Jay Period has written an execllent piece at tenncva.com. Here is an excerpt:
The Tennessee legislature is actively working to reduce the grade point average, GPA, needed for lottery scholarship students to keep their free money. Currently, the required GPA is 3.0. That’s a middle B. To get a 3.0, someone needs to show initiative and desire. A little hard work and study, and that GPA is attainable.
Yet, our leaders don’t feel that students should study quite that hard. They are working to reduce that requirement to 2.75, which would be a high C. This is due to the fact that a large number of students are not able to maintain their scholarship.
Read the entire post at:
http://tenncva.com/2008/03/27/let-the-dumbing-down-of-tennessee-begin/
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Now how many of us knew this was ever on the docket at the US Supreme Court? Or perhaps knew that the justices were giving their ruling this week? I certainly didn't. Don't know what I am talking about? Read this excerpt:
States win over President on criminal law issue
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S. That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.
The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added. (For the full article, go to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/states-win-over-president-on-criminal-law-issue/). Posted Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 10:10 am UPDATED 1:49 p.m.
I have a great feeling about this Supreme Court. I believe they are going to be making rules according to the wording of the Constitution, and not make rulings based on the changing whims of societal mores. I especially liked this part:
The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S. That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.
Finally, checks and balances are being recognized by one branch of our government, at least! I just can't help but wonder why there was so much in the press last week about the Heller gun case than there ever was over this HUGE case regarding states rights and national sovereignty. Makes you wonder about the agenda of the fourth estate, doesn't it?
States win over President on criminal law issue
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S. That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.
The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added. (For the full article, go to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/states-win-over-president-on-criminal-law-issue/). Posted Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 10:10 am UPDATED 1:49 p.m.
I have a great feeling about this Supreme Court. I believe they are going to be making rules according to the wording of the Constitution, and not make rulings based on the changing whims of societal mores. I especially liked this part:
The Court explicitly, and with emphasis, rejected a presidential argument that the nation’s Chief Executive has power, on his own, to make an international treaty into binding law inside the U.S. That can only be done by Congress, it stressed.
Finally, checks and balances are being recognized by one branch of our government, at least! I just can't help but wonder why there was so much in the press last week about the Heller gun case than there ever was over this HUGE case regarding states rights and national sovereignty. Makes you wonder about the agenda of the fourth estate, doesn't it?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Paying Students Does Not Pay
It seems some members of our our esteemed Tennessee legislature want to pay students for good grades. From what I read, similar programs in other states appear to work. I have a few problems with this idea:
What are your thoughts on this? For more information, go to http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8046201. There is a video there also.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the article:
State lawmakers are looking into paying Tennessee students for good grades.The "Education Pays" act is making its way through the General Assembly.12 states across the country have a similar measure it place that rewards students for good grades with cold hard cash."I think kids respond to cash," said Rep. Brian Kelsey. "I think we all respond to cash and then we hope at that point they will also respond and appreciate learning."The proposal is for a pilot program in the top four counties with the highest number of "At Risk" students.For instance, in Memphis, 175 students, the top students in one grade in one high school would get $100.$100 would go to the top 50 students in one Hamilton County high school.In Knox County, the money would go to 50 elementary students and in Davidson County, it would apply to 50 middle school students.One advocate from Georgia, who testified before lawmakers in Tennessee, said why not give it a try.
Jackie Cushman, "Education Pays" advocate, said, "The real question is does it work and that's why you have a pilot program. Does it actually work? We know something's don't work. The question is will this work and I think we won't know until we try it."Students wouldn't be the only ones making the grade moneywise, their parents would get $50 as well.Kim Chambers, parent, said, "I think that would be good. I think it would give the kids incentives to work harder.Patty Brown, parent, said, "I think anything that can encourage kids to do better in school is very important."Sue Knowles, parent, said, "It would probably work for my kids but whether or not I agree with it? No, I don't think I agree with that one."The "Education Pays" act has now passed in the House Education Committee. Its Senate counterpart may take it up next week.Texas is among the 12 states already trying some form of paying for grades at 10 schools in Dallas.Officials said they have seen a dramatic rise in the number of students passing advanced math and science exams, attending college and scoring higher on college entrance exams.
- This sets a precedent for children that if they want to do something well then they should get paid for it.
- The only people who should pay for good grades are parents. The state paying for good grades simply brings about another aspect of the nanny state.
- No one is saying where the money is coming from. Is it current lottery money? Is it current tax money? Will it be in the form of new taxes or bonds? If it is tax money, let me remind our legislature: It's not your money!
- If these rewards come from my tax dollars, will my home school students qualify (not that I would accept the money, out of principle)?
What are your thoughts on this? For more information, go to http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8046201. There is a video there also.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the article:
State lawmakers are looking into paying Tennessee students for good grades.The "Education Pays" act is making its way through the General Assembly.12 states across the country have a similar measure it place that rewards students for good grades with cold hard cash."I think kids respond to cash," said Rep. Brian Kelsey. "I think we all respond to cash and then we hope at that point they will also respond and appreciate learning."The proposal is for a pilot program in the top four counties with the highest number of "At Risk" students.For instance, in Memphis, 175 students, the top students in one grade in one high school would get $100.$100 would go to the top 50 students in one Hamilton County high school.In Knox County, the money would go to 50 elementary students and in Davidson County, it would apply to 50 middle school students.One advocate from Georgia, who testified before lawmakers in Tennessee, said why not give it a try.
Jackie Cushman, "Education Pays" advocate, said, "The real question is does it work and that's why you have a pilot program. Does it actually work? We know something's don't work. The question is will this work and I think we won't know until we try it."Students wouldn't be the only ones making the grade moneywise, their parents would get $50 as well.Kim Chambers, parent, said, "I think that would be good. I think it would give the kids incentives to work harder.Patty Brown, parent, said, "I think anything that can encourage kids to do better in school is very important."Sue Knowles, parent, said, "It would probably work for my kids but whether or not I agree with it? No, I don't think I agree with that one."The "Education Pays" act has now passed in the House Education Committee. Its Senate counterpart may take it up next week.Texas is among the 12 states already trying some form of paying for grades at 10 schools in Dallas.Officials said they have seen a dramatic rise in the number of students passing advanced math and science exams, attending college and scoring higher on college entrance exams.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Who Defines What Constitutes Evidence?
