Put A Little Love InYour Heart...

The UK Daily Mail reports this week that two hunters in New England died.  While tracking a wounded deer, one of the men shot at what he thought was the animal.

Tragically, it was his friend and long-time hunting partner.

In his angst and distress after watching his friend die, the man then shot himself.

At the end of many online news stories, readers may publish comments.  I was disheartened by the tone of the comments.  Liberal animal lovers rejoiced in the double tragedy.  Conservative sportsmen mocked the lack of prowess and caution that led to a hunter-on-hunter shooting.

Precious few of the commenters remembered the families of both men and the terrible loss they're experiencing.

Can't we remember our humanity?  Can't we return to a civil society?  Can't we remember to do to others the things we would like done to and for us - in the way that we would like them done?  Can't we give more mercy, feel more empathy, send more love into the world?

This Thanksgiving and Christmas Season, despite the "world turned upside down", let us remember that God who gives all good things loves every one of His creations.  He loved the world so that He gave His Only Begotten Son so that we all can hope for better things to come.

This time of year - and all times of the year - let us remember to put a little love in our heart.  And the world will be a better place for you and me.  Just wait and see....

No-No-No-No-No! Not Again...!

Are we REALLY going to allow ourselves (we "US Americans") to be FOOLED again?

The UK Guardian is already starting the fear mongering with this headline:  "Supercommittee Failure Could Trigger US Credit Downgrade, Economists Warn"

If forming this idiotic, extra-legislative, unaccountable supercommittee wasn't enough to keep us from having our debt downgraded, what in the name of all that's holy makes us think that any product they come up with - or DON'T come up with - is going to affect whether or not our debt takes another beating?

The ONLY answer that financial markets will respond to is a fiscally responsible answer.  They will not respond to a political answer.  We learned that this past summer!

E-freaking-NOUGH, already!

We "US Americans" and our so-called "leaders" need to grow a pair at least the size of Greece's (sad commentary on our national vigor and virility) and confront the cold, hard reality that the PONZI scheme we call the New Deal and the Great Society is just that: an unsustainable house of cards.

The answer is that everyone already on the dole - Social Security, public service pensions, etc. - can stay on it and expect to receive everything they "have coming to them".  Those who are closer than 10 years away from that golden hammock can expect to see their benefits fixed at today's rates.  Everyone who is 10 or more years away from that magical retirement age can expect nothing.

If the 401k/403b scheme is good enough for the masses, then by gum, it's good enough for the drones who pretend to be "public servants".

All "US Americans" not already on the dole should be allowed to save and invest an unlimited portion of their income before taxes in retirement accounts that will grow tax-free forever and that will not be subject to the estate tax upon the owner's death.

It's time for Americans to return to their rugged individualist, self-sufficient roots and for American government to return to its limited, tightly controlled, closely defined role.

Walt Kelly may have been right.  "We have met the enemy; and he is us!"  Our apathy as Americans, our blind and naive trust in "leaders" to do the right thing, has brought our nation to this point.  We've allowed seemingly benign or well-intentioned overreaching until now we don't even notice when our natural rights are abridged or annihilated altogether.

We've done it to ourselves!  The good news is that we can UN-do it for our children.

Historical Marker Near Truckee, CA...

I often hear politicians, Republican and Democrat, including President Obama tell us that government spending is needed to drive the development of a high-speed rail system in our country.  I'm not sure what that means, but if it looks like the simple overpass near my house that has been under construction for more than a year, I'm not interested in repeating that all the way from "the New York islands to the redwood forests". 

Further, I heard President Obama claim that the United States government created the transcontinental railroad system.  I could have sworn that the Central Pacific Railroad and the Union Pacific Railroad built the railroad beginning in Council Bluffs, Iowa and Oakland, California and working toward eachother to a meeting point near Ogden, Utah in 1869.

This plaque, placed near the railroad on Interstate 80 in California doesn't even mention government involvement.  In fact, it specifically cites Chinese labor and a man named Charles Crocker.

As Americans, let us not lose sight of the fact that the vision of great men and women combined with the incentive of possibly improving one's own station and standing in life drove the founding and the development of this great nation.

This primary season, support and vote for the candidate you feel best reflects your values and will best protect and restore your liberty.  Do not be bullied into accepting mediocrity or compromise in your primary choice.  And in the general election, vote for the candidate whose values are closest to yours again.  Do not sit on the sidelines because failing to vote is the same as giving half a vote to the "other side". 

Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and that no earthly force or philosophy can rightly abridge or deny us those rights. And let us, this election, seek those who would break the shackles, lighten the burdens, ease the bondage and look to the betterment of the condition of Americans today and of future generations.

Inconsistent...?

