Where’s the militia now?
The Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, so that we might protect ourselves from government tyranny. In Portland, Ore., we are seeing third-world-style body snatching. Actual tyranny. Actually here. Where are the big brave militiamen when they are needed?
The militias have shown themselves to be bold enough to confront unarmed protesters, but are the militia afraid to go up against thugs wearing plate armor, and who might shoot back? Are they physical cowards? Or are they tyrants themselves? Perhaps even racist tyrants.
Perhaps President Trump is doing their un-American racist work for them. Why aren’t they writing letters to the editor, explaining their position? Are they philosophical cowards, too?
Prisons not good investment
So the Idaho Land Board decided Tuesday to look into building a prison as a possible investment with $130 million it has accumulated through the sale of commercial and residential properties.
The purpose, according to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, is to use the prison to provide a steady stream of income.
I may be naïve, but I would be willing to work with any government leaders that can use my help to investigate an alternative long-range income-generating and social improvement plan, and that is to invest the money in 1) improving public education to guide children away from incarceration and 2) funding corrections and criminal justice reform that rehabilitate the incarcerated and give them tools and practices enabling them to be contributing citizens with skills that raise their self-esteem and equip them to participate in jobs.
Privatization and “lucrative” income generation from prisons without serious rehabilitation programs seems a criminal affront to the charge our leaders have to grow a just and humane society.
Incarceration without respecting that charge results in a costly waste of human potential and is a violation of the Idaho Constitution (Article IX, Section 8) which “mandates” a long-term benefit to beneficiaries of the state endowment fund, which include social systems designed to improve not just sustain current social structures.
How can we have this voice heard by the five elected officials who are making this decision on the use of the accumulated $130 million?