I received this article in an email the other day. Mr. DeMar lays down the law to a reader/critic who refuses to acknowledge the basic defining elements of his arguments: the "evidence" the reader presents (or not) to Mr. DeMar. This article is a great example of how to argue the JudeoChristian and moral foundations of our arguments of the Christian founding of our nation. Mr. deMar also refers to evidentiary arguments against Darwinism in his article. While this article is a bit long, it is very well written and I recommend that you read it.
By Gary DeMar Have you ever been in a debate with someone who asks for evidence for this or that particular issue, and after giving the evidence it is dismissed as not being relevant? Facts do not speak for themselves. “Facts do not come with interpretation tags, telling us how to view them. . . . Both sides haggle over the facts. Both sides search for new facts to add to their arsenals. Both sides raise accusations, yet it’s a rare day indeed when both sides acknowledge that their differences stem from something much more basic than facts. Their differences are rooted in opposing worldviews, which in turn are permeated with philosophical assumptions and commitments.”1 Facts are always interpreted by an array of presuppositions. For example, when the NT is shown to offer eye-witness evidence of the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, the skeptic will claim that a resurrection of the dead is impossible, therefore, the evidence is suspect. Essentially, this comes to, “What my net doesn’t catch ain’t fish.”I’ve been answering some objections from a man who has rejected his Roman Catholic upbringing and is now questioning the existence of God. There is nothing new in his arguments, but I don’t want to dismiss him out of hand. I do, however, want to set the parameters of what constitutes a good debate. The proper use of evidence is important. When someone says, “There is no evidence for the existence of God,” my first response is, “What constitutes evidence, and who gets to decide?” After my initial answer to some of his historical comments relating to the founding of America, I wrote the following in response:Dear Dan,
Like you, I was raised Roman Catholic, and like you received no real theological or historical training other than, “the church says it, and you are to believe it.” So it’s not surprising to me that you are questioning the authority behind religious claims. In reality, you have rejected one faith and adopted another. You seem to be repeating the arguments of others: Robert Ingersoll, Karen Armstrong, and Bart Ehrman. (American Vision and Alpha and Omega Ministries will be conducting a debate between James White and Ehrman on January 21, 2009 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. I’ve dealt with a few of Bart Ehrman’s arguments. For a NT scholar, he is not very well informed.) Your approach to this subject is not much different from the way you followed Roman Catholicism. Ingersoll, Armstrong, and Ehrman have become your new religious authorities. So why are they any better informed on issues of ultimate importance than Roman Catholic priests, bishops, and Popes? Why do you trust their evolved brains and the electrical impulses they displace that makes their lips move to say things? I sent you my brief evaluation of some of your arguments in an earlier article to see how you would respond. You answered just the way I thought you would. I needed to know how you would deal with evidence. I gave you evidence contrary to Ingersoll, and you dismissed it wanting to move on to the Bible. Until you respond to the evidence I supplied to you contrary to Ingersoll’s historical assertions, there is no sense in me attempting to answer your biblical objections. So let me repeat them for you with some additions:
You misunderstand the purpose of the Federal Constitution. At the time the Constitution was drafted, there were 13 individual colonies with 13 different constitutions. Each of them mentions God or providence. North Carolina required belief in the authority of the Old and New Testaments as a qualification for holding political office in the state. The First Amendment protected North Carolina’s right to do this. Notice the wording: “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” This prohibition was directed to Congress, the only national law-making body we have. The states were permitted to do what they regarded as proper regarding religion and politics. The Federal Constitution did not nullify the state constitutions. Even today, all 50 state constitutions mention God or providence. For you to say that our Founders separated religion and government is false. You dismissed the National Fast Days that were specifically Christian. I recommend that you actually take a look at original source documents rather than second-hand commentary on the period. A good place to start is with Benjamin F. Morris’ The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States who uses original source documents to make his case. Until you and everyone else answers (not dismisses) the content of this thousand-page volume, there is no debate. Remember, it was you who cited Ingersoll who claimed that the Founders eliminated God and attempted to make this case by an appeal to the Declaration. This is not the case as the Declaration of Independence shows. Rights are an endowment from the Creator. If atheists had drafted the Declaration and Constitution, upon what would our rights be grounded so that they would always be fixed? The individual? The result would be anarchy. The State? Then we would have tyranny. God-ordained rights keep individuals and governments in check. The history of the 20th century has been described by Loren Eiseley as Darwin’s Century. Darwinism, as Charles Hodge made clear, is “atheism.”2 Have you calculated the carnage of the 20th century that can be laid at the feet of Darwin and his atheistic worldview? The Black Book of Communism puts the number of dead around 95,000,000.The Constitution’s use of “Done in the Year of our Lord” is very important, especially when someone says God is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, the use of this dating marker a more direct reference to God since it singles out the Christian religion. To say that the use of “In the Year of Our Lord” was very common back then, only goes to prove my point. If it was the objective of the Founders to separate “religion and government,” then adding “In the Year of our Lord” makes absolutely no sense. Also, setting Sunday aside as a day of rest for the President doesn’t make any sense either (Art. 1, sec. 7) if the purpose of the Constitution was to create a government completely separated from religion. You would have to find something similar to what the French did during their late-18th century revolution. The revolutionaries eliminated the seven-day week and implemented a ten-day week. This eliminated the biblical creation model. The fact that Sunday is set aside as a day of rest is a funny way of separating religion and government. In addition, the French implemented a revolutionary calendar beginning with a new “Year One.” The French example is what Ingersoll and you would have to demonstrate from our nation’s Federal Constitution and subsequent official documents. So then, you can’t on one hand claim that the Founders wanted to separate religion and government and then on the other hand claim that they left two conventions of the Christian religion in the Constitution, the very document that you and others claim was specifically designed to secularize government.The result of the French rejection of Christianity resulted in a bloody political regime. Women knitted as they watched heads literally roll as Madame Guillotine did its secular religious work. So then, when you answer these specific arguments in answer to your initial response to me, I will be happy to answer your other queries.
Footnotes:
1 William D. Watkins, “Whose Facts Anyway?,” Christian Research Journal (24:2), 60.
2 Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874), 177: “It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic.
