[TBT] The Right to Discriminate

It sounds ugly, it really does – allowing a private business or individual to deny their service to a specific person or group of people. At face value it seems ridiculous; perhaps immature. However, in the name of preserving liberty, there is merit to permitting discrimination in the private sector. The merit is found in the protection of personal liberty.

Before I venture further, it should be clarified that all public goods and services are to be available to everyone. Places such as public buildings, schools, libraries, hospitals, access to public officials, representatives and due process of law, as well as the services of police, medical emergency, fire emergency, et cetera, where funded by taxpayers and/or guaranteed by the Constitution should be accessible to all legal citizens.

In our hyper-sensitive, politically correct world it is taboo for someone to be denied in any way because of the beliefs of someone else. It can certainly seem asinine to anyone who does not share the perspectives of the person denying someone else. No doubt, given the choice, some businesses would abuse the right to deny people based on unfair and senseless discrimination. Still, the fundamental premise of the right to deny is to protect the right of individuals to freely act in a way that does not violate their personal principles. While it is unfortunate that discrimination has been abused for outrageous reasons, such as racism, in the past (and sometimes even today), the alternative is far worse. That alternative is forcing the compliance of individuals and private businesses, to go against their own beliefs.

To illustrate the issue, let us look at two hypothetical situations from either side in their worst case scenarios. One with forced compliance and one with discrimination permitted.

Example 1: John is a restaurant owner in the deep south. His establishment has been in his family for generations. John is also a racist. In this example, there is no law restricting his right to discriminate against his patrons. So John does what he wants and denies service to black, Hispanic and Asian people. He crafts a large sign to hang outside the restaurant that reads “WHITES ONLY”. As a result of his actions, only white people come to eat there. When someone of a different ethnicity arrives, they leave once they realize they are not welcome. Understandably upset, they take their money to a different restaurant.

Now let’s look at the other extreme.

Example 2: Saul is a Rabbi at his local Synagogue. Recently in his state, gay marriage was legalized. However, Saul, as a practicing follower of Judaism, knows that his faith considers homosexuality a sin and gay marriage to be unacceptable. A gay couple in the Jewish community comes to his synagogue and asks to be married by the Rabbi in the Jewish tradition. In this example, the law requires that all businesses and private establishments must offer their services equally to all and the Synagogue is not excluded. But the Rabbi does not comply with the law. It violates the teachings of his faith. The gay couple goes to the authorities who respond by warning Saul that if he denies the couple their right to be married, he will be punished. Saul still refuses to comply on principle. He is then fined for his actions, according to the local statute. The Rabbi and the members of his congregation agree that they should not have to pay this fine and refuse to pay it. The situation escalates and for failing to pay the fine, Saul is thrown in jail. The gay couple is still not married by that synagogue, and now the Rabbi is sitting in jail for refusing to violate the precepts of his religious beliefs.

Those two examples are concoctions of worst case scenarios from either side of the issue. In the first example, the victims (potential patrons of John’s restaurant) are forced to go somewhere else for the services they desire. In the second example, the victim (Rabbi Saul) loses his freedom to practice his faith and is jailed. While atrocities like racism and homophobia are deemed unacceptable by our society, a free country must seek to protect all personal liberties – even the offensive ones.

The freedom to act according to our deepest convictions and beliefs is one of the fundamental ideas the United States was founded upon. Without it, the vision of liberty is tarnished and weak. Sometimes legalizing freedom will offend or inconvenience others. However, to restrict the right of the individual from practicing his core values is strictly un-American.

The freedom to make our own choices is not supposed to be issued only to those we deem good and right. It also extends to the vile and disgusting among us. We might not agree with them, and we might even loathe them, but we cannot pick and choose who gets what liberties because freedom in and of itself can’t be discriminatory. Personal principles and beliefs will include religious beliefs, cultural traditions, political motivation, pro-homosexual, anti-sexist and anti-racist tendencies…in addition to racism, sexism and homophobia.

The catch

In a free country, business and individuals choose whom they interact with. But that does not mean there is a void of consequences for making those choices. I speak of the free market.

