September 27, 2007
Dear Friends,
To those of you who know us well, it will come as no surprise to learn that we are actively supporting the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While we would like to think that you are all familiar with Dr. Paul and his long-standing support for limited, constitutional government, we know that, realistically, many of you probably know little or nothing about him. We would be deeply grateful for the opportunity to change that.
Dr. Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He served in the Air Force as a flight surgeon before moving his family to Texas to begin his medical practice. A specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered over 4000 babies. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for 50 years. They have 5 children and 18 grandchildren.
Dr. Paul’s record is well known to anyone who has closely followed federal legislation for the last thirty years. As a congressman during the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, he championed limited government and was an outspoken critic of the income tax system, the Federal Reserve and our national monetary system. He left Congress voluntarily in 1984, returning to his medical practice until 1996, when he was returned by the 14th congressional district of Texas. He is currently serving his 10th term as a U.S. Congressman.
On Capitol Hill, Ron Paul’s name has been synonymous with constitutionalism. On issue after issue, his vote has been cast on the side of freedom and morality, sometimes alone. His consistency has been legendary, almost incredible, as his colleagues have slipped one by one into mainstream vote-buying practices. His reputation for standing by his principles has earned him the nickname “Dr. No.” This consistency on a wide variety of issues is evident in the following examples.
Abortion:
Dr. Paul has always been 100% pro-life and a champion of the unborn. In 1981, he attacked the notion of “abortion rights” as held by liberals and many libertarians. “Just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights,” he said. “Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves.”
On February 16, 2000, Ron Paul introduced the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill, under Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, would have prohibited federal courts from overturning state laws banning the procedure. His efforts were unsuccessful. Three years later, the partial birth abortion ban that did pass elicited these insightful words from Dr. Paul:
“As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. ... Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. … Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.”
Gun Control:
Ron Paul has never voted for any bill that included a restriction on private gun ownership. While many politicians pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment, Ron Paul recognizes that it was intended to do far more than protect hunting traditions. Ten years ago he wrote: “A gun in the hand of a law-abiding citizen serves as a very real, very important deterrent to an arrogant and aggressive government.” In 1976, he spoke forcefully against the proposed Washington, D.C. gun ban. He has repeatedly introduced and sponsored legislation to repeal federal gun control laws and to require concealed carry permit reciprocity between all 50 states. Following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Ron Paul successfully worked to repeal federal laws that prohibited airlines from arming their pilots, but the Dept. of Transportation refused to implement the change.
National Security and Terrorism:
On February 12, 1998, Ron Paul introduced legislation to prohibit then-President Clinton from sending troops to Iraq without a congressional declaration of war. In response to the Clinton administration’s claim that an invasion was needed because Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, he said: “There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 'policemen of the world,' opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the US.” It is interesting to note that he was joined in his opposition by many of his fellow Republicans, who later changed their positions under pressure from a Republican administration.
A year prior to 9/11, in his weekly column, he criticized American foreign policy in the Middle East, saying that commercial interests and those of the military/industrial complex were being placed before America’s national security. On Sept. 12, 2001, he reminded his colleagues in Congress: “In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.”
Five days later he spoke regarding the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force: “For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.” He supported military action against the Taliban, but also called for eliminating foreign aid to nations friendly to terrorism, proposed expanding the federal definition of piracy to include acts committed in the skies, and advised the President to look beyond the military when dealing with terrorists.
Ron Paul voted against the massive expansions of the executive branch under the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act and other “anti-terror” laws. He opposed the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security, noting that “the pattern is always the same: government agencies fail to do their job, yet those same failed agencies are given more money and personnel when things go wrong.” He called instead for arming airline pilots, tighter border security, and extending the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes. While his opponents have attempted to portray Dr. Paul as an anti-war candidate hoping to gain from the public’s reaction to the Iraq war, the fact is that he has consistently opposed any undeclared, aggressive war, and his objections to the Iraq war are based on clear constitutional principles. It is worth noting that he enjoys widespread support within the military, leading all Republican candidates in donations from military personnel as of July 2007.
Taxes:
Ten years ago, Congressman Ron Paul called for the abolition of the IRS in his weekly column, “Texas Straight Talk” (9/22/97). He has repeatedly introduced legislation to repeal the income tax, calling for Congress to “find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues.” Only last week, he introduced the Cost of Government Awareness Act, noting that federal income tax withholding was introduced during WWII as a temporary measure and that “64 years is a sufficient lifespan” for any such measure. And while many candidates have criticized certain aspects of the income tax system, Ron Paul is the only one with the courage to point out the obvious conflict between a citizen’s right to privacy and the reporting requirements associated with any tax based on income.
On other issues worthy of note,
· Dr. Paul has steadily opposed globalization and US membership in international governmental organizations such as the UN and the WTO.
· He opposes trade deals that infringe on America’s independence, including NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, and the new “Security and Prosperity Partnership,” which seeks to establish a North American Union while avoiding congressional oversight.
· He has repeatedly called for a return to a gold-backed currency and an end to the Federal Reserve Bank.
· Ron Paul is a proven supporter of home schooling and a tireless opponent of federal control of education.
· He has consistently fought efforts to regulate the internet.
· He opposes so-called campaign finance reform laws that infringe on the free speech rights of individuals.
. He has introduced legislation to repeal the federal tax code limitations on political speech in churches.
· Dr. Paul has never voted for any tax increase, unbalanced budget or congressional pay raise.
· After twenty years in Congress, he still refuses to participate in the congressional pension program, and his congressional office returns the unused portion of their annual budget to the US Treasury every year.
But while all of these issues are critical, what really sets Dr. Paul apart from every other candidate is not his conservative or libertarian positions on issues, but his grasp of the foundational principles of government. While other conservative politicians may agree with him on various practical questions, none of them recognize the limitations imposed on them by God or the Constitution in the exercise of their authority. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands that the elected official derives his authority from the individuals he represents, and therefore he has no authority beyond what those individuals possess. He is also the only candidate whose first question regarding any piece of legislation is whether the proposed legislation is constitutional. While this has placed him at odds with the rest of the conservative community at times, his strict adherence to the Constitution stands in sharp contrast to the weak leadership of mainstream conservatives. Consider the following statements:
“Capitalism is not a system, but rather the result of free individuals taking economic actions without interference by government. A true capitalist economy is neither planned by bureaucrats nor steered by regulators. This is why it’s so important that we resist the idea that any president should plan our economy. If we accept that government “runs” the economy, we accept a fundamental tenet of socialism. We must understand that economic liberty is every bit as important as political and civil liberties. In a truly free nation, the government acts only as a referee by protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, prohibiting force and fraud, and providing national defense.” October, 2004
“Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers.” February, 2005
With such a record, supporting Dr. Paul’s presidential candidacy was one of the easiest decisions we have ever made. However, casting a vote for him simply isn’t enough. Frankly, we never expected to see a major party candidate on the ballot who we could support so completely. We sincerely believe that the candidacy of Dr. Paul is an answer to prayer and a final opportunity to change the direction of this nation through the political process. I say “final” because another Clinton presidency, coming on the heels of the massive expansion of power that has redefined the executive branch over the last six years, will be suicidal for America. We are already at a point where extreme measures will be required to undo the damage that our national institutions have suffered. We simply cannot afford four years of unprecedented socialist expansion of the federal government. Our economy is overtaxed, our debt-based money system is on the verge of a collapse, our military is over-extended, and our welfare system is bankrupt. Millions of Americans who have poured their earnings into the state-run pyramid scheme of Social Security are about to find that there is nothing left to pay them back, even as more and more illegal immigrants are promised returns from the same empty chest. Our national debt stands at over 9 trillion dollars, or over thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. Every one of the rights recognized by our founders has fallen to the threat of terrorism, and the safety we were promised in exchange remains a distant promise. The distraction of sports and entertainment media is all that prevents a complete meltdown of our society under the tremendous burden of the welfare/warfare state, and that will only last while we can afford the hundreds of dollars required to watch grown men chase a pig bladder around a cow pasture.
We believe Ron Paul is probably the only Republican candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton. His consistency on the Iraq war would deprive her of the greatest advantage she possesses in the public view, since he opposed the invasion on constitutional grounds while she repeatedly voted to support it. In addition, his nomination would force her to address real issues instead of relying on emotional talking points. In our view, she has no answers to the real issues Ron Paul has been speaking out on for decades, and the contrast would be most unfavorable to her. A Ron Paul nomination would inevitably result in the exposure of her insulting and condescending view of the American people.
The most common objection we hear to Ron Paul is that he doesn’t stand a chance. While we believe that integrity ought to be supported against all odds, the facts demonstrate that Paul is indeed a serious candidate. Out of 26 straw polls that included Congressman Paul’s name as of September 24, he won 10, placed second in 5 and third in 5. In five of these polls he received over 50% of the vote out of a field of nine or ten candidates, and between 20% and 50% in six others. His performance is especially significant when compared to the four alleged “front-runners.” He placed ahead of Giuliani in 23 out of 26 straw polls, ahead of McCain in 22, ahead of Romney in 15, and ahead of Thompson in 13. These numbers are hardly indicative of a long-shot candidacy. His performance in post-debate polls has been even more impressive, with unbelievable landslide wins in five of the first six debate polls taken by the major network hosts. Dr. Paul’s lower performance in random national polls is an indication of how few people even know who he is, but the debate and straw poll results, taken from audiences who are familiar with the candidates, prove that his message rings true with an astounding number of voters.
The mainstream media tends to focus on fundraising performance as the greatest indicator of a candidate’s appeal. This focus is improper for several reasons. First of all, the Obama campaign demonstrates the extent of the media’s influence on all aspects of the political process, including fundraising. Obama has received what amounts to millions of hours of free advertising, for reasons best known to the decision-makers themselves. By contrast, Ron Paul is hardly ever mentioned by mainstream media, except for a cursory reference to his “anti-war” position. Second, his constitutionalist stance and free-market economics ensure that he does not share in the generosity of the corporate and special interests who make the lion’s share of political contributions. To quote Dr. Paul’s own words: “In establishment politics, people make campaign contributions because they want something: a contract, a subsidy, a special-interest deal. But the thousands of people who contribute to this campaign want no favors from big government -- which must come at the expense of their fellow citizens, and sometimes our soldiers' lives. They want only what is their God-given, natural, and constitutional right: their freedom.”
In short, contributions to Ron Paul’s campaign come almost entirely from average Americans who have been introduced to his platform through alternative news media and who prefer physical and economic freedom to the plethora of benefits offered by the nanny state. With this in mind, the tremendous amounts of money and time being given to his campaign are simply phenomenal. He finished the last fundraising quarter ahead of alleged front-runner McCain in terms of cash on hand, and is expected to do even better this quarter. And as of this writing, Meetup.com lists 937 Ron Paul campaign groups in 759 cities across America, with a combined total of 42,831 members, and over 5,000 more Ron Paul supporters waiting for a group to start in their area!
We realize this has been a lengthy and difficult introduction to Dr. Ron Paul, but it is our prayer that you will be prompted to look more closely at this principled American and Christian. Ron Paul displays a level of integrity that is unrivaled in our national politics, and he joins to that integrity a sincere faith in God and love for his fellow man. Even those who disagree with him on many of his positions still respect his openness, honesty and consistency. With Ron Paul, what you see and hear is what you get. Take the time to look into his platform at RonPaul2008.com, and please consider supporting his candidacy in whatever way you can, including:
1 – Voting for him in the primary election. In PA, you will need to be registered Republican at least 30 days before the May election in order to vote in the Republican primary. Some states have open primaries. Find out your state’s requirements. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination we can look forward to the most exciting presidential election since 1860!
2 – Supporting his campaign financially. Donations to his campaign should be considered an investment in religious, economic and personal freedom for the next generation.