Gary DeMar is the President of American Vision. http://www.americanvision.org/
By Gary DeMar Have you ever been in a debate with someone who asks for evidence for this or that particular issue, and after giving the evidence it is dismissed as not being relevant? Facts do not speak for themselves. “Facts do not come with interpretation tags, telling us how to view them. . . . Both sides haggle over the facts. Both sides search for new facts to add to their arsenals. Both sides raise accusations, yet it’s a rare day indeed when both sides acknowledge that their differences stem from something much more basic than facts. Their differences are rooted in opposing worldviews, which in turn are permeated with philosophical assumptions and commitments.”1 Facts are always interpreted by an array of presuppositions. For example, when the NT is shown to offer eye-witness evidence of the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, the skeptic will claim that a resurrection of the dead is impossible, therefore, the evidence is suspect. Essentially, this comes to, “What my net doesn’t catch ain’t fish.”I’ve been answering some objections from a man who has rejected his Roman Catholic upbringing and is now questioning the existence of God. There is nothing new in his arguments, but I don’t want to dismiss him out of hand. I do, however, want to set the parameters of what constitutes a good debate. The proper use of evidence is important. When someone says, “There is no evidence for the existence of God,” my first response is, “What constitutes evidence, and who gets to decide?” After my initial answer to some of his historical comments relating to the founding of America, I wrote the following in response:Dear Dan,
Like you, I was raised Roman Catholic, and like you received no real theological or historical training other than, “the church says it, and you are to believe it.” So it’s not surprising to me that you are questioning the authority behind religious claims. In reality, you have rejected one faith and adopted another. You seem to be repeating the arguments of others: Robert Ingersoll, Karen Armstrong, and Bart Ehrman. (American Vision and Alpha and Omega Ministries will be conducting a debate between James White and Ehrman on January 21, 2009 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. I’ve dealt with a few of Bart Ehrman’s arguments. For a NT scholar, he is not very well informed.) Your approach to this subject is not much different from the way you followed Roman Catholicism. Ingersoll, Armstrong, and Ehrman have become your new religious authorities. So why are they any better informed on issues of ultimate importance than Roman Catholic priests, bishops, and Popes? Why do you trust their evolved brains and the electrical impulses they displace that makes their lips move to say things? I sent you my brief evaluation of some of your arguments in an earlier article to see how you would respond. You answered just the way I thought you would. I needed to know how you would deal with evidence. I gave you evidence contrary to Ingersoll, and you dismissed it wanting to move on to the Bible. Until you respond to the evidence I supplied to you contrary to Ingersoll’s historical assertions, there is no sense in me attempting to answer your biblical objections. So let me repeat them for you with some additions:
You misunderstand the purpose of the Federal Constitution. At the time the Constitution was drafted, there were 13 individual colonies with 13 different constitutions. Each of them mentions God or providence. North Carolina required belief in the authority of the Old and New Testaments as a qualification for holding political office in the state. The First Amendment protected North Carolina’s right to do this. Notice the wording: “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” This prohibition was directed to Congress, the only national law-making body we have. The states were permitted to do what they regarded as proper regarding religion and politics. The Federal Constitution did not nullify the state constitutions. Even today, all 50 state constitutions mention God or providence. For you to say that our Founders separated religion and government is false. You dismissed the National Fast Days that were specifically Christian. I recommend that you actually take a look at original source documents rather than second-hand commentary on the period. A good place to start is with Benjamin F. Morris’ The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States who uses original source documents to make his case. Until you and everyone else answers (not dismisses) the content of this thousand-page volume, there is no debate. Remember, it was you who cited Ingersoll who claimed that the Founders eliminated God and attempted to make this case by an appeal to the Declaration. This is not the case as the Declaration of Independence shows. Rights are an endowment from the Creator. If atheists had drafted the Declaration and Constitution, upon what would our rights be grounded so that they would always be fixed? The individual? The result would be anarchy. The State? Then we would have tyranny. God-ordained rights keep individuals and governments in check. The history of the 20th century has been described by Loren Eiseley as Darwin’s Century. Darwinism, as Charles Hodge made clear, is “atheism.”2 Have you calculated the carnage of the 20th century that can be laid at the feet of Darwin and his atheistic worldview? The Black Book of Communism puts the number of dead around 95,000,000.The Constitution’s use of “Done in the Year of our Lord” is very important, especially when someone says God is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. In fact, the use of this dating marker a more direct reference to God since it singles out the Christian religion. To say that the use of “In the Year of Our Lord” was very common back then, only goes to prove my point. If it was the objective of the Founders to separate “religion and government,” then adding “In the Year of our Lord” makes absolutely no sense. Also, setting Sunday aside as a day of rest for the President doesn’t make any sense either (Art. 1, sec. 7) if the purpose of the Constitution was to create a government completely separated from religion. You would have to find something similar to what the French did during their late-18th century revolution. The revolutionaries eliminated the seven-day week and implemented a ten-day week. This eliminated the biblical creation model. The fact that Sunday is set aside as a day of rest is a funny way of separating religion and government. In addition, the French implemented a revolutionary calendar beginning with a new “Year One.” The French example is what Ingersoll and you would have to demonstrate from our nation’s Federal Constitution and subsequent official documents. So then, you can’t on one hand claim that the Founders wanted to separate religion and government and then on the other hand claim that they left two conventions of the Christian religion in the Constitution, the very document that you and others claim was specifically designed to secularize government.The result of the French rejection of Christianity resulted in a bloody political regime. Women knitted as they watched heads literally roll as Madame Guillotine did its secular religious work. So then, when you answer these specific arguments in answer to your initial response to me, I will be happy to answer your other queries.
Footnotes:
1 William D. Watkins, “Whose Facts Anyway?,” Christian Research Journal (24:2), 60.
2 Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874), 177: “It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic.
Gary DeMar is the President of American Vision. http://www.americanvision.org/
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Obama Phenomenon
This is adapted from an email I received today:
The Obama Tidal Wave
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'. The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham has charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore. Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
I personally feel that if he is elected it will be an Obamanation.
The Obama Tidal Wave
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'. The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham has charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore. Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
- He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
- He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
- Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
- In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing. Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.
- Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
- His religious convictions are very murky.
- He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
- Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
- Opposed the Patriot Act. (The writer of this blog also opposes many aspects of the Patriot Act.)
- First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
- Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
- Supports universal health-care.
- Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
- Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
- Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
- Voted NO to making English the official language of the USA.
- Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
- Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
- Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'.
- Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
- Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
- Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
- He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
- He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax.
- He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
- Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
- He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
I personally feel that if he is elected it will be an Obamanation.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Root of Racism
Not since 1991 has a single subject been so projected into mainstream discussion. If you recall, it was in 1991 that the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas brought sexual harassment to the fore of public consciousness. In much the same way, the comments and rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the statements made by Geraldine Ferraro, and yesterday's (March 18) speech by Barack Obama have propelled the topic of racism to the forefront of American discussion.
