Echoes of Aberdeen

Ron Paul and Abortion - In His Own Words

2012-01-18T19:01:00.004-05:00

I was working on a post addressing Ron Paul's commitment to life and ending the practice of abortion, when I found this. I've said for a long time that Dr. Paul's pro-life record is stronger and more respectable than can be said for most of his critics on this point, especially when one turns from their rhetoric to examine their behavior. The most relevant example in the context of this election cycle would be Rick Santorum, who misses no opportunity to trot out his pro-life ratings and cultivate his image as a champion of the unborn. As a Pennsylvanian who remembers his unprincipled endorsement of the belligerently pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey in 2004 (an endorsement which arguably cost Toomey the election and set the stage for Specter's predictable mid-term switch from big-government Republican to big-government Democrat), I find Santorum unconvincing, not to say - well, I won't say. But back to Ron Paul: here is his position on the right to life, in his own words. All I have to add is that, as usual, his own words aren't just words, they are backed by a consistent and active thirty year record that is unmatched by any other candidate in the race.

Ron Paul Life Pledge

December 19, 2011

As a pro-life OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always opposed abortion. Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents.

While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life.

I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.

Today, I want to tell you a bit more about my views on life than the attached pledge really allows me to explain. I think it is important for us all to describe our views on life in our own words.

I believe the attached pledge is important. The fight for the Right to Life is unlike any other in our society right now, and I am proud to be a soldier in that fight.

But it is also important to fight every battle with principle. At this point, I think I am well-known for my constitutional views and sticking to my principles, even when doing so is hard and forces me to stand alone. Both this pledge and the pro-life issue itself require some careful thought from my fellow pro-lifers so we can avoid the trap of throwing out the Constitution in our effort to save lives. Just as we cannot have liberty without life, I believe the opposite is also true: we must keep the Constitution and liberty in mind when fighting for the rights of the unborn. Otherwise, we undermine the entire system our Founders put their lives on the line to create in order to protect life and liberty.

I guarantee you that no one would work harder to be the most ardent and active pro-life President in history. I do not say that lightly. My entire life’s work has touched on this issue in a way few others have. So as I pondered this pledge, as I do all pledges, I had to ensure I would continue to stand with the Constitution.

I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments – another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue.

A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does – through state laws.

To summarize my views – I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.

I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a “Federal Department of Abortion.” Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.

I would place a priority in my administration on ending federal abortion funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, and defunding any state department or UN agency that encourages abortion in their “family planning” activities. As a Congressman, I have consistently voted against giving federal funds to any organization that performs abortions or engages in “family planning” activities, and I have offered legislation on the floor of the House to defund all international family planning programs.

No one has ever completely defunded these programs, because they weren’t willing to undertake the fight that would result from vetoing the spending bills. I will veto these bills every time it takes until no taxpayer dollars go to abortion.

I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans.

In addition, I will only put pro-life judges who adhere to the Constitution on the federal bench.
Finally, I will fight back against our depraved culture by ending all federal programs that undermine the family and our traditional American values of respect for life and personal responsibility. I will lead by example, as I have done every day in my medical practice and in Congress.

We CAN both fight for life AND liberty. We can remain true to our principle of following the Constitution while also fighting for our moral values. In fact, we must.

I ask for the support of every one of my fellow pro-lifers. This is an important moment in history. You can vote for any of the many folks who will sign a pledge, or you can vote for the one who stands by everything he has ever said on this critical issue over the years. You can choose the candidate whose principles and consistency are unquestioned, and whose record is unmatched.

You can vote for BOTH a pro-life champion and a different kind of President, who will end business as usual all across Washington, fix our budget mess, and strengthen our families by restoring jobs and upholding our values.
Thank you for your consideration.

For Life and Liberty,

Ron Paul, MD

Former Tenth Elder and U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on Ron Paul

2012-01-15T20:44:00.003-05:00

This interesting tidbit was just posted by Jack Hunter over at the Ron Paul 2012 website:

Reagan’s Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on Ron Paul and Abortion

Ron Paul has been 100% pro-life his entire political career. An obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, being pro-life has always been integral to Paul’s political and personal philosophy. In fact, Paul’s first book written in 1983 was titled Abortion and Liberty. The foreword was written by C. Everett Koop, the pro-life Surgeon General appointed by Ronald Reagan. Below is Koop’s foreword:

Foreword

One might wonder why another book on abortion. Is there anything to say except the tricky alliteration of a new slogan? Has someone found a new message? Is there a person out there with credentials no one else seems to have?

The answer to that last question is: “Yes.” Ron Paul is not only a physician, but he was trained in the discipline of obstetrics and gynecology and therefore is a the front lines in the battle against abortion. This physician was then elected to Congress four times and looks back on abortion as a problem he saw in biomedical ethics as a student, then as a resident and finally as a practitioner of obstetrics.

The fresh insights that Ron Paul, the physician, brings to the question of abortion stem from the experience he developed as a Member of Congress, as he contemplated the relationship between natural rights and a free society.

It is true that some of the old arguments about rights, viability, mother versus child, child abuse, health of the mother, and rape are considered in these pages. There is much more. The unique contribution found in this book is the examination of a free society in reference to that society’s responsibilities. Perhaps another way of stating it is that there is an examination of the child’s rights versus the mother’s obligations. The concluding warning is clear: a disregard for human life will not expand human freedom.

The individual rights we all cherish are rooted in the value we assign to human life, especially innocent human life. The author’s credentials are unique and so is his approach to the diverse social problem abortion has become in our day.

C.Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D. 5

Ron Paul, Foreign Policy and the Military

2012-01-10T21:01:00.002-05:00

Probably the most common objection to Dr. Ron Paul heard from conservative voters is the well-worn line: “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” This isn’t because the typical Republican voter agrees with the current Bush-Clinton-Obama foreign policy: a November CBS News poll found nearly three-fourths of Republicans believe “the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies…” More likely, it is because they hear the same drivel incessantly repeated by people they have been accustomed to respect. A delusional Dick Morris, speaking on the O’Reilly Factor, recently claimed that Ron Paul is a “left-wing radical” who “wants to dismantle the military” and “blame[s] America for 9/11.” Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann called his foreign policy ideas “dangerous,” while Newt Gingrich pompously announced that “Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

Really?

Perhaps we should clarify that “Ron Paul’s views” aren’t just random gleanings from the Huffington Post. Unlike Santorum, whose chief foreign policy adviser might as well be Toby Keith, Ron Paul is one of the most well-informed people in the beltway when it comes to the Middle East, its history and America’s involvement there. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, you can’t help noticing the depth of his knowledge when he warms up to this subject. His thorough historical studies and his own observations over the last 35 years form a solid basis for understanding world events. His advisers have included Michael Scheuer, a 22 year CIA veteran who spent over 17 years focused exclusively on Bin Laden- and Al Qaeda-related intelligence analysis, and who for some time headed the “Bin Laden desk” at the CIA, and Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and contributing editor for The American Conservative. His foreign policy views are more or less those of George Washington, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Sen. Robert Taft, Russell Kirk – even William F. Buckley’s views on foreign policy come closer to Ron Paul’s than those of any other current presidential candidate. With that said, let’s take a closer look at these “extreme” views.

Ron Paul’s budget calls for cutting defense spending back to 2006 levels. That’s right, the same spending levels we had four years into the so-called War on Terror and three years into the Iraq War. If that were done, our defense budget would only amount to 35-40% of the entire world’s military spending, approximately equal to the next ten countries combined (Russia, China, UK, France, etc.). It is beyond difficult to imagine that Dick Morris is unaware of this fact, so he must be either nuts or disingenuous.

On “blaming America for 9/11,” Paul has merely pointed out that our policies and actions in the Middle East have – predictably - caused an extreme backlash among Muslims, of which 9/11 was a result. To the neocon hawks who measure the strength of America’s defenses by the number of bombs we drop in a given week, this view may sound extreme and radical. It is shared, however, by the previously mentioned left-wing radicals – sorry, I meant intelligence experts - Scheuer and Giraldi. It is also the view expressed by the 9-11 Commission and by many of the counter-terrorism experts who testified during its investigation. Even more relevant to the absurd claims of Dick Morris is the prediction conservative icon Russell Kirk delivered back in 1991 in a speech to the Heritage Foundation. Speaking of the Gulf War and the policies pursued by the first President Bush, Kirk warned that “We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …”

Those of us who have admired Ron Paul for years were entirely unsurprised to hear him say that 9/11 reflected a backlash to American policies. After all, he had called for President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 after the Sudan and Iraq bombings, noting that “our national security is jeopardized by allowing this to happen… We’re liable to have more attacks … by terrorists. ” Many Republicans agreed with him at the time. Prior to September 2001, Dr. Paul had repeatedly predicted that the arrogant course we pursued since the 1950s in the Middle East would lead to increasingly deadly terrorist attacks. His warnings were largely ignored, but given the accuracy of his predictions, those who ignored them should not be astonished that he still maintains the same views.

Speaking to Sean Hannity back in October, Rick Santorum credited Ron Paul with extensive experience and a “deep” understanding of foreign policy issues; and, while noting that he and Paul had “different viewpoints,” added that “when the phone rings at three in the morning” Paul would likely know the history and the characters and have a plan to handle the situation. But last week he called Paul “dangerous,” falsely accusing him of saying that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to Israel. Actually, Paul has said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a credible threat to America, and that Israel has both the right and the capability to respond should they determine that Iran poses a risk to them.

A little known fact bears mentioning here: when Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981, the United States Congress passed an almost unanimous resolution condemning Israel’s actions as reckless and unjustified. I said almost unanimous – Ron Paul was the only vote against the resolution. He opposed it on the grounds that Israel had a right to defend itself and that America should stay out of their affairs unless our involvement was requested.

Santorum also recently attacked Paul’s assertion that military aid to Pakistan is not in America’s best interest, arguing that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, America has no choice but to buy Pakistan’s allegiance, whatever it takes. There is a lesson here if one can get past the embarrassment of a presidential candidate making such a cowardly argument in public. Maybe Rick doesn’t realize this, but if he is smart enough to make the connection between Pakistan’s nukes and the billions of dollars their political and military leaders siphon away from American workers, you can bet the Iranians are too. As Dr. Paul has pointed out before, we talked Gaddafi out of his nuclear ambitions and then turned on him. Bomb = aid; no bomb = lots of bombs dumped on you; what possible motivation have we left Iran for abandoning a nuclear weapons program, if indeed they have one?

But Newt Gingrich stands out in the lineup of Paul bashers. His sweeping, all-inclusive, and arrogant attacks are earning him the disrespect of many, if not most, Americans. Imagine that you are a soldier in Afghanistan, or a sailor in the Persian Gulf, and a Ron Paul supporter. You’ve gone beyond merely supporting him; you’ve given a chunk of your shamefully low combat pay to his campaign. You’ve made this sacrifice, along with thousands of your fellow fighting men and women, precisely because of Paul’s views on foreign policy. You know why active duty military personnel are far and away the largest group (by employer) among his supporters. You know why he has received more in donations from military men and women than all the other GOP candidates combined. You are living the war on terror; your life is on the line every day; you’ve seen firsthand how the effort to win hearts and minds in the Middle East really works; and you believe Ron Paul is right when he says we are less safe because of our military adventurism. Now a narcissistic career politician and lobbyist who studiously avoided military service in Viet Nam declares those views - your views – to be “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.” How exactly does that feel?

Which brings to mind one thing I really don’t like about Ron Paul: he is way too kind to Gingrich and his ilk. He tends to stick to his own argument even when seemingly irresistible opportunities present themselves for showing up windbags like Newt. He did finally call Newt out as a chickenhawk last Saturday night, which brought an angry reaction from the former Speaker: he denied using college deferments to avoid the draft, claiming that he was married with a child and thus wouldn’t have been eligible anyway. To which Paul responded icily, “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

And one more thing for the record, Newt: he’s still married.

_______________________________________________

Here's a great article by John Nichols on why Ron Paul isn’t just a conservative, he’s the only conservative running for President this election cycle:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Ron Paul, Slander and Christian Libertarianism

2011-10-05T21:32:00.001-04:00

As a Christian, I constantly get emails from moral majority types who think they believe in freedom, but have encountered the shocking idea that freedom might actually allow others to behave in ways that are ultimately wrong. And as a vocal supporter of Ron Paul, I get a lot of unsolicited information regarding his views on individual liberty from well-meaning folks who imagine I don't know what those views are. I generally ignore this stuff unless the sender is a personal friend, in which case I try to explain why I agree with Dr. Paul (which I do, most of the time).

Yesterday, however, I received a particularly low assault on Dr. Paul's candidacy, one which had evidently been circulated widely before reaching me. I was particularly upset because it was forwarded by a fellow Paul supporter who seemed a bit shaken by the allegations it contained. What follows is my response. I hesitated to post it here but ultimately decided it might be helpful to someone, so here goes. I removed the name of the individual who apparently originated the email, partly out of courtesy and partly to deny his blog the unmerited attention it might receive as a result.

I should point out that I don't go far into my own positions in this response - it is pretty narrow and focused in scope. I was simply answering the charges made in the email. On some issues I'm not so libertarian-leaning as Dr. Paul, and on others (like immigration) I might be even more libertarian than he is. But that's irrelevant to this post.

This is absolutely shameful. I don’t have time to respond but this is too slanderous and deceptive to ignore. Point by point:

Denies that God says homosexuality is a sin.

The link is to an interview with a particularly obtuse John Lofton, who consistently refuses to get the very important point Dr. Paul repeatedly makes about sin and military service. He does not deny that God says it is sin, but he does not admit it either. He’s wrong about that. But why don’t the hypocrites that slam him for his hesitation also slam Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, and the majority of other Republican candidates who won’t call homosexuality a sin either?

Supports open homosexuals in the military and repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Another link to the same interview, but this statement is absolutely a lie. Paul clearly says in the interview that he does support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – a policy similar to George Washington’s approach 2 centuries ago.

Supports the “freedom philosophy” of legalizing cocaine, heroin, marijuana and all other hard drugs. “Government has no role or authority in regulating drugs.”

The federal government has no role in , or authority to, regulate drugs. Anyone who reads the Constitution knows that. Some, however, would prefer to slander a man who has done more for this country than they ever will, rather than admit that their own pet issues are beyond the legitimate purview of any government. I wonder if D___ would support a United Nations initiative to prosecute drug dealers and users globally? To be consistent he would have to.

Supports legalization of pornography and prostitution.

I didn’t follow this link because it’s youtube and I don’t want to know what else might be there. But this is another false statement because it ignores the difference in federal and state government.

Supports right of homosexuals to marry one another. i.e. “gay marriage.” (“Gay couples can do whatever they want.”)

Also not true. Dr. Paul rightly says that in the absence of a federal marriage amendment, marriage is a state issue. Again, how about a global ban on gay marriage?

Is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. All pre-born babies don’t possess a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate.

I’m trying to stay calm. Really.

This links to a hit piece by prolifeprofiles.com which is so slanderous and transparently dishonest it seems beneath even the national prolife lobbying profession, which is saying a lot. I simply can’t take the time to dissect it, but anyone interested in the truth should be able to see through much of it just by reading it carefully. Those not interested in the truth can keep reading D___ .

Supported abortion legislation regulations which have resulted in 7.4 million chemical and surgical abortions since taking office in 1997 in Congress.

Still trying to stay calm, but failing. This links to the same hit piece, but restates the most profoundly evil of their claims, which is that since 7.4 million abortions have been committed since Paul last took office in states where abortion might remain legal even if his Sanctity Of Life Act were made law, he is somehow responsible for allowing those abortions. Are we to hold those allegedly pro-life legislators who oppose the Sanctity Of Life Act to the same standard? Are they responsible for all the abortions that have taken place in states which might have outlawed or restricted abortions if Roe v. Wade were nullified? Of course, exceptions.com isn’t interested in telling us those numbers.

Doesn’t believe it’s government’s role to “legislate morality” even though all laws are based on morality.

Watch the clip. He is absolutely right. The most totalitarian of Christian conservatives still thinks government shouldn’t legislate morality in the areas where they are immoral. Of course all legitimate law is based on morality, but that isn’t the only criteria or we would all be criminals before the civil law, as we are before the Creator and His Law. This gets back to the point Lofton doggedly refused to acknowledge in the very interesting interview linked earlier. The so-called “Christian right” loves to dwell ad nauseum on a very few sins, while ignoring or even promoting others just as evil. Unlike Ron Paul, I won’t hesitate to agree that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, and a shameful blot on the face of our society. But unlike D___ and the myopic brand of “Christian” politics he represents, I also believe that lying, back-biting and slander are equally shameful, abominable sins.

What makes me want to cry is that people can tear down the most pro-life candidate in the race, a stand-out beacon of decency, honesty and integrity in the cesspool that is our federal capitol, because they can’t stand the thought that their beloved leviathan of a federal government might be somehow restrained by the Constitution from instituting heaven on earth, something we can all see is just about to become a reality. They treat the one candidate with no skeletons in his closet, no improprieties in his personal life, and no stains on his honor, as if he were a first-degree pervert because he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s jurisdiction in the bedroom. Yet these same people care nothing for the slaughter of 40,000 Mexicans in less than five years by the drug lords they have created and sustained. They support the torture of their fellow men by an out-of-control military and intelligence sector with no oversight, no protection for the innocent or justice for the guilty, and justify it all with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred in the history of the world. They dismiss with contempt the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan because it feels good after 9/11, and they lash out in rage when a soldier exposes to them and the world an example of how those deaths occur. (Bradley Manning and Julian Assange shone a light on a world of iniquity beyond most American’s comprehension, but the average “Christian” conservative I meet knows far more about their personal sexual sins than the cruelty, violence and fraud they exposed.) Like Jonah, they hope and pray for the destruction of “Israel’s” enemies rather than the triumph of the gospel of Jesus Christ over the false religions that keep Jews and Muslims alike in bondage. They are a worse blot than homosexuals, because they dishonor not only the society in which they live, but their Lord and Savior.

Maybe we need to be reminded that there are other sins besides homosexuality:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I read that list and thank God with fear and trembling for His forgiveness and long-suffering. I don’t feel that I’m in a position to focus on other people’s sins. There is plenty of guilt to go around. That doesn’t mean I think other people’s sins are ok, just that when I hear others calling for the state to legislate morality, I wonder where they find a definition of morality that they would want the state to judge them by? If the legitimate authority of the state is not limited to those areas where one’s immorality violates another’s rights, then where is the limit?

Guantanamo, Torture and Due Process

2011-06-18T00:45:00.002-04:00

Of all the political positions that tend to be arbitrarily labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" by the mindless mainstream these days, support for "Club Gitmo" (and the detention and intelligence gathering systems it has come to represent) is surely one of the most inexplicable, not to say inexcusable. While many self described libertarians (including those of us in the GOP) are well aware that there is anything but unanimity in the military and intelligence communities on the Guantanamo issue, most rank and file conservative Republicans view opposition to this government's handling of terror "suspects" as disloyalty bordering on treason.

