The Bean Patch

Am I The Only Person Who Sees The Problem Here?

2007-08-16T15:28:00.001-05:00

I have some mixed emotions about this story. Right now, I'm between outraged and wondering if there is not more to the story.

(Bold below is my emphasis)

From MSNBC.com...

Father Tasered while holding newborn
Man says daughter injured when security guards downed him in hospital
The Associated Press

HOUSTON - In a confrontation captured on videotape, a hospital security guard fired a stun gun to stop a defiant father from taking home his newborn, sending both man and child crashing to the floor.

Now the man says the baby girl suffers from head trauma because she was dropped.
“I’ve got to wonder what kind of moron would Tase an adult holding a baby,” said George Kirkham, a former police officer and criminologist at Florida State University. “It doesn’t take rocket science to realize the baby is going to fall.”

The April 13 episode began when William Lewis, 30, said he and his wife felt mistreated by staff at the Woman’s Hospital of Texas so they decided to leave. Hospital employees told him doctors would not allow it, but Lewis picked up the baby and strode to a bank of elevators.
The elevators would not move because wristband sensors on each baby shut off the elevators if anyone takes an infant without permission.

Lewis, who gave the video to The Associated Press, said his daughter landed on her head, but it cannot be seen on the video. He said the baby continues to suffer ill effects from the fall.
“She shakes a lot and cries a lot,” Lewis said, noting doctors have performed several MRIs on the child, Karla. “She’s not real responsive. Something is definitely wrong with my daughter.”
It was not clear whether the baby received any electrical jolt.

Child Protective Services has custody of the baby because of a history of domestic violence between Lewis and his wife, Jacqueline Gray. The infant does not appear to be suffering any health problems from the fall, agency spokeswoman Estella Olguin said.

David Boling, an off-duty Houston police officer working security at the hospital, and another security guard can be seen on the surveillance video arriving at the elevators and trying to talk with Lewis. Lewis appears agitated as he walks around the elevators holding his daughter in his right arm.

Within 40 seconds of arriving, Boling is holding the Taser. He walks around Lewis and whispers to the other guard, who moves to Lewis’ right side.

About a minute later, Boling can be seen casually standing near Lewis, not looking in his direction, when he suddenly raises the Taser and fires it at Lewis, who was still holding his daughter.

Lewis drops to the floor. The other guard, who has not been identified, scoops up the baby and gives her to the child’s mother, who was standing nearby in a hospital gown.

The guard then pulls Lewis to his feet with his arms locked behind him. Lewis’ T-shirt has two holes under the left side of his chest where the Taser prongs hit him.
Lewis said he did not see the stun gun.

“My wife said we want to leave and then he just Tasered me,” Lewis said. “He caused me to drop the child.”

In a statement, the hospital said Lewis was hostile and uncooperative toward staff members who were trying to find out his relationship to the infant when they saw him trying to leave. Neither Lewis or Gray had indicated they wanted a discharge, according to the statement.

“Mr. Lewis became verbally abusive by using vulgar expletives. When Mr. Lewis’ behavior became threatening, endangering the infant and employees, licensed law enforcement officers followed their professional standards to protect those involved,” the statement said.

Lewis was arrested and charged with endangering a child. A grand jury in May declined to indict him on that charge, but charged him with retaliation, accusing him of making threats against Boling.

Lewis also has been charged with a second count of retaliation alleging he made a threatening call to Boling at his home.

Lewis denies both charges. He said he is considering suing the hospital but has not filed any legal papers.

Houston police spokesman Gabe Ortiz said the department did not investigate the officer’s role, and he declined to elaborate. Boling did not immediately respond to a request for comment given to the police department.

Some 11,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies use Tasers, which some experts say are increasingly being used as a convenient labor-saving device to control uncooperative people.

“The Taser itself is a legitimate law-enforcement tool,” Kirkham said. “The problem is the abusive use of them. They’re supposed to be only used to protect yourself or another person from imminent aggression and physical harm. They’re overused now.”

In a nutshell, this man and woman appear to have been dissatisfied for some reason with the hospital. They wanted to leave. Husband takes baby to the elevator.

Now here is where I am in a quandry. I fully agree with hospital regulations concerning bracelets. Too many creeps are out there that will slip a baby out of a hospital. However, I am in full disagreement that a patient cannot discharge themselves from the hospital without "doctor consent".

I believe that if an officer is standing casually by a "belligerent" person, facing in another direction, that the case for the said suspect being "belligerent" is, well, suspect. Just how belligerent can a person be holding a newborn baby?

The jury refusing to indict Mr. Lewis with endangerment to his child also speaks volumes about this case.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget that the officer used the taser for the "protection of himself and others". Except the baby.

Sounds to me like the rent-a-cop had a new toy, was itching to use it, and seized an opportunity.

But to be fair, perhaps we are not hearing the whole story. But it is still undenial that only a moron would tase a person holding a newborn.

Barry Bonds Takes A Spanking From A Former Player With Class

2007-08-08T16:07:00.000-05:00

Apparently, some people are not taking the breaking of Hank Aaron's homerun record by Barry "Asterisk" Bonds with a grain of salt, as I am. In the whole big scheme of things, I find this much more offensive to baseball than Pete Rose's betting scandal. At least Pete Rose did break the hitting record with no trainer in jail for giving him illegal substances, even if he did bet on the game. But some more hardcore fans, former players, that is, are not so happy about the "record-breaking" home run.

Enter Dale Murphy, two-time MVP and all around class-act ball player. From the looks of
this story, Dale Murphy called a radio station in Salt Lake City, Utah, and gave Barry a well-deserved verbal spanking.

"[Bonds] would have become one of the great ones, anyway. Now, he sucked the fun and the life right out of it. There is enough evidence to me to say without a doubt that he used performance-enhancing drugs. He hit 73 home runs when he was 37. Hank would have hit 855 if he had the same advantage."

As is consistent with his clean-cut image, Mr. Murphy sticks to sound logic when coming to the conclusion that Bonds definitely had "help" in defeating the record. He concedes that Bonds would have been "one of the great ones", but then points out that the evidence rendered so far, such as "hit(ting) 73 home runs when he was 37", as his basis for his conclusion.

"Barry's a great player, but he put an asterisk by his name on his own. He's deserved all the negative publicity that he's getting. People have been complaining that he's being treated unfairly. Life isn't usually like that. You don't just get treated unfairly. You usually get what you deserve. "

Mr. Murphy has spoken a universal truth that those with a victim mentality and with no faith in God can grasp; that people usually get what they deserve, and that his troubles were brought on by himself.

"This is what Barry deserves. He's a hard guy to like. He's a hard teammate to have. He's set a terrible example for our kids. "

This is always what set Dale Murphy apart. I can remember growing up, and every kid wanted to be Dale Murphy, just like every kid now wants to be Barry Bonds. But Dale Murphy knew this. He always took bad calls in stride, rarely arguing calls with the umpires. He never used profanity on the field. He never lost his cool. He knew that children were watching, but he also knew that he was only human, and that he had to watch his actions and words closely because he was influency a lot of children. Barry Bonds is a thug in comparison, much more akin to the NBA mentality.

"That's what you say to your kids. You say, 'This is what happens when you take steroids. Your dad doesn't want to watch this, because it's drug abuse.'

And this quote is some good sound advice to parents when addressing the Bonds issue.

As for me, I could really care less, because history will not be good to Bonds in my opinion. We still here about the "Black Sox scandal" of 1919, and "Shoeless Joe" Jackson. Despite the caliber player Jackson may have been in his time, that is far more overshadowed by the scandal.

Barry Bonds may never get the asterisk. But baseball fans and historians don't forget.

The Temptation To Be Base to the Base

2007-08-07T16:13:00.000-05:00

I almost daily read three blogs, which are the top three list on my blog roll: Waynedawg, Wadical, and Vox. Waynedawg and Wadical are like I am, and blog when they have time or inspiration. Vox has a larger readership and blogs several times daily.

And so I came across this post by Vox and began reading comments, which is always entertaining. A commentor named "WLindseyWheeler" posted some comments that many of the readers of Vox's blog did not agree with. As a matter of fact, I disagreed with his opinions and his screed against "niggers" and "dirty Jews", as well as Libertarians in general. However, what disappointed me was the way in which some of Vox's readers, who I find to be on the upper side of the intelligence spectrum, reacted to his comments.

When a person is saying things that are offensive or that is disagreeable, the temptation is always to lower to their level, and "call a spade a spade". However, oftentimes this has the opposite impact that one may perceive, actually legitimizing the cause of the offender in his mind. This is often the reaction of those with such simple minds, who understand nothing deeper than a banner slogan.

When I am called a name, I recognize that I have hit a nerve with someone who lacks the depth and/or the logic to counter my point. I would venture to say that Mr. Wheeler probably believes somewhat of the same thing considering such comebacks as, "Oh yea, you have a little penis and none of the feminists want to have sex with you," courtesy of a commentor called "Starbuck".

This brings to mind a time when a certain group of people from a church came calling at the home of someone I know. Rather than politely thank them for coming and saying, "we're not interested", they chose to be quiet and hope that they would just go away. But when one of them turned the door knob after knocking, the woman of the house came unhinged, telling them not so politely what she thought that they were and where they should go in very plain language that would make HBO producers blush. My thought at this is that she only legitimized the cause of those with whom she disagreed by stooping, in this case, below their level.

My advice is to fight ignorance with knowledge and resist the temptation to sling mud.

By attending the Klan rally in protest, the NAACP only further legitimizes the KKK in their own minds. Ignore them, and keep the cameras at home.

Stay on the high ground above those you oppose, and defeat them with facts and knowledge rather than fighting them with meaningless drivel that only reflects poorly on you.

Labor Woes Are A Simple Function Of Supply & Demand

2007-08-02T16:21:00.000-05:00

Much has been bantered about in our vanilla Congress about the recent increase in minimum wage. Minimum wage is merely a bunch of cowdung, put in a box, and wrapped in pretty Christmas paper with a bow. Though the package is appealing, open it up and it really stinks.

Let's look realistically at the minimum wage scenerio. A basic premise of economics is that price is based upon the perceived value to the buyer. When selling labor as well as materials, perceived value of the buyer will dictate the price of said labor. The buyer of labor is expecting to make a profit from his investment in labor, or else no incentive exists for him to make the investment to begin with. Therefore, the cost of labor is built in to all pricing models for goods and services.

When labor prices go up, the investor has one of three options. He can raise the price of the goods or services he offers. The price of the goods or services offered by the investor is dictated by what his customers are willing to pay. Therefore, if his customers are not willing to buy from him with the new price increase, this is not a feasible option. Another option is absorbing the cost with lower profit margins. However, this can only go on for so long, as profit margins can only dwindle so far before the third option, which is ceasing operations, has to take place. Simple indeed and irrefutable is my logic in this.

So one can see easily that if floor is placed on labor artificially, then prices will increase relative to wages, and no one is really better off, or either the investor is out of business and the low wage worker out of a job.

However, another factor plays in to pricing for goods: that is supply and demand. A simple concept, really, is supply and demand. If demand increases for goods or services and supplies cannot keep with the demand, prices increase. If supply exceeds the demand, prices must decrease. Currently, we have in the U.S. an ever-increasing supply of low-wage, low-skill workers crossing our southern border.

Unemployment rates are very low right now overall, which indicates that wage rates were acceptable before the hike. However, if a shortage of low skill labor occurs, the price paid for low skill workers will have to go up, and it will by virtue of market pressure. Since population growth is negative for the children of babyboomers, take illegal immigrants out and there is no other alternative.

So, in short, the best way and only logical way to better the economic status of low skill workers is the cut-off illegal immigration and seal the borders, in addition to creating stricter guidelines for work visas and legal immigration.

Where A Big Government Belongs

2007-05-29T16:28:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas, has received some bad reviews from some of the conservative watchdog groups. Of those who are considered "real" contenders for the nomination, I would say that at this point I like Huckabee the best, although I am not at this point in time completely convinced he is as much of a conservative as he claims to be.

The watchdog groups point to some of the events that unfolded in Arkansas under his tenure, such as increases in taxes, to say that he is not conservative. Although the act of "raising", or collecting, taxes is not anti-conservative, since a certain amount of revenue is needed for the operation of government, the amounts raised and methods of raising are definitely debatable.

Huckabee raised sales taxes, or at least the state did while he was governor, which is the preferred method of raising taxes to conservative. Huckabee also claims to be a proponent of the Fairtax, which is a plus. But watchdog groups making a blanket assumption that the growth of state government under the tenure of a governor disqualifies him as conservative is fallable at best. As a matter of fact, constitutionally, this is where a conservative would prefer the growth of government.

The U.S. is unique in that its citizens have the ability to move for hundreds, even thousands, of miles freely. No other nation in the world boasts this freedom. Consequently, different regions have different needs and philosophies. The degree of government within each state is unique to that state, provided that it does not counter the few powers delegated to the Federal government, such as interstate commerce. If a state, such as Arkansas, wishes to raise taxes to whatever level, this is their constitutional right.

State government is also more accountable to its citizenry, since the state represents a region of the body and not the whole. So if government is growing in size anywhere, it should be at the state level. State citizens can then debate what they need. If the citizens of the state do not like the operation of the state, they have the freedom and choice to move to another state more suitable.

This is the principle upon which many issues should be decided rather than decided in the supreme court of the land, or even in the federal legislature. An issue, such as murder or abortion, should be state mandated. If Massachusetts wants to legalize abortion or murder, then the state has the power to do so. But this does not mean that a state such as New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada should be held to laws that go against the wishes or morality of their citizenry.

While I may not agree with the views of liberals, I do agree that if they can win at the ballot box with their viewpoints within their state, they do have the right to legislate those viewpoints within their state, but not at the federal level.

And so Mike Huckabee may have been subject and even party to some anti-conservative governmental moves while governor of Arkansas. But his words and acts will dictate whether or not he is truly conservative, not the acts of legislatures or courts within the state during his tenure.

The Bermuda Triangle Analogy

2007-05-21T11:35:00.000-05:00

Several years ago, Waynedawg and I attended a townhall meeting hosted by Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia, who happens to be our representative in the U.S. House. At this point in time, the Medicare prescription drug plan was being debated.

Rep. Deal began to describe the Republican version of the prescription drug plan. When he fielded questions, several attendees called Rep. Deal to question on conservative principles as to how he could support anything that would grow our government larger.

To paraphrase the Congressman, he said, "This is going to eventually pass, whether we do it or whether Democrats do it if and when they regain power. If we do it, we can get what we want out of it."

As I reflect on this, what is still oblivious to our beltway republicans but so evident to their base is that this is exactly the kind of thinking and action that caused many a conservative to just sit at home on election day 2006. And the same will happen in 2008, when the Hildabeast becomes our first female president since the last time she occupied the Whitehouse.

And thus we now have an immigration bill that is being co-sponsored by both democrats and republicans that will most likely pass the senate, which basically gives amnesty to illegal immigrants. Both Georgia senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isaakson are in favor of the bill.

Immigration is the one issue that could turn the party around and offer it another chance for power if republicans would take it a go with it.

But for some reason, republicans keep making the wrong moves. What is it about Washington D.C. that causes people to lose their minds and become bleeding heart liberals to one degree or another?

And so the lerch of the republican party leftward continues. Hopefully by 2012, enough conservatives will have realized that the republican party is nothing more than dishonest democrats.

Washington D.C. is the bermuda triangle of conservative politicians. It seems that their political compasses point North when in fact they are traveling South. The transmissions to their base ceases, and the instruments that got them to where they are begin to fail. And thus they are swallowed by the black hole that is D.C., never to be heard from again.

What I Said, Only Better

2007-05-18T12:09:00.000-05:00

Here is a post I found with better and more in depth analysis on Rep. Paul that what I offered in my last post.

Is He Really Getting A Fair Shake?

2007-05-17T16:16:00.000-05:00

The big news from the Republican presidential debate this week was the supposed whipping Rep. Ron Paul took from Rudolph Guiliani. I did not see the debate, nor have I viewed the clip on line, a clip which is now widely available. But I know a little about Ron Paul. And since he is being smacked around by all of the Bush-loving neocon pundits, my antennae have detected a bit of "discredit the right wing kook, move center" conspiracy.

Ron Paul is possibly the most libertarian member of Congress currently serving. He is the only one who agrees to give ear to those who legitimately call in to question the legality of some government programs, including the constitutionality of the income tax.

Judging from Rep. Paul's voting record, he is a true conservative who favors states rights, as is indicated in a vote to limit the Federal government's powers by the 10th amendment. I would also take a leap of faith and say that Rep. Paul's seemingly un-conservative votes on some issues is not a reflection of his personal opinions, but is a reflection on his opinion that the Federal government has not particular role in the issue.

But Ron Paul is considered a kook by the main stream Republicans. Most neocons are ready to vote for Guiliani, who is indistinguishable from Hillary on social issues. But they label Ron Paul, who is more consistent in his stand for conservative ideals than any other sitting congressman, on the "fringe" of the right wing.

What Rep. Paul said was this: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."

Guiliani then took the obvious politically expedient route and implied that Paul was on the lunatic fringe. But in substance, the most important phrase in the statement has t0 do with the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and our lack of understanding. If anyone can deny that applying western solutions to a region who is extremely opposed to the west is going to work out to anything but the defeat of one idea or other, then I would call them a lunatic.

But Guiliani played the popularity card, and people who disagree with the war in Iraq are not really popular with the Republican base. And in a debate of principles, I would have to side with Ron Paul.

I believe, as I have said before, that if our policy was to truly rebuild the country from the ground up, which would include the elimination of all anti-western leaders who show the slightest tendency toward violence, then perhaps the new mission in Iraq would be feasible. However, if we have not learned by now that the Middle Eastern mindset is truly foreign to those of us who are acclimated to the western culture, and that imposing our views in a diplomatic way only fuels their belief that we are weak infidels, then we never will learn.

Unfortunately, we did not limit our mission to deposing Saddam. We gave our soldiers a task that we are not willing to have the stomach to follow through.

Is now the time to withdraw troops? Do we give a timetable? Absolutely no to both. But when it is inevitable that given the constraints that we impose on ourselves that we will not succeed, the best policy is to give minimal required training and assistance to those who understand the dynamics of the politics and get out.

The Responsibility of the Rich

2007-05-01T11:26:00.000-05:00

"It is the responsibility of those who have much to help those who do not."

This was a comment made to me by a co-worker after our conversation about the unbiased nature of major new organizations, including Fox News, turned to the Fairness Doctrine, and then to economics. And this is a comment that I wholeheartedly endorse. In fact, most Americans regardless of political stripe would agree with this statement. The disagreement comes about when the discussion turns to how this should be accomplished.

My co-worker is, I found out, a staunch opponent of Reaganomics. His belief is that the boom of the 90's was a result of a combination of tax increases from the late 80's implemented by George Bush and Bill Clinton's economic policy. His belief is that those who are wealthy are so because they have the discipline to keep the money that they make rather than spending all of the money that they make.

On the flip side, he also believes that if poorer people are given money, that they will in turn pump it back into the economy through spending. His example was that if a child is continually given candy, they will not save the candy but continue to eat it as fast as they can get it.

All of his beliefs are somewhat true. However, these are not substantial arguments to support that Reaganomics is bad and tax increases are good for the economy.

Wealthier people do develop a discipline to save money rather than spend it on consumer goods. However, consumer goods is only one side of the economic equation. Wealthy people do not come about wealth by sticking their money under a mattress, but rather, they invest it to make more money. Those investments in business ventures generate jobs for people, like myself, who either do not have the guts, resourcefulness, or intelligence to take the risks of capital ventures.

And let us not confuse wealthy people with high income earners. Income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains are passive or unearned income. It is possible to earn high income and not be wealthy. Several NFL football players earning millions of dollars a year have filed for bankruptcy protection during their playing career.