While most people will not argue with the fact that there is a huge racial divide in this country, no one truly wants to get to the root of the issue of racism. I want to remind the readers of a few things that are relative to this discussion:
I bring these facts up not to repudiate or excuse the white man’s role in slavery. If there had been no demand for slaves, slavery would not have existed. I do bring it up to show that blacks, and specifically, black plantation owners as well as black African tribal leaders, also played their part in slavery. The black tribal leaders are doubly implicit, however, because they sold their own people into slavery!
So, we must now ask ourselves a very hard question: is slavery, and more particularly, racism, a “white” issue? Is it a “black” issue? I would submit to you it is both, and more. It is a red issue, a yellow issue. To capture everyone under this wide net, it is a heart issue. Because of the visible differences in color, culture, language and lifestyle, it is impossible, due to our human nature, to not differentiate between people of color. It is impossible for a white person not to do it, and it is equally impossible for a black person not to do it. This does not mean both sides always negatively discriminate, but both sides do differentiate between black and white by default. While the Bible I hold dear has been used in times past and present to justify racism and slavery, that very same Bible teaches us that God made all men out of one blood. We are literally descended from Adam and from Noah, and thus we should all treat each other with kindness and respect. But we don’t. Why? Because we are people that clue in on the differences between each other, and we cannot escape it.
I once saw a news documentary which showed how black people of lighter color discriminated against darker colored black people. I also saw an interview in which a young white college student disguised herself for a month as a black teenager at a high school. She was considerably dark, and lighter skinned black people were very hateful and discriminatory toward her. She also suffered taunts from white people as well. In short, it was a very horrendous experience for her. She went away convinced that racism is not a skin issue, it is a heart issue. People zero in on the differences, and naturally begin to use that as a reference point by which to distance themselves from those who are different.
Today, we no longer have slavery in America. However, we are all enslaved, to some degree, to hate. We do not love people of our own color, let alone people of other colors. Blacks are killed by blacks more often than whites, and this phenomenon has led to the term “Black-on-Black Violence”. That is hate. If it was love, the crime wouldn’t occur! (For this reason we should do away with hate crime laws, and focus on the criminal action, and not the motive of the crime. All crime is hate crime, but I digress). Jesus said that in the last days, iniquity would abound, and because of it, the love of many would grow cold. What we see today is racism, but is due to the wickedness of the human heart, and not just the white one. Wickedness abounds in the black heart, white heart, red heart, and yellow heart. The racially charged N-word, the H-Word (you know the word, the one that rhymes with donkey), or whatever the word is merely an expression that seeks to dehumanize the other person. A friend of mine and I were having a discussion the other day about calling some one a fool. This term is a step toward dehumanization, and anytime we dehumanize someone, we are stepping closer toward hate. As we inch toward hate, it becomes easier and easier to deny that person the respect and dignity God grants them as an individual. Since racism stems from hate, it is no wonder we utter the N-word or the H-word under our collective breaths: we are attempting to dehumanize the person and justify our hate. Don’t think this is without historical precedent. Nazi Germany went to great lengths to dehumanize the Jews. Jews were given numbers, and were not called by their names. They were mostly untouched by guards and workers. The dead Jews were not handled by Germans-instead, Jewish camp workers handled the Jewish dead. When the time came to put the Jews to death, the Nazi henchmen did not release the gas-the Jews themselves were made to release it. And to top it off, the Nazis were very selective in the poison used to kill the Jews. Do you know what the poison was? Zyclon B. The poison was dropped in crystal form, through a small hole in the ceiling, into the gas chambers. The pellets turned into a lethal gas once in air. Previous to its use in gas chambers, Zyclon B was a common insecticide. The Nazis became so adept with their dehumanization of Jews that they did even acknowledge their fundamental humanity and they killed them with bug spray.
Please, let us address the issue of hate in every heart, and not dehumanize one another. Our survival as a country depends on it. Today, I had the opportunity to pray with a friend of mine that I attend church with. This man is in the middle of a separation and likely divorce. We stood in the parking lot, clasped hands together in an interlocking fisthandhold, and we prayed. I prayed for this black friend of mine, for him to be reconciled with his white wife, for the sake of their mixed children. When we finished praying, we hugged. In public. In a parking lot. See, this fellow church member is more than just another human being to me. "What is he?" you may ask? He is my brother. And that is the key to confronting racism.
While most people will not argue with the fact that there is a huge racial divide in this country, no one truly wants to get to the root of the issue of racism. I want to remind the readers of a few things that are relative to this discussion:
- This country was torn apart by the question of whether or not states had the right to allow slavery. We bear the pain of slavery to this day, to wit the discussion going on right now.
- It is well established that American slaves were brought over from the African slave trade. West African tribes had a competitive and thriving slave trade. The operators of this slave trade were black tribal leaders.
- The Richards Sugarcane Plantation in Louisiana had 152 slaves. The Richards were free blacks.
- American slaves were very often physically beaten and tortured, and many slave families were torn apart by the selling of their family members.
- Slavery is not limited to blacks. Jews were enslaved many times in their history, most notably in Egypt. Some black historians believe that this Egypt was a black Egypt.
- Today, the slave trade is rich, especially in the Middle East, and in African nations like Sudan.
I bring these facts up not to repudiate or excuse the white man’s role in slavery. If there had been no demand for slaves, slavery would not have existed. I do bring it up to show that blacks, and specifically, black plantation owners as well as black African tribal leaders, also played their part in slavery. The black tribal leaders are doubly implicit, however, because they sold their own people into slavery!
So, we must now ask ourselves a very hard question: is slavery, and more particularly, racism, a “white” issue? Is it a “black” issue? I would submit to you it is both, and more. It is a red issue, a yellow issue. To capture everyone under this wide net, it is a heart issue. Because of the visible differences in color, culture, language and lifestyle, it is impossible, due to our human nature, to not differentiate between people of color. It is impossible for a white person not to do it, and it is equally impossible for a black person not to do it. This does not mean both sides always negatively discriminate, but both sides do differentiate between black and white by default. While the Bible I hold dear has been used in times past and present to justify racism and slavery, that very same Bible teaches us that God made all men out of one blood. We are literally descended from Adam and from Noah, and thus we should all treat each other with kindness and respect. But we don’t. Why? Because we are people that clue in on the differences between each other, and we cannot escape it.
