LaVoy Finicum and The Long Slow Death Of Constitutionalism...

"Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  The full text.  Since 1791 those few words, that one sentence, has been the symbol of individual liberty that has been the hallmark of America.

The significance of the text following the last semicolon must be understood in light of history.  This right of petition and redress was guaranteed in the laws of Great Britain and finds its roots in the Magna Carta; but the method King George III provided for hearing grievances from his colonies was cynical at best.  He would grant audience at inconvenient times and in inconvenient places, he would cancel or postpone audiences at the last minute, and he would drag out addressing grievances over months and years.  The 'established channels' for airing and resolving grievances with the government were used to enforce tyranny while lending an air of legitimacy to the process.

For decades, and for reasons I don't fully understand, American farmers and ranchers have been under increasingly unreasonable regulation.  The federal government, in granting statehood to western territories, agreed to an initial period of federal control of public lands which would then, as quickly as practical, be turned over to the sovereign state for management or disposal.

Western states looked at American history east of the Mississippi River and had no reason to doubt that they would be treated equitably as their earlier brothers, where state control of land was the norm and where control had been returned fairly quickly.

For whatever number of reasons this did not happen.  This left local ranchers and farmers to negotiate with a distant and removed federal bureaucracy which became known as the Bureau of Land Management.

Perhaps it began when the 'environmental movement' gained popularity within government planning circles.  The BLM's attention shifted from managing land and administering land use agreements to 'conserving' the land and 'protecting' wildlife.  The relationship between the federal government, represented by the BLM, and American agriculturalists began to deteriorate.  Ranchers who had counted for decades on free access to range land and water for livestock found their access restricted.  Sometimes the restrictions came in the form of arbitrary reduction or revocation of grazing rights; sometimes it came in the form of restricting access to water; but always it was incremental and localized.  A handful of small ranchers affected in a remote area, or a family farmer affected in a state whose economy was not dependent on agriculture made it easy for lawmakers and the public to ignore an increasingly heavy-handed bureaucracy.

But every now and again some small person gets the idea in his head that something is wrong with the way things are.  Thomas Paine was one; Rosa Parks was another; and Dwight Hammond was a third.  When, in the early 1990s, the BLM started to squeeze him and his family ranch in Harney County, Oregon, Dwight objected.  In court case after court case, judges and juries decided in his favor and forced the BLM to back down from their desired course of action - absorbing his privately owned family ranch into the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.  But when a government with unlimited legal and financial resources decides it will destroy one of its citizens or subjects who has only limited resources, the outcome is a foregone conclusion; only the timing is in question.

And bureaucrats have very long attention spans and even longer memories.

So, when Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, committed a tactical error - in order to prevent a lighting-caused fire burning in 2006 on the Refuge from spreading to his land, Steven lit a backfire on his land  without seeking a fire permit.  The backfire was successful; it not only saved his family's land, but it stopped the wildfire from spreading more within the adjacent Refuge.  Steven's actions were reviewed and no charges were filed at the time.   But in 2011, at the urging of the BLM, both Steven and Dwight were charged under a relatively new anti-terrorism statute and convicted. They we're each sentenced to and served  months in prison.

Years passed and in 2015 BLM asked a judge to review the arson conviction and sentencing.  The review judge found that the trial judge had been too lenient in his sentencing, as the statute called for a minimum sentence of 5 years.  He ordered the two, aged 74 and 45, to return to prison to serve more than 4 1/2 years more time.  This despite the fact that the trial judge had determined that more than a few months in prison would have violated the men's rights under the 8th Amendment which protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishment.

This brings us to 4 January 2016, when, as the Hammonds reported to prison, fellow ranchers Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum arrived at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge which surrounds the Hammond Ranch.  Ammon Bundy and his father, Cliven, are ranchers in Nevada and recently had their own difficulties with BLM when the agency ruled that they could not run cattle on their desert ranch leased from BLM because the ranching would pose problems for an endangered species of tortoise - never mind that the cows and tortoises had peacefully coexisted for more than 150 years.

Bundy and Finicum's arrival did not go unnoticed by self-styled 'militia' types who were sympathetic to the idea of an out-of-control bureaucratic government. In short order the Refuge headquarters building and surrounding area was occupied by dozens of armed men and women all bringing their grievances, real or imagined, to the table.

Days turned into weeks and law enforcement officials from agencies as local as the Harney County Sheriff's Office and as shadowy as contract security forces working for agencies they would not name gathered for this waiting game.  And through it all, LaVoy Finicum was a voice of reason.  Firm? Certainly.  Irrational? Definitely not.  Listen to the uncut audio and watch the uncut video of anyone his several interviews and you will see a man who is not deranged, but who is determined.

Finicum and Bundy and their close associates frequently visited the town of Burns, Oregon - about 30 miles away - to eat, shop or meet with people from journalists to law enforcement agents.

