My articles emerge depending on what ever tickles my fancy; hope you enjoy the ride. It started several years ago when one of my op-ed pieces to the Houston Chronicle got butchered; been blogging ever since.
I got this picture in my email, not sure which Baptist church had it out on their front lawn; but they got one right. What ever you do, don’t pray about the Book of Mormon; that’s how they get you!
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
Just don’t ask God if the Book of Mormon is true, that would be a huge mistake.
“… if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.”
This reminded me of that song about the streaker, “Don’t look Ethel; too late…, she’d already been mooned”. Don’t let me catch you reading the Book of Mormon or praying about it unless you’re ready for the fullness of the Gospel.
Illegal immigration is a hot topic even though it’s been simmering on the back burner for years. Every time the public tells congress to fix the illegal border crossingproblem the answer comes back in double speak. “It’s a very important issue and we’re dealing with it.” In English that means, “We want the border secured about as much as we want the public to hear what we actually think of them”.
“On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the southern border in Arizona is as safe as it ever has been.”
‘“I know that border I think as well as anyone, and I will tell you it is as secure now as it has ever been,” Napolitano said.”
Napolitano would have issued water polo equipment to passengers on the Titanic, “Won’t this be fun, everyone into the water now”. One thing Napolitano said is true, “that border is as secure as it has ever been”; in other words, “Come on over, free health care, no income taxes on cash paying jobs and free public schools with bilingual teachers”.
Members of congress are busy trying to enact a mass voter’s registration bill; sorry, that should have read amnesty for illegal immigrant’s bill. The last thing they want to hear about is some citizen getting murdered in Arizona by Mexican drug dealers crossing the border any time they want. Congress doesn’t care what the public has to say. In fact, they are quite certain they know much better what is good for us, having ignored our demands to build a fence all these years and enforce existing immigration laws.
The folks in Arizona got tired of waiting and passed their own border security and enforcement law. It must not be all that important a piece of legislation because it took all of a five minutes to read the entire bill; not like those 2000 page monstrosities that come out of Washington, bills which nobody bothers to even read prior to voting on them.
Speaking of Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement bill, what’s the big deal about letting local law enforcement officers do their job of protecting citizens from criminals? I don’t get it; why would folks in San Francisco have their panties in a bindover citizens in Arizona wanting to keep Mexican criminals from robbing and murdering them? Maybe too many bisexual illegal aliens are being deported; who knows?
I always thought we called them “illegal aliens” because it was, well, against the law. The next thing you’re gonna’ tell me congress and the president are supposed to follow the constitution. “Gwaaannnnn!”, as Eliza Doolittle from My Fair Lady would say,
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
A couple of weeks ago I went in for my annual eye exam, the one I do every six years or whenever my old prescription glasses are of little or no use which ever comes first. It had gotten to the point where reading was no longer fun and it had nothing to do with politics.
Coupon in hand I took advantage of a two for one sale; the first pair have all purpose Varilux ™ no line lenses in titanium frames similar in many ways to the glasses I’d been using except the new ones have my current prescription. The second pair have bifocal lenses; the top half for working at the computer and the lower half strictly for reading.
It took a month longer to get the bifocal lenses; but since the Varilux ™ glasses arrived and I could see, there was no real rush. All the same I was looking forward to reading some books that had been put on hold; no fun reading if you have to set it down after only a few pages. Hey, maybe that’s why folks in congress no longer read pieces of legislation prior to voting; they need new glasses, or not.
My bifocals came in and are as advertised, perfect for computer work, reading the newspaper, magazines and books. First on the list to catch up on, Dan Brown’s, The Lost Symbol, which belongs to my daughter. She’d left it on my coffee table several months ago; about the time I figured out my old glasses no longer permitted reading books. ( If you have not read the book as yet; skip the link where far too much information regarding the plot is offered. )
The Lost Symbol reminded me of another fantastic journey, the search for ultimate truths; Carl Sagan’s, Contact. For all their posturing, the appearance of being intellectually superior while remaining distant from religion, as if those who rely on faith are somehow inferior; both books remind the reader that ultimate truths comes from the same source, God.
I remember folks from church telling me to avoid reading Carl Sagan’s book because he was an Atheist; his books, according to them, were nothing more than anti-Christian propaganda and might damage my testimony. What I found was a set of well thought out arguments, as if the writer had these thoughts diametrically opposed in his mind, using each individual character to articulate the various notions, all the while searching for answers to the most spacious questions a human can ask; no different than any of us looking for the truth of all things.
The knowledge of all mankind has been written in various texts; math, literature, science, history and scripture by wise and learned men. The mysteries of creation are available to those willing to sort through their recorded words, as if they were speaking to us from the dust.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, what does this one say? Jocelyne wanted to read a story to her buddies, to include her new friend, Head Buttr’ Hobo Kitty. I’m sure they will all want tea and biscuits later on as this was a formal brunch.
Two blogs in a row I’ve used the word Orwellian; not a good sign folks. Maybe we as a society should take a time out; American was never supposed to end up like this.
The battle over the use of Red Light Camerascontinues here in the City of Houston as reported by Bradley Olsen of the Houston Chronicle. I’ve been tossing in my 2 cents worth since 2004; started my blog as a result of a botched op-ed piece printed in the Chronicle. My opinion hasn’t swayed the folks in power and each year more cameras are installed to help raise revenue; I mean, help make the world safer through Orwellian intervention.
In an article posted October 20, 2009I continued to explain how revenue, not safety, was the driving force behind Red Light Cameras.
In case you aren’t familiar with the issue, tickets issued by a traffic enforcement camera are handled as civil rather than criminal cases. Municipalities which employ such systems willingly admit that tickets issued by cameras could not stand up to the requirements of a criminal court; but such high standards don’t apply to civil matters, really? I’m no lawyer; all the same, when I hear lame excuses like that I make sure to wipe the brown residue from off my shoes.
“The downside is becoming a tool of the city for their incredible revenue grab,“ Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack said. “It’s come to look like it’s more of a revenue situation than trying to change people’s behavior.”
Running a red light is a serious traffic violation and deserves to be addressed; but addressed through the proper channels; with a police officer being the primary witness and, if possible, mechanical verification to back up the testimony of the police officer. It has been proposed that a police officer, by virtue of the fact that all images of a violation are reviewed by a certified law enforcement officer, that a police officer actually witnessed each and every violation; can you say, “BS”?
“County Judge Ed Emmett questioned why the county was being asked to block registration only of those with unpaid red-light camera citations, and not those who failed to pay tickets issued by police.”
“George Hammerlein, director of inter-governmental affairs with the tax office, said the data from red-light camera citations is easier to use than criminal court data, which can be difficult to determine whether a conviction is final.”
If you’re paying attention, that last line should be the focus of discussion. The City of Houston, as do many major metropolitan areas, see Red Light Camera tickets as if they were final convictions, convictions which do not require any witness to testify against the accused; for that matter, no trial.
Oh, so that’s it; when a camera snaps your picture there is a presumption of guilt, just as if a trial had already taken place, a judgment of guilty rendered and a fine mandated. Now I get it; civil trials take place the moment your vehicle clears the intersection, somewhere in the mechanism of the camera. I always wanted to know the difference between civil and criminal courts; now I know.
HPD Assistant Chief Vicki King is correct, running red lights is dangerous and should be dealt with; but I’d have to remind Assistant Chief King, side stepping the justice system in favor of more efficient methods to increase revenue taints the entire system. Use our existing judicial system, one which permits the accused to defend his/herself and face any and all witnesses, a system which requires the rule of law, a process which demands accountability for a fair and equitable outcome in front of a judge or jury.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
I saw on the news were GM paid off their $8.1 Billion debtto the US government; or did they? I thought the taxpayers here in the good old USA were on the hook for much more, say around $52 Billion. Then I heard the money used to pay back the $8.1 Billion debt didn’t come from GM profits; but from TARP funds. Excuse me; TARP funds?
“General Motors Co. has repaid the $8.1 billion in loans it got from the U.S. and Canadian governments, a move its CEO says is a sign automaker is on the road to recovery.”
There was a huge press conference at the Fairfax GM plant; not sure if there were any teleprompters to assist in this smoke and mirror show. What about the $45.3 Billion that GM still owes? Now I know, the American public still owns 61 percent of GM. But where did the $8.1 Billion come from, the huge car payment if you will?
I found that answer as well; it’s all one huge lie, not one huge car payment. The money which GM supposedly paid back to the US taxpayers came from TARP money which was in a ‘different’ account. That means there’s good chance a teleprompter WAS used at the announcement over in Fairfax; likely had it shipped overnight from the Oval Office.
“Sen. Chuck Grassley’s charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout -- also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.
‘“The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were ‘repaid’ with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials,” he wrote.”
I bought my first car from my dad, a special deal that I thought only a dad could put together. I couldn’t tell you how much we agreed upon at the beginning; but dad kept an account book showing each payment made. Here’s the sweetheart deal he gave me; for every $8 dollars paid I got credit for $10. At least I took the $8 out of my own pocket and handed it to dad.
GM thinks it can take money out of the taxpayer’s left back pocket and put it into the taxpayer’s right back pocket to satisfy their debt; now that really is a sweetheart deal. You and I, my friends, are having the wool pulled over our eyes, or is that a TARP?
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
In honor of Earth Day, Michael Kazanivsky and his family are donating a parcel of land to the city of Auburn, New York so it can be transformed into an $11 million, 88 room hotel. My mistake, the city of Auburn is forcing Michael Kazanivsky and his family to either sell their landto the private venture putting up the 88 room hotel or have it taken under eminent domain, all for the good of the community.
“But it is Auburn’s current land dispute that has caused so much controversy here, as Mayor Quill and other officials contend the benefits of the hotel project simply outweigh the concerns of the property owners. “We have a responsibility to the entire community,” Mayor Quill explains, saying “we do not want to hurt an individual property owner or business owner, but we have to look at the long range for the entire community.”
Listen up, Mayor Quill, the good of the people are not served by ignoring property rights of any one individual; not for any supposed improvement elsewhere. I should get the folks at the Supreme Court a copy of that line after their botched job on the Kelo decision.
“The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.” (Ezra Taft Benson – The Proper Role of Government 1968)
Benson went on:
“In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
“Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?”’ (The Law, p.6)
“Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three – defending themselves, their property and their liberty – in what properly was called the “Lawless West.” In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attach (k?) and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves – nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:
“If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -–its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.”’ (The Law, p. 6)
Let that sink in for a moment and give your eyes a visual break.
“So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer “A” has no just claim to it.”
If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:”
Big climax in the next paragraph; drum roll and sit up straight, please…
“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93) emphasis added
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are the foundations of our established nation, a reason to separate from Europe at the cost of personal fortunes and the lives of many patriots. Good people of Auburn, Mayor Quill and those learned folks on the Supreme Court, how is it these principles, principles which were used in founding this great nation; how is it they can be so easily set aside? What gives you or anyone else an implied authority to violate these principles?
“A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government;and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.” (Thomas Paine 1737-1809)
I almost forgot, happy Earth Day. Here’s a novel idea, instead of parading around for a socialist a cause which will destroy property rights through environmental mandates enforced by the EPA; let’s stand up for individual property rights, starting with the good people of Auburn, New York.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
The writings of Ray Bradbury came to mind as I looked over Cap & Trade legislation requirements, requirements which look more like dark science fiction than something you’d expect in America. Bradbury foresaw a bleak future, a society forced to live in fireproof dwellings that took the place of antiquated homes structured from wood in his book, Fahrenheit 451.
The state made it difficult for those wanting to remain in older homes, condemning such structures and forcing them into newer dwellings; either that or hauling them off to re-education facilities to get their minds right. You’d have to be a misfit to continue endangering your fellow citizens; can’t have that, now can we?
The EPA has worked out a way to force environmentalism on the American public through some interesting legislation, H.R. 2454, also known as Cap & Trade. Other than this bill being a huge wealth redistribution tool, it contains language which should run shivers up your spine.
I read an informative article by Frank M. Carriowritten last November expressing concerns about the wording of Cap & Trade legislation, wording which would require all residential houses to be licensed by the EPA, much as your car is registered each year.
“Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.”
Before going further I’d like to contemplate the Declaration of Independence, that part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Cap & Trade legislation effectively attacks two out of three concepts, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The EPA believes it has the power to deny home owners their God given right regarding the use and distribution of property along with their individual liberty which would then be controlled by a collective, a bureaucracy’s whims. Congress created the EPA to make the world a better place, a utopia where the air and water was pure, a time before humans corrupted Mother Earth.
In their haste to create a utopian society, instead the EPA, with the help of Cap & Trade legislation, will assure just the opposite, the dystopian world as foretold by Ray Bradbury. Government doesn’t trust individuals to do what government can do for them, or to them; a far cry from that America envisioned by our founders.
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” John Adams, 1787.
According to the information supplied by Carrio, section 204 of Cap & Trade is the point where government grabs you by the throat and begins to strangle you to the point where you take your wallet out and throw it to the ground hoping to distract the attacker long enough for you to find a shadow to hide in.
“Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”’
“This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.”
It gets better in section 304.
“Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.”
Do you see where this is going? Think of the EPA as the federal government’s version of a one size fits all home owner’s association; that should curl your hair.
I thought dealing with my local home owner’s association was difficult when I tried to paint my house a few years ago, a simple renewal of the paint scheme I’d had for years. Apparently there wasn’t a specific list of mandated “earth tones” to match up against the tan and brown colors I’d been using previously. Permission to continue was denied until the board could decide, arbitrarily, if my paint choice fell into their idea of ‘acceptable’; all the while threatening legal action if I didn’t comply with their order to paint my house.
Cap & Trade legislation has many more surprises, many of which fly in the face of constitutional limits placed on government, a government intended to be a servant of the people, not a master over them. You can count on plenty of anger, expressed resentment, rage and disgust from citizens who hold life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness dear. Such dissent does not constitute sedition, in spite of attempts by the Obama administration to paint folks who hold conservative values as dangerous. Instead, clamoring at the top of our lungs to halt such insanity falls under ‘petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances’ as protected by the 1st Amendment.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
Government intrusion is growing at an accelerated rate and why wouldn’t it? There are no brakes on the locomotive which once responded to the people; all the safeties have been removed. The FDA actually believes it has the authority to regulate the consumption of salt and, for the first time, will put “legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods”, according to a Reuters story in the Washington Post.
“The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.”
If you understand how Democrats, with a lop sided balance of power in both Congress and Senate, ‘work with’ the Republicans, knowing there is a rubber stamp waiting in the White House, it shouldn’t be hard to figure out how the FDA will ‘work with’ the food industry, “Shut up and do what you’re told”. You can bet this will eventually be tied to health care reform and the need to cut back once medical care services have to be rationed.
This is no different than the EPA declaration that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant in order to gain control over industry, production and consumption. Cap & Trade legislation or not, the EPA will have its way now that the stars have aligned favorably.
Maybe Obama has fallen for his own press coverage. I heard rumors Obama planned to visit the next Tea Party at the Mall there in Washington with a basket containing five loaves of bread and only two fish. Once everyone had eaten he’d collect the fragments which remained. Of course you’d better not want salt on your fish…
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
“Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.”
Western music from infidels like Elvis may take out Beirut from the other side of the veil. We don’t need military might, just another quarter in the juke box please…
“Well, I said shake baby, shake I said shake, baby shake now I said shake it baby, shake it I said shake it baby, shake We ain’t fakin’, a-whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on”
My goodness they must have some wild women in Iran; no wonder they strap explosives to their bodies hoping to obtain 72 virgins in the after life. That won’t work either; the women Sedighi referred to don’t fit the “virgin” category, sorry guys you blew up that shopping mall full of innocent victims for nothing.
Who was it said the island of Guam was going to capsizeinto the sea because there were too many people on it? Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga), now I remember; Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
“Addressing Adm. Robert Willard, who commands the Navy’s Pacific Fleet, Johnson made a tippy motion with his hands and said sternly, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”’
The human race is destroying the planet and we should be ashamed we ever left our caves, swung down from trees or crawled out of the slime. Modern prophets like Barry McGuire have warned us, “over and over again, my friend, Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction”. I rest my case.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
I did a locksmith job at a Ford Dealership Saturday morning. One of their customers had a 1998 Mustang hauled in on a wrecker after losing their only key, believing the dealership could simply look up the key code and punch out a replacement. The key code was not on file because the vehicle was too old.
Ford Motor Company dumps what they consider to be out dated codes after several years as if this information took up valuable space on today’s computers. Maybe they still use floppy discs and can’t wait for somebody to invent the hard drive. I shouldn’t complain; I make a living restoring lost keys and Ford has lots of cars and trucks out there, some much older than 1998.
“Nobody will ever ask for key code information that old, not now, not ever...”, as Ed McMann would have said. Johnny Carson giving his boyish grin would reply, “Wrong oh sage of Metamucil”, his eyebrows floating momentarily for the camera. This ancient Tonight Show monologue is wasted on a generation wondering, “Johnny who”? Carson…, the guy after Jack Parr but before Jay Leno; give it a moment, “Jack who”?
The service department called me to fit a set of keys and program them, one of those “I live for this” locksmith calls. The car was parked in the back waiting area, taking up two parking places since the wrecker driver couldn’t turn the steering wheel. I went to work.
A few minutes later I had the mechanical key figured out and was ready to hook up the programming computer except there was no power; likely I was going to need my set of jumper cables. I popped the hood and got my laugh for the day, looking at the shade tree fixit job, a sorry excuse for doing it right.
One of the battery terminals had bounced off the post, it having been held in place with a pair of channel lock pliers. Channel lock pliers don’t really lock; they require a steady application of hand pressure, unlike Vice Grip pliers which really do lock. So, our shade tree mechanic took a piece of stiff wire and twisted it around the channel locks, which had been clamped around the battery terminal connection to hold it all together; didn’t really work very well, now did it?
In short, rather than replace a worn out battery terminal, something that costs a couple of dollars and would have solved the problem permanently; our hero decided to think outside the box. Maybe he got the idea from watching Junkyard Wars or a similar show, a marvel in engineering skills.
I turned in the programmed keys, got my purchase order and explained how they would enjoy looking under the hood the first time they tried to start it. One of the mechanics standing nearby shook his head and breathed out slowly; must have been the way I was laughing or perhaps he’d already seen this particular vehicle; and me without my camera.
Didn’t you know; climate change caused that volcano in Iceland to erupt; right after the glacier on top of it melted from the heat from all those SUV’s? I’m not making this up folks; this was the teaser headline, Melting Glaciers May Awaken Volcanoes, followed by, “The thaw of Iceland's ice caps, caused by climate change, may trigger more eruptions.”
We have Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent for Reuters to thank for reporting the latest “crisis”. It’s the end of the world and mankind is to blame; now go and repent by saying five times, “Al Gore was right, Al Gore was right…”
‘“Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades,” said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.”
“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems,” he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.”’
One last time in case you missed the message:
“He (Sigmundsson) said that melting ice seemed the main way in which climate change, blamed mainly on use of fossil fuels, could have knock-on effects on geology. The U.N. climate panel says that global warming will cause more floods, droughts and rising seas.”
Doyle must have taken several sips from the never ending pitcher of Kool-Aid supplied by The Church of Man Made Global Warming. He must also want us to believe ice cubes left on top of the stove melt, causing the front burner to light and boil water for tea.
“Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising.” Al Gore, High Priest of The Church of Man Made Global Warming wrote his dire predictions according to an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Al Gore said it, I believe it, end of discussion! Get me another glass of the Kool-Aid, mine is running low.
I suppose if you only listen to or read the opinions, certainly not scientific data being supplied by The Church of Man Made Global Warming, it would be natural to believe their hoax. If, however, a reasonably intelligent person were to investigate, find out what scientists who are actually conducting research have documented, the results are somewhat different.
Robert Felix posted an article not too long ago, Our glaciers are growing, not melting, in which accredited scientist refuted the talking points of the IPCC’s fraudulent and intentionally misleading report to the U.N.
“Greenland’s ice-cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, said a team of scientists in October 2005. The 3,000-meter (9,842-feet) thick ice-cap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about 7 meters. But satellite measurements show that more snow is falling and thickening the ice-cap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.”
“The overall ice thickness changes are approximately plus 5 cm (1.9 inches) per year or 54 cm (21.26 inches) over 11 years, according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway. Not overwhelming growth, certainly, but a far cry from the catastrophic melting that we’ve been lead to believe.”
In other news, Chicken Little claimed, “The sky is falling!” Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent for Reuters, will be on the next bus to Norman, Oklahoma to interview and document this late breaking development.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
“In a 66-page opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said the holiday violates the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment, which creates a separation of church and state.”
Of late I’ve been going over a talk given by former Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, The Proper Role of Government . The same thought keeps making its way to the surface, that there is a concerted effort to remove the link between American citizens and their Creator.
In that talk, one which should be required reading by anyone who considers his/her citizenship this nation of worth, Benson reminded us of the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”
Benson continued:
“Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
There are other areas which Benson expressed insight; but none more eloquently as his distinction on the separation of church and state, the topic of the day, one which U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb fails to comprehend.
“I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations – a throwback to the Feudal System of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis added)
It should come as no surprise, “The opinion comes in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group of self-described “atheists” and “agnostics.”’
Here is the wording of the 1st Amendment as found in the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an 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.
Only a wicked and perverse generation, to include the Supreme Court, could interpret such a sentiment as reason to preclude gratitude to that God who provided this nation its founding documents through men specifically raised up for that purpose. The eternal Creator having set aside this land for a worthy cause protected our efforts during the war of independence and has blessed each successive generation.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb would rather not include “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” because the separation of church and state referred to had to do with establishing a specific denomination such as had been done on the other side of the pond with The Church of England. At no time will history show that our founding fathers were derelict in their recognition or their gratitude for all the many blessings from God.
A vicious circle has been brought into play here in America, the idea that our nation’s founding documents mistakenly assigned credit for our inalienable rights to God. There are many among us who would alter history, have us forget our grand heritage; may we always hold dear, “in God we trust” as we offer our prayer of thanks.
I was reading my weekly updates from the Associated Locksmiths of America which arrive via email and found an article originally in Forbes by Dean Zerbe, IRS Audits Small Biz More, Big Guys Less . My accountant told me our tax return should be ready some time after 7pm. We’ll drive over, sign on the dotted lines and drop it off at the post office over by the airport like we do every year.
My dad’s been filling out his tax returns for years, doing the math in his head and getting it right; no doubt that gene skipped a generation. I would no sooner file my business tax return without the aid of a certified accountant than I’d represent myself in court without having proper legal council.
“…a new report from Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) highlights a disconcerting fact. Over the last five years, the Internal Revenue Service has increased the hours it spends auditing small businesses, with less than $10 million in assets, by 30%, while reducing the time it spends auditing large corporations with $250 million or more in assets by 33%. During the same period, audit hours devoted to mid-size corporations ($10 million to $250 million in assets) grew by 13%.”
That’s interesting to me, being one of the smallest fish in the ocean of businesses to come under the never ending tentacles of government scrutiny. I have to jump through hoops and balance the beam in order to keep my State of Texas business license valid and the last thing I need is to worry about being audited or having to keep up with federal tax code changes; that’s why I pay an accountant.
“In the world of ironies, it is certainly eyebrow-raising that the IRS--an agency that wakes up seeking to get more information on you--is extremely reluctant to comply with the Freedom Of Information Act and provide TRAC the statistics underlying this report. It is my understanding from the good folks at TRAC that it took hundreds of FOIA requests and administrative appeals, not to mention two filings with the courts, to get the IRS to cough up this data.”
This is the transparent government promised and yet to be delivered; not much different than Nancy Pelosi telling us that Health Care legislation had to be passed before we could find out what was in it. I’m wondering, not having had a chance to sign this year’s tax return, next to the signature line, will it have “Comrade”; sure feels like an iron fist chokin’ me.
You’ll have to forgive me; I’m an old timer, was there a memo from On High changing the rules? The entertainment industry has been pushing the idea of sex without limits for a long time, thumbing their nose at biblical admonitions regarding sexual relations, also found in The Family: A Proclamation to the World , “God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
There’s an article by Elizabeth Cohen, CNN senior medical correspondent explaining the downside of ‘friends with benefits’, coded language for sex outside that of a lawfully wedded husband and wife. For some reason an old Beatles tune came to mind.
Why don’t we do it in the road No one will be watching us Why don’t we do it in the road?
“Experts in sexually transmitted diseases say they’ve become increasingly concerned about the trend toward having what they call “sexual involvement in nonromantic contexts” -- the technical term for hookups or “friends with benefits” -- because they’re especially likely to spread sexually transmitted diseases.”
At one time a conservative notion was to be promoted in pubic schools, the idea that Abstinence was the best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies among school age children. That idea was laughed at, too parochial; better to teach children about condoms, abortions and adoption which would all be available without having to notify parents.
“I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God.” Ezra Taft Benson – The Proper Role of Government
We have seen the results of God having been removed from the public schools. Instead of Christian/Judeo values our children are left to the blowing winds, for lack of a term to describe what passes for moral conduct being taught. It’s part of the agenda of the left to destroy the family unit, the most important binding force which supports America’s foundations. What better way to erode the family than to teach sexual concepts which are contrary to traditional family values?
“It seems more acceptable now to have nonromantic sexual encounters,” said Giordano, who’s studied the sex lives of 1,300 teens and young adults in Lucas County, Ohio. “When there’s no romance, there’s no basis for demanding fidelity from the other person.”
If you’re not paying attention that last line might have passed without comment, as if having a romantic bonding equates with marriage; remember marriage, the legal binding of a husband and wife? Is it any wonder young people might be confused as to right and wrong; basic morality has been removed and replaced with Hollywood’s false twin, ‘friends with benefits’.
Why don’t we do it in the road No one will be watching us Why don’t we do it in the road?
“She (Giordano) says it’s not just the number of partners at one time; it’s that people’s behavior seems to be different when they’re having “friendly” sex in contrast to romantic sex.”
Now, take a good look at that last sentence and find some of the problems facing our youth if this is the attitude being taught in our schools of higher learning. In my school days, watching the English teacher break down a sentence wasn’t any fun; nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives and structure looked like an Algebra equation on the black board, another subject that gave me fits.
Well, here’s how Peggy Giordano, a professor of sociology at Bowling Green State University finished that sentence, “friendly” sex in contrast to romantic sex.” Is that an adjective to the original noun ‘sex’ or an adverb to ‘having’ sex? I did mention how I didn’t do so well in English; never even took sex education so it’s no wonder I’m confused.
Why don’t we do it in the road No one will be watching us Why don’t we do it in the road?
Carnal urges outside the bonds of marriage have existed in every generation; but I don’t think there’s been a time when the influence of media has had so great an influence as in our day. The rules have never changed, not from Adam and Eve’s time right up until today, “God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
There’s a CNN political polltoday expressing some interesting numbers regarding nuclear weapons; folks who are not familiar with the notion; once Pandora’s Box has been opened, it’s too late.
“Fifty-eight percent of women favor the elimination of all nuclear weapons, but most men don't share that view,” says Holland. “People under 50 also call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, but people over 50 - who are more likely to remember the Cold War - think that the U.S. and a few other countries should retain their nuclear arms.”
“In 1988, the same question produced a 56 percent to 41 percent margin in favor of eliminating all nuclear weapons. According to that poll, only a quarter of Americans think it is possible to get rid of nuclear weapons worldwide. That is also a change from the late 1980s, when more than a third of all Americans said that it was possible to eliminate all nuclear weapons.”
I’d have to blame these results on poor reasoning skills. Those over 50 who are calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons are showing signs of memory loss (CRS) while those under 50 are living in fantasy land with no understanding of how ruthless the world’s bad guys can be if not deterred by a force too terrible to mess with.
A brief history lesson would yield insight on the development of nuclear weapons; my apology for the use of the word “yield”, a Freudian slip no doubt. The generations involved in WWII were in a deadly struggle, all interested in total dominance. Germany was close to the magic solution just prior to their having been taken out of the equation; unconditional surrender to Allied forces. American scientists, under the coordinated supervision of the military, unlocked the secrets necessary to unleash the power of the atom. Shortly thereafter Japan was subjected to the atomic bomb and also surrendered unconditionally. Nuclear weaponry had shown its effectiveness and “could never be put back into the bottle”.
As a minor point of interest, my father would have been part of the invasion fleet, a full frontal attack on Japan, had the atomic bomb not destroyed their will to continue the war effort. I’ve considered the human loss associated with dropping such a horrendous weapon on anyone while at the same time calculating the staggering losses to Allied forces had such an invasion taken place. I’m grateful my father and countless others never had to learn how dedicated the Japanese were to securing their homeland from conventional military tactics.
Following the end of WWII the Cold War took over; a steady race to see which nation could manufacture the most destructive nuclear arsenal, Russia (USSR) or America (USA). The collapse of the USSR led many to believe that the threat of nuclear attack was all but ended; however, the secrets of nuclear military technology had long since been shared or stolen. Third world nations with less than stable leaders now have nuclear capabilities with long range delivery systems. To believe otherwise is lunacy; to establish treaties in the name of such lunacy when you are the president of the United States of America is incredibly short sighted, to the point of being criminally negligent.
Next week there will be another poll to find out how many folks want gunpowder eliminated, making it impossible for gun owners to shoot their evil weapons. No doubt there will be similar percentages showing a united desire to rid the world of danger. Anyone not in favor of getting rid of gunpowder must be radical right wing hate mongers intent on killing or maiming innocent children. Names will be taken of anyone not in favor of destroying all gunpowder stores worldwide.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
“In my view at least, Justice Roberts has tried to move the court very far to the right, much further than we ever envisioned,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told ABC's “This Week.”
Sen. Schumer was standing next to a talented telepath at the time. Wishing to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, the following was obtained from Schumer’s subconscious thoughts. “Justice Roberts is old fashioned; he wants the constitution to remain in tact. We have to do something about that if we’re to take control.”
The Fox News article also had a line from Sen. Leahy, a shot gun approach to dealing with folks he doesn’t agree with.
“Because of some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, they’re beginning to lose credibility with American people,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”’
Doing my best to emulate the telepath I was able to figure out one of the decisions Leahy was upset about. It had to be the Heller v District of Columbia which validated an individual’s God given right to own and bear arms. If you’re part of radical change, turning a Republican form of government into a totalitarian regime you wouldn’t want the oppressed to have weapons capable of taking back their government.
Leahy might have meant the Kelo decision which, for all practical purposes, did away with property rights; the Supreme Court did lose credibility with the American people on that one. Maybe he was referring to the decision that let the EPA take over every aspect of the environment, making the EPA sole arbiter of what constitute hazardous emissions; CO2 topping the list. Is this what the American people see as a loss of credibility in the Supreme Court?
“I happen to like Hillary Clinton, I think she’s done a good job for the Democrats -- Secretary of State’s position,” Hatch said, “and I have high respect for her, and think a great deal of her.”’
I can see a transcript of one of her decisions now, “I don’t recall”, “I don’t have my notes with me”, “I’ll have to go look that up”, “I don’t remember”, “That was so long ago I don’t have the facts in front of me…” Yea, Hillary on the Supreme Court; what’s Orin Hatch been drinking?
Getting back to the Fox News article:
“And even as Democratic senators say they want someone who can match Roberts, at least in his ability to sway other justices, the short-list nominee most suited for that post may be the least painful vote for Republicans.
The New York Times reports that D.C. Appellate Court Judge Merrick Garland is “well-known in Washington’s legal-political community, where some view him as a kind of Democratic version of Chief Justice John Roberts.”’
The Democratic Party has changed much over the past forty years; they might be better going under their true colors, The Progressive Socialist Party. What kind of polar opposite, a “Democratic version” of Justice Roberts, are they looking for.
Nancy Pelosi told the American public to wait until Health Care legislation was signed into law and then they’d find out what was in it; is that the “Democratic version” Americans want picking somebody to safeguard the constitution and rule of law? If I owned a used car lot Nancy Pelosi would be the perfect salesperson, “Just sign on the dotted line, never mind the details; trust me, you can afford this monstrosity.”
Harry Reid made a statement that income taxes were completely voluntary; did it with a straight face I might add. What’s today’s date; April 13th, only two more days for me to jump out of my seat and voluntarily fork over huge sums of money to fund projects which nobody reads prior to signing. Did Harry understand the part about folks who don’t volunteer going to prison; that’s voluntary service for the state I suppose.
That’s the leadership of the Democratic Party; almost forgot the Anointed One sitting in the White House, Barry Hussein Obama. This past week Obama made it a point to disarm America, explain that we have nothing to fear from Islamic extremists and we should be happy the recession is over; clarity of thought every step of the way. I trust Obama to pick a replacement for the vacancy in the Supreme Court as far as I could throw him.
Obama’s agenda is to get out from under the restrictions of the constitution, not to ensure its proper interpretation. Anyone Obama picks automatically sends up a red flag as to their worthiness. Call me an Originalaist; but I’d rather the Republicans filibuster the next three years than put another Obama appointee in a position to destroy what’s left of our constitution.
This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.