Even on the issue of torture (now euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation techniques), those relatively few conservatives who do not embrace its alleged usefulness still tend to rely on arguments that skirt the real problem. I recently heard a sermon delivered by a PCA minister for whom I have great respect to a group of military personnel and their families, in which he objected to torture on the grounds that it dehumanizes those who engage in it and lowers "us" to "their" level - they, of course, meaning terrorists. Essentially, he argued that torture is immoral and "isn't us" - therefore we should not rely on it.

This is true, of course: torture, like indefinite detention and war in general, brings out and fosters the worst in human nature. But rejecting torture solely on such grounds fails to address the other fundamental problems with coercive interrogation. One of those problems is that torture and other forms of coercive interrogation have been extremely effective throughout history at producing false confessions, but not accurate intelligence. There is an important difference between inducing a suspect to talk and inducing him to be honest, and the more intense the pressure to talk becomes, the more likely the suspect is to say what he thinks will relieve the pressure.

Significantly, many of the torture methods employed by this and the last administrations in the "war on terror" were borrowed from the military's SERE training program. SERE was developed during the Cold War to prepare American aviators for the treatment they would likely suffer if captured by a Communist military. The interrogation techniques used during SERE training, including waterboarding, smoke inhalation, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, and other cruel and humiliating treatments, were all known methods of interrogation used by the Soviets and their allies. What should be painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the interrogation of captured Americans during the Korean and Vietnam wars is that these methods were used primarily for the purpose of extorting false confessions. While pilots like Red McDaniel and John McCain were also questioned regarding intelligence and technology, the primary focus of their interrogations was to get them to admit to war crimes. And while little useful intelligence was ever gained by the torture of American pilots in Vietnam, many false confessions were obtained and circulated around the world.

Similarly, during the Iranian hostage crisis, some of the American hostages were subjected to much milder forms of coercive interrogation, and while their treatment was not nearly as harsh as the standards adopted by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, it nevertheless resulted in several false confessions. One hostage famously confessed to being "in charge of wheat mold," leading the gullible students questioning him to announce to the world details of an American plot to starve Iranian families by molding the bread in their cupboards.

The problem of false confessions leads us to what I believe is the central problem with our entire approach to the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. When libertarians argue that terrorists should be tried in the criminal court system like other criminals, the usual objection is that as foreign "enemy combatants," they aren't entitled to the legal protections and due process of the American judicial system. The idea seems to be that, unlike rapists, murderers, mob hit men and other privileged persons, the terrorist doesn't deserve due process. He's evil, so we should just take him out with a drone, but sometimes we capture him so we can talk to him first. In either case, he has no rights, so it doesn't matter what we do with him.

As any thinking person will observe, this line of argument takes for granted that the detainee is a terrorist. There is not the slightest allowance for the possibility that he may be an innocent individual. He was picked up on the battlefield, right? No chance of a mistake there. One is left to wonder why there should be any trial at all?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of most conservatives. The legal protections we call due process are not there because criminals of any sort deserve them; they are there because innocent people deserve them. They are not designed to clog the legal system and to slow the wheels of justice; they are designed to make sure that justice is indeed served. The tragedy of Guantanamo is not that would-be terrorists are locked up there, but that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the majority of our fellow creatures who are locked up there really are would-be terrorists.

Why I Am Not A "Truther"

2011-05-31T20:13:00.006-04:00

Three years ago I started to delve into the so-called "9-11 truth movement" and the subject of conspiracy theories in general on this blog. I never followed through, partly due to a lack of time, but also because I decided there was little to gain and much to lose by the attempt. Several recent developments have reopened the topic, however, and a series of discussions over the Memorial Day weekend convinced me, with some trepidation, to run the risk of putting a few more observations in writing. With trepidation, because I will almost certainly offend some who I respect by denying the credibility of claims they find convincing, and others by noticing claims they find utterly ridiculous.

In that earlier post, I noted that it often seems as though there are only two camps when it comes to political conspiracy theories. One chooses to accept the "official" government explanation in every instance; the other sees masterful deception, sinister motives, and almost divine omnipotence behind every news-worthy event. Considered calmly and in the light of history, both these extremes are nonsensical. Governments are made up of men; generally speaking, unscrupulous and dishonest men, but men none the less.

To consider the first: the idea that official pronouncements on any topic should carry much weight is silly on its face. The dishonesty of politicians and the incompetence of career bureaucrats are both matters of common knowledge. Particularly in regard to foreign policy, official statements are usually meaningless and frequently intended to deceive. Diplomacy has been defined, with good reason, as the art of lying for one's government. The entire history of international relations, from ancient Israel to the present, is a history of deception on a grand scale. In my view, far from lending extra weight to any version of events, the fact that a story is the official line goes in the scales against it.

The other extreme, however, is equally silly. It is beyond reason to assume that every major event is part of a vast human plan. Human plans don't generally work out as they are supposed to, and the bigger and more complex they are, the less likely they are to succeed. Moreover, there is a vast difference between recognizing dishonesty in the official story line and uncovering the real truth of the matter. Decades or even centuries later, with the benefit of hindsight, it often remains impossible to know with certainty the truth about many major events. I am continually frustrated when "truthers" present the most mind-boggling explanations for the events of 9-11, and when asked to state the evidence, immediately begin to cite problems or inconsistencies in the 9-11 Commission report, evidence of official cover-ups, or examples of how the powers that be have benefited from those events as "evidence" for their wild hypothesis. Often they seem sincerely unable to comprehend why such "evidence" does nothing to prove their own explanation.

The fact is that while there are many holes in the official account of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, most of the various alternatives floating around under the umbrella of the "truth movement" have no credible evidence at all to support them. They seem generally to be developed without any substantive investigation of the actual facts while suspiciously well adapted to make exciting documentary material. Most treat the airplanes as a distraction and claim that the twin towers were brought down by internally placed explosives. Some claim that no airliners were involved at all. Either way, these "alternatives" assume intricate conspiracies of incredible magnitude, requiring the knowledge and complicity of hundreds or thousands of eye-witnesses, emergency responders, construction workers, police and military personnel, airline employees, news media, demolition and recovery workers, stock brokers, high-ranking government officials, petty bureaucrats, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Such conspiracies are the stuff of science fiction, not reality.

I would venture the opinion that the real 9-11 conspiracy is much less exciting. I suspect that it involves an obscenely long wish list of expanded powers sitting in a file cabinet at the Justice Department, under the absurdly patronizing title of The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. I suspect that it stayed in that file cabinet because, while both Republican and Democrat administrations would have dearly loved such an expansion of executive power, both also knew that, in ordinary times, bringing it forward would inspire jealousy in the evil hearts of opposition legislators. So there it languished, waiting for an appropriate time of crisis and the brief moment of bipartisanship that a good crisis always brings. As I noted in the earlier post, such a crisis was bound to occur sooner or later, given the volatile combination of military occupations, tyrannical regimes propped up with American foreign aid, and the constant, petty, manipulative meddling that former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer calls "imperial hubris" - again on the part of both Republican and Democrat administrations.

No doubt Sept. 11, 2001 will go down in history as a Reichstag moment, and rightly so. But to conclude from this that it must have been an "inside job" is unwarranted and unnecessary. The Thompson killings in 1846, the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident were all similarly anticipated, provoked, and used to manipulate the American public into support for otherwise unpopular wars. The official story behind each of these events is full of holes. None of them, however, was an "inside job." In each case, the enemy was baited into an act of war that justified a military response, and the problems with the official account stems from the difficulty of leaving the bait out of the story.

(For those who take issue with the idea that the U.S. provoked the 9-11 attacks, I again quote the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer: "Bin Laden has been precise in telling Americans the reason he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.")

While the standard template for discussing the 9-11 attacks (a benevolent and peaceful America blindsided by a "sucker punch ... from somewhere in the back") is somewhere between a bad joke and a pack of lies, there is overwhelming evidence available regarding the actual events themselves. Even the collapse of WTC 7 is easily explained without resorting to alternative theories, if one takes the time to examine the structural issues and the eyewitness testimony relating to it.

What bothers me about all of this is not that conspiracy theorists don't trust their government, but that they don't invest the time and effort to scrutinize each others' claims. Most conspiracy theories have a grain of truth somewhere, buried in mountains of conjecture and fiction. Rumors of secret experiments with cloud seeding and weather manipulation magically grow into fantastic stories of "chemtrails" and population reduction efforts. Radio telescopes and ionospheric research become mind-control projects that can also cause massive earthquakes. Secret and exclusive clubs where powerful elites and their mistresses drink, party and discuss how to dig deeper into our pockets morphe into pagan temples where birds, rodents and worse are sacrificed to Satan himself. These claims serve only one purpose: to discredit those who buy into them. Unfortunately, many conspiracy afficionados seem to think it is everyone else's responsibility to disprove their ideas, and are content to dismiss any skeptic with the question, "Have you researched it yourself?"

In the mean time, policies and actions that truly threaten everything we hold dear are pushed forward right under our noses. While President Obama's birthplace was the subject of useless but frantic scrutiny, litigation, and alternative media attention, his political and economic policies have done incalculable damage to our nation and our freedoms. Just as the 9-11 "truth" movement was unfairly but effectively used to discredit Ron Paul in 2008, so the "birther" issue has more recently been used to discredit Tea Party activists, even those who paid no attention to it. The 2012 election will be either a tremendous opportunity or another blow to individual liberty. We would all do well to select carefully the issues to which we will devote our time and efforts.

Liam Goligher Installation Service

2011-05-29T22:16:00.001-04:00

I know this is a departure from the usual subject matter here, but this was such an incredible worship service I've got to share it. Tenth is our church, and a wonderful church it is. Dr. Liam Goligher was installed as the new senior minister last week, and this is the video stream of the service. The entire two hours are well worth watching.

Worship/Installation Service - 5/22/2011 Evening Service: "Why the City Needs the Gospel" from Tenth Presbyterian Church on Vimeo.

For those who share my own love for Scottish music, you must catch the postlude at the end. We were sitting in the balcony, and actually stood in the doorway of the choir loft while the band, orchestra, bagpipes and organ played "Highland Cathedral" in honor of Dr. Goligher's Glasgow roots.

Hammers And Nails: Getting Things Done

2011-01-03T21:41:00.010-05:00

With Republicans taking control of the House for the next two years, a tired old template for debate inside the beltway has been rediscovered: it's now time to put aside the rhetoric and partisanship and focus on getting things done for the American people. New polls assure lawmakers that a majority of Americans want compromise for the sake of "progress" (a helpfully vague ideal that is almost never given a definite meaning). This concept is nothing new: principled legislators like Ron "Dr. No" Paul or Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer are often criticized for their failure to "get things done" - usually defined as authoring legislation which will ultimately become law. As with most political debate, the underlying question (what are legislators for?) is never asked unless in a rhetorical sense; the assumption is nearly always that the legislator's first responsibility is to come up with additional laws.

There's an old proverb that applies here: to a man with nothing but a hammer everything looks like a nail. Lawmakers are always happy to indulge, even when the public really doesn't want them to. As early as 1834, a profligate Congress drew this rebuke from William Leggett in the New York Evening Post:

"One of the great practical evils of our system arises from a superabundance of legislation. ... Putting the acts of Congress and those of the State legislature together, they amount to some thousands annually. Is it possible that the good people of the United States require to be hampered and pestered by such a multiplicity of fetters as this: or that they cannot be kept in order without being manacled every year by new laws and regulations? Every superfluous law is a wanton and unnecessary innovation of the [people's] freedom of action... [yet our] legislative bodies have been regularly and systematically employed in frittering away, under a thousand pretenses, the whole fabric of the reserved rights of the people."

Good thing our great-grandparents put a stop to that. Imagine what our country would look like if Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly still enacted "some thousands of new laws annually."

Oh wait - they still do that.

The most overlooked consequence of nearly all legislation today is, embarrassingly, its primary purpose. Generally speaking, a new law means a new crime. It is precisely for this reason that unnecessary laws are so destructive to freedom and economic growth. Whether a law's purpose is to ban a substance, levy a tax, create a license, or impose a reporting requirement, it has invented a new crime where none existed before. This is not to say that laws are bad, only that unnecessary laws are bad.

I'd like to suggest that legislators aren't elected to make laws. Their responsibility is to see that only good and necessary laws are made. If no new laws are needed, then their responsibility is to prevent bad laws from being made (obstructionism, if you please). If bad laws have already been made, then their responsibility is to undo them.

Is there any doubt that this last is the situation we find ourselves in today? Almost everyone, regardless of their political opinions, thinks that we have bad laws on the books. But when the political class is confronted with the problems caused by their collective OCD, they don't undo anything, they just do more of it. It's time for that to change. The American voters took the legislative hammer away from a significant number of politicians on November 2nd; now we need to keep the pressure on those replacing them to start pulling nails instead of driving more. And instead of cringing in fear when others label us "the party of no," why don't we remind them that a "no" to the Nanny State is a "yes" to freedom, not just for Republicans, but for all Americans?

From Mao To Hitler; The Full Political Spectrum?

2010-12-18T22:07:00.004-05:00

Yes, I'm still alive.

I was asked to speak about Patrick Henry at the 19th annual Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet earlier this week, in recognition of the 275th anniversary of his birth next year. The following is the last half of my remarks, which address the subject of empire-building, something that has generated a good bit of reaction here in the past. The first half covered the history and context of Henry's public life up to the Revolutionary War. I begin below with the debate over the Constitution.

___________________________________________

We don’t have time to dwell on Henry’s time in the Governor’s Mansion and the Assembly during and after the war – I want to jump ahead thirteen years to June, 1788. The Constitutional Convention had been held in Philadelphia the year before, for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. They had concluded that the Articles were past amending and instead produced an entirely new constitution, which was sent to the states to be ratified or rejected.

Henry thought it should be rejected.

He had many objections, but they all boiled down to centralization of power. Henry was convinced that America could not remain free with the triple powers of trade regulation, taxation and defense all consolidated under the federal government. He believed that the framers of the constitution had lost sight of essential liberties in their desire to see America become great.

Now, history has proven many of Henry’s objections to have been groundless, and, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not agree with him that the Federal Constitution was a dangerous step toward tyranny. But the truth is, if Henry had not objected to the constitution as it stood we would, most likely, have no Bill of Rights today. What is more, while Henry (I believe) underestimated the value of the various checks and balances that were built into the federal Constitution, on this point at least his words seem eerily prophetic when read today. He returned again and again throughout twenty-three days of debate in the Virginia Convention to this question of empire vs. liberty.

“I own, sir,” he said, “I am not free from suspicion. I am apt to entertain doubts… You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. … Sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good. … Guard with jealous attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel!”

“The American spirit,” he went on, “has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government—a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government—for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.

“We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. …

"But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. …. No matter whether the people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Signior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege.”

Henry’s opposition to the constitution barely failed to prevent its ratification; but his influence was enough to ensure that a list of amendments was sent to the first Congress from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He also successfully nominated two opponents of the Constitution to the first United States Senate. Their election convinced James Madison, one of the leading Federalists, that concessions would have to be made if the new government was to succeed, and he agreed to support the proposed amendments in Congress. He did so ably and successfully, thereby earning the popular title “Father of the Bill of Rights,” which rightly belongs to Henry, if to anyone.

That brings us around to the reason we are celebrating here tonight. But I can’t bring myself to leave it there without asking the million dollar question: have the past two hundred and nineteen years validated Henry’s fear that Americans would lose sight of liberty in the pursuit of national greatness?

The value of history is only what we learn from it. Perhaps every one of us here tonight would agree that we have indeed lost much of the freedom our forefathers enjoyed. Probably not so many would agree with Patrick Henry that our liberty has fallen a victim to our pursuit of greatness and empire. But I do. In fact, I believe that, not a belligerent minority, not even fifty percent, but the vast majority of Americans are complicit – unintentionally, perhaps – but complicit none the less, in the loss of that freedom; or perhaps I should say complicit in the growth and centralization of government power, which is the same thing.

It has been common, especially leading up to last month’s election, to hear “liberals” blamed for the growth of government; and not without cause. People who describe themselves as “liberals” tend to be open about their view that government is good, and they readily acknowledge that they support more of it. People who describe themselves as “conservative,” on the other hand, tend to have at least a vague idea that big government, on the whole, is a bad thing for society. Unfortunately, this idea is usually not clear enough to serve any purpose. While there are probably countless reasons for this lack of clarity, the one that seems most obvious to me is the box in which we are all expected to think. You know, tyranny imposed through a democratic process is often the worst possible kind of tyranny, because it requires control over the mind of the electorate. And I’m not talking about some high-tech, top-secret government mind control program. The most effective way to control the outcome of a debate is to control the framework of the debate, and the great American experiment has shown, among other things, that such control is both achievable and effective. So in the spirit of Patrick Henry, let’s think for a minute about the box.

And please understand, if I am particularly hard on conservatives, it’s because I am a conservative Republican talking to a room mostly full of conservative Republicans. Fair enough?

What do the words “conservative” and “liberal” mean? Why is conservative politics a good thing and conservative Islam a bad thing? Why is economic liberalism an essential ingredient of a free society while political liberalism is a threat to a free society? Properly defined, political conservatism really just means a philosophical support for tradition or the established order of things – you could almost define it as a strict adherence to what is. Political liberalism is a philosophy of progress or change – not to put too fine a point on it, an affinity for what isn’t.

What I’m driving at is that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” only have real meaning when they refer to a standard. When we lose sight of that standard we get confused and end up rooting for Team A or Team B without asking why the goals are on the same side of the field. If the standard is that liberty with which all men are endowed by their Creator, I’m conservative. If the standard is the Constitution I’m conservative. If it’s anything else I’m not playing. But if we can agree that the Constitution is indeed the standard, then much of the popular conservative agenda today doesn’t look conservative anymore.

I can hear somebody say “Enough with the dictionary. When we say liberal or conservative we know what we mean!” Really? Do we really? Ask a certain popular radio host to define conservative and he’ll probably say something about lower taxes and not talking to rogue dictators without preconditions. To confuse matters even further, we have come to use “right” and “left” interchangeably with conservative and liberal. You talk about a box! We think in terms of a political spectrum that runs from Mao to Hitler.

As if there is a difference.

That strikes me as being like a medical practice that offers a full range of family health services, from euthanasia to assisted suicide.

Seriously, how did we accept this fraud? Between Mao and Hitler, where do you want to be? You say, “Well, I guess in the middle. Get as far from either end as I can.” That’s exactly what you’re supposed to say, because the center is engineered to be where your elitist leaders want you. And if you dare move away from the center they can call you names. “Socialist,” or “Fascist,” depending on which way you go.

Our political dialogue is like the emperor’s new clothes; we’re supposed to be so intimidated by the experts that we never call the game what it is. This kind of thinking is how we end up with ObamaCare being socialized medicine while RomneyCare is innovation and leadership. It is why the same party that brought us the TSA, MediCare Part D, the TARP bailout, the National Animal ID System, No Child Left Behind, the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, the National ID Card, legalized torture, massive increases in the national debt, the greatest consolidation of power in the Executive Branch since FDR, the two longest wars our nation has ever fought, and the only mass confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens in recent American history – it is why this party can still sell itself as the party of small government and effectively convince Americans that they will roll back the size, scope and cost of the federal government if they get the chance.