But something changed in late January; the tone of both FBI and HCSO became more aggressive.  The Harney County Sheriff, David Ward, began cancelling meetings, making the people he was supposed to hear wait long hours, and rather than being conciliatory or neutral, he became openly hostile.

On 26 January 2016, Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum, accompanied by at least 4 others, left the Malheur Wildlife Refuge for a meetings with the sheriff and other citizens of another county.  They never made the meeting.  They were driving in two vehicles; one was LaVoy's truck and the other was a Jeep belonging to a recent arrival at the Refuge who called himself Mark McConnell. Both vehicles where stopped on the highway leading out of the Refuge.  The Jeep with Ammon Bundy was not allowed to drive on, but LaVoy left the traffic stop and continued to his meeting.  When rounding a blind curve in the road, LaVoy encountered a road block for which he could not stop in time and he drove his truck into a snow bank at the side of the road.

What happened at either the first traffic stop or the road block is unclear.  By some accounts, police were shooting at LaVoy's truck during the first stop, leading him to 'run for his life.' One passenger in the truck says that as soon as they crashed into the snow bank, law enforcement officers began shooting at the truck.  The official story is that upon crashing, LaVoy leapt from his truck and charged at law enforcement officers who had to shoot him.  The video released by the FBI contradicts this.  It shows LaVoy standing outside his truck with his hands in the air, and trying to keep his hands up as he is shot by no fewer than 3 agents.

By any measure, this was a murder.  And it was a murder intended to stop objections to government abuse at the hands of bureaucratic agencies. LaVoy Finicum was a sympathetic, well-spoken, rational and knowledgeable man.  He was a threat to the power structure.

I am convinced that he had no idea how greatly he was feared until the first bullet entered his body.  I am convinced that he believed that he could make people hear reason and that there was an outcome without blood that was possible. Right up to the end.

I don't like the crass and ugly threats from 'militia' types that I see on line.  That type of rhetoric is dangerous and ignorant.  And they represent a very small, by their own estimates 3%, of the population.

What concerns me more is the response I get from my friends in government and in general. A US military officer I know has no sympathy.  He chose to 'live by the sword' and thus chose his fate.  Never mind the fact that LaVoy Finicum hurt no one.

An attorney has no sympathy.  There is a right way to bring grievances before government.  When one goes outside that channel, then killing that person is justified.  Never mind the 8th Amendment or the 1st Amendment.

A liberal environmentalist has no sympathy.  There was important work to be done on the Refuge and he was keeping them from it. When someone undertakes to obstruct government work, then killing them is okay.

A business executive has no sympathy.  The guy was obviously a kook.  Someone being a kook makes it okay to kill them.

The general understanding among these people seems to be that, in order for First Amendment rights to be protected, one must be socially acceptable, not speak or act against government, and use those rights only within established channels as dictated by law and tradition.  This would be the first time I know of where the exercise of speech, assembly and petition were so narrowly applied.

I want to shake them and shout, "ARE YOU OKAY?!?! YOU THINK THESE GUYS HAD A SERIOUS CHANCE AT RESOLUTION THROUGH A SYSTEM THAT HAD BEEN TRYING TO DESTROY THEM FOR 30 YEARS?!?! WHAT GIVES YOU THAT IDEA? AND WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT'S OKAY TO KILL SOMEONE WHO DISAGREES WITH GOVERNMENT ACTION?"  

Mission Accomplished, Ahmed...

In December, 2002, just 15 months after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the New York and New Jersey Metropolitan Transit Authority adopted the slogan developed more than a year before by an advertising agency, "If You See Something, Say Something".

It's been the mantra preached to us by Left and Right alike for more than a decade.  Vigilance!  Watchfulness!  We're all in this fight together!

And then something really weird happened.  Ahmed Mohamed, a young student in Irving, Texas, brought a device to school.  He started showing it to teachers.  One teacher who saw it told him not to show it around because it looked a lot like a bomb.  Another teacher he showed his 'homemade clock' to decided to say something.

The long story made short is that the teacher and everyone who took what on its face looked like a threat seriously were pilloried.  The President of the United States came out on Twitter and said, "Cool clock, Ahmed!"  At the same time he implied that anyone who couldn't see that this was a simple clock was an idiot.  And anyone who 'said something' about a Muslim and an explosive device in the same sentence was a bigoted fear-mongering racist.  The lesson Americans were intended to learn - and indeed many did - was that if you see something involving a Muslim, you'd better just keep it to yourself.

Some of you may recall that I posted something to this effect on Facebook as the Clock Kid debacle unfolded.  Ahmed Mohamed was a pioneer in changing the way Americans are allowed to speak and even think about terror and Islam.

And now, San Bernardino.  Sayed Farooq fights with coworkers about politics and religion.  He tells a Jewish coworker that he will never live to see Jerusalem.  Farooq goes so far as to threaten to kill the Jew.  And nothing is said.  Nothing is done.  Because we can't push the alarm button when a Muslim is involved anymore.  Remember, the President taught us that with the Clock Kid.

