural selection. It is incomprehensible that so many who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution could so completely fail in what must be one of the top three priorities of any sovereign nation – securing the borders.
  
  This means all points of entry into the US - especially airports. Immigration officers have suggested that relatively few aliens cross a desert into the US compared with professed Disneyland visitors who obviously don't have the price of admission who then disappear into the streets permanently.



• Limit immigration visas into the US to 200,000 people per year. Yes, things are very bad for the working class in Mexico. Things are very bad in very many other places around the globe. Conditions in some countries are much worse than in Mexico. No matter how super his power, Uncle Sam cannot help everyone in the world who needs help; it is a mathematical impossibility. We used to grant about 178,000 immigrants entry into the US each year, plus a relatively low number of asylum seekers. In 1965, Congress inadvertently changed the law so that now about 1,000,000 people a year come into this country, changing our society's future dramatically and for the worse. See here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&hl=en



• Decriminalize drugs in the US. To address the root of the US illegal immigration problem, we must eviscerate the power of the drug cartels in Mexico by decriminalizing drugs in their biggest market - the United States. This approach also features the virtue of elevating our own social consciousness. We must stop overflowing our prisons with troubled souls who self medicate while sustaining a lucrative market for the social predators who prey on addicts. The consequences of substance abuse will be most effectively handled where we treat drug abuse as a medical and educational issue.



• Revamp the immigration process to make it practical and accessible. By limiting immigration numbers to 200,000 people each year we can contain immigration to a manageable level. This protects a sustainable quality of life for all Americans - now and for generations to come.



• Make illegal immigration a felony offense. Currently, illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor offense, carrying only minor penalties, although it often is the basis for deportation for people who are caught. A felony conviction carries substantial monetary penalties and can result in jail time. Also, a felony conviction can ban a person from future attempts to enter the U.S. See here: http://www.workpermit.com/



• Amend the Constitution to modernize the 14th Amendment. In part, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says:
  

  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  This language was adopted at the end of the Civil War and should be updated so that citizenship is only conferred upon people born in the US if at least one of the baby's parents is already a US citizen or at least in the country legally.



• Enforce US laws. Those who say it is impossible to evict 12 million illegal aliens are about 20% correct.
  
  The other 80% of illegal aliens will leave the US on their own and at their own expense if we simply upgrade and enforce our laws, denying illegal aliens the lifestyle that attracted them to flee the drug cartels that are running the show in Mexico. We should penalize those who employ illegal aliens, starting with the largest offenders and progressively prosecuting anyone who aids and assists in the commission of this crime. This will quickly eliminate the condition that gave rise to our immigration problems and the problem will largely reverse itself.

The result of these edicts for the US will be:

• A lower crime rate, making our communities safer by dramatically reducing the number of terrorists and criminals who invade our society


• General economic improvement for all Americans will prevail through better wage distribution. When 8 million or more workers become unavailable for labor positions, people who perform demanding physical work will be offered better wages.


• Broadly reduced stress levels from eliminating a hugely divisive issue from public discourse

US Tax Code - The Flaw Of The Land

In 1898, the US Supreme Court ruled that income taxes which were not apportioned (sharing government expenses divided equally across the population) were unconstitutional. In 1913, Philander Knox, soon-to-be-outgoing Secretary of State, declared the 16th amendment ratified, authorizing Congress to tax income "from whatever source derived," in what some say was an inadvertantly passed bill subjected to an improper ratification process.

The Problematic US Tax Code (profoundly abridged)

Whatever the questions about the origins of the income tax, the facts of its existence are well-known and widely despised. Even personalities as diverse as Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan have agreed that the US tax code is an embarassment to our country.

THE US INCOME TAX SYSTEM ...

... punishes the productivity of honest, hard working people.

The harder we work, the more Uncle Sam taxes us. Some see this as "progressiveness" or "taxing the rich" but where do they think the rich get their money? Fat Cats don't just absorb the costs of taxes and tax compliance. Those expenses are passed on to consumers in higher prices that are paid by everyone and hits poor folks the hardest. Meanwhile, cheating is easy and common, placing ever greater burdens on honest taxpayers. Will Rogers said, "Income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf."

... is patently impossibe to comprehend.

Albert Einstein said, "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." Even professional tax services like H&R Block have been penalized for filing erroneous returns.

