Technical Tips…

I was reading another interesting article by C|net written by Jason Cipriani and was entitled “This email will self destruct…” It is a really great tool for information that you don’t want to allow permanent access to, but rather a one time access and that is it.

I played with it a little and found it to potentially be a really great tool allowing you to send out a password, or other sensitive data for someone you want to have access to something onetime.  Although, I would think long and hard before sending truly sensitive info because there is always someone who may be looking.  They state that the information is securely encrypted and they cannot tell you even if you ask, but I recall there being a big governmental rift about wanting a back door for all of these encryption programs, such as PGP, Trucrypt, etc. But I never did hear any follow up stories about if these encryption companies ever compromised their software with that back door, or not.  So, whether it is absolutely safe I cannot say because of that one thing, but I did send an email to the author to find out what he knows about that aspect.

But overall, I believe it would be a tremendous tool for one time information to be sent out to someone!–heres-how/


Strangest Damn Things People Think About…

I was watching the television and, as usual, a commercial came on.  It was a Cinnamon Toast Crunch commercial.  A Cinnamon Toast Crunch flake (if that is what it was) sat on the edge of a bowl.  It licked its forehead, placed its tongue in the bowl of milk and caught a Cinnamon Toast Crunch flake which was floating/swimming around in the bowl and ate it.

Now,can·ni·bal·ism [kan-uh-buh-liz-uhm] is defined in the following manner:

1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.

2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
4. the act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock.
5. the removal of parts, equipment, assets, or employees from one product, item, or business in order to use them in another.
Lets go a little further…isn’t the depiction of a Cinnamon Toast Crunch flake eating another Cinnamon Toast Crunch flake an act of cannibalism?

On the Constitutional Side…

In the previous segment on the Dredd Scott case we mentioned that Justice Curtis had touched many of the cases previously handled by the various states of the Union, he also spoke of the numerous Acts of Congress.  In his dissenting opinion he quoted from an opinion from the Missouri State Supreme Court where Chief Justice Shaw stated, in essence that by not availing his (Dredd Scott’s) rights under the law and then returning to the Missouri – there was therefore, no change in his status, or condition, of slavery.  Thinking about now that old adage of Court Judges where they spout off “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Justice Curtice brought up another point of interest, with respect to foreign law, where “…the master who takes his slave to reside in a State or Territory where slavery is prohibited, thereby emancipates his slave.”  Our laws are based upon the laws of England where it only makes sense to look at their laws.  However, it must be kept in mind that Dr. Emerson was in the Army and was, as is the custom of our military, not taking up permanent residence but only temporary due to a military assignment(s).

He raised three points of contention concerning slavery: 1. Congress can make regulations prohibiting slavery in a territory, but cannot make one allowing it; 2. that slavery can neither be established nor prohibited by Congress, but that the people of a territory, when organized by Congress, can establish or prohibit slavery; and 3. the Constitution itself secures to every citizen who holds slaves, under the laws of any state, the right to carry them into any territory and hold them as property.  It seems to me that #3 is where Justice Curtice looses his case as it is the Constitution which is the law of the land.  Also, the inaction of the Congress to settle the issue concerning slavery within the Union; they just kept putting it off.

He finally brought to bear the fact that slavery is, in-fact, contrary to natural law and natural right.  He also made the notation that slavery was created by municipal law based upon a wide range of territorial laws.  He continued on with a number of reasoning and raised a very interesting question: Does the setting free of slaves by legislation deprive a citizen of the United States violate his rights to property and due process of law?

There are several problems with our history one is the fact that people are unable to put themselves into the places or the mindset of the people of that time and region.  Another is that people don’t like to learn history, because teachers push dates and other insignificant data – personally, I believe that kids would learn history better if given reference and then the dates would eventually follow.  A third problem is that people either want to rewrite, or revise, our history, or they desire to discredit it. There are others, but this is not about the educational system, or the hoards of people who are revisionists, etc.  This is about the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

As a northerner I would have one mindset, as a southerner with a plantation I would have another mindset.  I am making no excuses, nor judgements, just that these are the facts.  Hindsight is 20/20 after all.  To get the most out of it you must read the case yourself!  Also, as mentioned in Part 1, you need to read the treatises by Dave Champion and the specific Acts enacted by the US Congress during the reconstruction period.

See also Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Other Resources:  Michael Badnarik’s Constitution Class (, Carl Miller Text, books by Judge Andrew Napolitano, “Its Good to be King” by Michael Badnarik, etc. (i.e., there are too many to list here or count!)