Mother Jones magazine (yes, I'm a subscriber) featured an article called "Michele Bachmannn:  Crazy Like a Fox?" in its August 2011 issue.  http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-iowa-frontrunner?page=2

I thought it was a well-done piece with a decided bias.  In part of it the author, Tim Murphy, examined Mrs. Bachmann's views on creationism and her effort to include it in charter school curriculum.

I want to quote a piece of the article that exposes the inconsistency of the progressive or liberal mindset.  It comes from a then-opponent of Mrs. Bachmann's efforts named Bob Beltrame.  He told Mrs. Bachmann, as he recalls it, "Everybody can have their own beliefs, but it doesn't belong in the classroom."

So, subscribing to the Theory of Evolution, or the Big Bang Theory does not constitute having a "belief", but subscribing to the idea of Creationism does?  So far as I know, none of us was around to see the "Grand Beginning", and so by definition, we all simply "believe" what we will about it.

The liberal assertion here seems to be that the liberal line is fact and the non-liberal line is superstition. Mrs. Bachmann's belief is not welcome in Mr. Beltrame's classroom; yet Mr. Beltrame's belief must be accepted in Mrs. Bachmann's?

You see, we MUST talk about the substance of the issues.  Here, the substance is not whether God created the Universe, or whether it came about by happenstance.  The substance is whether it is the place of a public institution to promote one philosophy or theory over another.

I argue that if we are going to talk about the beginning of the world, we ought to expose children to as many of the ideas about it as possible.  We do it to some extent in examining Native American, Greek and Roman mythology in elementary school.  We do it extensively when discussing Darwin's ideas in middle and high school biology .  Why do we ignore the idea that an intelligent force or a god may have had a hand in the work, as well?

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If one "belief" is welcome, should not all be?  This seems more in keeping with the First Amendment than the current practice of promoting one over the other.

Uncle Tom...?

I've heard much in the media about Herman Cain.

I've heard liberal commentators call him a "bad apple".  I've heard them say he's "left the plantation".  I've heard them say that he's "Tea Party's black friend".

I've heard him called an "Uncle Tom".

I was interested to hear that moniker.  See, a couple of years ago I started to wonder if I understood the aspersion "Uncle Tom" correctly.  So I read the book.  I'll tell you about the real Uncle Tom so that you can understand, then I'll talk about the implications and the reason Uncle Tom has gotten the bad rap he has from the black American community.

Uncle Tom was a slave, owned by a kind, but business-oriented man in Kentucky.  Tom was an older fellow - maybe in his late 40s.  He was diligent, hard working, humble and loyal.  He even loved his master's children and held his mistress in great esteem.  He lived in a small, but comfortable cabin (hence the name of the book) near his master's home.  He raised his children and mentored younger slaves in the art of subservience.  Tom never rocked the boat.  He never questioned his lot in life.  He never left the plantation.  He was a good person by any moral standard.  Although life brought him terrible misfortune and cruelty at the hands of less kind-hearted slavers, Tom was true to himself and would not violate his principles.

Perversely, rather than viewing honor and duty as virtues in the individual, black American culture has connected Uncle Tom's diligence with a self-interested desire to get some personal gain or comfort.  His behavior is also connected with one who would curry favoritism or a preferred place in the master's household.  In short, an "Uncle Tom" is one who has traded his dignity as a black man, submitted himself to the establishment system, found ways to work it to his own advantage and is willing to ignore the continuing injustice of the system and the suffering of his own "people".  He's a sell-out who's working the system that "Whitey" has set up.

In the case of Herman Cain, I would say he is as far from an "Uncle Tom" as one - black or white - could be. He refused the poverty of his upbringing while honoring his parents' tremendous sacrifice in his behalf.  He insisted on his own excellent effort and performance in every aspect of his life, from school to work to marriage.  When others marched and shouted about the "system", Herman Cain decided what he wanted to take from life, defined the path he would follow in order to succeed, and diligently went to work.

In that process, I suppose that Herman Cain did "leave the plantation".  He refused to accept the welfare culture that the Left was beginning to set up for black Americans 50 years ago.  He refused to accept the dogma that he was entitled to something and would not work until he got it.  He refused to accept the idea that in order to be a black "man" one had to abandon all self-control and abdicate all responsibility to "the System".

Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and other civil rights activists did the same thing in the 1960s.  They all "left the plantation".  So did many of their followers.

Some in the civil rights movement of the 1960s recognized that all black Americans would not leave.  They saw the New and Improved Plantation being built in the Great Society.  They understood that if they continued to walk away in the path of King they would lose their power, prestige and "leadership" position as black Americans realized and embraced the liberty the civil rights movement would guarantee them.