And now, San Bernardino.  A neighbor and others working in Sayed Farooq's neighborhood notice suspicious activity at Farooq's house.  Large numbers of Middle Eastern men coming and going at all hours of the day and night.  In the old days we would have thought Farooq was running a drug house, called the cops, and they would have surveilled it until they were able to determine what was going on.  But today nothing is said.  Nothing is done.  Because we can't push the alarm button when a Muslim is involved anymore.  Who wants to be pilloried as a racist and an islamophobe?  Remember, the President taught us that with the Clock Kid.

And so, Sayed Frooq and his wife Tashfeen Malik interrupt Sayed's company Christmas party with two AR-15s and hundreds of bullets.  They leave a sack full of explosive devices in hopes of killing even more as first responders come to retrieve the 14 dead and other wounded.  And they go out in a 'blaze of glory' as police catch up with them and load their SUV with more than 350 rounds of all types of ammunition.

In the meantime, the press and the Obama administration are tripping over themselves for days trying to make sense of the senseless when it is they who are insensible.  Call it what you will, but do NOT call it terrorism.  And NEVER call it Islamic terrorism.  It was a fight at the party that escalated to this.  It was 3 white men (wearing masks).  It was white supremacists.  It was a quiet religious man who snapped.  It was a gun.  It was a legally purchased gun.  It was fear of Muslims.  It was the NRA.  But, please, please, please, don't call this Islamic terrorism on American soil.

And to think that all this could have been prevented.  If someone who had seen something had said something.

Will I Continue To Support the BSA...?

At least once a day I get an email from some organization or another.  About once a month I get a letter from the Republican National Committee.  Every few months I get a letter from the American Red Cross.  Twice a year the ACLU pings me with a 'survey'.  And once a year I am approached by the Boy Scouts of America.

All these groups represent themselves as having urgent needs for funding so that they can either combat some great evil or accomplish some great good.  And all these groups presume to know me.

Their communications seek to pull on some heart string or another, seek to play on some fear or anxiety, seek to exploit some prejudice or preference.  And the goal of that pull or play or exploitation is to persuade me to send them money.  Money that they need to help the world look more like they think I think it should.  Money that they need to help defeat monsters that they think I think should be defeated.  Money that they need to be able to promote causes that they think I think they should.

I delete the daily emails.

I toss out the Red Cross appeals.

I take time to complete a note to the RNC and ACLU.

And in the past I've cracked my wallet to give $50 or so to the BSA.

I'm not cold hearted, and I'm not stingy.  I want to support causes I agree with and organizations that support my set of values.

The daily emails?  I don't know who those people are, and I don't want to invest the time to find out.

The Red Cross?  Their cynical response to Mitt Romney's appeal for donated items in the wake of Hurricane Sandy turned me off.  It showed me who the leadership of the organization are - self important progressives.  I'm not interested in that.

The RNC?  They've never stood for my values.  They fought Ronald Reagan in every campaign he ran.  They continue to stand up despicable human beings like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and others in Congress and across the country.  Nope.  My routine note to them tells them that I will not support them until they show me that they support my values, and step one in that process is getting rid of the scumbags they support in government.

The ACLU?  I could actually get behind these guys if it weren't for their all-in support of the leftist agenda and their inability to send an honestly objective opinion survey to my house.

And the BSA...  'On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.'  That's about 120 years old.  And I feel like the BSA, as an organization, has left that ideal in the proverbial dust as they've raced to keep up with the almighty dollar and the ever-moving target of popular opinion.  For years their executives have been paid too much to promote the values of the Scout Law too little.

And now, their caving to political pressure brought by progressive thinkers who falsely use the name of 1.8% of the American population has pushed beyond the pale of my tolerance.

So, no, I will not support the BSA anymore.  I will send them a note explaining why I am withholding funds, and instead I will donate everything I would have given to the BSA to my local Boy Scout troop in the form of equipment or assistance for boys without means to attend camp and other activities.

And I would encourage everyone to follow the dictates of their own conscience.

Haters Gonna Hate...

This is the kind of hateful and fearmongering thing that is not productive.  In fact, it's evil.



And it really is scary how many people are standing and clapping and shouting in agreement with this lunatic.

Hopefully they're like so many of us who 'get the Spirit' at church and then go home and forget to do anything about it.

Islamist Terrorist (noun, singular) Attacks TWO Military Installations (noun, plural)...

You might as well post a sign that reads, "TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT."

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24-year old Kuwaiti native, killed 4 US Marines before being "enthusiastically engaged" by police in Tennessee.

The 'engagement' resulted in Mr. Abdulazeez's nearly instantaneous death.

