The question of the day at News Radio 740am was, “Do you agree with the Supreme Court – is gun ownership a fundamental right?” The replies came back 52.26 % said “Yes”, 7.14 % said “No” while 40.59% went with “You’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands”.
In the play My Fair Lady, Eliza confronted Freddie as he wooed her, “Words, words, words; I’m so sick of words. I get words all day long; first from him now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?”
Words and their meanings are important; fundamental or natural rights are generic while God given rights acknowledge specifically His having authored them. If anything, I’m consistent in my appreciation for God given rights, having written on this previously , quoting scripture for those unfamiliar with the concept.
“…For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?” (2 Nep 27:27)
I make the distinction for an important reason; as Ezra Taft Benson remarked, “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.” Benson went on to say:
“Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship.”
There are many among us who lack a testimony of the Gospel and the information which links America inseparably with our Creator. Having a knowledge and understanding of “rights” elevates the importance of those rights. Unfortunately, there are many in positions of great power and influence who not only disagree with the source of our inalienable rights, they would strip individuals of those rights in favor of unbridled government control.
“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?” Thomas Jefferson, (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)
Prior to becoming President, then Senator Obama, speaking on rights and the constitution indicated his disdain for limitations placed on government, limitations which our founders considered imperative to safeguard individual rights.
“And to the extent as radical I think as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. The Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
The dangers of permitting government to have unbridled power, to usurp individual rights at will and with impunity relegates the citizenry into serfdom or slavery; again, the terminology might vary, the results are historically brutal. Have we not seen enough of this in the Obama administration to make the hair on our backs stand up? Look at his power czars and those he places in top positions; do they share a love for our constitutional form of government or have they shown a propensity to Change in favor of something different, something Utopian that will please all equally?
Elena Kagan has been nominated to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, and it would appear all the traffic lights have been lined up green in her favor; the rubber stamp Senate having sufficient votes to validate Lucretia Borgia for a similar position were Obama to put her name up. What do we know about Kagan? She’s never been a sitting judge; her slate didn’t have to be cleaned, there’s hardly a record of her existence, or is there?
Kagan publicly argued to limit 1st Amendment rights of corporations in the printing of political pamphlets, powers strictly denied to government by the First Amendment. If Kagan would deny 1st Amendment rights to a group sheltered as a corporation what’s to stop her from acting against a single individual? She apparently doesn’t understand the straightforward language, that part which reads:
“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.”
What part of “no” does Kagan not understand? Where does Kagan find that our government has the right to deny or abridge freedom of speech to anyone or any group of people, to include corporate entities from expressing their opinions? This is troubling when you consider how long Kagan might sit as a Supreme Court Justice and to determine the role of government in each of our lives.
Obama is doing his level best to stack the courts with folks who agree with his revisionist attitude, those who will actively legislate from the bench to correct negative rights in favor of broader government entitlements in spite of declaring their intent to enforce the rule of law. The Washington Times ran an editorial, Kagan’s threat to gun owners , which spotlights a bias against an individual’s right to own firearms under the Second Amendment.
“Ms. Kagan is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s soul sister when it comes to gun control. Last year, during her confirmation hearings, Ms. Sotomayor insisted the Supreme Court had never found that an individual right to self-defense exists. Two of Justice Sotomayor’s own appeals court decisions came to the same conclusion. One ruling denied there is an individual right to self-defense. In another case, even after the Supreme Court struck down the District’s gun ban, Judge Sotomayor opined that any restrictions on self-defense would pass constitutional muster so long as politicians who passed it said they had a good reason.”
This past Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled by a narrow margin of 5/4 validating the 2nd Amendment right of an individual to own firearms extended to all fifty states. Mark Sherman’s AP article recorded dissenting views centered on the premise that gun rights were intended for the purposes of those within the structured organization of a militia; but were not intended for individuals. In essence, the dissenting opinion is based on the notion that individual citizens are not trustworthy, certainly not enough to let them have guns; talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
“Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”’
Kagan voiced a similar opinion which mirrored that of Justice Stevens upon hearing the Supreme Court decision on Tuesday as was widely distributed on the air ways; interestingly, since her confirmation hearings had already begun. Our God given right to own and bear arms passed this week; but only by one vote.
Do we want the Supreme Court seat filled by anyone who doesn’t embrace the constitution as the law of the land? Can America afford to seat yet another activist judge, one who admires international law over our own constitution? This is about preserving our God given rights and is too important to leave in the hands of progressives, socialists or anyone else who doesn’t appreciate the proper role of government . Wake up America, our constitution hangs by a thread!
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”.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Hobo Kitty Arm Chair
Lucy and I’ve both observed how the Hobo Kitties like resting next to the water hose with one paw extended over, the hose neatly secured. The camera was in the other room the other day when three of them were relaxing in this fashion; but when I returned to snap a picture they spooked and ran for cover under my truck.
This morning one of the brown fur balls was cuddled up to the hose sound asleep and we were able to catch it with the camera. Maybe this is similar to having a Teddy Bear, holding a physically secure object lets them relax; Hobo Kitty Psychology 101, page 23 says, “Hug a water hose for twenty minutes to relieve stress”.
The time is quickly approaching when we will have all these fur balls captured; shots and “fixed”. If you know anyone who wants a fur ball, or two, we have matched sets; brown, black and orange. Let us know as they are now weaned and ready for adoption. The offer applies equally for the three Mama Hobo Kitties; Silver Bubba, Head Buttr’ and her twin Shadow are not much older than their own kittens. Does UPS ship overnight?
We had the Missionaries over for dinner the other night and Lucy prepared some broiled chicken which came marinated in medallion sized portions. I mentioned that we had plenty of Hobo Kitties; so if they were hungry, not to worry. The look on the Elder’s face was priceless; almost lost his appetite before he took his first bite.
This morning one of the brown fur balls was cuddled up to the hose sound asleep and we were able to catch it with the camera. Maybe this is similar to having a Teddy Bear, holding a physically secure object lets them relax; Hobo Kitty Psychology 101, page 23 says, “Hug a water hose for twenty minutes to relieve stress”.
We had the Missionaries over for dinner the other night and Lucy prepared some broiled chicken which came marinated in medallion sized portions. I mentioned that we had plenty of Hobo Kitties; so if they were hungry, not to worry. The look on the Elder’s face was priceless; almost lost his appetite before he took his first bite.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Ishmael or Isaac
Some of you may have gotten an interesting email recently explaining how the U.S. Postal Service recently issued a stamp honoring Islam. There was a picture of the stamp along with a request to boycott it and notify all your friends to boycott the stamp.
I looked up the stamp on Snopes.com history on the Islamic Stamp to see if there were any listings to back up the validity of the email; amazing what you can find with a few clicks on the internet. Yes, there is a stamp commemorating two Islamic holidays; but it’s not the one pictured in the email going around. The genuine “EID” stamp has been around since 2001 as a $ 0.34 cent stamp; but had recently been upgraded to first class rate.
According to the Postal Service:
“The Eid stamp commemorates the two most important festivals — or eids — in the Islamic calendar: Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha. On these days, Muslims wish each other “Eid Mubarak”, the phrase featured in Islamic calligraphy on the stamp translates literally as “blessed festival”, and can be paraphrased as “May your religious holiday be blessed.” This phrase can be applied to both Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.”
Well I’m glad they cleared that up, being dyslexic and misplacing the letters I thought we were celebrating the placement of Improved Explosives Devices. Islamic terrorists like to leave IED’s on the side of the road for unsuspecting troops. Instead of shouting “Eid Al-Adha”, these folks shout, “Allah Akbar” as American body bags are filled.
Maybe if we get some conservatives elected we’ll see yet another new stamp, the “EIB” first class stamp celebrating the “Excellence In Broadcasting” golden microphone used by Rush Limbaugh. Can’t you just see some leftist having to lick that stamp as he/she writes a letter to the FCC demanding the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated; that would be fun to watch.