If I give my child candy with nothing but the expectation that I will give him more later, he will surely consume the candy quickly without another thought. But if my child earns his candy, he will be more careful how he invests the consumption of the candy. And if he finds that he can earn more candy than will be given to him otherwise, he will find ways to earn the candy.

The argument that taxing high income earners to redistribute to the poor is good for the economy is also, in a sense, putting the cart before the horse. For when investors have no capital to invest in production, or the cost of investing in production is not worth the return, then production is either ceased or moved to a more profitable location. The tax structure of the U.S., along with socialist economic and labor policy, are the very reasons why manufacturing is moving offshore.

And the evidence of this can be seen all over Europe. Outside of some cars and wine, when have you bought something that was manufactured in Europe.

Not to dismiss service industries, but manufacturing and production of goods fueled by capital investment are the backbone of economic growth.

And in terms of charity to the poor, study after study has shown that states that have lower taxes give much more to charity. States with more socialist viewpoints and higher taxes give less. And the evidence of the decline in the economic health of those states, such as Michigan and Maine, is overwhelming.

History also shows that the most prominent philantropists were capitalists.

So, while it is the responsibility of those who have to help those who have not, the onus is on the individual to do so. Government policy confiscating money from high earners under this guise has staggering detrimental consequences.

An Update On Why I Haven't Blogged Lately (If Anybody Cares)

2007-04-19T16:39:00.000-05:00

If anyone still reads this blog, you will notice that I haven't logged a blog since November, shortly after we, as a nation, jumped on the fast train to the devil by electing those who openly subscribe to a socialist platform. Several things have been going on that have prevented me from writing.

I have a new job. I left my job of 11 years for an opportunity at a plant just up the road. I am the assistant controller working under a controller who will be retiring in a couple of years. My plan is to step into his job. This has really worked out to be a great move for me and my family.
I have a new baby. My wife gave birth to our fourth child on November 13, 2006. Blogging had to be put lower on the priority list.
I just have not really been inspired. Nothing has really peaked my interest to write about.

I had posted on my brother-in-law and his divorce in the past. He recently went through mediation. Although his wife became more open with her affair, and the alienating between him and his children was obvious to all, he still came out of the divorce smelling like he had wallowed in a sewer. His wife has full custody of the children, although he has visitation with his son (his daughter, age 11, was given the option of visitation), and she got the house. His lawyer, in my opinion, determined that it would be unprofitable for him to continue to try to pursue the "equality" of divorcing men, so he basically advised my brother-in-law to take whatever offer his wife made. Now, he is worse off than he would have been had he signed the papers she presented to begin with, and he is $20,000 in debt.
Harry Reid has said that if we follow President Bush's plan in Iraq, the war is lost. We lost the war when we allowed people like Harry Reid to be the leaders of our nation.
One person on campus with a gun besides the Virginia Tech killer could have prevented a lot of deaths potentially.
What does it say about the state of mind that we have in society, when, before a movie depicting violence on an animal, a disclaimer must be shown that states that no harm came to the animal during filming, but no disclaimers are required if violence is shown on screen toward a human being?
The Supreme Court upheld that ban on the barbaric and immoral practice of so-called "partial birth abortion". Although a good sign, I am skeptical that the opinion did not have language that would permit a future challenge on technical grounds. I say this having not read the opinion.
Why do so many liberals have such a problem with the "No Child Left Behind" act when Ted Kennedy was the author of the bill to begin with? Does anyone besides me remember President Bush inviting Kennedy to the White House for a screening of "Thirteen Days", just before Kennedy accused Bush of concocting the Iraq War at his ranch in Texas? This is what republicans always get when they jump in bed with liberals.
Right now, in terms of republican hopefuls for president, none look too appealing.

By the way, thanks to Wadical for his mention of my blog in his acceptance blog for his award. I hope to be back to blogging soon.

Grabbing The Greasy Pole

2006-11-08T13:22:00.000-05:00

The predictions of the Inside-the-Beltway pundits came true yesterday when Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives. The U.S. has now grabbed the greasy pole that slides straight to hell for this country. Democrats are fumbling over themselves in glee, attempting to put together a logical chain of events and proposed policy that gave them the edge. Many of the media is helping the Democrats grab for straws to explain their win. I believe John Murtha to be closest to the reason for his loss, although not entirely. For me, two bellweather votes explains the whole reason for the Democrat win.

Or rather, the Republican loss. John Murtha says that the election was a reaction to President Bush's policy in Iraq. He is only half right or less. Definitely a reaction to President Bush's policy this swing was. It certainly was not because the U.S. citizenry was excited about a Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This election amounted to a reaction by conservatives to neo-con republicans. The reaction was that many stayed at home. Other conservatives, such as myself, who have felt the knife-blade turning in our backs by Republicans, voted for more conservative independents. The Libertarian candidates in Georgia garnered 4% of the vote in most races that included a Libertarian candidate. Ordinarily, they only total maybe 2% or less in Georgia.

And yet other conservatives stayed home due to apathy. In South Dakota, who only 2 years earlier defeated Senate Majority Leader and flaming liberal Senator Tom Daschle, rejected a measure that would amount to the toughest ban on abortion in the U.S. Arizona rejected a measure that would ban gay marriage from that state. Both of these states only two years earlier elected Bush and helped to boost Republicans into the Senate Majority. So have the people of these states changed their political stripes so quickly as to be intolerant of conservative measures that they appeared to support only two years earlier?

The fact of the matter is that the Democrat win is a reaction to Federal issues. The effects spilled over into these states, due to the fact that the Federal portions of elections often overshadow the state portion. The bottom line is that conservatives are fed up with Republicans who govern like Democrats.

When I heard that Lincoln Chaffee lost his senate seat, my first thought was, "At least now Rhode Island has someone in the Senate who is actually honest about where he stands."

So let this be the wake-up call to those who have rode the conservative train to Washington, but slid into neo-conservative (watered-down liberal) pinstripes when they arrived. Those conservatives who tried to be true to their convictions, such as Representative Mike Pence, were silenced by the leadership.

To Republicans who wish to have the support of conservatives: take the example of Mike Pence and govern by it if you have the opportunity again. I fear that it will be difficult to win back the trust of conservatives to loyal Republicans again.

American Territory

2006-10-30T12:07:00.000-05:00

With my AM radio still on the blitz due to the repair being a low priority, I have been obtaining my morning new stories from NPR, listening with a scrutinous ear. This morning, a featured story was on a Puerto Rican town who has lost three hometown service members to the Iraq War. The particular slant on this story had to do with the fact that Puerto Ricans can sign up for military duty but cannot vote for president, nor do they have representation in Congress.

While I am sympathetic to those who lost family members, regardless of the reason, I cannot be sympathetic to the fact that they do not vote for president or have representation in Congress. First of all, Puerto Rico is not a state, but a territory. Territories are not on par with states when it comes to representation in Congress. This is a well established fact that should not be changed for any reason. If Puerto Rico wishes, they can petition for statehood, just like every state has since the original 13 colonies were established as states in the union.

Second of all, and this is the major thing for me, is that individuals who sign up for military service know the risks. The purpose of the military is to establish defense and to participate in armed conflicts that are found by Congress to be pertitent enough to American interests to declare war. The inherent risks involved in military service is injury or death.

And so Puerto Ricans who volunteer for military service have no illusions that they are exempt from risk. Unfortunately for the Puerto Ricans whose relatives have been killed in action, they paid the ultimate price for their committment.

These volunteers knew that they could be killed or maimed in an armed conflict, and yet they still volunteered even though they also knew that they could not vote for president and had no representation in Congress.

The relationship of the United States with its territories is a symbiotic relationship. Although the slant of this piece this morning was that the U.S. military rapes and pillages the Puerto Rican people for their young men to serve, as if they had no choice, the fact of the matter is that Puerto Rico benefits from being a U.S. territory.

Puerto Rico itself has the backing of the full U.S. military for its protection, and this was the flip side of the story that was conveniently left out. The citizens of Puerto Rico who sign up for military service may have the opportunity of protecting their island home one day, just as much as they have the opportunity to fight on foreign soil under the command of a president that they do not elect.

Any life lost in battle is worthy of grief. Every man is someone's child, father, or husband. And in an all-volunteer army, all serve willingly despite the risks. Even if they are citizens of U.S. territories.

Fairy Dreams In New Jersey

2006-10-26T21:48:00.000-05:00

Since the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the New Jersey state constitution holds a "right" for gays and lesbians to marry, liberals have been wetting their pants with excitement, projecting futuristic scenerios of "Can you believe a time existed when gays couldn't marry?" with hypothetical children, as in this piece. And of course, we have the age-old comparison of the so-called gay "rights" movement to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

First of all, if one can find a right to marry in any legal constitution, state or otherwise, then people have the right to enter into any contract without qualification. And since marriage is a right, then all legal age of consent laws are invalid. And all laws against incest and bigamy are also unconstitutional.

In regards to the state, marriage law is nothing more than contract law. Under this archaic patriarchical concept, when a man takes a wife, he is obligated morally to provide for her. This was written into law for the protection of women and children, so that if a man decided to break his marriage contract with his wife, she could recover for herself and her children. It does not take a legal scholar to figure this one out. Furthermore, if you have ever witnessed an ugly divorce, you will see just which direction the presumption of innocence leans toward.

And so, again we must again re-state that marriage is not a civil right, but a matter of contract law. Under state laws, one must obtain a license for marriage. At last account, any obtaining of licenses from the state connote priviledge that can be revoked by the state if certain conditions and qualifications are not met. Other examples of licenses are business licenses, driver's licenses, building permits, etc. The above activities are rights denoted nowhere in any constitution. Contract law, plain and simple.

But if I were black, I believe I would get tired of everyone comparing their plight to the plight of black people in the years leading up to the 1960's. Blacks were denied their civil rights for years. Blacks could not even congregate for church in the south for years without white supervision. One custom that still exists in some black churches today has its roots in pre-civil rights struggles, as black preachers were required to hold on to a chair set in the middle of the room while preaching. Blacks were not treated as competent people, but were believed to be inferior, needing white supervision and help in all things. In the early census statistics, blacks were treated only as 3/5 of a person if they were held as slaves. Blacks were not allowed to meet the gaze of their white betters, or risk physical harm.

While not all whites abused blacks, and not all blacks were abused, the general stigmas of the days prior to the Civil Rights movement held that blacks were not fully equal people to whites. A fairer comparison to the struggles of the Civil Rights movement may be drawn from Jews or Irish immigrants in at the turn of the century.

But gays? First of all, gays have been assembling for years now without reprisal from the government, unlike blacks of the civil rights era who were hosed. We've had to put up with the incessant carping about being second class citizens, when in fact we are just tired of their whining about their self-inflicted demotion. Blacks were in fact treated as inferior to whites. Gays can obtain all the benefits of marriage without being married. Blacks could obtain no benefits for themselves at all unless whites allowed it at the time. Gays have always had equal protection under the law. Blacks had to have two amendments passed before such rights were even recognized.

The only reason why gay people want marriage is to legitimize their lifestyle, and to force society to accept as a normal condition one that has been regarded as deviant by most every society of history. Those societies that embraced deviance such as this no longer exist.

Dirty Politics, Georgia-Style

2006-10-26T18:23:00.000-05:00

As another saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" (and no, QD, I am not talking about anyone in your family), and I don't know what
Mike Wiggins did to make Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia Carol Hunstein angry, but it seems her recent campaign ad gets downright dirty. She claims that Wiggins is not fit to sit on the high bench of Georgia because: a)he is not a judge; b)his mom sued him; and c) he threatened to kill his sister.

Now whether any of the above is actually true is anyone's guess unless one actually cares to research the truth behind this apparent smear. Wiggins of course denies that his mother sued him out of malice, and that the disagreement with the sister had to do with the mother's healthcare, not a death threat. This disagreement apparently led to a lawsuit against the sister, which then led to a court order that they never initiate contact with one another again.

A quick reality check would lead one to realize that most lawyers have been involved in personal lawsuits, whether they be the plaintiff or the defendent. Suing people in a court of law is what they do. For some lawyers, it's a benefit to be able to sue people for financial gain, even if they have little or no stake in the outcome, just because they can. They see it as a benefit, kind of like a mechanic being able to fix his own car, or a plumber unclogging his own toilet.
After all, the law is for lawyers, or at least the way in which the system of litigation is structured.

But what really strikes my attention about this ad is the charge many other political ads mount against their opponents, regardless of party affiliation. The charge is lack of experience. This little jab has always bugged me.

By way of the structure of the bicameral legislature, the Founders did not seem to intend for politicians, especially in the House, to have a lot of governmental "experience". They anticipated that since originally being a member of Congress was not a lucrative job, that serious citizen statesmen, who held positions in the community, would serve as a civic duty for two years in the House, then go home. Most if not all states are patterned after the federal legislatures. Senators were never meant to be elected by popular vote, but were meant to be senior statesmen who would review the mounds of legislation that would ensue from the many House members, compromise the legislation, weighing the bests interests of the nation as a whole, and acting as a balance to the Congress, whose sentiments would lie with the interests of their own state.

In short, someone with experience in government is not necessarily the best candidate for a popularly elected office under our representative republic.

I also believe that those who have served as lawyers of judges are not necessarily the best candidates for judgeships, based solely on the fact that they have "experience". Especially in courts today, I had rather see citizens other than lawyers filling the benches. Incumbent judges should be voted out every term, just to keep the court system with a semblance of freshness.

A local candidate for a judgeship called my home to solicit my vote. His name not being familiar, I asked who he was up against. When he told me that it was an incumbent judge, I told him that he had my vote. When he asked why, I simply told him that considering that the office is judge, you not being the incumbent is a good enough reason for me.

Children Are Children, And So Are Liberals

2006-10-25T15:48:00.000-05:00

I may have earned my first "banning" from a blog site. QuakerDave is upset with me now when I commented on his blog, in which he describes a reaction his 14 year old child had to a Keith Olbermann tirade. He called his child his "liberal-in-training". Here is the comment that set QD's ire against me.

"An old saying goes like this: If you aren't a liberal when you are young, you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative when you grow up, you don't have a brain. Here's hoping that your liberal-in-training grows up."

If anyone can see any maliciousness in that comment, or can construe this as a personal attack on his child (besides QD), then feel free to comment about it.

This further compelled QD to write an entire section on posting rules for his site. Ah, the liberty of liberals. I am assuming that he is also calling me a bully, since with this post he included a picture of a "ban bullies" sign.

My response was that he could ban if he pleased, it was his site. But do not say it is because I am bullying his child or talking down about him. Children are children, and eventually if the Good Lord lets them live, they grow up. My personal hope is that his child grows up to be a conservative. If he does, he will still respect his dad for his liberal, misguided views, because that is what true conservatives do, that is respect their dads and people with liberal, misguided views.

Nevertheless, I would like to thank QD for proving the wisdom in the anecdote.

(Re)Defining Journalism

2006-10-25T10:32:00.000-05:00

I heard about this piece on the radio this morning. Apparently, Josh Wolf, a self-proclaimed anarchist, videotaped some protestors at a rally-turned-violent, resulting in the injury of a police officer. A federal grand jury has subpoened the videotape. Wolf claims that the government is fishing for information concerning the protesters, some of whom gave their names and showed their faces to the camera after being masked at the protest rally. Mr. Wolf is further claiming that his work is protected under the first amendment, since he claims his work is journalistic in nature and that since he is a self-proclaimed member of the press, he should not be forced to turn over any work that would reveal sources.

This brings about a couple of questions that I do not readily have the answers to: 1)What is a qualified member of the press under the first amendment; and 2)Is it the revealing of sources that is protected or the work itself that is protected.

The first question I cannot answer. The government-school educated part of me says that some guidelines should be met before one can be considered a press journalist, in line with the thinking that the government should have a hand in defining that, but my libertarian tendencies push those thoughts aside with the nagging question of what article gives the government that right. Then, who would set the guidelines? Perhaps the industry itself. But the guidelines could be manipulated to stretch protection of the press to unreasonable bounds, so maybe some outside influence should be met. Should that outside influence be the government? I do not find where the Fed has any power to do such. But the question still remains that until some clear boundries are drawn as to what constitutes legitimate press, in the age of the internet, anyone could claim press priveledge.

Now to answer the second question. The nature of journalism is to pass information from one source to another. I am all in favor of protecting sources of information and press priveledge, but ordinary citizens who refuse to testify in a criminal trial are held in contempt of court. Those who answer dishonestly are charged with perjury. Why should a member of the press be any different? And by nature in this case, was not the video in question recorded to be shared with the public if it were truly journalistic work? The sources on this tape identified themselves voluntarily. If they did not realize that they were identified on tape, then as a journalist, Mr. Wolf failed in his fiduciary duties to his sources, and is therefore not much of a journalist to begin with. So is the work protected from subpoena itself, or does press priveledge only apply to sources who have taken measures to reasonably protect themselves from identification, whether it be Mr. Wolf or Bob Novak?

I don't have the answers, but these questions are definitely relevant for debate. Who knows, since I maintain this blog, I may be considered a journalist, although I do not claim to be one.

What I Wish The Republicans Would Do

2006-10-23T11:05:00.000-05:00

The words "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi" evokes a cringe, almost gut-wrenching, reaction from me. Although I know for a fact that very little would be different with a Democrat congress or presidential administration (except for the speed at which our country is going down, 35 mph for Republicans versus 70 mph with Democrats), I still have that reaction of hearing the words "Democrat control".

Confession time.

The year was 1992. I was a college sophomore who had never voted in an election, since I did not turn 18 until after the 1990 midterms. But I knew I wanted to vote. And I knew I was a democrat. After all, my grandfather was a democrat. Everyone else in Canton, GA, was a democrat if they wanted to win an election. Although I was a Reagan supporter, I knew George H.W. Bush was the wrong man after his first four years. Looking back, I can't really remember why I thought that, but I just knew it was time for change, and by George, or Bill, I was going to help exact that change. And Bill Clinton was just the guy who would set things straight in D.C. He was a southerner, a Washington outsider, and a democrat. And he was getting a lot of favorable press attention.

So when I went to the polls, I voted for Bill Clinton. And thanks to Bill Clinton, I realized that I was not a democrat.

Not only did I realize this by his less-than-stellar character that was now surfacing since the election, but by his policy positions. One of the only things he accomplished while he had a democrat-controlled congress was the Family Medical Leave Act, which forced companies by law to give employees up to 12 weeks out of work for family-related issues and still hold their job. The leave would be unpaid, which was probably a compromise in the bill. More than Bill, though, Hillary and her scandals and attempted transformation of the U.S. healthcare system into a giant government program helped me to realize that I was not a democrat. I found out that conservative democrats such as Sam Nunn were the minority, and under the Clinton administration, the inmates were running the asylum.

And so I did the most logical thing, and that was switch my party affiliated to Republican. And I have voted republican in every election since and including 1994. And unfortunately, I find myself in the same position, discovering that the neo-con, "compassionate conservative" (read liberals who believe that cutting taxes will give the government enough increased revenue to fund big government) inmates again are running the asylum.

So here are some hot button issues, and how I think Republicans should stand on those issues.

1) War in Iraq: One sign of character is admitting when one is wrong about something. The goal of a democratic Middle East is a pipe dream. The belief was that Iraq and Afganistan would become Middle Eastern democratic pardigms, and that the rest of the Middle East would see just how good democracy is and join the party. Unfortunately, the flaw in this logic involves the peaceful religion of Islam and its ambivalence toward free will. Let's help establish the interior security of Iraq and Afganistan, while simulataneously sizing our presence down. We got in, found the weapons of mass destruction, and toppled Sadam. Now let's leave and call the hope of a democratic Middle East what it really is: fantasy.

2) Minimum Wage: Call for the repeal of all minimum wage laws while calling it what it really is: artificial inflation through wage price control. No one gains anything by increasing the minimum wage, since costs increase, thus forcing business to increase pricing. A vicious cycle it is. Let the market dictate pricing through competition.

3) Taxes: Call for the immediate dismantling of the Federal tax structure and the passing of the Fair Tax. Compliance costs would decrease, as well as maintain the current revenue stream on the federal level. And, since taxes would be determined by a percentage of consumption, one would only conclude that higher income citizens would shoulder the brunt of the tax burden. A win for small government conservatives and also for class-envying liberals.

4) Stem-cell research: The Federal government has no business in this business. Leave this regulation to the states. No federal funding.

5) Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, education, energy and other issues of the like: None of these issues have any relation to the power enumerated to the Federal government. Although I personally find abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage repugnant and immoral, other people do not and some choose the above to be their lifestyle ( or lack of lifestyle). If people in Massachusetts want to have legally binding homosexual marriage, let their people vote it into law. If Georgia does not want to recognize any homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin, the let the voters have the say. The tenth amendment should be applied to these issues.

6) Border Security: This is probably the most important issue of our time. The issue is not whether or not we are viewed as anti-immigrant or not, but rather this is the most important issue of national security, and perhaps the only issue that the Federal government has enumerated powers to affect. We should first secure the borders, minimizing the number of migrants crossing our borders illegally. Let those coming across legally come, welcoming them with open arms. Next we should focus on deporting those whom we find here illegally. Pourous borders are not good for anyone. Bombs smuggled by Al qada masquarading as migrant Mexican fruit pickers kill both democrats and republicans.

7) Social Security and Medicare: Begin a phase-out for all citizens under the age of 35, stepping down benefits from 35, ending the complete phase out for workers age 18. Cease withholding payroll taxes from workers 18 and younger immediately, and step withholding down for those workers under 35 years of age. But, of course, the Fair Tax would make that a moot point anyway, since it would do away with all taxes on individuals anyway.

8) Become the Champion of Individualism: We hear much about the "common good" these days, a throwback to a Marxist concept that democrats are hoping that the electorate will not associate with our old foe, the Soviet Union, since that would be a bad signal of the concept. Individualism has almost become a taboo word in Washington. The republicans should become the champions of this concept of the individual is the owner of his own destiny in relation to other humans, and that the law exists to protect the individual from other individuals who would infringe upon his rights.

9) The Activist Judiciary: I would like to see republicans make examples of activist judges on either side of the aisle by beginning impeachment procedings. The measure of activism would be determined by how many new "tests" these judges come up with to determine constitutional muster, or rather, if they can make the Constitution evolve to the new standard they wish to set. The text of the Constitution is test enough.

These are just a few issues that I wish would be addressed. But, like a democratic Middle East, a republican party who would take these issues and stand on them as conservatives is a pipe dream.

The Clueless Left

2006-09-21T07:32:00.000-05:00

I am not going to say that Bill Maher is stupid. I believe he is far from it. I just believe that he is clueless. He is also full of guilt for being a white man.

I do not usually watch HBO, but since I am out of town on business and staying in a hotel room alone, I flip through the available channels and sometimes stop on things that I would not normally watch with the children around, or more than this, things that my wife normally overrides me on. Bill Maher fits into the former. The History Channel fits into the latter.

Last night, Bill Maher's first guest was Pat Buchannan. His discussion centered around Buchannan's revelation that President Bush should be impeached for his derilection of duty in securing our borders. While Mr. Buchannan made firm arguments concerning the usupation of our sovreignty to Mexican nationals and the economic impacts upon the United States, Maher could not get past the idea that the only reason why anyone would be against Mexicans coming to the United States is that the "1950's" white men wanted to keep the United States a lily-white nation. It was as if all he heard Buchannan say was "I want a temporary moratorium on immigration...". Maher's mind-blinders automatically went into "racism" mode, and ignored Buchannan saying "...until we can seal our borders and control the influx of immigrants."

He is clueless.

Maher then brought out a "panel" of guests to discuss "issues of the day." Of course the president of Iran and the president of Venezuela were mentioned, as was the Iraq War and torture. But the panel, which included such intellectual heavyweights as Gloria Steinem, Clark Kent Ervin, a former DHS official who seems a little bitter since he was not renominated, and Michael McKean, who is best known for his role as "Lenny" on the "Laverne and Shirley" television show. Each topic presented to the panel always was related to how stupid President Bush is and how he has blundered in every move that the makes. Unable to connect dots as children, each of the panelists treated the Iraq War as if it has nothing to do with Iran, when in fact they failed to see that Iraq may have been a strategic move to deal with Iran. But nevertheless, to the "panel" and the host, all is Bush's fault because he and people like him are stuck in the 50's, where white was the rule.

He also brought on Christiane Amanpour, that warriorette of unbiased journalism who is employed by CNN and contributes to NPR. Apparently, this brave journalist walked the steps of Bin Laden. But, of course, she never actually could get to "where he really was". And she let her unbiased veil down as she went on a mini-tirade of the failures of President Bush in the Iraq War.

Summary of the Bill Maher show last night: Religious people are irrational and illogical, Bush is stupid, and everyone who doesn't agree with Bill Maher are racist white male oppressors.

He is clueless.

Fisher Ames, who is an unsung Founding Father, once said, "The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty." Unfortunately, people like Maher who are clueless as to what this means, believing that liberty includes such things as being able to say the "F" word on network television.

True torture would be sitting through another Bill Maher television show.

Two Steps Of Financial Advantage For Young People

2006-09-08T16:10:00.000-05:00

Rugged individualism is a concept that is forgotten in today's society. We live in the age of irresponsibility, and that whatever the case, if I cannot pay for it, someone else should. What this leads to is the someone elses are paying, and paying heavily, whether in taxation or insurance premiums.

We all have our "if I could do it over" moments, and so here is one of mine. I have begun giving this advice to any young person who is between 18 and 21 years of age and who currently have no children. To attempt this after children could possibly put a strain on your financial resources. I believe this advice to be so important, that I am publishing it here for anyone who can access this website to have, free of charge.

This advice deals primarily to aversion to financial risks due to catastrophic occurrences. Most folks refer to this as insurance advice.

1. Get a life insurance policy.
Many young people do not think about death or dying very much. I know I did not. But the fact of the matter is that the younger that you are, the less expensive life insurance is. I recommend that you obtain a whole life policy with a term life rider. Ordinarily, rates are locked for 20 years, so if you are 18-20 years old, you will still be relatively young when you can lock in rates again when it is time to re-up. A whole life policy builds cash value, which may come in handy 20 years down the road when you are trying to put children through college or pay off a mortgage. The term life portion only is paid if you die, so the whole life portion should be decided in such a way that it does not impact significantly the rate of the policy. Beneficiaries can always be changed as time goes along.

2. Get a Health Savings Account.
Health insurance for young people is really not that beneficial. Most young people do not go to the doctor very often. Health insurance is socialism in practice, since the premiums that you pay are going to fund someone else's medical expenses. Once in this game, it is hard to get out. So do not get in to begin with. Open a Health Savings Account. You can fund tax-free dollars into an account that belongs to you that you can pay your medical bills from. You must obtain an approved health plan with a high deductible. Higher deductibles keep your premiums lower, and you can use your HSA to pay your deductible. Doing this while you are young keeps more money going toward the medical bills of you and your family rather than to other people. And with traditional health insurance, premiums normally go up and services go down.

These two steps will be positive financial moves that you can make easily and affordably at a young age that will help to insure your independence. Heed the advice. No one is responsible to take care of you but you.

Deriving Their Powers From The Consent Of The Governed

2006-08-31T16:43:00.000-05:00

The Declaration of Independence set forth the decree to England that the colonies were no longer subject to the rule of England, and consequently, the rule of King George. By the words "Deriving their powers from the consent of the governed", the signers told the king that he was no longer superior to the law, but rather that those that govern are subject to the law, and that the power given to them is given to them with the consent of those they rule. This is a fundamental basis of our rule of law, but one that we have strayed far from in terms of understanding by the populace.

When the government fails to fulfill the obligations placed upon it by the citizenry, then it is incumbent upon the citizens to see that those obligations are fulfilled. This is not the "taking of the law into one's own hands" but rather enforcement of laws that the government is failing to enforce. A citizen making an arrest is quite legal and is the obligation of the citizen when he sees the commission of a crime. He is obliged to use deadly force if he or another is threatened. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has found that that the police have no obligation to protect citizens from crime. So, as police are only subcontractors to the public who have no obligation to even protect the citizenry, then citizens have no choice but to protect themselves.

This is why the single-most important issue today is the protection of individual gun rights. Not only must citizens be able to protect themselves from potential harm by other citizens, but also from the government, which was the reason for the 2nd amendment to begin with.

The governed have consented for the Federal government to provide for the defense of the nation, the primary and most important, and almost only, function of the Federal government provided for in our Constitution. However, they have fell egregiously short with the influx of illegal aliens from the southern border. Fortunately, although heavily criticized, the band of citizens called the Minutemen have stepped up and performed the obligations of our government. To be sure, the Minutemen have attempted to work with the Federal government, notifying the government border patrols of illegals crossing the border rather than attempting to apprehend the illegals themselves. But still, due to various motivations, the same government who has failed and forced the citizenry to perform this function discounts those law abiding citizens as "vigilantes".

Due to the political apathy of this country and the continuing dependence upon the government, as well as invitations by some sectors to the government for intrusion, we have almost came full circle to an elected monarchy, our government believing that they have no obligation to the will of the people. They wish to govern in areas that we will not give consent, using the courts to do this, and failing to govern in the areas in which consent is given.

A Recommended Site

2006-08-29T12:13:00.000-05:00

I recommend that anyone reading this blog visit Stop The ACLU . Posts involve the latest undertakings of the ACLU and their war against individual liberty, along with some interesting historical facts around the ACLU.

"Having It All" Does Not Exist

2006-08-29T11:20:00.000-05:00

As a teenager in high school and into college, I worked at a Wal-Mart store in Canton, GA. I will never forget a conversation that I had with a fellow employee one day, when I was telling this gentleman what I would like to do with my life. I told this fellow, who was a post-Vietnam army vet, of my ambition to have a small farm, but that I knew that I could never afford to remain in North Georgia and run a small farm. His statement to me has always stuck with me, and I have applied this to many decisions that I have had to make in my life.

"You can have anything that you want to have if you are willing to pay the price."

At the time this was a pretty large statement that I did not fully comprehend. But what he was really talking about can be simply stated as the concept of opportunity cost.

Actions speak louder than words, and one can often glean the priorities of an individual based on his actions. A man who claims that his wife and children are his main priority, but yet goes out on Friday night, loses half of his paycheck on a poker game while drinking most of what is left really does not have his family foremost in his mind. He is sacrificing time spent with his wife and children, not to mention at least a portion of their livelihood, for himself and his own pleasure.

Every action performed has an opportunity cost. You have the opportunity to perform another action if you do not perform the current action. Your priorities will dictate which action that you perform.

Herein lies the fallacy of "having it all." You must sacrifice the opportunity of gaining one thing to gain another. Therefore, one can never have it all.

By our actions today, most individuals in society has one common priority: self-indulgence. "As long as I am pleasing myself, then I am happy." Responsibility for others and to others is shirked off as easily as dropping a jacket at the front door. This priority is what drives people to do what they do.

This is evident with many people gaining more and more material goods, often beyond their means, having less and less children, and what children they have are handed to someone else to raise. We have fatherless children because biological sperm donors view themselves as above their obligation to do their part in raising a child. We have latch-key kids because mothers had rather be able to have a career outside the home rather than face their responsibility of raising children in the home. Worse, we have career women hellbent to have a child when well-beyond peak child-bearing years and to raise said child without the assistance of a man. Of course, the decisions made by these people is at a cost of allowing a child to grow without guidance, like a rowboat on the ocean without a rudder.

I am not being hypocritical of people. I am not perfect, and I make my fair share of mistakes, occasionally jumbling my priorities out of order. However, my home is something that a lot of people would not consider for themselves. I could make $10k-$15k more in my profession by driving into Atlanta. We could send our children to public school and daycare, my wife could go to work, and we could have a lot more things. But my priority is God, wife, children, family & friends. My decisions are based on those priorities, and I try to live by them. These opportunities my wife and I pass up to spend time with our children, raise them, educate them, and see that they have some guidance in their lives as they grow. This is the opportunity that I could not pass up for all the riches in the world.

Why Being An Anti-Feminist Male Does Not Mean That You Are A Sexist Male

2006-08-28T16:22:00.000-05:00

I have been quite puzzled for some time at how many feminists can make the leaps that they do in drawing conclusions about people with such wide gaps in logic. In the feminist world view, I would be considered sexist. I am quite comfortable with that monicker, considering the broad definition that it is given in today's society. With that being said, in reality, I am not sexist just because I am an anti-feminist.

Depending upon how you use "sexist", I either could or could not be. If used as a noun, I definitely fit the mold of a sexist, because I do believe that in the real world, because of the delegation of duties and utility of each sex, that social roles exist for each gender. If you use "sexist" as an adjective, then I definitely am not, because I do not believe that women are inferior to men, nor men superior to women. So I am a sexist, but not a sexist male. This is almost as confusing as feminist logic, but here is the link for dictionary.com that I am using, referring to the American Heritage definition for a noun and the WordNet definition of the adjective.

So let me now explain myself. First of all, I believe that the Bible is the perfectly preserved word of God Himself. God inspired the writers, and they wrote the words inspired by God. The word "inspired" means "breathed in".

From that, I draw from God's creation Adam, after both he and Eve transgressed the commandment of God not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that God had different roles in mind for each Adam and Eve. To Adam, He said that he would eat the herb of the field in the sweat of his face. To Eve, He said that her sorrows would be multiplied in conception, and that woman would be saved in childbearing. He also commanded that the husband would rule over the wife. This was the social order of God, not man.

So God gave Adam the commandment that he would eat of the earth, by his sweat. Adam was commanded to provide for himself, and implied to provide for his family and to protect them as well. Eve was commanded to submit to her husband, and to be saved, or preserved, she must bear children. God equipped Eve to care for her children while Adam worked to provide for their living. Simple, yet a divine delegation of duties.

In God's grand scheme, he did not make one sex greater than the other, rather he gave each sex their own strengths so as to coexist in harmony, bearing children for posterity. This really irks feminists because they fear being looked upon as baby machines. This, unfortunately for them, is what keeps them so bitter and lonely, because the ability to give birth to children and then to single-handedly see to their natural survival until old enough to eat as the adults is a divine gift and one that, by His design, attracts men to women. In other words, feminity and all that it entails is the strength of a woman.

Likewise, the strength of men and his ability to take care of his mate is attractive to women, and this is also by God's design.

But how does this apply to today's modern society? Does this mean that women should remain in the home, pregnant and barefoot, relying on her husband for all her needs? Does this mean that men should not accept women for "who they are" and allow her to make all the decisions around her life?

The answer to the first question is that God has not changed ever, and all things relevant to Adam and Eve are relevant today. The answer to question number two is that it depends upon the couples desire to have children and if they have them already. If a couple wishes to have children or happens to have children, then the answer would be yes (although not necessarily barefoot). For a woman to have a child and then leave it for someone else to raise while she attends to her "needs", which in reality translate to "wants", is not the best thing for her child. If the couple wishes not to have children, then by all means women should pursue their interests. And the answer to question three again depends upon whether or not the couple has children. Sometimes, because divine responsibility is placed on a husband to provide and care for his family, he must make decisions that may be at variance with his wife.

A lot of what I just said sounds harsh in todays hypersensitive society, but it only makes good sense. And I would submit that if more people followed the prescription of the Bible in as pure a form as possible without interjecting their shade of opinion and without fear of those who may look upon them as "backward", then we would see a lot less divorces, a lot less domestic violence, a lot less child abuse, a lot less sexual perversions, and generally a lot less issues that we face in society that has its roots in the struggle of traditional values versus secular popularism.

Many people would conclude from the above that I am probably a harsh authoritarian who keeps his wife underfoot. Consider the following.

My wife and I married while we were both still in college. We were expecting our first child while both of us were still in college. We decided that I would continue, as at the moment it only made practical sense that I should and become the sole provider while she stayed home to take care of our child. She still has three years of college under her belt in terms of degree, and is a highly intelligent individual who has homeschooled our three children, while I have continued to work and provide the financial needs of our family.

I cook. I clean. I wash clothes. I clean toilets. I change diapers. I put our children to bed. I help them with school projects. She does all of the above more than me. But we share in the things that need to be done that both of us can do. I do not boss my wife. But I do make decisions for our family that, when reasoned, she respects and abides. Likewise, in almost all instances her influence and guidance leads me to the final decision about the issues that we face as a family. I am no better nor am I more deserving of anything than she is. We work together in our respective roles within our family.

Unfortunately, feminists often play upon the stereotype of the abusive, controlling husband to scare women into either believing that they will be controlled and have no personhood in a situation that is traditional, Bible-based values, hence the belligerence toward the Bible, God and Jesus. But the fact of the matter is that the Bible teaches men against that type of behavior, but rather to love his wife as he does his own flesh.

So I am sexist, but not a sexist male. My advice is that men should be men, and women should be women. Each should use the strengths within their gender that God gave them, and don't be afraid to tackle the roles that those strengths and talents entail. You will not be trouble-free, but I will guarantee that when troubles come, you will get through them better, and you will be happier for it in the long term.

I Just Don't Understand The Connection

2006-08-27T11:09:00.000-05:00

Amanda at Pandagon makes an attempt to show how ignorant anti-abortionists are in their view of rape abortions. In reality, she only shows her lack of ability to put together a logically connectable argument.

"On this thread at Feministe mocking American Life League leader Judie Brown—a woman who needs to get off the keyboard and on her back immediately, as god wants her to be—I saw this wretched woman-hating missive disguised as pseudo-feminism linked in comments.

'Why are we giving more trauma to the victim of rape by encouraging her to abort her child?

Carrying such a child to term has been for many women a help in coming to grips with the abuse they suffered.'

He tries to argue that rapists should be punished, but I have a feeling he’s foolin’. After all, rapists are bringing Sperm Magic into the life of women who probably deserved to be be violently assaulted for refusing the Magic, by his logic."

Now I will substitute some words to see if this makes sense, even to like-minded feminists.

On this thread at Feministe mocking American Life League leader Judie Brown—a woman who needs to get off the keyboard and on her back immediately, as god wants her to be—I saw this wretched abused child hating missive in the comments.

Why are we giving more trauma to the victim of child abuse by encouraging her to commit murder?

Not committing murder has been for many child abuse victims a help in coming to grips with the abuse they suffered.

He tries to argue that child abusers should be punished, but I have a feeling he’s foolin’. After all, child abusers are bringing Abusive Magic into the life of women who probably deserved to be be violently assaulted for refusing the Magic, by his logic.

Equating someone who believes that life is sacred, no matter the circumstances of conception, with someone who believes women deserve to be raped defies any logical connection. You may as well say that people who believe that murder is wrong, despite the circumstances that one blames for driving them to be screwed up, such as being abused as a child, believe that the murderer deserved to be abused. Although I am sure there are some people that may think in this way, I believe that it is quite a bold leap to lump them into that general category.

It sounds more like, "I said that women who are raped should get abortion on demand, and if you don't like it, your mama wears combat boots." More evidence that feminists are nothing more than perpetual children.

What Is It That You Are Expecting, Mr. Nagin?

2006-08-25T10:58:00.000-05:00

Ray Nagin, the chocolate Mayor of New Orleans, has stuck his size 12 where he comfortably keeps it in his mouth once again by saying that New Orleans is only slightly more of a dump hole than it already was because of the lack of funding from, you guessed it, the Federal government. He further pimp-slapped all of us who donated money by stating that if it had been a predominately white town, such as Orange County, CA or South Miami Beach, FL, that the city would have had "a different response".

First of all, New Orleans was a city that was built below sea level. For years prior to Katrina, the city dodged the bullet, all the while being appropriated the most money for the Corp of Engineers of any state for the purpose of strengthening levies for such a disaster. Rather than strengthen levies, politicians in Lousiana used the appropriated money in vote-buying schemes. So the Federal government, i.e. the taxpayers of the United States, have been paying for this disaster for years in advance.