Before you jump to conclusions, Ed Reinhold, the FBI's agent in charge of the investigation wants you to know, via CNN, that his team has "not determined whether it was an act of terrorism or wheter it was a criminal act."  Indeed, they are "looking at every possible avenue, whether it was terrorism - whether it was domestic, international - or whether it was a simple criminal act."

Hmmm...

Here are some background facts you should know:
1. Virtually all federal installations, including all military bases and offices, are 'gun-free zones.'
2. The two installations attacked by the same man, Mr. Abdulazeez, today were 7 miles apart and in two different states.
3. The first attack included Mr. Abdulazeez sitting in his car outside a recruiting station and firing some 50-70 shots at the building.  He injured no one.
4. All 7 of Mr. Abdulazeez's victims - 4 were killed and 3 were injured - were working at the second site he attacked.
5. This is not the first Islamist attack on military recruiting offices or recruiting staff.
6. This is not the first Islamist attack on American soil since 11 September 2001.

Big Marathon Bomber

Marine Shooter

Ft. Hood Shooter

Little Marathon Bomber

 

Underwear Bomber

Avenger

Shoe Bomber

Head Chopper

Next Up: Nuclear Iran...

When USA Today, the fluffy progressive rag, comes out with a piece of analysis that really isn't opinion, but leans toward the facts, it's worth noting.

USA Today Article

And when USA Today's story actually tells us something that President Obama insists is not, it's worth reading.

The "deal" with Iran on nuclear programs that the "West" appears to have just made is a bad one.  Bad to the core.  Not only is in unenforceable, but even were the terms to be kept, it gives all up-side and no down-side to the Iranian regime.  We will see an Islamist state in control of a nuclear weapon in short order.

Given that we know Iran's history of supporting terror and aggression around the world, we should not be surprised to see that weapon used - either as leverage to force others into compliance, or as a bomb to disrupt the world.

The only question to be answered is, when that bomb is used, will the then-president have the courage and the resources to respond appropriately?

We will see.

Progressives v. Family...

My gay friends have consistently, stridently and repeatedly argued that their push for what they call 'marriage equality' is not an attack on the traditional family.

This article exposes the lie that they've either been ignorant or party to.

Not An Assault On The Family...?!

How can any sentient being have been, or allow themselves to be deceived by this notion?  All one must do is find the origins of the 'gay marriage' movement.  They don't trace back to homosexuals.  Indeed, in the 1980s around San Francisco, where I grew up the message was loud and clear:  We choose the gay lifestyle because it's the anti-family.  We have no responsibilities, no children, no strings and no rules.

But then something changed in America.  We tilted to the left and became a much more government-focused people.  And then something changed in the 'gay agenda.'  The 'gay agenda' was co-opted by the 'progressive agenda.'  Just like the 'civil rights' movement has been hijacked by progressives, so has the gay movement.

Marx, in his Communist Manifesto cheerfully cries for "abolition of the family!"  His argument goes something  like this:  Since only the bourgeois (middle class) have intact families, and the proletariat (worker) is reduced to seeking fulfillment in broken families and prostitutes, the natural solution is to destroy the bourgeois family.  (Don't speak of building up the family as an institution among workers!)

Now, we have arguably the most Marxist president and administration arguing before the arguably most Progressive Supreme Court that children do not have a natural or fundamental human right to have a mother.  Just as Marx, they posit that, because some children do not have mothers living with them at home, no children should.

(Why not speak the truth:  Having a father and a mother in every home is the ideal.  The simple and sad fact that it is not so for all children does not make the ideal void.)

More In Common Than Not...

MTV asks in its probing new documentary, 'what does it mean to be white in America?'

I reject the 'white privilege' assertion that is so popular among wealthy, young, guilty white American women today, and that is so aggressively crammed into their mush-filled skulls by elementary, high school and college teachers and popular icons who view themselves either as aggrieved victims of rampant hate, or elite and enlightened paragons of righteousness, or some bizarre combination of the two.

(I cannot be alone in seeing the irony of Michelle Obama claiming to be a victim of institutional racism, or Michael Moore railing against capitalism.)

What can be the intent of the questioner?  Only to highlight differences which, truthfully, seem to be a fetish for progressives.

By dividing and subdividing Americans into endlessly small special groups and classes, the progressive statist then gains the maximum effect of the old martial axiom 'divide and conquer.'  When we view ourselves as members of one impossibly outnumbered group or the other, then we naturally look for protection from someone else.

The larger question; the more productive, less divisive, and frankly more honest question, is 'what does it mean to be an American?'

To be an American is to own the traditions and heritage of truth and justice.  To be an American is to honor the liberties that come with personal responsibility.  To be an American is to respect the rights of all people to live as they wish, and to respect and uphold the laws that make civil society possible.  To be an American is to reject hate.  To be an American is to protect the weak.