And so they decided to work within the system.  They decided that in submitting to the new masters they could curry favor.  They realized that despite the immense injustice of relegating millions of their "people" to virtual slavery under a new welfare system they would enjoy personal power, preference and privilege that would be impossible if black Americans were independent.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright.  These are the Uncle Tom's of our day.  On the backs of their own people they subsist in famous fashion.  By perpetuating the indignities and injustice of today's welfare state, they ensure their own livelihood.  By continuing this sleight of hand known as the struggle for "social justice" and "economic equity" they cement their positions as clarions of the black community.  They refuse to rock the boat and feign indignation when someone like Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell or Herman Cain speak against the dogma they preach to their befuddled disciples.

Successful conservative black people are not the Uncle Toms.  Poor black people struggling to make life better for themselves and their families are not the Uncle Toms.

Today's Uncle Toms are those who profit from the perverse and immoral system of economic slavery instituted by the "Great Society".  Today's plantation slaves are those who - black, white or otherwise - drink in the doctrine of grievance and entitlement while they eat bread and watch circuses provided by their masters.

Searching For Founding Principles (part 2)...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

That's the preamble to the Constitution.  Sort of an executive summary, if you will.  No "fair shot; fair share" language yet.

Article 1, Section 8.1 does address Congress' power of taxation.  It says that Congress may lay taxes (and collect them) to "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States".  The same section specifically indicates that taxation shall be uniform throughout the states.  I take that to mean that the tax on tobacco in Kentucky shall be the same as the tax on the same in Maine.

In all of Section 8 there is no mention of a redistributive function of taxation or Congress.

Article 2 does not mention taxation or redistribution in connection with the Executive branch.

Article 3 does not mention taxation or redistribution in connection with the Judicial branch.  Neither does it mention ensuring social justice or equity.

The other articles of the original Constitution fail to mention taxation or redistribution.  It is unclear if this is an omission on the part of the Founders, but such mention would be out of context.

Now let us turn to the Bill of Rights.  Most Americans would agree that this is a list of the founding principles of our country.

I'll list the amendments that mention the idea of "fair shot; fair share" below.

...

That's about it for the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 13 prohibits slavery.  No mention of a "fair shot" even for the recently emancipated slaves who were even more disadvantaged than their descendants 150 years later.

Amendment 16 allows for Congress to tax incomes.  It still doesn't grant either a "fair shot" or a "fair share".

In fact, in reading the entire US Constitution (as found transcribed at www.constitutionus.com), the word "fair" is not found.  This includes all notes and cross references.

Interestingly, "redistribution", "opportunity", "social justice", and "corporate citizenship" are not found either.

In summary, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of the United States of America introduce, endorse or embrace what President Obama has cited as the principles on which our nation was founded.  There is no notion of "fair shot; fair share" in our national tradition.

The president is wrong.  And so are so many others among us who have bought in to the communist "ideal" that in fact defies human nature and the Law of Nature.

America's Founding Principles...

As I've mentioned, President Obama seems to believe that the fundamental economic principles of communism are the same as those on which our country was founded.  He said as much on the 19th of October this year in Virginia.

I want to let you know what the founding principles of America were.

First, we read the Declaration of Independence.  It was "necessary...to dissolve the political bands" that tied us to Britain and to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them...."  In other words, there were no other options.  Reconciliation and appeasement had been exhausted.  To continue in bondage to Great Britain would have been to continue in violation of Nature's Law.  We know that this cannot be without dire consequences.  And so the Declaration was made.

We also find that Nature has decreed some individual and "unalienable rights" for mankind.  AMONG them (this is not an exclusive list) are the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The entire function of the United States Government - its founding principle - is this:  "to secure these rights...."  That is all.  From this point in the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson goes on to warn that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it...."  Hence, the continuation of the American Revolution and the eventual sovereignty of the United States of America.

Now, perhaps the principle on which America was founded is found in the exhaustive list of grievances found in the Declaration.  Let's see....
1.  Refusing to sign laws that are clearly for the public good.
2.  Encouraging his government to block important legislation or to delay action on the same.
3.  Political extortion.
4.  Inconveniences making representation impossible.
5.  Ruling contrary to the will of the people's representatives by executive authority when they disagree with him.
6.  Sacrificing national security in favor of political gamesmanship.
7.  Manipulation of immigration laws to gain political advantage.
8.  Interfering in real estate law.
9.  Obstruction of justice.
10.  Manipulation of the courts by virtue of appointments and pay.
11.  Creating an excessive number of executive agencies and encouraging government harassment.
12.  Expanding the military to interfere with civilian life.
13.  Restricting free trade and enterprise.
14.  Imposing taxes without consent.
15.  Suspension of jury trials.
16.  Fundamentally changing the way government interacts with the people.
17.  Declaring war on his own citizens.
18.  Exciting domestic insurrections and encouraging border conflicts.