I once saw a news documentary which showed how black people of lighter color discriminated against darker colored black people. I also saw an interview in which a young white college student disguised herself for a month as a black teenager at a high school. She was considerably dark, and lighter skinned black people were very hateful and discriminatory toward her. She also suffered taunts from white people as well. In short, it was a very horrendous experience for her. She went away convinced that racism is not a skin issue, it is a heart issue. People zero in on the differences, and naturally begin to use that as a reference point by which to distance themselves from those who are different.
Today, we no longer have slavery in America. However, we are all enslaved, to some degree, to hate. We do not love people of our own color, let alone people of other colors. Blacks are killed by blacks more often than whites, and this phenomenon has led to the term “Black-on-Black Violence”. That is hate. If it was love, the crime wouldn’t occur! (For this reason we should do away with hate crime laws, and focus on the criminal action, and not the motive of the crime. All crime is hate crime, but I digress). Jesus said that in the last days, iniquity would abound, and because of it, the love of many would grow cold. What we see today is racism, but is due to the wickedness of the human heart, and not just the white one. Wickedness abounds in the black heart, white heart, red heart, and yellow heart. The racially charged N-word, the H-Word (you know the word, the one that rhymes with donkey), or whatever the word is merely an expression that seeks to dehumanize the other person. A friend of mine and I were having a discussion the other day about calling some one a fool. This term is a step toward dehumanization, and anytime we dehumanize someone, we are stepping closer toward hate. As we inch toward hate, it becomes easier and easier to deny that person the respect and dignity God grants them as an individual. Since racism stems from hate, it is no wonder we utter the N-word or the H-word under our collective breaths: we are attempting to dehumanize the person and justify our hate. Don’t think this is without historical precedent. Nazi Germany went to great lengths to dehumanize the Jews. Jews were given numbers, and were not called by their names. They were mostly untouched by guards and workers. The dead Jews were not handled by Germans-instead, Jewish camp workers handled the Jewish dead. When the time came to put the Jews to death, the Nazi henchmen did not release the gas-the Jews themselves were made to release it. And to top it off, the Nazis were very selective in the poison used to kill the Jews. Do you know what the poison was? Zyclon B. The poison was dropped in crystal form, through a small hole in the ceiling, into the gas chambers. The pellets turned into a lethal gas once in air. Previous to its use in gas chambers, Zyclon B was a common insecticide. The Nazis became so adept with their dehumanization of Jews that they did even acknowledge their fundamental humanity and they killed them with bug spray.
Please, let us address the issue of hate in every heart, and not dehumanize one another. Our survival as a country depends on it. Today, I had the opportunity to pray with a friend of mine that I attend church with. This man is in the middle of a separation and likely divorce. We stood in the parking lot, clasped hands together in an interlocking fisthandhold, and we prayed. I prayed for this black friend of mine, for him to be reconciled with his white wife, for the sake of their mixed children. When we finished praying, we hugged. In public. In a parking lot. See, this fellow church member is more than just another human being to me. "What is he?" you may ask? He is my brother. And that is the key to confronting racism.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Governor Is Wearing No Clothes
The headline at http://wcbstv.com/politics/eliot.spitzer.resigns.2.674646.html reads:
I have not been following the Eliot Spitzer story too closely, because I live in Tennessee. However, I feel that people would do well to observe how this whole thing is playing out, because it is reflective of the mind set of people on a national level.
Before I go there, however, I need to say this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is not a Liberal or Conservative issue. It is a moral issue, in which an ordinary man somehow got caught up in the immoral and illegal world of prostitution. Although he was governor, and a rising political star, he is still just an ordinary man. He has lusts, desires, dreams and goals, like we all do. Ironically, the laws this ordinary man helped create and enforce in his state were also the same laws which brought him down. Because of the position he held as governor, he is not being offered a plea deal. Also, this is appropriate because of the moral position he took in passing laws to eradicate these very crimes in his state.
However, I was perplexed about one thing. It seems as if there was a question of whether or not he should resign. Why was there any question at all? This is no different than the situation conservatives have found themselves in, namely Senator Larry Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard. A situation of this magnitude requires moral clarity. However, when there is no standard of morality, and when the concept of absolute truth is tossed out the window, quick action that is normally required for such issues as Spitzer found himself in is not easily arrived at.
And therein lies the topic of this article: moral authority is lost when a moral foundation is absent. As our great nation "progresses" into post-modernism, we find ourselves trying to reconcile post-modern thought with the principles of our Founding Fathers. Be they Deists, Theists, Baptists, or otherwise, the majority of the Founding Fathers still held on to one common thread: the authority of scripture as the basis for personal and national morality. Scattered throughout their writings were words like "divine providence", "God", and "Creator". They recognized the Godly foundation of all life, and swore to hold it high in the public sector. As we have continued toward a multicultural society, the foundation of our society has shifted from an absolute authority (scripture) to a pseudo-foundation based on humanism and relativistic morality. The categorial imperative is no more: it's all relative.
Which leads me back to the Spitzer issue. We are no longer basing our decisons based upon principles, we base them on conditions. The decision moves from clear decisive language such as "I have done X, therefore I must do Y." to language more like "What decision should we make in this situation? Well, that depends on..."
Sure, we must bring as many factors as we can into our decision making, because factors affect them. However, there are times for decisions when principles outweigh factors, and Spitzer's decision was one of them. What should have been a fast and quick decision instead took handwringing, contemplation, and consideration. Well pardon my unbending, unyielding self, had this ordinary man been a moral man, he would would not have found himself in this situation. Furthermore, had he been a man with any sort of moral foundation (even if he did not do the moral thing) he should have some basis for his decision, and not have taken such a long time to come to it. And before any liberals attack my words, I feel the same way about Senator Craig and Rev. Haggard. Why do I feel that way? Because principles based on scripture are neither Republican or Democratic, they are just right. It so happens that these principles declared that the governor is wearing no clothes. These principles are indeed right, figuratively and literally.
"RESIGNED TO DISGRACE"
"Eliot Spitzer Steps Down Following Biggest Scandal In Modern New York Political History"
I have not been following the Eliot Spitzer story too closely, because I live in Tennessee. However, I feel that people would do well to observe how this whole thing is playing out, because it is reflective of the mind set of people on a national level.
