Putting The Genie Back In The Bottle...

I know I've said this before, but PLEASE! I'm begging you - conservative or liberal - to see things as they really are!  Step away from the specific issues just long enough to gain the perspective of principle, then go back into the debate.

Progressives?  True progressives - patient communists, and neo-fascists - I don't hold much hope for you to change.  But there is that old parable of the Prodigal Son, right?  Perhaps a better man than I would hold out hope...

Those who value individual liberty and those who value freedom of conscience, those who value the fruits of their labors and those who respect the fruits of others' labors, those who want to save their family and those who want to save the world?  We have to work together now.

Start by reading the Constitution.  You on the Left who just tuned out, please tune back in!  Read the Bill of Rights.  There's nothing in there that you and I can't agree on.  Read the Constitution itself.  The separation of powers isn't controversial.  It's good sense.

The problem that liberals and conservatives have is the impact of extra-constitutional laws, statutes and usurpations that have been enacted in the years between 1789 and today.  Beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts, and culminating in the Patriot Act, the Financial Services Reform Act and the Affordable Care Act, individuals who see themselves as more enlightened than others, who think that they will be doing some great good, or who are greedy for power and who want to control others while carving out fortunes for their cronies have sought to subvert the rights and liberties guaranteed to all people by the Constitution.

We won't go into the issue of slavery here.  Suffice it to say that ending slavery was a "deal breaker" for slave states and the pragmatist in each of the Founders allowed them to kick that can "down the road" for later generations to handle.  And handle it, they did.

The idea of easy access to abortion is no less offensive to half the country than is the idea of homosexuals being unable to marry each other.  I don't want to argue the merits of either here; I just want to acknowledge that we all have deep reactions to really big issues.  And the Founders did not envision that the federal government would involve itself in those things.

The Constitution was a contract between the sovereign states and the federal government.  It outlined the limits of performances and set expectations.  The states recognized that separately they would be easy pickings for imperial powers like Spain, France and England; and at the same time they understood that the interests of a Virginian could be different from those of a New Yorker.  And so, the states ratified a Constitution that provided for their common defense and required mutual aid in the case of foreign aggression.  They ratified a Constitution that protected the rights and interests of ALL the states in the arena of interstate commerce, protecting against interstate tariffs and embargoes.  In exchange for allowing the federal government so much power, the states insisted on retaining the right of self-governance in virtually all other aspects of law.

The Bill of Rights, as the Supreme Law of The Land, was designed to ensure that no government - state or otherwise - would ever infringe upon this very specific, but by no means exclusive, list of natural rights belonging to all mankind.

A full one-fifth of the Bill of Rights is spent in securing first to individuals and second to the states the opportunity and responsibility to regulate EVERYTHING not outlined in the Constitution, and prohibiting any federal government operation outside the confines of that document.

We must work together to put this "genie" that is the federal leviathan back in its bottle.  The framers of the Constitution included in Article 5, a provision for amending the Constitution.  It may be accomplished in one of two ways.  First, Congress can pass amendments and the States can ratify them.  Meaningful reform is not likely to come from a body as corrupt and intellectually dishonest as our Congress.  It would be indeed biting the hand that feeds it.  Second, the state legislatures may convene a meeting for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  The amendments proposed must then again be ratified by the states.

So, when we talk about a "balanced budget amendment" or imposition of term limits, or a review by the states of significant legislation we aren't likely to see Congress too willing to move in that direction.  It would diminish their power and influence over the 330,000,000 serfs they've worked so hard to create these past 100 years or more.  It would mean a return to government of and by and for the People.

I would ask you to look into this, and to ask your STATE LEGISLATOR to support the convening of this meeting.  It will be a long road, but it is one we had better start on before we go much further down the path to subjection.

This Is How I Know There Is A God...

This is on my heart tonight, and as we head into the Sabbath Day tomorrow with Passover and Easter just ahead...

May the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you and those you love, this day and always.

Isaiah Chapter 53

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But 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.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Say What You Will About Courage...

Before my friends on the Left become too indignant, I ask them to please consider this woman - an elected official to be sure - in the light of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

In those days, federal judges whose prejudice blinded them issued opinions supporting racial segregation in America.  Discrimination was in fact institutionalized in entire regions of the country.  And emboldened by those laws and rulings, miscreants and ignorants whose hatred and prejudice allowed them to justify despicable acts intimidated and even terrorized the children and grandchildren of former American slaves.

Please take a quick minute to read the article below, and then consider this woman's actions in the light of civil disobedience and freedom of conscience.  I'll be interested to know your thoughts.