3 – Volunteering your time. Register as a volunteer at RonPaul2008.com to keep abreast of the campaign. Tell everyone you know what is at stake in this election. Feel free to forward all or parts of this letter to others. Joining a meetup group takes only a few moments online, and will enable you to meet other freedom-loving Americans and to contribute whatever time you feel is merited to restoring liberty in this country.
Thank you so much for taking the time necessary to hear from us. Please do not hesitate to call us with any questions or comments. We would be happy to discuss or send you more information on these or other issues relating to Dr. Paul.
Sincerely,
Patrick
Friday, September 28, 2007
Vote for Ron Paul!
The following is a letter we are sending to a long list of friends and relatives. If we missed you, feel free to print it yourself!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
You Drink It Raw?
Here is a letter I wrote in response to the Senate Ag Committee hearing on the question of raw milk sales. Currently, in PA, only certain permit-holding farmers are allowed to sell raw milk under stringent regulations. I would encourage any interested parties to drop Senator Brubaker a note of their own.
The Honorable Senator Mike Brubaker
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036
September 19, 2007
Dear Senator Brubaker:
As a constituent of yours and a citizen of this Commonwealth, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your fellow members of the Ag Committee for the hearing you held yesterday on the issue of raw milk sales. As you know, this issue is important to many people from all walks of life. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to communicate with you further on the subject of yesterday’s hearing.
Much of the testimony yesterday missed the point by focusing exclusively on the question of safety. I would respectfully suggest that the most important aspect of this debate is not food safety, but rather individual freedom and responsibility. While the state legislature, through the PDA and other agencies, does have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the food supply, your jurisdiction in this matter does not extend to interfering in the direct relationships of individual citizens. I recognize that this concept is directly in opposition to the beliefs and ideas that have governed our approach to public safety in PA for the last few decades, but I believe it is crucial to understanding how the question of raw milk sales fits into the larger questions of freedom vs. safety that we face today. Please allow me to explain further.
As elected officials, your authority is derived from the collective authority of the electorate. It is the fashion to conclude from this that elected officials have a duty to follow the will of the majority, but in reality, the source of government’s power places certain inherent limits on the just exercise of that power. If, as the founders believed, all men are created equal, then it follows that no man has the authority to use force against his fellow man except in the defense of his own rights. More to the point, as he is not vested with such authority himself, he cannot delegate it to another to exercise for him. This principle, stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, is acknowledged in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the PA Constitution. It is best summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective exercise of the individual right to self defense. … If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”(emphasis mine)
During one of the public meetings on this issue, I pointed out to Rep. Cutler and the other legislators in attendance that laws create crime. From a lawmaker’s point of view, it is naturally tempting to look for legislative solutions to the real or perceived problems that may come to your attention. However, most problems faced by our society do not rise to a level which calls for solving them at gunpoint. While some may take issue with such a blunt characterization of the matter, the outstanding arrest warrant for Mark Nolt illustrates perfectly the true nature of law. Government is force, and every conflict with government is ultimately resolved, directly or indirectly, by force.
I do not intend to imply that government is inherently bad; I do, however, believe that the difference between unjust use of force by an individual (violent crime) and unjust use of force by government (the representative of the individual) lies only in the extent of the damage caused. In other words, government abuse of power is simply violent crime on steroids - organized crime, if you will.
With this in mind, the question before you is not whether raw milk is as safe as commercially processed milk, nor is it whether five cows is a more reasonable exemption than one. The question is whether the real or perceived risks of direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk are so great as to constitute a violation of the consumer’s natural rights. If raw milk is indeed a deadly poison being marketed as a food to unsuspecting customers, then you have a duty to prohibit such marketing. If, however, it is simply a matter of preference, such as ordering a rare steak or smoking a cigar, then the fact that there are risks associated with one’s decision does not authorize you to interfere in that decision.
Understanding this concept will immediately clarify the troubling questions of liability and testing standards. Since no one but the individual has the right to decide what to eat, no one but the individual is responsible for the consequences of that decision. The farmer should be held liable only for clear negligence that endangers the health of others, such as selling milk produced in evidently unsanitary conditions, but not for risks that are inherent in our existence on this planet or in the conscious decision of the consumer. And, just as an individual may act in self-defense only when he is confronted by an immediate threat, the action of the state against a negligent farmer should be a response to actual danger, not a preventative measure based on fear.
The gentleman from the State Veterinary Medical Association attempted to justify state intervention by pointing out that children likely consume more milk than adults and that they need assistance in determining what is best for them. This obviously true statement sidesteps the question of who is responsible for rendering that assistance. Some in our society are of the opinion that it takes a village, but the fact is that children are given by their Creator, not to villages, but to parents. State intervention between a parent and child is even less excusable than between adults – it is only justified in the face of serious negligence or harm to the child. If we deny the right of a parent to make basic nutritional decisions for their own child, how can we justly arrogate such a right to ourselves through our elected officials?
You asked several times whether a distinction ought to be made between private farms and corporate farms. While on the surface the answer is yes, the proper distinction lies in the actual situation. The family farm may be a member of a corporation for tax purposes, but the individual, acting as an individual, still ought to have the right to sell directly to others without interference from the state, because that activity, for all practical purposes, is unaffected by the legal status of the farm.
Lastly, I strongly urge you to keep in mind that the statistics presented by Mr. Huff of the Department of Health were underwhelming, to say the least, and I ask you to keep part V of Mr. Snyder’s testimony in mind when considering them. Also, as elected officials, you are put in a no-win situation when unelected bureaucrats ask you to determine what number of annual deaths or hospitalizations are acceptable. The only possible responses are bound to implicate you either in apparent disregard for human life or in philanthropic tyranny of the most oppressive kind. This sort of false dilemma can be avoided by keeping the proper role of government in view, and recognizing that it is neither your responsibility nor your right to make such determinations.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this issue and for taking the time to hear from me. I would be more than happy to meet with you for more discussion. May God bless you.
Sincerely,
...
Cc: Senator Waugh
Senator O’Pake
Senator Scarnati
Senator Eichelberger
Senator Folmer
Senator Madigan
Senator Punt
Senator Kitchen
Senator Logan
Senator Wozniak
The Honorable Senator Mike Brubaker
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036
September 19, 2007
Dear Senator Brubaker:
As a constituent of yours and a citizen of this Commonwealth, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your fellow members of the Ag Committee for the hearing you held yesterday on the issue of raw milk sales. As you know, this issue is important to many people from all walks of life. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to communicate with you further on the subject of yesterday’s hearing.
Much of the testimony yesterday missed the point by focusing exclusively on the question of safety. I would respectfully suggest that the most important aspect of this debate is not food safety, but rather individual freedom and responsibility. While the state legislature, through the PDA and other agencies, does have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the food supply, your jurisdiction in this matter does not extend to interfering in the direct relationships of individual citizens. I recognize that this concept is directly in opposition to the beliefs and ideas that have governed our approach to public safety in PA for the last few decades, but I believe it is crucial to understanding how the question of raw milk sales fits into the larger questions of freedom vs. safety that we face today. Please allow me to explain further.
As elected officials, your authority is derived from the collective authority of the electorate. It is the fashion to conclude from this that elected officials have a duty to follow the will of the majority, but in reality, the source of government’s power places certain inherent limits on the just exercise of that power. If, as the founders believed, all men are created equal, then it follows that no man has the authority to use force against his fellow man except in the defense of his own rights. More to the point, as he is not vested with such authority himself, he cannot delegate it to another to exercise for him. This principle, stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, is acknowledged in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the PA Constitution. It is best summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective exercise of the individual right to self defense. … If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”(emphasis mine)
During one of the public meetings on this issue, I pointed out to Rep. Cutler and the other legislators in attendance that laws create crime. From a lawmaker’s point of view, it is naturally tempting to look for legislative solutions to the real or perceived problems that may come to your attention. However, most problems faced by our society do not rise to a level which calls for solving them at gunpoint. While some may take issue with such a blunt characterization of the matter, the outstanding arrest warrant for Mark Nolt illustrates perfectly the true nature of law. Government is force, and every conflict with government is ultimately resolved, directly or indirectly, by force.
I do not intend to imply that government is inherently bad; I do, however, believe that the difference between unjust use of force by an individual (violent crime) and unjust use of force by government (the representative of the individual) lies only in the extent of the damage caused. In other words, government abuse of power is simply violent crime on steroids - organized crime, if you will.
With this in mind, the question before you is not whether raw milk is as safe as commercially processed milk, nor is it whether five cows is a more reasonable exemption than one. The question is whether the real or perceived risks of direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk are so great as to constitute a violation of the consumer’s natural rights. If raw milk is indeed a deadly poison being marketed as a food to unsuspecting customers, then you have a duty to prohibit such marketing. If, however, it is simply a matter of preference, such as ordering a rare steak or smoking a cigar, then the fact that there are risks associated with one’s decision does not authorize you to interfere in that decision.
Understanding this concept will immediately clarify the troubling questions of liability and testing standards. Since no one but the individual has the right to decide what to eat, no one but the individual is responsible for the consequences of that decision. The farmer should be held liable only for clear negligence that endangers the health of others, such as selling milk produced in evidently unsanitary conditions, but not for risks that are inherent in our existence on this planet or in the conscious decision of the consumer. And, just as an individual may act in self-defense only when he is confronted by an immediate threat, the action of the state against a negligent farmer should be a response to actual danger, not a preventative measure based on fear.
The gentleman from the State Veterinary Medical Association attempted to justify state intervention by pointing out that children likely consume more milk than adults and that they need assistance in determining what is best for them. This obviously true statement sidesteps the question of who is responsible for rendering that assistance. Some in our society are of the opinion that it takes a village, but the fact is that children are given by their Creator, not to villages, but to parents. State intervention between a parent and child is even less excusable than between adults – it is only justified in the face of serious negligence or harm to the child. If we deny the right of a parent to make basic nutritional decisions for their own child, how can we justly arrogate such a right to ourselves through our elected officials?
You asked several times whether a distinction ought to be made between private farms and corporate farms. While on the surface the answer is yes, the proper distinction lies in the actual situation. The family farm may be a member of a corporation for tax purposes, but the individual, acting as an individual, still ought to have the right to sell directly to others without interference from the state, because that activity, for all practical purposes, is unaffected by the legal status of the farm.
Lastly, I strongly urge you to keep in mind that the statistics presented by Mr. Huff of the Department of Health were underwhelming, to say the least, and I ask you to keep part V of Mr. Snyder’s testimony in mind when considering them. Also, as elected officials, you are put in a no-win situation when unelected bureaucrats ask you to determine what number of annual deaths or hospitalizations are acceptable. The only possible responses are bound to implicate you either in apparent disregard for human life or in philanthropic tyranny of the most oppressive kind. This sort of false dilemma can be avoided by keeping the proper role of government in view, and recognizing that it is neither your responsibility nor your right to make such determinations.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this issue and for taking the time to hear from me. I would be more than happy to meet with you for more discussion. May God bless you.
Sincerely,
...
Cc: Senator Waugh
Senator O’Pake
Senator Scarnati
Senator Eichelberger
Senator Folmer
Senator Madigan
Senator Punt
Senator Kitchen
Senator Logan
Senator Wozniak
Monday, July 16, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Politics or Principles?
As a serious history student, I frequently find myself drawing comparisons between current and historical events, people and societal trends. The conclusions warranted by this method are often offensive to those who suffer from the delusion that “things are different today.” But as our national politics slip beyond their previously explored frontiers of degeneracy, I find myself thinking again on the vast difference between a statesman and a politician.
Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.
The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.
A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.
The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.
The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.
If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.
The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.
Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.
Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.
The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.
A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.
The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.
The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.
If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.
The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.
Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
God Of Our Fathers
God of our fathers - whose Almighty hand
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies -
Our grateful songs before Thy throne arise.
Thy love divine has led us in the past;
In this free land by Thee our lot is cast;
Be Thou our ruler, guardian, guide and stay,
Thy Word our law, Thy paths our chosen way.
From war's alarms, from deadly pestilence,
Be Thy strong arm our ever sure defence.
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace.
Refresh Thy people on their toilsome way;
Lead us from night to never-ending day.
Fill all our lives with love and grace divine,
And glory, laud and praise be ever Thine.
Leads forth in beauty all the starry band
Of shining worlds in splendor through the skies -
Our grateful songs before Thy throne arise.
Thy love divine has led us in the past;
In this free land by Thee our lot is cast;
Be Thou our ruler, guardian, guide and stay,
Thy Word our law, Thy paths our chosen way.
From war's alarms, from deadly pestilence,
Be Thy strong arm our ever sure defence.
Thy true religion in our hearts increase,
Thy bounteous goodness nourish us in peace.
Refresh Thy people on their toilsome way;
Lead us from night to never-ending day.
Fill all our lives with love and grace divine,
And glory, laud and praise be ever Thine.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Conservawhat?
Recently I’ve been pondering the meaning of the term “conservative” – or perhaps I should say the lack of meaning. I’ve always called myself a conservative, at least before the neo-conservative heresy made it necessary to christen that view paleo-conservatism. But I’ve begun to wonder what criteria define a political position as conservative? In today’s cultural context the dictionary definition is almost irrelevant, but conservative politics are popularly thought to include such ideas as a strong national defense, Christian moral values, less government, lower spending, and respect for the constitution. That sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But is it really true?
Consider the belief in a strong national defense. Originally a commitment to preserving national sovereignty and the liberty that set America apart from the rest of the world, it has mutated into unlimited support for the American warfare state and the intoxicating status of “superpower.” Those who challenge the morality of slaughtering civilian populations to break the will of an enemy are automatically labeled “pacifist.” Those who question the bully mentality that national defense requires “full spectrum dominance” over the entire world are dismissed as “lefties.”
Last week my uncle and I were discussing the Iraq occupation with a military cousin who was home on leave, about to be re-deployed. He explained that the Iraq war was “80% about oil.” I was surprised to hear him say so, in light of his whole-hearted support for the war. He defended his support by pointing out that America relies on oil for our “national security,” and that we had to invade Iraq to ensure that Iraqi oil remained available to us. (Between individuals such behavior would be referred to as an armed robbery with multiple homicides, but when nations steal from one another all sorts of euphemisms are employed.) Asked where the spread of democracy figured in the equation, he laughed and stated in no uncertain terms that it was a myth. The other 20%, he informed us, consists of the “bonuses” of toppling Saddam and obtaining a staging area for the invasion of Iran (also for oil.)
What standard of right and wrong is being applied here? Why is it that support for national defense is now expected to imply support for our assumed role of global umpire? When did defending America become a chess game for control of the world, played with live pieces? How is the cause of freedom served by killing civilians for the crime of living under a tyrant? These are only a few of the questions that conservatives have failed to ask, and our failure has left a massive gap in the political debate over the current war.
How about morality? Conservatives like to think of themselves as the champions of moral rectitude. Sure, we’ve compromised a little - we talk about “family values” instead of God’s Law - but, all things considered, we feel like we’ve given our utmost to the preservation of the family. If only the Dems and liberals weren’t so powerful …
What on earth is wrong with us? We are the problem, not the liberals. American Christians adore their President for signing a ban on one rare type of infanticide while ignoring the fact that abortion numbers have soared during his tenure. They rejoice over his meaningless support for a “marriage amendment” while he appoints an open sodomite to the rank of “AIDS ambassador.” In more than 5,900 years of world history no civilized society ever conferred legal recognition on sodomite relationships. Yet so-called conservatives in this country have twice elected a President who wants to do just that. Are we merely opposed to calling duct-tape relations “marriage,” or are we opposed to government-subsidized sin? If family values are nothing more than semantics they aren’t worth fighting for.
Less government? Lower spending? Respect for the Constitution? Six years of complete Republican control was enough to bring about the largest consolidation of power in the history of the nation, invent a new Cabinet-level department and countless subordinate bureaucracies, expand the tax code by over one hundred thousand pages, pump up the Department of Education with expanded powers and the largest budget increase in history, begin the registration and identification of every livestock animal in the country, pass thousands of new laws, create thousands of new criminals, add billions upon billions to the national budget and spend even more billions without adding them to the national budget; and to balance all this we have nothing to show except the sunset of the assault weapons ban. Bravo.
It’s time to be honest with ourselves. For the last fifty years, generally speaking, presidential elections have offered conservatives little more than a choice between various crooks. Our efforts have focused on supporting the crook who owes the most to conservative interests (otherwise known as the lesser of two evils). This reprehensible waste of our vote has supposedly been justified by the threat of “liberal” ascendancy, but in practice it has resulted in an ever-worsening spectrum of crooks to choose from.
No election illustrates this trend more clearly than the one before us. The GOP has so completely discounted genuine conservatism that they expect their voters to choose between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The most painful aspect of this line-up is that few Christians or conservatives see the bitter irony in it. Republicans are expected to choose between three candidates who all support abortion in some form, legal recognition of sodomite relationships, more gun control and bigger government. All three major candidates have long and well-known political records, and their scramble to alter their image to better appeal to the “religious right” only makes their overtures more insulting to genuine conservatives.
In terms of actual policy the GOP has long been nearly indistinguishable from its rival, but the truth is that if McCain, Giuliani or Romney wins the Republican primary next year, their nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the conservative Republican Party.
Consider the belief in a strong national defense. Originally a commitment to preserving national sovereignty and the liberty that set America apart from the rest of the world, it has mutated into unlimited support for the American warfare state and the intoxicating status of “superpower.” Those who challenge the morality of slaughtering civilian populations to break the will of an enemy are automatically labeled “pacifist.” Those who question the bully mentality that national defense requires “full spectrum dominance” over the entire world are dismissed as “lefties.”
Last week my uncle and I were discussing the Iraq occupation with a military cousin who was home on leave, about to be re-deployed. He explained that the Iraq war was “80% about oil.” I was surprised to hear him say so, in light of his whole-hearted support for the war. He defended his support by pointing out that America relies on oil for our “national security,” and that we had to invade Iraq to ensure that Iraqi oil remained available to us. (Between individuals such behavior would be referred to as an armed robbery with multiple homicides, but when nations steal from one another all sorts of euphemisms are employed.) Asked where the spread of democracy figured in the equation, he laughed and stated in no uncertain terms that it was a myth. The other 20%, he informed us, consists of the “bonuses” of toppling Saddam and obtaining a staging area for the invasion of Iran (also for oil.)
What standard of right and wrong is being applied here? Why is it that support for national defense is now expected to imply support for our assumed role of global umpire? When did defending America become a chess game for control of the world, played with live pieces? How is the cause of freedom served by killing civilians for the crime of living under a tyrant? These are only a few of the questions that conservatives have failed to ask, and our failure has left a massive gap in the political debate over the current war.
How about morality? Conservatives like to think of themselves as the champions of moral rectitude. Sure, we’ve compromised a little - we talk about “family values” instead of God’s Law - but, all things considered, we feel like we’ve given our utmost to the preservation of the family. If only the Dems and liberals weren’t so powerful …
What on earth is wrong with us? We are the problem, not the liberals. American Christians adore their President for signing a ban on one rare type of infanticide while ignoring the fact that abortion numbers have soared during his tenure. They rejoice over his meaningless support for a “marriage amendment” while he appoints an open sodomite to the rank of “AIDS ambassador.” In more than 5,900 years of world history no civilized society ever conferred legal recognition on sodomite relationships. Yet so-called conservatives in this country have twice elected a President who wants to do just that. Are we merely opposed to calling duct-tape relations “marriage,” or are we opposed to government-subsidized sin? If family values are nothing more than semantics they aren’t worth fighting for.
Less government? Lower spending? Respect for the Constitution? Six years of complete Republican control was enough to bring about the largest consolidation of power in the history of the nation, invent a new Cabinet-level department and countless subordinate bureaucracies, expand the tax code by over one hundred thousand pages, pump up the Department of Education with expanded powers and the largest budget increase in history, begin the registration and identification of every livestock animal in the country, pass thousands of new laws, create thousands of new criminals, add billions upon billions to the national budget and spend even more billions without adding them to the national budget; and to balance all this we have nothing to show except the sunset of the assault weapons ban. Bravo.
It’s time to be honest with ourselves. For the last fifty years, generally speaking, presidential elections have offered conservatives little more than a choice between various crooks. Our efforts have focused on supporting the crook who owes the most to conservative interests (otherwise known as the lesser of two evils). This reprehensible waste of our vote has supposedly been justified by the threat of “liberal” ascendancy, but in practice it has resulted in an ever-worsening spectrum of crooks to choose from.
No election illustrates this trend more clearly than the one before us. The GOP has so completely discounted genuine conservatism that they expect their voters to choose between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The most painful aspect of this line-up is that few Christians or conservatives see the bitter irony in it. Republicans are expected to choose between three candidates who all support abortion in some form, legal recognition of sodomite relationships, more gun control and bigger government. All three major candidates have long and well-known political records, and their scramble to alter their image to better appeal to the “religious right” only makes their overtures more insulting to genuine conservatives.
In terms of actual policy the GOP has long been nearly indistinguishable from its rival, but the truth is that if McCain, Giuliani or Romney wins the Republican primary next year, their nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the conservative Republican Party.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Compassionate Atheism ... ?
Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times printed a special op-ed by Sam Harris, atheist know-it-all and author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.” Harris praised California Democrat Pete Stark for being the first openly atheistic U.S. Congressman, and he called on Americans to break “the spell” of religion and dig a fresh grave for the “God of the Bible and the Quran.” Besides his condescension and arrogance (the usual pre-requisites for atheist writers when dealing with subject matter beyond their comprehension), Harris’ style is positively bursting with a surprising level of confidence, far surpassing anything an accidental, mutant product of primordial soup should be permitted to display. “There is not a person on earth,” he announces, ”who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead… Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources. … Every scientific domain - from cosmology to psychology to economics - has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.”
Really? Sure, cosmologists know more about, say, black holes than we could learn from Scripture (assuming, of course, that they exist, which cosmologists don’t yet know). But rather than claiming to be the complete source of information on all things cosmological, God’s Word takes the much simpler approach of assuring all of us, including Mr. Harris, that there are far more things we will never know regarding the cosmos than we can even imagine. As our knowledge of the universe now stands, anyone who has studied the cosmos at all knows this to be the case. As far as economics are concerned, the Biblical teachings regarding this subject are indisputably superior to anything Mr. Harris might suggest. But psychology? Our entire approach to psychology has proven utterly without merit and incapable of explaining the most basic and self-evident phenomena of the human mind. If this is to be held up as an example of scientific accomplishment, we have very little to be proud of. Perhaps this is why Mr. Harris carefully avoids citing any specific area where these scientific domains excel. Generalities sound much more impressive while requiring much less in the way of evidence.
It would likely be useless to instruct Mr. Harris on the stupidity of his rejection of the idea of a Creator. Either he lives his life under the assumption that order and design indicate the existence of a designer, or he is known to all his acquaintances as a consummate fool. So basic a concept requires no defense. Nor will I attempt to illuminate his understanding of the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the moon-god of Islam. While many rational unbelievers could no doubt grasp the distinction, one who has so completely offered up his intellect to the gods of humanism should not be expected to score on the finer points of history or theology.
Even pointing out that the Bible he scoffs at has anticipated, predicted and refuted the very “progressive” ideas he pretends to believe would probably fall on deaf ears. “Willingly ignorant,” says the scripture, and sure enough, they are.