Before I go there, however, I need to say this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is not a Liberal or Conservative issue. It is a moral issue, in which an ordinary man somehow got caught up in the immoral and illegal world of prostitution. Although he was governor, and a rising political star, he is still just an ordinary man. He has lusts, desires, dreams and goals, like we all do. Ironically, the laws this ordinary man helped create and enforce in his state were also the same laws which brought him down. Because of the position he held as governor, he is not being offered a plea deal. Also, this is appropriate because of the moral position he took in passing laws to eradicate these very crimes in his state.
However, I was perplexed about one thing. It seems as if there was a question of whether or not he should resign. Why was there any question at all? This is no different than the situation conservatives have found themselves in, namely Senator Larry Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard. A situation of this magnitude requires moral clarity. However, when there is no standard of morality, and when the concept of absolute truth is tossed out the window, quick action that is normally required for such issues as Spitzer found himself in is not easily arrived at.
And therein lies the topic of this article: moral authority is lost when a moral foundation is absent. As our great nation "progresses" into post-modernism, we find ourselves trying to reconcile post-modern thought with the principles of our Founding Fathers. Be they Deists, Theists, Baptists, or otherwise, the majority of the Founding Fathers still held on to one common thread: the authority of scripture as the basis for personal and national morality. Scattered throughout their writings were words like "divine providence", "God", and "Creator". They recognized the Godly foundation of all life, and swore to hold it high in the public sector. As we have continued toward a multicultural society, the foundation of our society has shifted from an absolute authority (scripture) to a pseudo-foundation based on humanism and relativistic morality. The categorial imperative is no more: it's all relative.
Which leads me back to the Spitzer issue. We are no longer basing our decisons based upon principles, we base them on conditions. The decision moves from clear decisive language such as "I have done X, therefore I must do Y." to language more like "What decision should we make in this situation? Well, that depends on..."
Sure, we must bring as many factors as we can into our decision making, because factors affect them. However, there are times for decisions when principles outweigh factors, and Spitzer's decision was one of them. What should have been a fast and quick decision instead took handwringing, contemplation, and consideration. Well pardon my unbending, unyielding self, had this ordinary man been a moral man, he would would not have found himself in this situation. Furthermore, had he been a man with any sort of moral foundation (even if he did not do the moral thing) he should have some basis for his decision, and not have taken such a long time to come to it. And before any liberals attack my words, I feel the same way about Senator Craig and Rev. Haggard. Why do I feel that way? Because principles based on scripture are neither Republican or Democratic, they are just right. It so happens that these principles declared that the governor is wearing no clothes. These principles are indeed right, figuratively and literally.
My english ain't good, but it's how I feel anyways!
From a Batesville, MS muffler shop. No need to even comment!
Sunday, March 9, 2008
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
Someone sent this to me in an email. I don't know who Charley Reese is, or or if he is a real person, but I like what I read:
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES
BY CHARLEY REESE
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
- A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. Bush ALONE for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
- REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
This is shocking and unexpected, and it is critical for all of America to become aware and get involved in this California state court ruling.
As a home schooling parent, I have witnessed first hand the difference between public, private and homeschool methods, and my son is better off in a homeschool environment. I have heard so much made over socialization, the capability of parents to educate their children, and how laws should be passed for this or that issue as it pertains to not only homeschooling, but to every facet of life in these United States.
Socialization? People constantly comment on how well spoken, friendly, and gregarious my son is. My daughter is the same way (we begin her home schooling next fall). Who would I rather be the biggest influence on my children, me and my wife, who can determine what they are exposed to on a daily basis, or a classroom and schoolyard full of jocks, bullies, extroverts, and introverts, all with their own value systems? For the most part, my son's peers in school have very different morals than we do, and furthermore, they have no idea what they even base their value system on. My wife and I not only educate my son, we also enforce and re-enforce our value system to our children, and we explain to them why we have the values we do; in other words, we explain the principles behind our moral philosophy, which are grounded in the words of Holy Scripture, our Bible. I do not want my son tainted by the values of ignorant children. I am fully persudaded that all children are ignorant, by the way, including mine, which why they need us, not their peers, to provide their social and moral framework for their lives-not the school/government indoctrination center. I also do not want the values of a morally relativistic, pluralistic, and hedonistic government placed upon my children either.
On a side note, I live in Tennessee, and only three legislators are keeping a bill alive here that will force us to teach our kids according to the curriculum used by state schools. What makes it so insidious is the fact that it is being done under the guise of forcing private and home schooled students to take the same tests in Tennessee as public school students. This in effect forces parents and private schools to go by the same curriculum in order to pass, although the state curriculum is inferior to what we give our children. Hence, parental rights to teach our choice of curriculum is effectively removed, and the dual crux of home school liberty and parental rights is broken.
I do not care for the nanny state, thank you very much. As I have heard quoted elsewhere, a government that is big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything away.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Here are some links to keep you informed:
Petition regarding the appellate court ruling: https://www2.hslda.org/Registrations/DepublishingCaliforniaCourtDecision/
http://www.hslda.org/
http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803060.asp
The actual court opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF
Good article on Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut52.html
As a home schooling parent, I have witnessed first hand the difference between public, private and homeschool methods, and my son is better off in a homeschool environment. I have heard so much made over socialization, the capability of parents to educate their children, and how laws should be passed for this or that issue as it pertains to not only homeschooling, but to every facet of life in these United States.
Socialization? People constantly comment on how well spoken, friendly, and gregarious my son is. My daughter is the same way (we begin her home schooling next fall). Who would I rather be the biggest influence on my children, me and my wife, who can determine what they are exposed to on a daily basis, or a classroom and schoolyard full of jocks, bullies, extroverts, and introverts, all with their own value systems? For the most part, my son's peers in school have very different morals than we do, and furthermore, they have no idea what they even base their value system on. My wife and I not only educate my son, we also enforce and re-enforce our value system to our children, and we explain to them why we have the values we do; in other words, we explain the principles behind our moral philosophy, which are grounded in the words of Holy Scripture, our Bible. I do not want my son tainted by the values of ignorant children. I am fully persudaded that all children are ignorant, by the way, including mine, which why they need us, not their peers, to provide their social and moral framework for their lives-not the school/government indoctrination center. I also do not want the values of a morally relativistic, pluralistic, and hedonistic government placed upon my children either.
On a side note, I live in Tennessee, and only three legislators are keeping a bill alive here that will force us to teach our kids according to the curriculum used by state schools. What makes it so insidious is the fact that it is being done under the guise of forcing private and home schooled students to take the same tests in Tennessee as public school students. This in effect forces parents and private schools to go by the same curriculum in order to pass, although the state curriculum is inferior to what we give our children. Hence, parental rights to teach our choice of curriculum is effectively removed, and the dual crux of home school liberty and parental rights is broken.