I read through the history and found something else of interest, Eid Al-Adha commemorates the willingness of the Prophet Abraham to sacrifice his son Ishmael in response to God’s command; notice the difference? Christian scriptures record that Abraham sacrificed Isaac, not Ishmael; so what’s the big deal?
Ishmael was the son of Abraham’s concubine/servant Hagar, an Egyptian. Ishmael is recorded as a “son of the flesh” while Isaac was born of Sarah, Abraham’s legitimate wife. Isaac carried the Jewish lineage as “the son of promise” or “heir of promise” as Abraham’s “only son” and is referenced as a similitude of things to come regarding the Lamb of God when Abraham offered him up to be sacrificed.
Why is the distinction worth mentioning; is it all that important who was taken up into the mountain to be sacrificed, Ishmael of Isaac? The answer has to be a resounding, yes! Isaac, “the son of promise”, represented the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, a worthy sacrifice. Ishmael, “son of flesh” on the other hand represented the carnal man, unworthy to portray such a demanding role.
The Koran has several vague references to Jesus as a great prophet; but relegates Him to a lesser role than that of Savior, Messiah or Only Begotten of the Father. Islam’s Mohammed made sure to downplay the Judeo-Christian scriptures in order to make it appear he was equal to or even more important than Jesus Christ. Sorry folks; Mohammed doesn’t hold a candle to God’s only begotten Son.
“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Our Declaration of Independence makes reference to Jesus Christ, the Word, calling Him the Creator. I don’t see much point in belaboring the issue as to whether we call Him God, Our Savior, Councilor, the Prince of Peace or Jesus Christ; this nation was of His design and creation.
“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.”
Our society has been built upon a strong foundation, one which inseparably connects us with our biblical history, a history which foretold the sacrifice of our Savior through the telling of Abraham’s “son of promise”, Isaac. If we should ever set this important link aside we then forfeit the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights; opting instead to accept something much less. I refuse to accept the alternative, that rights are granted to men through government; for if that’s true then we must also accept that government can take away the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I really don’t like the EID Islamic stamp, something about it makes my skin crawl; don’t think I’d ever buy one, not even on a dare. I like the Liberty Bell postage stamp, the one they call the “forever” stamp because its value keeps pace with inflation. Our Independence Day is just around the corner, let’s celebrate American exceptionalism (my dictionary claims there’s no such word) and our inalienable rights as granted by our Creator.
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 Eid stamp commemorates the two most important festivals — or eids — in the Islamic calendar: Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha. On these days, Muslims wish each other “Eid Mubarak”, the phrase featured in Islamic calligraphy on the stamp translates literally as “blessed festival”, and can be paraphrased as “May your religious holiday be blessed.” This phrase can be applied to both Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.”
Well I’m glad they cleared that up, being dyslexic and misplacing the letters I thought we were celebrating the placement of Improved Explosives Devices. Islamic terrorists like to leave IED’s on the side of the road for unsuspecting troops. Instead of shouting “Eid Al-Adha”, these folks shout, “Allah Akbar” as American body bags are filled.
Maybe if we get some conservatives elected we’ll see yet another new stamp, the “EIB” first class stamp celebrating the “Excellence In Broadcasting” golden microphone used by Rush Limbaugh. Can’t you just see some leftist having to lick that stamp as he/she writes a letter to the FCC demanding the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated; that would be fun to watch.
I read through the history and found something else of interest, Eid Al-Adha commemorates the willingness of the Prophet Abraham to sacrifice his son Ishmael in response to God’s command; notice the difference? Christian scriptures record that Abraham sacrificed Isaac, not Ishmael; so what’s the big deal?
Ishmael was the son of Abraham’s concubine/servant Hagar, an Egyptian. Ishmael is recorded as a “son of the flesh” while Isaac was born of Sarah, Abraham’s legitimate wife. Isaac carried the Jewish lineage as “the son of promise” or “heir of promise” as Abraham’s “only son” and is referenced as a similitude of things to come regarding the Lamb of God when Abraham offered him up to be sacrificed.
Why is the distinction worth mentioning; is it all that important who was taken up into the mountain to be sacrificed, Ishmael of Isaac? The answer has to be a resounding, yes! Isaac, “the son of promise”, represented the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, a worthy sacrifice. Ishmael, “son of flesh” on the other hand represented the carnal man, unworthy to portray such a demanding role.
The Koran has several vague references to Jesus as a great prophet; but relegates Him to a lesser role than that of Savior, Messiah or Only Begotten of the Father. Islam’s Mohammed made sure to downplay the Judeo-Christian scriptures in order to make it appear he was equal to or even more important than Jesus Christ. Sorry folks; Mohammed doesn’t hold a candle to God’s only begotten Son.
“IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Our Declaration of Independence makes reference to Jesus Christ, the Word, calling Him the Creator. I don’t see much point in belaboring the issue as to whether we call Him God, Our Savior, Councilor, the Prince of Peace or Jesus Christ; this nation was of His design and creation.
“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.”
Our society has been built upon a strong foundation, one which inseparably connects us with our biblical history, a history which foretold the sacrifice of our Savior through the telling of Abraham’s “son of promise”, Isaac. If we should ever set this important link aside we then forfeit the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights; opting instead to accept something much less. I refuse to accept the alternative, that rights are granted to men through government; for if that’s true then we must also accept that government can take away the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I really don’t like the EID Islamic stamp, something about it makes my skin crawl; don’t think I’d ever buy one, not even on a dare. I like the Liberty Bell postage stamp, the one they call the “forever” stamp because its value keeps pace with inflation. Our Independence Day is just around the corner, let’s celebrate American exceptionalism (my dictionary claims there’s no such word) and our inalienable rights as granted by our Creator.
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”.
Obama’s Panel is Biased
The Deepwater Horizon drilling disaster in the Gulf has been headlining the news for nearly two months. You might recall an advisory report submitted by oil industry specialists a couple of weeks ago, a report which was altered after it had been signed by the experts . Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put a moratorium on off shore drilling for at least six months contrary to advice offered by oil industry specialists who recommended just the opposite.
There’s a new twist in the opportunity to take advantage of this “crisis” according to a story by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Washington Bureau, published in the Houston Chronicle. The latest attempt to pull the wool over our eyes will make it clear that drilling for oil is harmful; all the experts for this new panel were hand picked environmentalists , tops in their field.
The final draft of their investigation and report was being placed in a binder prior to the panel being assembled; at least that’s my own opinion. Why bother going through the motions of an investigation; panel membership qualification started with showing their Sierra Club card.
“Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., charged the Obama administration with keeping oil and gas drilling experts off its seven-member commission in favor of people who philosophically oppose offshore exploration.”
“And Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said there was a huge conflict of interest in putting environmental advocates on a panel responsible for investigating the spill and recommending new safety mandates for offshore drilling.”
A conflict of interest; you don’t say? This sounds more and more like “Climategate” everyday; data being “peer reviewed”, as long as those peers had signed onto global warming’s agenda. There’s an advantage to stacking the deck, Obama and Salazar won’t have to alter the report after this one’s signed. You can bet the final result will be a death sentence for drilling oil and our economy.
In other news; it’s been reported the Obama administration has begun an in depth investigation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ claims that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Several theologians, tops in their field, allegedly are being assembled to form an exploratory panel at this time. Complaints from local ministers abound regarding young men on bicycles spreading the “Fullness of the Gospel” in predominantly Southern Baptist communities causing unrest and even membership loss.
An unreliable source from inside Obama’s administration, the same source who promised to authenticate Obama’s live birth certificate, leaked rumors of the investigation, code named “Golden Plate”. The investigation was to be completed by July 24th to coincide with Pioneer Day.
These religious scholars have been asked to debunk the “Joseph Smith Vision and associated cult”. While confidential at this time, the panel has members of many denominations; Baptist, Methodist, Catholic and Presbyterian. “Can you believe those Mormons have the nerve to call themselves Christians”, one minister was overheard as he exited the closed door meeting.