... includes possibly the most regressive tax in the world – the payroll tax.

Payroll taxes (withholding for Social Security and Medicare) are not subject to any tax deductions, unless you earn more than $90,000 per year. Earnings over $90,000 per year are exempt from payroll taxes. About 74% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.

... creates an incredibly damaging drain on our economy.

The Tax Foundation report, "The Rising Cost of Tax Compliance" states that complying with the tax code requires more than 6 billion man-hours every year – equivalent to the effort of more full-time employees than work in the auto industry, the computer manufacturing industry, the airline manufacturing industry, and the steel industry combined!

... puts American goods at a disadvantage in the global market.

Most industrialized nations remove their tax from exports at the border, lowering prices in foreign markets. Not the US. Our tax burden remains included in our export prices and then US products are disadvantaged further by the hefty taxes of the countries in which US goods are sold.

A Simple, Fair Solution - The Fair Tax

Whatever the problems may be taxes, we still have to fund governments' operations without placing disproportinate burden on lower income earners.

It's a delicate balancing act, but it is possible - by eliminating the federal income tax and replacing it with a national retail sales tax that is approrpriately configured to protect low income earners from disproportionate taxation.

A bill before Congress, the Fair Tax, accomplishes all this and more. It uses a rebate system to completely untax poverty level incomes. It eliminates income, gift, estate, and payroll taxes. It eliminates individuals' tax returns and the accompanying audits, penalties, fines and seizures – pay at the checkout counter and you are done.

It is the most researched tax reform proposal ever offered and it is consistently more popular - by wide margins - than any other tax reform proposal or the current system. Fully 70% of those who take the time to understand the Fair Tax support it.
See here: www.fairtax.org or read the NY Times bestseller, "The FairTax Book."

And yet, the only way this bill will pass into law is with the kind of massive, insistent demonstrations from voters that ended the Vietnam war.

Q: Why does such a popular thing require so much determined effort?

A: The income tax system empowers Congress to grant tax loopholes to campaign contributors. That is why the tax code has been changed many thousands of times since the Tax Simplification Act of 1986.

Congress will not surrender the omnious power granted them by the US tax code unless they believe they must do so in order to remain in office.

Please learn more about the Fair Tax and educate your elected officials.

See here: Quick View of the Fair Tax or read The FairTax Book

Traffic Deaths and Delays on Highways

Our highway system offers some of the best opportunities to realize at least some of the idyllic dreams many Americans in the 1960's shared about the future.

If you can't yet buy your George Jetson-style flying car, shouldn't you at least have a vehicle that can drive itself at highway speeds, letting you read or take a nap until you arrive at your destination?

Imagine - no traffic deaths, no traffic jams, consistently timely arrivals, the end of road rage, and massive fuel savings!

These facts are confusing and puzzling because they can't logically agree:

• The Vietnam Memorial commemorates the loss of 58,195 Americans over the 17 years between 1956 and 1973.


• Motor vehicle fatalities constitute the overwhelming majority of US accidental deaths. Traffic accidents kill more than 40,000 Americans each year. Annual fatalities were significantly higher during the Vietnam years - before the advent of seat belts and more strict drunk driving laws.
  
  Even so, projecting just today's more conservative vehicular mortality rates, we can reasonably expect future motor vehicle accidents to kill more than 10 times as many Americans as the Vietnam War over a similar period.
  See here:
  http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html


• There is no national motor vehicle accident memorial in the United States.

As for delays, there is no point in reviewing statistics on traffic jams. Just ask yourself how much of your personal productivity and quality of life has been squandered, trapped in traffic snarls traveling betweeen 0 and 30 mph on highways intended for speeds of 55 mph or greater.

Multiply your waste and misery quotient by 200 million licensed US drivers and we have plenty of motivation to demand at least the option of hands-free driving on public highways.

Practically All Highway Deaths Are Preventable

Would it surprise you to know that the vast majority of deaths, wasted hours and repression of the pursuit of happiness attributable to bad motor vehicle experience could be eliminated by applying technology we have at our disposal today? True fact.

Q: Why, then, don't we implement such great technology and use it to save the lives of scores of thousands and improve the life quality for hundreds of millions of Americans?

A: According to at least one anonymous researcher in the automotive automation industry, it is not due to technology constraints, but because elected officials can't agree who's brother-in-law should get the contracts.