I do not care for the nanny state, thank you very much. As I have heard quoted elsewhere, a government that is big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take everything away.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Here are some links to keep you informed:
Petition regarding the appellate court ruling: https://www2.hslda.org/Registrations/DepublishingCaliforniaCourtDecision/
http://www.hslda.org/
http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ca/200803060.asp
The actual court opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF
Good article on Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut52.html
Friday, March 7, 2008
OK to Check on Mail
The article is submitted in its' entirety, my piece about this is below the article.
Law Enforcement Requests for Postal Info Granted
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY WASHINGTON (March 6)
U.S. postal authorities have approved more than 10,000 law enforcement requests to record names, addresses and other information from the outside of letters and packages of suspected criminals every year since 1998, according to U.S. Postal Inspection Service data. In each of those years, officials approved more than 97% of requests to record the information during criminal inquiries. In 2004, 2005 and 2006, the most recent year provided, officials granted at least 99.5% of requests, according to partial responses to inquiries filed by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act. Postal officials have closely guarded the warrantless surveillance mail program, used for decades to track fugitives and to interrupt the delivery of illegal drugs or other controlled substances such as explosives. In other government surveillance, such as most wiretap programs, a judge approves requests. In this one, the USPIS’ chief inspector has authority to grant or deny a request. The Postal Service handles 214 billion pieces of mail each year. Correspondence and packages transported by private carriers, such as FedEx and UPS, are not subject to the surveillance. When the government’s warrantless surveillance of electronic communication has come under fire, civil liberties advocates say, the USPIS’ limited disclosure raises serious questions. “The idea of the government tracking that amount of mail is quite alarming,” says Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project. “When you realize that (the figure) does not include national security matters, the numbers are even more alarming.”Postal officials would not disclose the volume of mail monitored in national security investigations. Because those include terror-related inquiries, the figures do not show whether the Sept. 11 attacks influenced requests or approvals. In a Feb. 8 response to requests for information, inspection service counsel Anthony Alverno wrote that even revealing the frequency of the surveillance would undermine its effectiveness “to the detriment of the government’s national security interests.”Postal officials also would not discuss how much mail is being opened for content examinations, which do require a warrant authorized by a judge. USPIS spokesman Douglas Bem described the surveillance program as “one of many tools” available to investigators. “Regulations are in place that serve to protect the general population from illegal and unlawful intrusions,” Bem says. A 1978 federal appeals court decision upheld the use of such surveillance. Each request to monitor a sender’s mail can cover multiple letters and packages by the same suspects. Bem said the government does not track the total pieces of mail captured in the monitoring program.
_______________________________________________________________
Now, I am not one to agree with everything the ACLU stands for, but this is one area where I think they are dead on. In this article, it is revealed that the USPS does not need a warrant to search through the mail and packages sent through the mail system. I can go along with a judge’s warrant to search, which is the only way a search can be made in the correct manner, but a warrantless search approved by their own chief inspector is nothing more than unreasonable search and seizure. Did you know there is a law against that, USPS? It is called the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, it appears that according to this article, all the USPS needs is their own approval. Kind of sounds like the fox guarding the hen house, doesn’t it? And guess what, they are closely guarding this ability. See, until the article came to light, I did not know they had this authority. And honestly, I can see that due to sheer volume of mail and packages where it would be nearly impossible to get a warrant over each suspicious package.
So what to do? My suggestion is that the USPS return the package to the sender with a statement such as "Refused due to security reasons". Plus, if they want to notify the local authorities or the local FBI office, and allow them to pursue a warrant, they can do that. Why not just send the package to the FBI, and let them take care of the warrants and sender notification? Regardless of what they do, a warrant should be required, because the right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure must be preserved.
While the origin of the following paraphrased quote is argued, the truth is the same: "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."
Here is the link to the article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-05-mail_N.htm
Law Enforcement Requests for Postal Info Granted
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY WASHINGTON (March 6)
U.S. postal authorities have approved more than 10,000 law enforcement requests to record names, addresses and other information from the outside of letters and packages of suspected criminals every year since 1998, according to U.S. Postal Inspection Service data. In each of those years, officials approved more than 97% of requests to record the information during criminal inquiries. In 2004, 2005 and 2006, the most recent year provided, officials granted at least 99.5% of requests, according to partial responses to inquiries filed by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act. Postal officials have closely guarded the warrantless surveillance mail program, used for decades to track fugitives and to interrupt the delivery of illegal drugs or other controlled substances such as explosives. In other government surveillance, such as most wiretap programs, a judge approves requests. In this one, the USPIS’ chief inspector has authority to grant or deny a request. The Postal Service handles 214 billion pieces of mail each year. Correspondence and packages transported by private carriers, such as FedEx and UPS, are not subject to the surveillance. When the government’s warrantless surveillance of electronic communication has come under fire, civil liberties advocates say, the USPIS’ limited disclosure raises serious questions. “The idea of the government tracking that amount of mail is quite alarming,” says Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project. “When you realize that (the figure) does not include national security matters, the numbers are even more alarming.”Postal officials would not disclose the volume of mail monitored in national security investigations. Because those include terror-related inquiries, the figures do not show whether the Sept. 11 attacks influenced requests or approvals. In a Feb. 8 response to requests for information, inspection service counsel Anthony Alverno wrote that even revealing the frequency of the surveillance would undermine its effectiveness “to the detriment of the government’s national security interests.”Postal officials also would not discuss how much mail is being opened for content examinations, which do require a warrant authorized by a judge. USPIS spokesman Douglas Bem described the surveillance program as “one of many tools” available to investigators. “Regulations are in place that serve to protect the general population from illegal and unlawful intrusions,” Bem says. A 1978 federal appeals court decision upheld the use of such surveillance. Each request to monitor a sender’s mail can cover multiple letters and packages by the same suspects. Bem said the government does not track the total pieces of mail captured in the monitoring program.