Not one member of the LDS Church (Mormons) had been invited to sit on the panel; but why complicate things? The one sided panel is similar to there being no oil and gas experts involved in the investigation of the Deepwater Horizon accident; but this is only a rumor.
“Salazar likened the group to the commissions that have investigated other disasters, including the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle and the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.”
“The panel members are elder statesmen and stateswomen, Salazar said, adding that he was confident the commission would be thorough and even-handed. When studying areas where it doesn’t have expertise, he said, the panel will interview professionals who do.”
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”.
There’s a new twist in the opportunity to take advantage of this “crisis” according to a story by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Washington Bureau, published in the Houston Chronicle. The latest attempt to pull the wool over our eyes will make it clear that drilling for oil is harmful; all the experts for this new panel were hand picked environmentalists , tops in their field.
The final draft of their investigation and report was being placed in a binder prior to the panel being assembled; at least that’s my own opinion. Why bother going through the motions of an investigation; panel membership qualification started with showing their Sierra Club card.
“Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., charged the Obama administration with keeping oil and gas drilling experts off its seven-member commission in favor of people who philosophically oppose offshore exploration.”
“And Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, said there was a huge conflict of interest in putting environmental advocates on a panel responsible for investigating the spill and recommending new safety mandates for offshore drilling.”
A conflict of interest; you don’t say? This sounds more and more like “Climategate” everyday; data being “peer reviewed”, as long as those peers had signed onto global warming’s agenda. There’s an advantage to stacking the deck, Obama and Salazar won’t have to alter the report after this one’s signed. You can bet the final result will be a death sentence for drilling oil and our economy.
In other news; it’s been reported the Obama administration has begun an in depth investigation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ claims that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Several theologians, tops in their field, allegedly are being assembled to form an exploratory panel at this time. Complaints from local ministers abound regarding young men on bicycles spreading the “Fullness of the Gospel” in predominantly Southern Baptist communities causing unrest and even membership loss.
An unreliable source from inside Obama’s administration, the same source who promised to authenticate Obama’s live birth certificate, leaked rumors of the investigation, code named “Golden Plate”. The investigation was to be completed by July 24th to coincide with Pioneer Day.
These religious scholars have been asked to debunk the “Joseph Smith Vision and associated cult”. While confidential at this time, the panel has members of many denominations; Baptist, Methodist, Catholic and Presbyterian. “Can you believe those Mormons have the nerve to call themselves Christians”, one minister was overheard as he exited the closed door meeting.
Not one member of the LDS Church (Mormons) had been invited to sit on the panel; but why complicate things? The one sided panel is similar to there being no oil and gas experts involved in the investigation of the Deepwater Horizon accident; but this is only a rumor.
“Salazar likened the group to the commissions that have investigated other disasters, including the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle and the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant.”
“The panel members are elder statesmen and stateswomen, Salazar said, adding that he was confident the commission would be thorough and even-handed. When studying areas where it doesn’t have expertise, he said, the panel will interview professionals who do.”
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”.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
In Loco Parentis or Just Plain Loco
There’s a story out of Provincetown , Massachusetts; a public school plans to hand out condoms to elementary school children regardless of parent's desires. My guess is the school board believes it has authority under the authority of “in loco parentis”. Don’t ask me why the phrase is prefaced with “in”; that’s just the way it is, as three little mice would sing during the movie, Babe.
There are plenty of references on the internet to the term and its historical links all the way back across the pond; but I’ll use the Free Dictionary’s definition for the sake of brevity.
“In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person, without formally adopting that person…”
{…}
“By far the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to teachers and students. For hundreds of years, the English common-law concept shaped the rights and responsibilities of public school teachers: until the late nineteenth century, their legal authority over students was as broad as that of parents. Changes in U.S. education, concurrent with a broader reading by courts of the rights of students, began bringing the concept into disrepute by the 1960s. Cultural changes, however, brought a resurgence of the doctrine in the twenty-first century.”
I have to wonder about the sanity or mindset of anyone who’d seriously consider handing out condoms to any student in the public school system regardless of age without having some kind of meet and confer with that student’s parents or legal guardians. The article clearly noted that parents have no say in the matter. It would appear that certain public school’s administrators believe they have a greater right to the moral upbringing of children temporarily placed in their care than the parents for whom they are granted such stewardship.
“Dr. Beth Singer, the school superintendent, said since there is no age limit on the distribution policy, said she wanted to ensure that younger students requesting condoms receive information on their use.”
I have to wonder what kind of family environment Dr. Singer was brought up in if she honestly believes there’s nothing wrong with handing condoms to children between the ages of 5 to 12. I’ll bet she has an autographed copy of It Takes a Village somewhere in her office; pages dog eared, passages underlined and notations made in the margins.
“Singer said that although sex education is taught in health classes, there isn’t any detailed instruction on condom usage.”
That last line takes me to yet another decidedly bizarre story involving public schools taking liberties with their supposed “in loco parentis” stewardship. Todd Starnes article, Graphic Sex Ed Class Under Fire , explained how a Planned Parenthood presentation went beyond education as it may have even offered raw pornography to students.
“Parents are outraged after young teenagers were instructed on graphic sexual acts during a Planned Parenthood sex education class at the local high school in Shenandoah, Iowa.”
The law provides mandatory sex education; however, the law also stipulates that parents are to be notified in advance of the presentation. Parents of high school students in Shenandoah, Iowa, were not notified and many have voiced outrage.
“Colleen Dostal told Fox News Radio, “…she was most upset over the instructor simulating sexual acts using stuffed animals designed to resemble STD’s.”’
What is going on in our public schools? Is it any wonder our children are confused about right and wrong since the moral side of sex is bared from the classroom under separation of church and state? Some students, for lack of proper home environment or parental oversight may not know that that putting on a condom is not the same as abstinence or avoiding sexual relations completely? Public schools are teaching sex education classes as if morality and sexual activity had no connection.
Hardly a week goes by without reading about some teacher being indicted for having sexual relations with a student or why Planned Parenthood gave instructions to lie in order to obtain an abortion to someone posing as a 15 year old pregnant girl. Sexual relations are reserved between a husband and wife; at least that’s what was taught in my home along with a healthy majority of Americans ever since our nation was founded. Have times changed that much; the godless left would have us believe so.
Public schools teach reading, writing, arithmetic, science and even sex education; can’t have prayer, that’s against the law. The idea that parents and children must forego family values in the classroom is absurd. If these stories are any indication of how administrators in our public schools or Planned Parenthood represent, or in this case, ignore family values under authority provided by “in loco parentis”, then we need to change the definition to just plain “loco” because parents have lost their say in the matter.
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”.
There are plenty of references on the internet to the term and its historical links all the way back across the pond; but I’ll use the Free Dictionary’s definition for the sake of brevity.
“In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing a relationship similar to that of a parent to a child. It refers to an individual who assumes parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a young person, without formally adopting that person…”
{…}
“By far the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to teachers and students. For hundreds of years, the English common-law concept shaped the rights and responsibilities of public school teachers: until the late nineteenth century, their legal authority over students was as broad as that of parents. Changes in U.S. education, concurrent with a broader reading by courts of the rights of students, began bringing the concept into disrepute by the 1960s. Cultural changes, however, brought a resurgence of the doctrine in the twenty-first century.”
I have to wonder about the sanity or mindset of anyone who’d seriously consider handing out condoms to any student in the public school system regardless of age without having some kind of meet and confer with that student’s parents or legal guardians. The article clearly noted that parents have no say in the matter. It would appear that certain public school’s administrators believe they have a greater right to the moral upbringing of children temporarily placed in their care than the parents for whom they are granted such stewardship.
“Dr. Beth Singer, the school superintendent, said since there is no age limit on the distribution policy, said she wanted to ensure that younger students requesting condoms receive information on their use.”
I have to wonder what kind of family environment Dr. Singer was brought up in if she honestly believes there’s nothing wrong with handing condoms to children between the ages of 5 to 12. I’ll bet she has an autographed copy of It Takes a Village somewhere in her office; pages dog eared, passages underlined and notations made in the margins.