Second of all, I find no power for Congress to appropriate money for the rebuilding of a city in our Constitution to begin with. Despite this, the Congress has committed $110 BILLION to the rebuilding of New Orleans.

New Orleans was not the only city to be affected. Other cities, such as Boluxi, MS, took the brunt of the hurricane. I hear no one complaining there. New Orleans was flooded, knowing good and well that it was going to happen one day, and did nothing proactively to help themselves. And now, Ray Nagin, who asserted in racist overtones that God wanted New Orleans to be a "chocolate" city, is screaming that because of the black population in New Orleans, no one wants to help.

Millions upon millions of dollars have been sent to New Orleans and other affected areas by individuals and businesses through private donation. Companies such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Microsoft, Pfizer, Dow Jones, and a myriad of other businesses donated millions of dollars to Katrina relief. Even the small, predominately white Baptist association to which my church belongs sent donations to the Katrina relief effort.

Ray Nagin has insulted each and every person who charitably donated their resources to the people in need of New Orleans and surrounding areas. He is a race pimp, stirring emotions of black citizens of New Orleans into re-electing this sorry excuse back into office as mayor. He has made every citizen, particularly black citizens, into victims of racism when in fact they are victims of negligence of local politicians, namely the governor and mayor. Can anyone say "underwater buses?" The only other victimization these people can rightly claim is that they were victims of their own poor judgement. City below sea level + Hurricane = Underwater city.

And I will close with this highly insensitive, but nevertheless brutally honest, assessment of the black residents of New Orleans, and this can go for any race, gender, class, or religion. I personally do not buy into stereotypes of different races and classes of people. I believe that each individual is their own person. Unfortunately, there are those that do. My advice is that if you wish to dispel negative stereotypical behavior of black people as a falsehood, then do not present the negative stereotypical behavior that is associated with black people.

The Internet Yields No Privacy

2006-08-24T16:18:00.000-05:00

Potential employers may be accessing your "myspace" account or other blogs to gain information on you if you are seeking a job. They can gain information that cannot be asked in interviews from blogs or personal accounts available on the internet.

I first heard about this on...NPR (I know, I know). The host was interviewing some expert on this topic, when he asks what I thought to be the most ludicrous, idiotic question, but I sensed that it was coming:

"Is there any guidelines that can be set up for employers so as to protect the privacy of potential candidates?"

These people are clueless. Someone that is literate should come along and script their interview questions for them. There is no privacy for you on the internet, especially when you are the one that controls what information is available. Whatever you do not want the general public to know about you, do not place it on your blog.

This is why I use the name "Badbeans" rather than my real name. People who know will either figure out who I am, and most likely they already know everything that I have made available in regards to information about myself. And I do not forsee that I will make a living from this blog or any other writing I may do, so I prefer for my name not to be made known on this blog.

If you don't want it to be known, don't put it on your blog.

He Should Be Happy

2006-08-24T11:57:00.000-05:00

Looks as though fame of being the American Idol has gone to
Taylor Hick's big, gray head. The Smiling Contortionist is suing a Nashville record producer for marketing some of his songs, recorded in 2001, on iTunes.

Although the article goes on to say that Hick's first song "Do I Make You Proud" debuted on the Hot 100, I am predicting that Hick's career is over before it even started. He should be thanking the Nashville promoter for trying to get him some royalties, because the best work he will probably get in entertainment is in a lounge.

The American Idol is selected by Ford's marketing department. I only watched AI last season, and I found out when Chris was voted off that it was a scam.

Women and the Church

2006-08-21T12:27:00.000-05:00

In Waterton, New York, a big hubbub is brewing over the removal of a female Sunday school teacher, who has taught Sunday school at the First Baptist Church now for 11 years, having attended the church now for 60 years.

Last Thursday Lambert received a letter from the Diaconate Board telling her that she was dismissed from her position because the board had adopted the scriptural qualifications for Sunday school teachers. In short, this prohibits women from teaching men.

Although very popular in a lot of churches, I would like to see some New Testament scriptural support of a lot of church activities, including Sunday school, but that is really beside the point here. Apparently, Mrs. Lambert was on the deacon board as well.

Last month, Lambert and two others were kicked off the Diaconate Board. They were told they were being removed for attendance issues.

But apparently, if you are married to the pastor, the same rules of men holding the offices of the church do not apply to you.

The letter was signed, "Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, Kendra LaBouf." Kendra is the wife of City Council Member and Pastor Tim LaBouf.

And then residents who have no stake nor a clue that we do not live in a theocracy.

"And she is a woman, and when we women fought for equal rights for a long time, since 1929 hasn't it been?

And why is this a big deal to anyone? Because the pastor is a government official, and government officials, in their personal lives, must apply the political correctness standards that they must follow for what they perceive to be political expediency.

Now, I must criticize this pastor since he is being somewhat inconsistent. He is applying Paul's charge selectively. Clerk, Treasurer, choir or music director are all leadership roles in the church. The clerk is given the authority to document the workings of the church and write letters of recommendation. Given the church must approve of the work of the clerk, nevertheless the clerk is still an authority, as these duties are delegated to the clerk. The treasurer is likewise the authority on the finances of the church, and people look to the music director for leadership in the song service. Yet these positions in many churches, even Baptist churches, are held by women. If this pastor were consistent in his conviction of Paul's writing in regards to leadership positions being held by men, then he would be sure that all positions were filled by men.

Now, I do not want to seem too judgemental, because all I know of this church, pastor, or situation is what I have read in this new story. But given that this woman has served on the deacon board, and that Paul also charged Timothy that a deacon should be the husband of one wife, if these people ordained this woman as a deacon, they are an unorderly church under New Testament standards, and if they did not ordain her, then they are still out of order by allowing one not ordained as a deacon to serve in that capacity. (The ordination of deacons was set forth in the 6th chapter of Acts.)

Lambert said she feels there's more to her dismissal than the scriptual qualifications.

Perhaps she is right. I am not so sure that this church is scripturally qualified to begin with.

Government Employees

2006-08-19T14:22:00.000-05:00

Many employees of our government, on all levels, have a tendency to forget it is the people that they serve. From your local health department or tax assessor to the Federal Department of Health and Human Services or the IRS, employees of our government have will put on "job blinders", basically defining the function of their job by how important they believe they are to the nation. Parents have a natural animosity toward DFACS because of the overstepping by some employees of the bounds of their job. The IRS has claimed their fair share of ruined lives because of the seizing of property because of back taxes.

A few years ago, when I first became a homeowner, the tax office in our county had my address incorrectly entered into their database. I did not receive my tax bill, but I thought all along that it would eventually arrive. One day, a "door hanger" showed up on my front door knob, stating that I was three months behind on my tax bill.

I went to the tax office, and then discovered that my address was entered incorrectly. The clerk promptly corrected my address, but she balked at removing the late charges from my tax bill. I was advised to speak to her manager. When I spoke with the manager, I told her the situation, and told her that I was prepared to pay my taxes in full, but not the late charges. She then promptly refused my original tax amount as a "partial payment", and threatened to have a warrant served for my arrest by the probate judge if I refused to pay the tax. Reluctantly, I paid the tax in full.

In thinking about these types of people, who feel that they have a duty to be their brothers' keeper, I am reminded of Saul of Tarsus. Saul was given authority by the Jewish government to persecute Christians. He was well versed in the Jewish law, and he even thought that he was doing the will of God. Stephen was stoned by his consent. But soon he found himself to be convicted, regenerated, and converted to a Christian. As Paul, he found himself at odds with the Jewish authorities. He found that the Jewish authorities of the day manipulated the law to further their own importance and prominence, denying the spirit of the law, the same law that prophesied of the coming of the Son of God, whom they denied and crucified.

Sounds a lot like some of our government employees of today.

A Little Disappointed, But Not Surprised

2006-08-18T07:12:00.000-05:00

My top ten list did not get posted on the Problogger site. I followed the submission procedures, but maybe something else disqualified me.

Perhaps the "Problogger" is a Hillary fan. Or maybe its a scam. Or maybe the contest are only for an exclusive club of bloggers that I don't belong to. At any rate, I am just a little disappointed, but I am certainly not surprised.

Abortion Exceeds the Nazi Death Toll

2006-08-17T07:42:00.000-05:00

Dr. Walter Williams wrote this piece, which appeared in Townhall.com on Wednesday, explaining how most academics are not actually communist, but rather anti-anti-communist. In the article, he referred to a a book by R.J. Rummell, a professor at the University of Hawaii, which stated that the 20th century recorded the most deaths of citizens at the hands of government in history. He cited that under communism, Stalin's Soviet Union killed around 62 million of its own citizens. Mao Zedong's Red China killed over 35 million in the 20th century. By comparison, Hitler's Nazi Germany killed 21 million.

In a recent post on Big Blue Wave, Suzanne cites a figure that over 40 million babies have been butchered under abortion. This exceeds the Nazi death toll cited in Rummell's book, and approaches the Soviet rate of murder.

Given that if Hitler and the Nazi's had not been defeated, Naziism may have taken the claim to most barbaric, since communism thrived a lot longer than Nazi Germany. But abortion has only been legalized federally in the U.S. since 1973, a mere 33 years. At the present rate, if the practice of abortion survives, it will exceed the communist Soviet death toll in 18 years. That many deaths in considerably less time, since communism was the controlling force in the Soviet Union and the regions comprising it for about 70-80 years.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple. It is not a matter of whether or not teenage girls are ruining their lives by a few seconds of pleasure in a druken stupor, a "mistake", nor is it a matter of whether or not government, under the guise of the evil "Patriarchy" is trying to control the body of a woman. Rather, it is a matter of the death of another human being who is most innocent among us.

Here is another link that I found interesting that I pulled from the comments at Big Blue Wave.

Top Ten Benefits for the U.S. If Hillary Is Elected President

2006-08-16T14:47:00.000-05:00

10. If asked for documents that may incriminate her, she will not be able to find them until after she is out of office

9. She can invest the social security trust fund in cattle futures

8. Bad luck would not befall America for breaking the “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton” chain

7. She would reduce the federal government workforce without having to pay out retirement or unemployment benefits, a la Ron Brown and Vince Foster

6. First President to have two last names since Martin Van Buren

5. Words to “America” would be changed back to “Long Live the Queen” (Lizard Queen)

4. Transition from Bush to Hillary will not be a visual shock on the public, since both basically are short, aging men

3. A National Holiday would be established around the same time each month

2. Bill can have a legitimate affair in the oval office

And the Number 1 reason the U.S. would benefit if Hillary is elected President (drum roll please)

1. One bad day of PMS, and Iran is history

The above was a submission into the lists group writing project on
Problogger.net.

And...Who Cares?

2006-08-16T07:43:00.000-05:00

My AM radio dial is on the fritz for some reason, so being the news junkie that I am, I tuned to NPR (I know, I know). On FM in the Atlanta market, not much is out there for news.

Nevertheless, I found why NPR, besides being mostly liberal propoganda, is not such a good choice for news with stories like this being reported as news.

So Begins the Blame Game

2006-08-16T07:12:00.000-05:00

Soon-to-be former 4th Congressional District Representative Cynthia McKinney (Democrat, Georgia) made her first appearance since her loss to Hank Johnson in the primary run-off yesterday. In the speech, she detailed the root causes of her loss: white republicans and technology.

Ms. McKinney, who I am sure has a job at CAIR after November, stated that the electronic ballot machines were rigged so as to disenfranchise black voters and cause her loss. She also stated that the primary laws should be changed so that party crossover voting would not be allowed.

First of all, it is important to note that Dekalb County, the area that comprises the majority of the 4th district, is majority black. As a matter of fact, the county is
54% black, as is supported by census data. So if all white people in Dekalb County voted for Cynthia, at least almost half of all black people, assuming everyone voted in the primary, would have had to have voted for Hank Johnson. Second of all, it is important to note that Hank Johnson is black and a Democrat as well.

So to say that the black voter was disenfranchised in this election is disingenuous. As a matter of fact, it is a bold assumption on her part that all black democrats would have voted for her.

Waynedawg, disagrees with me on this, but I also believe that republicans would have voted for McKinney rather than against her if they actually did cross over. I know this may be giving republicans too much credit, but a seat held by a democrat with no credibility is better than one held by a democrat who stands to gain credibility. McKinney was snubbed by her own party leadership. I happen to believe that her consistutency, black democrats, wanted a candidate who stood a chance of being taken seriously.

At any rate, McKinney took the boot, and I believe that the root cause for her defeat can be found staring back at her in a mirror.

Hypocrite With A Capital "C"

2006-08-15T16:12:00.000-05:00

We must face it as Christian Fundamentalists, or at least those of us who are not afraid to say that we are, we are all hypocrites. We "fundies" have been caught at our own game of self-righteousness, after attempting to stand for years in the public eye as a moral beacon, but in our private lives being all degenerates.

Pandagon has helped me to see the light with this post.

We all must admit now that when the collection plate comes around, we all take a few bucks for ourselves out of the plate after it passes the old people. We must all admit that we get drunk playing poker at our girlfriend's house, who most likely is the preacher's wife or daughter, before repenting on Sunday. And let's not forget that we all surf the web daily for porn.

Yes, we must all admit our hypocrisy. After all, if you are a "fundie", you are inclined to look at the world with a pious eye while partaking in the pleasures of sin out of sight of the world, that is, until we get caught.

I mean, of course, we admit that we are sinners. We even admit that we do not deserve the grace of God and His Son, whom we should now refer to as "Jeebus" (if we want to be on the un-hypocrital, non-judgemental, smarter-than-everybody-else crowd).

Nevermind that there are very few "fundies" as a whole who are guilty of actually of scamming little old ladies out of their money. And to note that we would question those, especially in leadership positions in the church, as to their sincerity of faith, as we know faith begets good works, would not be relevant. Because of the actions of a few who pose to be "fundies", we are all guilty and thus Christianity as a whole is debunked as a myth.

Yes, friends, we should be like the homosexuals that we have criticized and castigated for so many years. They are honest enough to admit to their behavior, although they will not admit that it is deviant. If we are honest, we would realize that it is not our faults that we Christian "fundies" are all guilty of having adulterous affairs with the preacher or his wife, but we were born this way. Maybe it's the "Dobsonian" method of child rearing that makes us this way. Either way, we cannot help it, because it is in our nature to steal, lie, and cheat. We should not try to hold ourselves to a higher standard of living because of the commands of our God, because of His grace.

In fact, we already admit that we are born in sin. And we are not better than anyone other human walking the face of the earth. We just try to "keep ourselves unspotted from the world".

The Law Addresses Actions

2006-08-15T11:33:00.000-05:00

Thomas Sowell has written anexcellent columntoday concerning gay "marriage". In this column, Dr. Sowell addresses why, from a matter of law, that "gay marriage" is not a matter of equal protection under the law, but a matter of unequal treatment of actions under the law.

As I have blogged here before, marriage is not a civil right, and co-habitating with another person of your choice is not illegal, no matter how immoral or repulsive the reasons may be to common sensibilities.

As I have stated numerous times, I am not afraid of the gay people. They would not bother me if they just did their thing and kept it to themselves. I do not approve of the behavior. I do not approve of a lot of behavior that goes on today. Behaviors that I do not agree with are not necessarily going to be illegal, even if immoral.

I do not approve of binge drinking. I do not approve of using God's name in vain. I do not approve of pornography. I do not approve of homosexuality. All of the above are immoral, but not illegal. And although people have the priveledge of living in a nation such as the U.S. where they can partake of such behavior, this does not mean that such behavior is considered profitable to society, and therefore should be sanctioned by law.

One could make the argument that marriage should be no concern of the state, but then women and children would definitely get the short end of the stick.

Ending Gender Confusion

2006-08-14T16:39:00.000-05:00

I am not speaking about so-called "transgendered" people here, although I believe that this could speak to the ones who are not legitimately born with both male and female equipment, which I suppose would make for a confusing life. I am talking in general about men and women, and why gender equality has to be such an issue in our society.

The fact is, has been, and will remain that gender equality does not nor will ever exist. This has absolutely nothing to do with equal pay for equal work, opportunities, voting enfranchisement, or none of the other boogymen (or boogypeople) that our oversensitive feminist types get their panties in a wad about.

I have thoroughly enjoyed laughing at the absurdity of some of the feminist bloggers on sites such as this or this, although some of the words they use, such as "Jeebus", tends to get under my skin. But the entertainment value is almost on par with Cynthia McKinney taking herself so seriously when no one else does. So it is with these ladies.

Nevertheless, they always seem to have the expectation that one day, gender equality and the eradication of sexism, which has a broad definition which includes the role of wife and mother in western society, will become reality. But these people will live long miserable lives and die bitter and alone because this is not reality.

I base this on the FACT that God has created man and woman, and has thus designed them in the way with which He is pleased. Already, the feminists will reject this, because the previous statement acknowledged God and revealed me to be a "fundie". He created man, and woman He created to be his companion.

His design placed responsibilities upon both man and woman. His design also gave each inherent strengths to compliment the other. His design was such that men and women would be attracted to one another such that when each found a mate, they would bring forth children.

He gave us guidelines and instructions for how we should be behave. He made the husband the ruler over his house, obliging him to provide for the welfare of his family, commanding, through Paul's writings, for him to love his wife as Christ loved the church. In another place, the command is to love his wife as his own flesh. Likewise, he gave the wife commandments to submit to her husband. He also said that the body of the husband belonged to the wife, and the wife to the husband.

Unfortunately, in our day and time, the waters have been muddied by liberal factions who have rejected Judeo-Christian principles, including the feminists and homosexual political and cultural movements.

But in the end, God and His ways will prevail.

I have more to say about this subject for later.

More Edgy Satire

2006-08-13T14:18:00.000-05:00

Suzanne at Big Blue Wave commented on my "Patriarchy" post, stating that my satire needed to be a little more "edgy". I agree with her. And I have done better in the past.

Suzanne is a fetus-rights advocate in Canada. In her honor, I am republishing a comment that I made on another site concerning abortion. Out of respect for the blog author on the other site, I will delete her name where referenced. I might not should have been so hard on this blogger, and since we have gained a mutual respect for one another. But this is an illustration of my satirical ability at its finest. Here it is in it's entirety.

I agree with you. It is a humanity issue.

I received an e-mail the other day from NARAL-Pro Choice/Planned Parenthood concerning a governor in South Dakota who had the gall to sign into law a bill that would limit a woman's right to an abortion. I could not believe it!I mean, how dare this guy have the tenacity to call a fetus a "baby". And to say that a "fetus" is innocent. We all know that a fetus is nothing more than a parasite, and even when full grown, continues to be a parasite.

As you said earlier, no one should be forced to have a child.This legislation promotes a lot of unnerving ideas. First of all, again, it promotes the idea that a fetus is alive, when in fact, a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic cluster of cells. I know you know what I am talking about, since you are an ER nurse. Secondly, this legislation promotes the dangerous idea people can somehow control their impulses, especially those that are sexual. Hormones are raging, and we can't stop them. And finally, and this is personal to me, this indirectly promotes the idea that human beings are superior to other animals. C'mon, we are all just squirrels trying to get our nut in this world.

A fetus is a fetus. It is a cancerous growth in the womb of unsuspecting women. Who wants the burden, the pain, of bearing these clusters of growth to full-term, just for them to hamper the lifestyle of EVERYBODY who comes into contact with them. Nevermind that the Greek word "fetus" translates to "baby". We know what we mean, even if the majority of other people do not.

And how dare anyone even imply that people are responsible for their sexual impulses. Hormones are hormones, and we just have to live with them. Puberty hits and we better watch out. I mean the highschool kids are like rabbits in mating season. And it is not their fault. It's their hormones. How dare anyone even suggest that a person is responsible for their own actions. I know that this somewhat flies in the face of our sexual harrassment agenda, but c'mon.