I don’t mean to engage in needless Republican-bashing; it’s just that I’m convinced we Republican voters are being used. If the political spectrum made sense, and the far left believed in total government control, one would expect the far right to believe in no government at all; anarchy, in other words. But somehow, the statists have sold us this fraudulent idea where both ends want big government in some area, with the result that no matter who’s in and who’s out after a given election, there is always a big government agenda to move forward. Think about this: both the “right” and the “left” also claim that they want to rein in government - in certain areas. But what happens when they take control? Did the Republican Party take advantage of their six years of control in Washington to reduce the debt, or to stop abortion, or to cut entitlement programs, or to roll back federal control of anything? No, but they sure managed to consolidate power in the Executive branch, trash our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, dramatically expand law enforcement and the military, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector. When the Democrats took over, did they reduce corporate welfare, or cut pork-barrel spending, or bring our troops home from a single one of our 800 overseas citadels, or end the travesty of justice that we call trial by military commission? No, but they sure managed to take over our health care system. They sure managed to tighten their chokehold on small businesses, further trash our Fourth Amendment rights, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector.

Forget rolling back the size of government – if we don’t recognize the game that is being played we will keep demanding bigger government. Because the expansion of government today isn’t only an item on the liberal agenda; it seems to me to be divided pretty evenly between both “sides.” The feel-good, bleeding heart big government may be for “liberals,” but conservatives are all about the empire thing. We blame liberals for promoting dependency on government when it comes to economic security, but “conservatives” just as avidly promote dependency on government for physical security. I know this isn’t going to win me any new friends, but this issue has to be addressed; it is a ball and chain on the movement to restore liberty in America.

Our assumed role of superpower and our obsession with security has put us exactly where Henry predicted, and with exactly the consequences that he expected. How can you have a restrained government at home and an adventurous government overseas? How can you spread freedom by force? You cannot empower your leaders to aggressively use force abroad without losing your soul and your liberty to the monster you have created. “Government,” said George Washington, “is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” And history has shown again and again that the government that acquires a taste for mastery abroad will never be content to serve at home.

The only way I see to break out of the box is to reject the fraudulent “right-left” political spectrum, reject the notion that either party is the answer – and I’m not talking about a third party; I am a Republican – but we need to start judging every single government action by one standard: freedom, based on the fact that all men are created equal. For too long we have been told, “Yes, government is out of control, but terrorists are trying to kill us, so just give up a little more freedom here. Sure, government is out of control, but there are thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every day, so we need a little more power over here. Yes, it’s a crime to saddle our children and grandchildren with this kind of debt, but we’ve got to maintain a strong national defense, so don’t ask us to bring troops home from any of the 130 countries we keep them in.”

Where does it end? No matter what the problem is, it is time for Americans to demand only solutions that make government smaller, less intrusive, and less costly; or, to put it another way, solutions that result in more freedom for us as individuals. Such solutions do exist, but they will never be willingly implemented by this power-drunk government. The American people will have to reassert their control over their public servants, but we cannot do that until we first control our own thinking; until, like Patrick Henry, we are willing to make liberty the standard, to think outside the box, to ask the uncomfortable question. I believe that the question for us today remains what it was in 1775; it is, as Henry said, “a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate.”

Thank you very much.

Hypocrisy In PA GOP Primary

2010-05-15T15:39:00.005-04:00

The following is an excellent response to Corbett's latest smear attack against Sam Rohrer, originally posted at winthewestforsam.com :

After viewing a copy of the latest mailing sent out comparing Tom Corbett and Sam Rohrer, I must say that I am more embarassed than ever to be a member of the Republican Party in this state. You claim that this flier’s purpose is to “set the record straight” about the two candidates, when you have actually done the exact opposite, and in doing so done a great disservice to every member of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. Let’s take a truthful approach to “setting the record straight”, shall we? We’ll start with the statements made about Sam Rohrer:

“Voted for the midnight pay raise”: How appropriate that you bring this vote up, as it was actually the REPUBLICAN PARTY that backed Representative Rohrer into a corner, saying if he didn’t vote for the pay raise that his legislation for property tax elimination would never see the House floor for a vote. So in voting for the pay raise, he actually did exactly what you wanted him to do. And now you dare feign repulsiveness at that same vote. In fact, your real problem with the pay raise and Sam Rohrer is that he came out the very next day publicly against it and helped spearhead the effort to have it repealed, and hasn’t accepted a dime of the pay increase. But you failed to mention that part in your mailer, didn’t you?

“Voted to raise his taxpayer-funded pension by 50%”: Again, Representative Rohrer voted for this based on information he was given that the state could afford the increase in the benefits. And one can only assume that this information was given to him by his own party, otherwise I don’t believe that he would have accepted it.

“In 18 years as a legislator, Rohrer has received over a million dollars in salary and benefits, yet has never written a single bill passed into law.”: This is probably one of my favorite “criticisms” of Sam Rohrer that you make on this flier, and demonstrates just how far out of touch with reality the Republican Party in this state is. I’m not sure if you realize this, but a state representative isn’t elected by his district to go to Harrisburg and write and get passed as much legislation as possible to earn his pay. He is sent to Harrisburg by his district to REPRESENT the interests of his constituents, and if need be PROTECT those same interests. That’s why they’re called “representatives”. Using the proper definition of his job title, Representative Rohrer has done an admirable job in his tenure in the House, putting his constituents before party politics. Otherwise they would not have elected him for 9 terms. It’s not your place to determine if he earned his salary or did his job, the voters decided that. Your obvious ignorance about this point is statement enough that the Republican Party leadership in this state has lost grasp of the concept of “Constitutionally-limited government”, a term Mr. Corbett has tried to use as much as possible during this campaign after Representative Rohrer has made it a centerpiece of his campaign.

“Has billed taxpayers over $100,000 for his car, including gas and maintenance”: Wow. That seems like an excessive amount of money when put that way. But, when broken down over 18 years, that comes to a little over $5555 a year, a modest amount of money given how much he used it to travel back and forth to the capitol for his job. Tom Corbett drives one of the state-owned “fleet” that he has so ardently promised to prune. How much has his vehicle cost the taxpayers on a yearly basis? Funny, I don’t see that figure on your mailer….

As far as your points about Tom Corbett on your flier, they’re not much of a “comparison”. His quoted experience going after money from various criminal enterprises isn’t any sort of honest assesment of his qualifications to be governor, it means he’s a good prosecutor. Show me any experience Mr. Corbett has in an executive capacity that demonstrates his ability to govern our state: a business he’s owned and operated, for example. And please, don’t use his tenure as Attorney General as an example, because given the multitudes of improprieties that have occurred in that office while he’s been in charge I think speak volumes of his inability to monitor those he is responsible for and run the department he’s in charge of in
any sort of fiscally responsible way.

The rest of your talking points about Tom Corbett are nothing more than promises he has made during this campaign. He has no track record of conservative values at all. In fact, he has no legislative history at all to look at to see whether he’s conservative or not. What he DOES have that we can look at is the history of the cases he’s pursued for prosecution, including many examples of seeking to deny citizens their gun ownership rights. Not very conservative, Mr. Corbett.
The point of this letter is this: the members of the Republican Party in this state
are sick and tired of the party elite “coronating” our candidates for us, deciding for us who is worth representing the party in elections and providing them with all of the party’s financial backing. It is our RIGHT to decide for ourselves who is worthy to represent us, not yours. Your job is in an organizational capacity only, taking the information from the lower levels of precinct committeemen all the way up to the state level in order to determine whom the people want for potential candidates, coordinating funds and dispensing them to candidates as needed, and letting us have fair and open primaries so that every qualified candidate gets an equal chance to get his message out to every member of the party so that “We The People” can make OUR decision who represents us, NOT YOU.

You’re seeing a groundswell happen this year that you don’t understand and cannot measure. You don’t understand why your choice for Governor isn’t already the defacto winner of the primary. You’re obviously nervous about Sam Rohrer, otherwise why bother with the smear campaign of a fellow Republican so close to the election? Which, by the way, is a repugnant act to treat a member of your own party with such disdain. And don’t think it will go unnoticed.

Well let me fill you in on what’s going on. We the people of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania are putting you, the party machine, on notice: your time has come. The machinery is about to be dismantled. And we’re taking our party back. Precinct by precinct, county by county, your reign over us will fall. And this party will once again function the way the Founding Fathers intended our government to work, as a REPRESENTATIVE Republic.

So consider this your wake-up call: start representing us and our interests again, or find yourselves another line of work.

Sincerely,

David A. Groot

Republican

Venango County

This Was A Battle?

2010-04-17T14:30:00.006-04:00

This recently leaked video provides the context for an excellent piece of advice from one of America's finest: Don't bring your kids to a battle. It also explains just what qualifies for "a battle" to video-game addicts turned loose on the real world, with formidable weapons and technology and the arrogance of the world's only superpower behind them. Don't let kids watch the video, either.

I don't for a minute believe that the actions of this crew are representative of most American soldiers. Nor do I believe, on the other hand, that this was a unique, isolated incident. Here are two examples from my own personal experience:

A friend of mine currently serving as an infantryman in Iraq told me personally that one of his superiors, during a routine patrol in southern Baghdad, fired a missile at random into a civilian dwelling to demonstrate the weapon to a new member of the unit, then justified his actions to his furious fellow-soldiers by reminding them that the US would compensate the homeowner (assuming he survived to file a claim) for the damage.

A former Blackwater medic who was teaching a tactical EMS class I took last year told us: "Blackwater isn't running around over there killing innocent Iraqis, mainly because there are no innocent Iraqis." I know, this wasn't an American soldier, but the attitude is common to many in uniform as well as out.

What I do believe is that some American soldiers are simply violent individuals who enjoy the opportunity to kill and destroy (case #1 above); that some are decent Americans who lose their moral compass in the violence and confusion of alternately fighting and supporting various elements of an insurgency created by their own leaders (case #2 above); and that the large majority are just too cowardly to expose the actions of the first two groups.

By the way, my apologies to the anonymous posters who occasionally post relevant comments here: I've been so inundated with spam comments that I've had to limit comments to registered users.

Who Is Sam Rohrer?

2010-02-24T09:03:00.002-05:00

Bureaucracy At Its Best

2009-06-01T16:11:00.002-04:00

Every man and woman in this country needs to hear this little exchange. It speaks for itself.

Unbelievable.

Oh, and when Alan Grayson refers to "what is now a two trillion dollar portfolio" - how much is that?

Two billion General Grants ($1,000 apiece); or twenty billion Ben Franklins ($100 apiece).

What could you do with it?

Well - you could spend $1,000 every second for 64 years.

Or, you could make a stack of one-thousand-dollar bills 142 miles high - enough to threaten the International Space Station.

You could lay those Grants end to end around the earth's equator - eight times. If you used Franklins you could do it eighty times.

If you actually used dollar bills you could make a continuous ribbon 189,393,939.4 miles long. A fighter jet flying at the speed of sound would take over twenty-nine years to unroll it.

This didn't come from a chain email, friends. I did the math myself and if anyone doesn't believe it I'll post all the calculations.

When did America go insane?

My Comments At Valley Forge

2009-04-25T17:06:00.005-04:00

The following is roughly the text of my comments at the Valley Forge Tea Party this morning. I was asked to speak on the theme: A Constitution In Crisis.

__________________________________________________

The flyer that was circulated prior to this event makes the observation that the Constitution is being violated by the very public officials who are sworn to uphold it. It goes on to pose three questions: 1st, what are some of these abuses or violations? 2nd, how should we, as citizens, respond if we are “persecuted” for following the Constitution? And 3rd, how can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?

I don’t believe the answers are hard to come by, but acting on those answers will be difficult. First, though, there is another question to answer; why should we care? The world has changed radically in the two-and-a-quarter centuries since the Constitution was designed. Everything is different now – or so we’re told. Why should our public servants in the 21st century be limited by a musty old document written with a quill pen? Why should we expect a two-hundred-and-twenty year old law to have any meaningful application to the political questions of our day?

There’s no doubt many, if not most, Americans really do question the importance of the Constitution. The reason, I believe, is that we’ve become too busy, too complacent – dare I say too apathetic – to be bothered with the abstract concepts of government and economics. We don’t want to think about it. We would rather handle our votes and our influence as citizens the same way we handle our tax returns. We want an expert to tell us what to do, or in this case how to think. This laziness is the reason Americans have been so easily sold on the concept of “problem-solving, issues-driven” politics. That wonderful sounding phrase is a euphemism for unlimited, centralized legislative authority – the antithesis of our Constitutional form of government.

But really, what’s wrong with that? Why should we care? Isn’t solving problems a legitimate purpose of legislation?

The answer, fellow Americans, is no. Under this benign, seemingly reasonable proposition lie assumptions that are deadly to our American values of liberty, justice and equality. If the purpose of the law is simply to solve problems, then who is to decide what problems need to be solved? The foundational assumption at the center of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics is that you, as an individual, are neither competent to nor capable of solving your own problems or working with those around you to solve problems which affect us all; and that the lawmaker, merely by virtue of his position, is somehow miraculously endowed with all the wisdom, incentive and ability that the rest of you lack. That assumption, my friends, is nonsense; it is also incompatible with freedom.

The only legitimate purpose of the law is to establish justice. Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century economist, puts it thus:

“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… [Law] is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense… It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.”

But why can’t the law establish justice and solve other problems at the same time? Quite simply, because law is not charity or philanthropy, it is brute force; it does not counsel or advise, it coerces. To extend this force beyond the limits of justice is to commit injustice; to destroy the legitimate goal of law in the pursuit of an illegitimate goal. Moreover, contrary to the “problem-solver’s” assumptions, the lawmaker (a) is as selfish as the rest of us, (b) has his own problems and (c) doesn’t have the foggiest idea about yours or mine. Consequently, when the law is allowed to go beyond the limits of justice, the temptation is generally irresistible to solve problems in a way that will benefit the lawmaker, not society. Every government that has ever existed on the face of the earth has shown this tendency.

OK, enough theory. What does the Constitution have to do with all this? Well, the Constitution is unique in the sense that, unlike statutory law, it doesn’t limit the actions of private citizens. It puts you, as an American citizen, under no legal obligation. The legal force of the Constitution is directed toward government, not you. The purpose of the Constitution was to say what your federal government may, and may not, do. It was intended as a limiting framework for the operation of the United States government. It does this in three ways.

First, the Constitution says what the federal government may do. The founders’ clearly stated intent was that if the constitution didn’t specifically delegate a power to the federal government, then the federal government did not have that power. Secondly, the Constitution prohibits or further restricts the exercise of some powers that might otherwise be implied. And thirdly, it divides these powers in such a way as to minimize the incentive for their abuse by any one branch of government.

The Constitution matters, ladies and gentlemen, because unlimited government always destroys individual freedom, and government is not easily limited. Remember, law is force. It can only be kept within proper limits by an opposing force. The founders understood this. We’re gathered at Valley Forge - why is Valley Forge significant? Because our forefathers fought a long, bloody and destructive war to restore the law to its proper functions. They didn’t want us to go through that horror again. So they sought to establish a form of government that would pit the force of government against itself through a system of checks and balances; one that would use the tendency of each branch of government to consolidate its own power to prevent the abuse of that power.

And it has worked. There is a reason America has been the most prosperous, and one of the longest lived, popular governments in the history of the world. Its failure to work today is not due to being outdated – human nature hasn’t changed – but rather to the fact that Americans don’t understand how their government is supposed to work – or how any good government should work, for that matter.

So now, to answer the three questions we started with:1st - What are some examples of the Constitution being violated today?

Kim asked me last week about the AIG bonus tax bill that passed the house. Was that unconstitutional? I think so. It didn’t merely go beyond constitutional limits; it would have violated at least two clear prohibitory clauses of Article 1, sec. 9. As a punitive tax targeting specific individuals, it was the equivalent of a bill of attainder, and as a retroactive tax on compensation already paid and received, it was an ex post facto law. Any lawmaker who cared knew that. Those who would plead ignorance didn’t care.

Another example would be the McCain/Feingold so-called “campaign finance reform laws.” The only constitutional authority the federal government has over the electoral process applies to the times, places and manner of holding elections. They have no delegated authority to regulate fundraising or political advertising. Moreover, the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits such interference where private citizens are concerned.

McCain/Feingold is an interesting example because many legislators who voted for it admitted that they thought it was unconstitutional – and voted for it anyway. President Bush admitted that it was probably unconstitutional – and signed it anyway! Their justification was that constitutionality is a question for the Supreme Court. Actually, it’s a question for all of us, particularly those of us who take an oath to uphold and defend it. This is a quote from Justice Kennedy, in an unrelated case: “The usual presumption is that Members of Congress, in accord with their oath of office, considered the constitutional issue and determined the … statute to be a lawful one; and the Judiciary, in light of that determination, proceeds to its own independent judgment on the constitutional question when required to do so in a proper case.” In other words, the Court assumes that if Congress passes a law, they believe it to be constitutional. To legislate with abandon and leave questions of constitutionality to the Court is a violation of the lawmaker’s oath of office.

The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional, and so is the issuance of legal tender paper money. That may seem like a bold statement, but the intent of the founders on this point is not a subject of doubt.

Other specific examples could include the National Animal Identification System; the myriad of federal laws restricting the free exercise of religion; federal regulations that prevent airlines from arming their pilots; bail-outs of irresponsible firms from hedge funds to auto-makers. To be honest, I’d be hard-pressed to name any bill that has passed Congress in the last several years that hasn’t been unconstitutional in some way. We aren’t just seeing violations of the Constitution on the level of individual laws; entire aspects of society that are entirely outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction are now regulated minutely by federal law. Things like healthcare, job creation, and agriculture – the proper role of government, both morally and constitutionally speaking, is simply to protect the free enterprise system as it applies to those areas of the economy. It has no constitutional authority to regulate the actions of private individuals in those areas unless they are directly engaging in interstate commerce.

2nd - How do we respond when citizens are “persecuted” for following the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution obligates your public servants, not you. Our responsibility as private citizens isn’t so much to follow the Constitution ourselves, rather to see to it that they do. This brings us to the last question:

3rd - How can we restore the Constitution to its proper place as law of the land?

First, we need to know the constitution. Start by reading it. The entire document was hand-written on two sheets of parchment – it isn’t long. Learning the Constitution is an absolutely essential first step, and it will make you better qualified to run this country than most of your leaders, because they haven’t read it.

Secondly, pay attention to what your leaders are doing. Do NOT, do not assume that the leaders of your party care about your values – they do not. Put pressure on them. Let them know that you stand opposed to all expansions of government, regardless of whether they tend toward the “right” or the “left” of our meaningless political spectrum. Remember those checks and balances? They only work if voters are paying attention. They aren’t working now because while you’re celebrating the Phillies’ World Series title all the branches of government are cooperating to steal you blind.