Nope.  Communist ideals are not outlined.

However, it's interesting to note how many of the grievances against King George can correlate to the actions of our recent presidents - especially George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama.

If Great Britain's government and policies toward its American Colonies were oppressive, I ask what kind of government are we living under today?

I submit to you that it is very different from the government conceived and brought forth by the Founders.  As Americans we have the right and the duty to seek to remove this oppression by finding, promoting and electing good people who would not rule for the sake of power, but serve for the sake of liberty.

Next, I'll try to find "a fair shot for everyone; and a fair share from everyone", or something close to that, in the Constitution....

Robin Hood? Criminal...

On October 19th, Peter Nicholas of the Los Angeles Times reported on line that President Obama said the following at a meeting in North Chesterfield, Virginia.  "A fair shot for everybody; a fair share from everybody. That's the principle that built America." http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-ends-bus-tour-20111019,0,1982231.story

Two sentences.

Let me address the first.

Karl Marx is credited with making popular the phrase or idea that it is right to take "from each according to his ability, [and give] to each according to his needs," in his Critique of the Gotha Program.  He made that critique in 1875.

For the President of the United States of America to use a paraphrase of a statement made by someone so diametrically opposed to the American system, way of life and ideal is jarring.  But President Obama delivered the line as if it were the climax of some high school football halftime speech.

The president here is stating his belief that confiscation of personal property and the fruits of one's own labors is not only the "right thing to do", but it is morally good.  The pure immorality of the statement can be illustrated as follows.

You and I are walking down a street in Cleveland, Ohio.  I don't have any cash in my pocket because I don't carry cash as a matter of practice.  You, however, have $25 in cash in your pocket.  You drove us into the city and have to pay for parking ($7) and you need to pick up some toothpaste at WalMart ($3) on the way home.

As we come to an intersection we see a homeless woman digging for food in a trash can.  We watch her find the crust of an old hamburger.  She brushes off some cigarette ashes and takes a bite.  I can't stand her plight and I'm moved by compassion. 

With a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat, I reach into your pocket and take out the $25. I hand the woman a $10 bill and put the rest back into your pocket.  You'll have plenty in your pocket at the end of the evening.  She hurriedly rushes into the nearby diner and buys a nutritious meal.

And you look at me like I'm crazy.

What are you doing? you say.  That's my money!  You just stole it and gave it away!

What? I say.  She's starving.  And what are you complaining about?  Count it; you still have more money than you need!

In truth, the ends cannot justify the means.  Both means and ends must be just.  The virtue of the act of feeding a hungry human being is destroyed by the act of robbery that yielded the means to do it.

If it is wrong for an individual to take another's property and give it to a third party without the consent of the first, then it is wrong for a government to do the same - regardless of good intentions.

Good-bye, Colonel...!

I wonder if the Libyan rebels are worried that their mistreatment of Colonel Gadhafi's body after his martyrdom will offend the Muslim world.

I wonder where the outrage is in the Middle East and where the stunned disbelief, the confused looking faces, are in the American media.

Kabuki theater, anyone?

My "Thinking Spot"...

When I was a boy I spent a lot of time on the Sacramento River delta.  I had some favorite spots I liked to go.  One was a little island in the middle of Sherman Lake.

And one is in the picture above.  Near my home town, at the bridgehead on California Highway 160 there's a fishing pier and next to that pier is this rock.  In the picture it's partly hidden by the bright green grass in the foreground.

I used to sit and watch boats and ships go up and down the river.  And dream.  I used to dream of sailing that river out to the San Francisco Bay, and on to the South Pacific.  I used to dream of what life would bring me - and what I would take from it.

On the first day of fall this year I went to visit my old home town.  I drove out to the bridgehead.  Not much had changed.  There were the same people fishing for dinner.  There was the same brownish green water.  There were the same sea birds hoping for a snack.  There was the same wind blowing up the channel.  There was the same farmland on the north bank.

As I walked toward the water I thought back on the many hours I'd spent sitting alone on that rock.  I thought about the quiet times spent talking with friends on that rock.  I thought about the plans and dreams hatched on that rock.

I thought about how none of our lives had turned out like we'd planned on that rock.  And I wondered if the rock were there anymore; or if, like so many dreams, it too had moved on in ways unexpected.

I'm not sure if I can convey the feelings I had when I saw it.  It was as if I were 15 again, with decades more perspective, yet the same little set of hopes and fears.

Twenty-five years later, the rock is still there.  And the same intense restless hope and uncertain confidence is still there when the sun sinks orange into the evening mist.