Why not produce a documentary that illustrates the similarities Americans share regardless of race?  Why not highlight that young Americans are concerned with getting through school, finding and keeping a good job, love and marriage, raising a family, understanding themselves in a theological context, turmoil in the world, economic uncertainty and opportunity, and things like that?  Why not showcase the fact that young Americans value independent thought, freedom of choice, peaceful neighborhoods and good friends?  And why not demonstrate that things like these cross all races, all sexes, all classes, all preferences and orientations?

To be an American is to stand as the last best hope for mankind; between man's enlightened liberty and his benighted oppression at the hand of evil.

Jack Ma, Alibaba CEO: Write Your Own Caption...

But remember, you'll probably be working for him one day...

Self-Inflicted Totalitarianism...

Here is some of what I've been trying to say about leftists and statism in America.

The New Totalitarians Are Here...

Far from being 'liberal', the statist elites and their lapdog press are moving us toward a totalitarian state (of behavior and being) that forbids free thought and expression, that encourages and perpetuates hatred and fear, and one in which you and I antagonize and terrorize each other.

The government won't have to change its laws.  Jack-booted government agents won't have to drag us to reeducation camps.  Because we, goaded on by the press and other self-proclaimed leaders who crowd and shout like 7th Graders, "Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!" will self-police each other.

Even now, we find ourselves without thought adding, "not that there's anything wrong with that," to any statement that might be misunderstood to be a values statement or to be judgmental.  We walk into a gun shop with the same apprehension with which we might have walked into a porn shop 20 years ago.  We conspicuously avoid posting things that might be offensive and instead choose images either deliberately neutral or that might be interpreted as supportive of the mainstream thought of the day.

Think about the environment.  Think about religion.  Think about history.  Think about race relations.  Think about sexual preference.  Think about education.  Think about national debt.  Think about welfare.  Think about national security.  Think about values.  Think about politics.  Think about personal responsibility.  Think about vaccinations.  Think about personal choice.

Think about just about anything that is NOT portrayed in a reality TV series, and you'll find something that has two and only two diametrically opposed sides.

On the one side, we must embrace the enlightened and liberating catechism of leftist tolerance; or we find ourselves on the other side - at once intolerant and intolerable, full of hate that is fueled by fear and ignorance.  We do not love.  We do not care.  We do not understand, as long as we do not accept, embrace, agree....

Gay Marriage: What's Next...?

Whatever it takes to make you happy, you know...

But as the famous saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

This is a swing that I think is bound to conflict with and ultimately violate my right of conscience and the oft-flouted and more frequently misunderstood principle of the separation of church and state in America.

Justice Kennedy's comment after this decision belies his naivete or his willful misrepresentation of the facts.  He tells how he has heard stories from gay people wanting to get married and that they 'reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond...'

But here's how it goes.  We already know that speaking in favor of a heterosexual definition of marriage is hateful.  We already know that hate (as long as it not the acceptable and expected type of hate du jour) is intolerable.  We already know that companies and individuals accused of hate can lose and have lost their livelihoods, including government contracts and tax favored status.

So, what happens to me?  I'm not a hater.  I couldn't care less with whom or what you do this or that.  I just don't want to hear about it.  Straight or queer, keep it to yourself, puh-lease!

But what happens to me?

I attend one of the many churches that adamantly supported California Proposition 8, some years ago.  That was the popular ballot initiative that passed with more than 52% of Californians voting to define and preserve traditional marriage.  While the will of the people in California was overturned by one judge after another, what will happen if my church doesn't change its stance on gay marriage?

I was assured by a gay friend of mine that this initiative in no way was aimed at impacting my right of conscience or other rights protected by the First Amendment, but I'm not so sure.

Migrant LOVE.

See, this is the thing most xenophobes and haters don't understand.  These people cross our borders illegally for LOVE.

Migrant LOVE...

The issue being not that American citizens aren't guilty of heinous crimes, but rather that this one crime could have been prevented by responsible enforcement of existing border and immigration laws.

UPDATE 8 JUL 2015:  The shooter claims to have found the gun on the pier and to have 'accidentally' shot Kathryn Steinle to death.  This still does not change the fact that, had this man been properly deported and prevented from returning to our country, he could not have possibly killed Ms. Steinle...

Stars And Bars; A Relic Of An Unsavory Past...

I've never appreciated the Confederate Battle Flag, the Stars and Bars.  Those who fly it have always seemed to me to be self-identifying with the losing side of a moral war.  Is it the most pressing concern of our time?  Not by a long shot.  But I'll mention it briefly.

I suppose that there are some families - maybe even many - who fought valiantly on the side of the South in the Civil War, and who didn't entirely buy into the foundational racism on which the Confederate States of America was built.  Just as I am sure there are German families who weren't completely bought into the ideals of Nazism, Hutus who didn't support the Rwandan genocide of Tutsis.