The free market is that unseen animal, the invisible beast, that lurks in the shadows of the deregulated, unstimulated, capitalist economy. It exists in the relationship between producer and consumer. The business and the client. The buyer and the seller. It dictates which establishments rise and which fail.

In a free market, the potential customers are unrestricted in their search for the goods and services they desire. They have their choice and how they make that choice depends on their preferences. Those preferences could be price, quality, quantity, accessibility or even how they feel about the company or person they patronize.

Yes, if a person does not like a business because of how that business conducts its business, they can take their business elsewhere. It does not even have to affect them personally; if they see a company mistreating or discriminating against another person or group of people, they can refuse to patronize it. When enough people cease to interact with an establishment, it hurts them…sometimes badly.

In the competitive business environment, such as we have in America, negative perception is not something companies want associated with their image. They want as many customers as possible to generate as much revenue as possible in order to reach their full potential. The same goes for individuals, only on a much smaller scale, and instead of revenue, community respect and personal success is often the currency. So if a business is going to discriminate against a group, it had better be for a good reason, and they should expect to deal with the consequences.

Let us go back to our previous examples

Example 1 continued: John already does not get business to his restaurant from American minorities, so his clientele is already limited. In addition, however, word gets out that he has made his business a “white only” locale. Some people will be fine with it, and might even be more inclined to dine there if they share his racist views. Others will be appalled and never set foot there again – if for no other reason than to avoid being seen as racist – but more likely because they find John’s action to be offensive. Maybe John’s restaurant survives….but maybe it does not. His fate will be dependent on how many other racist patrons he can attract to keep his business alive.

We will now look at the second example, but this time, there are no laws requiring the Rabbi to provide marriage services to the gay couple. He lives in the same world John does.

Example 2, alternate ending: The gay couple requests the wedding. Rabbi Saul refuses. The gay couple goes elsewhere for their services. They spread the word that the synagogue thinks homosexuality is a sin, and no more gay couples request the Rabbi to marry them. Saul is fine with that. Maybe he loses some of his more liberal members. Maybe he receives threats, or insults. But he is still free and still adhering to the fundamentals of his faith.

Either way, the gay couple did not get what they wanted from the Rabbi. In both versions the Rabbi stayed true to his beliefs. The only difference of substance is that in one situation, Saul was punished for his principles by the government and in the other he freely accepted the affects of others’ choices that related to him.

Disclaimer: I acknowledge that there are infinite variables that could be applied to this issue and that I only chose two hypothetical models. I constructed them only to illustrate the point so it is understood in a practical sense and its real-world effects.

Freedom is not always pretty. It does not always create a utopian world where everyone gets what they want and no one’s feelings are hurt. Yet when unleashed, freedom gives us the opportunity to reach our fullest potentials and the choice to live as we see fit.

“…Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It’s not just an eloquent phrase – it’s the American way.

 

 

Former Drone Operators Report More Shady Business from the NSA

From The Intercept, by Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald:

The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program

The National Security Agency is using complex analysis of electronic surveillance, rather than human intelligence, as the primary method to locate targets for lethal drone strikes – an unreliable tactic that results in the deaths of innocent or unidentified people.

According to a former drone operator for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) who also worked with the NSA, the agency often identifies targets based on controversial metadata analysis and cell-phone tracking technologies. Rather than confirming a target’s identity with operatives or informants on the ground, the CIA or the U.S. military then orders a strike based on the activity and location of the mobile phone a person is believed to be using.

Continue Reading

[TBT] President Obama’s Question: To Kill or Not to Kill?

All this past week, the President has been faced with a bit of a dilemma coming from overseas.

Full story from RT

 

There is a United States citizen (name not known to the public) in a foreign country (country not known to the public) who has been suspected of plotting terrorist attacks against the United States.  The man in question has been accused of being an Al-Qaeda facilitator.  As of now, this person is still alive (to our knowledge) and is bunkered down in a remote area. Complicating the matter is the fact that the unknown country in which the accused currently resides will not permit U.S. military forces to enter. According to the damning accusations, this person has planned multiple other terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the past. President Obama’s problem is the question of whether or not he should execute that person -by drone- or capture him and put him on trial.