But near the end of the article, the author makes a fascinating assertion. “There are better reasons,” he opines, “to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak … Compassion is deeper than religion.”
This statement, if correct, is actually worth a book. Rather than writing an entire volume about an event that, in spite of Mr. Harris’ dreams, will never occur, his time would have been far better spent in framing a convincing argument on this subject for those who choose to live out the tenets of the ancient religion he espouses. It is well enough to be an atheist in theory and refuse to accept the authority of a Creator; it is well enough to be a Darwinian in theory and view oneself as merely a survivor - the animal on top of the food chain. But when such a one is faced with a crisis, why should they not act according to their beliefs? Why should the atheist be the only animal to help the poor and feed the hungry? Why should the survivor feel a responsibility to the weak? Why not let nature take its course? If we’re all dust on a rock in a cruel universe, why can’t we kill each other off to increase the odds of our own survival? Matter of fact, why can’t we kill each other off just for fun? If your existence is just an accident, why can’t we treat the end of your existence as an accident as well?
A convincing argument that atheists and evolutionists have a good reason to defend the weak would have saved millions of lives in the past century. If Mr. Harris can make such an argument it is his duty to humanity to quit wasting his time scoffing at Christianity and get busy converting his own brethren to compassionate atheism.
Then again, why should he have a duty to anyone?
Oh, and speaking of squandering scarce resources … it is my understanding that trees were cut down to print Mr. Harris’ last book.
Really? Sure, cosmologists know more about, say, black holes than we could learn from Scripture (assuming, of course, that they exist, which cosmologists don’t yet know). But rather than claiming to be the complete source of information on all things cosmological, God’s Word takes the much simpler approach of assuring all of us, including Mr. Harris, that there are far more things we will never know regarding the cosmos than we can even imagine. As our knowledge of the universe now stands, anyone who has studied the cosmos at all knows this to be the case. As far as economics are concerned, the Biblical teachings regarding this subject are indisputably superior to anything Mr. Harris might suggest. But psychology? Our entire approach to psychology has proven utterly without merit and incapable of explaining the most basic and self-evident phenomena of the human mind. If this is to be held up as an example of scientific accomplishment, we have very little to be proud of. Perhaps this is why Mr. Harris carefully avoids citing any specific area where these scientific domains excel. Generalities sound much more impressive while requiring much less in the way of evidence.
It would likely be useless to instruct Mr. Harris on the stupidity of his rejection of the idea of a Creator. Either he lives his life under the assumption that order and design indicate the existence of a designer, or he is known to all his acquaintances as a consummate fool. So basic a concept requires no defense. Nor will I attempt to illuminate his understanding of the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the moon-god of Islam. While many rational unbelievers could no doubt grasp the distinction, one who has so completely offered up his intellect to the gods of humanism should not be expected to score on the finer points of history or theology.
Even pointing out that the Bible he scoffs at has anticipated, predicted and refuted the very “progressive” ideas he pretends to believe would probably fall on deaf ears. “Willingly ignorant,” says the scripture, and sure enough, they are.
But near the end of the article, the author makes a fascinating assertion. “There are better reasons,” he opines, “to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak … Compassion is deeper than religion.”
This statement, if correct, is actually worth a book. Rather than writing an entire volume about an event that, in spite of Mr. Harris’ dreams, will never occur, his time would have been far better spent in framing a convincing argument on this subject for those who choose to live out the tenets of the ancient religion he espouses. It is well enough to be an atheist in theory and refuse to accept the authority of a Creator; it is well enough to be a Darwinian in theory and view oneself as merely a survivor - the animal on top of the food chain. But when such a one is faced with a crisis, why should they not act according to their beliefs? Why should the atheist be the only animal to help the poor and feed the hungry? Why should the survivor feel a responsibility to the weak? Why not let nature take its course? If we’re all dust on a rock in a cruel universe, why can’t we kill each other off to increase the odds of our own survival? Matter of fact, why can’t we kill each other off just for fun? If your existence is just an accident, why can’t we treat the end of your existence as an accident as well?
A convincing argument that atheists and evolutionists have a good reason to defend the weak would have saved millions of lives in the past century. If Mr. Harris can make such an argument it is his duty to humanity to quit wasting his time scoffing at Christianity and get busy converting his own brethren to compassionate atheism.
Then again, why should he have a duty to anyone?
Oh, and speaking of squandering scarce resources … it is my understanding that trees were cut down to print Mr. Harris’ last book.
Gun control legislative report
I've been nominated by Carol for the Thinking Blogger Award. It's encouraging to know that someone finds this information and opinion worth thinking about! Thank you, Carol.
I'm supposed to nominate five others. Problem is, I have my own business, and it has nothing to do with offices, computers, or the internet. In other words, I don't have a lot of time and don't really know of that many other blogs. I don't know if this is kosher, since he was nominated by Mrs. Lyman already, but I absolutely must begin with Will at Pro-Libertate. It is nice to know I'm not the only constitutionalist sometimes accused of being a lefty. Like Carol, I'll nominate more in the next few posts.
Here's a long overdue "gun control" legislative update for Americans and Pennsylvanians. Be angry, it's OK. This is the stuff that protects the Cho Sueng-Huis of this country from their victims. Use the links to the left to read the bills yourself or to contact your public servants and give them your instructions.
Federal legislation:
Bad -
HR 1022 (A pumped up version of the Clinton assault weapons ban; very sweeping and vague.)
HR 96 (Mandates criminal background checks at all gun shows. Also would require organizers of any gun show to notify the Attorney General in writing 30 days before the event of the date, duration and location and submit a list of all vendors; and to submit a ledger with identifying information for each vendor to the Attorney General within 5 days after the event.)
· SB 77 (Amends Title 18 to allow inspections of FFL dealers “whenever the Attorney General may reasonable require” instead of the current “not more than once during any 12 month period.”)
· HR 256 (This bill increases penalties for youth possession of handguns or semiautomatic firearms and for transfer of such firearms to youth; makes a gun owner responsible if a child obtains their firearm; and makes the guardian of a child who is left unattended at a gun show subject to charges of child abandonment.)
Good -
· HR 861, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007
· HR 226
· SB 388
(Essentially requires states to recognize permits issued by other states.)
· HR 73 (I don’t like any attempt to regulate the 2nd Amendment; however this bill is certainly a step in the right direction from where we are.)
· HR 1096 (Absolutely an excellent bill: it would repeal all criminal background check and safety lock requirements and eliminate the so-called “sporting purposes” distinction.)
PA State legislation:
Bad -
Title: HOUSE BILL 760 (One gun a month. Also requires registration with State Police of all firearms owned by PA citizens [except antique firearms], including a massive collection of personal and identifying information. State Police are not required by the Act to approve any application. Non-approval would require firearm to be surrendered. Approved registrants would be required to store firearm locked or disassembled; notify State Police within 48 hrs of change of registration information and 48 hrs prior to any sale or transfer; and pay an annual tax of $10 on each registered firearm.)
Title: SENATE BILL 48
Title: HOUSE BILL 30
(Massive assault weapons ban: sweeping, vague language; would “grandfather” currently owned assault weapons on condition of annual registration, annual background checks, and annual home inspections by State Police.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 957 (Bans 5.7 mm pistols)
Title: HOUSE BILL 291 (Requires all handguns sold in PA to be “smart” handguns capable of being fired only by “authorized persons;” and confiscation of all other handguns. Grandfathers ownership of previously manufactured handguns but bans their sale or transfer. Violation constitutes a third-degree felony.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 277 (Requires all handguns to be equipped with trigger locks and to be identified in a State Police database by serial # and ballistics identifier)
Title: HOUSE BILL 22 (One gun a month)
Title: HOUSE BILL 20 (Would make it unlawful to store or leave a firearm in any place within easy reach of a minor.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 29 (Est. registry for lost/stolen firearms and makes failure to report loss or theft within 24 hrs a summary offense with $500 fine)
Title: SENATE BILL 701 (Bans purchase of a firearm with knowledge of or intent to transfer to another individual. Provides for defense against charges on the grounds that the purchase was intended for a gift. Also would legalize the currently unlawful retention of handgun purchase records by the SP.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 481 (House version of above bill: also creates a judicial loophole to allow conviction under this act to occur without a trial and without notice to the defendant; allows the state to appeal a sentence if the court does not apply this act.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 784 (Makes transfer of a firearm to an ineligible person a third-degree felony.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 18 Title: HOUSE BILL 25 Title: HOUSE BILL 23 Title: HOUSE BILL 485
(All four would permit cities and other municipalities to regulate firearm ownership and possession via referendum in a long list of ways.)
I'm supposed to nominate five others. Problem is, I have my own business, and it has nothing to do with offices, computers, or the internet. In other words, I don't have a lot of time and don't really know of that many other blogs. I don't know if this is kosher, since he was nominated by Mrs. Lyman already, but I absolutely must begin with Will at Pro-Libertate. It is nice to know I'm not the only constitutionalist sometimes accused of being a lefty. Like Carol, I'll nominate more in the next few posts.
Here's a long overdue "gun control" legislative update for Americans and Pennsylvanians. Be angry, it's OK. This is the stuff that protects the Cho Sueng-Huis of this country from their victims. Use the links to the left to read the bills yourself or to contact your public servants and give them your instructions.
Federal legislation:
Bad -
HR 1022 (A pumped up version of the Clinton assault weapons ban; very sweeping and vague.)
HR 96 (Mandates criminal background checks at all gun shows. Also would require organizers of any gun show to notify the Attorney General in writing 30 days before the event of the date, duration and location and submit a list of all vendors; and to submit a ledger with identifying information for each vendor to the Attorney General within 5 days after the event.)
· SB 77 (Amends Title 18 to allow inspections of FFL dealers “whenever the Attorney General may reasonable require” instead of the current “not more than once during any 12 month period.”)
· HR 256 (This bill increases penalties for youth possession of handguns or semiautomatic firearms and for transfer of such firearms to youth; makes a gun owner responsible if a child obtains their firearm; and makes the guardian of a child who is left unattended at a gun show subject to charges of child abandonment.)
Good -
· HR 861, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2007
· HR 226
· SB 388
(Essentially requires states to recognize permits issued by other states.)
· HR 73 (I don’t like any attempt to regulate the 2nd Amendment; however this bill is certainly a step in the right direction from where we are.)
· HR 1096 (Absolutely an excellent bill: it would repeal all criminal background check and safety lock requirements and eliminate the so-called “sporting purposes” distinction.)
PA State legislation:
Bad -
Title: HOUSE BILL 760 (One gun a month. Also requires registration with State Police of all firearms owned by PA citizens [except antique firearms], including a massive collection of personal and identifying information. State Police are not required by the Act to approve any application. Non-approval would require firearm to be surrendered. Approved registrants would be required to store firearm locked or disassembled; notify State Police within 48 hrs of change of registration information and 48 hrs prior to any sale or transfer; and pay an annual tax of $10 on each registered firearm.)
Title: SENATE BILL 48
Title: HOUSE BILL 30
(Massive assault weapons ban: sweeping, vague language; would “grandfather” currently owned assault weapons on condition of annual registration, annual background checks, and annual home inspections by State Police.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 957 (Bans 5.7 mm pistols)
Title: HOUSE BILL 291 (Requires all handguns sold in PA to be “smart” handguns capable of being fired only by “authorized persons;” and confiscation of all other handguns. Grandfathers ownership of previously manufactured handguns but bans their sale or transfer. Violation constitutes a third-degree felony.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 277 (Requires all handguns to be equipped with trigger locks and to be identified in a State Police database by serial # and ballistics identifier)
Title: HOUSE BILL 22 (One gun a month)
Title: HOUSE BILL 20 (Would make it unlawful to store or leave a firearm in any place within easy reach of a minor.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 29 (Est. registry for lost/stolen firearms and makes failure to report loss or theft within 24 hrs a summary offense with $500 fine)
Title: SENATE BILL 701 (Bans purchase of a firearm with knowledge of or intent to transfer to another individual. Provides for defense against charges on the grounds that the purchase was intended for a gift. Also would legalize the currently unlawful retention of handgun purchase records by the SP.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 481 (House version of above bill: also creates a judicial loophole to allow conviction under this act to occur without a trial and without notice to the defendant; allows the state to appeal a sentence if the court does not apply this act.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 784 (Makes transfer of a firearm to an ineligible person a third-degree felony.)