Suggested Internet searches:

• Intelligent Transportation Systems


• National Automated Highway System Research Program
  (the program's concepts were proven in San Diego, CA, 1997)


• Vehicle Highway Automation

Here's how to fix interstate traffic deaths and delays:

We have seen races between completely automated vehicles that run across roadless desert terrain and urban settings. See here: http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp

Why can't that technology (partially paid for by taxpayers) be applied to vehicles that operate on public highways?

Yes, Virginia, it IS possible with currently available technology. See here:
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, http://www.itsa.org/

A combination of these and other existing technologies could allow hands-free passenger travel on public highways:

• "Smart," "dynamic," or "active" cruise control lets a vehicle maintain a reasonable speed while preventing collision with the vehicle ahead (Lexus, BMW, et al). A line of these vehicles could create an automated passenger car convoy traveling without swerving from lane to lane or repeatedly passing each other, preventing accidents and saving fuel.


• Global Positioning Systems can monitor the precise location of each vehicle in a convoy to ensure its proper location in the lane.


• Convoy groups may be defined to reduce the number of queries and reporting transactions with the GPS, data being shared, as needed or desired, among convoys or convoy members.


• Simple onboard routing logic resident in each vehicle computer could be coupled with short-range radio trasnmissions to constantly update convoy information as vehicles join or leave a convoy.


• Vehicle computers can monitor GPS position and exit numbers to notify the driver/passenger in a convoy when they are about to arrive at their exit and should prepare to resume navigational control. Diversions for sight-seeing, gas, food, lodging, etc. could be managed on-the-fly.


• OnStar technology could be used to help manage convoys in various ways, including using driver's verbal conveyance of visual observations to help assess and respond to unusual conditions in a convoy, its vehicles, and the road or environment.


• Road signs, guardrails (and with a little more development in nanotechnology, even lane striping paint) could be equipped with radio frequency identification tags and other data or capability to help monitor passing convoys and vehicles, providing precise dimensional data to ensure proper vehicle positioning on the road.

Considering these capabilities, plus other advancements like those employed with automated Mars rovers, there is no reason we should not expect to exploit all kinds of existing technology (especially those technologies paid for by taxpayers) to make automated, hands-free highway driving available to the public.

Two Ways To Defeat Militant Islam

In the mid-to-late 1900's, America's awareness of terrorism was largely restricted to reports of attacks by groups like Sinn Fein, whose object was to unite Ireland and Northern Ireland by force of violence. Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement of April 10, 1998, all parties involved committed to "exclusively peaceful and democratic means" to determine the future of Northern Ireland.

Good thing, too. Imagine what life would be like on the Emerald Isle today if the Irish Republican Army had remained committed to constant escalation of violence unto eternity or until the advent of the British crown's retreat.

Practitioner's of terrorism today want much more than political control over a few thousand square miles of territory. Furthermore, the prospect of nuclear weaponry becoming available to terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations becomes increasingly, alarmingly more likely as nuclear warheads evaporate from the control of former-Soviet nations and nuclear technology proliferates in the hands of political forces who have sworn to annihilate the US, Israel, and its allies.

Consequently, there is much more at risk today and far greater threat posed to the rest of the globe by the threat of Islamic terrorism than ever existed prior to the Belfast Agreement.

What's the problem?

Since militant Muslims cannot agree among themselves what they want, it's hard to nail down the limits of the threat of Islamic terrorism:

• Some want infidels out of the Holy Land. Even the term "infidel" is subjective. Literally, "non-believers," this could mean atheists or non-Muslims; it depends who you ask.


• Some militant Islamic activists seek the overthrow of Israel and the return of the Holy Land to the province of the Palestinian state.


• Other jihadists seek to do the will of Allah by bringing the entire globe under Islamic law ("sharia") by placing the Taliban in charge of the entire world.


• Still others want Sunni Muslims to annihilate Shia Muslims, or vice-versa.

So it's tough to get a handle on exactly how much of a problem militant Islam really is, but if it can be said that militant Islam collectively seeks any one thing, it is a return to the glory days of the 7th century - the period between the years 620 and 720 of the Common Era.