One of those Poetic Moments…

What Dreams May Come

 “Hell” – Part 4

Hell is a place no one wishes to be.
A place of sadness, a place of pain,
The home of broken dreams,
A palace filled with despair.
Nothing to do, but replay all our mistakes.
To relive all our problems and plans gone awry.
Destruction and dismay all around,
Hatred and hurtful reminders displayed everywhere.
Sometimes when we win, we loose.
Had we looked, we could have seen a new beginning,
But all that was felt was
The end of our relationship of love.
When you arrived you sat in the house of dreams,
Broken and destroyed.
Your heart crushed and tormented
For the decision made by you.
The roads of hell are pave by the souls of men,
So, watch where you step,
For someone you know may be underfoot.
Even though hell is hot
A chill of being destitute overtakes all.
I shall fight past the lost souls
And battle the demons that come
For heaven without you, is hell for me!
I’ve come to take you with me,
I’ve come to set you free,
But you remember me not,
Nor the things on my heart.
I will give up all
For without you I am lost.
Even when you loose, sometimes you win.
So, here I will stay,
With you my soul mate.
That a bit of heaven shall be,
Just knowing that you are with me.
Oh, what dreams may come.
Oh, what dreams may be.

by dM Buteau

On the Constitutional Side…

14th Amendment Part 4

It has been a while concerning this topic, I was still reading the dissenting opinions concerning the Dredd Scott case.  The two dissenting opinions & votes were cast by Justices McLean & Curtis.  The last opinion was published by Justice Curtis, which I found to be the opposite view of the majority that gave me pause to rethink the issue as a whole.

One of the first points he brought to bear was the fact that the US Supreme Court was known for taking up causes on its own accord, which most people believe to be wrong – as they are suppose to take up legal causes that are in dispute; although, if a cause is seen to be a travesty to the tenets and the written words of the US Constitution the Court can take up the cause on its own in the interest of justice.

If Dredd Scott were a slave, or made a freeman, the citizenship issue is of paramount importance, because only citizens could file in the courts. How could a slave made free become a citizen? (This was the premise of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the purpose of the 14th Amendment to the USC.)  The other thing is that if you were a slave and made a freeman, you must be given citizenship which is done by the State; the federal government is given the power to naturalize an alien who chooses to become a citizen of the US. [USC Article 1, section 8, paragraph 5]  Also, what was the basis of what was meant by the Founding Fathers over the term “Citizen of the United States” as written in the body of the USC?

Justice Curtis said that as a matter of principle of public law the Constitution itself recognized that birth on the soil of a country both creates duties and confers rights of citizenship.  But it was a strongly held belief that the Constitution was to form a Government of the United States of America and under it were the several states (which were several individual sovereign states or nations) you were a citizen of the several states in which your reside and were born.  Justice Curtis raised a couple of good points where the ‘citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.’ [USC Article IV, section 2]  But he failed to recognize the USC [Article 1, section 2, paragraph 3] where “persons of service” were acknowledged as 3/5 of a free person, and yet still seen as chattel and property.  He also raised an interesting point that birthright citizenship is based upon native-birth within a state and not upon qualifications.

Justice Curtis walked through many of the laws in other states, as well as, laws from Europe.  We inherited much of our law from England and the Justice quoted that a slave brought into England was then freed, because England did not recognize slavery; similarly, in France.  This is important to the extent that Dredd Scott was transported from Missouri to an area north (now a region of Wisconsin), which by Constitutional Law outlawed slavery.  And then later moved again to an area in Mississippi, which did recognize slavery.

Until the next installment where I finish Justice Curtis’ opinion.

See also Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Politically Speaking…

Here is another sticky issue.  It is both a News Issue and a Political Issue, the newest within this administration which is forcing religious organizations to provide contraception to their female employees.  Where does the government get the right to dictate to a religious organization, one which lives according to the principles and dictates of its dogma and holy book(s)?  Surely it is not via the US Constitution, as I have studied it (and continue to do so) and find no authorization or grant of power to the government to do so.

While watching the news today, a state representative stated (slightly paraphrased) that the right to choose lies solely with the woman, not her boss.  While I can agree with that statement, in part, what is left out is that the woman has no more power to make a choice for her boss than her boss can make those choices for her.  The idea being that our individual right to choose one option or another rests with the individual; just as much so, the choice over the direction and principles to which an organization binds itself to rest with the Executives of that Organization – NO ONE ELSE!

You can no more make a choice for me than I for you and your life.  As a man, I have to purchase condoms and anything  covered by insurance I must pay a co-pay.  Why does this administration think that women should get these contraception choices for free?  I may anger many women out there, for which I apologize; however, I hold to the tenet that you have the God given right to your choice – I do not think that all choices are free in the end, at some point in time we must all pay for our choices.  That being said, no one has the right to choose the path, or outcome, for someone else!  Your inalienable right to choose cannot, must not, infringe on my inalienable right to choose!

Consider what happens if you force your choices on to others.  By doing so you remove their ability to choose, you thereby remove the right of your own children to choose.  Stealing and subverting the God given, inalienable, and constitutionally protected rights bestowed upon them by their maker.

What are your thoughts?

Some articles: