The Kelo GOP

According to Bob Novak, a group of Republican mayors met for a convention in Washington, D.C. last week. Among the hot topics discussed was the Kelo decision. Not so surprisingly, these little Caesars supported this boondoggle and blatant infringement upon the Constitutional right to property. Only one mayor, from a town in California of all places, stood up in opposition to the Kelo decision, without the support of one other mayor at the conference. All other mayors, by either consent by voice or by silence, were in support of upholding the Kelo decision, which, in effect, gives them unchecked authority over all real property within their jurisdiction.

Again, these were not Democrat mayors, but GOP mayors. These are mayors of the supposed party of "limited" government.

I must agree with Thomas Sowell in his assessment of Congressional lifers. Term limits in all levels of government would be helpful in keeping our government officials conscious of whom they are working for. Unfortunately, most people who work for the government at any level obtain a sense that government is obligated to intrude in all aspects of the lives of the citizenry.

These mayors, who see their towns as their own personal Romes in a lot of cases, see it as their obligation to take property that they see can be used in a more productive manner and transform it into a tax revenue center.

Not only mayors, but government employees from all levels of local, state, and national government find that it is their duty to intrude upon the lives of the citizenry. From the local Health Department and DFACS all the way to the Justice Department, government employees have this attitude.

As I was driving out of town on business one day, I was tuned in to The Neal Boortz Show on the radio. This was pre-Kelo, and the discussion was around a local government entity using eminent domain to obtain the property of a woman who did not wish to sell in order to re-sale to a developer. A woman who claimed to work for the tax office of a particular locality called in and stated that the woman "should be forced" to sell her property if someone else could take the property and produce more tax revenue. My mouth fell open that someone, a citizen with guaranteed freedoms to (some of) the rewards of her labors, would say or much less truly believe such a thing.

But apparently, five black robes had the same idea when deciding Kelo. And so do your Republican mayors.

Beware...

Re-arranging The Furniture

Today, for the second time in a row at a press conference, President Bush skipped over Helen Thomas at a White House press conference. I find it astonishing that anyone, even Drudge, would find this to be newsworthy.

But more than that I find it very humorous. Helen Thomas is typical of the elitist left mentality in Washington, D.C., saying such hilarious things as "He came on to my turf", a reference to the room in which the press conference was held. She has been in the Washington Press Corps so long that she believes that a press conference room in the White House actually belongs to her. That is like saying that your living room belongs to your sofa because it has been there for so long.

And like an old sofa, Helen Thomas has gotten softer in some places, uncomfortable in others, and has grown uglier, nastier, and smellier as time has passed. The time has come for her employers to take her to the Goodwill store, retiring her from the living room.

The fact of the matter is that Helen Thomas is no journalist, but rather a leftist media iconoclast. She is there to throw softballs and swoon over the likes of Bill Clinton, and then to torment those with a more conservative agenda, like Bush (though he is certainly not conservative), while all along her contemporaries in the media are cheering her on, inviting her to parties, etc.

It's time to rearrange the furniture. Helen Thomas at least needs to be moved to the garage.

Tilting The Court To The Right

Many have bloviated in the media about how the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito will "tilt" the current make-up of the court to the "right". This is deduced by the belief that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a "swing vote" on the high court, flip-flopping with either of the other eight (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy? to the right, and Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter to the left). I have a big problem with the way this has been described in such political terms.

Now I am not so naive as to think that politics do not play into the high court. If one reads Men In Black by Mark Levin, one would find that politics has always played into the high court, beginning with John Marshall and his doctrine of judicial review, which, in effect, began the usurpation of the power to write law by the court by changing the purpose of the court from applying the laws written by the Congress to the interpretation of laws and ultimately the Constitution. Such politics have brought us many a judicial fiat, from forced bussing to the "right" to have homosexual sex. But the court was intended by the founder to be an apolitical body that would impartially apply federal law, using the Constitution as the rule and guidepost to decide which side was on the right side of the law. If the high court did what it was given authority to do by the letter of the Constitution, then many cases that have been experiments in social engineering would have been decided in a manner that did not require implications and "penumbras", nor would any case require reference to any other body of law outside of our Constitution. But, alas, people are political with their biases, and this has spilled over into the court.

The left has consistently lost the social engineering battles at the ballot box over the last several years, and many have become wise to the same rhetoric we have heard for the last 60 years. Even though the candidates may not actually be conservative, candidates who run on conservative platforms have consistently gained steam and power over the last 20 years. In 1994, Congress was a majority Republican for the first time since before the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Republican presidents have won 7 of the last 9 elections. Liberals no longer have the mask of the big media to dupe the American people into thinking that they are mainstream if they are liberal, in the modern sense. The only place that the left has been able to hold power is on the Supreme Court.

If anything, the court will remain tilted to the left, as Anthony Kennedy has proven to be no bastion of conservatism. But, quite frankly, I do not want the court to tilt to the right. And, I certainly do not want the court to continue leftward either.

I want the Supreme Court to tilt to the Constitution of the United States, in the spirit of the founders. I want for the high court to apply the law as written by Congress to individual cases, using the Constitution as the standard for their jurisdiction. I do not want the court to write laws by judicial fiat that either pleases me or disappoints me. I do not want them writing law. Applying, not interpreting, not writing, but applying.

I want a court who will review controversial cases decided with erroneous Constitutional application and correct the mistakes of past courts. I want a court who will be honest enough and humble enough to admit that the Constitution was very narrow in the scope of the duties and obligations of the federal government, and that all other decisions were left to the states.

But if I believed that would happen, I would be naive.

This Land Is Your Land (Or Is It OUR Land?)

Recently, much has been in the news about out-of-control local governments using the "power" of eminent domain to seize the private property of citizens for "public" use. This "public use" would include such things as commercial development by private developers of such items as parking lots, hotels, and high-end dwelling places in place of "blighted" areas. The definition of "blighted" will depend upon which politician you talk with.

Eminent domain was once upon a time used for development of such things as public schools, police stations, roads, reservoirs, and other items that were "necessary" for the citizenry, and equally usable by all. Fair market value, or what the buying government entity deemed to be fair market value, was offered. If the seller refused, the government would generally condemn the property under eminent domain, give the disenfranchised party some settlement, and begin construction. Only back then, many politicians were too afraid to try to pull a stunt such as re-selling the property to a private developer, or if they did, it was kept rather hush-hush.

I have always felt that eminent domain was rather unconstitutional in its practice. Our preamble guarantees us the right to our property, and is further reinforced by the 4th amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures by our government.

But not so with eminent domain as is practiced today. And what is worse, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling in Keslo that allows for eminent domain to be used for "economic development". In other words, if your house and 10 acres of land is worth $250,000, and your property taxes are, say, $2,500 annually, and a developer says he can put 10 homes on your 10 acres worth $300,000 each, guess what? Assuming that we use 1% as our property tax rate, a politician can look at this proposal as "economic development", seize your property, and re-sale to the developer, using the $27,500 additional tax revenue as justification for the seizure.

So whose land is this? We are slowly but surely drifting toward a nanny state. Why are more people not outraged about such goings on? Because we have been de-sensitized to the erosion of our personal rights. From speech to arms to property to life, our rights are constantly being attacked by socialist bureaucrats and like-minded individuals who are too dense or too sophisticated to know that they will lose.

Eminent domain should be completely scrapped for a system in which the property owner holds the cards. If you need a road, find someone who will sell you his property for right-of-way. If not, we must realize that this land is truly not OUR land.

The Anniversary of Irresponsibility

Yesterday, January 22, marked the 33rd anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision of Roe V. Wade. The day is heralded in many circles and mourned in others. I, for one, continually mourn the slow passing of our great republic brought on by such irresponsible decisions as Roe.

Prior to the Roe decision, abortion was legal in several states. Many today do not know this because they have bit the "back-alley-closehanger-abortion" line that has been propogated by such esteemed organizations as Planned Parenthood and the NAG gals, known otherwise as the National Organization of Women. But it is true. Abortion was legal, pre 1973.

Many on the right argue that abortion should be illegal for all states, since abortion is murder, and murder is illegal in all 50 states. But murder is not a federal offense unless you murder a federal stateman, foreign diplomat, the President, or some other agent of the federal government. Murder is otherwise a state offense. If any state wished to legalize murder, then it is their perogative under the 10th amendment. Otherwise, it is not a federal crime to murder, just to prevent someone from getting an abortion.

And that is where I stand on abortion. I find it repulsive to think that anyone could be so selfish as to murder an unborn child so as not be weighed down with the responsibility of raising a child for whatever the reason. I believe that the individual states should make laws pertaining to this, as the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to decide such a case.

And so we are here at this point in time, with irresponsibility breeding irresponsibility. To every action there is a reaction. To every action, there are consequences, good or bad. But people must realize that they are responsible for what they do.

And unfortunately, here we are in the culture of victimology. Everyone is the victim. No one is responsible.

And so it is with people and abortion. No one is responsible for engaging in the act that conceives children. This, according to some, cannot be helped, is an animal instinct.

I have always said that I am an advocate of a woman's right to choose; to choose to keep a dime between her knees when she is with her boyfriend. If she lets the dime slip, then...

Oh, and rape is a crime already. So is incest. Let's not murder unborn babies in retribution for the acts of others. It is not a baby's fault he is conceived.

Ordinary Lives Are Often Extraordinary

I woke up this morning with a heaviness of heart. I dreamed of some loved ones who have gone on to their long sought home. Some of the dreams I have seem so real, the images of my mind so vivid, that, in that state between sleep and awake, sometimes it is hard to know if the dream isn’t reality. But that state ends rather quickly when I awaken enough to know that it was all a dream, all in my mind.
Yesterday, January 20, would have been my grandfather’s birthday, had he lived. He and his life press heavy on my mind every year since he died. He never accomplished anything that will mark him in the minds of men for posterity sake. I suppose that when my oldest son draws his last breath that the memory of grandfather will die with him, and I am assuming the course of nature. But ordinary lives often make extraordinary impressions on those that it may seem that you least impress.

My grandfather, who my brothers and me called Papa, made extraordinary impressions on me. He was a carpenter or woodworker by trade, working at a counter shop owned by his brother-in-law. He never made a great deal of money, but he made a living. He was an ordained Baptist preacher, but as is tradition with our group of Baptists, he did not earn any money by being a preacher. He took very seriously the charge to the apostles to take nothing in return for their preaching. He pastored only one church, and only for one year, a few years after telling that he was called, but he always said that he did not believe that pastoring churches was his gift. He avoided the trouble of other churches, but was not afraid to stand for what was right if trouble came his way. He was not a sower of discord, as many are today, and would help any one in any way he could. But he would not sacrifice principle to do so.
He was a strong role model for my brothers and I, a standard in a world that at a certain time in our lives we felt was falling around us. When my mother and father divorced when I was ten, and my brothers younger, I felt that everything that I had believed in to that time, which was basically the stability of my family, was in shambles. But Papa was one who was there to let us know all would be all right with us. He helped to be sure that our needs were met in all ways. And he never talked down about either of my parents.

Papa taught me about what it meant to be a man. I learned lessons not only from what he told me, but by the way he lived his life. One of those important life lessons came when I was around 13 years old. He sat me down to talk. He wanted to lay out how I should set my priorities in life. He told me that my priorities should be in this order:
1. God
2. Wife
3. Family
4. Friends
5. Job
Although I have fell short of keeping these things in their proper order many times in life, I have always striven to do so. And his words I have never forgotten.

Before my wife and I married, he sat us down and counseled us about what we were entering in to. He read from Ephesians and Ruth, and explained what should be expected of us in our marriage and what marriage should mean to us. Though we have had some rough times, my wife and I are still happily married after twelve years, and I still look forward to every year that I can spend with her.

When my wife and I were early in our marriage, we struggled financially, and I went to him to borrow money. I felt small and worthless when I did so, because I knew that he worked for a living and needed the money he earned. I let him know as much when I would go to him to borrow money. But he was not phased by the request, nor did he hesitate to grant my request. I committed to pay him back, but he said, "Don’t worry about it. Pay me back if you can. If you can’t, that’s fine. The Lord has always provided for me. I’ve always gotten back what I have loaned people before, and then some, even if they never paid me back directly. I will always help you as long as you help yourself." He knew that we were trying but needed some help over a hump. As time has went on, I have been in positions to help friends. His attitude is the one I have tried to adopt.

As I grew into my twenties, he became a dear friend to me. My family and I would go to visit my grandparents at their home, and we would spend hours talking, sometimes about the Bible, sometimes about our family. Those are the times that I cherish in memory and miss in practice.
He found out in March of 1998 that he had bladder cancer after passing blood and, at our request, visiting a doctor to have it checked out. When the doctor gave him his options, he became very depressed. One option, the initial one he leaned toward, was to have his bladder removed and wear a bag for the rest of his life. The second option was to have his bladder scraped, then take radiation treatments. The third option was to have a new bladder constructed from intestinal tissue, replacing the cancerous bladder. Before going into the hospital for surgery, he decided to take option 3 and have a new bladder constructed. He went into the hospital the second Sunday in June of 1998.

He came through the surgery with flying colors. His initial hospital stay was supposed to last five to six weeks, making his discharge date around July 4. On July 3rd, he was rushed to intensive care due to adult respiratory distress. It seemed that he had developed some infections, possibly due to the steroid drugs that he took for his rheumatoid arthritis, and his lungs had begun filling with fluid. He never regained consciousness. He died in the hospital on August 21, 1998.
One of the things that always bothered me since was that it was his wish not be hooked to life support. He made this clear with us all. But he was on a respirator the last few weeks of his life. I have always wondered if he ever regained enough consciousness to think that we had forsaken him. According to the doctors, he was drawing his own breaths, but the respirator gave him volume to do so. So technically this was not life support. But little comfort it would have been to him had he awakened in that state.

But all of the wondering from here to eternity will not bring him back. My grandmother is lonely and often depressed, but she has coped with the loneliness by revisiting old friendships with other women in similar situations. I often go to visit her and think of how I would love just one more time to have a good heart-to-heart talk with Papa. I long for his counsel. I miss his smile when he would see me.

But he was ready for his final hour. He often looked for it. And what he knew better than I, and what becomes more evident to me as I grow older is this; mortal man is born to die, and die he will. Throughout the ages, men have lived and men have died. But the one sure thing that never changes is God. When all else is gone, God will always be there. No matter how far we may stray, God is always right where we left him. And if it seems that all have forsaken you, even in the end, God will be there to send His angels to take you home if you are one of His.
And as I get older, I, like Papa did, look forward to the coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the gathering of God’s elect in the New Jerusalem. That is where my hope lies. And that was Papa’s hope while he lived.

Short Hair Is Human, Long Hair Is Divine

Vox Day, who is no friend to feminism but a great friend to females, had a spot on his blog today concerning a British court's handling of a case where a man cut off his girlfriend's ponytail without her consent. As to my personal stance on this, I believe that there was absolutely no call for this guy to cut off his girlfriend's ponytail, particularly if he wished to continue a relationship with her. Many of the comments trailed into how women cut their hair in the current day, and if they are more desirable to men.

Now, call me a chauvanist (it has been done before), but I like for women to look like women, not an old-looking little boy. I prefer to see a woman in a dress (not a mini-skirt) and with her hair on her shoulders. A woman has much strength in her hair. Not physical strength, but let's face it; men are visual creatures. A woman with long flowing hair, even if she has few other attributes, has a way of attracting a man's attention. If you do not believe that, how many times have you guys been walking down the street, saw someone with long flowing hair who, at first appears to be fairly attractive, and HE turned around, only to reveal a beard on the other side? Yikes.

Hair is symbolic of gender roles. It has been for ages. The Apostle Paul talks of hair, particularly the length of hair, when admonishing the Corinthians in his Epistle to them of the relationship of man to God and wife to man. Hair, and furthermore overall appearances, are visual signals to others as to how you view yourself and wish to be viewed by others. But hair has a significance to gender roles, which are a no-no in our politically correct world.

Unfortunately for us, we are a post-sexual revolution generation, and we are now suffering the consequences of this. Beginning with WWII, gender roles began to be blurred. The feminist revolution came to a head in the 1960's with the "sexual revolution". During this time, women became no longer compelled to be responsible to men nor men to women, sex became a recreational activity rather than a procreational activity, and family became unimportant to a lot of people.

Now, 50% of all marriages end in divorce, many of those marriages with children to boot. Marriage is no longer marriage in the traditional sense (i.e. till death do we part), but rather institutionalized dating (i.e. till I get tired of you). No fault divorce is commonplace. The happiness and well-being of children are equated with the happiness of the parent, normally the mother. And how did we get here?

Men are no longer raised to be men, if they are raised at all; and women are no longer raised to be women. Each gender has its strengths and weaknesses; the weakness of one is the strength of the other. This is why, naturally, a woman completes a man and vice versa. Or at least this is the way it should be. And this is why gender roles are NOT a BAD thing, but to the contrary. They were the way that we were designed by the Creator. In this day and time, women are trying to be everything, which implies that a man is nothing. And all because of the oppression of the dominating males.

Now some men will take the scriptures pertaining to the relationship of man to wife and wife to man and try to justify being all-authoritative over their wives. Paul speaks further in the same chapter about contentious men. Contentious people are self-centered and believe the world revolves around them; therefore they must be an integral part of every event. It is no wonder that Paul speaks about contention so soon after spelling out the relationships of married couples. Men are not God and are imperfect. A man being the head of the wife is a responsibility to his wife; that is, he to to take care of her needs and provide for her well-being. He is to love her as he loves his own flesh. A wife is to submit herself to her husband; that is to say that she should stand by him although he may make mistakes and respect the decisions that he has a responsibility to make for the well-being of the family. This is not to say that she should follow his every command blindly. Nor is this saying that a man should "boss" his wife. But the wife, with her strengths if she so uses them, can have much influence over events and decisions without ruining the confidence in the husband of his own strengths.

Which brings us back to hair. Ladies, do not be ashamed to be feminine. And please display the strength of the female to the world, even in your hair. Men, be men. Get a haircut.

Hitting The Ground Running

The decision for what I wanted to write about in my first real blogpost was not really hard to make, because this subject has really pressed hard on my mind since I saw the John Stossel report "Stupid In America". What really struck me was not that American children in public schools fare much worse in education than children in public schools in other nations. In fact, according to the report, American high school students placed 25th in a test given to high school students in 40 countries. When parts of an international test were given to high schoolers in New Jersey and in Belgium, the Belgians easily overtook the American students, scoring 75% to the Americans paltry 47%.

But poor scoring of American high school students is not surprising given the state of public schools today. What really struck me and surprised me were the attitudes of those responsible for the education of our children: parents and educators.

One segment of the report focused on a high school student in South Carolina who struggled to read on a first grade level at the age of 18. Think about that for a moment. A high school senior was allowed to progress throughout his entire school career without achieving the most basic fundamental required in obtaining an education. And what was worse is that his mother allowed this to happen.

The flaw of most parents today is that they do not believe that they are truly responsible for parenting. They believe that they can subcontract that obligation to someone else, namely public schools after children reach compulsory attendance age. The fact of the matter is, undeniably, that the education of YOUR child is YOUR responsibility. It is a parent's obligation to a child to see to it that he is receiving his education. And report cards will not tell the story. You actually have to do some investigating and homework to get the real scoop.

Apparently, the mother of this South Carolina teen had conference after conference with her son's school, but to no avail. So what did she do? She sent him right back to the school that was passing him on without addressing the issues he had.

He was sent to a Sylvan Learning Center on the dime of ABC and improved significantly over only the course of a few weeks. It is a shame that his mother could not have taken it upon herself to do something like that earlier on in his school career.

But are the educators without fault? While the United States Constitution does NOT guarantee all people the right to an education, many state constitutions do. Public educators are employees of the state, therefore they have the fiduciary responsibility to provide public education to the best of their ability.

Now it is my belief that most educators truly care about trying to teach children. However, the present system makes it almost impossible and gives no incentive for achieving excellence. A teacher who comes in every day giving 110% of himself to his class will be paid and given the same benefits as a teacher who comes in each day, writes and assignment on the boards, kicks back in his chair, and sleeps the rest of the day away. So why not change the system if it isn't working?

Enter the National Education Association. The name would imply that this group would be established to the betterment of education for our children. Disappointing as it may be, this group is a union for educators, teachers, and employees of public schools, such as bus drivers, lunch room workers, and maintenance people, now called "Education Support Professionals". And like all labor unions, their goal is to maintain a reason for existence.

A quick scanning of their website would reveal some insightful and intellectually heavy debates, and example being "Should I or Shouldn't I Eat Lunch With My Students?" More scanning reveals that the NEA is backing efforts "with a new salary initiative to secure an “appropriate living wage” as starting pay for ESPs and a $40,000 minimum salary for teachers". A $40,000 minimum salary? How about adding a cell phone and company car to that pot.

The union members interviewed in the Stossel report held nothing back about their true feelings. When questioned about the difficulty of firing bad teachers by Stossel, one stand-offish union member proclaimed "YOU prove that I'm a bad teacher!" Many openly proclaimed that teachers should never be fired. But the most appalling of the quotes was from a teacher who, when asked about school vouchers and competition in education, stated that "competition is not human". What?

The one point that both evolutionists and creationist could agree on is that competition is very human. Evolutionists would point to survival of the fittest, which is to say that genes compete to remain in the evolutionary chain, and the weak ones are weeded out while the strong ones prevail. Creationists would point to Cain and Abel. Cain, who was upset because God was more pleased with his sacrifice, killed Abel out of anger. In other words, Cain lost the competition for God's favor in sacrifice while Abel won. And the NEA, like Cain, had rather kill the competition than to concede that their sacrifice is inferior.

If this is truly the mindset of today's educators, and it appears to be with new grading methods, what are our public school children learning about capitalism, which is the cornerstone of the economic system in the United States. A tenet of capitalism is competition. If one wants to make a good argument for competition, consider the monopolies of the industrial revolution. Or, a more recent example, is the pre-privatization of Ma Bell. Can anyone say one style of black phone?

To answer my rhetorical question above, I would say very little, which is why I believe that the only way to save our education system is to privatize the entire education system. Yes, NEA executives would probably have to find work as education support professionals, but, at least it would be honest work. At the very least, we should attach our tax dollars for education to each student (currently public education costs $10,000 per student annually) and allow parents to choose the school that their children attend. Oh, by the way, most private schools can educate children for $3K to $6K per year.

Competition breeds excellence. And if we want excellence in education, there is no other way. Else, we continue to make the less favorable sacrifice of our children on the alter of the NEA.

An introduction...

I guess the first thing I should do is introduce myself to blogdom. I call myself Badbeans, which is a reference to my profession, which is bean counting. (For those of you who went to public school, bean counting is a euphamism for the profession of accounting.) I live in the town of Jasper, GA, which lies about 50 miles north of Atlanta. I am a card-carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy, and probably more conservative than most right-wingers. I belong to a small Baptist church near Jasper, and I am married with 3 children, all of whom are homeschooled by their mother, who happens to be the greatest wife a man could ask for. I enjoy a number of things, including but not limited to spending time with my family, reading, playing poker on line and with friends (no real gambling, just strategy games with chips), and working on projects around the house. I also am interested in current events. In short, most would think that I lead a rather boring existence, but I'm cool with it.

I do not know that I will be posting daily, but I will sure try. As I do, I will partake in another favorite pasttime of mine, which is known in some circles as "stirring the pot". My posts will not be politically correct, but they will be my honest assessment of the topics. I welcome all comments provided that they contain no profanity or lewd suggestions, and are on point with the topic of discussion.

Happy blogging...