“Singer said that although sex education is taught in health classes, there isn’t any detailed instruction on condom usage.”
That last line takes me to yet another decidedly bizarre story involving public schools taking liberties with their supposed “in loco parentis” stewardship. Todd Starnes article, Graphic Sex Ed Class Under Fire , explained how a Planned Parenthood presentation went beyond education as it may have even offered raw pornography to students.
“Parents are outraged after young teenagers were instructed on graphic sexual acts during a Planned Parenthood sex education class at the local high school in Shenandoah, Iowa.”
The law provides mandatory sex education; however, the law also stipulates that parents are to be notified in advance of the presentation. Parents of high school students in Shenandoah, Iowa, were not notified and many have voiced outrage.
“Colleen Dostal told Fox News Radio, “…she was most upset over the instructor simulating sexual acts using stuffed animals designed to resemble STD’s.”’
What is going on in our public schools? Is it any wonder our children are confused about right and wrong since the moral side of sex is bared from the classroom under separation of church and state? Some students, for lack of proper home environment or parental oversight may not know that that putting on a condom is not the same as abstinence or avoiding sexual relations completely? Public schools are teaching sex education classes as if morality and sexual activity had no connection.
Hardly a week goes by without reading about some teacher being indicted for having sexual relations with a student or why Planned Parenthood gave instructions to lie in order to obtain an abortion to someone posing as a 15 year old pregnant girl. Sexual relations are reserved between a husband and wife; at least that’s what was taught in my home along with a healthy majority of Americans ever since our nation was founded. Have times changed that much; the godless left would have us believe so.
Public schools teach reading, writing, arithmetic, science and even sex education; can’t have prayer, that’s against the law. The idea that parents and children must forego family values in the classroom is absurd. If these stories are any indication of how administrators in our public schools or Planned Parenthood represent, or in this case, ignore family values under authority provided by “in loco parentis”, then we need to change the definition to just plain “loco” because parents have lost their say in the matter.
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”.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
No Budget This Year
There used to be a picture in my bathroom directly in front of the ‘throne’; a chance to ponder old sayings while taking care of important business. “Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life”, was on the first line as I recall followed by twenty or thirty classic one liners. The picture vanished some time back; one of my children has it in their bathroom across town.
Reading a story on the Foxnews website reminded me of that picture and the wisdom gleaned during deliberate and essential moments of thought.
“Those who spend five but make only four have no need of a purse”.
It would seem our leaders in Washington never bothered to learn that one.
“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday his party will not approve a traditional budget that sets spending guidelines for the new fiscal year.”
Having watched the efforts in Washington this past year such a statement shouldn’t surprise anyone. I shouldn’t let previous administrations off the hook, heaven knows they did a fair job at spending money; but the current administration gets the brass ring when it comes to chucking restraint in the trash.
The dictionary used by the folks on Capitol Hill has pages torn out to make sure there would never be any reference to words such as Budget and Restraint. (To be sure, I think Clinton had the words Restraint and Sexual Predator yanked long before he ever considered working on the budget.) The congressional dictionary is getting mighty thin; reference to words such as constitution, representative, integrity, character, honesty and many others have also been deleted.
‘“Here’s another idea Democrats should consider,” chided Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “Stop spending money you don’t have.”’
The scale in my bathroom lied to me just this past week and one of my daughters remarked that I appeared to be over weight when I went swimming on Father’s Day; cruel yet truer words have never been spoken. There are many tried and true diets to get rid of excess weight; none more efficient than when congress is in session. By the time those thieves get done with our money there won’t be enough left to buy groceries.
“I’ll gladly pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today”, wasn’t that the line from Popeye’s deadbeat friend? Did Wimpy ever pay anyone back; my guess is he eventually got elected and still has a seat in Washington.
I could go for an old favorite, the one from Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I’ve butchered that line many times as suited my needs; why should this subject be any different? “Budget, we don’t need no stinkin’ budget!”
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”.
Reading a story on the Foxnews website reminded me of that picture and the wisdom gleaned during deliberate and essential moments of thought.
“Those who spend five but make only four have no need of a purse”.
It would seem our leaders in Washington never bothered to learn that one.
“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday his party will not approve a traditional budget that sets spending guidelines for the new fiscal year.”
Having watched the efforts in Washington this past year such a statement shouldn’t surprise anyone. I shouldn’t let previous administrations off the hook, heaven knows they did a fair job at spending money; but the current administration gets the brass ring when it comes to chucking restraint in the trash.
The dictionary used by the folks on Capitol Hill has pages torn out to make sure there would never be any reference to words such as Budget and Restraint. (To be sure, I think Clinton had the words Restraint and Sexual Predator yanked long before he ever considered working on the budget.) The congressional dictionary is getting mighty thin; reference to words such as constitution, representative, integrity, character, honesty and many others have also been deleted.
‘“Here’s another idea Democrats should consider,” chided Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “Stop spending money you don’t have.”’
The scale in my bathroom lied to me just this past week and one of my daughters remarked that I appeared to be over weight when I went swimming on Father’s Day; cruel yet truer words have never been spoken. There are many tried and true diets to get rid of excess weight; none more efficient than when congress is in session. By the time those thieves get done with our money there won’t be enough left to buy groceries.
“I’ll gladly pay you Wednesday for a hamburger today”, wasn’t that the line from Popeye’s deadbeat friend? Did Wimpy ever pay anyone back; my guess is he eventually got elected and still has a seat in Washington.
I could go for an old favorite, the one from Treasure of the Sierra Madre. I’ve butchered that line many times as suited my needs; why should this subject be any different? “Budget, we don’t need no stinkin’ budget!”
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”.
McChrystal and the Wolves
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our top U.S. war commander in Afghanistan, made the mistake of opening his mouth in front of the news media the other day; didn’t he ever watch the movie, Patton? It doesn’t matter if McChrystal had the best battlefield record or the worst at this point; he spoke out of turn on matters which don’t belong in print and that makes his position rather awkward if not untenable.
“McChrystal has been called to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday to explain his comments to the magazine directly to the president, a senior administration official told Fox News. Normally, he would appear on a conference call for a regular strategy session.”
Gen. McChrystal will need to stand patiently, hat in hand, as he watches his military career flushed down the toilet by men who aren’t fit to tie his shoe laces on the battlefield; such is the nature of politics. It might be fun to be a fly on the wall when McChrystal meets with the wolves back at the White House; their teeth bared, circling around waiting for the perfect moment to take him down.
There’s line from the Wedding Crashers, one that fits the situation quite well, “You shut your mouth when you’re talking to me!” I can hear Obama belittle, demean and deride (is that redundant?) a decorated battlefield veteran as our commander and thief ( just a typo, ignore that), lectures McChrystal.
I have it from a reliable source that our troops, while under fire, must obtain permission from local government officials prior to engaging the enemy lest they accidentally take out unintended targets. They have been subjected to small arms fire accompanied by rocket propelled grenades and watched as their enemies run off and hide inside local residences. The mayor or head honcho of the town then explains that the folks who live in that particular house are good people and could not possibly have been involved; permission to engage denied. Is this any way to run a war?
The problem with leading our troops in Afghanistan has to do with understanding the goal. Our valiant men and women are in harms way, not to win; but to lose gracefully, tail tucked between our legs in a pleasing manner until our exit strategy calendar has timed out.
General McChrystal should use this opportunity as his exit strategy, do a “MacArthur” and simply fade away. The wolves will win the battle for McChrystal’s hide; but they are intent on losing the war.
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”.
“McChrystal has been called to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday to explain his comments to the magazine directly to the president, a senior administration official told Fox News. Normally, he would appear on a conference call for a regular strategy session.”
Gen. McChrystal will need to stand patiently, hat in hand, as he watches his military career flushed down the toilet by men who aren’t fit to tie his shoe laces on the battlefield; such is the nature of politics. It might be fun to be a fly on the wall when McChrystal meets with the wolves back at the White House; their teeth bared, circling around waiting for the perfect moment to take him down.