And, my personal beef fetus with this, this legislation suggests that men and women, boys and girls, humankind, are somewhat superior to other animals. My belief is that morals do not really exist, that we are all just animals, so if it exists in the animal world, it's fair game. The women of South Dakota, if they cannot secure an abortion in their state, should just eat their young.

You've got me really fired up. It doesn't matter to me that a fetus has a heartbeat, brain activity, and nerve activity early on. It doesn't matter that the only difference between a fetus and a legal "person" is size, dependancy, and location. (I also personally believe we should abort, or euthanize, all short people over the age of 50 living in San Francisco who depend upon insulin to regulate their blood sugar.) And personal responsibility, didn't we get rid of that with the sexual revolution? How archaic to think that people actually have to suffer the consequences of their actions. I mean, really, that would imply that humans are somewhat at a higher level than the animals world, with reason and logic and morals and everything that genuinely does separate humans from animals. Margaret Sanger didn't think that a difference existed, especially if you were black. And nobody cares about the the missed abortion opportunities, except perhaps their mothers and people interested in adopting those missed opportunities. And besides, so many famous people support abortion. How fun is it not be among the cool people.It is certainly fair to generalize all of those anti-abortion nuts as misguided idiots who only care that the burden of child-rearing be placed on women so as to oppress them, and that the only people they want to see aborted is the abortionists. Generalization is alright, right Margaret Sanger?

Thanks for bringing this issue up. The 5,000 desperate women who performed the close-hanger abortions prior to Roe V. Wade "legalizing" abortion certainly justifies the over 46 million babies aborted since 1973. Does the WHO have any statistics on how many babies were aborted prior to 1973, when abortion was legal, but was much a state matter rather than a federal matter? Oops, I said "babies". Anyway, thanks again. I know I probably sound like an ass, but, hey, aren't we all just animals anyway?

Where Did One More Patriot Go?

2006-08-12T16:33:00.000-05:00

I have been trying unsuccessfully to view One More Patriot's blog, but it looks as though it has been deleted. It doesn't even show up on his profile.

As a result, I am deleting the link from my blogroll. Patriot, if you come back on the scene, comment on this blog and I will link you again.

I Am A Card-Carrying Member of the Patriarchy

2006-08-12T14:07:00.000-05:00

I have decided to come out of the closet. I am confessing that I am a member of the Patriarchy. I have maintained this secret for quite a while now, but now I find it expedient to make this revelation public.

The Patriarchy is a closely-knit society of men who have ruled over the world since the dawn of time. While the Patriarchy has over the ages been more scattered and a more diverse group of men, we now are less diverse and more defined than ever.

To be a member of the Patriarchy, you must be:

a man
white (Anglo Saxon)
affiliated with what's is considered a Christian Protestant church
heterosexual
between the ages of 25 and 55
employed in a legitimate free-enterprise business

We secretly meet daily in executive board rooms and at weekend poker games, not to mention on Sunday mornings at church, to plot the misery and oppression of all people not in the Patriarchy. We have code words, such as "conservative", "Christian", "pro-life", "liberty-loving", and "small government" that allow each of us to know other members of the Patriarchy.

Explained below are the qualifications:

A man - While the root of the word "Patriarchy" comes from the Latin "Pater", meaning father, it only stands to reason that members of the Patriarchy could only be men. Anyway, women are one of the targeted groups for our oppressive policies.
White - Throughout history, the Patriarchy has had members of all races. But in our age of technology and ability to travel, we have narrowed the Patriarchy to only white men of European ancestry. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern, and Native Americans are now targeted groups for our oppressive policies.
Protestant - While Catholics and Jews were once members of the Patriarchy, and the Patriarchical policies are rooted in Jewish-Christian tradition, we found it necessary to exclude these groups from the Patriarchy, since both groups are now targets of our religious intolerance.
Heterosexual - To be in the Patriarchy, you must be inclined to be attracted to women, since it is necessary to entrap them in marriage and long-term relationships in order to oppress them and to produce future members of the Patriarchy, as well as future members of the female oppressed.
Age 25-55 - This requirement ensures that you are compliant with requirement 6, as well as mature and able-bodied enough to maintain membership in the Patriarchy. Besides, we have targeted elderly and retired people as an oppressed class.
Employed in a free-enterprise, profit-driven business - This was necessary since we target retired persons and unemployed persons with our oppressive policies. Bantered about was the possibility of excluding working-class men from the Patriarchy with a requirement that one must hold a white-collar job, but we have found that factory workers are just as effective in oppressing their wives as executives in the oil industry.

The Patriarchy is currently oppressing more people than McDonald's ever thought of serving, since members of the Patriarchy are now in the United States government (Remember George Bush and Dick Cheney have ties to big oil), where most all of the Patriarchy now reside, having some residual in Great Britain, Australia, and a few other Western European countries.

Below are some of the policies that you may recognize but did not know that they were targeted policies of the Patriarchy.

Anti-abortion: Since women are one of our targeted groups of oppression, we staunchly oppose any reproductive freedom that they may have. While held among most of the oppressed people the world over as a human right, we ademently oppose the killing of children. There is a two-fold reason for the Patriarchy to oppose this. First of all, children keep women within the bonds of our oppression by limiting their ability to "do things for themselves". Secondly, children are key to the perpetuation of the Patriarchy and its oppression. We make a big deal about abortion being a method of killing children, which we believe, but only to the extent that we seek to keep women under our thumbs.
Anti-affirmative action: We give much lip service to affirmative action policies being a slap to minorities, since the underlying philosophy is that minorities would not be able to succeed without affirmative action due to, what else, but the Patriarchy. While it is true that affirmative action programs are not merit-based and reward less qualified people with jobs and seats because of their skin color, and that affirmative action assumes that minorities are not able to compete with the Patriarchy, our true reason for opposing affirmative action is to keep minorities under our thumb.
Pro-Christian displays in government: In the U.S., the Constitution states that Congress shall make no laws establishing religion nor prohibiting the exercise thereof, our true agenda is not to allow for the free expression of Christian religions. Our true agenda is to set up our Christian theocracy by having such symbols as crosses and the ten commandments displayed on public owned property. Of course, for now, we say that we will not force Jews, Muslims, and atheists to convert, and this is true. While for now they deny Christ, sooner or later they will proclaim Him King without our persuasion. By then, though, it may be too late for them.
Anti-hate crime legislation: We contend publicly that laws already exist concerning violent crimes, and that if the motive of said violence is portended to be because of a hatred of certain groups, this borders upon the legislation of thought. While it is true that laws do exist prescribing punishment for violent crime, and that most violence involves a negative emotion of some sort, be it hatred or otherwise, we truly oppose hate-crime legislation because we enjoy beating up gay people. It is part of our oppression agenda.
Social Security Privatization: We contend publicly that those so inclined can earn more of return on their retirement investment over time from private investment. And while this is certainly true, our true purpose for social security reform is take income away from old people.
Anti-minimum wage: According to the Patriarchy, minimum wage is an artificial inflation of wage pricing that is detrimental to lower skilled workers, as they are edged out of the market by technology and over-seas labor pools. While this is certainly true, the Patriarchy really enjoys oppressing poor people. Blue collar workers are targeted, even though some are members of the Patriarchy by virtue of the qualifications.

While the above policies illustrate our oppressive agenda toward all those non-Patriarchy. We keep a cover on our true conspiratorial agenda by posing as hard-working, freedom-loving, patriotic, church-going husbands and fathers who pretend to feel a responsibility to the welfare of our families and others. But in reality, we pledge our allegience to the Patriarchy and its dominance.

Our dominance is threatened by the much smarter liberal types, who are much more individual-oriented than we, illustrated by their well-orchestrated and intelligent mantras such as "hell no, we won't go", or "Bush lied, kids died". These individualists typically form groups that further amplifies their individuality. They abhor everything Patriarchical, including bathing and shaving. They are hypersensitive to the oppression of the Patriarchy, battling through negotiation and appeasement, their strongest weapons of their theoretical war.

But as has been proven over time, the Patriarchy will prevail in the end.

Thank you for allowing me to finally come clean.

And Yet More Evidence of Perpetual Children

2006-08-11T16:18:00.000-05:00

This gem struck my attention, courtesy of the girls at Pandagon. I mean, why wouldn't a title like "Why The Culture War Is Classist and Racist" not catch the attention of someone like me. But I cite this article only to point out that feminists, like other liberals, are perpetual children. Here is the quote that pretty much sums up the author of this post.

With 16 children, Michelle Duggar is the patriarchal ideal; she was rendered incapable of resisting or leaving many children ago (Mandatory caveat: We are officially to say that we believe Duggar when she swears she loves it.) if she wanted to, since she has just too much child-baggage to do anything for herself.

Children, real-life ones that are already born even, are luggage that the true independent woman can leave on the curb, hail a taxi, and ride off to wherever her heart desires. But poor Mrs. Duggar, oppressed by the patriarchy, has too much baggage to drop in order to live the feminist ideal.

The assertion that this woman is doing nothing for "herself" because she has children is a slap in the face of every mother that ever was, including the mother of this author.

In my experience, my wife, who stays home with our soon-to-be four children, has accomplished much more than this hyper-sensitive dateless wonder will ever attempt to accomplish. She is actively molding, shaping, affecting, and educating the lives of countless people for ages to come. She is instilling values, handed down from various influences in her life, teaching skills, and nurturing the personalities of our children, who will in turn, hopefully, do the same for their children and so on. And I am also participating in raising our children as an equal partner, acting as the head of our household, my wife acting as the guide of our household. Part of being a mature, responsible, adult member of society includes thinking and acting beyond yourself and your own gratification.

Our feminist friend, displaying her child-like attributes, is doing us a favor by "pitying" those who are mothers rather than following their example. For in that, she will cut herself from the gene pool, and my children will not have to contend with her offspring.

The Economists

2006-08-09T16:05:00.000-05:00

I have two economists that I really like reading. These two guys put economics in simple terms that anyone can understand. And yet, they are probably two of the most intelligent pundits we have in our midst.

Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams is to whom I am referring. Both are free market economists. Both view most government interaction in the economy to be counterproductive, the most productive economy being that free from government interference. Both believe the minimum wage to be detrimental to low skilled workers. Both believe that affirmative action is yet another form of discrimination and only furthers the stereotypes of minorities who cannot function in the real world without help from whites. And both believe that the current system of education is failing students, particularly minorities.

But these economists, one of whom fills in for Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, would probably be stereotyped by people who do not know them as corporate white guys. But these guys are both black. The links above are to biographies on Wikipedia. I recommend that you read them before jumping to the conclusion that they did not live the "hard life" that is the basis for the outpouring of aid to minorities.

I also recommend their weekly columns on Townhall.com. Anything that I could possibly say about them would not compare to reading their thoughts.

Primarily The Primaries

2006-08-08T10:45:00.000-05:00

Two high profile run-offs are happening today. In Connecticut, Democrat Joe Lieberman is attempting to hold his seat against contender Ned Lamont. And in my home state of Georgia, our mascot for the embarassing side of the state, Cynthia McKinney, faces challenger Hank Johnson for the 4th District Congressional seat.

In terms of the Connecticut race for Mr. Lieberman's senate seat,
this piece by Lanny Davis, who is certainly no friend to conservatives, makes some admissions about the Democrats and the left-wing of American politics that we on the right have known, but now some of the more honest lefties are admitting.

There is no doubt that extremes exist on either side of American politics. However, what is generally characterized as extreme right-wing actually is more in line with left-wing leanings. Fascism and Nazism, often attributed as right-wing extremism, is actually left-wing policy. Socialism, which is embraced by the left and often cited as successful policy, was a hallmark of Nazism. Nazism began as a worker's movement, the proper name being the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Here is what Dictionary.com says about fascism (and pay special attention to the reference to National Socialism at the bottom of the "World History" description), and here is the same site on nazism. Does it sound like the right wing, who believes in economic freedom and a small, limited central government, or the left wing socialism?

Nevertheless, I digress. Lieberman has been a pro-war Democrat, and now he is paying the price for supporting President Bush in the Iraq War. Lieberman, by all other accounts, is a progressive (read socialistic) Democrat, except on the issues with Israel and the Middle East. And now loyal democrats, the party of "tolerance", comes out full force against a Jew who supports the Jewish state of Israel, a stance most right wingers have no problem taking, including myself. Many on the left are blaming Israel for the problems in the Middle East. Sounds eerily like one furor of Germany in the 30's and 40's.

In Georgia, many on the right have made a brilliant calculation. How better to guarantee the defeat of a democrat in a democrat district than to support said democrat. And that is just what has happened to Hank Johnson. Several prominent Georgia republicans have came out in support of Mr. Johnson after polls showed him leading Cynthia McKinney in the run-off. This has been fodder for Ms. McKinney in her debates with Mr. Johnson. And so the hope of the right-leaning people is that Ms. McKinney will retain her seat. I cannot say better why than this piece from
Neal Boortz.

I am rooting for the incumbents in both races. For Mr. Lieberman, I root for him because he seems to approach issues with some common sense. I root for Cynthia McKinney because we all need the comic relief.

But the Kids Are Alright

2006-08-04T08:13:00.000-05:00

Some incoherent drivle from Mother Jones.

Here in Austin on April 10, the marchers were mostly in college and high school. But the signs they carried often expressed the experiences of the parents. Their message: We came to work. We pay taxes. We appreciate what we have here. We want to be left alone.

What really does not dumbfound me is that how liberals tend to find so much wisdom in children. I began reading and posting on this liberal blog, until I found out that it was a bunch of kids who had no idea what they were saying anyway. Liberals hold themselves to no higher standards than children do, often pitching emotion-filled tantrums, and in their own minds bucking the system because it is the "system".

Let me make something clear: Conservatives are not against immigration. Migrant workers have always came to the U.S., and always will, and we welcome them. We are against illegal immigration.

Not too long ago on a cable station called "Democracy Now", a story ran in which a high school student who committed suicide after he was not allowed by school officials to take part in a staged school walk-out protest over illegal immigration was lionized for his stance and mourned for the tradegy. Of course, school officials were blamed for the whole thing, along with the ongoing debate over illegal immigration.

Only a liberal can equate a stance against illegal immigration as a stance against all immigrants. And not surprisingly, since their thought process is, well, so child-like.

Now I understand why college professors are mostly liberal.

Margaret Sanger Never Shot Quite So High

2006-08-03T14:37:00.000-05:00

The gals at Feministing have exposed the pro-abortion movement in a nutshell. What Jill was really trying to do while posting this little piece on The Rudepundit was to expose the "Pro-Life Movement in a nutshell."

But it's become fairly apparent that "life" has very little to do with being "pro-life." After all, Viagra kills a whole lot more people who use it than RU-486, or the "abortion pill" (not to be confused with emergency contraception, the "morning-after pill") does. For that matter, so does childbirth

This reveals the true agenda of the pro-abortion movement. Supporting so-called "pro-choice" policies by saying that more people are killed by childbirth than RU-486 is like saying that homosexual parents are better parents because there are less instances of child abuse among homosexuals raising children than heterosexuals. Well, duh, that's because there are not that many homosexuals raising children.

I think that we should impose strict 5 gallon water bucket laws because more children die by drowning in 5 gallon waters buckets each year than those who die from gunshots. (A heavy sigh ensues.)

Margaret Sanger only wanted to exterminate the black folks. Pro-abortionists believe childbirth to be a bigger threat to women than abortion. I guess abortion is no threat to anybody if there is no one around to get one.

Oliver Stone's Next Movie: "Diebold Conspiracy"

2006-08-03T10:43:00.000-05:00

The hags at Pandagon have posted another humorous gem today. I have really begun enjoying visiting some of these feminist blogs. I get a good chuckle. I guess if laughter adds years to your life, I should live to be an old man after reading the posts on this site.

Think it’s BS? Try looking at this series of shots of the interior of the same machine at Open Voting Foundation, the source of the shots in the video.

This reminds me of the conspiracy video on the internet that circulated a few months ago concerning the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. "The hole in the wall of the Pentagon was not large enough for a plane to go through," implying a rocket went through the wall. The same video also implied that Flight 93 was not brought down by the passengers who overtook the terrorist, but that the plane never really crashed.

Oliver Stone has some potential with this.

"Judge Not" To The Extreme

2006-08-01T12:29:00.000-05:00

The girls and girl-wannabes over at Pandagon take on the bad heterosexuals now raising children.

A woman who molested at least one of her five children and prompted four of them to have sex with each other has been sentenced to 40 years in prison.

And how about a couple of other examples:

As I said in my recent post “Parents“, Florida couple John and Linda Dollar tortured and starved their children, beating them with belts, paddles, switches and whips, kicked them, and took a cattle prod to them. Former Cincinnati City Councilman Sam Malone whipped his son with a belt hard enough to hospitalize him (trying to “beat the black off of him”) and was not judged to have committed a crime.

And so what is the obvious solution?

Yet time, energy and money are spent all over the country trying to make sure law-abiding LGBT citizens don’t have the right to adopt or foster children simply because of their orientation. If it’s all about the children, somehow I think the priorities are not in order if the folks above had zero legal barriers to parenthood by default.

I find it ridiculously humorous when people who seek to dispel general unfavorable opinions about their behaviors use specific examples of others' behaviors at an attempt to make their behaviors look more normal acceptable to the critical eye.

Just because some heterosexual parents are not fit to raise children does not mean that any homosexual couples are fit to raise children.

If Israel Were the United States

2006-07-31T11:09:00.000-05:00

Dateline: July 31, 2006-Washington, D.C.

A week has passed since some of the largest cities in the United States, including Washington, D.C., have been bombed by operatives of Al Qada. Crossing the Canadian border in Michigan, the Al Qada operatives kidnapped two American soldiers and are holding them hostage, slipping back into Canada. The Canadian government has declared that they are neither supporting nor aiding the operatives.

Al Qada has maintained known operation bases in Canada for at least four years.

The troops are believed to be held in an undisclosed Al Qada base in the Canadian province of Ontario, in or around the city of London. The United States has dispatched a troops to retrieve the kidnapped soldiers.

The President had stated that the kidnapping of the American soldiers was an act of war. He has stated that he has not ruled out the use force at any level.

Rockets, armed with metal balls, have been launched at U.S. cities just across the border from Canada, and within major U.S. cities, such as Detroit and Washington, D.C., with large Muslim populations.

All state governors of the continental 48 states have mobilized national guard units to patrol the major cities of their states, looking for terrorist weaponry.

The detected origination sites of the launches have been from densely populated areas with large civilian populations. American forces have been reluctant to retaliate due to the civilian presence, but orders have been given to eliminate the enemy at all costs, undisclosed sources have revealed.

Retaliatory strikes from the U.S. into Canadian territory which is believed to be strategic Al Qada bases has drawn the ire of the international community. Kofi Annon, Secretary General of the U.N., has called for a cease fire.

The United States has responded that acts of war upon the sovreign nation of the United States will be responded to as deemed fit by the U.S. The U.S. has asked for the assistance of Canada, but Canada has so far only offered token support in the effort to weed out Al Qada. No captures have been made, but Canadian forces have been dispatched to patrol for suspicious persons.

Some groups have cried out against the targeted patrol of predominately Muslim communities in the U.S. as racial profiling. Court challenges have already been filed in some jurisdictions as to the legality of the patrols by the military.

Others within the U.S. are also supporting the U.N. requests for ceasefire. Demostrations have been made in several major U.S. cities.

One such demostration in Philadelphia was disrupted after a missile struck the street on which the protestors were marching. Nineteen protestors were killed, and over 50 wounded.

The United States says that retaliatory strikes, including air raids in Canada, are not out of the question.

The above, of course, is fictitious, but not beyond the realm of reality.

On September 11, 2001, it seems that I recall that the U.S. was prepared to shoot down a civilian passenger jet if it headed for the White House after two had already hit the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in D.C. Civilian casualties are always a part of war.