And I suppose that there are some individuals - maybe even many - who fly the Stars and Bars in memory of a bygone time when life was sweet, simple and slow.  Perhaps they fly it in defiance of an ever encroaching federal power.  Perhaps they fly it as an affirmation of their value of individual and states' rights.  But the fact remains that it is also, and primarily, a symbol of man's inhumanity to man; of his willingness to enslave his brother and to torment his sister.

It can be argued that, although perhaps not as close to the roots of some, there are other symbols of defiance that lack the racist and oppressive overtones of the Stars and Bars.  There is the Navy Jack, the Gadsden Flag, the Liberty Bell, the Texas state flag, the Texas Independence Flag, the eagle, the lion, the star, or the anarchist's "A".

As such, I don't much care if someone flies the Confederate Battle Flag, wears it, or makes art of it.  And I don't have a problem with Governor Haley taking it off the South Carolina capitol grounds.

If one is going to keep or display it, he just needs to be sure of the context in which he presents it, and the feelings it may evoke in others.

That's not censorship.  That's just being neighborly.  

The Leftist's Ego-Centered Universe...

While professing concern and solidarity with the 'common man,' leftists really see the world only in terms of self.  How must the world see me?  What do I think about this or that?  What do I see when I look at the world?

Mrs. Obama recently visited a school in Great Britain.  In the course of her remarks she told the girls she was addressing that when she looked at them she saw herself....  Similarly, when President Obama spoke of Trayvon Martin he did not identify him as someone else's loved one.  Instead he asserted that Mr. Martin could have been his own son.  A part of himself.

What does that mean?  When I look at you, I don't see you as an individual worthy of respect by virtue of your being.  When I look at you, I don't see independent wills and minds.  When I look at you, I don't see sovereign souls.  Rather, when I look at you, I see creatures in my own image.  When I look at you, I see what I imagine I am.  Indeed, I am your creator and you exist because I will it.  

Look at the leftist social engineers who believe that people will behave because they are told to behave.  Farmers will farm because they are told to farm.  Steel workers will make steel because they are told to make steel.  Soldiers will fight because they are told to fight.  And all will care for all because they are told to care.  Like cattle, like productive assets, like automatons people are expected to obey the social engineers; their masters.  And the hubris does not stop there.

Central planners in the old Soviet Union dictated when to plant and when to harvest independent of the weather, believing that commanding it would make it so.  They dictated how much coal to mine and how much steel to produce independent of the capacity of men or machines, believing that commanding it would make it so.  The result was famine and industrial disaster.  And the social engineers never took responsibility, never acknowledged the flaws in their reasoning.  Rather, they blamed 'wreckers' and 'spies' for problems.  

Today, President Obama believes that because he wishes Iran not to have a nuclear weapon they will not have one; because he wishes government assistance to lead to prosperity poor people will become wealthy by using food stamps; because he wishes illegal immigrants to be productive members of society they will be.  His belief denies the free will of mankind and the laws of nature.  Further, it ignores millenia of historical documentation of human nature.

Further, President Obama speaks in the first person and is so completely self-referential in his rhetoric that it becomes difficult to imagine that he did not cast the winning vote for the Affordable Care Act, did not help every illegal immigrant graduate from college, and did not physically pull the trigger killing Osama Bin Laden.  

Because the leftist is without God, he must self-identify as the supreme being in the universe.  While physiologically similar to other hominids scraping and groveling in the common biosphere, the leftist is, by some accident of evolution, intellectually superior and has a duty - it is unclear from whence this duty devolves, as morality and moral imperative are murky concepts - to coordinate and manage the affairs, the relationships, the existence of all lower life forms, all the while he must ensure that his own comfort is not compromised, but rather enhanced.

Because the leftist is the center of his own universe.

Why Wage War On A Way Of Life...?

Plentiful and inexpensive food and energy are two of the factors that separate our country from Europe and the rest of the world.  Alexis de Toqueville marveled at the bounty enjoyed by even the poorest in America when compared with the starving huddled masses of Europe in the 1800s who slaved for monarchs and aristocrats.  The same is true today.  A "poor" American is far better off than so many living in other parts of the world.

So,  the Bureau of Land Management is working - and ready to kill human beings - in order to move cows that have grazed for 100 or more years off of 600,000 acres of range land in Nevada. 

More than 200 law enforcement officers, armed with handguns, shotguns, assault rifles and sniper rifles have established a perimeter and are keeping a Nevada rancher and his family from entering their land.  Meanwhile they are rounding up his cattle and moving them.

Why?

To make way for a desert tortoise.  That has coexisted with these cows.  For more than 100 years. 

In the meantime, the price of beef in the US has gone up 19% this past year.

Combine that with ever-increasing EPA, USDA, FDA and DOE regulations and it is easy to understand why government inflation figures omit the cost increases in fuel and food.

The Left must STOP WAGING WAR ON THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!

Thug-ocracy...