 

If the Constitution was given a voice in the matter, the question would have already been answered. The clause “No person…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” is very clear and precise. It requires that if an individual is going to have his life taken away from him, he is to be granted due process of law to determine if such an action is justified. If the man being targeted by the Department of Justice is in fact guilty of everything he has been accused of, it should be determined in court – as opposed to a single decision by the executive branch of the federal government. Not being able to forcefully enter the country he is hiding in is not a legitimate excuse to circumvent the law.

 

Unfortunately, the current Administration has already demonstrated that it feels it has the justification to execute American citizens without trial. Sadly, if the President decides to assassinate the unknown alleged terrorist, it would have precedent. The good news is that political pressure from outside the White House over the previous murders have brought a magnifying glass over the President in his current dilemma; perhaps causing this balk by the administration.

 

 Last year’s policy standards and procedures issued from the White House included a piece that stated “If the United States considers an operation against a  terrorist identified as a US person, the Department of Justice  will conduct an additional legal analysis to ensure that such  action may be conducted against the individual consistent with  the Constitution and laws of the United States,”

 

While that is encouraging, feet must be held to the fire in order to ensure those words are adhered to. We are watching, Mr. President!

 

Ben Swann gives his take:

Snowden Bombshell: Seems he downloaded entire roster of U.S. government – all names, home addresses and other personal info of **all** officials and gov’t employees — including law enforcement — plus bankers, corporate boards of directors and more!

Edward Snowden is, without doubt, the single biggest headache for the establishment.

askmarion

February 6, 2014 — (TRN) — Edward Snowden, the former contractor at the National Security Agency took with him multiple “Doomsday” packages of information when he departed the country and began revealing how intensely the US Government is spying on its own citizens. He has the personal home info for all Elected Officials, Law Enforcement, Judges, Bankers, Corporate Boards of Directors and more!

At a classified briefing for members of Congress which took place on Wednesday, members found out that Snowden took with him:

• a complete roster of absolutely every employee and official of the entire US Government.
• The names, home addresses, unlisted personal home telephone and personal cellular phone numbers, dates of birth and social security numbers of every person involved in any way, with any department of the US Government.
• The files include elected officials, Cabinet appointees, Judges, and **ALL** law enforcement agency employees including sworn…

View original post 705 more words

The Re-Resurrection

Hello! I’m back.

It has been too long since I last put hot words to use here.

It has been too long since I last let the fire in my belly come forth.

It has been too long since I last spoke my mind in defense of liberty!

No more. Beginning today with the return of Tru Blu Tuesdays I am back on the warpath of words. There is a lot going on that needs to be vetted. I can no longer hold my peace. The year 2014 is shaping up to be another year of turmoil in this country and Tru Blu Review will be there to cover it.

So back into the fray we go. Back into the glorious conquest of freedom. Back to the front lines of The Revolution!

Tyranny never sleeps, so neither shall liberty!

[Tru Blu Tuesday] Ukraine-gate

Would you like to know how to make enemies? Are you a control freak? Does the prospect of intervening in matters that are not your business intrigue you? Well, here is a story just for you!

Read the Ron Paul Institute’s article for all the gritty details.

 

On February 5th, a YouTube video surfaced that embarrassed the United States. The video (see below) is a recording of two U.S. officials – US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt – having a conversation over the phone. The source is unknown, but the conversation is incriminating. In it Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt discuss people they would like to manipulate and place in political positions in the post-riot-induced Ukrainian government.

 

 

The background story:

Ukraine has been in political turmoil since November 2013. It started when the Ukrainian government halted plans to join the EU and did a virtual about-face by taking steps to deepen its relationship with neighboring Russia. The people of Ukraine, many of whom favor the EU, have turned out in the thousands to protest these actions. Most of the protesting has been done in Kiev, the nation’s capital. In January, however, the protests became violent and lives have since been lost. Tensions are high as the people of Ukraine battle their government on a daily basis, seeking to invoke changes.

 

The implications:

The leaked phone conversation has essentially provided evidence that the U.S. has been running the opposition to the Ukrainian government. RPI has more details on this here.