Title: HOUSE BILL 18 Title: HOUSE BILL 25 Title: HOUSE BILL 23 Title: HOUSE BILL 485
(All four would permit cities and other municipalities to regulate firearm ownership and possession via referendum in a long list of ways.)
Good –
Title: HOUSE BILL 641 (Essentially establishes the Castle doctrine as PA law and affirms the right of a law-abiding citizen to defend themselves or others against criminal actions or threats; rejects the supposed duty to attempt to retreat; prevents perpetrators from bringing civil actions against a citizen for harm resulting from the citizen’s justifiable use of force; and (obliquely) requires peace officers to make reasonable efforts to identify themselves before entering a home or business.)
_____________________________________
A few tips when contacting legislators:
1 - Never count on lobbying groups to get the job done. In my opinion the worst mistake we have made is relying on groups like the NRA, GOA – you name it – to let our elected officials know what we expect of them. Lobbyists are uniquely positioned to educate legislators about the facts and statistics surrounding this and other issues, but ultimately politicians don’t care about facts, they care about money and votes. They aren’t elected by lobbying groups, and there are other groups vying for their attention that have far deeper pockets than the NRA or GOA.
2 - When a bill is in committee, it is best to contact the members of the committee. It is also helpful to contact your own legislators to let them know that you are aware of the bill and how you expect them to vote should it make it to the floor. Once it reaches the floor, committee membership is irrelevant.
3 - A personal note, ideally handwritten, is the most effective way for an individual to influence their legislators. You don’t have to write an essay – the details are the job of the lobbying groups; just name the bill, say whether you want them to support it or not and give a couple sentences to explain your position. If you are in their district, say so. If you voted for them, say so.
4 - The next best thing would be a phone call. If you can write and call, do it. It doesn’t hurt to call every time an action is taken on a bill.
5 - The mass emails and petitions that organizations send you to forward to your legislator have almost no effect unless they arrive in such quantity that their system is affected. Staff members often simply delete them – regardless, the legislator knows that it takes very little effort to forward an email or sign a petition, and they view those items accordingly. Once a bill is on the floor and nearing a vote email can be more effective - they usually keep a tally of the number of emails received for and against a bill; but until then, take the extra time to write a note.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
What aren't we thinking?
In the last post I mentioned that last August, Virginia Tech student Bradford B. Wiles called on the University to allow students licensed to carry in VA to do so on campus. Last night I received a link to an article that appeared in the Roanoke Times on Jan. 31, 2006, regarding a bill in the VA legislature (HB 1572) that would have nullified "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun" on public university campuses. The article quoted Virginia Tech spokesperson Larry Hincker as saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The article continued: "Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus. In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities."
I hope this incident results in drastically lower enrollment for Virginia Tech. They deserve all the bad publicity they receive and more for their irresponsible policy of dependence on the state for basic security while preventing students from lawfully defending themselves.
Having demonstrated that restrictive gun laws encourage violent crime as long as criminals can find a way to obtain guns themselves, it may be instructive to inquire whether any other societal changes over the past fifty years show a similar correlation to violent crime rates. I would suggest three more shifts in our society's thinking that I believe contribute to the chilling frequency of brutal criminal acts as compared to a half-century ago.
The first: education. Children are spoiled as infants, tolerated as young children, and abandoned as soon as possible to the care of "professionals." From these all-powerful experts they learn that they are simply animals at the top of the food chain. They are stripped of any faith in a Higher Being and encouraged to consult their own feelings above every other consideration except the mandates of the state. These are held up to their reverence in almost a superstitious manner, as the modern substitute for the primitive moral ideas of their grandparents. But in spite of the distinct lack of any effort to develop their critical thinking skills, most young people manage to discern the emptiness of the state's claim to moral authority. This realization is presumably encouraged by the palpable hypocrisy apparent in the disconnect between the commands of the state and its actions.
This paradigm shift is directly related to the next: self-worship, or the shift from Christian moral standards to a self-oriented mentality. By this I do not mean that there are necessarily fewer Christians now than in the 1950's, but that American society as a whole has accepted the idea that the moral standards found in the Ten Commandments are not absolute. While humanists are quick to argue that their ethical codes have equal merit with God's law, their argument falls apart when one inquires into the consequences for violation of such codes. The flimsy argument that "our understanding of ethics has evolved to the point where we believe X to be the proper action in this situation," obviously has no inherent value to one who believes that his own pleasure is the highest law.
The third shift has the dubious distinction of being both the most obvious and the most hotly denied culprit: entertainment. The amount of violence and brutality absorbed by Americans today through visual entertainment would likely give Nero himself nightmares. Our society is so thoroughly sick that torture and raw violence are "enjoyed" by tens of millions of Americans every day. Hollywood producers vie with one another to push the limits of human blood-thirst further than any post-deluvian society has ever done, making even African cannibalism or Aztec rituals seem tame in comparison. The scenes that sent hundreds of shell-shocked young men reeling from the trenches in WWI and WWII seem like child's play compared to the daily diet of today's fantasy-obsessed video gamester. Even young children scampering through the toy store now find such stimulating and educational material as the Mad Scientist dissecting aliens or HE-MAN fighting the evil SKELETOR.
Combine such a vicious visual diet with many of today's musical lyrics and it cannot fail to be obvious to any thinking person where the modern killer cuts his teeth. And yet - even when the Columbine shooters flaunt death metal T-shirts as they gun down their fellow students; even when Cho Seung-Hui slaughters young and old indiscriminately while decked out like an action figure - Americans clamor for their Big Brother to save them from the bad guys via more control and micro-management of their daily lives while tenaciously embracing the very violence that is the inevitable judgement of God on their nation.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
The article continued: "Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus. In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities."
I hope this incident results in drastically lower enrollment for Virginia Tech. They deserve all the bad publicity they receive and more for their irresponsible policy of dependence on the state for basic security while preventing students from lawfully defending themselves.
Having demonstrated that restrictive gun laws encourage violent crime as long as criminals can find a way to obtain guns themselves, it may be instructive to inquire whether any other societal changes over the past fifty years show a similar correlation to violent crime rates. I would suggest three more shifts in our society's thinking that I believe contribute to the chilling frequency of brutal criminal acts as compared to a half-century ago.
The first: education. Children are spoiled as infants, tolerated as young children, and abandoned as soon as possible to the care of "professionals." From these all-powerful experts they learn that they are simply animals at the top of the food chain. They are stripped of any faith in a Higher Being and encouraged to consult their own feelings above every other consideration except the mandates of the state. These are held up to their reverence in almost a superstitious manner, as the modern substitute for the primitive moral ideas of their grandparents. But in spite of the distinct lack of any effort to develop their critical thinking skills, most young people manage to discern the emptiness of the state's claim to moral authority. This realization is presumably encouraged by the palpable hypocrisy apparent in the disconnect between the commands of the state and its actions.
This paradigm shift is directly related to the next: self-worship, or the shift from Christian moral standards to a self-oriented mentality. By this I do not mean that there are necessarily fewer Christians now than in the 1950's, but that American society as a whole has accepted the idea that the moral standards found in the Ten Commandments are not absolute. While humanists are quick to argue that their ethical codes have equal merit with God's law, their argument falls apart when one inquires into the consequences for violation of such codes. The flimsy argument that "our understanding of ethics has evolved to the point where we believe X to be the proper action in this situation," obviously has no inherent value to one who believes that his own pleasure is the highest law.
The third shift has the dubious distinction of being both the most obvious and the most hotly denied culprit: entertainment. The amount of violence and brutality absorbed by Americans today through visual entertainment would likely give Nero himself nightmares. Our society is so thoroughly sick that torture and raw violence are "enjoyed" by tens of millions of Americans every day. Hollywood producers vie with one another to push the limits of human blood-thirst further than any post-deluvian society has ever done, making even African cannibalism or Aztec rituals seem tame in comparison. The scenes that sent hundreds of shell-shocked young men reeling from the trenches in WWI and WWII seem like child's play compared to the daily diet of today's fantasy-obsessed video gamester. Even young children scampering through the toy store now find such stimulating and educational material as the Mad Scientist dissecting aliens or HE-MAN fighting the evil SKELETOR.
Combine such a vicious visual diet with many of today's musical lyrics and it cannot fail to be obvious to any thinking person where the modern killer cuts his teeth. And yet - even when the Columbine shooters flaunt death metal T-shirts as they gun down their fellow students; even when Cho Seung-Hui slaughters young and old indiscriminately while decked out like an action figure - Americans clamor for their Big Brother to save them from the bad guys via more control and micro-management of their daily lives while tenaciously embracing the very violence that is the inevitable judgement of God on their nation.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Barking up the wrong tree.
The shooting at VA Tech has elicited some fascinating responses from folks outside our country. Australian Prime Minister John Howard placed the blame for Monday's shooting on "the U.S. gun culture." The BBC's Matt Frei expressed what many around the world are thinking when he asked, "Will the soul-searching ever produce legislation and will it make schools safer?" Of course, the legislation he refers to is tighter so-called "gun control."
Such reactions are not suprising from citizens of the U.K., which has a long history of infringment on the right to keep and bear arms. Many of the Queen's loyal subjects appear to have taken leave of their critical thinking skills along with their firearms. Certainly their puzzled questions do not arise from a careful look at the relationship between gun control and violent crime. We Americans can boast one city with a U.K.-style gun ban: Washington, D.C. While that city happens to be slightly less dangerous than Baghdad, I would urge anyone who feels that such a ban could improve their safety to take up a temporary residence in the U.S. capital and test the theory.
Fifty years ago, in most states, owning and carrying a gun was simple. You simply bought the gun and carried it. Not even the local sheriff needed to know. There were no age limits, no background checks, no registration, no permits in most places, and ... wonder of wonders ... no school shootings either! Fifty years ago in NYC, eighth-graders could take their rifle and ammunition on the subway with them so that they could shoot at the range after school. Anyone who compares the gun laws and violent crime rates of the 1950's with gun laws and violent crime rates today will reach the inevitable conclusion that gun laws do not discourage violent crime, rather they encourage it.
V.A. Tech student Bradford B. Wiles might be able to explain the reason why. In August of last year, he wrote an editorial in the Roanoke Times regarding an incident that occurred at VA Tech on August 21, 2006. He says:
"On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."
"Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.
"It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
"Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
"I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. ... Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. ... when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, 'I would feel safer if you had your gun.'"
Keep in mind that this was written over seven months prior to Monday's tragedy.
Gun control is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But there are other factors that play a major role as well. I'll get to them next time.
Echoooooooes
Such reactions are not suprising from citizens of the U.K., which has a long history of infringment on the right to keep and bear arms. Many of the Queen's loyal subjects appear to have taken leave of their critical thinking skills along with their firearms. Certainly their puzzled questions do not arise from a careful look at the relationship between gun control and violent crime. We Americans can boast one city with a U.K.-style gun ban: Washington, D.C. While that city happens to be slightly less dangerous than Baghdad, I would urge anyone who feels that such a ban could improve their safety to take up a temporary residence in the U.S. capital and test the theory.