The culture of Islam is a culture of war. The ultimate goal of Islam is forced conversion or death to infidels as defined by Islam. This culture is conducive to neither democratic institutions nor Judeo-Christian principles that is ingrained in the Western culture.

The choice for Israel, and consequently the rest of the world, is to defeat Islam or to be defeated by Islam.

The Voting Rights Farce

2006-07-27T07:25:00.000-05:00

Each state has citizens whom the other citizens consider an embarassment. Georgia seems to have a plethora of such embarassments. Obviously, Cynthia McKinney has become such an embarassment that half her constituency in 4th district is trying to run her out of office.

John Lewis is another such embarassment. Lewis is the representative for Georgia's 5th district, which encompasses the southern part of Fulton county mainly, including south Atlanta and downtown. Every time I hear this man talk, I shudder to think that the voters of Georgia would elect him. English is definitely his second language, as he is reminiscent of Mushmouth from Fat Albert.

Nevertheless, the reason that I have even thought of Mr. Lewis is that President Bush is signing the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. For those of you who may read this and do not know, the Voting Rights Act established Federal oversight of elections of states who were deemed to be a threat to the voting rights of blacks. Most, if not all, of the states that were targeted were in the south. Perhaps the act was good at the time, but, much like labor unions, it has outlived its usefulness.

One could argue whether or not over the course of time that issues will work themselves out without intervention of government. Some have argued that, eventually, slavery would have ended without the war between the states. Forty years after the Voting Rights Act, one would think that all attempts to disenfranchise black voters would have failed. We even have the gerrymandering of congressional districts now to ensure that minority voters, black in particular, have a black representative.

So why do we still have the Voting Rights Act? Race baiters masquerading as "civil rights leaders" must still have an issue to energize their constituency. It's a perpetual issue, since this act will come up for vote again in another 25 years. How better to stay relevant than to keep people under foot, believing that you are waging a battle on their behalf, even if the battle has been won for at least 30 years?

The Voting Rights Act is a farce. If people truly want to be progressive, they will purge the trash and move on.

A Conservative Quandry

2006-07-20T11:12:00.000-05:00

The other night on the Documentary Channel (nothing else was on the satellite worth watching), I caught a portion of a documentary on the Waco/Branch Davidian raid. This was basically a series of video tapes of Congressional hearings and audio tapes of conversations between David Koresh and negotiators and 9-1-1 calls made from the compound that gave a look at both sides of the standoff. Although Koresh may have been miguided, I must say that based on the portion of the documentary that I watched, which was about an hour's worth, I came away with sympathies to the Branch Davidians. The evidence presented seemed to point to the ATF, who was at the compound to deliver a warrant primarily dealing with statutory rape, according to the documentary, storming the compound with blazing guns. The 9-1-1 tapes also indicate that the Davidians were defending themselves, begging the operator to get in touch with the Feds to call it off. The 9-1-1 dispatcher displays irritation that the radio frequency given to him for contact is not working. Further evidence that the Feds had their radios turned off came from a member of the media, who was asked by the Feds to call an ambulance.

Of course, the agents were following orders, for which they cannot be blamed, except to the extent that they acted with malice if they did. The shots were being called by Janet Reno in Washington. This has prompted me to think over some of the other debacles of the Reno Justice Department at the Clinton Whitehouse.

And then I remembered Elian Gonzalez. Elian was a Cuban refugee, only about 5 years old, who washed up on the shores of Miami. He lost his mother, who fled Cuba to bring her son to a better life in the U.S. Elian was taken in by some of his relatives already in Cuba.

Fidel Castro's government then got wind of the situation and demanded that the boy be returned to Cuba. The Reno Justice Department, under darkeness of night, raided the house of the boy's uncle, who was caring for him, and took him at gunpoint, crying, from the arms of his un-armed uncle. Shortly thereafter, he was deported back to Cuba and Papa Fidel.

As many inconsistencies as we can point to with the left on this issue, I cannot help but maybe question some inconsistency on the right.

From another perspective, Elian Gonzalez and his mother, had she lived, would have been illegal aliens unless granted political amnesty. We on the right, and rightly so, call for the sealing of our borders and the deportation of illegal aliens. But we were screaming at Janet Reno for deporting Elian.

No one questions his life would have been far better than in Cuba, but so would the lives of many of our brown brothers from the south of Texas.

Am I off base? Am I missing something?

The True Threat to Traditional Marriage

2006-07-17T11:40:00.000-05:00

My last posting brings me to the next subject that I want to blog about. Traditional marriage is under attack in the U.S. from all sides. Many believe that the agenda of homosexuals to normalize same-sex marriage, and all of this for the true agenda of normalizing a deviant behavior, is the greatest threat to traditional marriage. While this does threaten what our posterity will recognize as "normal", the true threat to traditional marriage is already recognized as a normal part of living now. The true threat that I speak of is divorce.

For many years, about 1 in 2 Americans have been divorced. Many who are divorced go on to marry again, some of which later divorce again. How is it that we have gotten to the point of defending an institution that about 1/2 of the population appears to not believe in to begin with?

Marriage, from its roots, was a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. Let me clarify that statement by saying that from its Christian roots, referencing Paul's writings, marriage was a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. Divorce was given under the law by Moses, but as Jesus said Himself, it was given because of the "hardness of your hearts", but " from the beginning, it was not so." Jesus also clarifies that the legitimate reason for divorce is fornication within the marriage. Some argue that Paul also states that believers may divorce unbelievers without consequence. But nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, there are only a couple of legitimate reasons for divorce to be granted.

One reason for this is that marriage entails committing a vow to your partner. The vow is a life-long vow, death of one of the married being the only release. In one place, the scripture says that it is better to never have made a vow than to make a vow and break it.

So, if one professes to be a Christian, as most people in America today profess to be, then the only legitimate grounds for divorce is fornication, which is a breaking of the vow of marriage. Does this mean that the majority of divorces are as a result of divorce?

My guess is no. Since the inception of "no-fault" divorce, one does not have to have a reason to divorce his or her partner. All one has to do is file for divorce for "irreconcilable differences." And this is truly where the break-down of family and the threat to institutional marriage lies.

In today's world, marriage is more of a game of institutional dating. And with the involvement of secular law in marriage now, women particularly have much to gain from no-fault divorce; that is, if they married men who actually care about their children.

I could go on if time permitted about the Christian implications of divorce, but I will save that perhaps for another post. Any way you cut it, divorce is the scourge that is destroying marriage.

The Law Is For Lawyers

2006-07-13T15:45:00.000-05:00

My brother-in-law is going through a nasty divorce. My family and I have tried to stay out of it as much as possible. Unfortunately, we have on occasion been dragged in to the fray. But through his unfortunate experience, I have learned two truths that I did not otherwise know, nor would I ever have had occasion to know:

1) Men have no rights to their children
2) Courts are for the most part a money scheme

This all started with his wife one day deciding to ask him to leave. His response was "Why?" He had no idea, according to his story, that she wanted him gone. So he left.

The next week, she served him with a do-it-yourself divorce settlement, which, of course, left him with nothing, including the right to see his children. He took it to a lawyer, who promptly served her with divorce papers. His nightmare begins.

He was in a no-win situation from the beginning. If he had signed the original papers, he would have forfeited his right to his children and to an attorney if she decided in the future to take him to court. But now that he is filing for divorce, he has been forced to undergo lie detector tests, pyschological evaluations, and supervised visitations (at our house, my wife being appointed supervisor without consultation to us). He has had to foot the bill for all of the above, plus psych evaluations for his children.

The mother, on the other hand, has been forced to do none of the above to my knowledge. And she has full custody of the children at the present.

The supervised visitations were the result of allegations that his wife made that he visited pornographic websites and was inappropriate with his children, particularly his daughter of eleven. Both he and his wife have restraining orders against the other. The visitation was originally set for Sunday, so as not to interfere with the daughter's sporting events (as this is much more important than visiting her father). On Mother's Day, the wife broke the restraining order by coming upon our porch after calling our home, which was also not allowed according to the order. Deputies were called to assist in the visitation. Nothing was ever filed by the Sheriff's department.

If he had came upon the porch of the house the HE is paying for, he would have been hauled to jail then.

Most recently, he was summoned to court as his wife was trying to stop all visitation after he performed an informal DNA test on his daughter at the request of his lawyer. Formal DNA testing that would meet the chain of custody requirement would be costly, and if the informal tests showed results that the children were definitely his, he would not need the formal tests. Royally making her mad, since one of the charges against her is infidelity, she drags him back to court making accusations that he asked his daughter to "pull her pants down" so he could "check for bruising", which did not occur. Even after this allegation was not proven, supervised visitation at a "visitation center" in town was ordered. Visitation was to occur on each Saturday.

He has not seen his children in 6 weeks. He is allowed one phone call per evening, before 9 o'clock, but he has not been allowed by his wife to speak with his daughter.

Now, I am sure that people who do not know my brother-in-law or his wife would say the following facts are what is really relevant:

1) He left the home
2) He filed for divorce
3) When erring, ere on the side of the safety of the child

I would venture to say that, in divorce cases in which a father is accused of molesting his child, 90-95% of those charges are bogus. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

His lawyer told him that this litigation could last for 3 years. That brings me to the other truth.

Up front, this divorce is cost my brother-in-law $10,000. He had to get a loan to cover the bill, because, like most people, he did not have $10,000 sitting around. The lawyer also stated an amount for retainer. This mess started in April. He has been to court three times already, and they still do not have a divorce. When their divorce trial is set, I do not know. But the longer it drags, the more money the courts and lawyers make.

Speedy trial my foot.

And so if this thing drags for 3 years, he will be paying retainer fees to his lawyer and court costs whenever he goes to court, I am sure.

No wonder men are reluctant to get married these days.

My Blogroll

2006-07-12T15:53:00.000-05:00

I have added two new blogs to my blogroll. The first is "Scrambled Thoughts of One More Patriot." I have found his blogs interesting, and I believe he and are probably cut from the same cloth, as a lot of our interests seem to be the same. The other is "My Onion Pi." Although she and I met in the blogworld concerning a disagreement about abortion, and this not being the only thing we disagree about, I find her to be honest and independent. In other words, she sincerely believes what she says she believes, and she is not walking lockstep with one party or other. I can appreciate that about a person, and I consider Hamrose to be a blogfriend. And besides, debating people that disagree with you challenges you not only to think about why you believe their views are wrong, but also why you believe why your views are right.

Check them out.

Suicide and Eternity

2006-07-12T10:58:00.000-05:00

A widely held belief among many who profess to be Christian is that if one commits suicide, that their soul is committed to Hell. This is because, according to the belief, a person who commits suicide has not had the opportunity to repent of that sin. This is a false belief and is not grounded in biblical truth.

The only factor that determines whether or not the soul of the departed is committed to Paradise or to Hell is whether or not one has obtained salvation by the grace of God. When the blood of Christ is once applied to the heart of a sinner, his sins, past, present, and future are covered. Mortal flesh will continue to sin, and sin with finally consume the flesh, ultimately resulting in the death of the flesh (Romans 6:23). At death, the soul that has obtained salvation will rest in the bosom of Abraham and await the day of the redemption of the body, when the dead shall be resurrected, meeting Christ in the eastern sky. Then all of the redeemed will enter the New Jerusalem together and be there forever.

The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31); that is to say, the rejection of the Holy Spirit when it beckons to you. Furthermore, salvation is not of works; therefore, we can perform nothing that will result in obtaining salvation, nor in losing it once obtained. It is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9).

So what does this have to do with suicide and where the soul of those who kill themselves will spend eternity? If salvation were of works, and we could fall away from Grace, then this belief would be correct. But if the blood of Christ were not sufficient for the covering of all the sins of his elect, then his crucifixion and death would be in vain.

Therefore, to say that one who commits suicide is bound for Hell regardless of whether he had obtained salvation is saying that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to cover his sins. If this is the case, how can anyone be saved from death and Hell?

I have held this belief and been aware of this truth for many years. I thank God that he has allowed me to have knowledge of some of his truths.

Personally, I also believe that one who would commit the act of suicide is not capable at the time of the act to know that their action is wrong. In other words, a mental illness has taken over to the point that the person committing the act is not responsible.

On Mother's Day of this year, my grandfather committed this very act. He had been suffering from depression for quite a while. He was not in the best of health, either. Unfortunately, none of us really recognized how depressed he really was. He had borrowed a 22 caliber rifle from a friend, went into a small room on the back of his carporch, and shot himself.

I do not condone what he did. I do not comprehend how someone can get to that point. But mental illness, whether in the form of depression or other forms, is a disease. Unfortunately, this disease affects rational thinking, often resulting in the death of the diseased at their own hand. Mental illness carries with it stigma, but the truth is one cannot help having a mental illness any more than they can help having a cold.

But I have no doubts of where my grandfather's soul is today. He is resting, awaiting the day when his body shall rise from the grave, in the likeness of Jesus himself, and put on perfection, to live forever in that Good Land.

Capitalists That I Don't Like

2006-07-10T15:51:00.000-05:00

Friday night as my wife and I were lying in bed, we were watching 20/20 on television. Since John Stossel has taken on one of the anchor roles, this has become somewhat of a decent program to watch. One of the feature stories caught my attention.

A pharmaceutical company called Northfield has developed a blood substitute called Polyheme. This substitute is in trial right now. The purpose of the substitute, from what I understood, was for shortages of blood or to prevent medical transports, such as ambulances, from having to store real blood. When a patient arrives at a hospital, real blood can be transfused, and the Polyheme would be purged from the body.

If this product works, it would be a revolutionary medical breakthrough, undoubtedly.

Here comes the spoiler.

Northfield Labs, through approval of the FDA, has been authorized to test this product at 27 national hospitals across the country. The problem is, you might be a part of the testing and never know it, especially if you die from the side-effects that have been noted about Polyheme.

In order to opt out of the experiment, you must be wearing a blue bracelet that reads something like, "I choose to opt out of the Northfield Labs Polyheme experiment."

The way I always thought medical testing worked was that you consented to being a part of a test, signing waivers that you were aware of the risks, and then most likely being paid for your effort.

Not in this test. The FDA, a government organization, has approved a private business to TEST A DRUG ON CITIZENS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

This is the type of capitalist I have a problem with. This company stands to gain a great deal by approval of Polyheme. Investors would stand to gain a great deal by the approval of Polyheme. This company used a government agency to force its product on citizens without their consent. Citizens are part of a medical experiment without their knowledge. Their lives could be in peril because of an experimental drug administered to them without them even knowing it.

If Northfield Labs tested this drug with consent of patients or their power-of-attorney, then I say fine. If Northfield Labs then makes a disgustingly large amount of money. Fine. They took the risk, invested the capital, they should reap the benefits.

But this is unconscionable. An company should compete for their subjects of experiments by gaining their consent and paying compensation for the efforts of the subjects. Instead, this company used the power of the FDA to make the public as a whole the subjects of their testing.

These are the kind of capitalists that I do not like. The kind of capitalist who uses regulation to get the upper hand in competetive advantage over their rivals. This is the true flaw in capitalistic societies; that government regulation is involved.

Below is a list of hospitals that this experiement is taking place. I suggest that you order the blue bracelet from Northfield Labs if you live in one of the areas. This is copied and pasted directly from the abcnew.com website.

To opt out of the study, contact Northfield Labs (http://www.northfieldlabs.com/contact.html) or a participating hospital and request a blue bracelet. If worn, you will be exempt from the trial.

California
UC San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, Calif.; No longer recruiting
Scripps Mercy, San Diego, Calif.; No longer recruiting

Colorado
Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colo.

Delaware
Christiana Hospital, Newark, Del.

Georgia
Medical Center of Central Georgia, Macon, Ga.

Illinois
Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Indiana
Wishard Memorial Hospital, Indianapolis, Ind.
Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind.

Kansas
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kan.

Kentucky
University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Ky.

Michigan
Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Mich.
Sinai Grace Hospital, Detroit, Mich.

Minnesota
The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

New York
Albany Medical Center, Albany, N.Y.; Suspended

North Carolina
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

Ohio
MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; Suspended
University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, Ohio

Pennsylvania
Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Penn.; No longer recruiting
St. Luke's Regional Resource Trauma Center, Bethlehem, Penn.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Penn.

Tennessee
University of Tennessee-Memphis, Memphis, Tenn.
Johnson City Medical Center, Johnson City, Tenn.; Suspended

Texas
Memorial-Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas; No longer recruiting
Memorial-Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas; No longer recruiting
University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas
Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam, Houston, Texas

Utah
University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah

Virginia
Sentara Norfolk Hospital, Norfolk, Va.; No longer recruiting
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Va.
Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Va.; Suspended

West Virginia
West Virginia University/Jon Michael Moore Trauma Center, Morgantown, West Va.

(source: www.clinicaltrials.gov where it says "Verified by Northfield Laboratories June 2006) (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076648?order=1)

The "Right" to Marry

2006-07-06T11:20:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court of the state of Georgia has ruled that the constitutional referendum banning homosexual marriage stands. This was placed on the ballot in November of 2004, and passed by 76% of the voters who participated in the election. Opponents of the referendum have challenged it on the grounds that referendum addressed two separate issues, those being gay marriage and gay civil unions. Constitutional referendums in the state of Georgia must by law address a single issue.

Many of the proponents of civil unions or homosexual marriage claim that their "civil rights" are being violated, and that they are being treated as "second class" citizens. Some even have the audacity to compare their "plight for equality" to that of blacks during their struggles to be accepted into society. But this is bogus.

First of all, marriage is not a civil right. It is a matter of contract law. Many rules exist for people to be eligible for entering into contracts. Marriage is not different. One cannot be legally married to someone else at the time of entering into a marriage contract with another; one must be 18 years of age, or have the consent of the parents if a minor. One cannot marry a brother or sister. Many reasons exist that one cannot enter into a marriage contract with another, no matter how much they may love the person that they want to marry. In the state of Georgia, another qualification for marriage is now that the parties wishing to enter into the marriage contract be of opposing sexes.

Secondly, no one is stating that members of the same sex cannot cohabitate. No law exists that one cannot leave their estate to another of their choosing. One can choose a power-of-attorney of their choosing for medical or financial decisions. Married couples have to do this in a lot of cases. In a lot of states, adoption laws are such that one does not have to be married in order to adopt a child. Health care coverage by your spouses or "significant other's" plan is even allowed by some companies now.

Thirdly, I do not see the police in the streets hosing down homosexuals as they did blacks in days past. Although I do not think that it would be a bad idea in a lot of cases.

And finally, agree or disagree, being black is not a choice of behavior. Being black is something that no matter how much one may wish to change it, they cannot make black skin another color. Homosexuality is a behavior. One cannot look at another (in all cases) and say, "he/she is homosexual" unless they choose to exhibit the stereotypical look of a homosexual. How one expresses his "homosexuality" is through behavior. People are accountable for their behavior. Black people cannot help but be black. Therefore, I would find it extremely offensive if I were black to have the plight of my ancestors compared with someone who is ticked because their choice of lifestyle is rejected as normal by the majority of the world population and throughout history.

And this brings us to the real reason for this debate; homosexuals want their lifestyle to be viewed as normal. My personal belief for this is that they want to behave the way they want, but without the guilt that their behavior is wrong.

I am not going to beat the crap out of someone because they are gay. As a matter of fact, I won't even bother someone who is gay. The only thing that I ask in return is for gays not to shove their lifestyle down my throat and force me to accept their behavior.

No Accountability for Judges

2006-07-06T07:42:00.000-05:00

On the 11 o'clock news last night, I caught a story about a judge who had let an accused rapist go on bond. This man was accused of raping a 17 year-old girl, and the judge allowed him to go free after someone posted bond. The man then subsequently is accused of raping a 13 year-old girl.