Debt is Bad - Because Liberty is Good...

There's been a lot of talk about America's national debt.  Some say we need to increase our levels of borrowing.  Some say we don't need to worry about repaying our debt.  Some say debt is a necessary component to a government's function.  Some say debt is a way to leverage national influence with other governments.

I want to look at some more basic principles in order to understand whether or not debt is bad, and then whether or not increasing debt is good or bad.

In order to frame this discussion I posit the following:
1.  Natural laws, or laws of nature, exist (think: gravity, conservation of mass, harvest, etc.).
2.  Natural laws may not be violated without adverse consequences.
3.  Natural laws apply to individuals and to groups of individuals.
4.  Liberty is the state in which Nature designed man to live; it is one of man's basic rights.
5.  Proper government is that which preserves the liberty of the individual and safeguards the rights of all members of a society.

Personal liberty is one of the fundamental elements of our nation's beginning.  The Declaration of Independence states that man is endowed with that unalienable right by his Creator.  It follows, then, that to infringe upon the liberty of an individual would be to violate Natural law.

Man may infringe upon his own liberty, essentially placing himself in bondage by virtue of his choices.  If one chooses to smoke cigarettes, there is a real chance that he will lose his freedom not to smoke cigarettes because he may develop an addiction to them.  Likewise, a man may sell his freedom to another by borrowing money from him.  Until the debt is repaid, the borrower is not free to use the fruits of his labor as he pleases.  He has traded his right to "quiet enjoyment" of his property for ready access to the money of another.  The term "slave to debt" is illustrative and true.

If a man can lose his sovereignty by his choices, so too may a country.  Close political alliances may lead a nation into wars that are not in its own interests.  Developing infrastructure, bureaucracy and programs that cost more than tax revenues collected will lead to borrowing money from individuals or other nations.  Once in debt, the nation is no longer completely free.

If it is a violation of Natural law to place oneself into bondage, is it not also a violation - and perhaps a more serious violation - of Natural law to place another into bondage?  When a man borrows money he sells his personal liberty.  When a man with a family borrows money he sells not only his own freedom, but the freedom of every member of his family.  And a man may borrow money without the consent of his wife or children.  That he MAY do it does not make it right to do.  When that man dies, his debt descends on his family members.  They become liable to repay it, regardless of the benefit they may or may not have received and despite the fact that they were not involved in deciding to borrow the money.

We could say - and I do say - that such action is immoral.

Now, when a government decides to borrow money, all its subjects become liable to repay the debt.  (This, of course, assumes that all subjects pay taxes.)  It sells not only its sovereignty, but the individual liberty of every subject.  If the debt is too great to repay before the next generation of citizens reaches the age of majority, then that debt is passed on to those who had no say in whether or not to borrow the money.  In effect and in reality the government has then sold the children of its subjects into slavery - a state in which they will work for the benefit of another without the opportunity to "opt out".

This is the basis for my opposition to increasing our national debt ceiling.  We do not have the right to enslave our children. 

It is immoral.

What's Good For The Goose...

President Obama has recently declared that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government must be held responsible for the recently discovered plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

He made this absolute statement while recognizing that those high level officials might not have known the full extent of the plan or the operational details.  His assumption is that, as president of Iran, the buck stops at Ahmedinejad. 

I think he is right.  The president of a country is ultimately responsible for the actions of his appointed officials. 

Will Mr. Obama hold himself to that same standard with regard to "Fast and Furious"?

Signs, Signs. Everywhere There's Signs...

I'm not a person who looks for signs from God.  But I'm not past seeing them when they're put right in front of me.

In 1994 I was in love with Tina Wells.

I'd met her in a bus station in the Canadian capital of Ottawa the year before.  I'd gotten to know her and was to the point that, not only did I want to marry someone like her, I wanted to marry her!

And marriage is a big deal.  I wanted to be as sure as I could that I was not going to make a mistake.  And so I prayed and I pondered.  Then I pondered and prayed.

Then, one day I was driving in Walnut Creek, California.  Tina had been on my mind for a long time and marrying her had been in my heart almost constantly for the previous two days.  I came to the intersection of Ygnacio Valley Road and North Main Street and something happened that had never happened before, and has only happened once since.

I caught the red light there and stopped my car.  I was the first car at the intersection.  I had a clear view of the building on the northwest corner of the intersection.  There was a great little pizza parlor - and I love pizza, and there was a cool mountaineering shop where I'd bought a lot of the gear I owned.  I'd seen each of them many times before, yet I'd never noticed the tiny shop sandwiched between them.

The sign in the window said "Wells Interiors".  I took that for my sign and resolved to do whatever I had to so that I could marry Tina and make her happy for the rest of her life.