There’s line from the Wedding Crashers, one that fits the situation quite well, “You shut your mouth when you’re talking to me!” I can hear Obama belittle, demean and deride (is that redundant?) a decorated battlefield veteran as our commander and thief ( just a typo, ignore that), lectures McChrystal.
I have it from a reliable source that our troops, while under fire, must obtain permission from local government officials prior to engaging the enemy lest they accidentally take out unintended targets. They have been subjected to small arms fire accompanied by rocket propelled grenades and watched as their enemies run off and hide inside local residences. The mayor or head honcho of the town then explains that the folks who live in that particular house are good people and could not possibly have been involved; permission to engage denied. Is this any way to run a war?
The problem with leading our troops in Afghanistan has to do with understanding the goal. Our valiant men and women are in harms way, not to win; but to lose gracefully, tail tucked between our legs in a pleasing manner until our exit strategy calendar has timed out.
General McChrystal should use this opportunity as his exit strategy, do a “MacArthur” and simply fade away. The wolves will win the battle for McChrystal’s hide; but they are intent on losing the war.
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”.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Just Say No to Elena Kagan
The next Supreme Court Justice will be picked by Obama, that’s a foregone conclusion; but does it have to be Elena Kagan? The qualification process in times past has proven to be nothing more than a dog and pony show.
Something which should act as a red flag of warning would be the way the Obama administration has prevented an open review of “1,600 Kagan-related documents. Most if not all of these pages come from her service during the Clinton Administration and are held at the Clinton Library in Little Rock.”
Those who serve on the Supreme Court do so for life. Once installed they have considerable influence and Americans shouldn’t have to wonder why certain files are being withheld, information which might reveal their true character and governing principles.
It should be a foregone conclusion that anyone Obama picked would lean towards his own political philosophy; however, the American public will only permit a certain amount of sliding toward pure socialism; radical adjustments to our constitutional republic don’t set well with us. This is why deception, smoke and mirrors if you will, is employed to slip the wool over our eyes.
Elena Kagan deserves our respect and admiration for having accomplished success in academia; but some of her views betray her ability to uphold the constitution, something which outweighs all other requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice. On top of the short list of questionable views is Kagan’s stance that government has the power to restrict, expressions of free speech in the form of political pamphlets.
The Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 against Kagan’s argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a scathing rebuke by Chief Justice John Roberts.
“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.
“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Kagan’s also shown her disdain for military recruiting efforts during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan’s decision to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus , a decision which violated existing law, was rooted in the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexual preference, a line in the sand which Kagan expressed her displeasure.
These issues point to a more important character trait; that of believing that her own opinions are more important or valuable than the law and constraints placed on government by our constitution. If the Senate is to determine the qualifications of the next Supreme Court Justice then there are at least three major stumbling blocks, others may exist; but three major stumbling blocks are already known regarding Kagan.
Elena Kagan has expressed a willingness to discount limitations placed upon government as stated in the 1st Amendment. Kagan’s elitist attitude led her to believe that her opinion as pertains to homosexual relationships in the military was superior to the law of the land and gave her powers, usurped rather than actual, to prevent military recruiters from performing a vital task in the service of our nation. Lastly, the Obama administration is withholding critical information from the very Senators who must evaluate Kagan’s qualifications; so much for transparency in the Oval Office and government in general.
We’re not talking about installing yet another corrupt czar to Obama’s unofficial cabinet, one which can be tossed out at the next election. Supreme Court Justices are there for life and have a phenomenal presence once they are seated. Withholding any information should be viewed as an immediate reason to dismiss Kagan’s nomination and move on to someone less secretive. This is when being prudent means just saying no.
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”.
Something which should act as a red flag of warning would be the way the Obama administration has prevented an open review of “1,600 Kagan-related documents. Most if not all of these pages come from her service during the Clinton Administration and are held at the Clinton Library in Little Rock.”
Those who serve on the Supreme Court do so for life. Once installed they have considerable influence and Americans shouldn’t have to wonder why certain files are being withheld, information which might reveal their true character and governing principles.
It should be a foregone conclusion that anyone Obama picked would lean towards his own political philosophy; however, the American public will only permit a certain amount of sliding toward pure socialism; radical adjustments to our constitutional republic don’t set well with us. This is why deception, smoke and mirrors if you will, is employed to slip the wool over our eyes.
Elena Kagan deserves our respect and admiration for having accomplished success in academia; but some of her views betray her ability to uphold the constitution, something which outweighs all other requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice. On top of the short list of questionable views is Kagan’s stance that government has the power to restrict, expressions of free speech in the form of political pamphlets.
The Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 against Kagan’s argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a scathing rebuke by Chief Justice John Roberts.
“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.
“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Kagan’s also shown her disdain for military recruiting efforts during her tenure as dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan’s decision to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus , a decision which violated existing law, was rooted in the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexual preference, a line in the sand which Kagan expressed her displeasure.
These issues point to a more important character trait; that of believing that her own opinions are more important or valuable than the law and constraints placed on government by our constitution. If the Senate is to determine the qualifications of the next Supreme Court Justice then there are at least three major stumbling blocks, others may exist; but three major stumbling blocks are already known regarding Kagan.
Elena Kagan has expressed a willingness to discount limitations placed upon government as stated in the 1st Amendment. Kagan’s elitist attitude led her to believe that her opinion as pertains to homosexual relationships in the military was superior to the law of the land and gave her powers, usurped rather than actual, to prevent military recruiters from performing a vital task in the service of our nation. Lastly, the Obama administration is withholding critical information from the very Senators who must evaluate Kagan’s qualifications; so much for transparency in the Oval Office and government in general.
We’re not talking about installing yet another corrupt czar to Obama’s unofficial cabinet, one which can be tossed out at the next election. Supreme Court Justices are there for life and have a phenomenal presence once they are seated. Withholding any information should be viewed as an immediate reason to dismiss Kagan’s nomination and move on to someone less secretive. This is when being prudent means just saying no.
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”.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Silver Bubba’s Hobo Kittens
The moment I opened the back door they implemented an exit strategy at the edge of the garden just in case the giant got too close. Silver Bubba stepped in, taking her position between me and her kittens; pretending to be relaxed among the cucumber plants, all the while keeping her ears tuned in my direction.
The other Hobo Grandkittens were hiding under the brush pile making it nearly impossible to take a photograph of them. These little fur balls are fun to watch as they give everything they have in what ever occupies their attention; catching a leaf, swatting at their mother’s tail, pouncing on each other or climbing half way up a tree.
The little iron worker has absolutely no fear of heights and likes to lie in wait on a tree stump until one of the others unwittingly wanders below. He’ll spring with wild abandon, paws fully extended, catching the air as he lands squarely on his brother or sister; hard to tell without violating their privacy.
When they run out of energy they plop down without a care and go to sleep. I’ve developed an interesting new habit when considering the use of vehicles ever since the unfortunate accident a week ago . While I continue to make lots of extra noise prior to getting into my truck, I’ve added a step, opening the hood and checking the engine compartment prior to starting the motor. It only takes a few moments; but oh, those few moments…
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Rep. Joe Barton (R) Texas, must be a kindred spirit to the boy who yelled out, “The king isn’t wearing any clothes”, only this time the remark pointed to a different observation. Rep. Barton pointed out what many fear is going on; the Obama administration used “shakedown” techniques to obtain $ 20 Billion from BP this past week.
“How terrible!” The Republican base gasped as Barton’s words escaped the confines of politically correct rhetoric. “Barton doesn’t speak for the rest of us. He’s sawing off his own political career. Our King’s new clothes looks just fine to the loyal unwashed.”
One of the lessons I learned while growing up had to do with avoiding the appearance of doing evil, a general admonition of great value. If you’re with a lady in a room conducting legitimate business; but could easily be involved in something less becoming, make sure the door is left open enough to avoid the appearance of misconduct. The door being left open invites a healthy environment for keeping activities well within morally accepted values and reassures casual observers.