I am an advocate of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But I am also an advocate of common sense when releasing accused perpetrators before trial. If the man was a petty thief, then fine, release him on bond. I can think of a myriad of other crimes, even felonies, that I would say that setting bond would be alright, provided the bond were high enough to give the bond-poster incentive to be sure that the bondee behaves. But rape, murder, and child molestation are crimes that I believe regardless, for the sake of the safety of the public, and whether I am the accused or not, bond should not be set.

I have a daughter, a wife, a mother, and grandmothers. I also have nieces, and daughters of friends who I love like nieces. I do not want to see their lives ruined by rape. The outlooks of women today concerning men are skewed enough by the feminist influence. Sick men who get their kicks from forcing women to have sex do not help to change this outlook. And men who are accused of being sick should be behind bars until trial.

The trial should be as speedy as possible. If evidence enough exists to arrest someone on such a serious charge, then evidence enough should exist to convict him. Honestly, I teeter on this point from the standpoint that innocent people should not be incarcerated to the point that it infringes upon their Constitutional rights, but I also cannot see risking the release of people who are suspected of being as dangerous as a man who would rape young girls.

Judges have discretion, I would think, when setting bond. If this man is a rapist, and is convicted of such, then this judge has blood on his hands. The issue with judicial discretion is that many judges use their discretion in a manner that will further their own personal agenda. Who knows the experiences of this judge or family members that would color his discretion. Judges should therefore be subject to punishment, which would ultimately include fines or removal for negligence in rulings such as this.

Following the dictates of the law and applying the law, which is what judges are supposed to do, could not be an offense that would be subject to punishment. The points that judges should be held accountable for is when they step outside the dictates and application of the law, and use their discretion to make a decision such as this. We are all held accountable for decisions we make in our lives and our jobs. Judges should be as well.

A World Without Guns

2006-06-30T10:33:00.000-05:00

The United Nations has convened its Small Arms Review Conference. As has been reported by Cam Edwards on Townhall.com, each day has been full of testimony from nations who have sought to restrict the ownership of guns by its citizenry. The ultimate goal of the United Nations is to ban all ownership of guns by the citizenry of the member nations. The only nation who seems to take a stand against this in this conference is the United States. Ironically, though, not all of the citizenry of the U.S., whose freedom from the tyrannical rule of Imperial England was won by common people with guns, stand with the United States in her assertion of the rights of the citizenry to own guns.

A state in which the only people who have guns are the police is a police state. The 2nd amendment has been perverted by the Brady cult to deny that the founders had anyone in mind but the military to have guns in their possession. The citizenry is already at a disadvantage with bans on assault weapons. The government by using the ATF has assaulted and killed citizens that it deemed a threat preemptively at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Assaults on the 2nd amendment are the most dangerous to our civil liberties. Without the ability to defend ourselves from the government, none of our rights are safe.

The words of Patrick Henry, if I can get this quote right, ring true. "The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots." Our founders knew that, left unchecked and without the threat of retaliation and a fight from the citizenry, that the government would soon be full of power-hungry tyrants. Slowly over the years, men of this nation have slept, have forgotten the lessons of the past, and have allowed our rights to be eroded and stepped on by our government. We have now came to the point in time that our nation is headed for socialism and hell. A revolution of the people will be the only recourse to bring us back to our foundation.

And if the state is the only one with guns, the only thing that the citizenry will be able to bring will be their knives. Knives at a gunfight lose.

And so it is in nations who have restricted gun ownership. In our own country, we need look no further than Washington D.C. to see just how successful restricting guns are in curbing crime.

Can anyone say "Bilderberg."

On the Subject of Slavery

2006-06-29T10:31:00.000-05:00

Aside from Vox's latest firestorm, slavery has been the topic of discussion in many forums. In the U.S., the slavery of black people, who were sold from Africa by tribal leaders, who were held as slaves prior to the Reconstruction period prior to 1865, has been a topic of discussion for several years. Most recently, black people living today who claim to be descended from those held as slaves and what society owes them monetarily has been the subject of discussion among left-leaning so-called civil rights circles.

As is the case in most left-leaning equality parties, the goal is not equality but retribution and punishment for the sins of history, or at least the alleged sins of history. Slavery was definitely a scourge on the honorable history of this nation and its founding. Economic interests held off the abolition of slavery for several years after the founding of this nation. The monetary payments to the descendents of slaves or the supposed descendents of slaves would require the enslavement of others. This would be retribution by definition.

This is because the payments for retribution would have to come from our current tax system. Our current tax system is a form of slavery.

slav·er·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)n. pl. slav·er·ies
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

My logic in this conclusion:

1) The state of being bound implies that one is held against their will.
2) The labor of an individual belongs to that individual unless he willingly enters into a contract by which he promises a portion of his labor to another in exchange for goods or services.
3) The labor of an individual requires the time of that individual.
4) Time is a significant resource to an individual, as each individual has a limited amount that is unknown to him.
5) If a person is not living, he cannot spend his time to labor. Without the person, the labor resource does not exist. Therefore, a person's time is a part of their being.
6) If time is a part of a person's being, the monetary value of his labor agreed upon by contract belongs to him.
7) The Federal government, by force, taxes the monetary value of labor for the benefit of others without the laborers consent. If the laborer does not pay the tax levied upon him, then the government takes it by force. Therefore, a portion of labor is required to be given to the Federal government without contractual agreement but rather by force.
8) Therefore a person is bound in servitude to the state as a slavemaster for a portion of his labor. Therefore our current system of taxation is institutional slavery.

The Fair Tax is the best method I have seen so to replace the current tax structure and get the average citizen out of bondage of the government. I say this for the following reasons.

1) All other alternative tax structures are based on income taxation, including the flat tax. Still in servitude.
2) The Fair Tax eliminates not only the income tax, but Social Security and Medicare taxes as well.
3) The Fair Tax leaves in the hands of individual income earner how much tax he will pay be virtue of a percentage of consumption dollars. The more a person spends, the more he pays.
4) The Fair Tax is also conducive to economic growth, since an individual's gross income and bring-home pay will be the same.

The Fair Tax even has a provision that would give a "pre-bate" to each American household based on what is considered by the Labor Department to be poverty level. In other words, if a family of four is considered in poverty at $20,000, a family of four making $20,000 or less will get a refund of all sales taxes paid to the Federal government under the Fair Tax. Each family of four in the U.S., regardless of income, would be refunded sales taxes paid on the basic necessities of life up to poverty level.

Neal Boortz and John Linder have co-written a book on the Fair Tax, and John Linder is sponsoring a bill in the House of Representatives to pass the Fair Tax. I have read the book, and I recommend it. This is our best chance of getting out from under the imperial Federal government's thumb.

Back From My Blogging Sabatical

2006-06-28T11:45:00.000-05:00

I looked at my last post and was surprised to see that April 21 was the last time that I blogged. I have no good excuse, though I have been busy. I apologize to the 2 or 3 readers that I have, if you will even read my blog anymore.

I have, since last blog, came to some important conclusions.

1) My new heroes in the culture war are Vox Day and Neal Boortz.
2) The Republican Party is definitely as much if not more of a big government party that the democrats, and are therefore unworthy of my vote. As a matter of fact, they are one in the same party.
3) Party affiliation in general stifles individual thought, as each party has a platform that each member is expected to abide by.

Why are Vox Day and Neal Boortz my new heroes in the culture war? First of all, neither is a lockstep party affiliate that only regurgitates the platform of their party. Secondly, both are independent and creative thinkers who are not afraid of the political and social realities of stating the truth, no matter how painful it may be, even to themselves. Thirdly, both handle their critics with well-thought responses, using facts to support their conclusions while dispelling the opponents assertions. And finally, both the right and left political factions have them in their sites for some reason or other.

I have been particularly interested of late in the discussion that Vox has had on his blog, which is linked on this blog site, concerning the increase in sex slavery in western Europe. In a nutshell, here is Vox's assertions:

1) Sex slavery is on the upswing in post Christian western Europe.
2) The rejection of Judeo-Christian values is to blame in the devaluation of the worth of women, and people in general, in post-Christian societies.
3) Humanism, and more particularly, feminism has been at the forefront of this rejection of Judeo-Christian principles.
4) For most of recorded history, slavery has been the norm. All forms of societies have had slavery at one point or other in their history.
5) Only two instances of the outlawing of slavery without outside political influence exists in history: One in 15th-16th century Japan, because of the personal convictions of one man; and in 19th century Christian Great Britain.
6) Great Britain's force within itself for this change was a group of Quakers, who proclaimed that slavery was a scourge upon mankind.
7) Christianity uplifted more women from property status than any other religion, and the social system based upon Christianity has perpetuated the same.
8) Christianity has served as a moral compass for those societies who adopt the principles.
9) Those who reject Christianity either have adopted another set of religious principles from which they base their morality, or are humanist and are moral relativists.
10) The rejection of Christianity in western Europe has led to the adoption of Islam, many of whose new converts are women living in post-Christian Europe.
11) The irony of feminism is that by rejecting Judeo-Christian principles, and more particularly Christianity as a religion, women are suffering much more oppression and have returned to their historical status as property in post-Christian societies.

The feminists in the blogosphere and their pantywaist defenders were really upset over Vox's statement that he found "humor" in western culture having a rise in sex slavery. Reasonable people know that he was referring to irony as humor, but some people aren't reasonable. Especially on the left.

Vox also was labeled a "Nazi" by the whole political spectrum recently when he entered the deportation debate on illegal immigrants. His assertion here was that Nazi Germany transported large numbers of Jewish citizens to concentration camps, and that the inability of the United States to transport illegal migrants to the south side of the border is bunk. But, by citing a successful transportation strategy, albeit from Nazi Germany, he suddenly was a nazi who was suggesting that we massacre illegal migrants. Michael Medved, a proclaimed righty, even dedicated air time to denouncing Vox's column as nazi propaganda.

Neal Boortz is somewhat less patient with his critics, as I assume the medium is radio rather than print or internet blogging. But he correctly took to task the anti-flag burning amendment crowd as political panderers who are looking for easy ways to keep office. Such an amendment also flies in the face of private property rights, of which Boortz is a staunch defender. He also is bold enough to take on K Street and try to muster enough grass roots support to overthrow the current slavemaster, the IRS, and the tax system it employs here in the U.S.

I do not believe that I must go into detail about the Republicrat party. What I find funny is that the left hates George Bush, but, aside from foreign policy and defense, he is a democrat dream-come-true. And so it is with Republican congressmen. Spending is higher than ever on domestic programs. No social security reform. The President then spends more money on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, who is in worse dire straits than Social Security from a liquidity standpoint. He co-writes an education bill with the Hero of Chappaquidick, Ted Kennedy, who then promptly stabs him in the back by stating that President Bush concocted the war in Iraq from Texas. He then pushes immigration reform that would give amnesty to illegal migrants. In other words, the U.S. would sell citizenship for $2,000, much like Clinton sold the Lincoln Bedroom to his donors. It is almost as if the left were staring in a mirror at themselves and hating the image of themselves. Self-loathing, I've found, is a trademark of left-leaning people.

So, come November, I most likely will go to the booth and cast a blank ballot, unless some independent-minded candidate is on the ballot. Of political parties, the platform of the Constitution Party best matches my views. However, this party nor any of their candidates have made it to the ballot in Georgia.

Sorry about my prolonged vacation from blogging on my own blog. I hope to be back in full force.

Random Thoughts

2006-04-21T11:25:00.000-05:00

I have been wanting to give my thoughts on this Duke University lacrosse team case in Durham. Briefly, I do not care that the woman was a stripper. Strippers can be raped. And, I do not care that the Duke lacrosse team are probably a bunch of pompous idiots. The evidence, if all is allowed, will point to the truth, and a jury will sort out what happened.

But Ann Coulter, whose last column you can access through the "Townhall.com" link on this page, must have telepathy with me, because her column is almost verbatim of what I have been thinking since I first heard of this story. How could this incident have been prevented?

Well, first of all, the chances of this woman being raped would have been minimized, or maybe eliminated in this circumstance, had she not agreed to come to a party with almost 100 hormone-crazed young men and take her clothes off. Second of all, assuming that the young men are innocent until proven otherwise, the tarnishing of their reputations because of this incident would not have happened if they had not hired a woman to come to their party and...take her clothes off.

We must all take responsibility for our actions. No one should be raped, but when you 100 young men with a naked woman and large amounts of alcohol in a room, you are courting disaster. As a matter of fact, common sense would tell a young woman that if she shows off enough of her body, she is going to get men excited. Again, and I reiterate so that I not be taken the wrong way, NO woman, regardless of her state of dress or undress, deserves to be raped. But it is kind of like standing in the middle of the highway, although the law says you, the pedestrian, has the right of way, you still are very likely to get hit by somebody.

On the other hand, the young men also knew that they were running risks as well. The best way to avoid even the appearance of evil is to keep yourself from those situations as much as possible. Those situations will present themselves without having to create them, as did these young men.

Responsibility is the code word. And both sides in this case want to be portrayed as the victim, when in fact, this situation was created by their own design.

And speaking of responsiblity, it never ceases to amaze me at what people think that their government should be responsible for. As I was traveling to work this morning, I caught a story on the radio. I do not remember what the story was about, I think maybe about gasoline, but what caught my attention was the line, "She says that the government should do more to educate people on this issue." The government is not an information clearinghouse. People should be responsible for their own education. I guess this is part of the price we pay for allowing the government a virtual monopoly on education and making an education available publically to all.

And, speaking of education, a Gwinett County, Georgia, mother is trying to get the "Harry Potter" series of books banned from schools. She is saying that the books promote evil. One little girl even stated that the Harry Potter books drove her to witchcraft!

I see no more harm in the Harry Potter books than I do Cinderella. In "Cinderella", the main character is transformed into a beautiful princess by a fairy, who uses a wand and casts spells on mice, dogs, and a pumpkin, to attract the prince's attention. It is make-believe, and so is Harry Potter. Grow up. If your elementary school child is into witchcraft, look in the mirror for the one to blame. I have read the first five books, and I see nothing in them that would compel me into witchcraft. My ten-year old son has read all of them, as has my wife. Ask him if Harry Potter is real or make-believe. And he has not tried witchcraft as a result.

Responsibility....

Finally, A Government For the People

2006-04-18T11:32:00.000-05:00

Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia just signed into law yesterday a bill that would make it illegal for businesses who pay wages to illegal aliens to write those wages off of their tax returns. Effectively, employers who hire illegal workers will have to weigh the tax benefit against the reduced wage benefit. Employers will also have to verify citizenship or legal status of their employees at the state level.

The state at least demostrates some intelligence in following the money trail. By taking away incentives for businesses to hire illegal aliens, the incentive for illegal aliens to come to Georgia is taken away; that is, work. Watch out Alabama.

The law will have to be aggressively enforced if it is to have any effect. This is where my confidence level drops, simply because of the political nature of this issue. It is my humble opinion that the majority of the legal residents of Georgia, including myself, wish for the law to be enforced and offenders to be penalized to fullest extent. However, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and those on the left side of the political fence are much squeakier. The rally for illegal aliens drew a much larger crowd than the rally for the signing of the recent bill. So what do the politicians who do not venture from the capitol building see?

Then you have the businesses who stand to benefit from illegal aliens. Georgia's number one industry is poultry. Poultry processing plants employ large numbers of migrant workers, a large number of them, I speculate, being illegal. Currently, I believe that the law provides two years for such businesses to become compliant. A lot can happen in two years.

And the soon-to-be form that new employees will have to fill out to verify their legal status will be, I am afraid, much like the Federal I-9 form. Basically, the form is required to be filled out by the new employee, swearing that they can work legally. Costs of administration to businesses to do anything other than file the form in the employee's file will be punitive. I am not sure how this is really going to be effectively implemented.

Other aspects of the bill include making many state-funded programs unavailable to illegal aliens. Items such as certain medical care and education are exempt. So, illegals can get medical treatment and be educated in public schools on the dime of the taxpayer. What other programs could they possibly need in order to exist here illegally?

I applaud Georgia for the effort, and I sincerely hope that they enforce this law agressively. However, this is the proverbial bandaid on the tumor. In my mind, our impotent, pantywaist Federal government should be handling this issue as a matter of national security. This is a simple matter to me.

First, implement a plan to seal and secure the borders from anyone else entering the country illegally. Be agressive. It is essential that the numbers of illegals be minimized within our borders in order to deal with the ones already here. Secondly, implement a plan to identify and deport those that are here. I do not believe that they would be very hard to find. If my neighbor knows where to go to pick up daylaborers to pick up rocks out of his yard, then I do not see that law enforcement would have a difficult time knowing where to execute a sting. But because of the impotence of our Federal government, the problem is out of hand now, since they did not deal with the issue when the illegal population began climbing.

If we do not get a handle on illegal migration, the foundations of our nation are all but knocked from under us.

The "Gospel" Of Judas

2006-04-13T11:19:00.000-05:00

The National Geographic Society has recently obtained a 1,700 year old manuscript, called "The Gospel of Judas", which apparently casts Judas to be the best friend of Jesus, or his favored disciple.

According to the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible, Judas hung himself shortly after Christ was delivered to Roman authorities. I find that a manuscript only dating 1,700 years old, roughly 300 years after the death of Judas, would be found to be anything other than fiction, if for no other reason than the date discrepancy.

Those who do not like the idea of Jesus as Lord and the Bible being the authoritative word of God are constantly attempting to find ancient documentation that will refute or contradict what is written the in Bible. The so-called "Gnostic Gospels", attributed to such contemporaries of Jesus as Thomas, Phillip, and even Mary Magdeline, have attempted to color the Bible to be written by writers with an agenda other than transcribing words inspired by God. For example, the "Gospel of Mary" portrays Peter as being jealous of Mary, and Mary being chosen by Christ to lead the apostles. From this work, we are supposed to draw the conclusion that from the beginning, a conspiracy existed that has perpetuated throughout history to oppress the role of women in the church.

And such is continuous assault on the time-tested canons of the Christian religions. Although disagreements exist even down to the level of sects on what the scriptures may mean, at least most use some form of the same Bible.

Personally, I believe that the Authorized King James Version is superior to all other translations or versions. These men who were commissioned by King James to translate the original manuscripts into the English tongue took great pains to authenticate the works which were translated, from Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament. This led to the rejecting of the Aprocryphal books, which appear still in Catholic Bibles. The King James translators also were honest enough to note when they inserted a word because a clean translation did not exist, hence the italicized words. The controls and checks were extremely stringent in how the books were translated, paying special attention context to ensure that the proper sense and meanings were conveyed. The King James Version has been time-tested, as other versions and translations have fell to the wayside over the years.

I was once criticized on the blog of a student of divinity when I entered a debate on whether a church, specifically a Baptist church, should be considered liberal and avoided if they advocated or held a female deaconship. My quoting of the 3rd chapter of I Timothy and the attribution to the Authorized King James Version drew ire from the posters, who I assumed were mostly students of divinity at a Baptist college. I would gladly challenge those so-called students of divinity to re-create the conditions and controls the King James translators subjected themselves to and come up with something more genuine and honest than the translation we hold today. I would question that they have enough knowledge of Hebrew or Greek to even perform the task.

The major complaint of the KJV that I hear is that the language is not modern language, and sometimes people get wrapped up in it. But, I would argue, more reading and a dictionary can overcome that issue.

We have no better guide in the English language than the King James Version, despite what the Baptist divinity students or the "Gospel" of Judas may tell us.

We Love Undocumented Workers!

2006-04-12T16:18:00.000-05:00

The latest on the Federal Immigration Reform bill is that the GOP leaders have came out saying that they have no intent of charging illegal immigrants as felons. I suppose this to be a reaction to the protests in the D.C. area. D.C. is like the tailbone of the U.S.; you know it's there, especially when it hurts you, but no blood flows through it. D.C. is insulated from the real America, and is instead run by the inmates of the asylum.