That was more than 17 years ago.  And we've had ups, downs, and an absolutely wonderful marriage.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about what makes a wonderful marriage and specifically what makes my marriage wonderful.  It's a thought that has been on my mind, especially as I've worked and traveled so much in the last 2 years.

This fall, my work brought me back to Walnut Creek and I found myself at the intersection, stopped - the first car at that red light - for the second time in my life.

I'd noticed some years ago that my mountaineering shop, pizza parlor, and Wells Interiors had been torn down and replaced with a modern office building.  I was a little sad in a nostalgic way, but I'd never noticed much more about it.  Now, as I sat at the light I looked closely and read the sign that now stands about where my sign had been.

It reads, "Fidelity".

Thank you, Tina....

Left Meets Right?...

When our oldest boy was in 6th grade, he attended a school-sponsored "health education" lecture.  Teachers were asked to leave the classroom and parents were not invited for fear that the presence of an adult other than the male instructor would inhibit the boys from asking burning critical questions.

Long story made short; soon after that, I found myself talking very frankly with the principal and the president of the school board.  I wasn't the only parent, and soon a special meeting was arranged with the contracted "health education" company, some members of the school board responsible for curriculum development, and a group of "concerned parents".

The floor was taken and held primarily by the contractor.  Their representative spoke condescendingly to us.  It was clear that the assumption by the contractor and the school board was that we were a monolithic, homogeneous group of religious whackos.

After a half hour of this, I was getting tired.  Then a woman stood up.  "I'm not religious," she said.  "I'm in favor of my son experimenting with his body.  In our home we talk freely about all kinds of topics, including sex.  And I want to be sure that when my son learns about sex he learns it from me first.  What you did was wrong because you introduced ideas and concepts that were not covered in your published curriculum.  It is my job and my right as a parent to be the first person to teach my child anything.  You deceived us and took away the chance we had to take the initiative."

And she was right.  There was no possible way that any reasonable person could have anticipated a detailed discussion of deviant sex taking place between an adult male and a group of thirty 11- and 12-year old boys in a classroom in rural America.

And I sat back and thought, "Wow!  We've identified the presence of a REAL problem when the opposite ends of a philosophical spectrum agree that there's a problem."

Today I was listening to Norman Goldman, a leftist radio personality and comedian.  He was advocating that the Left reciprocate the voter fraud perpetrated by the Right in 2000 and 2004.  In his mind, the problem with Leftists is that they're too principled to fight back against the Right's criminal tactics.  (Not sure where he comes up with that idea.  Pious virtue and political left are not usually closely associated in the mind.)

One of his tangential rants, though, was against the Tea Party - and I think he's mistaken in his understanding of who Tea Party adherents are.  He said that Tea Partiers support the invasions of privacy and the destruction of individual liberties perpetrated by the Bush regime and perpetuated by the Obama administration since 2001.

I can tell you that is not true.  Mr. Goldman has "Tea Party" confused with "Neo-Con".  Those are the hawkish, pro-State, sheeple who bleat the party line.

When I listen to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh I consistently hear them speak in favor of individual freedom and against the intrusion of the State in the life of the Individual.  (Along with impugning the intelligence of the liberal illuminati and their disciples.)

I think Norman Goldman and Mark Levin agree on the idea that too much government is a bad thing.  And when that sort of agreement - based on principles and ideas - happens between extremes, I think there's substance.  

She Broke My Heart...

I've been working out of town for most of the last 18 months.  Sometimes I get home every weekend; sometimes I'm out for 2 weeks at a time.

We've tried to stay close as a family with Skype and hours on hours of phone calls.  We've done everything from family nights to algebra to bed time prayers like that.

Tonight Afton, our 3-year old daughter, said our prayer before dinner.  Her tiny voice came across the speaker phone set on the table.  There were the thanks for the fun and the food, as usual.  Then, without hesitation or taking a breath, she broke my heart.

"And please bless my dad to come home right now.  Because I really, really need him."

What can you say to that? ...

Enough, Already...!

The roof, the roof,
The roof is on fire!
We don't need no water,
Let the ... burn!

I'm so sick of hearing this idiocy from Congress.

Enough with the threats; let's get it on!

Reid warns shutdown is possible - TheHill.com

My Friend Sam...

The first time I walked up to his apartment I was struck by Sam's hat collection.

In the hallway outside his door was a bench, and over that bench was a mirror surrounded by wooden shaker pegs.  Each peg had a hat hanging on it.

"I collect hats," Sam said in that slurred and watery speech of the aged, hunched over his walker and shuffling to his door.