This past week BP supposedly volunteered to fork over $20 Billion Dollars to the Obama Clean up the Gulf Entitlement Fund ( the name of the fund may be slightly different ). The idea just came to them to spend $ 13 Billion more than they have in total assets. This all happened behind closed doors.
Curious minds might jump to the conclusion that BP was being strong armed, that Obama’s Chicago gangster political operations might have been part of the reason for BP’s sudden magnanimous gesture; in other words, a shakedown. The thugs have in their possession strong evidence which BP would rather not reach the public.
Perhaps they have pictures of BP board members involved in group sex orgies at the share holder’s meeting, email correspondence similar to those obtained from East Anglia wherein BP executives joke about the little people being covered in sludge or other damning evidence which would support criminal charges much worse than mere negligence.
A reasonable and prudent person might jump to the conclusion that BP didn’t simply volunteer to spend $ 20 Billion Dollars out the clear blue sky, or is that clear blue Gulf? About the only thing Rep. Joe Barton might be guilty of is speaking his mind, saying what many believe to be true; but forgetting that the King’s new clothes are not open for discussion.
Image courtesy of lousiey.files.wordpress.com.
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”.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Since Day One
President Obama announced he will meet with BP executives today for the first time regarding the Deep Water Horizon well disaster in the Gulf. A couple of thoughts came to mind; the first had to do with the purpose of the meeting after Obama’s fireside from the night before and the second had to do with waiting so long to meet for the first time.
‘“We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused,” Obama declared in his first Oval Office address, a venue often reserved for matters of war. That is now how Obama describes the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- a “siege” on the shores of America.”
Does this sound like Obama is interested in fixing the problem, a problem so serious that he compared it to a terrorist attack which happened on 9/11? Obama wants to look and sound presidential; instead this makes him look even smaller than he was before. He’s waited two months to talk “face to face” with “generals” who are battling the disaster and rather than offer assistance all he can do is point fingers and promise to make them pay?
“Obama’s forceful tone about BP’s behavior shows how far matters have deteriorated. The White House once had described BP as an essential partner in plugging the crude oil spewing from the broken well beneath nearly a mile of water. Now Obama says BP has threatened to destroy a whole way of life.”
Again the question of the day, if BP was an essential partner in plugging the crude oil spewing from the broken well, why has Obama wasted two months prior to meeting with them face to face? Why isn’t the stated purpose of this meeting centered on the mutual benefits to the nation of working together and applying what ever resources are available to resolve the issue?
It is painfully clear to anyone BP has civil responsibilities for damages caused by their failed drilling rig and the amounts involved would fund a small country’s budget, maybe a medium sized country; but that is something which will be dealt with AFTER the problem of oil spewing into the Gulf has been shut down. Obama wants to have BP’s kangaroo trial held in the Oval Office, a more than willing mass media event to stir public opinion in favor of a lynching rather than work within the constraints of our constitutional form of government which provides the rule of law, judges and courts as the venue for properly establishing culpability.
Since “Day One” Obama has shown his colors, that of a politically ambitious tyrant willing to permit a natural disaster to morph into a much larger problem. Obama could have asked congress to wave certain bureaucratic rules governing the management of off shore drilling to allow volunteered foreign assistance , assistance in the form of specialty equipment and personnel familiar with such issues; but these measures, if even considered, were not employed to stop the gushing oil from further damaging the Gulf environment.
“The US State Department said it is now playing an active role in the oil spill response coordinated by President Barack Obama's administration.”
We should we be happy that Obama “is now playing an active role in the oil spill response”? Having waited two months since “Day One” and having ignored requests by experts in the off shore oil drilling industry as they lined up to help fix the problem?
“Last week, a Norwegian oil industry group that battles spills said the United States snubbed its offer to send 5,297 cubic feet (150 cubic meters) of dispersants to clean up the Gulf of Mexico gusher because the chemicals lacked US certification.” (emphasis added)
‘“The dispersants we use have not been certified in the United States even though they are more environmentally friendly" than the ones currently being used, Sjur Knudsen of Nofo told AFP.”
Don’t look for today’s meeting between Obama and BP’s executives to be anything more than a chance for our Marxist regime to take a whack at capitalism. I wouldn’t put it past Obama to enlist the help of Rep. Maxine Waters (D) California. You remember the Congressional hearings where oil executives were being roasted?
“And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …”
Rep. Waters then collected her thoughts and continued…
“Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”
Obama has made it perfectly clear through his statements, he wants no part of running the private sector; but having observed his actions from Day One of his administration, a reasonable and prudent person might have some doubt. The old adage “Actions speak louder than words” comes to mind. When you look at the takeover of GM, Chrysler, Wall Street and the Health Services Industry, Obama’s hollow words become more than enough evidence that he intends to use yet another crisis to destroy capitalism one company and one industry at a time. Watch what Obama does, not what he says.
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”.
‘“We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused,” Obama declared in his first Oval Office address, a venue often reserved for matters of war. That is now how Obama describes the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- a “siege” on the shores of America.”
Does this sound like Obama is interested in fixing the problem, a problem so serious that he compared it to a terrorist attack which happened on 9/11? Obama wants to look and sound presidential; instead this makes him look even smaller than he was before. He’s waited two months to talk “face to face” with “generals” who are battling the disaster and rather than offer assistance all he can do is point fingers and promise to make them pay?
“Obama’s forceful tone about BP’s behavior shows how far matters have deteriorated. The White House once had described BP as an essential partner in plugging the crude oil spewing from the broken well beneath nearly a mile of water. Now Obama says BP has threatened to destroy a whole way of life.”
Again the question of the day, if BP was an essential partner in plugging the crude oil spewing from the broken well, why has Obama wasted two months prior to meeting with them face to face? Why isn’t the stated purpose of this meeting centered on the mutual benefits to the nation of working together and applying what ever resources are available to resolve the issue?
It is painfully clear to anyone BP has civil responsibilities for damages caused by their failed drilling rig and the amounts involved would fund a small country’s budget, maybe a medium sized country; but that is something which will be dealt with AFTER the problem of oil spewing into the Gulf has been shut down. Obama wants to have BP’s kangaroo trial held in the Oval Office, a more than willing mass media event to stir public opinion in favor of a lynching rather than work within the constraints of our constitutional form of government which provides the rule of law, judges and courts as the venue for properly establishing culpability.
Since “Day One” Obama has shown his colors, that of a politically ambitious tyrant willing to permit a natural disaster to morph into a much larger problem. Obama could have asked congress to wave certain bureaucratic rules governing the management of off shore drilling to allow volunteered foreign assistance , assistance in the form of specialty equipment and personnel familiar with such issues; but these measures, if even considered, were not employed to stop the gushing oil from further damaging the Gulf environment.
“The US State Department said it is now playing an active role in the oil spill response coordinated by President Barack Obama's administration.”
We should we be happy that Obama “is now playing an active role in the oil spill response”? Having waited two months since “Day One” and having ignored requests by experts in the off shore oil drilling industry as they lined up to help fix the problem?
“Last week, a Norwegian oil industry group that battles spills said the United States snubbed its offer to send 5,297 cubic feet (150 cubic meters) of dispersants to clean up the Gulf of Mexico gusher because the chemicals lacked US certification.” (emphasis added)
‘“The dispersants we use have not been certified in the United States even though they are more environmentally friendly" than the ones currently being used, Sjur Knudsen of Nofo told AFP.”
Don’t look for today’s meeting between Obama and BP’s executives to be anything more than a chance for our Marxist regime to take a whack at capitalism. I wouldn’t put it past Obama to enlist the help of Rep. Maxine Waters (D) California. You remember the Congressional hearings where oil executives were being roasted?
“And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …”
Rep. Waters then collected her thoughts and continued…
“Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”
Obama has made it perfectly clear through his statements, he wants no part of running the private sector; but having observed his actions from Day One of his administration, a reasonable and prudent person might have some doubt. The old adage “Actions speak louder than words” comes to mind. When you look at the takeover of GM, Chrysler, Wall Street and the Health Services Industry, Obama’s hollow words become more than enough evidence that he intends to use yet another crisis to destroy capitalism one company and one industry at a time. Watch what Obama does, not what he says.
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”.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Moribund Free Market?
There’s an article on Bloomberg by Lorraine Woellert and John Gittelsohn which explains how taxpayers are on the hook to Fannie and Freddie for somewhere between $160 Billion and $ 1 Trillion. I was unfamiliar with one word they used; not being the sharpest pencil in the box I get to use the dictionary and thesaurus more often than most folks.
“Fannie and Freddie, now 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers, already have drawn $145 billion from an unlimited line of government credit granted to ensure that home buyers can get loans while the private housing-finance industry is moribund.”
Moribund, maybe it was some kind of fancy donut, like Bear claw. I really didn’t think so; but being a retired cop makes such words more fun. The thesaurus pointed to ‘declining’ or ‘dying’ as closest in meaning. If you consider the context of moribund, matched up with free market housing, the outlook is rather bleak. Declining; on the way out, on its last leg, waning, past its best, dilapidated, seen better days, none of which sound good. Then there’s dying; failing, expiring or at death’s door; again, not what you want to hear about something which controls 17% of our economy.
Think about that for a moment; the private mortgage industry is on death’s door step while Freddie and Fannie which control 75% of all home loans are…(I found myself looking at the ceiling while trying to put my thoughts into words), Freddie and Fannie are being propped up with taxpayer dollars because they’ve already died, been buried, granted second life and died again. Does that about cover how the government run mortgage industry has been handled?
This is the same government which now owns GM, Chrysler, Wall Street and recently took control of health care. Where in the constitution does government have the power to meddle with any of these areas of the free market? I’ll save you the time, the answer is no where. These powers have been usurped “for the good of everyone”.
We’ve eliminated certain inalienable rights for the good of the community. All you have to do is look at the Supreme Court ruling on Kelo v New London to understand that “for the good of the community” really means we don’t like the constitution so let’s just toss that part in the trash. The idea of private property all but vanished when the Supreme Court claimed that taking one individual’s property and handing it over to yet another was for the good of the community and satisfied the eminent domain requirement.
‘“Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.”
America, what have you done? In this land of promise, the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, promises from our Creator guarantee these inalienable rights. We, and by we I should mark that our leaders both elected and appointed, have distorted and perverted eternal laws in order to exercise unrighteous dominion over individual’s God given rights; but don’t be too concerned, it’s been done for the good of the community.
Thomas Jefferson asked:
“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?”
Government can have no power(s) except these powers be given by the people and, by extension, no power can be given by the people which they do not themselves have to begin with. I refer to the writings of Bastiat and Locke to drive home the point that government does not have the power to redistribute wealth or property without the consent of the property owner. No amount of pressure from the community may alter the fact that property ownership rests with the individual, not even when it might be for the “good of the community”.
“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?”
{…}
“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.” (Bastiat, The Law, pg. 6)
Now combine that with what John Locke wrote nearly 300 years ago:
“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)
The purpose of government is to secure and defend our God given rights; anything more is a usurpation of power. How did we ever get saddled with a government which actually believes taxpayers are to be fleeced in order to pay for entitlement programs or any other program which violates property rights?
The Astros were getting their butts kicked at Yankee Stadium, nothing new there; however, between innings the station showed some of the pre-game festivities put on by the Army as precision paratroopers floated onto the playing field. The Astros’ sports announcer interviewed one of the soldiers; turned out he was from the Houston area and had graduated from one of the Klein area schools prior to entering the military.
The young man’s demeanor was something to behold, confident in his abilities while at the same time showing respect and humility during the interview; every sentence started or ended with, “Sir”. He said he had a decision to make once he graduated; considering his lack of scholarly skills he figured he would have a better chance in the military.
Why was it important to include the interview in this article on property rights? I’m not sure except that it came to mind while I was contemplating what ails America and the purpose of government. You see, that young man has accepted the job of protecting our God given inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He’s just one of many willing to put his life on the line while performing in what ever capacity is best suited to his abilities.
How is it that a young man serving in the Army understands his role so much better than our President, Senators, Congressmen and Supreme Court justices? The answer has to do with an appreciation for our Constitution and God given rights. That young soldier would lay down his life to protect my rights while the others mentioned have disregarded the constraints imposed on government by our Constitution for so long as to make it null and void.
My friend Col. Hogan wrote recently of his mistrust of government; neither Republicans nor Democrats being much better or worse at destroying liberty and freedom.
“In order to avoid actually doing the simple things the US Constitution and reason requires of it, power hungry (yet unbelievably incompetent) elected officials try and invariable fail to control every aspect of the lives of Americans, and by the inconsistent use of force and fear, cause chaos and destruction every step of the way.”
He then added, and this tied in with my reason for including the interview with the young enlisted soldier:
“All I want from government is protection for my absolute right to my life, rights and property…”
That young soldier represents our hope and desire to remain a free nation of individuals going about the business of commerce and come November let’s remember to put all those incumbents on unemployment for having violated their oaths of office. Vote no incumbent!
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”.
“Fannie and Freddie, now 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers, already have drawn $145 billion from an unlimited line of government credit granted to ensure that home buyers can get loans while the private housing-finance industry is moribund.”
Moribund, maybe it was some kind of fancy donut, like Bear claw. I really didn’t think so; but being a retired cop makes such words more fun. The thesaurus pointed to ‘declining’ or ‘dying’ as closest in meaning. If you consider the context of moribund, matched up with free market housing, the outlook is rather bleak. Declining; on the way out, on its last leg, waning, past its best, dilapidated, seen better days, none of which sound good. Then there’s dying; failing, expiring or at death’s door; again, not what you want to hear about something which controls 17% of our economy.
Think about that for a moment; the private mortgage industry is on death’s door step while Freddie and Fannie which control 75% of all home loans are…(I found myself looking at the ceiling while trying to put my thoughts into words), Freddie and Fannie are being propped up with taxpayer dollars because they’ve already died, been buried, granted second life and died again. Does that about cover how the government run mortgage industry has been handled?
This is the same government which now owns GM, Chrysler, Wall Street and recently took control of health care. Where in the constitution does government have the power to meddle with any of these areas of the free market? I’ll save you the time, the answer is no where. These powers have been usurped “for the good of everyone”.
We’ve eliminated certain inalienable rights for the good of the community. All you have to do is look at the Supreme Court ruling on Kelo v New London to understand that “for the good of the community” really means we don’t like the constitution so let’s just toss that part in the trash. The idea of private property all but vanished when the Supreme Court claimed that taking one individual’s property and handing it over to yet another was for the good of the community and satisfied the eminent domain requirement.
‘“Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.”
America, what have you done? In this land of promise, the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, promises from our Creator guarantee these inalienable rights. We, and by we I should mark that our leaders both elected and appointed, have distorted and perverted eternal laws in order to exercise unrighteous dominion over individual’s God given rights; but don’t be too concerned, it’s been done for the good of the community.
Thomas Jefferson asked:
“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?”
Government can have no power(s) except these powers be given by the people and, by extension, no power can be given by the people which they do not themselves have to begin with. I refer to the writings of Bastiat and Locke to drive home the point that government does not have the power to redistribute wealth or property without the consent of the property owner. No amount of pressure from the community may alter the fact that property ownership rests with the individual, not even when it might be for the “good of the community”.
“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?”
{…}
“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.” (Bastiat, The Law, pg. 6)
Now combine that with what John Locke wrote nearly 300 years ago:
“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)
The purpose of government is to secure and defend our God given rights; anything more is a usurpation of power. How did we ever get saddled with a government which actually believes taxpayers are to be fleeced in order to pay for entitlement programs or any other program which violates property rights?
The Astros were getting their butts kicked at Yankee Stadium, nothing new there; however, between innings the station showed some of the pre-game festivities put on by the Army as precision paratroopers floated onto the playing field. The Astros’ sports announcer interviewed one of the soldiers; turned out he was from the Houston area and had graduated from one of the Klein area schools prior to entering the military.