My brother and I met with Delaware County Sheriff Joe McGinn a few weeks ago. We confronted him about an apparently illegal arrest and search his deputies had been involved in. To his credit, he had a reasonable explanation for the incident. But he seemed puzzled by our concern when I told him we didn’t know the suspect who had been arrested. He told us that in his entire law enforcement career, it was the first time he had been challenged by a citizen who wasn’t personally connected to the case in question.

Shame on us. Joe McGinn is a good guy. I really believe that. But how can we expect him to stand up to the pressure from within government if we as voters don’t provide the counter-pressure which is our responsibility? Why should he limit his authority according to the constitution when he doesn’t expect it to make the slightest impact on his reelection? We need to pay attention and hold elected officials accountable.

And finally, each one of us needs to exercise self government. Society needs government. Unrestrained human nature isn’t pretty. If we as individuals desire to be free, to remain free, we must govern ourselves; because if we don’t, the vacuum will be filled by others, and the end result will be a totalitarian government. God knows there are enough of those in this world.

Quotes From Bill Of Rights Day

2008-12-19T23:07:00.004-05:00

"What we do not know, we do not appreciate. What we do not appreciate, we do not defend. And what we do not defend, we lose." (PA State Representative Sam Rohrer, on his colleagues' appalling lack of interest in even reading the Constitution.)

"There is some good news: we are not in session, so for the moment you are safe!" (PA State Senator Mike Folmer, when asked to give a brief update on current issues in the Senate.)

Thanks, Xman!

2008-11-19T08:30:00.008-05:00

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to "xpressive1515" for a beautiful illustration of the problems I've been addressing in my last two posts. When I said that many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are incapable of critical thinking, and that most conservatives are "inexcusably myopic" in their views on the sanctity of life, I didn't expect to have my statements underscored by such a pointed object lesson.

This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.

The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"

At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.

Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the authors opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.

Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.

The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.

Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.

And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?

Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservativism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.

Civilian Casualties

2008-11-10T14:40:00.004-05:00

In my last post I accused John McCain of having "almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent." I qualified that statement as follows: "I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility."

Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.

I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.

I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."

Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.

In Defense Of The Write In Vote

2008-11-02T00:57:00.006-04:00

As a Christian, libertarian constitutionalist, I find myself in an interesting position this election season. Faced with two Presidential candidates who seem to be running on nearly the same platform, a write-in vote seems to be the only sensible option. However, everyone I talk to wants to convince me that to write in a presidential candidate is to abandon my civic duty and hand America over to “them.” Opinions differ as to who “they” are, but generally “they” are whomever one wishes to blame for the undeniable problems facing us all as Americans. After discussing this perception with nearly every person I encountered this week, the urge to defend myself has become irresistible.

In historical terms, perhaps the most significant aspect of this election will be the unprecedented willingness of the American people to accept whatever is set before them as genuine, no matter how demonstrably false it may be. From the remarkable conversion of a former governor of Massachusetts (remarkable at least for its timing, if nothing else) to the inspiring lies of “a Chicago thug”, Americans have shown a gullibility that is unrivaled in western history. Half a century of dumbed-down education, coupled with purposeful indoctrination and mind-numbing entertainment, has left many Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, unable to think critically about even the most transparent fabrications and blatant contradictions.

Friday morning, while quietly working at a barn near Coatesville, I encountered a raving individual who warned of the attacks America will suffer when we are deprived of George Bush’s guiding hand. When I reminded her that the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor occurred on Bush’s watch, she launched into a tirade on the ruin Obama would bring to this country, ending with a vow never to wear an Islamic head-scarf. I quietly assured her that it was unlikely she would be forced to wear a veil under an Obama administration, and that I had no intention of voting for Mr. Obama, to which she replied, “Yea right. You’re such a liberal, of course you’ll vote for Obama – don’t give me that!” I had to laugh, because it was the first time in my life that I’ve been called a liberal. But the worldview she demonstrated is no laughing matter. She did not know me, and nothing about my comment bore any relationship to the size or scope of government; in other words, what I said was neither liberal nor conservative, it was a simple statement of fact. But she had evidently been programmed to make judgments about what liberals and conservatives believe without having the slightest clue what the terms mean.

Three hours later, in another barn, the client’s husband walked in with a large zoning regulations book under his arm. I was wearing a Ron Paul shirt, as usual; he had a McCain sign in his front yard. In answer to my greeting, he asked if I was ready for “share-the-wealth” Obama, adding that Obama would probably take ninety-five percent of everyone’s land and give it to squatters, because “property rights don’t matter” to him. He then turned to his wife to show her the zoning regulation their neighbor was in violation of. Apparently they live in a “Rural Conservation District” where no new buildings are permitted, with the exception of farm-related structures under twenty-five feet in height. His scoff-law neighbor was constructing a barn that exceeded the height limitations, and he was on his way to file a complaint. He apparently never considered whether a significant moral distinction could be made between taking one’s property outright on one hand, and simply denying them the use of it on the other.

As an active Ron Paul supporter I’ve had the opportunity to work with people of vastly different political persuasions over the past year. Dr. Paul’s simple message of smaller, less intrusive government across the board appeals to Americans from all backgrounds, and for many reasons. I know social conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to do more than talk about ending the abortion holocaust. I know fiscal conservatives who supported him because he was the only candidate to address the federal government’s real spending problems (guns and butter) instead of simply spouting one-liners about the bridge to nowhere. I know anarchists who supported him because he wanted to end the massive, corrupt money-laundering institution known as the DEA. I know liberals who supported him because he was willing to face the reality of a nine trillion dollar national debt and call the real culprits out. Ron Paul made a tremendous effort to educate his supporters on the essential principles of individual liberty and free-market capitalism. I believe he achieved a great deal in that regard. However, now that the primary is over, there are still a few confused folks among us. One fellow Paulite recently informed me that I must vote for Obama, because a third party vote is really a vote for McCain and an endorsement of the last eight years of aggressive war and massive deficit spending. Another urged me to vote for McCain, because a third party vote is really a vote for Obama and a Marxist America.

I have news for both of them: elections aren’t lotteries and the object is not to pick a winner. Democratic elections only work when the voters choose candidates that represent their views. Always voting for the lesser of two evils is essentially the same as always playing defense – there’s only one possible outcome. The choices get worse every time.

I believe a good government is one that (a) protects the citizens from outside threats, (b) punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts and (c) otherwise leaves people alone to do as they choose. On Friday last week, Rush Limbaugh gave a similar definition for conservatism. Essentially he stated that true conservatives want a small state that defends the citizens and nothing more. Rush, if that is a conservative I’ll start calling myself a conservative again – but what in the name of sanity does that definition have in common with the Republican Party’s recent record, or the current GOP platform and ticket?

My wife and I discussed this subject with a couple from church last week. They defended Bush and other election-year conservatives because “they’re under so much pressure, you know. The media is so liberal, the schools are so liberal, the career bureaucrats in Washington are so corrupt – they’d really like to do more for us but their hands are tied.” Nonsense. Pressure comes with the job. If you can’t handle it resign so we can elect someone who can. Liberal media coverage occurs because there are dedicated big-government liberals in the media. If conservatives would expend one fourth of the hot air they waste complaining about liberal bias on a cogent argument for less government, addressed to the American people instead of to the choir, things might change for the better. We just had six years of a Republican administration with a GOP-controlled Congress and a 7-2 Republican appointed Supreme Court. They could have abolished the DoE; instead they increased its budget by over fifty percent. They could have fired half of the bureaucrats in Washington; instead they hired thousands more. Their hands were tied by greed and cowardice (mostly greed), not by liberals.

I’d like to vote for a candidate who will put pressure on the statists for a change. Bush promised to do just that, but instead he has collaborated with them on every domestic policy issue except gun control. Even there he’s done absolutely nothing but maintain the Clinton status quo. We don’t need a president who will “reach out” to big government statists. We need a president who will use his office to further true conservative principles: one who will fire bureaucrats, disband unconstitutional agencies, secure our own borders for a change, and be honest with the American people about the seventy trillion dollars in promised entitlements they aren’t going to get.

We had such a candidate in the primary election. His emphatic rejection by the Republican Party is sufficient proof that they have no inclination to give more than lip service to true conservative principles. But just to underscore that point, they chose instead a candidate who has never even pretended to be conservative until this election. That the man who brought us the infamous McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act should be allowed to call himself a conservative now speaks volumes about his party’s lack of sincerity.

Over the last two weeks I’ve received no less than a dozen mailings from the Republican Party. Only two of them even refer to McCain. The other ten assure me that Barak Obama is not who I think he is. (I still think he is who I think he is … but that’s neither here nor there.) Of the two that refer to McCain, one spoke of his military service and his time as a POW. The other, which I received yesterday, features a full color photo of McCain and Hillary Clinton, side by side, beaming at each other. On the back is a ringing (hollow, that is) endorsement of Ms. Clinton by Senator Joe Biden, and inside is the following message from McCain:

“Senator Hillary Clinton blazed a trail for future generations of women. She fought for working families, and she heard your voices… Most importantly, Senator Clinton knows how to reach across the aisle to solve problems. Both she and John McCain have shown the American people results, not pretty words… I share Senator Clinton’s goal of promoting women to more important roles throughout our government. By the end of my first term, I promise you will see a dramatic increase in the presence of women in every part of the government.”

Now friends, if John McCain wants my vote this isn’t exactly the way to go about securing it. I don’t like the idea of a friend of Ms. Clinton in the Oval Office, or any other office, for that matter. The notion that Ms. Clinton has done any favors for working Americans is an insult to Americanism. The idea that she and John McCain want to solve my problems isn’t encouraging, and the thought of a dramatic increase in anything related to government doesn’t appeal to me either.

Most McCain supporters I talk to are really anti-Obama activists who feel that they must support his opponent to prevent his election. They fall generally into two camps: some fear Obama’s Islamic connections and others fear his Marxist rhetoric. Neither group recognizes that they are pawns in a game of international chess. We have been slowly implementing Marxism in this country for seventy years, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House. In 1936 Albert Nock made this observation regarding the Republican response to Roosevelt’s election:

“In the nature of things the exercise of personal government, the control of a huge and growing bureaucracy, and the management of an enormous mass of subsidized voting-power, are as agreeable to one stripe of politician as they are to another. Presumably they interest a Republican or a Progressive as much as they do a Democrat, Communist, Farmer-Labourite, Socialist, or whatever a politician may, for electioneering purposes, see fit to call himself. This … is now being further demonstrated by the derisible haste that the leaders of the official opposition are making towards what they call "reorganization" of their party. One may well be inattentive to their words; their actions, however, mean simply that the recent accretions of State power are here to stay, and that they are aware of it; and that, such being the case, they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management. This is all that "reorganization" of the Republican party means, and all it is meant to mean; and this is in itself quite enough to show that any expectation of an essential change of regime through a change of party-administration is illusory. On the contrary, it is clear that whatever party-competition we shall see hereafter will be on the same terms as heretofore. It will be a competition for control and management, and it would naturally issue in still closer centralization, still further extension of the bureaucratic principle, and still larger concessions to subsidized voting-power.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, not much has changed. And in spite of the rhetoric, neither Obama/Biden nor McCain/Palin represent the possibility of change. Certainly Obama is a socialist. But the reason neither McCain nor Palin have had the courage to say so is because they are too. Listening to Governor Palin may be refreshing in many ways, but she is the chief executive of the most socialist state in the union. And John McCain, in addition to supporting numerous socialist government programs (including the recent financial bailout/earmark bill) has advocated socialism in speeches and debates even during this campaign.

The final argument usually advanced is Obama’s cold-blooded disregard for human life, as evidenced by his positions on abortion. This happens to be one area where conservatives are inexcusably myopic, and consequently the area where I am most likely to make them very angry. I concede that Obama’s disregard for human life is greater than many animals. I cannot imagine how anyone could support a candidate who holds to such a despicable ideology. But innocent human life is threatened in many places besides the abortion clinic. Uncomfortable as the thought may be, John McCain has almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent. The circumstances are mitigating, it is true. But I have never understood how conservatives can wax eloquent about the unborn while stoically defending the intentional slaughter of civilians during wartime. I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility.

If you are still reading this post I’m honored, to say the least. I understand to some extent why most of you will choose to vote for John McCain, but I firmly believe that God will turn this election where He chooses. My responsibility is to vote in a way that honors Him. Based on that conviction, I will be writing in Ron Paul. If Obama wins, we will have what we deserve, and conservatives will be forced to deal with the massive executive branch they have built falling into the hands of an unprincipled liberal. If McCain wins, we will still have what we deserve, and conservatives will have the opportunity to see their own candidate sell them out repeatedly. Perhaps they will be treated to more Clinton-style scandal, a la Republican this time. Either way, I’ll be able to sleep at night, something that all this writing is currently preventing.

Duh.

2008-07-19T15:55:00.003-04:00

Ladies and Gentlemen - from National Public Radio - the mindless quote of the month!

In a story on the "positive" effects of the economic stimulus checks we've been receiving, the reporter had this word of caution: "But some economists are concerned that the infusion of cash will only be temporary."

Mmhmm. They just might have a point.

Public education at work again, friends.

Answering John Murphy

2008-07-14T12:02:00.002-04:00

A little background - John Murphy is an independent candidate for Congress running against Joe Pitts here in PA. He sought the support of our Ron Paul group, based on his opposition to the Iraq war, his support for "civil liberties" and his hope to do something about the national debt. He seemed very confused at the groups lack of enthusiasm, and has been urging us ad nauseum to quit holding to "19th century ideology" and vote for him because he has an MBA, likes to "solve problems" and is running an "issues-driven" campaign. He sent the following list of questions (in blue, below) to several of us, presumably hoping to change our minds. The black text is my response.

John,

I don’t have much time but I’ll do my best.

Who or what precisely do you see as the enemy -- internal -- of the United States or, as some of the folks put it, "the Republic"?

Any influential entity who rejects our founders’ understanding of individual rights, and/or who works to undermine the constitutional framework of our government, is the enemy. There have always been politicians who fit that description, but we are now at a crisis point where a large minority, if not a majority, of participating citizens have been thoroughly indoctrinated with collectivist/statist propaganda. That is where groups like ours come in. We are here to educate, inform, and encourage others to start washing their own brains.

Why is small government better than medium or large government?

Because humans are basically self-centered and seek to meet their own needs/wants/desires with the least possible effort. In a true free market (where government punishes violations of individual rights and mutual contracts, defends the citizens against outside threats and otherwise leaves them alone) this tendency of human nature improves efficiency and productivity. But when government moves beyond those boundaries, opportunities are created for those who exercise the legislative powers to satisfy their own needs through the political means rather than the economic means; or in other words, to exploit the physical or mental labor of others rather than using their own labor productively. The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Nicole recommended it already) is the best treatise ever written on this subject – and it isn’t long. If you promise to read it, email me your address and I’ll mail you a copy tomorrow. Really.

Why shouldn't we be more concerned about the relationship of corporate America with our government rather than the relationship of individual Americans with our government?

Corporations are not inherently dangerous – in a true free market such as we defined above they are no threat at all to a nation. The danger comes when government forms an improper relationship with any economic force, whether individual or corporate, and begins to legislate, adjudicate or enforce in a manner that favors that individual or corporation over others. The reason we see corporatism as a larger threat is because corporations, by their nature, generally have much greater incentives to offer politicians in exchange for favorable interference in the market.

If there were only three possible values that we could hold: freedom, equality and justice and we were forced to eliminate two of them what would be your rationale for getting rid of those two?

You pose a false dilemma. True freedom, equality and justice are inseparable. Freedom is the absence of coercive force in the life, actions and decisions of an individual. Creative equality is the basis for asserting that freedom, and justice protects the first two by punishing violations of them. These values appear to be in conflict only when they are improperly defined (e.g. financial or conditional equality substituted for legal equality).

Do you make a distinction between personal freedom and civil liberty? If so how do you distinguish between the two?

Not dogmatically - I think they are closely related. The term “civil” liberty may be inaccurate because it usually implies that liberty is the gift of government rather than inherent in the individual. But if by civil liberty you mean a society where individual liberty is respected and protected by government, then I would say civil liberty is the legal aspect of personal freedom.

Given that our Constitution was written by the landed aristocracy as a means of protecting their property from those Americans who were less unfortunate. ("The people who own the country ought to govern it" said founding father John Jay while Alexander Hamilton said that a permanent check over the populace should be exercised by "the rich and the well-born".) Isn't it time that we had a new constitution whereby we got rid of tyrannical elements like the Senate and the electoral College? (Four senators from North Dakota and South Dakota representing approximately 500,000 Americans can outvote two Senators from California representing 36 million Americans.)

Hamilton did not represent the majority of the founders by any stretch of the imagination. Neither the Senate nor the Electoral College were “tyrannical features” as they were originally designed. Senators weren’t supposed to be representing the people. The purpose of the Senate was to be the voice of the States in the limited federal government, and the House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913, defeated that purpose and helped lay the groundwork for the silent coup d’etat begun the same year. The Electoral College has been rendered worse than useless by the modern party system, but originally it was a brilliant effort to guard against the sort of demagoguery that had destroyed earlier democracies like Athens. I can’t take time here to go into that in detail.

If Thomas Jefferson hadn't been as incompetent a president as he was a governor he would have scrapped the 1789 Constitution and called for another Constitutional convention whereby anti-democratic elements would be eliminated. What do you think of a statement like that?

Partially true but irrelevant.

From my point of view I see the infringement of special interests -- the US corporations and outside organizations like the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) -- as the greatest threat to our republic because roughly 57,000 Americans along with AIPAC are responsible for 95% of the campaign finances of both major political parties (AIPAC alone provides 60% of the funding of the Democrat party and 25% of the funding of the Republican Party this will keep us in near constant war in the Middle East). Consequently both old parties aim to serve the interests only of those people who finance their campaigns. What do you think about that statement?

True – but the root problem isn’t the fact that campaigns are funded by the wealthy; rather it is the fact that we the people have allowed our public servants to work for those financiers instead of us. If government were restricted to its constitutional limits there would be very little incentive for corporate and special interest donors to contribute to political campaigns.

As a political scientist I can tell you that studies performed by researchers specializing in voting behavior indicate that fewer than 25% of voters are “rational voters”. Most "rational citizens" are so "rational" that they have determined that voting is futile and stay home. The people who are motivated enough to constitute the majority of the people that show up to vote are so motivated precisely because they are irrational and/or single-issue voters (love Jesus, hate gays, love Israel, love guns, hate foreigners -- whatever it is that floats their boats). What do you think about that conclusion?

We know it to be true – not because we’re political scientists but because we’ve been talking to those voters. I would respectfully suggest that question #4 indicates the problem of irrationality may be closer to home than you realize. Be that as it may, I agree with your conclusion.

Because we disagree on some issues like health care and education does that mean we cannot work together to solve mutual problems?