I'm the maintenance manager where Sam lives.  Sam's been here for about 4 years.  If you could stand Sam up straight he'd probably be about five and a half feet tall.  But time has worn him down and now, almost 90 years old, he's stooped and reaches about to the light switch in his entryway.

There were baseball hats with logos of companies and restaurants - obviously each one meant something to him.  And there, hanging on the peg in the top right corner of the mirror was a monstrous gray leather fur lined winter hat.

As we entered his apartment my workers started washing his windows.  That's why we came to Sam's place that day.  It was his turn to have his windows washed.  And I asked, sort of expecting a story but not anticipating Sam's reply, "Where'd you get that gray fur hat, Sam?"

Sam is hard of hearing, so I almost said it in a friendly shout.

Without turning around, still shuffling toward his office telephone desk, Sam's voice was surprisingly firm, "I took that off a dead German tank officer at the Battle of The Bulge."  A pause.  "It used to have a swastika on it."  Another pause.  "I took it off."  Another pause.  "I can't stand those Nazis."

"Were you with Patton's army?" I asked.

"I was with the 75th Infantry Division.  Patton came up from the south.  I don't know where we came from...."

Sam's answer made more sense later when I researched the 75th's history.  They were an American infantry division hastily thrown together in England in the later years of the war.  They were entirely inexperienced in battle.  Even their commanding general was green.

And as the Allies pushed their way back into Europe via the Normandy beaches, the 75th followed along.  Until Christmas, 1944 they didn't see any combat to mention - and then came the critical rescue mission.  The 101st Airborne Division was trapped.  Surrounded by Germans.

The "cherry" 75th was thrown into the thick of the fight.  From house to house and town to town they fought across Belgium.  The division and its men were quickly blooded.  Their determination was proven and the division earned the nickname "Bulge Busters".

Sam was a small, quick young man that winter and he was assigned to a battalion headquarters as a runner.  When artillery or sappers cut the field telephone wires, messages were scribbled on paper and given to guys like Sam.

There were no maps and no one was familiar with the villages they were fighting for.  So when Sam was given a message to run, he delivered it by trial and error.

One day he found a bicycle in town and thought he could travel much faster riding than walking, running and ducking.  As he rode through the battlefield Sam heard the distinctive whistling scream of an incoming mortar round.  He dove off the bike and into a nearby hole.  Just as Sam hit the dirt, the mortar round hit his bike.  It was a total loss and Sam went back to being a foot courier.

Sam talks about the funny things, like that.  He always says, "That was the funny part of it..."  Then his voice trails off and his eyes get a far away look.  When Sam comes back he asks, "So, how long are you going to be here?"  Or, "Where are you from?"  Or some other safe, neutral thing.

Tonight I sat down at a table for two.  I was eating alone and the maitre-de brought Sam over.  The dining room was full and he looked apologetic when he asked, "You don't mind if Sam eats with you, do you?"

Sam has a reputation for being a messy eater.  His hands and his eyes and his mouth don't work so well together anymore.

"Of course not!  Sam's my buddy," was my reply.

Sam sheepishly said, "Forgive me.  My table manners aren't always what they should be anymore."

"Sam, neither are mine," I answered with a sad smile.

And as we sat, Sam told me the stories I've told you here, and some others.

At one point Sam mentioned that his son frequently comes to visit him.  And sometimes his son helps him to eat.  Sam's hands are so weak that he has trouble stabbing a piece of lettuce with his fork.

The waitress knows Sam and she's cut his steak into bite-sized pieces, but Sam still isn't strong enough to stick them.  When he does get a piece on his fork his hand shakes and his lips quiver as the bite makes its tenuous trip across his lap.  Sometimes the bite makes it and he relishes the flavor and texture.

I offer quietly to help him eat.  He ignores me for a few minutes and then says, "You wouldn't mind, would you?"

And I take his fork.

And I think of the honor it is to be able to serve Sam...

Wanting Doesn't Make It So...

Here's some evidence that shows that merely wanting an idea to be a good one doesn't make it a good one.

That's something for us to remember - in all areas of our life!

Best Intentions; Bad Ideas

Power Corrupts; Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely...

This article addresses the courage a certain Air Force general had, and the tremendous pressure he had to resist.

It also exposes a very human element of our president and his administration.  Transparency?  Integrity?  Independence? 

Not so much...

White House Leverage Used to Favor Cronies

Consequences...

This article from Breitbart illustrates the point I was making earlier.  Exercising personal rights and freedoms under the Constitution comes with consequences.  Sometimes they're good consequences; sometimes they're bad.  Always there are consequences.

The article does address some "adult" activities, but is not gratuitous or graphic.

"Goddess Temple" Religious Activities Illegal

A Nice Retrospective In Media Reporting Bias...

