Former Congressman and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--an admitted pedophile--was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison. Some people protested it was way too light of a sentence. I say it was too harsh of a sentence.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
GUARDIAN ANGELS OR BACKSLIDERS?
When I was in the 1st grade at St Mary Magdalene Catholic school in Chicago, our nun told us about guardian angels. She said that at the time of our birth, God assigns each of us our very own angel to watch over us and keep us safe from harm. As a six year old it seemed like a very cool concept. I actually had my very own bodyguard.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Monday, April 25, 2016
IS IT REALLY LOVE?
What is love? We all think we have the answer to that question. After all, haven't most of us loved, as well as being loved.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
PRIMARY DECEPTION
The primary elections have morphed into primary chaos and confusion. Let us count the ways: delegates and super delegates; candidates winning delegates in Colorado without any election, Bernie Sanders winning 7 straight primaries, yet way behind in delegate votes to Hillary Clinton; elections running from January to June. How did it come to this?
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
Monday, March 14, 2016
GETTING TRUMPED
The Democrats and the Left have been attempting to portray Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolph Hitler. Yet it is highly ironic that at the planned rally for Trump at the UIC Pavillion in Chicago, it was the very same Democrats and Leftists who acted like brown-shirted Nazis by creating chaos and disruption aimed at preventing Trump from speaking at the campaign forum. While it is their right to protest and demonstrate, no group or individual has the right to deny another group or individual their right to lawful free speech and freedom of assembly. Just because you disagree with someone does not give you the right to stop them from expressing themselves. It should be noted that many of the protesters were carrying Bernie Sanders signs, which is fitting considering Sanders is an avowed Socialist and an admirer of Marxist regimes, all famous for political repression.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
THE OSCARS IN BLACK AND WHITE
Accusations are flying from all directions accusing the Academy Awards of being racially biased. It borders on the ridiculous to accuse Hollywood of any anti-black bias. The film industry is famous (and infamous) for being uber liberal in its politics. Think Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Leonardo DeCaprio, ad nauseum. You couldn't spit out of you car window driving down Wilshire Boulevard without hitting a left leaning liberal.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
DO LIVES MATTER? OR NOT?
You've seen them on TV, in the papers, online: Black Lives Matter demonstrators marching in the streets, carrying signs, shouting slogans, tying up traffic, blocking business establishments. They have legitimate grievances--white police officers allegedly shooting black citizens without justification. But given the circumstances, a person must ask if these demonstrators are sincerely taking to the streets to end injustice, or simply to push political and social agendas.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)