Not at all. But we’ve got to agree on the problem to be solved. The message we’ve all been trying to send you is that we have come together precisely because we are sick and tired of “issues-driven, problem-solving” politics. We are looking for statesmen who understand the core principles of freedom, because we are convinced that government will never solve our problems. Too many honest but naive politicians have been sent to Washington with a mandate to get the government off of our backs, only to be swept up in the tide of philanthropic tyranny and add their personal issues to the already out-of-control list of “problems” to be “solved” through more government interference. Enough is enough. We’d like to solve our own problems for a change, starting with the problem of big government. It appears that you are looking to become part of that problem, which is why I can’t support you.

Regards,
Patrick G. Kocher

You Can Fool All The People Some Of The Time...

2008-04-16T15:09:00.004-04:00

Last week my wife and I had the pleasure of joining over 400 others outside the PA Supreme Court in Harrisburg to show support for Diane Goslin, CPM. Diane has assisted women in delivering babies for 25 years in south-central PA. She had the dubious distinction of being selected by the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs as a test case for their ongoing push to control every aspect of childbirth and women's health in PA. Since Americans long ago ceded control over "medicine" to the State, it needed only the redefinition of pregnancy as a disease and childbirth as a medical procedure to assert control over midwives and the mothers they serve.

But my reason for writing about the trip has nothing to do with midwifery. As we were leaving the Capitol, we were treated to a highly entertaining spectacle that was too good not to share. In front of a row of fountains a gentleman who appeared to be taking lessons in motivational speech stood at a podium with the distinguished banner of the PAGOP. Behind him about 15 assemblymen and senators stood in a semi-circle, mechanically clapping their hands and smiling artificially at a large array of TV cameras. Between the actors and the cameras stood about 50 chairs, of which 47 were unoccupied. The remaining three held news reporters, busily scratching on note pads whenever a particularly quotable breath of hot air chanced to escape the overwrought dignitary.

I couldn't resist stopping to listen - indeed it took some little self-control not to volunteer my own thoughts to such a receptive audience. It seemed that these gentlemen had been tasked with the responsibility of formulating an official response to the current hemorrhage of voters from the Republican Party. The solutions they had devised were now being communicated to the eager grassroots volunteers represented by the 47 empty chairs. They appeared to be immune to the shame and consternation one would expect from less brazen actors on finding themselves in an empty auditorium. One after another, they were introduced, stepped forward, cordially shook the moderator's hand, and expressed in their own simple way how excited they were to be Republicans in this election season.

I forgot to mention that behind the cameras, a group of overstuffed aides with flourescent light exposure syndrome stood waiting for the bosses to finish their charade. Each of them appeared to be memorizing the herringbone pattern of the suit in front of him, though some of them were probably just sleeping on their feet. As I watched and wondered, a pushy camera-woman prodded them to life and requested that they take up new positions in front of the camera, saying by way of explanation: "I need it to look like there's people here!"

I regret to say that I failed to conceal the combination of merriment and disdain evoked by this spectacle, and although the speaker pretended not to notice me, our initial eye contact seemed a little disconcerting to him.

Everyone needs a good laugh now and then.

P.S. I mentioned the above incident to my Dad, with the rhetorical question: "Who do they think they're kidding?" His response: "Everyone."

Maybe it isn't so funny after all.

Join the Club!

2008-02-06T18:52:00.000-05:00

This feels good!

Am I nuts? Perhaps. But there’s nothing like a little skirmishing to whet one’s appetite for the big fight. And I have to admit, I found listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today rather satisfying. (That doesn’t regularly occur.) Please don’t misunderstand; I recognize the tragedy unfolding as the GOP commits suicide. But in the process, “we” have been vindicated.

For many years, constitutionalists like me have been described by a broad range of more or less vile adjectives. The ultimate crime “we” are accused of is reckless abandonment of the Republican Party. “We” have been charged (accurately) with slighting conventional wisdom, which demands of all conservatives an unflinching loyalty to the elephant lest we be kicked to death by the ass. In the past year, as “we” have formed under the banner of the first constitutionalist presidential candidate many of us have ever seen, these complaints have merged into one incessant whine, “You’re helping to elect Hillary!!!!!!!” Imagine! To abandon the Republican pachyderm in his hour of greatest need - when he has become so accustomed to being led about by public opinion polls that he no longer knows how to lead himself; when, having abandoned every principle he once represented, and wasted his strength in attempting circus tricks for the entertainment of the world, he cowers in fear of a well-deserved beating from his braying opponent - how could “we” be so thoughtless? Aren’t “we” team players?

The answer, of course, is no. We’ve never been team players. In fact, we don’t even get the point of the game. We don’t comprehend the vast gulf that allegedly lies between HillaryCare and MittCare. We don’t see the moral distinction between liberals stealing from us to feed and/or bomb third world countries and neo-cons stealing from our children for the same purpose. We fail to appreciate the generosity of leaders who reduce their annual frontal attack on our wealth by 2% while they inflate the money supply by 10%. We still believe our Constitution is the greatest form of government ever, and we don’t see why a few camel jockeys should scare us into abandoning freedoms that were bought and paid for with the best blood of millions of Americans. We are sick and tired of fiscal policies that make as much economic sense as shooting a cow for her milk, and we don’t really care whether the milk is wanted to perpetuate the welfare state or the warfare state.

In our defense, we haven’t actually abandoned the GOP; we’ve simply stuck to our principles and supported the one candidate who has spent his political career behaving like a Republican. But when the camp followers, office seekers and other assorted herd animals ask what we will do should November present us with a choice between Senator Mitt Huckabee and Ms. Clinton, the words “write-in” have always evoked a torrent of reproachful exclamations. Until this week.

In a few short days, I’ve watched “loyal” Huckabee supporters jump ship and endorse either McCain or Romney. I’ve heard talk show hosts frantically endorsing anyone but McCain. I’ve heard prestigious social conservatives like Dr. Dobson announce their intent to write in (gasp!) a candidate should McCain be the GOP nominee. But the final nail in the coffin was Ann Coulter’s brazen threat to endorse Ms. Clinton over the Senator from Arizona.

I can respect Dr. Dobson’s position (though I fail to note any meaningful difference between McCain and the candidates he would support) and I appreciate his unintentional vindication of my own convictions. I have difficulty respecting the ex-Hucklings, but their actions were predictable considering their prior condemnation of Congressman Paul’s supporters. But Ann Coulter’s words are a chilling proof of the absolute emptiness of the shell that was once the conservative movement.

We have said for years that the lesser of two evils was still evil; that merely slowing the growth of government was not enough; that buying into the old “two steps forward, one step back” approach to government expansion was unworthy of a free people. We’ve doggedly pointed out the failures of conservative leaders to anticipate the end result of repeated compromise. And we have consistently refused to cast a vote for a known crook, regardless of party affiliation. For our pains we have been derided and marginalized to the point of denial by the mainstream of the GOP. Now, at last, a conservative icon has provided us with a caricature of the danger we’ve been warning everyone about.

So to Ann Coulter and anyone who may sympathize with her, I have this to say: if your moral compass permits you to compare two socialist, big-government, anti-family candidates and endorse one because “she is more conservative than he is,” go right ahead; but forgive those of us who mentally place you in the Benedict Arnold category. You have lost all claim to our respect. When conservatives are willing to openly embrace either John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Congressman Ron Paul just so they can vote for a winner, conservatism has indeed lost all meaning. We may as well bury it and go back to being Americans.

And to Dr. Dobson: welcome. :)

Conspiracy Theory 101.1

2008-01-17T00:09:00.000-05:00

I’ve intended to write a post about conspiracy theories for over a year. Writing time is scarce these days, between work, EMT class, homeschooling and political activism – but working on Ron Paul’s campaign has brought this issue into focus more times than I care to acknowledge. Two months ago I finally caved in to intense peer pressure and agreed to watch a pile of DVDs that would supposedly offer irrefutable proof that our government directly perpetrated the attacks on 9/11/01. Having heard second-hand many of the arguments put forward by Mssrs. Jones, Avery, etc., I fully expected to find these “powerful presentations” less than convincing. However, I was unprepared for … well, I’m getting ahead of myself.

Before I offer my thoughts on 9/11, it might be useful to consider the concept of conspiracies in general. In general, I find that folks tend to fall into two categories: those who believe conspiracies are everywhere, and those who refuse to believe they exist at all. Both of these positions result in an unrealistic perspective on life.

In one form or another, conspiracies form a critical part of the political history of every powerful nation that has ever existed. From ancient Israel, Persia, Greece and Rome to Spain, the Netherlands, France and England, on to Russia, Germany, Japan and yes, the United States of America, every nation that has played a major role in world affairs has been subjected to the attention of those who stand to gain or lose through manipulation of those affairs. I could provide specific instances from the histories of each of these nations, where the events in question appear very different to the bird’s-eye view of historians than they would have appeared to contemporary observers. So to assume that the political landscape of the only superpower in the world today is free from the influence of secret outside forces is to believe a fairy tale.

Even within the memories of many who read this, our own country has seen numerous conspiracies come to light. Some are on a small scale; some on a large scale. Some, like the Watergate scandal, run afoul of government interests and are exposed by the justice system; others, like the murder of President Diem during the Vietnam War, involve the interests of the government and consequently are shielded from legal exposure. Some, like the 1953 overthrow of Iranian PM Mohammed Mossadegh, are resolved with time and more information; while others, like the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC, remain a mystery, with little known except that the “official” explanation is false. In short, conspiracies do play, indeed are playing, a significant role in the politics and events we experience from day to day.

The question one needs to ask, then, is this: how do we know when we are seeing the effects of such plots? Unfortunately, the abject ignorance of history that characterizes Americans today leaves many of us without the intellectual tools needed to answer that question with reasonable accuracy. Add to the mix Americans’ widespread distrust of the government and the media, and one result is that those who realize they are being lied to tend to assume that a direct, causative relationship exists between the liar and the events in question. So, for example, when the President claims that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11, those who perceive the emptiness of that claim conclude that the President must be hiding something (which he is), so he must be the guilty party (oops - non sequitur). Actually, the President’s false claims could be related to a number of factors, most likely his pathological urge to overthrow Hussein with or without a reason.

The other combination that tends to fuel conspiracy theories is when a powerful organization or individual benefits from a major event. To continue with the 9/11 illustration, the reasoning runs like this: the terror attacks created a climate of fear perfectly suited to the implementation of police state measures and the repression of individual liberty (true); the government took full advantage of this climate to implement such policies (also true); therefore the government must have arranged the attacks (again, non sequitur). While the administration certainly took advantage of the situation, it would have required only minimal understanding of American foreign policy and the principle of blowback to realize that an Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. was bound to occur in the near future.

Coming soon: how to test a "conspiracy theory" for probability.

Hello, GOP ...

2008-01-15T14:58:00.001-05:00

I sent this letter to a slew of editors, but no one was willing to publish it. So ... I will!

_________________________________________

In Thursday’s republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron questioned Dr. Ron Paul’s electability, implying that his positions were incompatible with those of the Republican Party. As a Republican voter, I agree with Ron Paul that our party has lost its way. The current GOP platform would be unrecognizable to the republicans of Reagan’s day. Even so, many of the sentiments in this pitiable mutation of conservative principles sound oddly similar to those defended by Congressman Paul. Consider the following quote: “As tagging and tracking citizens is inconsistent with American freedom, we oppose the creation of a national identification card or system.”

Really? Paul is the only GOP presidential candidate who opposes the REAL ID program; or in other words, he is the only candidate whose position on this issue is consistent with his party’s platform.

How about this astute observation regarding foreign aid: “Development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery.” That sounds like a quote from the Doctor’s weekly column. Why do the other republican candidates unite in deriding Ron Paul for statements like this?

Here’s an interesting quote: “As Republicans, we trust people to make decisions about how to spend, save, and invest their own money. We want individuals to own and control their income... making their own choices and directing their own future. …the problem is not that the American people are taxed too little but that the federal government spends too much.” Paul is the only candidate who has called for allowing young Americans like me to completely opt out of the Social Security System. Why are the other candidates so reluctant to agree?

The platform has this to say about education: “We recognize that under the American Constitutional system, education is a state, local, and family responsibility, not a federal obligation.” So why do the other candidates and the media laugh when Ron Paul says what every involved parent knows: that the federal Department of Education is wasteful and unconstitutional?

Earlier this week Jay Leno asked Dr. Paul why Fox News has consistently tried to marginalize and exclude him, noting that after all, he was a Republican. Paul responded, “Yes, but – they’re not!” I think he is absolutely right. If Carl Cameron would focus less on polls and more on principles, he would likely conclude that, electable or no, Ron Paul is the only real Republican candidate.

Vote for Ron Paul!

2007-09-28T15:30:00.000-04:00

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!

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

You Drink It Raw?

2007-09-19T21:00:00.000-04:00

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

Ron Paul on Patriotism

2007-07-16T18:02:00.000-04:00

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr0522107.htm

Politics or Principles?

2007-06-09T12:27:00.000-04:00

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.

God Of Our Fathers

2007-05-27T16:52:00.000-04:00

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.

Conservawhat?

2007-05-16T22:28:00.000-04:00

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.

Compassionate Atheism ... ?

2007-04-23T22:51:00.000-04:00

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.

Gun control legislative report

2007-04-23T17:37:00.000-04:00

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.)

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.

What aren't we thinking?

2007-04-19T15:54:00.000-04:00

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.

Barking up the wrong tree.

2007-04-18T17:10:00.000-04:00

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

Falsehood in the 'hood?

2007-04-14T12:04:00.000-04:00

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?

Be Still, My Soul

2007-04-07T21:54:00.000-04:00

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.

New Math?

2007-04-07T10:10:00.000-04:00

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?

I Told You So

2007-04-04T22:15:00.001-04:00

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.

"Detainees?"

2007-04-03T21:51:00.000-04:00

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.)

Everything But Integrity

2007-03-21T23:59:00.000-04:00

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!

State Of The Union

2007-02-27T15:15:00.000-05:00

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

Will Your Anchor Hold?

2007-01-21T09:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Bigger Brother

2007-01-07T20:09:00.000-05:00

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

Responsibility

2006-12-25T17:33:00.000-05:00

I recently came across this excellent passage in Macauley's History of England. I've read it before, but this time it stood out particularly to me. If only the American people had possessed this kind of foresight for the past century and a half, we might still live in a free country.

Macauley here is discussing the frequent departures from constitutional government on the part of the early Kings of England, particularly the Plantagenets and Tudors. The emphasis is mine.

"Our forefathers might indeed safely tolerate a king in a few excesses; for they had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest king to reason, the check of physical force. It is difficult for an Englishman of the nineteenth century to imagine to himself the facility and rapidity with which, four hundred years ago, this check was applied. The people have long unlearned the use of arms. The art of war has been carried to a perfection unknown to former ages; and the knowledge of that art is confined to a particular class. A hundred thousand soldiers, well disciplined and commanded, will keep down ten millions of ploughmen and artisans. A few regiments of household troops are sufficient to overawe all the discontented spirits of a large capital. In the meantime the effect of the constant progress of wealth has been to make insurrection far more terrible to thinking men than maladministration. Immense sums have been expended on works which, if a rebellion broke out, might perish in a few hours. The mass of movable wealth collected in the shops and warehouses of London alone exceeds five hundredfold that which the whole island contained in the days of the Plantagenets; and, if the government were subverted by physical force, all this movable wealth would be exposed to imminent risk of spoliation and destruction.... In such a state of society resistance must be regarded as a cure more desperate than almost any malady which can afflict the state. In the middle ages, on the contrary, resistance was an ordinary remedy for political distempers, a remedy which was always at hand, and which, though doubtless sharp at the moment, produced no deep or lasting ill effects. If a popular chief raised his standard in a popular cause, an irregular army could be assembled in a day. Regular army there was none. Every man had a slight tincture of soldiership, and scarcely any man more than a slight tincture. The national wealth consisted chiefly in flocks and herds, in the harvest of the year, and in the simple buildings inhabited by the people. All the furniture, the stock of shops, the machinery which could be found in the realm was of less value than the property which some single parishes now contain. Manufactures were rude; credit was almost unknown. Society, therefore, recovered from the shock as soon as the actual conflict was over. The calamities of civil war were confined to the slaughter on the field of battle, and to a few subsequent executions and confiscations. In a week the peasant was driving his team and the esquire flying his hawks over the field of Towton or of Bosworth, as if no extraordinary event had interrupted the regular course of human life.

"More than a hundred and sixty years have now elapsed since the English people have by force subverted a government. During the hundred and sixty years which preceded the union of the Roses, nine Kings reigned in England. Six of these nine Kings were deposed. Five lost their lives as well as their crowns. It is evident, therefore, that any comparison between our ancient and our modern polity must lead to most erroneous conclusions, unless large allowance be made for the effect of that restraint which resistance and the fear of resistance constantly imposed on the Plantagenets. As our ancestors had against tyranny a most important security which we want, they might safely dispense with some securities to which we justly attach the highest importance. As we cannot, without the risk of evils from which the imagination recoils, employ physical force as a check on misgovernment, it is evidently our wisdom to keep all the constitutional checks on misgovernment in the highest state of efficiency, to watch with jealousy the first beginnings of encroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, even when harmless in themselves, to pass unchallenged, lest they acquire the force of precedents. Four hundred years ago such minute vigilance might well seem unnecessary. A nation of hardy archers and spearmen might, with small risk to its liberties, connive at some illegal acts on the part of a prince whose general administration was good, and whose throne was not defended by a single company of regular soldiers."

America today furnishes an excellent illustration of the Baron's point.

Bill Of Rights Lecture

2006-12-17T20:06:00.000-05:00

In response to numerous requests, I'm posting the main body of my comments at the Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet last week.

(Warning: very long.)

Bill of Rights Lecture – Dec. 15, 2006

How does it feel to live in the freest country in the world? There are folks all over this planet that would give up everything for a chance to enjoy the freedom that America stands for. It’s easy to take things for granted when we are accustomed to them. Maybe we could profit from taking a fresh look at freedom in the land of the free.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; That among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, [and] of acquiring, possessing and protecting property…”

“No person shall … be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due process of law.”

“[No man] can … be deprived of his Life, Liberty, or Property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.”

America is a nation where property rights are respected. Are you a landowner? Then as long as no endangered animal or plant species or wetlands can be found on your property, as long as your local government cannot think of a more lucrative use for your property, and as long as you pay your property taxes on time, no one can take that land from you! If you wish to build on it, all you have to do is make sure there are no conservation easements on your land, and submit a land development plan to the township. Once they approve it, simply apply for the necessary permits, plan your project in accordance with applicable building and fire codes, hire a licensed builder, (and keep paying those property taxes). If you want to raise livestock on your land, have USDA issue you a premises ID number, and make sure you report every thing your animals do within 48 hours. That’s all! It’s your land.