I'm not sore or bitter.  I just thought this was a nice way to juxtapose the "tough, direct" questions asked of Michelle Bachmann by Chris Wallace with the unreported gaffes of Candidate and President Obama.

Kind of funny even if you're a fan of the president.

Why Obama Grows Government and Creates Debt

I thought this was an interesting article from The American Thinker. 

A little myopic in its approach to analyzing the president's motives, but because the president is certainly a multi-faceted man with many divergent and convergent influences to his personal philosophy, this is a useful tool in assessing at least one of the reasons for what some of us see as sheer madness.



Why Obama Grows Government and Creates Debt

Tipping Point? Not Yet...

Follow the link below to an insightful editorial found in the Wall Street Journal.

A Rabbi's Thoughts On Civilization

The Things You Learn When You Just Listen...

Nancy Pelosi's Irrational Rant

See, I've been a conservative since 4th grade.  That's when I became politically aware.  It was the year Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter for the presidency of the United States.  According to Nancy Pelosi, I have never really understood what I stand for.  This was almost a revelation to me!

Watching this, I felt a lot like I have in the past when I've read "literature" that claims to expose the dark side of the Mormon church.

I'm pretty sure I know every nook and cranny of the Mormons' doctrine and practices.  I've been pretty "high up" in the Mormon church.  Suffice it to say that I'm "in the know" on a lot of different things going on "inside" the organization.

So far, no dark side....

Likewise, I'm pretty sure I know the ins and outs of conservative political thought.  I've read Thomas Payne's "Common Sense"; I've read Glenn Beck's "Common Sense"; and I've read Mark Levin's conservative manifesto, "Liberty and Tyranny".

No dark side there, either.

I'm pretty sure I even understand a lot of "Tea Party's" frustrations out there.  I even went to a rally back in 2009.  And I'm confident that conservatives and "Tea Party" like clean air, clean water, safe food, old people and children.  They even like working people and birds.  Many of them at the rally had pets with them.  While I'm not a veterinarian, the animals looked healthy and well-cared for.  There were white people, black people and brown people at the rally (which is remarkable in our county where 98% of the population is "white", 2% are "native American", and the rounding error includes everyone else.

They were not fighting and they were not tearing things up.  They talked about ideas and, from what I heard, I'm pretty sure that their plan for American prosperity does not involve making sure poor people pay bank fees.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that Nancy Pelosi didn't get a single thing right in this little "town hall" meeting statement.

Really, guys, if you're a progressive person, do you REALLY think this is what's driving the conservative movement?  Museum quality art?  Taller masts (giggles in the background)?  Bank fees for poor people?  Taking away air from kids?

Get the story straight: either "Tea Party" is a rich guy swilling brandy on a yacht with Filipino servants and his trophy wife, or "Tea Party" is a redneck xenophobe shooting beer cans off the hood of a Buick while his pregnant-barefoot wife tends the kids and makes him nachos, or "Tea Party" is a frustrated middle-aged middle-manager in a middle-sized company in middle-America.  You can't have it all ways.  And if it IS all ways, maybe "Tea Party" has something there.

Please - and I'm serious in this plea - let's talk about IDEAS and stop throwing bombs at each other.  A jab every now and then is healthy (and even funny), but ridiculous accusations like Mrs. Pelosi makes here are beyond the pale.

A Little Civil Discourse...

I guess they didn't get the Obama memo on toning down rhetoric.

My biggest concern is that, rather than wage or encourage a "war of ideas" these people - congressmen - are really encouraging a war on people.  By branding some amorphous group called "Tea Party" as "racist" and simply lying about "Tea Party's" desire to bring back Jim Crow laws and hang black congressmen from trees, they really are whipping up fear and encouraging hatred of a whole group of people.  So, whenever one of these listeners sees someone they think is "Tea Party" they're supposed to be afraid, then be angry, then do something about it.

Why not simply encourage their constituents to engage in thoughtful discussion with their neighbors?  Why not encourage them to discuss common values and to seek solutions to common problems?  Why not simply ask them to peacefully lead those misguided souls they may think are "Tea Party" to the Truth and the Light of the Progressive Solution?

I've listened to more crazy excerpts from "Tea Party" speeches than I have from progressive speeches, and I've never heard anyone say we need to hang black people from trees or that we need to reinstate Jim Crow laws or that they're happy that black people are perpetually unemployed or any other thing.  I've never heard "Tea Party" say they want poor people to starve or old people to die.  I've never heard "Tea Party" say that liberals should "go to hell".

It's a sick, sick world out there in Progressive Land.  I wish that the people trapped in that place could see the truth of what conservatives are saying.  If they then decide they don't like the ideas, that's fine.  That's what America is about.

We're not about demagoguery, though.