 

This is bad. What Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt have essentially been caught doing is discussing some very invasive meddling in the affairs of another sovereign country. Picking and choosing who advances or holds what positions in a foreign government is unethical at best. Strategizing their opposition, effectively throwing a monkey wrench into Ukraine’s already delicate political scene, is no better. There is simply no place for that within international relations and certainly not from our country – the supposed leader of the free world. What agenda Nuland and Pyatt had cooked up is anyone’s guess, but it is my assumption that they were working to put people in charge in Ukraine who could serve American interests. Correction: American government interests.

 

Press conference video of State Department Psaki defending the leaked conversation.

 

Imagine if that was done to us! Imagine if China, for example, orchestrated riot conditions in Washington D.C. which managed to overthrow our government. (If that initially sounded appealing, considering the current administration, you and I think alike.) Let’s say they then puppeteer officials into our highest federal offices who will follow their agenda. American officials under Chinese direction! How would that make you feel as a citizen? I, for one, would feel violated.

 

Just as assuredly, when the people of Ukraine discover our governments interference with their state they will undoubtedly resent us as a nation.

 

The right path:

Other countries already have a low opinion of the U.S. Especially after stunts like the discovery that the NSA was spying on the Chancellor of Germany. Our leaders need to have integrity in all matters , and foreign affairs are no exception. We need to encourage peace and progress in other nations, but do so diplomatically as opposed to manipulatively behind the scenes. As the lone superpower left in the world, we have the responsibility of leading the rest of the globe. We cannot do so if we disrespect them and make them our enemies.

 

John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, once pondered the defense of America’s actions towards the world in her infant years:

“…she has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own; she has abstained from interference in the concerns of other, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.”

Unfortunately the same can not be said for our beloved America today as we have had our hands in too many foreign affairs to be considered innocent. It is a goal we can strive for, and an admiral one at that.

 

 

 

Happy Birthday Ron Paul!

Today, August 20^th, is the birthday of Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul. The 12 term Texas congressman, doctor, author and Constitutional guru turns 78 years old and shows no signs of slowing down. Anyone who knows me knows that I absolutely love the guy. He is, in fact, a personal hero of mine and an inspiration to millions. In celebration of his birthday I’d like to share a little bit of why he is important to America and how he has impacted my life personally. Aside from the invaluable lessons in foreign policy, monetary policy, civil liberties and so much more, there are a few things I learned subconsciously from the little man from Texas.

Courage

Perhaps the biggest impression he has made on me is his willingness to stand for what he believes in, even when he stands alone. During his service as a U.S. Congressman for 12 terms spread out from 1976 to 2013, Dr. Paul has almost always been in the minority. Even when all other Republicans fell in line behind President Reagan, of whom Paul had been a strong early supporter, when the administration began to stray from small government principles, the good doctor stuck to his guns in opposition. Countless times in his career he was the lone voice in a sea of corruption. No doubt there were nights when he wondered if he was sane for fighting unwinnable battles, but over the course of those few decades he stayed true to principle. Even when, in 2008, he stood as the lone Republican Presidential candidate against an aggressive foreign policy, Ron Paul did not back down to the pressure of what was popular at the time. Even then, when there was still significant support for the war, he showed no considerations to the mass’s opinions.

What he taught me, in doing so, is to always do what is right. When the world is pointing at me telling me I am wrong, but I know the truth, I will stick to that truth. When I stand alone with nothing but principle and my own conscience, I will be able to hold the moral advantage.

You see, when Congressman Paul was prattling on about the Federal Reserve or monetary policy all those years, he did not know he would become the spokesperson for sanity in America. He did not know he would become an idol for young adults. He absolutely had no idea he would have the impact he had today. He did it fully aware that his efforts would be totally fruitless. But because he had the courage to stay with it, he has given the world a voice for liberty again.

Consistency

One of the things that drew me to Dr. Paul, and subsequently libertarian thinking, is the consistency of his philosophy. In politics, everything with Dr. Paul begins and ends with the Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution, it should not be done by the government. If the Bill of Rights protects it, it had better be preserved. His political decisions stem from our nation’s founding document, as the Founding Fathers intended and a republic demands. Ron Paul does not change his opinions as the wind blows, nor does he tweak and twist his views to fit around an agenda. His Congressional service is built on a rock solid, dogmatic faithfulness to the U.S. Constitution.