Fifty years ago, in most states, owning and carrying a gun was simple. You simply bought the gun and carried it. Not even the local sheriff needed to know. There were no age limits, no background checks, no registration, no permits in most places, and ... wonder of wonders ... no school shootings either! Fifty years ago in NYC, eighth-graders could take their rifle and ammunition on the subway with them so that they could shoot at the range after school. Anyone who compares the gun laws and violent crime rates of the 1950's with gun laws and violent crime rates today will reach the inevitable conclusion that gun laws do not discourage violent crime, rather they encourage it.
V.A. Tech student Bradford B. Wiles might be able to explain the reason why. In August of last year, he wrote an editorial in the Roanoke Times regarding an incident that occurred at VA Tech on August 21, 2006. He says:
"On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."
"Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.
"It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
"Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
"I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. ... Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. ... when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, 'I would feel safer if you had your gun.'"
Keep in mind that this was written over seven months prior to Monday's tragedy.
Gun control is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But there are other factors that play a major role as well. I'll get to them next time.
Echoooooooes
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Falsehood in the 'hood?
Today is National Climate Action Day! Let your voice be heard! Now is the time to demand that your elected officials take action to curb your wasteful lifestyle!
I suspect we’re nearing the peak of consternation over the planet’s temperature fluctuations. I’m already looking forward to the next Ice Age scare.
I’ve been working on a post regarding so-called “racism” for a while now. Unfortunately it’s not completed yet. I do have a question: why is discrimination based on skin color viewed so differently than discrimination based on any number of other factors? The Bible teaches clearly that we are all of one blood. So what is it that makes “racism” morally more heinous than “hairism” - or any other reason why one group of people treat another group with disrespect or condescension?
It seems to me that by treating “racism” as a specific sin in its own right, we accept the unbiblical “race” argument as it is made by those who seek to exploit it. Those who look down on less educated people aren’t guilty of “schoolism,” they are guilty of pride. Skinny kids who make fun of fat kids aren’t “weightist,” they’re just mean. There are innumerable reasons why carnal humans treat others unkindly, and ultimately, they all come down to pride and selfishness. Why don’t we identify sin by its real name?
While we’re talking about calling sin for what it is, check out this quote from Hillary’s best friend. Barack Obama told this story to a still-segregated church in Selma, Alabama:
“Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, “Ripples of hope all around the world.” Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD’s decided that's enough and we’re going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.
"What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.” So the Kennedy’s decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.
"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
The emphasis is mine, to assist those who may be unwilling to follow the plot too closely. Two facts are important to note here: Barack Obama Jr. was born in 1961. The first of the marches in Selma, Alabama took place in 1965.
Can anyone spell l – i – a - r? Seems like the fresh face Obama claims to be is just one of many faces. He stands out from the pack for one reason: the media. Personally, I believe they have selected him as their baby-doll to ensure Hillary’s election. She is so disliked by the old southern base of the Democratic Party that if someone like Sen. Edwards were permitted to appear like a viable challenge Hillary wouldn’t stand a chance. Her nomination depends on the begrudged support of the southern Democrats, and rightly or wrongly, Obama is just the man to make sure she has that support.
Finally, here's a telling bit of information from Dr. Chuck Baldwin's weekly column:
"Not only has President Bush turned a blind eye to the gigantic national security risks posed by unfettered illegal immigration, he has become the most outspoken expeditor of illegal immigration.
"For example, just recently, President Bush gave a directive to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals demanding that a convicted Mexican rapist and murderer on death row be given another hearing. In what is obviously an attempt to grovel before and appease the Mexican government, Bush used an International Court of Justice ruling to justify this presidential intrusion into the State of Texas's judicial affairs.
"The murderer's name is Jose Ernesto Medellin. He was one of six gang members convicted of brutally raping and killing two Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, who stumbled upon a violent gang initiation. But George W. Bush wants him taken off death row and given another hearing.
"Thankfully, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has no intention of being bullied by this rogue president. Judge Michael Keasler wrote that Bush "exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary." Presiding Judge Sharon Keller said that Bush's "unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution." (Source: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram)"
Folks, the arrogance and presumption of our President knows no limits. And President Hillary will be no different. It is long past time to wake up and smell the ... rats?
I suspect we’re nearing the peak of consternation over the planet’s temperature fluctuations. I’m already looking forward to the next Ice Age scare.
I’ve been working on a post regarding so-called “racism” for a while now. Unfortunately it’s not completed yet. I do have a question: why is discrimination based on skin color viewed so differently than discrimination based on any number of other factors? The Bible teaches clearly that we are all of one blood. So what is it that makes “racism” morally more heinous than “hairism” - or any other reason why one group of people treat another group with disrespect or condescension?
It seems to me that by treating “racism” as a specific sin in its own right, we accept the unbiblical “race” argument as it is made by those who seek to exploit it. Those who look down on less educated people aren’t guilty of “schoolism,” they are guilty of pride. Skinny kids who make fun of fat kids aren’t “weightist,” they’re just mean. There are innumerable reasons why carnal humans treat others unkindly, and ultimately, they all come down to pride and selfishness. Why don’t we identify sin by its real name?
While we’re talking about calling sin for what it is, check out this quote from Hillary’s best friend. Barack Obama told this story to a still-segregated church in Selma, Alabama:
“Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, “Ripples of hope all around the world.” Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD’s decided that's enough and we’re going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.
"What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, “You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set fort in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites.” So the Kennedy’s decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.
"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
The emphasis is mine, to assist those who may be unwilling to follow the plot too closely. Two facts are important to note here: Barack Obama Jr. was born in 1961. The first of the marches in Selma, Alabama took place in 1965.
Can anyone spell l – i – a - r? Seems like the fresh face Obama claims to be is just one of many faces. He stands out from the pack for one reason: the media. Personally, I believe they have selected him as their baby-doll to ensure Hillary’s election. She is so disliked by the old southern base of the Democratic Party that if someone like Sen. Edwards were permitted to appear like a viable challenge Hillary wouldn’t stand a chance. Her nomination depends on the begrudged support of the southern Democrats, and rightly or wrongly, Obama is just the man to make sure she has that support.
Finally, here's a telling bit of information from Dr. Chuck Baldwin's weekly column:
"Not only has President Bush turned a blind eye to the gigantic national security risks posed by unfettered illegal immigration, he has become the most outspoken expeditor of illegal immigration.
"For example, just recently, President Bush gave a directive to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals demanding that a convicted Mexican rapist and murderer on death row be given another hearing. In what is obviously an attempt to grovel before and appease the Mexican government, Bush used an International Court of Justice ruling to justify this presidential intrusion into the State of Texas's judicial affairs.
"The murderer's name is Jose Ernesto Medellin. He was one of six gang members convicted of brutally raping and killing two Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, who stumbled upon a violent gang initiation. But George W. Bush wants him taken off death row and given another hearing.
"Thankfully, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has no intention of being bullied by this rogue president. Judge Michael Keasler wrote that Bush "exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary." Presiding Judge Sharon Keller said that Bush's "unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution." (Source: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram)"
Folks, the arrogance and presumption of our President knows no limits. And President Hillary will be no different. It is long past time to wake up and smell the ... rats?
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Be Still, My Soul
Be still, my soul! the Lord is on thy side;
Bear patiently thy cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide -
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! thy best, thy heavenly Friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.
Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! the winds and waves still know
His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.
Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord;
When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.
Bear patiently thy cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide -
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! thy best, thy heavenly Friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.
Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! the winds and waves still know
His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.
Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord;
When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.
New Math?
I just received this via email, and I actually think it's worth repeating.
1. Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? ( There are no wrong answers )
6. Teaching Math In 2006
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80 Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
1. Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? ( There are no wrong answers )
6. Teaching Math In 2006
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80 Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
I Told You So
I hate to say I told you so, but ...
Seems like President Ahm has gotten more press coverage in these last few days than in all of last year, and on his own terms. What a propaganda opportunity! No wonder he was giving medals out.
The sad thing is that he's actually right on several points. Britain does have a dismal history in the Middle East. Western countries have lost their minds and their sense of decency when it comes to sending women to fight for them, although I would question the proposition that Islam treats its women with decency either. And although the freedoms we enjoy are worth fighting for, our efforts to ram "democracy" down the throats of Middle Eastern nations are misguided at best.
Now that twice as many folks hate me as before, I'll leave. But I will be back.
Seems like President Ahm has gotten more press coverage in these last few days than in all of last year, and on his own terms. What a propaganda opportunity! No wonder he was giving medals out.
The sad thing is that he's actually right on several points. Britain does have a dismal history in the Middle East. Western countries have lost their minds and their sense of decency when it comes to sending women to fight for them, although I would question the proposition that Islam treats its women with decency either. And although the freedoms we enjoy are worth fighting for, our efforts to ram "democracy" down the throats of Middle Eastern nations are misguided at best.
Now that twice as many folks hate me as before, I'll leave. But I will be back.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
"Detainees?"
Am I the only one who thinks Iran is deliberately attempting to contrast its methods of dealing with foreign suspects with those of the U.S.? I haven't heard anyone mention that possibility so far. There seem to be three common reactions to the Iranian detention of 15 British sailors and marines. Many folks wonder why Iran would detain the Brits for such a minor incursion, considering that such incidents are rather commonplace. Many more automatically connect President Ahm with hostage beheadings and suggest a nuclear strike as the obvious solution. And some poor souls are so fed up with being lied to by our government that they assume Iran is telling the truth and will "do the right thing," whatever that is.
Politics aren't limited to the U.S. of A., folks. President Ahm and his henchmen aren't stupid. Probably the Iranians are lying. Obviously they don't really think the Brits were spying. And certainly they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But why does any of that matter? The Iraq war furnishes far too many instances of dishonesty to allow for much righteous indignation now. The U.S. is holding Iranian military personnel in "undisclosed locations" at this very moment, also in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But that's ok, because we think they might be terrorists.
Of course Iran wants to return the favor, but they can't make the case that coalition forces are infiltrating Iran as terrorists. So why not charge them with spying? Maybe they weren't, but God knows some Brit somewhere is. And they haven't got much international credibility to lose. Moreover, if fudging the GPS coordinates is what it takes to get their hands on a few pawns to play against the U.S., why not do it? What a golden opportunity to contrast smiling British sailors chatting over a basket of fruit with images of dog kennels in Guantanamo Bay. And now the trial! Imagine how it will feel when President Ahm says, "We gave your spies a fair trial in open court, and all you give our soldiers is as many secret hearings as it takes to get them declared 'enemy combatants.'"
____________________
According to a Newsweek survey released last week, one out of ten Americans is a fool: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ & Psalm 53:1
____________________
There are two things that you should never watch being made: sausage and laws.
(Courtesy of a veteran midwifery lobbyist from Arkansas.)
Politics aren't limited to the U.S. of A., folks. President Ahm and his henchmen aren't stupid. Probably the Iranians are lying. Obviously they don't really think the Brits were spying. And certainly they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But why does any of that matter? The Iraq war furnishes far too many instances of dishonesty to allow for much righteous indignation now. The U.S. is holding Iranian military personnel in "undisclosed locations" at this very moment, also in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But that's ok, because we think they might be terrorists.
Of course Iran wants to return the favor, but they can't make the case that coalition forces are infiltrating Iran as terrorists. So why not charge them with spying? Maybe they weren't, but God knows some Brit somewhere is. And they haven't got much international credibility to lose. Moreover, if fudging the GPS coordinates is what it takes to get their hands on a few pawns to play against the U.S., why not do it? What a golden opportunity to contrast smiling British sailors chatting over a basket of fruit with images of dog kennels in Guantanamo Bay. And now the trial! Imagine how it will feel when President Ahm says, "We gave your spies a fair trial in open court, and all you give our soldiers is as many secret hearings as it takes to get them declared 'enemy combatants.'"