We have, on the left, Teddy Kennedy and the Hillary Rotten Clinton trying to gain a new voting block, saying that the Republicans are anti-immigrant. This is outright lying, as the bills are geared toward securing borders from those who wish to come here illegally. Apparently, out in California, Democrats are hosting voter registration drives at the "immigrants rights" rallies. I guess the Democrats need new voters, whether they can legally vote or not.

This is ridiculous. Where are the politicians who actually care about the rule of law? Obviously, the Republican leadership sure doesn't. Democrats want new voters, so they are signing the illegals up to vote and fighting any attempts at holding them accountable for breaking existing law.

If the Democrats have the balls to face the voters and attempt to overturn existing immigration law, then this is the route they should take. This is dishonest and underhanded. And the Republican leadership has about as much spine as a jelly donut.

On the Michael Medved show yesterday, the host quoted a poll recently taken, stating that 60% of Americans polled do not want illegal aliens already in the U.S. deported. I wonder where this poll was taken. D.C., maybe? Dallas? Los Angeles? I can guarantee if they polled anybody in flyover country, or Jasper, Georgia, those people were in the 40%.

Immigrants are what created this great nation that is slowly crumbling beneath us. No one wants to outlaw immigration. I would only like to see the laws being enforced, and those who have broken the law to be held accountable.

I only wish that our leaders had the good sense to know that if they actually spent time with their constituency, that the current course of action is not only guaranteeing their unemployment in the next election, but is also pushing the country farther down the spiral of its ultimate demise.

My New Civil Right

2006-04-10T11:08:00.000-05:00

I am hereby today asserting my newfound civil right. I have found that I am entitled to much more than what I have. As a matter of fact, I deserve it. I deserve it if nothing more than for the simple fact that I say I do.

I am therefore asserting my civil right to take things from others. Some would call it stealing, but I call it "involuntary conversion". I do not care that laws on the books exist to prevent this. This is my civil right, and I will march in the streets to protest if necessary.

As ridiculous as this may sound, this is exactly the logic that our illegal friends from south of the border are using to justify their "civil right" to be here. Nevermind that they are, in effect, stealing from the good taxpaying citizens of this country. Nevermind that they are flaunting their defiance of the rule of law.

Round them up and ship them back. Then shoot on sight anyone who tries to enter illegally. Who knows who may be terrorists and who may not be.

Does Anyone Remember Eastern Airlines?

2006-04-07T16:26:00.000-05:00

So the Delta pilots are getting ready to stage a strike in retaliation to the Delta management's decision to challenge the pilot's contract, in effect renegotiating it. Delta has already filed bankruptcy and is in restructuring.

Someone please tell me what airline pilots need with a union? In terms of skill level and pay, they are near the top of the food chain in the airline corporate structure. I beg to differ with anyone who says we need unions in this age of labor laws and regulation.

Not many years ago, Eastern Airlines went belly-up when the Mechanics Union went on strike, and the pilots refused to cross the picket line.

Unions serve no purpose except to prolong the life of the union itself. They have no real interest in the livelihood of the employees. All that they care about is the dues.

Take for instance the situation with GM and Ford, both full of UAW members. Recently, both the GM Doraville plant and the Ford Hapeville plant in Georgia have been slated to close. Why? Because the UAW sucks the life out of the ability of the automakers to compete with foreign producers. The auto industry will most likely go the way of the steel plants that graced such areas as Youngstown, Illinois, a virtual ghosttown now. Most steel is shipped from foreign mills by way of steel brokers. The union prevented the steel plants from competing. How?

For one thing, wages are inflated for the skill level of most union workers. Do not misunderstand, I am not minimizing the value of these employees, but the fact of the matter is that two basic components exist in the cost of any product: raw labor and raw material. From the time that true raw materials are drawn from the earth, a component of labor is added to change that material to something that will be usable by someone else. Labor is continually added to the material cost until the product is consumable.

In the case of the auto industry, the labor to assemble the various automobiles in the U.S. is added to the cost of the product. On the flipside of the coin, price to the end user will be part of the determining factor as to whether he will purchase a product, along with quality and availability. American-made automobiles on the market as new cannot be purchased for less than $20,000. The car-makers must realize a profit, or risk losing shareholders to invest in their companies. Purchased material costs are pretty much fixed, although they can be negotiated, but not to the level to make a large difference. Labor is where savings are realized in most cases.

Obviously, two components of labor cost are the rate and time. If the time can be cut from a process, cost savings can be realized. But in the case of many labor unions, productivity is not of the utmost importance. They often give lip-service, but in reality, they are not concerned. If a union employee is classified to do one job, he cannot do another job outside his classification. If an employee is classified as a material expeditor, he drives his little cart around until someone needs something moved.

Rate is the other factor, and this is where the unions really excel in ripping a new one for their companies. Everyone knows stories about unproductive employees who make inflated amounts of money who cannot be fired because of the union. So other union employees are forced to take up the slack.

If the union truly cared about their members, they would negotiate reasonable wages that would help to ensure the viability of their company. They would work with management to help weed out unproductive employees so that the more productive employees do not pay the price.

Anyone can argue what they consider to be a fair wage. A fair wage, in my view, is whatever someone will pay you to do whatever job it is that needs to be done. If someone will pay you more for the same work, go to work for him.

A good measure to determine what you consider to be a fair wage is to consider what goes into producing and transporting a loaf of bread to sell. Then ask yourself how much you are willing to pay for that loaf of bread, keeping in mind that several companies must make profits off of the bread as well as pay for the materials used in making it. Maybe things would become clearer then about how unions are ruining American business.

Not Necessarily News

2006-03-31T12:43:00.000-05:00

A couple of items caught my attention today, mainly because they are so unnewsworthy, and yet, they have either gotten mentioned or a lot of air time on the news.

In Washington, D.C., earlier this week, the Shame of Georgia Cynthia McKinney allegedly slapped a Capitol Police officer for stopping her at a checkpoint after she attempted to walk through without her identification badge. The policeman is reportedly filing charges of assault against the indistinguised Congressperson. Of course, in her voting district, the constituency is insinuating that the incident would not have happened had McKinney been "white and rich." I wonder what cooperation with a police officer attempting to do his job would have gotten her. Or maybe wearing her badge.

In Philadelphia, the largest skyscraper in the city is slated to be built with waterless urinals. Now one would assume that this might be a good thing, since an astronomical amount of water would be used to flush everyone's morning coffee down. But not according to the pipefitters' union in Philadelphia. No water means less pipes. Less pipes means less work. Less work means less union-negotiated overpaid coffee breaks to flush down the urinals. The mayor of the city is showing some brotherly love by stepping in to mediate. I am sure he will attempt not to "piss off" the union.

Please feel free to post any story that is being reported in the news that is not newsworthy. In that respect, we can all share in the disappointment that the media has to create news to report, considering that they ignore real new stories because they may "offend" someone.

The Illegal Migrant S.O.S. Solution

2006-03-28T16:59:00.000-05:00

I know that it has been a while since I have written anything. I don't know that it is because there has been nothing that has interested me, but a lot has been going on with me personally. Mrs. Beans is with child again (our 4th), and I have been amidst a personal evaluation of my career at the present and where it may take me in the future. The other children are consumed with extracirricular activity, and time to put my thoughts to cyberspace seem to be limited. I did have an interesting dialog with Hamrose on Onionpi concerning abortion. She's somewhat of a liberal hippie chick, and I started the comments with an extensive piece of sarcasm, intent on demostrating the error of her logic with humor. I wound up dealing more seriously, and I believe that we have parted on the subject agreeing in some respects, disagreeing in others, but by and large in a friendly manner.

But then all of the hullabaloo about illegal migration all of the sudden became important, and several state legistlatures, including the state of Georgia, and the Federal Congress decided that they needed to act on illegal migration. In truth, they took no action, but made the token gesture since the majority of Americans are fed up with illegals. The fact of the matter is that both the vanilla Democrats and vanilla Republicans are afraid of losing or not gaining the Hispanic voting block. To be quite honest with you, if I were a Hispanic migrant who gained citizenship to this country or is here legally, I would be extremely upset that someone can slip into this country in the dark of night when I had taken all of the steps necessary by law and put up with the crap that government is good at dishing out, and still be treated with the same respect, if not more preference than I. But, being a white male between the ages of 18 and 50, I cannot possibly understand since I am the cause of all of the world's ills anyway.

But as I studied this issue, I came up with a solution. I call it the "Illegal Migrant S.O.S. Solution". I find it quite brilliant.

Part of the bill floating in Congress now in the Federal government has provisions in it that would force migrants here illegally to "apologize" and "pay fines" and other such bunk. I have a solution that would not only deter illegal migrants from wanting to cross the border, but make the one's who crossed illegally wish that they had never came over in the first place.

First, we take every male that is between the ages of 18 and 45 to the border of Mexico. I believe we could round enough up to cover the entire border. Next, we divide them into groups of 2. We give each man 3 rations of food a day and a canteen of water, as well as minimum wage for their families who are still here illegally. We line them up as far apart as needed to cover the entire border. Their station will consist of a tent, a sleeping bag, a one way speaker, and a military issue M16 rifle, with ammunition, on a swivel that will be anchored into the ground and will only turn on a 180 degree axis.

Next, out of the line of fire of course, we set up border patrol stations at the backs of all of our penitent friends. Each border patrol station will be supplied with several firearms and much more ammunition, as well as radio equipment for communication to both the front line of the border and other reinforcements.

The job of these men, for an unspecified duration at this time, will be to shoot on sight (hence S.O.S.) anyone trying to cross the border during their 12 hour shift. The job of the border patrol will be to shoot the penitent friend who fails to shoot the illegal who is trying to cross the border. The guys who fails to shoot is replaced by the guy he did not shoot.

I believe that this would not only serve as ample apology for those who came here by breaking our laws, but also be a deterent to those who wish to come here illegally. Within a matter of time, we can assimilate our "guest workers" if they did not already go back across the border to Mexico. In that case, the border patrol would just let them go.

I see it as a win-win. We protect our borders from the likes of illegal migrants, and they have a job in the land of promise, albeit one they did not bargain for.

The 2nd Amendment "Because" Clause

2006-02-13T21:22:00.000-05:00

I have been waiting for the opportune time to write about my theory of the 2nd amendment, and since Vice President Cheney has accidentally shot his friend while hunting quail (not Dan Quayle), we know that the gun control Brady freaks will be out in full force extolling the dangers of scatter guns. I suppose now is as good a time as ever to float this.

Keep in mind that this is a theory based on my own observations and what knowledge I have of the subject. While it is no secret as to the intent of the Founders in regards to the right of the people to bear arms, as is evident in Federalist 28, written by Alexander Hamilton, some supporters of gun control will use the "Well Regulated Militia" rationalization. This rationalization for denying citizens their guns dictates that the Founders never intended for anyone but the militia to have the undeniable right to bear arms.

And here comes the place where my theory develops. A well-regulated militia is exactly why the Founders wrote the 2nd amendment. But not to preserve the militia, but rather the amendment was written to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the regular army.

One has to consider the standpoint of the Founders when writing this. First of all, the law of the King was enforced by his military, oftentimes at the point of the bayonet. The Founders understood that taking the arms of the citizenry gives an unfair advantage to the government who controls the regular army. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to preserve certain rights considered inalienable that the government, given the right conditions, could alienate and bring the citizenry under the subjection of tyranny.

Consider the proximaty to the two adjacent amendments. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak out against the government, either verbally or in press, to practice religion freely with no establishment of a national religion, and to assemble peacefully for whatever the purpose. The 3rd amendment guarantees the right of the citizenry to turn aside troops asking for quarter in peace time, and even in time of war unless prescribed by law. If one considers the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, one can see a pattern that may have been experienced during pre-Revolution America by political dissidents against the crown of England.

A dissident would speak out against the King, or facilitate an unlawful assembly, whether religious or not. The local government would send the military to enforce the law of the Crown, ensuring the punishment of dissidents. Troops would storm homes through force, taking the possessions, livestock, and rations of the owners of the home. Home owners would be forced to allow for the quartering of the troops. Troops could seize documents and property without warrant. Trials were conducted with prejudice against the charged. Judges appointed by the King and accountable only to him would preside over the trial, and punishment sometimes was cruel and intolerable, not be-fitting of the crime, but meant to be examples to other dissidents. In a nutshell, you have the logic behind the first eight amendments.

And what would give these rights the teeth needed to fend off tyranical government? The 2nd amendment, if read within this context, would guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the well-regulated militia, who is under the authority of the President, would not so easily run roughshod over the rank and file citizenry.

If one word were added to this 2nd amendment, the meaning would be clearer. Though I am not suggesting that the Founders should have written it differently, this one word may cut the legs from under the Brady freaks:

(Because) a well-regulated militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Founders were not foolish and realized that given the opportunity, other nations would try to take advantage of the borders of the United States. Therefore, they realized the necessity of the a regular army and navy, and stated so within the original articles of the Constitution. It was not necessary to re-affirm the necessity of the regular army and navy in the Bill of Rights, but rather it was necessary to affirm the right of the people to protect themselves from danger, including the regular army.

We have fallen far away from the Tree of Liberty planted by our Founders. Madison, Hamilton, and others would no doubt shed bitter tears to know that some of their posterity would willingly concede the rights that they fought for, nor have the will to take arms to defend them as they did.

Who Is Responsible For Our Healthcare "Crisis"?

2006-02-07T16:42:00.000-05:00

Much is debated concerning healthcare these days, largely due to our aging population of baby-boomers. Everything is debated from availability of healthcare, who should pay, how much should be paid, and much more. Prescription drugs have came to the forefront of debate in recent years, the culmination to this point being our "Fights like a Republican, but governs like a Democrat" president floating the Ford Pinto of healthcare legislation, the Medicare Prescription Drug plan. This Hillarycare-lite legislation was a lemon before it left the factory.

Regarding this drug plan, I was priviledged to have the educational experience of attending a local town hall meeting held by Congressman Nathan Deal, a Republican from Georgia, and the congressman for my district, a couple of years ago. At this time, this legislation was in its infancy, but was in the press regularly. Rep. Deal was questioned heavily on the logic of government involvement in healthcare and the Constitutionality of the legislation in general. Rep. Deal's answer was basically, "Someone is going to pass a drug plan for Medicare, and if we do it, then maybe it will not be as bad as it would if a Democrat congress would pass it in the future."

Behind this legislation is the perceived drive of individuals to have government involved in their healthcare, mainly at the paying end. No one wants to pay for their doctor's bills. They want someone else to, be it the Federal government or a health insurance company.

Health insurance is socialism in its most basic form. People of all ages contribute, in the form of premiums, some amount of money to a pool, from which funds are distributed to health care providers and to defray administration costs. Premiums vary little dependent upon health issues, so basically everyone pays the same premium. In some plans, after one pays for a family plan of 3 or 4 individuals, additional individuals in the family are covered by the premium. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

And so, a single, 30 year-old male who has an annual checkup every two years will pay as much or more per individual for healthcare premiums as the 50 year old woman with a bad heart, four children under the age of 18, and in love with her OBGYN.

As is the experience with the healthcare plan of which I am a member, every year brings higher premiums with less service. This is because healthcare costs are rising exponentially year over year, and this because of our aging population and lack of competition. The only logical end to this madness is that one pays an outrageous premium and gets no healthcare in return. And many people do.

So why are costs so high? Lack of competition is a big component of high health premiums. Many plans will pay "reasonable" fees for services from approved physicians in the plan. But you get what you pay for, and as it stands, you get about the same thing with any physician to which you go. Physicians have to run patients through as if at a cattle sale to turn a profit, and the result is a sub-par experience, short and impersonal.

But because of the restraints of most health plans, one has no choice but to take the one-size-fits-all approach. And this is the trade-off for someone else paying for your healthcare.

The solution? Abolish the need for health insurance by paying for your own healthcare. Easier said than done, I know, but the only insurance one should need would be for catastrophic occurrences, such as hospitalization, an event that is tightly managed by your HMO or PPO now. Tax-free health savings accounts are available to contribute for your own healthcare and not another. If the current insurance and Medicare structure were obsoleted, physicians would have to compete more for patients. Rather than Wal-Mart care, you could have range of Dollar General care to Sax Fifth Avenue care, depending upon what you would determine to be the cost/benefit of such care.

But people are too busy nursing the government breast to see that the cause of our healthcare crisis is them.

Budget Cuts, Smudget Cuts

2006-02-06T16:34:00.000-05:00

Our President has now released his budget proposal for the fiscal year of 2007. According to the story, the budget is a proposed $2.77 Trillion (Yes, that is a "T"). One of the actions of this budget is to trim back increases in existing line items. In Washington, this is called a "budget cut".

Allow me again to define "budget cut" in Washington terms; a reduction in the rate of growth of an existing line item of a budget.

An example would be as follows. Let us suppose that your household is Washington, D.C., and one of your line items on your budget is "entertainment". This is the money that you set aside to eat at restaurants, go to the movies, bowling, etc. You have other line items in your budget that are necessary for the existence of your house. "Entertainment" is a line item that has been in your budget for years, and your constituency, which is your family, has come to expect the benefits of "entertainment". In other words, they feel "entitled" to entertainment.

Let us further suppose that your spending is in line, year after year, with your revenues. In other words, you have a balanced budget, taking in no more that you spend. Let us further suppose that you have a cost of living increase of 4% on average; therefore, all things being equal, all line items on your budget have a 4% spending increase annually.

But this year, you must replace your roof. The normal budget for home maintenance will be short the necessary funds to replace the roof. To maintain a balanced budget, you must trim in another area. You determine that if you increase your spending in entertainment by 2% instead of 4%, then you can increase your home maintenance line item to cover the cost of roof replacement.

You have just cut your budget for entertainment.

So what do you do. If you were Washington, D.C., you would borrow the money to repair the roof from someone outside your home. In other words, you would create a deficit, so that the entitlement of entertainment for your family would meet the expected rate of growth.

If your children were Democrats, and most likely Republicans as well, they would be screaming about how disenfranchised they were by the "cut" in their entitlement, how the rich parents are just getting richer, and how discrimination against children is still rampant in your home.

And so it is in Washington. What would it be called if the rate of growth was negative? Maybe revolution.

You Can't Do All of Your Shopping At Wal-Mart

2006-02-02T13:10:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Wal-Mart is being sued again. But this time, it is to attempt to force Wal-Mart to sell the morning-after pill.

Wal-Mart doesn't sell Playboy magazine either. Nor does it sell a number of other items.

Wal-Mart purposefully does not sell a number of items due to attempting to maintain a persona as a family-friendly store. Wal-Mart does sell contraceptives of other sorts, as well as some "R" rated movies in the video section, but for the most part, the chain has steered clear of controversial items.

Now, I personally believe that an individual or corporation has a right to decide what they sell, when they sell, and to whom they sell it. The market will decide if the decisions made by the company were right. For example, and I know this may not be politically correct, but if Lester Maddox Chicken wants to serve only white customers, then that is their right. They stand to suffer lost opportunity of revenue due to this decision, but if they are willing to suffer the consequences, so be it. You also have a right to allow whom you want in to your own home. Why should a place of business be different?

Likewise, businesses should be allowed to sell what they want. What if beef farmers sued Chick-Fil-A to force them to sell ground beef hamburgers? We would find this ridiculous, as we should. If one wants a hamburger, go to Burger King, Wendy's or McDonalds.

And so if you want to buy the morning-after pill, go to CVS, who, according to the article, is the largest pharmacy chain in the state of Massachusetts, where the lawsuit was filed.

This is no more than a pathetic attempt by Wal-Mart-hating liberals to take another shot at the chain. And why?

They are the number one retailer in the world, proving that free enterprise is the only workable economic system.
They are not unionized.

Look for many more attempts by liberals to use the force of the government, particularly the courts, to further their socialist agendas.

The Kelo GOP

2006-01-31T08:10:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-27T16:39:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-26T07:31:00.000-05:00

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?)

2006-01-24T16:47:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-23T17:03:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-21T22:52:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-18T17:14:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-01-16T17:12:00.000-05:00

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...