I have adopted much of his philosophies as my own, (I might disagree with a few minor points on occasion) and as a result I actually believe that much more of what I say and think. Before Ron Paul woke me up, I was a card carrying, Team Red, cheerleader who held the party line on every issue, whether my conscience told me I was wrong or not. But with a libertarian, Constitutionally sound outlook on all things politics, I almost never have to second guess myself. Whenever I am unsure on something, I will even hold off on forming an opinion until I’ve given it the Constitutional litmus test. Now I am much more brazen in my stands, and ever so more consistent – just like the master.

Compassion

Watch the above clip. Ron Paul, being interviewed after the biggest surge of popularity in his career during the 2012 Presidential campaign, took the time to divert from the interview to correct an aggressive cameraman. Most politicians would probably care less about what is going on around them, and likely gloating in the swarms of attention sent their way. Not Ron. Ever the gentleman, he politely but firmly corrects the man, protecting the reporter.

It is only a small act in the grand scheme of things. He didn’t rush into a burning building to save a baby from the flames. However, this one little action spoke volumes of his character. This may be one of the greatest things Ron Paul taught me. No matter how big or important you think you are, compassion and caring for others is never below you. Throw him into a debate with an opponent and the Doctor will come out swinging hard with truth and the tireless aggression of a man half his age. Still, he never losses sight of the need for gentleness and thoughtfulness.

As a frightful and mysterious future awaits us on the horizon, there is no telling what tomorrow brings. Yet with Ron Paul’s wonderful example of courage, consistency and compassion, I know the tools to survive are already at hand.

Thank you Ron! Happy Birthday!

[Tru Blu Tuesday] It’s Comeback Time!

Think of the United States of America’s history as a football game. On one side of the field we have Team Liberty, the upstart franchise in the world arena. They face the imposing Team Tyranny, flexing its centuries old experience and record of global domination. The winner controls the destiny of the nation – the city on a hill, the last great hope.

At the onset of this match, when 13 American colonies claimed and defended their independence from Great Britain, Team Liberty took an early lead. Their bold new quarterback, the Constitution, put them out in front, shocking the defending champs with a quick score right out of the gate. It was not a clincher, but now they had their game plan to beat Tyranny. The fullback for Team Tyranny, an imposing figure named War, nearly ended the contest in 1812, but an impressive goal line stand held him back. There were still some major glitches in Liberty’s offense, such as the enslavement of an entire ethnicity and the battles in the Supreme Court justice system. This resulted in a few punts. However, the first quarter still ended with more rights and freedom ever assembled for a nation.

The second quarter was brutal, as Civil War brought both sides into a bloody contest with Secession and Slavery threatening to tear Team Liberty in two. Somehow they managed to survive with the lead still in tact, although a few controversial plays had some questioning the validity of the score. Slavery was ejected out of the game as a result of that quarrel, but the bad guys still held a few cards. After that difficult possession, Liberty saw some real strides and began to expand their lead. Infrastructure and Industrial Progress took off like never before giving the people excellent field position. Millions from around the world started to take notice and fill the bleachers, arriving by the boatload to cheer on the new kids. The upset was looking good.

Then came the second half.

Tyranny came out of the locker room angry. Slowly they began to work their way back into the end-zone. It was gradual and Liberty wasn’t sure how it started. It might have been when the visiting team pulled out their rookie backup Federal Reserve in 1913, which began to erode the value of the dollar. But that only put a dent in the lead. War pushed his way through the battle of the trenches yet again. Not once, but twice dragging America into a global conflict. These resulted in establishing the prized country as a world power, while the old world was left reeling in the aftermath. However it came at the cost of injury to Equality when thousands of citizens were sent to internment camps in the name of “Safety“.

Team Liberty tried to keep pace by expanding freedom through the Civil Rights movement, but it only netted a field goal overall as Political Correctness tackled Freedom of Speech short of a first down. War found the goal line once again on an audible after the Vietnam Conflict intercepted a pass from the Constitution. Tyranny then took the lead as the U.S. became a global empire, intervening in the affairs of several other countries. They ratcheted up the score with the Red Scare and Inflation. Corporatism ended a comeback attempt by forcing a fumble by Capitalism as Big Government scooped up the loose ball in the wake of what should have been a touchdown against Communism.  Somehow Liberty didn’t notice the sudden turn of events. It might have been the opposing cheerleaders, the Media, that had them distracted from the battle they were then losing.

It is now the Fourth Quarter.

This period began with a massive hit on the Constitution as the Patriot Act sacked him for a huge loss in the wake of 9/11/01. You could clearly see him limping on his Fourth Amendment after that blow. The hits kept coming too, as the Federal Reserve pumped more money into the economy and Undeclared War sneaked through the line on a blitz again and again. Liberty was down by a lot and hurting immensely. The NDAA sacked the Constitution again for “Safety”, which only added to the now gargantuan deficit.

At this point the fans had quieted down considerably, distracted by the sideline gags and whatever the vendors were peddling.

That’s when the comeback started. At first it was a little grumble from one or two patriots on Team Liberty. They were done being beat up on. They were Irate and Tireless and turned their grumble into a roar. They were sick of being pummeled with the referees not calling any of the violations. Tyranny tried to bully their way down field with their Police State, but Liberty fought back. Ignorance sure was pushing hard, but Education and Awareness stepped up big to stop the rush. The crowd could see the intensity rising.

As the fate of the nation weighed in the balance, Tyranny tried to put the contest on ice forever. Big Government was doing everything it could to bring Liberty to it’s knees, but the kids would not go out without one final stand. Suddenly Team Liberty was able to make a few big plays. Federal Reserve was targeted repeatedly. Then a courageous effort to stop the Police State’s nifty NSA spin move resulted in a turnover.

The ball is now in our hands. We are down by quite a lot, but the comeback can happen! The clock is ticking. All we need are a few more game changers – our future depends on it.

Which side are you on?

 

[Tru Blu Tuesday] The Thing About Justice

Have you ever thought to yourself how wonderful the world would be if every criminal was brought to justice? I certainly have. Just imagine: would-be thieves afraid to steal, violence virtually non-existent, and even jay walking would occur quite seldom. Potential criminals would know that they would be punished for their various offenses according to the law. Sounds great doesn’t it?

Bringing every criminal to justice could almost be reality. All that would need to be done is to convict every single person suspected of and charged with a crime. That would get us very close to putting all criminals behind bars. None would slip through the cracks of the system, able to return to their evil ways once again. Just think, O.J. Simpson would have been locked up. So would George Zimmerman. Even those punk kids would finally be fined for trespassing on your lawn! Whoever was suspected of a crime, would get the time. I can smell the utopia!

Of course, it wouldn’t be all that great for the innocent people. It sure would be a bad day for them, getting punished for something they didn’t do, or did on accident. It sure would be tough for them. Actually “them” would technically become you and I since, after all, everyone would be guilty in only a matter of time. I’d imagine that under a system of automatic guilt, all it would take is for your neighbor to press charges on you for some cockamamie offense and just like that – you’re sitting in your own cell in the state penitentiary.

You see, the thing about justice is that it is not simply the application of punishment to those who break the law. It also applies to the protection of the innocent. Consider the opposite of justice: injustice. We could all agree that a criminal getting away with a crime is an injustice. But also consider that penalizing a person who did nothing wrong is equally, if not more, unjust. The application of justice is a delicate balance of integrity and fairness that must err on the side of caution – should it err at all.

As one of our founding fathers put it:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.” – John Adams

Before John Adams was our second President, he was the defense attorney for the British soldiers who were charged in the Boston Massacre of 1770. While most of the colonials called for the heads of the soldiers who fired on and killed 5 Bostonians, Adams believed that even they deserved a fair trial. If you think the O.J. Simpson trial was a big deal, just imagine the heat and passion behind the proceedings in pre-Revolutionary War Boston. (Six of the eight soldiers charged were acquitted. The other two received reduced sentences.) You might say Mr. Adams is an expert on controversy.

 

Everyone wants justice – that is undisputed – yet so few truly understand it. Consider the feminine figure chosen to represent justice. She holds a scale in her hand – the icon of the justice system.  The scales represent how justice is fair and balanced, relying only on logic and fact, as it weighs evidence. This is because justice is not revenge. It vehemently resists emotional reactions and feelings. The lady is also blindfolded, consistent with the adage that “Justice is blind”. This is because it is to be applied equally to all persons, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, political background, social status, wealth or class. Balanced and fair; those are the most vital attributes of true justice.