America is a nation where liberty is inviolable. If you wish to travel from one place to another, you are free to travel, (provided you have been issued a National ID card from your state Department of Transportation). If you wish to carry a weapon to defend yourself or your family from harm, you have the freedom to do so, (provided you have been issued a Social Security Number and a Concealed Carry Permit,) as long as you stay out of the post office and away from schools. If you are a law-abiding citizen who has not been charged with a crime, you cannot be detained against your will unless you are deemed to be an enemy combatant or an evil person by the President or the Secretary of Defense.

America is a nation where life is sacred. If you are a law-abiding citizen your life is protected by the full force of the law, unless you are one of the 4000 babies murdered every day.

What is wrong with this picture?

Does this sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave?

We all know our freedoms aren’t what they used to be. I want to take some time this evening to analyze how this erosion has occurred. The Constitution that established the United States of America two hundred and seventeen years ago was short and to the point. But it contained and embodied the most astonishing collection of sound, republican principles of government that has ever been written.

I initially intended to spend some time examining the Federalist / Antifederalist debate as it applied to the Bill of Rights. That has proven to be an … interesting … undertaking and one that would take up a tremendous amount of time! The VA convention saw this subject debated for four solid weeks by some of the most brilliant minds ever to assist in forming a system of government. I highly recommend the study of Elliot’s Debates to anyone who can spare the time. It will be an incredible education and open an entirely new series of perspectives on our federal government.

For now it is sufficient to say that in virtually every case, our founders agreed that the principles represented in the Bill of Rights were essential to freedom and to the survival of the United States of America. They disagreed on the question of whether the codification in the Constitution of those principles would ultimately strengthen or weaken them, but they were unanimous in their belief that they could not be subjected to governmental tampering without destroying the entire foundation of American freedom. In the end, a compromise was reached whereby the most significant of these principles were added to the Constitution by amendment and became the Bill of Rights.

So what do these rights mean to us? Well, in case you couldn’t tell, this Constitution is still supposed to be the Supreme law of the land. If politicians ignore it, they do so because … they can.

Whose fault is that?

We’ll get to that later.

So what we have is a Constitution that is supposed to define the limits of the federal government, and just in case a misunderstanding should arise regarding implied powers, the Bill of Rights is a list of specific areas that the federal government may not touch, and specific things that the federal government may not do. Period. Of course, this creates a problem for politicians who wish to extend their own authority or that of the federal government in general, as indeed it was intended to. In the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, these politicians come up against what many of our founders believed would be an impassable obstacle to their ambitions.

The fact that, two centuries and seventeen amendments later, the Constitution still stands in the way of these politicians is a tribute to the wisdom of our founders and to the blessing of Almighty God on their efforts. But while it still poses an obstacle to unrestrained federal power, its usefulness has been vastly diminished. While politicians have been embarrassed, thwarted and annoyed by the Constitution’s unflinching protection of individual freedom, this freedom is even more dependent on another entity – we the people!

Let’s face it; a piece of paper is only binding while those bound by it respect it. And those who believe that you are incompetent to live your life without legislative assistance have taken full advantage of this weakness. There are several ways that politicians in this country have found to sidestep or evade the restrictions on them resultant from the Bill of Rights. In many cases they have effectively destroyed the rights in question. Let’s take a close look at a few of them.

1)------------------------------------------------------

The first method for stealing your rights that we’ll talk about is redefinition. The chief culprit in this one is the judicial system, although the entertainment industry and the news media have both made significant contributions in this area as well.

Perhaps the best-known example of redefinition is the 1st amendment protection of freedom of religion. The founders were very clear what they meant by freedom of religion. There is a fascinating exchange in the Annals of the House of Representatives in August of 1789, when this issue was under consideration. A gentleman by the name of Mr. Sylvester expressed a fear that the proposed amendment might be taken as an abolishment of religion from government. Mr. Madison replied that he understood the words to mean that Congress could not establish a national religion, nor (and I quote) “compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” (You will notice he assumed they had a conscience.) Mr. Huntington responded that he understood that to be the correct meaning, “but, (he said,) others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it.” He went on to say that he hoped the amendment would be written so as to secure the rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion.

Hmm.

Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama State Supreme Court was recently removed from the bench for violating a federal court order. The federal judge argued that the presence of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom was in conflict with the first amendment.

Students all over this country have been suspended from school for bringing Bibles into school. Principals and teachers claim that the presence of a Bible in a public school is a violation of the first amendment.

Folks, “freedom of religion” has been redefined as freedom from God! The American court system has been taken over by humanist thinkers who conceive it to be their duty to protect society from the God of the Bible. It’s a dangerous job, but so far they haven’t realized that. Their message to American Christians is simple: “if you want to worship God, that’s fine, but do it in the closet. Don’t let your God get in our way.”

By the way, Biblical Christianity cannot comfortably exist alongside blatant immorality. So when the church capitulated to the world and went to the closet with their religion … did you notice what came out of the closet?

Another case in point is the 5th amendment restriction on the exercise of eminent domain. Without going extensively into the legal background of eminent domain, it is safe to say that our founders had a very limited definition of the phrase “public use.” Currently, however, the courts have implied that any significant financial benefit to the local government may be considered public use for eminent domain purposes. The concept of taking has also been redefined to exclude all but a complete loss of title to property. In other words, a landowner may be completely deprived of the use of his property without compensation, so long as he retains legal title to it.

Many more examples could be cited, but the crowning achievement of the redefinition movement is the shift from inherent, unalienable rights given us by our Creator, to civil rights granted by the State. My brother and I had the opportunity to hear a debate on the USA PATRIOT Act a few years ago in Media, hosted by the Delaware County Bar Association. Federal district attorney Linda Dale Hoffa undertook to defend the Act against Peter Goldberg of the Atheist & Communist Lawyer’s Union.

The debate focused on whether or not the Patriot Act violated essential civil rights. (I am not sure why they felt it necessary to debate about it.) At any rate, Judah and I decided to put them on the spot when the time for questions came. So we asked the panel to address the difference as they perceived it between civil (or constitutional) rights, and natural (or inalienable) rights such as the founders spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. We pointed out that Article 1 Sec.25 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states clearly that the rights codified in that Article are (quote) “excepted out of the general powers of government and shall for ever remain inviolate.”

Mr. Goldberg replied that since the 1920s the courts have operated under the assumption that rights are granted by the Constitution, not by a higher power. He did have the honesty to add that the founders would not have agreed with that position. I’d call that redefinition.

2)----------------------------------------------------

Another common technique for taking away freedoms is distraction. This one involves incremental attacks at a time when the people are distracted by other issues to the point where they may not notice the encroachment. With the frantic pace of life in America today, that’s not hard to do. Many think that the enumeration of a given right in the Bill of Rights should be sufficient protection against such an attempt; that while the state may succeed in individual cases to deny a citizen certain rights, it could not become standard practice while those rights are protected by the Constitution. But the chief danger in this case lies in the precedent formed. When a right has been repeatedly denied without repercussions, the denial of that right takes on the color, and in many cases, the force, of law.

Perhaps the best example of this is the current state of property rights in America. You know, for years my parents were regular attendees at meetings of the Concord Township Board of Supervisors. Every time it was the same. More landowners asking permission to subdivide, or build, or you name it. Every so often my mom’s American blood would reach boiling temperature, and she’d stand up and remind the Board that the property in question didn’t belong to them. Do you know something? Not once can I recall another person in the audience agreeing with her. Not once! Why? They were too busy, too distracted, to consider the danger of a community taking a “proactive position” on land development. “What’s the big deal?”

Last year Concord Township hired a planning firm to design a town center overlay. The purpose of this district was to “preserve” a bunch of run-down homes from the 1940’s and to prevent the “ugly” kind of commercial development from occurring in Concordville. Of course, property values dropped over the affected area. Two landowners lost potential commercial buyers when the new zoning proposal was announced. Guess what?

Two landowners suddenly discovered that it was a violation of their rights for the township to tell them what they could do with their property. Two landowners suddenly were advocating individual property rights instead of community rights. Problem was, they were too late. The time to speak up was thirty years ago! These men had been in meetings before when mom told the Supervisors they were out of order. Did they ever speak up and agree with her? No. And by the time their property rights were attacked, the precedent had been firmly established.

The current frontier of this issue is National Heritage Areas. All over the country huge corridors of land are being invisibly annexed by the Federal Government under the pretext of historic and environmental preservation. The Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area. The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. The Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail. The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. The Land Between the Rivers Southern Illinois National Heritage Area. The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area. The St. Croix National Heritage Area. The Northern Neck National Heritage Area. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area. You know, I initially intended to list all the National Heritage Areas that are being considered in the last days of this Congress, but there are 31 of them! And don’t think they’re insignificant. So far over a dozen have been established around the country. One of them, the Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area, is Tennessee. Not in Tennessee, it actually encompasses the entire state.

If you take the time to read any one of the acts establishing these Heritage Areas, you will find that it amounts to federal zoning. How many of you have paid any attention to this development? How many of your neighbors know or care? Or is this a case of we the people being too distracted to notice that yet another layer is being added to the control of our property?

3)----------------------------------------------------

Another way rights may be evaded by politicians involves the invention of a bogus “right” that effectively cancels the original right. This occurs in Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Sec. 1 of that article states that “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property … etc.”

Sec. 27 of the same article declares: “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” This beautiful sentiment directly contradicts the right of the owner of a given piece of the environment to possess and protect his property without interference.

How about “compassionate conservatism?” Consider the “right” of every child to have a first class education. There is hardly one politician in five hundred who would dare to question this “right.” It has become almost an icon of America. But consider: if you decline to fund this process out of your own pocket, you lose your home? There is a conflict between the two rights, and one of them has to give. Consequently, you no longer own your castle; you lease it from the state.

We can’t even scratch the surface of this problem tonight. Americans feel … notice they don’t believe any more … they feel that they have a right to health insurance, inexpensive drugs, and world class medical care. They have a right to free public preschools, healthy fast food, and a home to live in. They have a right to their job, even if they refuse to work for the wages offered. They have a right to express their feelings in whatever way strikes their fancy, no matter how offensive or corrupt those feelings are. They have a right to your wages to fund their retirement. They have a right to a beautiful, quiet neighborhood to retire in. In short, they feel entitled to enjoy all the things that our forefathers worked for, and much more, only without the work. They even have a right to be warned of every possible mishap that could occur in the course of their lives, just in case they should forget to think for themselves.

Yet these same Americans cheerfully submit to the violation of their 2nd and 4th amendment rights every time they walk into the county courthouse. Like good citizens, they throw away their water bottles before boarding a plane, or bring their dad’s gun to the police in exchange for a hundred dollars and the firm conviction that their street just got a little bit safer. And all along, they thank their lucky stars they were born in America!

4)----------------------------------------------------

So far we’ve discussed three approaches that have been effective in nullifying or destroying our inalienable rights: redefinition, distraction and cancellation through the invention of other, bogus “rights.” But the favorite tactic of recent administrations is perhaps the most insidious. It involves linking a particular right in the public perception to some imminent danger that can be used to justify curtailing the right in question.

It is hardly necessary to go into detail with this one. Examples are literally everywhere. The right to financial privacy has been trumped by the risk of tax evasion. The right to privacy in our possessions has been trumped by the risk of food-borne disease. The right to keep and bear arms has been abridged for fear … we might exercise it! The right to a speedy and public trial by jury has given way to the urgent need to stop evil people before they kill us all. The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures has succumbed to the risk of disorder in the event of a natural disaster. Our right to personal security has been subordinated to the risk of bio-terrorism.

If you think any of this is exaggerated, you need to go back and look at what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. You need to read the laws and executive orders regarding the National Animal Identification System and the National ID Card. You need to pay attention when Newt Gingrich says the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism. And you need to read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, both signed into law by our dear leader on October 17 of this year.

Representative Ron Paul apparently read these two pieces of legislation, unlike his colleagues. His assessment is that together they (and I quote) “officially allow for citizen concentration camp facilities …[and]… essentially wipe out Habeas Corpus.” Folks, that did not come from James Lloyd or some conspiracy theorist’s blog, nor did it come from a bleeding heart ACLU lawyer. That statement is the honest opinion of a Republican member of Congress.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the rights your Creator has given you, without exception, down to the most sacred rights of property, liberty, and life itself, are being denied by the state in the name of security. In their place you have been graciously allowed privileges; great privileges indeed when contrasted with those enjoyed by other nations, but privileges still! They may seem perfectly sufficient to a nation of zombies lounging in front of their entertainment centers, but they are useless for the protection of a free people.

So back to my earlier question: whose fault is this? Back in the Clinton years everyone knew: it was the Democrats’ fault! Of course! Well, we’ve had six years to learn how foolish that idea was. Conservatives are split these days. Some of them have, inexplicably, discovered a new level of trust in their leaders, and no longer see the harm in “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” Others blame the Republican Party for selling out. Some blame F.D.R., or Woodrow Wilson, or Abraham Lincoln. Some throw the blame all the way back to our founding fathers. They have made the astonishing discovery that this nation was founded on a conspiracy; that the very founders who gave us the least intrusive government in modern history were secretly plotting to facilitate the establishment of an oligarchy of international bankers a century later.

And while we argue about who started it, our enemies are finishing it. There was a time when they might have feared to be exposed, but not anymore. They are confident, insolent, and arrogant, and not without cause. What reason do they have to fear an electorate that has consistently exhibited all the characteristics of sheep? The sense of the American people has been taken every two years for the past five decades, with surprisingly consistent results. Keep the economy booming and don’t let anyone hurt us. That is the sum total of what we expect from our government. Financial and national security.

It’s our fault.

Friends, the courts could not have succeeded in redefining our rights had we known what they were in the first place. Politicians could not have incrementally stolen our rights had we valued them enough to pay attention. They could not have foisted on us the benefits of welfare in exchange for the opportunities of freedom had we not been greedy enough to be tempted by our neighbor’s wealth. And they could not have induced a nation of free and brave men and women to surrender their liberty in exchange for the fleeting illusion of safety.

Abraham Lincoln once remarked that “you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Evidently he did not envision the future of the American people. A wise man once observed, “The trouble with lying is that you have to remember what you said.” Folks, that is no longer true in America. Our politicians no longer need to remember what they said. They simply need to say what their audience wants to hear. Why is it that a President can portray himself as a moderate conservative to win an election, drive forward with a socialist agenda for four years, remake himself into an extreme conservative to win the next election, and continue with the same socialist agenda without being universally cried down as a lying hypocrite? Simply because the American people don’t pay attention and/or don’t care. Granted, only about half of the voters spent their voice on him, but look who the other half voted for! Not much comfort there.

Yes, it’s our fault. We have turned our backs on God, forgotten or despised our forefathers, and sold our votes to the enemies of liberty for the promise of prosperity. Other generations have done their part to squander the blessings of liberty, but I believe the legal history of the last six years will some day be recognized as the end of the end of freedom in America. Unless God directly intervenes on our behalf, it’s over.

And why should that surprise us? Our Constitution was built on the foundation of self-government. Self-government requires discipline, and more importantly, it requires godliness. William Penn said, “Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants.” Just go to the mall this weekend. Take a moment to sit down and watch the crowd. Do they look capable of self-government? If you’re not convinced try a football game.

Does it sound desperate? Good. Maybe when we recognize the impossible nature of our situation we will finally ask God to name His conditions instead of trying to negotiate with Him. He’s done that already: “If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Christian, the responsibility is yours. Do you love America enough to shut off the TV and call the family together for prayer? Do you love your children enough to do your part to give them a free country to live in? To hand this nation to our children as is, without a struggle, is murder! Don’t kid yourself. The Brave New World does not include room for faith in Jesus Christ and liberty and justice for all mankind.

Please don’t misunderstand me; God will take care of His Church. But we would do well to heed the warning of Mordecai to Queen Esther. Think not that you will escape. If you will not do your part, God will deliver His people another way. But do not expect to be included in that deliverance. As the German minister told Adolph Hitler, our concern is not for the church, but for the soul of our country. It is that concern that I pray God every one of you takes home tonight.

In closing: Repentance and prayer are the keys. If you won’t do that you might as well go home. Beyond that, I believe there are a few specific, practical things we can do as well.

First one is pay attention.

Second: (and only do this one if you are paying attention!) Vote! And as Howard Phillips so eloquently has said, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, cast your vote in a way that honors God and let Him determine the outcome

Third: do stop telling everyone else to get out and vote. I’m serious. Very few people that I meet and talk to have a level of understanding that will be useful on Election Day. My sister told me one of her co-workers was so upset after the GOP got spanked last month that she openly advocated giving the President the authority to reject elected representatives that obstructed his agenda! Asked why she would support such a plan, she complained: “It’s obvious the checks and balances aren’t working anymore, so it’s time to do something different.” Excuse me? Seems to me the checks and balances worked surprisingly well last election, given all the tampering they’ve received. Do you really want folks like that voting?

Number four: educate yourself and others at every opportunity. Encourage others to pay close attention and analyze what they hear rather than simply believing it. This you can do all the time; there’s nothing to lose by having your greenie neighbor equally ticked off at the friendly face who’s lying to him.

Those of you who are parents, teach your children to wash their own brains. Fill their minds with the history of freedom and help them to appreciate it. Your children are already facing a tremendous surge of rank wickedness on one hand, and a multitude of counterfeit solutions to that wickedness on the other hand. It’s not going to get easier. Give them what they need to counter the attack.

Last, please don’t think that everything is OK. I said it earlier; I’ll say it again: every single right you think you have does not exist as far as your leaders are concerned. To surrender your rights willingly is stupidity, and to trust the leaders you give them up to is double stupidity. Trustworthy leaders don’t want your rights. Take the time to go online and scan the titles of legislation on the Thomas website. Legally speaking, you are not free and you are not safe.

I close with a quote from Patrick Henry.

“It is natural for a man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and to listen to the song of that siren until she transforms us into beasts. [But] is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

You Asked!

2006-11-10T17:44:00.000-05:00

You know those canned surveys that politicians send out to better serve you (ie: to make sure they are going with the flow of public opinion)? I like to answer them in detail when possible. It is good mental exercise and helps one to think positively about a subject that is often quite negative.

Here is an example. I received this survey in the spring from a State legislator. It was simply a list of boxes to check off if the voter thought the corresponding issue was important. Results obtained in this way can be misleading, however. For example, if one selects education as an important issue, that gives no indication of what the intended solution should be. One voter might feel that the teacher's pay needs to be increased to attract more professional or capable educators, while another might feel that the teachers should be fired en masse and the high school students should take over the elementary teaching positions, perhaps learning something themselves in the process.

Anyway...

----------------------------------------------------------

Dear Rep. _____,

I received the enclosed survey yesterday... Please accept my thanks for giving your constituents the opportunity to weigh in on the issues addressed. I think that several of these questions deserve more than a simple check, so with your permission I would like to address them specifically here.

On your question regarding funding sources for public schools, my only concern is that the income tax is too invasive of privacy. I realize that it is widely accepted , but I would view either a property tax or sales tax as preferable. Obviously, there is also the issue of tremendous waste within the public school system, so any increase in funding at the present would merely fuel the problem.