In that period, Muhammad established Islam and, over the next 100 years, his successors spread his political and spiritual messages. By 720, the Caliphate, a loose affiliation of sultanates forming an Islamic theocracy, had displaced the Greek-speaking Roman Empire which had previously engulfed the entire Mediterranean. In this period, the Byzantine Empire's boundaries were moved mostly to the North of the Mediterranean, while the Caliphate expanded from a single-community cult in the Arabian Peninsula to an empire stretching from what is today Lisbon Spain, across North Africa to India.

In that age of religious conquest (both Islamic and Christian), violent clashes of men were mostly a hand-to-hand affair, with state-of-the-art combat restricted to swords, spears, arrows, and the occasional catapult. Today's warfare technology features detached devastation on massive scales: rocket propelled, delayed ignition weapons and remote-controlled bombs ranging from improvised explosives devices to intercontinental nuclear warheads. So, today, military technology allows a very few hands to exact extensive death, injury and damage. Overwhelming manpower no longer guarantees military success and minority numbers are no longer a harbinger of defeat.

Now let's suppose one's religious beliefs confer earthly high regard and heavenly rewards in the afterlife on those who martyr themselves or slaughter unbelievers. With that dynamic thrown in, suddenly the threat becomes even more formidable because the shared mutual fear of death - or the desire to avoid it – among opposing forces is not only removed but reversed. If only a marginally well-equipped enemy is willing to sacrifice its own members (men and women in bomb vests; children clearing mine fields), or vanquish the enemy along with non-combatants, how does one negotiate diplomatically with such a value system?

In World War II, the concept of diplomacy with Kamikaze ("divine wind") pilots was unheard of, and for good reason. There is no known way to mediate peace with armed religious zealots who fervently believe in the rewards of martyrdom and the slaughter of infidels.

It seems unlikely that Islamic terrorism will suddenly lose its attraction for the jihadists. So it becomes incumbent on the rest of us to somehow persuade militant Islam permanently into the diplomatic arena under something equivalent to the Belfast Agreement. And the clock is ticking.

For a basic understanding of Islam and its more enraged factions, see: http://militantislam101.blogspot.com/

What's to be done?

Pragmaticite's royal prediction is that the era we live in today in will soon be seen as a major historical milestone - one way or the other – because there are only two ways to defeat Militant Islam. One is peaceful, but improbable. The other is impossible - under western culture's modern rules of engagement - but could be inevitable.

Assuming fate will not eventually find us all living under the global authority of the Taliban, one of two things must happen to end Islamic terrorism:

Method A. - Internal resolution.

Muslim leaders must denounce terrorism and repudiate those who seek to further their ideology by inflicting violence on innocent civilians.

So far, this approach has not enjoyed sufficient practice by Islamic leaders with any credibility among militant Islamic terrorists. Today it remains much easier to find film clips of organized mobs waving weapons over their heads, chanting "death to America!" than it is to find clips of Muslim peace marches denouncing terrorism.

Method B. - External resolution.

Historically, we cannot expect militant Islamic terrorists to agree to binding, strictly diplomatic negotiations toward an enduring peace (compromise with Satan is forbidden). Consequently, absent successful employment of Method A., forces in opposition to terrorism must adopt a more brutal and compelling strategy that will force terrorists to abandon their tactics. World War II rules of engagement, featuring massive bombing strikes and profound collateral damage could - at horrible human cost - possibly dissuade militant Muslims from their ambitions of terrorism for the glory of Allah.

If there is another attack in America on the order of the events of September 11, 2001, or if there is a nuclear terrorist event anywhere in the world, we may expect rapid, dramatic changes in the military rules of engagement in the "war on terror."

Anyone who desires to live a peaceful life independent of Islamic militants should press and hope for Muslim leaders to take a more assertive role in distinguishing themselves from those who subvert the Islamic faith to advance political agendas of global dominion.

To avoid the devolution of US military policy (and you thought that wasn't possible!) into a "fight fire with fire" or "let God sort 'em out" approach, your "Method A" task assignment is shown below. (Method B is an failsafe position involving lots of Tomhawk missles. It will kick in automatically if Method A becomes obviously ineffective.)

Contact all the Muslim leaders you can find and repeatedly urge them to conduct public peace demonstrations and denounce terrorism.

Opt Out - Political Sellout

Remember a few years back all of the squealing about Do Not Call lists? And you must have noticed how effectively our society has regulated "spam," those pesky, unsolicited email messages that offer prescription medications, better mortgage interest rates, or whatever your love life might be lacking. While spam legislation and federal Do No Call lists are admirable pursuits, they do not address the real problem, but actually help sustain a precedent for violating Americans' right to privacy.