Carroll County Commissioner ‘Willing To Go To Jail’ Opening Meeting With Prayer Despite Judge’s Ruling « CBS DC

Why We Need The "Rule of Law"...

As we watch President Obama struggling to implement - and serially delaying - the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), it is plain to see two things that ought to inform all of our decisions relating to laws in the future.

First, a law must be easily understood and simple to enforce.  It must not be overly broad and must not seek to exempt or include special groups, companies, industries or classes of citizens.  In fact, what is good for the goose ought surely be applied to the gander, too.

Second, because laws are intended to provide safety and predictability in human and societal relations, they must be applied equally and enforced in ways that are predictable.  For example, if one is driving 4 miles per hour over the speed limit on virtually any freeway in America, he runs almost no risk of a speeding ticket.  And similarly, if one is driving 4 miles per hour too fast through a school zone, there is virtual certainty that a citation will follow.  Most drivers understand this and drive accordingly.

When a broad and complex law is written (I think that it should have to fit on a single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper) and the complexities of the law are then applied capriciously, then society loses its ability to rely on safe and predictable relationships.

When that "rule of law" is shown to be unreliable, then the people become subject to the "rule of the sovereign."  This is what our forefathers noticed and ultimately cast off in the American Revolution.

I suggest that we similarly embrace the rule of law.  That means a lot of work for all of us; a lot of responsibility.  Funny how freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. 

Otherwise we will ultimately be subjects of a tyrant who may have a (D) after his or her name, and may have an (R), but it is certain we will be no longer free citizens of a nation.

In Favor Of Personal Liberty And Responsibility...

"Freedom and reason make us men; take these away, what are we then?  Mere animals...."  So wrote an anonymous poet in Boston in 1805.

What is it to be human?  If we believe the creationists, mankind was placed on the earth to be its husband, caretaker and sovereign, accountable to God for the wellbeing of all His creatures.  If we believe the Darwinists, mankind is the pinnacle of evolution, a superior and supreme product of nature's unforgiving winnowing process.  Either way, it is impossible to argue that mankind is not superior by design to all other forms of life on earth.

And where superior good is enjoyed, superior goodness is required.  As human beings we are obliged to respect and nurture all of nature and to protect it in its natural state as much as we possibly can.  If we are to use or consume parts of nature, then it is incumbent on us to do so as sparingly and as responsibly as possible, and not to abuse anyone or anything.

The natural state of all creation is liberty (Don't Fence Me In), freedom (Free To Be You And Me), and responsibility for its actions.  This is certainly the case for mankind, too.  Governments have a duty to protect the liberty of the individual and encourage the wellbeing of society.  Any move toward restricting the freedoms of citizens or interfering with their responsibility - the consequences of enjoying freedoms - is a move toward reducing them from humanity to brutishness.  And once reduced to an animal, men need to be herded, driven, penned and like cattle are prone to slaughter.

As the American frontier philosopher observed in 1839, "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." 

There is an element of extremism - overzealousness - in many ideologies.  Some fight wars - destroy people - to spread their brand of oppression in the name freedom or democracy.  Some injure others to prevent injury to lesser creatures in the name of nature.  Some would infringe on the natural and free state of others in the interest of imposing their values in the name of compassion. 

And so, very often, the Crusader and the humanist, the Puritan and the hedonist find themselves in violation of the fundamental principle that freedom and reason make all of us men.  When we take those away from even the most misguided or impotent creature, we are on the wrong side of nature. 

And as both the creationist and the Darwinist will tell you, in the long run Nature will always win!

Racist Opposes Obama Court Nominees...

For a long time I believed those who said that their disagreement and criticism of President Obama were philosophical and not racial.  After all, I tend to project myself onto others and believe that they have the same values and intentions as I.

Now that's starting to change.

I'm more and more convinced that those who claim that the President is incompetent, deceptive or even malicious are just what we've been hearing for years: racist.  They're bigots, conspiracy nuts, KKK wannabes, and all the other names Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews call them.

Here's one radical member of the House of Representatives from Georgia who clearly wants the Old South to "rise again."  I'll bet he can't even read, thinks the earth is flat, and denies the sacrament of Global Warming.  He goes so far as to say that the White House has been "dishonest" in nominating judges to positions in federal courts.

He and Joe Wilson ("You lie!") probably drink moonshine and dream of Jim Crow together on the weekends they aren't watching NASCAR.

I just need to know why DAVID SCOTT hates black people, brown people and those who want to take their driver test in Hmong.  Admit your problem and RESIGN, Mr. Scott!

http://thehill.com/video/house/199504-dem-lawmaker-white-house-is-being-dishonest

What do you mean, he's a Democrat?  And he's black?

Why I Oppose A Gun Registry (and other lists, too)...

Last month, in Hortonville, Wisconsin two high school girls were suspended because they had created a list of 60 students' names.

There was, according to police who investigated the matter, no plan to harm anyone, no threats, no specifics outlining places, times or methods.  It was just a list.  Further, upon questioning, the girls admitted that making the list had been a joke.

But school officials and police took the matter very seriously.  As they probably should have.

And now I think about the fact that this - even as I type it - is being recorded in the NSA data center closer than 10 miles from my home. 

They're just making a list.  There's no specific plan to hurt anyone.  It's just a piece of paper - or in this case, a bunch of 1s and 0s.  And that list will sit there at the data center until someone decides to use it.

Lists make us nervous.  And they should.  Firearms registries have been used to create criminals over night in both Europe and in Connecticut.  Entire ethnic groups have disappeared in Asia and in Africa because of lists.  And I have personal friends whose names were on a list of California residents who donated money to support the state's Proposition 8, and who were very truly terrorized when that list was made public to vicious individuals. 

Lists are one of the most basic ways that governments have of violating the Natural right that every person has to privacy in his person, papers and effects. Who believes this?  Who attends those meetings?  Who sits in which church?  Who gave money to what political cause?   Who voted which way?

No, I have nothing to hide.  But that does not mean that I welcome people into my personal life just to satisfy their voyeuristic fetish, or to prove that I'm not hiding anything. 

None of us, liberal or conservative, should support the making of lists for the sake of list-making.  It seems to me that this is an issue on which we can all agree.

Silent No More...

As I watch the United States of America become increasingly less able to remain the "last best hope for humanity" in the world, I cannot be silent any longer.

Personal responsibility and liberty are symbiotic principles.  One cannot exist without the other; yet we see daily steps to eradicate both in our country.  Frequently the two ideas are played against each other.

We are taught that we should have the liberty behave with wanton abandon in our sex lives; and at the same time we should be able to avoid the responsibility of consequent child birth and rearing by abortion.  We are taught that we should have the liberty to behave asocially showing respect to no one and for no thing; and at the same time we should be able to avoid the responsibility of being impossible to respect.  We are taught that we should have the liberty to speak our mind; and at the same time we should expect none to take offense.

In addition to playing the ideas against each other, we are taught with stunning inconsistency.

We should value all life; and we should embrace abortion.  We should be tolerant of all ideas; and we should not tolerate intolerance.  We should not question the evidence of science; and we should reject the evidence of religion.  We should decrease our personal standard of living when money is scarce; and we should expand our government's spending when money is scarce.  It is unpatriotic and irresponsible to accumulate $4 trillion in debt; and it is generous and compassionate to accumulate $8 trillion in debt.  We should love our enemies; and we should hate our friends. 

I will briefly try to outline my thoughts on these issues.

First, there is a God who created the universe and mankind.  His creation was deliberate and purposeful.  His purpose is to provide experiences and learning that will bring happiness to us, his children.  Key to his plan for our happiness is his son, Jesus Christ.  Jesus suffered the pains that come into our lives in consequence of our mistakes, our sins, and those of others.  Through faith in him we can be relieved of the painful burdens of this life.  Jesus died and was resurrected, that is to say, his eternal spirit took up his mortal body and the two were united immortally and will remain so forever.  And he gave that gift of resurrection to all of God's children. 

Second, there is absolute morality.  There is absolute right and absolute wrong.  There is good and evil.  These principles and forces have always been and will always be.  Absolute good and right can be found in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his prophets through all time.  The great commandment is to love God with all that we are.  The second commandment is to love our fellowman as we should love ourselves.  All of the other commandments are not less important.  All of the other prophetic teachings are not less significant.  They all are rooted in these first two.

Third, choice and accountability are individual and eternal rights upon which God will not, and man should not, attempt to infringe.  The individual is and should remain sovereign in affairs both spiritual and temporal.  No man, no group, no sovereign and no state has the right to interfere with freedom of conscience or with rights to property.  As such, I believe that Thomas Jefferson was correct in advocating for a continual referendum on the laws of the land.  Not that they should be changed frequently or for trivial reasons, but that each generation should have the obligation and the right to willingly submit to them or to cast them off when they found them too oppressive.

I will not be silent anymore.