Regarding the reform efforts mentioned, I support all of them.

State government ought to be treated like a business where spending is concerned, although I recognize that this is not current wisdom. The pay raise scandal earlier this year is a perfect example. By the way, I appreciate your opposition to that job.

Election law is desperately in need of reform. I especially encourage you to lend your support to the Voter’s Choice Act proposed legislation you received from the PA Ballot Access Coalition. I would be delighted to see you as a sponsor of that legislation.

Gambling is a plague and a cancer on our society and the sooner this Commonwealth withdraws its support and involvement in it, the better for all of us.

The use of eminent domain is currently seeing shameful abuse around the nation and here in PA. The meaning of “public use” seriously needs definition, and it seems to me that the best way to control abuse of this power is to limit it to actual, direct and necessary public use, rather than simply anything that might improve revenue, view shed or property values.

And regarding Social Security Numbers, the dangerous rate of increase in identity theft alone should prompt a reconsideration of the widespread use of the SSN for identification. It is an extremely insecure form of ID; it is easily stolen and provides the criminal with almost limitless access to other private information. In addition, it is not really an identifier anyway, but rather an account number. And finally, the requirement of SSNs for state issued licenses discriminates against those who have religious objections to the Social Security System by denying them reasonable privileges as citizens of PA. Why would not the same ID required for a U.S. passport be sufficient for state licenses?

I also mentioned property tax reform: this is minor compared to the other points but I strongly believe that failure to pay property taxes ought not to result in the loss of the home. It could appropriately be tied to voting privileges without giving the state a default title to private property, which I believe is patently unjust.

On the issues you listed as potential focal points for state officials, I added Constitutional government, which I firmly believe ought to be the number one priority for every elected official in the Commonwealth. The fact that it has not been for some time only makes the need more urgent.

Overall tax burden – The waste and excessive spending that has characterized Harrisburg for years will have to be addressed before any true tax relief can be considered.

Property taxes – Above

Direction of the economy – This should not be the direct concern of the legislature.

Energy prices – Everyone would certainly like to see lower energy prices, but further interference by any level of government would only serve to exacerbate the problem. Free markets only work if they are free.

Crime/violence/drugs – These very serious problems are simply the logical result of our public school system, which has made the removal of moral inhibitions its number one priority.

Education/schools – They are precisely what one would expect from the lack of moral teaching and the emphasis on selfishness that they promote. If Pennsylvania would take a stand against the Federal courts, and be willing to lose federal funding in exchange for local control and real education, our school system would quickly surpass every other state in the nation, and this could be accomplished with only a fraction of the current level of expenditures. (Homeshoolers have proven this to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.)

Environment/pollution – This is a real problem in the cities, but has been so abused that I honestly don’t know how it should be approached at present.

Morality/Traditional family values – Tradition isn’t enough, sir. Until Pennsylvania is ready to allow God out of the closet, we will unfortunately be forced to deal with whatever else comes out in the best way we can.

Sanctity of life/Abortion – Every human being, regardless of age, is endowed by his or her Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life. Unless their right to life is forfeited by a capital crime, it is the first duty of all government to protect it. I believe abortion on demand is murder. Death as the result of a medical condition, however, is not. Medical technology should never be employed for the express purpose of taking life, but a person ought to have the right to determine to what extent it should be employed to keep them alive.

Traffic/roads/development and Farmland preservation - I support whatever can be done within constitutional limits.

Growth of government – Stop it!

Quality of life issues – Our government has enough to do within its proper sphere to take on such a vague and all-encompassing area of life beyond it.

Medicare/Medicaid programs – These programs are a drain on the state and a classic example of bureaucratic inefficiency, besides being socialistic and un-American in nature.

Prescription drugs – Given the abuse and danger of many of these drugs, their high cost may well be a blessing in disguise. Regardless, the people of this state will benefit more from a truly free market than from any amount of well-intentioned government intervention.

Thank you again for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple! Well ... ok. What's amazing is the fact that the Rep. I sent this particular response to actually read it! I've never had that happen before.

Dictatorship (almost)

2006-11-09T13:09:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I forwarded an email received from _____ claiming that the defense appropriations bill signed by George the Third on Oct. 17 revised the Insurrection Act to expand the power of the Executive to impose martial law without State cooperation. (Read article here: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732834.php ) I looked through the ponderous "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" to confirm the information in that article. Here is a summary of the changes I found.

A) 10 USC Chapter 15, previously titled "Insurrections," is retitled "Enforcement of Laws to Restore Public Order."

B) 10 USC 333, "Interference with State and Federal Law," previously authorized the President to use "the militia or armed forces ... to supress ... any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy," if it hinders or obstructs the execution of the law so far that the citizens are "denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution." Under the new law Sec. 333 is retitled "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law." Under the revised law, the President may also use the armed forces or the National Guard (militia is not mentioned) to restore public order and enforce federal laws following "a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" which results in the breakdown of public order.

C) 10 USC 334, "Proclamation to disperse," requires the President, when using the armed forces in a law enforcement capacity under Chapter 15, to issue a "proclamation ... order[ing] the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time." The new law reads "... the insurgents, or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws, to disperse..."

While the author of the previously mentioned article reverts to hyperbole in his claim that Bush has, in effect, declared himself dictator, there is certainly a significant pattern of consolidation of power in these changes. It is worth noting that 10 USC Chapter 15 has already been widely abused by previous administrations without judicial or legislative interference. And while the sincerity of Senator Leahy is worthy of doubt, his statements are undoubtedly correct and should make all of us take a realistic look at how we have allowed the current climate of fear to excuse the discarding of our liberties.

Echoooooes

Military Commisions Act of 2006

2006-10-05T22:01:00.000-04:00

Warning: material contained in this post may be detrimental to your state of denial.

I’ve just finished reading the final compromise version of Senate Bill 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which establishes military commissions for trial of “unlawful enemy combatants” under Chapter 47A of title 10 U.S.C. A close study of the bill reveals a power grab of astonishing proportions. To detail even the most important points would be an extensive task, but a few key concerns are presented here. Please take the time to read the legislation for yourself to verify these statements. A link is provided here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109fZSPZH:e0:

(If it doesn’t work go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type “Military Commissions Act of 2006” into the text search box. Select the version enrolled as agreed to or passed by both House and Senate.)

The most prominent concern on a first reading of this legislation is the sheer magnitude of the powers given to the President and Secretary of Defense. They include:

Unlimited authority to arbitrarily determine whether any person is an unlawful enemy combatant … - Sec. 948a(1)(ii) and Sec. 948d( c)
Sole authority to convene military commissions … - Sec. 948h
Sole authority to limit the unprecedented blanket power of Chapter 47A military commissions to “adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter…” - Sec. 948d(d)
Sole authority to prescribe all “procedures and rules of evidence … including elements and modes of proof, for cases triable by military commission…” as long as they are consistent with Chapter 47A U.S.C. - Sec. 949a
These are only a few of the powers reserved exclusively to the Executive branch under this legislation. Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the unlimited nature of the authority granted, SEC. 3 (950j) prohibits any court from hearing any challenge to the lawfulness of Chapter 47A military commissions generally, or to any of their proceedings, no exceptions. SEC.7 prohibits any court from hearing any action “relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” of any alien who has been or may be determined to be an enemy combatant. The only exceptions to the Sec. 7 prohibition are the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the appeals process under this Act. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the only court which may hear appeals from Chapter 47A commissions,) may only consider whether the military commission followed its own rules and procedures, not questions of fact or evidence. - Sec. 950g

While the final version of this Act does prohibit torture and bans statements or confessions obtained by torture, it permits hearsay evidence and “coerced evidence” to be admitted at the discretion of the military judge. - Sec. 948r Combined with the limitations on the scope of review by the appellate court, this provision all but guarantees the conviction of any person the prosecution wants convicted.

But the most frightening aspect of this legislation is the apparently intentional failure to define the phrase “any person subject to this chapter …” as it occurs in Subchapter VII, Punitive Matters. While the stated purpose of the Act is to provide for the trial of “alien unlawful enemy combatants,” there are three clauses that call that purpose into question.

Sec. 948a - Definitions: Combatant Status Review Tribunals are not restricted by this Act to consideration of aliens.
Sec. 950q – Principals: In specifying persons punishable under this chapter, no mention is made of alien, national or citizenship status.
"Sec. 950v(b)(26) – WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” (emphasis added)

It is difficult to understand how an alien could be guilty of “breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,” which clearly indicates that American Citizens may indeed be subjected to trial by military commission. If that is the case, an examination of Sec. 950v suggests that any common criminal could potentially be charged with terrorism, thereby losing his constitutional rights. Which, of course, means that the bill is unconstitutional. Don't let it shock you.

All in all, the bill is dangerously vague even if applied only to alien combatants, and could easily be interpreted to include foreigners engaged in the defense of their own country against the U.S. or its allies. While the injustice of such an interpretation is evident, it is worth noting that when this administration prematurely declared victory in Iraq, they endeavored to cover up their mistake by labeling as terrorists the indigenous Iraqi insurgency rather than admit that the demise of the Hussein regime was not equivalent to the restoration of peace. I make no objection to the label as applied to the Islamic jihadists who have selected Iraq as a battleground against the west, but a native Iraqi engaging in guerilla warfare against the invaders of his homeland hardly deserves to be accused of terrorism, regardless of the good intentions of the invading forces. I mention this only to highlight the fact that this law, through its extreme lack of clarity, lends a color of legality to such unjust sophistry.

The bottom line: get ready for the Brave New World, coming soon to a city near you. But remember:

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.”

NAIS: Big Brother, Big Farmer?

2006-08-04T20:47:00.000-04:00

On July 17 I attended a town hall meeting sponsored by the Berks Equine Council to discuss the National Animal Identification System. The USDA’s NAIS coordinator, Neil E. Hammerschmidt, gave a glowing presentation on the benefits of the new system, emphasizing the need for a timely response to potential disease outbreaks in livestock. He outlined the components of the system as a 7 character Premises ID# to be assigned to every premises where livestock are housed, managed or exhibited; and a15 digit Animal ID# to be assigned to each animal. (In the case of poultry or swine, a Group/Lot ID# could take the place of the AID#.) The AID# would be permanently attached to each animal with either a visual tag or an RFID microchip tag/implant. All livestock movements between premises, as well as births, deaths, and ownership transfers, would be reported via these two numbers to a massive Animal Tracking Database to be stored for future reference in case of a disease outbreak.

Mr. Hammerschmidt was careful to point out that premises registration is free and voluntary. He warned, however, that the USDA is prepared to pursue “development of regulations through normal rule making procedures” if full voluntary participation is not achieved by January of 2009.

Hmmmm. Sounds like a plan. Can anyone think of a good reason why we shouldn’t tag people too? Just imagine how much more efficiently our benevolent masters could respond if the dreaded avian flu should break out among us! How can we sleep at night knowing that if there was a sudden epidemic, federal health officials would be unable to determine whether we had been in company with an infected person or not? It’s a wonder that bovine spongiform encephalopathy hasn’t already depopulated half of the country in the absence of such critical disease fighting tools as the NAIS provides.

On second thought, maybe there are a few drawbacks. I would never want to be misunderstood as suggesting that the warmhearted do-gooders in Washington D.C. might use our personal information to harm us, but maybe, just maybe some terrorist could gain access to the wealth of information they are assembling. Then what?

Dr. Mary Zanoni of Farm for Life took issue with the characterization of the program as voluntary, pointing out that in at least two states the departments of Agriculture have submitted large blocks of information regarding premises locations to the NAIS database without the consent of the property owners affected. These owners then received notice that they had been assigned Premises ID#s, in spite of the fact that they were not even notified of the submission of their information to the federal government.

One lady in the audience commented that the entire program smacked of George Orwell’s 1984. An interesting observation, especially when one considers the fact that if anyone had predicted in 1990 that within a decade the USDA would be developing a serious plan to number and track every single significant movement of every privately owned livestock animal in the country, they would have been laughed out of town as a raving, paranoid conspiracy theorist. Now many folks are seriously wondering, not if, but when the next logical step will be taken and they will be subjected to similar surveillance.

Another attendee questioned whether the program would eventually be farmed out to private companies, and worried that such a move could lead to increased cost for livestock owners. His question failed to recognize that the program isn’t actually free. The concern was partially merited, however: since stockholders would not likely allow a private company to borrow into the trillions and still run an annual deficit, privatization could potentially force producers to pay for the program directly in addition to their tax bill.

Several members of the audience asked whether the program was constitutional. Hammerschmidt studiously avoided answering the question; in fact he avoided most of the questions asked during the meeting. He and Dr. John Weimer, also of the USDA, displayed an exceptional level of caution in their responses, rarely making statements that could be assigned definite meanings. An interesting feature of the meeting was the inability of Hammerschmidt or his colleagues to specify precisely what affected livestock owners would be required to do, or what action would be taken if they failed to do it. The USDA appears to have taken it for granted that livestock owners will be standing in line to receive further instructions regarding the disclosure of their private information to the federal government as they are made available. I sincerely question whether that will be the case.

While such a deep concern for the safety of the American people surely is commendable, there is one more point that ought to be considered. In order to understand the impact this program could have, it may be helpful to consider the results of other regulatory solutions to safety concerns. Forty years ago, it was the unquestioned right of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for defensive purposes. Since the imposition of the Concealed Carry Permit (which purported to increase public safety by requiring periodic background checks for armed citizens), a number of formerly law-abiding individuals have found themselves imprisoned for no other crime than doing what Pennsylvania citizens had always done: carrying a weapon. Thirty years ago everyone owned a dog. Today, in this state, a fine of three hundred dollars per dog is imposed for failure to first obtain a dog license. Twenty years ago, seatbelts were merely required to be in vehicles for the safety of passengers. Today one can be fined for failing to wear a seatbelt; an act which endangers no one but themselves.

There was a time when a man was free to build an addition on his home whenever he chose; to build a useful product and sell it to his neighbors; to offer a service to the neighborhood and profit from his work; when even the profits he made were his own business and no one else’s. Today he cannot legally replace the shingles on his roof without a building permit; build a product without the proper zoning and use permits; offer a service for profit without a business license; and if he should fail to meticulously report to Big Brother the details of his personal finances, he finds himself jailed as a dishonest cheat. And what are the benefits we receive from each of these new limitations on our personal freedom? Roofs leak just as they always have; only now we have to call a licensed and insured contractor to fix them. We don’t have to put up with our neighbor working in his shop late at night, because for the most part, our neighbors don’t make anything; China does that for us. We have been so dehumanized that we seriously assume that an unlicensed businessman is an incompetent one. And we don’t even mind giving personal information to our bloated and bankrupt government, because it’s what all good Americans do, and after all, we don’t have anything to hide!

So what does this have to do with the National Animal Identification System? Simply this: when the NAIS becomes mandatory, those small, backyard livestock owners who don’t report every time their daughter’s pony goes to a 4-H show, every time they butcher a steer, or every time their neighbor’s billy comes over to freshen their milk goat, will become criminals. That’s right, criminals. And for what? Once again in the name of safety, a new class of law-breakers will have been created where none existed before. Can you imagine buying organic meat on the black market? If the past is any indication, that may soon be a reality.

How much is too much?

Operation Valiant Shield

2006-07-08T21:35:00.000-04:00

Well, with all the din created by the news media reassuring us that the FBI just made our lives a little safer by shutting down a group of Islamic “online martyrs,” I wonder how many folks missed the little blurb about Operation Valiant Shield. An annual joint exercise of the US military in the Pacific ocean, this year’s Valiant Shield pitted Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force elements in the Pacific against a fictional enemy capable of air, sea, undersea and nuclear warfare. While it was a great opportunity to stick a not-so-diplomatic elbow in Kim Jong Il’s padded ribs, I couldn’t keep the word “idiocy” out of my mind at the cordial invitation extended to Communist China to sit in on such a pointed dress rehearsal. Less difficult to understand was the smiling, almost smug, acceptance of the offer by the keepers of the dragon. “Sure, yoo geev us all technology, why no queek show us how use? Throw in week of wining and dining too, yes?”

Sure, we’ll be there.

Check it out here:
www.pacom.mil/exercises/vs2006/

The Bill of Rights: New International Version

2006-04-03T11:46:00.000-04:00

The Bill of Rights (NIV):

Amendment 1 -
Congress shall not impeach Judges who make law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor make any law abridging the freedom of politically correct speech, or press, or any form of immoral, unpatriotic, or distasteful expression, or the right of minorities to violently assemble, and to demand of the government a reimbursement for their ancestor’s grievances.

Amendment 2 -
A well-regulated group of duck hunters being necessary to the appearance of a free state, the right of some people to keep and bear arms shall not be entirely abolished.

Amendment 3 -
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, national emergency, or civil unrest, but in a manner to be prescribed by Executive Order; but these restrictions shall not apply to government officers, agents, or hired thugs, in the discharge of their orders.

Amendment 4 -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be construed to obstruct any government officer, agent or hired thug in the discharge of his/her instructions, but no warrants, when desired, shall issue, but upon potential for possible cause, supported by oath, affirmation, or anonymous tip, and generally describing the region to be searched, and any persons or things not subject to detention or seizure.

Amendment 5 -
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, or the classification or representation of such person as evil by the President or Attorney General, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the National Guard, when in actual service in time of war, public danger, or the declaration of a potential threat by the President; but persons may be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, or be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against him/herself, or be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, when the public safety shall require it; and the absence of just compensation shall not prevent private property from being appropriated for public use, when such action may be deemed necessary for the public pleasure or political agenda.

Amendment 6 -
In all criminal prosecutions, if the accused is a minority, he/she shall have the right to a speedy and public trial, by a minority jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, unless he/she desires to be tried in another district; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her; to have the charges dismissed if his/her rights were not read at the time of arrest; to have assistance in obtaining witnesses in his/her favor, and in prosecuting the officer, agent or hired thug which shall have arrested him/her, and to have the best counsel in the nation for his/her defense; in all other cases, the rights of the accused shall be determined by the Court, unless the accused shall have been classified as evil by the President or Attorney General, or have been charged with any political incorrectness, in which case he/she shall have no rights.

Amendment 7 -
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed a reasonable amount, the right of trial by jury may be granted, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, unless sufficient financial incentives be provided, or the public safety shall require it.

Amendment 8 -
Excessive bail may be required, and excessive fines imposed, but cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted except in cases of politically incorrect persons.

Amendment 9 -
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to limit or restrict any powers retained by the government.

Amendment 10 -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the entity with the most money and power.

Have a nice day!
Echooooooooooooooes

No Kidding?

2006-03-02T23:00:00.000-05:00

Two days ago I was riding with a friend and, for lack of anything better to do, picked up his copy of Monday's USA Today. As I glanced through the stale assortment of canned political "analysis," irrelevant stories, bad reporting and worse entertainment, a list of "facts" about a monster black hole known as Saggitarius A* caught my eye. Apparently this weighty object has been the focus of recent "studies" by astronomers. Impressed by the specific nature of the information given (which included Saggitarius A*'s mass, distance from earth, age, etc., all expressed in numbers far beyond the comprehension of the writer), and curious how a few paltry tax dollars in the hands of professional students could have yielded such astounding results, I turned to the beginning of the article to learn more about this discovery.