Yesterday, US Attorney General Eric Holder was being questioned by Representative Louie Gohmert in a House hearing about the DOJ's lack of response to requests by Congress to provide documents related to terrorism funding.

Mr. Gohmert suggests that Mr. Holder's lack of response shows his contempt for Congress' oversight authority.  To which, Mr. Holder replies in a threatening tone, "Oh, you don't want to go there, Buddy.  You don't want to go there."

That's a schoolyard bully's threat.  That's a street thug's threat. 

That's a very real threat, too, given the amount of data that has been collected by the executive branch of this government in the past 13 years, given the existence of secret courts, given the practice of indefinite detention.  This administration could put together a story just plausible enough for the MSNBC crowd to swallow and destroy virtually any person they wanted to. 

I don't recognize my country...

30 years ago - hell, 5 years ago - any political appointee like the attorney general who pulled a stunt like that would have been forced to resign.  The media would be playing that sound bite over and over; parsing it; analyzing it; reading meaning into it that may or may not have been there.  Americans would have been whipped into a frenzy over the threat of thuggery made by the most powerful law enforcement agent in the country.

Today?  A collective yawn...



 

Terrorism: It's Not Always A Bomb...

"The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a disturbing history of political imprisonment in the Soviet Union from the October Revolution to the 1970s.  Solzhenitsyn was himself a prisoner of the system for many years and his account of the deprivations, depravations, and despotism political dissidents suffered in prison under the Stalin and later regimes is sickening.

As disturbing is the willingness of the Soviet people to simultaneously accept and deny the existence of the agencies, courts and prisons that tortured and killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens in the name of the Revolution.  In the name of national security.

I'm not saying here that FEMA is building concentration camps, etc.  I'll leave that to the Alex Jones types.

What I want to discuss is the idea of terrorism and torture.  Some have called the Obama Administration, the Holder Department of Justice and the Lerner Internal Revenue Service "terrorist" organizations.  The statists, the progressives and much of the left and right in the country have scoffed at that.  I'm not convinced that the description is entirely without merit.

In the Gulag, prisoners were frequently left alone all night long.  No glaring lights, no jailor's key in the lock, no interrogation, no torture.  But from down the prison hall the screams of other prisoners being tortured and interrogated could be heard incessantly.  The prisoner knew all the while that the next time someone came for him, it could mean torture and pain; and when all that came was a bowl of thin soup instead, the psychological effect was profound.  But inevitably the interrogators did come for him; and the pain was just as severe as it had been for that unknown individual nights before.  And because of the psychological preparation he'd received the effects of the torture were even more severe.

Prisoners sentenced to death were treated similarly.  Sometimes they were held in cells so long, and treated with such friendliness that they began to believe that their day of execution would never come.  Sometimes they were kept in a constant state of terror by being dragged out of their cell - sometimes several times a night - bound, gagged, made to face a firing squad with rifles raised, only at the last minute to be snatched up and thrown back into their cell.  A momentary reprieve that was in truth no reprieve at all.  Just think of the frustration and pain you've felt sitting on the tarmac waiting for your plane to take off, and then pulling back into the gate for some maintenance item...

When government applies or enforces laws inconsistently and inequitably, this is what they are doing to the entire population. And yet there are so many of us who say, "Oh, yes, but it is for the greater good."  "Oh, yes, but we all must sacrifice."  "Oh, yes, but they know better than we."  "Oh, yes, but it is a complicated issue."  "Oh, yes, but I haven't been hurt."  "Oh, yes, but it has been good for me."

Anxiety.  Uncertainty.  Frustration.  Terror.

How many immigrants - legal or otherwise - live in constant uncertainty of their future?  They came here under one set of laws that were predictable in their unenforced state.  Now there is constant commotion and perpetual change.  Comprehensive immigration reform?  They are anxious and uncertain.

How many people accepted employment with one of the considerations being the healthcare benefits their employer offered?  Now, with the on-again, off-again implementation of the Affordable Care Act they cannot know what to expect.  Patient protection?  They are frustrated and anxious.

How many entrepreneurs put all of their human and financial capital into their dreams?  Now they don't know what will be required of them by the State and if they will be able to meet those requirements or be required to close up shop.  The land of opportunity?  They are uncertain and frustrated.

How many of us, depending on the guarantee of freedom of conscience, speech and privacy have spoken our minds?  Now, with the IRS free to audit and harass on the basis of politics, the DOJ free to hunt and entrap dissidents as extremist elements, and the NSA recording every bit of data for use in some future trial we can know exactly what to expect unless we can reduce the power and reach of government to some reasonable level.  The land of the free?

We are terrorized.

Hugging The 3rd Rail...

I know by writing this that I am touching the proverbial "third rail," and I still feel the need to bring clarity to the issue.  I would begin with the assertion that one person's personal beliefs and values are as valid as another's.  I would also ask you to embrace the notion that if you have a right to express your views, I do as well.  Let me list my assumptions:  1) There is a God who loves us; 2) there are absolutes - absolute right and absolute wrong; and, 3) the words "sin" and "sinner" are not aspersions, but simply describe all of us in our fallen state.

I do not pretend to know the mind of God.  I cannot answer "why" for Him.  I am confident, however, that at the end of this life He will be more than willing to sit with each of us for a LONG time and answer any questions we have for Him.  And I know that He will answer many of our questions before we die if we will ask Him sincerely and with a real will to know, understand and do.  Nothing I write here is done in a spirit of hate or fear or condemnation.  I hope that you will feel my love, my sincerity, and my concern in what I say.

For years I have struggled to pinpoint the reason I feel so strongly in defense of what we have come to call "traditional marriage."  A recent conversation in which I was unable to express my thoughts adequately prompted me to ponder deeply and to seek my "why."  I know and love and enjoy the company of many homosexual people - out and closeted, practicing and celibate, decided and confused.  And it troubles me that they find themselves in an awkward (to say the least) place in society.    So...

Here goes.

I have found by personal experience that when I do what I know is wrong - when I sin - I find myself separated from God and the influence of His Spirit.  I find myself alone, without His guidance and without His blessing.

If I should refuse to repent - change, come back - and instead to embrace sin and make it a part of the fabric of who I am, then I would so alienate myself from God's Goodness that I would be vulnerable to a very real physical and spiritual destruction.

Let's look at gluttony.  Overeating once can make me feel sick.  A lifestyle of gluttonous living will lead me to obesity, chronic illness, pain and an early death.

Now let's look at "gay marriage." 

While I am aware of and have listened to the ideas of sophists and apologists, still I am not convinced that the act of gay sex does not go against God's will for our behavior.  (If and when God were to tell me differently, then I would be willing to change my views.)

I do not believe that it's a sin to "be gay."  I believe it is a cross to be borne much like any other that is common to mortality.  I do believe that homosexual acts are sinful and that they hurt the sinner.  Why does God allow each of His children to go through this world with crosses on us?  I don't know for sure.  I do believe that He loves each one of us, though.  And when we humble ourselves in His sight enough to understand our own state of weakness and vulnerability, then lay that burden at the feet of Jesus, God gives us strength in Him.

Similarly, as a society, we will sometimes make mistakes that hurt people and that result in a need for societal repentance.  Slavery is one glaring example that comes to mind. As a result, we collectively disqualify ourselves for the blessings of God until society repents and applies the gift and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And, as a society, when we embrace "sin" in the form of gambling, prostitution, infidelity and homosexual behavior, then we weave it into the fabric of who we are as a people.  And we collectively turn our backs on God and willfully disqualify ourselves from His blessings.

While gay people should be allowed to love whom they will, at the same time, we should not make homosexual behavior part of our national fabric.  The United States of America needs God's blessings, guidance and protection now, perhaps more than she ever has. 

Killed For Her Cross...

Please follow the link below to an article about a horrific crime.

I want to emphasize that this is not a purely religious thing, either.  Any ideology from Islamism to Environmentalism can be used in the extreme to justify mob violence or terrorism like this.  But when a society or government turns a "blind eye" to it, or by its silence tacitly endorses the behavior, things get out of control quickly.

This kind of thing can happen when extreme ideologies control governments or society.  It's not just Muslims.  Communists did it during the Cultural Revolution in China.  White supremacists did it during "Jim Crow" in the US.  The difference I see is that, in the US, the people decided that this was unacceptable and changed the law.  In China and in many Islamic countries public dissent is against the law.

Really?  I think this is what we will get if we keep talking in slogans instead of ideas.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/egyptian-islamists-murder-young-christian-after-dragging-her-car

MH370 - An Example Of What Not To Do...

I copied this from NBCNews.com on 31 March 2014.  Sorry I couldn't find a clean link.  Read the last 2 sentences and ask yourself why the multiple stories coming from the Benghazi investigation, the IRS investigation, and the BATFE/DOJ Fast and Furious investigations haven't made this much news...

Officials Release New Last Words for Missing Malaysia Flight

   

Officials have revised the account of the last words that came from the cockpit of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 — the latest about-face in the ever-shifting investigation into the jet's disappearance.

The Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation said Monday that the last communication with the air traffic controller was "Good night, Malaysian three seven zero."     

Weeks earlier, officials reported the last words were: "Alright, good night."

The cause of the discrepancy was unclear.

Authorities also said they are still conducting a forensic investigation to determine who was talking — even though the airline's chief executive said two weeks ago that it appeared the co-pilot was the speaker.

Since the flight vanished March 8 en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpu with 239 people on board, the investigation into what happened has been beset by false leads and conflicting information.

“This investigation is an example of what not to do,” James Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board told NBC News last week. “Everything they do, they change.”

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!