While I admit that a world without crime sounds wonderful, the reality is that no such thing could be accomplished without harming the people unfairly. The appeal of an honest living in our society is only possible if there exists protection for those who pursue it. That is why it is so important to understand true justice in world with so much turbulence.

An excerpt of the definition of justice from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

JUST’ICE, n. [L. justitia, from justus, just.]

1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse.

[Tru Blu Tuesday] The Hero America Deserves

We live in perilous times. There’s much to be done to get the country back on the right path. However, there are countless villains standing in our way, keeping us from achieving our goals. Corrupt politicians, mindless media, and evil minions in every tentacle of despair wrapped around the throat of a once free and prosperous nation. Someone needs to stop it, fight back. Someone needs to make a change! We need a hero! But who?

I nominate you!

There’s an old adage that says “Be the change you want to see in the world”. I love that saying. It is so easy to criticize the problems we face, and the people who cause them. -I would know, I do it all the time. But instead of standing on the sidelines wishing for change to happen, make it happen within yourself and then impose that change on the rest of the world around you. Maybe news stations never speak your name and criminals never learn to quake in your presence. Still, you can be a hero to those around you. And even if it is just for a moral victory, you can be a hero to yourself.

We all know the whistle-blower Edward Snowden as a fugitive, on the run for a crime he didn’t commit. He saw wrong doings every day on the job as an employee of the security contractor Booz-Allen-Hamilton, working with the NSA. He came to the conclusion that something had to be done to warn the public about the atrocities going on behind the scenes. So instead of whimpering in the shadows for the rest of his career, he went up against the most powerful spy agency in the world and made a difference. It takes a lot of gumption to pull something of that extent, but Snowden realized that that is what it would take. Some say he did it for the fame or for money, and they could not be more wrong. He knew what he would be getting into. He is infamous now, despite his innocence, but he is also an inspiration.

Yesterday former New Hampshire Senator Gordon Humphrey emailed Snowden this message of encouragement:

Mr. Snowden,

Provided you have not leaked information that would put in harms way any intelligence agent, I believe you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution.

Having served in the United States Senate for twelve years as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee, I think I have a good grounding to reach my conclusion.

I wish you well in your efforts to secure asylum and encourage you to persevere.

Kindly acknowledge this message, so that I will know it reached you.

Regards,
Gordon J. Humphrey
Former United States Senator
New Hampshire

Ed Snowden was kind enough to reply from his hiding place in a foreign land:

Mr. Humphrey,

Thank you for your words of support. I only wish more of our lawmakers shared your principles – the actions I’ve taken would not have been necessary.

The media has distorted my actions and intentions to distract from the substance of Constitutional violations and instead focus on personalities. It seems they believe every modern narrative requires a bad guy. Perhaps it does. Perhaps, in such times, loving one’s country means being hated by its government.

If history proves that be so, I will not shy from that hatred. I will not hesitate to wear those charges of villainy for the rest of my life as a civic duty, allowing those governing few who dared not do so themselves to use me as an excuse to right these wrongs.

My intention, which I outlined when this began, is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them. I remain committed to that. Though reporters and officials may never believe it, I have not provided any information that would harm our people – agent or not – and I have no intention to do so.

Further, no intelligence service – not even our own – has the capacity to compromise the secrets I continue to protect. While it has not been reported in the media, one of my specializations was to teach our people at DIA how to keep such information from being compromised even in the highest threat counter-intelligence environments (i.e. China).

You may rest easy knowing I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture.

With my thanks for your service to the nation we both love,

Edward Snowden

Mr. Snowden is an example of one person taking on the responsibility of changing the world. Will all of us have the opportunity to have as much of an impact as he did? Probably not. But we can all change within ourselves the problems we perpetuate, and work towards being part of the solution instead.

If I may venture into the world of pop culture, I’d like to bring you the ending of one of my favorite movies, The Dark Knight. If there was a real life moral equivalent to Batman, it would be Ed Snowden. He’s not the hero America needs. He is the hero we deserve. You can be a hero too!