The author began with a brief treatment of black holes in general, as well as the various theories regarding their formation and the part they play in the universe. He admitted that scientists know relatively little about black holes, and he drew heavily on science fiction to hold the attention of the reader. It would seem this information regarding Saggitarius A* must have been quite a breakthrough! I read on, anxious to hear how this impressive detail was achieved.

Halfway through the article, the author informed me that "Saggitarius A* is thought to exist near the center of a galaxy by the same name." ... Wait just a minute ... "thought to exist" ... ? You just finished telling me that its mass is equivalent to 350 million suns, that it is 10 billion years old and 25 million light years away. Now you tell me you don't quite know if it exists or not?

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

While we're on the subject of humorous news reporting: a few days ago NPR reported that "some lawmakers worry that the escalating violence in Iraq could plunge the country into civil war." Oh my, what an awful idea! I never thought of that before!

All I can say is that homeschooling looks better every day.

I read a great essay by George Orwell on Politics and the English Language. I highly recommend it to all of you who prefer to know when you are being brainwashed. Copy this link into your browser's address bar: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/

Satire: Operation Chicago Freedom

2005-12-31T15:29:00.000-05:00

Breaking news – Chicago: America’s second tallest skyline was blacked out early this morning after a multilateral coalition of police from Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore and Boston launched an all-out offensive operation to topple Chicago’s corrupt regime and capture or kill key organized crime bosses in the city. Philadelphia and NYPD SWAT teams moved into position around midnight in preparation for this morning’s assault. O’Hare International is in complete lockdown and traffic bound for O’Hare and other city airports is being diverted to other nearby cities. Firefights are currently raging around the airport’s main terminal building, as well as City Hall and several other public installations.

Mayor John Street of Philadelphia held a joint press conference this morning with the police chiefs of all coalition departments to discuss the war, dubbed Operation Chicago Freedom.

“The people of Chicago have suffered long enough at the hands of the corrupt and brutal city government,” he said. “It is high time for the freedom loving people of the nation to bring the leaders of Chicago and their Mafia partners to justice. We will not falter, we will not waver. We will succeed in our endeavor, and we will liberate the people of this great city.”

Several reporters displayed skepticism of Mayor Street’s explanation. “We all know Chicago has a problem with organized crime,” stated William Casper of the Washington Post. “But is it the prerogative of Philadelphia to unilaterally engage in city-building around the nation?”

Street brushed aside what he called “such a short-sighted view” of the problem. “Our intelligence sources indicate that the organized crime families in Chicago are directly tied to the city government. We have faced increasingly compelling evidence in the past few months that Chicago may be in possession of materials which could conceivably be used to construct chemical and/or biological weapons. Such a capability in the hands of a rogue city cannot be permitted. Chicago’s recent stockpiling of flu vaccines is only the latest in a long chain of evidence which leads us to believe that they may be preparing for a WMD attack on neighboring cities, perhaps even as far away as Cincinnati.”

The Mayor also dismissed criticism of Philadelphia’s actions as “unilateral.” “Our good friends in New York, Boston and Baltimore are entirely on board with us here. Chicago’s attempt to acquire WMDs, not to mention its practice of harboring and sheltering organized crime, is nothing short of an attack on freedom loving people everywhere.“

In a later press conference held outside Philadelphia’s City Hall, Street’s spokesperson, Ms. Barbara Thomas-Mezvinski, was equally confident. “The city of Chicago has repeatedly violated federal gun laws,” she said, emphasizing that a key reason for the operation was to force compliance with federal requirements. “At least 379 separate gun laws were broken in Chicago last year for a total of 13, 782 violations. So far, only 164 of these criminals have been brought to justice, and all 164 were minorities. Not a single Mafia leader has been jailed in Chicago since the last Mayoral election. Mayor Street was elected with a clear mandate to fight crime, whenever and wherever it appears. This is his job, and he will not shrink from the challenge.”

The Philadelphia City Council was divided over the operation. Several members expressed concern that such action, rather than strengthening Philadelphia’s position in Washington, DC, would actually result in further erosion of the sometimes rocky relationship between the city and the Fed. “We have no business overthrowing another city government without a clear mandate from the national community,” intoned Councilman Sam Katz. “This business is nothing more than a drain on the city’s resources and will be a source of keen regret later.”

But Councilwoman Pamela Brown disagreed. “Chicago has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the federal government, and is not well liked even within the State of Illinois. Philadelphia has a responsibility by virtue of our position as a respected leader in the national community to deal with threats to our citizens. We owe it to ourselves and to the rest of the country to protect our people from crime. In the past month, there have been 19 shootings in this city that are directly linked to Chicago crime families. We cannot afford to stand idly by at such a time as this.”

City Solicitor Anthony Capellini agreed. “If we let the Mafia take over this city and kill us all, then the Mafia has already won.”

Firefights between coalition forces and Chicago police are in progress in several parts of the stricken city, as helicopters circle over the central areas of town. Rumors are in circulation that Louis Capone, grandson of the infamous Al Capone, may already be in custody of the Philadelphia police. We will be bringing you periodic updates at this location, so stay tuned!

Echoes of Aberdeen is fully responsible for the contents of this post.

Politics by Murder

2005-11-21T15:16:00.000-05:00

It seems the Republicrats in Washington D.C. have proven capable of outdoing themselves. They are unquestionably the epitome of dishonesty in a proverbiably dishonest capitol city. Rather than allow a vote on Rep. Murtha's proposal for a somewhat controlled withdrawal from Iraq, they chose to play the dirtiest of political games, defame an honorable and patriotic veteran, and offer an entirely unacceptable solution so that they could claim "victory." Their idea of victory in this instance may perhaps shed some light on their hopes for a victory in Iraq.

It is time to ask the real questions, people. Is withdrawal from Iraq necessarily "cutting and running?" What exactly is "staying the course" supposed to imply?

Vice President Cheney says, "The terrorists . . . have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength and they believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard. But this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists."

Did you hear that? The terrorists have contempt for our values? Imagine that! Perhaps if we had some values left they would respect them a little more. Not only that, but ... horror of horrors ... they doubt our strength! Why? Because our soldiers aren't allowed to win, that's why. Even worse, they believe we will lose our nerve and let down our guard! Impossible! Look at our borders, please? We have no guard left to let down. We are a nation of ostriches with our heads in the sand. But we will not retreat, no siree! We will never live at the mercy of tyrants. That is for the folks at Guatanamo, not us. We couldn't afford to have a tyrant over us, the economy might go south! (Or east ... waay east ... all-the-way-to-China east!)

Can we cut the politics for a moment? Mr. Veep, just what do you call the current situation in Iraq? Can anyone say Viet Nam? If we are really committed to defeating the threat of Islamic terrorism, for God's sake do it! Let's have a declaration of war on a tangible threat, let's commit our entire national resources to the elimination of that threat, let's get the job done and move on!

There is no way to occupy or even stabilize a nation the size of Iraq with the forces we have committed. We are not on unfamiliar ground here, people. We've been through this more times in the last 50 years than I care to think about. We've seen what happens when our military is throttled by international red tape, when our soldiers are sent into a foreign country without the resources or the permission to win, when their lives are wasted for the reprehensible purpose of "imposing the will of the international community" on some third world country. Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Somalia, does anyone see a pattern? We have no business sending Americans to die for the United Nations and their twisted plans for the world.

The men who landed in the Ia Drang valley in Viet Nam on Nov. 14, 1965 were fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people. Or so they thought. Only in hindsight, thousands of dead buddies later, would it become apparent that no sacrifice on their part would be sufficient, that they were never supposed to win, that they were there solely to die on the altar of the "brave new world" that was to emerge from their ashes. Our soldiers are being sacrificed just as cruelly today. I believe we have no business in Iraq. They have never posed a legitimate threat to this country, and their personal problems have only been exacerbated by our invasion and continued presence. Be that as it may, the continued refusal of our leaders to end the conflict, either by committing a sufficient force to do so on our terms, or by acknowledging our error and withdrawing, leaves only one conclusion: they have something to gain by the continued bloodshed of our boys.

To the leaders of our nation and representatives of the American people: the course we are on is clear. You say a withdrawal would destabilize the region. Hello? The region is currently destabilized. You say the threat of terrorism is one we must stop. Hello again? It is unquestionably thriving as a direct result of the Shiite Islamic State your laughable imposition of "democracy" has instituted. You say we must not retreat. That leaves us two choices. We can "stay the course" or we can win. The course we are on does not involve any perceptible success. To vow your intention to stay that course is proof of your utter disregard for the lives of the men you so lightly jeapordize.

If the American people do not begin seriously asking themselves what the international power brokers have to gain by a state of perpetual war, they will find themselves in a totalitarian society without ever knowing how they got there. Time is running out.

God Bless Michael New

2005-11-10T21:02:00.000-05:00

As veterans day approaches, it is inspiring to reflect on the sacrifices made by the courageous men and women through the years who have given whatever they could and risked everything for our freedoms. But for me, today, those feelings are mixed with sadness at the unprincipled efforts to purge the military of true Americans who love their God and country and take their oaths of military service seriously. So as Veterans Day '05 rolls around, I offer a tribute to an uncommonly courageous soldier who most of our country has never heard of, and who will not be officially honored tomorrow.

On October 10, 1995, at an American base in Germany, a U.S. Army infantry battalion drew up in formation, ready for deployment to Macedonia. It was a familiar scene. American troops had been operating as UN peacekeepers in Macedonia for 27 months already. But this time, something was new. Instead of the historic Army green Battle Dress Uniform, the troops wore the immature baby blue of the most corrupt organization in the modern world: the United Nations.

While the blue uniform was the most notable difference, it was not the only one. The troops reporting for the formation would be serving under a Flemish commander and carry UN identification, rather than U.S. These changes were patently illegal under current Army regulations, and were a first in the history of the U.S. Army.

Out of the entire battalion standing in formation that morning, only one man had the courage to appear as an American soldier instead of a U.N. "peacekeeper." Specialist Michael G. New took the stand that no other man dared to take. He reperesented then, and still does today, the same kind of American soldier that dared to risk his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor for the freedoms he received from his Creator. He stood for the right, alone, but not alone, as he knew by faith that his Father would stand by him and approve his faithfulness.

Michael New was dishonorably discharged by an ungrateful Army, but in this American's heart he is honored, and in this American's eyes he is a hundred times more worthy of that honor than those who kowtowed to peer pressure and violated their sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thank you, Specialist New.

And to Sgt. Ed Rasor and the other men who placed duty and honor above their careers and supported Spc. New in his stand, Thank you too. You are heroes to us, if not to others. May God bless you.

SF

To God Be The Glory

2005-11-10T18:36:00.000-05:00

This is the day the Lord hath made; let us rejoise and be glad in it!

What a lovely autumn we are having here in PA! Driving Nantmeal Rd. between Rt. 100 and Rt. 401, I had to praise God for His wonderful works and awesome creations. Mile after mile of 200+ year old stone farmhouses and barns nestled into the hills, horses grazing in the pastures, with copper oaks and golden maples and beech trees stretching into the distance as far as the eye could see. If His creation in this world is so gorgeous, what will the new one be like? I can only imagine!

As if we don't have enough to be thankful for here in Penn's Woods, the God who rules over the kingdoms of the earth just answered prayer here in a big way! Some of you know about the sneak pay raise that our fat and kicking lawmakers slipped through at midnight with no debateearlier this year. Well, no legislators were up for election this year, but two Supreme Court justices were on the ballot for retention. Both of these judges received the pay raise.

Retention votes are a pure formality. Rather than two candidates running against one another, there is simply a yes or no vote on whether the judge should be retained or a new one appointed. Never before in the history of the state has a judge lost a retention vote. Never. But as they say, there's a first time for everything! Justice Nigro was removed from office and from the enjoyment of his illgotten salary, and Justice Newman barely avoided the same fate. YES!!!

I heard Justice Nigro complaining today that he was a victim of misguided voter outrage over the pay grab. Tough luck. Next year we'll have the same opportunity to send a few legislators packing. In the mean time, the bipartisan establishment needs to hear the message loud and clear. WE ARE SICK OF PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS! If the major parties in this commonwealth can't find someone with principles to save their hide, they can take the cue and get out of the way for a real statesman.

A special note to Republicans - you have an opportunity in the next gubernatorial election to put a real statesman at the forefront of the party. Jim Paynard has the principles to garner support from those who, like myself, see the current GOP as a controlled opposition party, and a poorly managed one at that. I am no longer a Republican, but if Paynard wins the GOP primary he will have my full support, and that of many other genuine Americans as well.

SF

Intelligent Design? Duh!

2005-11-07T12:11:00.000-05:00

Well, intelligent design is a hot topic right now. I have to laugh when I hear the silly arguments going on right now over this one. I don't have much time, so I'll just say this: origins are not a scientific subject, they are a religious and historical subject. Evolution is nothing more than the humanist religion's creation story. There is NO scientific, testable, observable evidence for evolution. It is a religious view.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a theory or story of how we came into existence. It is merely the acknowledgement that according to all known scientific and logical rules, we are not, and indeed could not be, an accident. What on earth could be wrong with that?

The answer is that our public education system has become merely a seminary system for the humanist religion. That much ought to be obvious to any observant person. Much as we would expect a conservative Christian bible college to balk at a requirement to teach evolution, (or the Hindu creation story, for that matter,) we should also expect the blind faith of the humanists to resist any requirement that they allow for the possibility of another answer to the question of origins.

SF

Morally Adrift

2005-11-02T12:55:00.000-05:00

Daniel Boone was born on this day in 1734. Known for his patriotism, courage and woodsmanship, he was an icon of the early frontier. When asked how many times he had been lost in the vast forested expanses of Kentucky and West Virginia, he declared that he never was lost, but was once bewildered for a few days. Too bad our current leaders can't say as much when it comes to keeping their moral sense of direction.

The Washington Post reported today on the CIA's secret prison system for "terror suspects" around the world. While they declined to discuss the specific countries that have been involved in detention and interrogation of CIA detainees, those who care more about truth and justice than the public face of the CIA have long since identified several of them, most notably the former Soviet "republic" of Uzbekistan. According to The New American, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan was recalled not long ago for openly protesting the transfer of terror suspects from CIA custody to the Uzbek Secret Police. He claimed that Air America planes arrived in Tashkent on almost a daily basis with "cases" for the former KGB gentlemen to speak with. For those who don't know, these good people have long been considered by the intelligence community to be the ultimate in brutality, cruelty, and ingenuity when it comes to interrogation, torture and murder techniques.

According to the WP, Vice President Cheyney and CIA Director Porter Goss requested last month that the agency be exempted from legislation being considered that would bar "cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners in US custody."

Any guesses why that would be a problem for the good folks at "The Company?"

He Died - For Me!

2005-10-29T22:49:00.000-04:00

My faith has found a resting place - not in device or creed:
I trust the ever-living One - His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument, I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me.

Enough for me that Jesus saves - this ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him - He'll never cast me out!
My heart is leaning on the Word - the written Word of God:
Salvation by my Savior's name, salvation through His blood.

My great Physician heals the sick, the lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed - for me His life He gave!
I need no other argument, I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me!

Lidie H. Edmunds

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed!
Isaiah 53:5

Have a wonderful Lord's Day!
SF

Learning From History (Not!)

2005-10-29T01:38:00.000-04:00

Well, Scooter Libby is outa here. I don't know much about him, but considering his relationship to the VP I can only say bon voyage and who's next? (I have a dream!) Oh well, back to reality.

Five third parties here in PA have just gone to Harrisburg with their support for changes to the current election law that would place third parties on an equal footing with the bipartisan establishment when it comes to placing candidates on the ballot. Most voters would be suprised to learn that as the law now stands, third parties must collect as many as 33 times the number of signatures required of the Republicrat and Democan parties in order to be included on the ballot. It is high time to change that one.

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. Democans and Republicrats are both unhappy with the lack of information they have on her ideology and political positions. I for one am tired of hearing conservatives dwell on the abortion issue to the exclusion of others. No judge who holds that infanticide is a woman's right before the infant is born is qualified to make sound determinations of right and wrong, but I think there are other things we should be concerned with as well.

When John Roberts was confirmed, to my knowledge none of the questioning dealt with the real reason why he was nominated. Roberts had been involved in rulings which left no doubt of his position on the Habaeus Corpus rights of American citizens. Remember, the last time the issue of indefinite detention of American citizens came before the high court, the Bush administration lost their bid for dictatorial powers by a 5-4 vote, with Justice O'Conner voting with the majority. Roberts was selected to replace her for that reason and no other. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist derailed that plan, and the administration is facing the same problem again.

I believe Ms. Miers was selected solely for her willingness to follow orders. Now that she has withdrawn her name, we can look for another willing servant to take her place. As long as the President can keep conservatives focused on a nominee's position on social issues, he will remain free to trample on the Constitution. It is time for true conservatives to refuse a compromise and demand a Justice who will enforce the Constitution rather than reinterpret it.

The death toll in Iraq has passed the 2000 mark. Two thousand brave American soldiers have died so that the Iraqi people can be free to establish the Islamic dictatorship of their choice. In accordance with my stated intention to bring the light of history to bear on today's events, perhaps a brief overview of a few previous efforts to free nations from themselves would be in order.

Cuba. The US supported Fidel Castro in his bid for power. In return, Castro established a close partnership with our worst enemies, including a tight relationship with Communist China which continues to threaten our national security today.

Zimbabwe. The US, along with the UK and other countries, enforced severe economic sanctions against Rhodesia and the Ian Smith government in the name of African independence. The Rhodesian government , under pressure, capitulated to the Marxist movement and Zimbabwe still has never had a fair election. Robert Mugabe has been in power for over 30 years and still retains all of the bloodlust and thirst for violence that characterized his rise to power. While Rhodesia was a major African exporter of food and agricultural products, Mugabe's Zimbabwe is still suffering from severe food shortages that are decades old.

Afghanistan. The US funded, trained and supplied Osama Bin Laden and other Mujahadeen "freedom fighters" to effectively stop the expansion of another former US ally, the USSR, in that area. These same "freedom fighters" established a brutal Islamic state, became a safe haven for anti-western terrorism, and eventually carried out the worst terrorist attack this country has ever endured.

Bosnia. The US essentially led the UN effort to overthrow the Milosevic regime and halt Serbian violence against ethnic Albanians. The Albanian Muslims, in turn, retaliated against the Serbs with little or no UN interference, and today are a friendly resort for Islamic terrorists and a significant threat to US interests.

Iraq. Last but not least, the US funded, supplied and abbetted Saddam Hussein in his brutal war against Iran. Saddam accepted US assistance until he felt that he was no longer in need of it, and has been a thorn in our sides ever since, until his overthrow last year.

I guess we haven't learned.