Solutions like spam legislation and Do Not Call lists are like using a sponge to fend off a fire hose spray. Don't get me wrong; I love the idea of curbing the deluge of unwanted solicitations, whether arriving via phone, email or snail mail. However, the answer is not more or bigger sponges. The solution is to turn off the hydrant. To do that, we must recover control of our private contact information, something we lost about the end of the millenium by virtue of two little words: "Opt Out."

The Problem with Opt Out

When I first heard about Opt Out, I immediately recognized the threat but didn't worry; I was certain that this ridiculous folly could never survive a court challenge. After all, this policy essentially says that any organization you do business with can share or trade your private information unless you follow steps A, B, and C. Furthermore, you must repeat steps A, B and C, every year, forever, or risk having your information sold to the highest-bidding mass-marketeer. Frequently, if you fail to Opt Out for just one year, your information gets released into the list trading commercial universe, and that's one tough bell to unring.

Consequently, the default has become that our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects is now regularly subject to violation, unless we follow steps A, B and C, every year, forever, with every merchant whom we trust with our data. It almost sounds comical that US citizens could passively waive their Constitutional right to privacy, but it is true. Thank you, former Senator Phil Gramm.

Yes, Phil Gramm, friend and paid-for patron of the financial industry and scourge of his constituency. We can trace the advent of Opt Out policies to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, commonly known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Don't feel too bad if you never heard of the origins of the Opt Out policy. The phrase, "Opt Out" appears only once in that legislation (two words out of more than 61,500), but it was a very powerful phrase, indeed. It lets your bank or another financial services vendor presume that you give your consent for them to share your private information with whomever they choose, unless you follow steps A, B, and C, with each and every vendor, each and every year, forever. Opt Out is a gift that keeps on giving, presented by a purportedly populist Senator to the financial industry, which gave so much to his political career, and all at the expense of your Constitutional right to privacy.

NOTE: In addtition to the 4th Amendment, which declares that citizens shall be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, the US Supreme Court has found that the Constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion. See also "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights," article 12.

Today Opt Out is usually concealed in the latter paragraphs of a "Privacy Policy" statement that few people read. This Orwellian double-speak has seeped into the record of every relationship one can imagine between a consumer and an organization of any kind. You probably have been offered an opportunity to opt out of allowing your electric power utility to share your name, contact information, and electricity consumption rates. And, if you wonder where all those spam emails come from, check for an Opt Out provision in the Privacy Policy statement of any Web site that asks for your email address.

Unfortunately, that is not the worst of it. Parents of students may be familiar with junk mail addressed to "The Parents of (Your Child's Name)." Can it be true that a child's contact information and scholastic records are now up for grabs? Can it be true that pedophile predators can now obtain a student child's name, address, physical description, and a list of his or her elective classes, without ever lurking near a schoolyard?

If all this is possible, what other Constitutional rights might Congressional treachery cause us to passively surrender?

My Edict on Opt Out

This insidious practice must be stopped and reversed. Any Opt Out practice should be abolished and replaced with an Opt In policy, so that a client's personal data is strictly protected unless the client signs a waiver. Any information or records obtained by a citizen's failure to follow any Opt Out procedure's steps A, B, and C should be destroyed.

The default should be to protect people's privacy - except in the cases of former Senators Phil Gramm and his cronies, Leach and Bliley. For them I decree that their curriculum vitae shall be shared free of charge with every junk mail and spam maven from New York to Nigeria for twice as many years into the future as the shameful Opt Out policy has been allowed to thrive.

INTRO - Things That Make Me Crazy

Each item in the following list of issues makes me crazy, so I'm using this space in an attempt to purge my insanity.

These social quandaries vex me, not so much because they are problems, but because they need not be problems at all.

I swear: Just make me king, and I'll fix everything ...

• Illegal Immigration/Aliens
  
• US Tax Code - The Flaw Of The Land
  
• Traffic Deaths and Delays on Highways
  
• Two Ways to Defeat Militant Islam
  
• Opt Out - Political Sellout
  
• What if Obama really IS a Usurper?

Watch this space as edicts from my potential throne offer cogent resolutions to one maddeningly senseless predicament after another ...