The young man’s demeanor was something to behold, confident in his abilities while at the same time showing respect and humility during the interview; every sentence started or ended with, “Sir”. He said he had a decision to make once he graduated; considering his lack of scholarly skills he figured he would have a better chance in the military.
Why was it important to include the interview in this article on property rights? I’m not sure except that it came to mind while I was contemplating what ails America and the purpose of government. You see, that young man has accepted the job of protecting our God given inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He’s just one of many willing to put his life on the line while performing in what ever capacity is best suited to his abilities.
How is it that a young man serving in the Army understands his role so much better than our President, Senators, Congressmen and Supreme Court justices? The answer has to do with an appreciation for our Constitution and God given rights. That young soldier would lay down his life to protect my rights while the others mentioned have disregarded the constraints imposed on government by our Constitution for so long as to make it null and void.
My friend Col. Hogan wrote recently of his mistrust of government; neither Republicans nor Democrats being much better or worse at destroying liberty and freedom.
“In order to avoid actually doing the simple things the US Constitution and reason requires of it, power hungry (yet unbelievably incompetent) elected officials try and invariable fail to control every aspect of the lives of Americans, and by the inconsistent use of force and fear, cause chaos and destruction every step of the way.”
He then added, and this tied in with my reason for including the interview with the young enlisted soldier:
“All I want from government is protection for my absolute right to my life, rights and property…”
That young soldier represents our hope and desire to remain a free nation of individuals going about the business of commerce and come November let’s remember to put all those incumbents on unemployment for having violated their oaths of office. Vote no incumbent!
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”.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Crisis Abuse 101
I have to hand it to the Obama administration for being able to work their agenda forward through the use of immediacy and crisis intervention. Each new crisis takes our nation further from its foundations of free enterprise and individual liberty; all for the sake of saving what’s left, if you believe what they’re dishing out.
The transformation of our country from capitalism to socialism is right on schedule, maybe even more progressed than the left had hoped for. The health services industry has been successfully taken over by the government placing each and every individual under their power. The mortgage industry’s demise, which in large part was responsible for the destruction of our economy, was the result of government intervention and gross negligence.
Emergency bailout money which was supposed to kick start the economy was never intended to do anything of the sort; just a diversion to pacify those too stupid to see the game plan. Roughly eight million jobs were lost in the private sector and we are told that the recession is almost over, that jobs are returning and the future is bright. How can the future be bright when most so called jobs being created are in the public sector rather than in private industry?
The latest crisis spin has to do with off shore drilling. The drilling disaster in the Gulf has been used to shut down any and all drilling until all the facts have been properly considered. When you hear a statement like that it sounds not only fair; but desirable; unless the purpose of the statement is to eradicate off shore drilling as a means of supporting our economy and way of life.
According to a news story on Fox , Interior Secretary Ken Salazar altered the official report and recommendations of the National Academy of Engineering after they had signed the document. Salazar added two paragraphs which made it appear these experts endorsed shutting down platform drilling in the Gulf when in fact they’d recommend just the opposite. In plain English, Salazar and President Obama lied to the American public in order to accomplish a political agenda.
“Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.”
“The experts who are involved in crafting the report gave us their recommendation and their input and I very much appreciate those recommendations,” he said. “It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president’s decision to move forward.”
Salazar’s false apology speaks volumes about the Obama administration. He said, “I very much appreciate those recommendations”, which meant, “Thanks for lending us your names to make it appear we’d taken reasonable measures in order justify destroying yet another important part of the free market.” The public was under the impression that important technical issues related to the oil industry had been studied by experts; and they had, just that their input was ignored in favor of Obama’s socialist agenda.
The Fox news article went on to explain long term damage done to off shore drilling, particularly in deep water locations. Drilling for oil isn’t as simple as flipping a switch to turn on the lights or turning the key to start your car; drilling for oil involves considerable planning and investment. The most expensive and modern drilling platforms take years to build and become productive.
“They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.”
Instead of energy independence America is now at the mercy of the world’s oil producers to supply the needs of our sputtering economy. The weak minded, those who voted this clown into the Oval Office, will soon be clamoring for more government intervention, more hand outs as the economy worsens. More workers will be laid off as private industry grinds to an even slower pace when the price of oil goes up and its supply dwindles. The socialist agenda doesn’t happen over night; sometimes it takes a six month moratorium on drilling to help it along.
Obama’s moratorium on off shore drilling, no more oil spills to ruin the environment, sounded like it was in the best interests of the American people; however, it was simply more presidential oratory intended to distract the public. Obama is a master when it comes to advancing his agenda by taking advantage of a crisis. Is this the hope and change Americans voted for? Obama has in fact put his boot on the throat of America’s oil production, effectively killing off any chance for resumed production in the foreseeable future. This, my friends, is today’s lesson in Crisis Abuse 101; are you taking notes?
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 transformation of our country from capitalism to socialism is right on schedule, maybe even more progressed than the left had hoped for. The health services industry has been successfully taken over by the government placing each and every individual under their power. The mortgage industry’s demise, which in large part was responsible for the destruction of our economy, was the result of government intervention and gross negligence.
Emergency bailout money which was supposed to kick start the economy was never intended to do anything of the sort; just a diversion to pacify those too stupid to see the game plan. Roughly eight million jobs were lost in the private sector and we are told that the recession is almost over, that jobs are returning and the future is bright. How can the future be bright when most so called jobs being created are in the public sector rather than in private industry?
The latest crisis spin has to do with off shore drilling. The drilling disaster in the Gulf has been used to shut down any and all drilling until all the facts have been properly considered. When you hear a statement like that it sounds not only fair; but desirable; unless the purpose of the statement is to eradicate off shore drilling as a means of supporting our economy and way of life.
According to a news story on Fox , Interior Secretary Ken Salazar altered the official report and recommendations of the National Academy of Engineering after they had signed the document. Salazar added two paragraphs which made it appear these experts endorsed shutting down platform drilling in the Gulf when in fact they’d recommend just the opposite. In plain English, Salazar and President Obama lied to the American public in order to accomplish a political agenda.
“Salazar apologized to those experts Thursday.”
“The experts who are involved in crafting the report gave us their recommendation and their input and I very much appreciate those recommendations,” he said. “It was not their decision on the moratorium. It was my decision and the president’s decision to move forward.”
Salazar’s false apology speaks volumes about the Obama administration. He said, “I very much appreciate those recommendations”, which meant, “Thanks for lending us your names to make it appear we’d taken reasonable measures in order justify destroying yet another important part of the free market.” The public was under the impression that important technical issues related to the oil industry had been studied by experts; and they had, just that their input was ignored in favor of Obama’s socialist agenda.
The Fox news article went on to explain long term damage done to off shore drilling, particularly in deep water locations. Drilling for oil isn’t as simple as flipping a switch to turn on the lights or turning the key to start your car; drilling for oil involves considerable planning and investment. The most expensive and modern drilling platforms take years to build and become productive.
“They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.”
Instead of energy independence America is now at the mercy of the world’s oil producers to supply the needs of our sputtering economy. The weak minded, those who voted this clown into the Oval Office, will soon be clamoring for more government intervention, more hand outs as the economy worsens. More workers will be laid off as private industry grinds to an even slower pace when the price of oil goes up and its supply dwindles. The socialist agenda doesn’t happen over night; sometimes it takes a six month moratorium on drilling to help it along.
Obama’s moratorium on off shore drilling, no more oil spills to ruin the environment, sounded like it was in the best interests of the American people; however, it was simply more presidential oratory intended to distract the public. Obama is a master when it comes to advancing his agenda by taking advantage of a crisis. Is this the hope and change Americans voted for? Obama has in fact put his boot on the throat of America’s oil production, effectively killing off any chance for resumed production in the foreseeable future. This, my friends, is today’s lesson in Crisis Abuse 101; are you taking notes?
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”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)