____________________
According to a Newsweek survey released last week, one out of ten Americans is a fool: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ & Psalm 53:1
____________________
There are two things that you should never watch being made: sausage and laws.
(Courtesy of a veteran midwifery lobbyist from Arkansas.)
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Everything But Integrity
I’ve just finished reading “Babylon By Bus” by Ray Lemoine and Jeff Neumann. I’d do a book report on it for you all but it made me too angry. Let’s just say that it is downright shameful that a couple of Valium-popping Red Sox junkies can see through the neo-con smokescreen almost without trying, while most Christians willfully choose to remain blissfully ignorant.
I also just learned that Colombian FARC rebels have held three American citizens hostage for four years. Four years! Forgive me for being shocked – I thought we were in a war on terror? Apparently terrorists with oil take priority over terrorists with hostages.
Then again, the ongoing imprisonment of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for defending themselves against a Mexican drug dealer could indicate that our leaders have a slightly different agenda on the table than what most Americans would like to believe. I’d go so far as to suggest that as an explanation … but I proposed a conspiracy theory last time. Don’t want to overdo it.
Congressional hearings are the new thing on Capitol Hill. The FBI lied. (Several times, I believe.) Cheyney used Valerie Plame to avenge his wounded pride on Joseph Wilson. The administration fired federal prosecutors for political reasons, and to top it all off they aren’t being “fiscally responsible.” Imagine!
Certainly none of this comes as a surprise to us, but the “new” rotation of good old boys is seeking explanations for these “unacceptable actions.” An observer who is not fluent in political sign language might be tempted to think that they were serious about reigning in the massive trend toward consolidation of power in the executive branch. But alas, a brief scan of the post-Reagan political landscape indicates that President Hillary would be inclined rather to continue the trend than to be outdone by her predecessor. Not to mention that the commencement of hostilities in the 2008 campaign provides the obvious explanation for the donkey’s recently acquired interest in “Congressional oversight.” Every skeleton dragged out of the neo-con closet decreases the need to rely on electronic voting when Hillary makes her final run in November ’08.
Even though Al Gore’s own personal “inconvenient truth” has been coming to light, he still manages to draw a crowd to listen to his hypocritical propaganda. I can’t think of another politician who has made a fool of himself so many times and still has the following that man has. It reflects poorly on our national IQ.
HR 1022 is the new and improved Assault Weapons ban. I’ll be posting specifics when I get them organized. It’s bad.
Stand by!
I also just learned that Colombian FARC rebels have held three American citizens hostage for four years. Four years! Forgive me for being shocked – I thought we were in a war on terror? Apparently terrorists with oil take priority over terrorists with hostages.
Then again, the ongoing imprisonment of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for defending themselves against a Mexican drug dealer could indicate that our leaders have a slightly different agenda on the table than what most Americans would like to believe. I’d go so far as to suggest that as an explanation … but I proposed a conspiracy theory last time. Don’t want to overdo it.
Congressional hearings are the new thing on Capitol Hill. The FBI lied. (Several times, I believe.) Cheyney used Valerie Plame to avenge his wounded pride on Joseph Wilson. The administration fired federal prosecutors for political reasons, and to top it all off they aren’t being “fiscally responsible.” Imagine!
Certainly none of this comes as a surprise to us, but the “new” rotation of good old boys is seeking explanations for these “unacceptable actions.” An observer who is not fluent in political sign language might be tempted to think that they were serious about reigning in the massive trend toward consolidation of power in the executive branch. But alas, a brief scan of the post-Reagan political landscape indicates that President Hillary would be inclined rather to continue the trend than to be outdone by her predecessor. Not to mention that the commencement of hostilities in the 2008 campaign provides the obvious explanation for the donkey’s recently acquired interest in “Congressional oversight.” Every skeleton dragged out of the neo-con closet decreases the need to rely on electronic voting when Hillary makes her final run in November ’08.
Even though Al Gore’s own personal “inconvenient truth” has been coming to light, he still manages to draw a crowd to listen to his hypocritical propaganda. I can’t think of another politician who has made a fool of himself so many times and still has the following that man has. It reflects poorly on our national IQ.
HR 1022 is the new and improved Assault Weapons ban. I’ll be posting specifics when I get them organized. It’s bad.
Stand by!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
State Of The Union
Since I have far too many issues on my mind than I could possibly devote individual posts to, I thought perhaps a State of the Union post would serve the purpose. I will no doubt be accused of taking a cynical approach; be that as it may, here are a few thoughts, in no particular order, on the currently prevailing political, social, economic and mental conditions in this great nation of ours.
Apparently the weather-related Jet Blue meltdown struck a nerve with our kind-hearted lawmakers. National Public Radio interviewed one passenger who, after waiving his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a ride in the sky, expressed a firm conviction that it was “unconstitutional” for airlines to keep passengers on grounded planes. Capitol Hill responded to his and others’ plea for redress of grievances with a Passenger’s Bill of Rights. But don’t expect too much: Barbara Boxer has no intention of restricting the use of x-ray machines or legalizing the currently prohibited possession of shampoo or scissors. She’s concerned primarily with the toilets flushing properly and related issues.
The neo-conservative democracy-spreading crew is facing non-binding criticism by members of Congress who reject the thought of actually making a decision, but are confronted with the terrifying prospect of having to explain their refusal to accept responsibility for declaring war in 2003. Their “suggestions” include limiting the mission in Iraq to hunting Al Qaeda and securing the borders. Only there is a slight problem: Al Qaeda prefers to hang out with our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when they’re off duty. Congressman Ron Paul says it well here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm
Speaking of borders, we’ve made significant progress toward opening our own. New protections for the civil rights of illegal immigrants include the prospect of jail time for U.S. Border Patrol agents who resort to deadly force when their lives are threatened. And for those who wish to take the generous offers of Lady Liberty to the next level, Morris Dees and the SPLC stand ready to assist them with any lawsuits they might be contemplating against law enforcement or incensed citizens. Five million bucks anyone? Sure, it’s a little risky, but it could be worse. Don’t worry about the fence; it was just a paper treat for the discontented party faithful. Our first Latino President has already cut the funding. And if you run into the National Guard, just flash the guns. They’re not allowed to return fire. Be careful, though; don’t push it so far that they issue a statement condemning your behavior.
Now that we’ve taken on border patrol responsibilities for the Middle East, the size of our military is again proving inadequate. Capitol Hill isn’t ready to vote itself out of office by reinstituting the draft, but our Dear Leader has called for the first step towards implementing Charlie Rangel’s proposal through the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps. Of course, it would be strictly voluntary, because folks need to get used to the idea before they are “given the opportunity to serve” at gunpoint. See the future here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html
Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that a larger military is essential in this world of proliferating weapons and sophisticated terrorism. If only they would pay even closer attention and recognize that such weapons and technology aren’t exactly free, and that much of the funds needed to obtain them are provided by … take a guess, anyone? The Congressman from Texas is again on target when he charges American foreign aid with creating multiple threats to our national security. But who listens to him?
On the energy front, our leaders have successfully deflected the well-deserved criticism of our policy of foreign dependence by proposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thereby appearing inclined to move forward while giving the green lobby a golden opportunity to tear their hair and file their lawsuits. Simply tapping into the huge deposits under the Alaskan North Slope would presumably have been too easy.
But the greatest environmental issue facing the world today is Global Warming. I know, I’ve always been skeptical of this one, but I’m convinced. Not by the fact that certain parts of the world are recording the warmest temperatures in a century. That would indicate to me that similar conditions prevailed - oh, say - a century ago? Nor am I convinced by the alleged scientific consensus: half a century ago they were certain that we were entering another Ice Age, and they also agree that the incredible order and intricate design we see in every aspect of creation is the result of a cosmic burp four billion years ago. Seriously, an evolutionist of all people ought not to be concerned with a little warming. They want us to believe that this universe, this earth, the innumerable forms of life on this earth, and ultimately we ourselves, all managed to arrive relatively unscathed at approximately the 4,000,000,000th anniversary of our original emergence from nothingness, against odds which are incomprehensible to the greatest mathematicians who ever lived; and then they expect us to further believe that our continued existence is threatened by a five degree increase in average world temperature on the Fahrenheit scale?
So how have I become convinced that Global Warming is the defining environmental crisis of our time? Simply because I recognize the power of money to define crises. The UN desperately needs another way to raise money to fund its increasingly corrupt existence, and a carbon tax seems to be just the thing. A carbon tax, however, can only be proposed with a show of credibility if Global Warming is indeed a problem: hence, it must be a problem. Right?
Education is one of the great success stories of our time. Two generations have now swallowed the previously mentioned fairy tale and pronounced it good. Now that they know God doesn’t exist, their children can be trained to place their blind faith in a more tangible benefactor. While political parties vie with one another to ensure that No Child is Left Behind, their young subjects receive mandatory STD vaccinations before joining their peers to learn about the different kinds of families, why pregnancy is a disease, and all the problems that Big Brother can solve if we only give him the opportunity (read: funding).
We remain convinced that we can only combat the problems of addiction, violence and crime through education, more specifically by increased spending for education. The inverse relationship between national funding of education and national crime rates hasn’t yet occurred to us as having significance. If we could only give these kids free health insurance too, there’s no telling where their lives might lead, though a good guess would be in the direction of whatever else might be had for as little effort.
When political supporters of the ongoing wholesale slaughter of unborn children turn in for the evening, the satisfaction of a few kind deeds could presumably go a long way towards a good night’s sleep. That may explain why the New Delhi Sands Fly, Pacific salmon and spotted owls have so many supporters in the District. But the latest philanthropic effort of Pennsylvania lawmakers would ban live pigeon shooting. In a few years the last great question of the Second Amendment will have been solved: it’s not about duck hunting. Our founders would never have condoned such cruelty to innocent animals.
And, of course, the carefully developed policy of “divide and conquer” continues to prove effective against concerted grassroots efforts to fight corruption, take back individual freedoms and preserve American sovereignty. The constant focus on multi-culturalism keeps Americans myopically obsessed with the interests of our “groups,” while the rugged, “I can” individualism of previous generations is replaced with a whining, “I want” mentality. Our sense of community is lost as we cram our parents into nursing homes, our children into after-school programs, our infants into day-care and ourselves into the rat-race. Under the pretext of “improving quality of life” we supported zoning ordinances that segregate and compartmentalize our neighborhoods and our lives. Now that we miss the small-town feel our parents enjoyed, we want the same land-use planners who destroyed our neighborhoods to plan them into existence again.
On the bright side, our esteemed fellow citizens in New York City have begun an effort to recover their lost sense of community. They just held a citywide pillow-fight in Union Square. No kidding.
It’s good to see other folks finally doing something.
And I almost forgot: the final word on the state of the Union is that it is about to grow. By about 500,000,000 people. The name is changing too: we’ll call it the North American Union. Tim Findley has a must-read article on it here: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf
Conspiracy theory, you say? Talk to me in five years.
Echoooooooooooooes
Apparently the weather-related Jet Blue meltdown struck a nerve with our kind-hearted lawmakers. National Public Radio interviewed one passenger who, after waiving his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a ride in the sky, expressed a firm conviction that it was “unconstitutional” for airlines to keep passengers on grounded planes. Capitol Hill responded to his and others’ plea for redress of grievances with a Passenger’s Bill of Rights. But don’t expect too much: Barbara Boxer has no intention of restricting the use of x-ray machines or legalizing the currently prohibited possession of shampoo or scissors. She’s concerned primarily with the toilets flushing properly and related issues.
The neo-conservative democracy-spreading crew is facing non-binding criticism by members of Congress who reject the thought of actually making a decision, but are confronted with the terrifying prospect of having to explain their refusal to accept responsibility for declaring war in 2003. Their “suggestions” include limiting the mission in Iraq to hunting Al Qaeda and securing the borders. Only there is a slight problem: Al Qaeda prefers to hang out with our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when they’re off duty. Congressman Ron Paul says it well here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm
Speaking of borders, we’ve made significant progress toward opening our own. New protections for the civil rights of illegal immigrants include the prospect of jail time for U.S. Border Patrol agents who resort to deadly force when their lives are threatened. And for those who wish to take the generous offers of Lady Liberty to the next level, Morris Dees and the SPLC stand ready to assist them with any lawsuits they might be contemplating against law enforcement or incensed citizens. Five million bucks anyone? Sure, it’s a little risky, but it could be worse. Don’t worry about the fence; it was just a paper treat for the discontented party faithful. Our first Latino President has already cut the funding. And if you run into the National Guard, just flash the guns. They’re not allowed to return fire. Be careful, though; don’t push it so far that they issue a statement condemning your behavior.
Now that we’ve taken on border patrol responsibilities for the Middle East, the size of our military is again proving inadequate. Capitol Hill isn’t ready to vote itself out of office by reinstituting the draft, but our Dear Leader has called for the first step towards implementing Charlie Rangel’s proposal through the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps. Of course, it would be strictly voluntary, because folks need to get used to the idea before they are “given the opportunity to serve” at gunpoint. See the future here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html
Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that a larger military is essential in this world of proliferating weapons and sophisticated terrorism. If only they would pay even closer attention and recognize that such weapons and technology aren’t exactly free, and that much of the funds needed to obtain them are provided by … take a guess, anyone? The Congressman from Texas is again on target when he charges American foreign aid with creating multiple threats to our national security. But who listens to him?
On the energy front, our leaders have successfully deflected the well-deserved criticism of our policy of foreign dependence by proposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thereby appearing inclined to move forward while giving the green lobby a golden opportunity to tear their hair and file their lawsuits. Simply tapping into the huge deposits under the Alaskan North Slope would presumably have been too easy.
But the greatest environmental issue facing the world today is Global Warming. I know, I’ve always been skeptical of this one, but I’m convinced. Not by the fact that certain parts of the world are recording the warmest temperatures in a century. That would indicate to me that similar conditions prevailed - oh, say - a century ago? Nor am I convinced by the alleged scientific consensus: half a century ago they were certain that we were entering another Ice Age, and they also agree that the incredible order and intricate design we see in every aspect of creation is the result of a cosmic burp four billion years ago. Seriously, an evolutionist of all people ought not to be concerned with a little warming. They want us to believe that this universe, this earth, the innumerable forms of life on this earth, and ultimately we ourselves, all managed to arrive relatively unscathed at approximately the 4,000,000,000th anniversary of our original emergence from nothingness, against odds which are incomprehensible to the greatest mathematicians who ever lived; and then they expect us to further believe that our continued existence is threatened by a five degree increase in average world temperature on the Fahrenheit scale?
So how have I become convinced that Global Warming is the defining environmental crisis of our time? Simply because I recognize the power of money to define crises. The UN desperately needs another way to raise money to fund its increasingly corrupt existence, and a carbon tax seems to be just the thing. A carbon tax, however, can only be proposed with a show of credibility if Global Warming is indeed a problem: hence, it must be a problem. Right?
Education is one of the great success stories of our time. Two generations have now swallowed the previously mentioned fairy tale and pronounced it good. Now that they know God doesn’t exist, their children can be trained to place their blind faith in a more tangible benefactor. While political parties vie with one another to ensure that No Child is Left Behind, their young subjects receive mandatory STD vaccinations before joining their peers to learn about the different kinds of families, why pregnancy is a disease, and all the problems that Big Brother can solve if we only give him the opportunity (read: funding).
We remain convinced that we can only combat the problems of addiction, violence and crime through education, more specifically by increased spending for education. The inverse relationship between national funding of education and national crime rates hasn’t yet occurred to us as having significance. If we could only give these kids free health insurance too, there’s no telling where their lives might lead, though a good guess would be in the direction of whatever else might be had for as little effort.
When political supporters of the ongoing wholesale slaughter of unborn children turn in for the evening, the satisfaction of a few kind deeds could presumably go a long way towards a good night’s sleep. That may explain why the New Delhi Sands Fly, Pacific salmon and spotted owls have so many supporters in the District. But the latest philanthropic effort of Pennsylvania lawmakers would ban live pigeon shooting. In a few years the last great question of the Second Amendment will have been solved: it’s not about duck hunting. Our founders would never have condoned such cruelty to innocent animals.
And, of course, the carefully developed policy of “divide and conquer” continues to prove effective against concerted grassroots efforts to fight corruption, take back individual freedoms and preserve American sovereignty. The constant focus on multi-culturalism keeps Americans myopically obsessed with the interests of our “groups,” while the rugged, “I can” individualism of previous generations is replaced with a whining, “I want” mentality. Our sense of community is lost as we cram our parents into nursing homes, our children into after-school programs, our infants into day-care and ourselves into the rat-race. Under the pretext of “improving quality of life” we supported zoning ordinances that segregate and compartmentalize our neighborhoods and our lives. Now that we miss the small-town feel our parents enjoyed, we want the same land-use planners who destroyed our neighborhoods to plan them into existence again.
On the bright side, our esteemed fellow citizens in New York City have begun an effort to recover their lost sense of community. They just held a citywide pillow-fight in Union Square. No kidding.
It’s good to see other folks finally doing something.
And I almost forgot: the final word on the state of the Union is that it is about to grow. By about 500,000,000 people. The name is changing too: we’ll call it the North American Union. Tim Findley has a must-read article on it here: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf
Conspiracy theory, you say? Talk to me in five years.
Echoooooooooooooes
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Will Your Anchor Hold?
Will your anchor hold in the storms of life -
When the clouds unfold their wings of strife?
When the strong tides lift, and the cables strain,
Will your anchor drift, or firm remain?
We have an anchor that keeps the soul
Stedfast and sure while the billows roll -
Fastened to the rock which cannot move,
Grounded firm and deep in the Saviour's love.
It is safely moored, 'twill the storm withstand,
For 'tis well secured by the Saviour's hand.
Though the tempest rage and the wild winds blow,
Not an angry wave shall our bark o'erflow.
When our eyes behold, through the gathering night,
The City of gold, our harbor bright,
We shall anchor fast by the heavenly shore,
With the storms all past for ever-more.
Priscilla J. Owens
This song has always been linked in my mind with political action, because my earliest memory of both is that of a bored little boy standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. listening to a small group of American Christians crying out to God for mercy and deliverance from an un-Godly, un-American regime. I believe the specific concern was Everett Sullivan's padlocked church, because I recall a man named Greg Dixon being there. I was so young, however, that I don't remember things very clearly, except for singing "We Have An Anchor" and being asked to leave by a security guard.
It's been a long time, but God has not forgotten His people. Some day our leaders will have their day of reckoning. May God show them the mercy they have not shown to others.
When the clouds unfold their wings of strife?
When the strong tides lift, and the cables strain,
Will your anchor drift, or firm remain?
We have an anchor that keeps the soul
Stedfast and sure while the billows roll -
Fastened to the rock which cannot move,
Grounded firm and deep in the Saviour's love.
It is safely moored, 'twill the storm withstand,
For 'tis well secured by the Saviour's hand.
Though the tempest rage and the wild winds blow,
Not an angry wave shall our bark o'erflow.
When our eyes behold, through the gathering night,
The City of gold, our harbor bright,
We shall anchor fast by the heavenly shore,
With the storms all past for ever-more.
Priscilla J. Owens
This song has always been linked in my mind with political action, because my earliest memory of both is that of a bored little boy standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. listening to a small group of American Christians crying out to God for mercy and deliverance from an un-Godly, un-American regime. I believe the specific concern was Everett Sullivan's padlocked church, because I recall a man named Greg Dixon being there. I was so young, however, that I don't remember things very clearly, except for singing "We Have An Anchor" and being asked to leave by a security guard.
It's been a long time, but God has not forgotten His people. Some day our leaders will have their day of reckoning. May God show them the mercy they have not shown to others.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Bigger Brother
Well, Saddam is dead, along with three thousand plus American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. Twenty thousand more brave boys and girls may soon get their chance to die for a few months of Shiite security, or whatever passes for security in the Middle East these days. A gentleman recently suggested that George III lead them into battle like his more honorable predecessor. I like the idea.
On the other hand, many folks seem disturbed that the CinC rejected the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Since when were academics qualified to tell the President how to fight a war? OK, so it's obvious he doesn't know how to. Neither do they. The unfortunate fact is that we have individuals in very powerful, very critical positions who are incapable of learning from past mistakes. Solution? See above.
Since infringments on the right to keep and bear arms, national databases of personal information, uniform ID requirements, innumerable invasions of privacy, requiring SSNs for everything we do, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, expanded application of martial law, replacement of trial by jury with trial by military commision at the discretion of the President, blank check power grants to the executive by the legislature, warrantless wiretapping, invasions in force of belligerent (or other) nations, worshipping the same god as the Muslims do, fencing bits of the Mexican Border, and deploying National Guard troops everywhere at once, apparently isn't sufficient to guarantee our security, be assured that our leaders haven't dropped the ball. They have now put the terrorists on notice that even their (your) mail isn't secure. Render unto Caesar your privacy, because as every child knows, be sure your Big Brother will find you out.
Speaking of the National Guard, seems they aren't allowed to defend themselves. Apparently the object of sending troops to the southwest was to scare the illegals away. As is typical of this administration, plan B wasn't. So when the druggies decided to test the mettle of the formidable U.S. military, they couldn't find any. Never mind that Mexican troops have been firing on Border Patrol officers on our own soil, we dare not fire on their drug-running pards for fear El Presidente might call us names again.
By the way, American soldiers have plenty of mettle, they just work for cowards.
Here's the NIV pledge of allegiance for all the "new" patriots out there.
I pledge allegiance to the President of the United States of America, and to the vision of the future for which he stands; One world, under surveillance, with safety and jobs for all.
But you do need an SSN.
Echoooooooooooes
On the other hand, many folks seem disturbed that the CinC rejected the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Since when were academics qualified to tell the President how to fight a war? OK, so it's obvious he doesn't know how to. Neither do they. The unfortunate fact is that we have individuals in very powerful, very critical positions who are incapable of learning from past mistakes. Solution? See above.
Since infringments on the right to keep and bear arms, national databases of personal information, uniform ID requirements, innumerable invasions of privacy, requiring SSNs for everything we do, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, expanded application of martial law, replacement of trial by jury with trial by military commision at the discretion of the President, blank check power grants to the executive by the legislature, warrantless wiretapping, invasions in force of belligerent (or other) nations, worshipping the same god as the Muslims do, fencing bits of the Mexican Border, and deploying National Guard troops everywhere at once, apparently isn't sufficient to guarantee our security, be assured that our leaders haven't dropped the ball. They have now put the terrorists on notice that even their (your) mail isn't secure. Render unto Caesar your privacy, because as every child knows, be sure your Big Brother will find you out.
Speaking of the National Guard, seems they aren't allowed to defend themselves. Apparently the object of sending troops to the southwest was to scare the illegals away. As is typical of this administration, plan B wasn't. So when the druggies decided to test the mettle of the formidable U.S. military, they couldn't find any. Never mind that Mexican troops have been firing on Border Patrol officers on our own soil, we dare not fire on their drug-running pards for fear El Presidente might call us names again.
By the way, American soldiers have plenty of mettle, they just work for cowards.
Here's the NIV pledge of allegiance for all the "new" patriots out there.
I pledge allegiance to the President of the United States of America, and to the vision of the future for which he stands; One world, under surveillance, with safety and jobs for all.
But you do need an SSN.
Echoooooooooooes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)