_______________________________________________________________
Now, I am not one to agree with everything the ACLU stands for, but this is one area where I think they are dead on. In this article, it is revealed that the USPS does not need a warrant to search through the mail and packages sent through the mail system. I can go along with a judge’s warrant to search, which is the only way a search can be made in the correct manner, but a warrantless search approved by their own chief inspector is nothing more than unreasonable search and seizure. Did you know there is a law against that, USPS? It is called the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, it appears that according to this article, all the USPS needs is their own approval. Kind of sounds like the fox guarding the hen house, doesn’t it? And guess what, they are closely guarding this ability. See, until the article came to light, I did not know they had this authority. And honestly, I can see that due to sheer volume of mail and packages where it would be nearly impossible to get a warrant over each suspicious package.
So what to do? My suggestion is that the USPS return the package to the sender with a statement such as "Refused due to security reasons". Plus, if they want to notify the local authorities or the local FBI office, and allow them to pursue a warrant, they can do that. Why not just send the package to the FBI, and let them take care of the warrants and sender notification? Regardless of what they do, a warrant should be required, because the right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure must be preserved.
While the origin of the following paraphrased quote is argued, the truth is the same: "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."
Here is the link to the article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-05-mail_N.htm
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
All For the want of a Nail
For Want of a Nail - A Rhyme
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
It is so amazing to me how the smallest things in life are often overlooked. Last night I heard a lecture where the speaker spoke of “full follow through”. Full follow through requires that one not just make sure the projector works, it makes sure that the spare bulb is available, and that it works also. Full follow through requires that one not only make timely travel arrangements, but that a person rents a car ahead of time so he will not be told a car is not available.
Full follow through is the missing nail for most of the discourse we see in local, state, and federal politics. Promises are made by candidates, but where is the follow through? We rail against a voting record, but where is the follow through by the American voter? If follow through is the nail, then what are the consequences of the lack of follow through?
For starters, the vehicle of this unique American enterprise is the election process. However, the average American has either no follow through, or they have improper follow through on the actions of the those they are voting for. They blankly vote party lines, and not on principle. How sad it is that so many people hold moral principles in line with the most conservative of churches, yet blindly vote for a candidate whose party embraces a moral philosophy and value system that is the polar opposite of their beliefs. How do you mean, oh Conservatarian? Well, since I am a Conservative, let me explain it from my Conservative perspective:
Most people born before, during and immediately after the Depression era (1929-1940’s) are the epitome of the “hard worker”. Eschewing material comforts for financial security, they sought to save their money, and did not buy anything unless they had saved the cash for it. Even when they had the cash, they still looked for the best deal available. In their opinion, anyone who did not care to work was considered lazy. God forbid that anyone get pregnant out of wed-lock, and two men being “friends” was absolutely unmentionable. These people are now the elderly among us. Yet, they vote for a party whose ideology is antithetically opposed to their values: a party that wants to provide funds to illegal aliens, endorse same-sex marriage, and undermine the meaning of traditional marriage. “You don’t work? Oh, that’s ok, you will still eat! We have a social program for that!”
To make things more difficult, these seniors are trapped into voting for a nanny-state that provides for their financial and medical security and call it Social Security and Medicare. Do they vote? Yes. Is it follow through? Yes. But it is follow through that is based on fear, not principle, and it is follow through that pits the practical concerns of these seniors against the moral values they hold so dearly.
Since the vehicle is the election process, it has thrown the rider, the American voter.
Tonight, there was news that the Democratic National Committee may force a revote in Florida and Michigan. Obama is crying foul that his name was not on the polls in Michigan (and I don’t blame him). The American voter is being thrown off the horse, though, when a committee such as the DNC can seem to arbitrarily decide how to come up with a candidate, and there are no ends of loopholes for casting doubts on election results. Just as a nail lends integrity and stability to a horse shoe, the strength of our electoral process depends on the integrity of the voting process. At-large super delegates? No accountability to the wishes of the voters is what it sounds like to me. Revote sanctioned by committee, and not by law? That is reassuring to me (not). But let us not forget the Republicans in this either. Remember how Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were almost completely ignored during the debate at the Reagan Library? We voters were thrown off the horse. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul, like him or hate him, even think him a kook, he had the most reasoned and well thought out platform because his platform was based on established principles, as outlined in our Constitution. But he was not given the time day by the media. I will leave the reasons for that to the conspiracists among us (though I probably agree with much of what they say about him not getting a word in edgewise during the whole election).
The principles were overridden by the sound bites being offered up by the dashing Romney and elder statesman McCain. Flash won over substance, and we were thrown off the horse.
So here we Conservatives are, thrown off our horse, most likely voting for someone we have no confidence in. Democrats, you should realize you have been thrown off the horse, too, because the election has been decided not on principles, but on the advent of change for the sake of change, and not for the sake of principle. We are strange bedfellows, Republicans and Democrats, because we had no nails in our electoral shoes, and now we watch as the well-oiled machines of special interests and globalism take over our kingdom. We are helpless to do anything but watch them ride off into battle, and take over this kingdom we call the United States.
God help us all.
All for the want of a nail
For Want of a Nail - A Rhyme
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
It is so amazing to me how the smallest things in life are often overlooked. Last night I heard a lecture where the speaker spoke of "full follow through". Full follow through requires that one not just make sure the projector works, it makes sure that the spare bulb is available, and that it works also. Full follow through requires that one not only make timely travel arrangements, but that a person rents a car ahead of time so he will not be told a car is not available. Full follow through is the missing nail for most of the discourse we see in local, state, and federal politics. Promises are made by candidates, but where is the follow through? We rail against a voting record, but where is the follow through by the American voter? If follow through is the nail, then what are the consequences of the lack of follow through?
For starters, the vehicle (or horse, for sake of the analogy) of this unique American enterprise is the election process. However, the average American has either no follow through, or they have improper follow through on the actions of the those they are voting for. They blankly vote party lines, and not on principle. How sad it is that so many people hold moral principles in line with the most conservative of churches, yet blindly vote for a candidate whose party embraces a moral philosophy and value system that is the polar opposite of their beliefs. How do you mean, oh Conservatarian? Well, since I am a Conservative, let me explain it from my Conservative perspective:
Most people born before, during and immediately after the Depression era (1929-1940's) are the epitome of the "hard worker". Eschewing material comforts for financial security, they sought to save their money, and did not buy anything unless they had saved the cash for it. Even when they had the cash, they still looked for the best deal available. In their opinion, anyone who did not care to work was considered lazy. God forbid that anyone get pregnant out of wed-lock, and two men being "friends" was absolutely unmentionable. These people are now the elderly among us. Yet, they vote for a party whose ideology is antithetically opposed to their values: a party that wants to provide funds to illegal aliens, endorse same-sex marriage, and undermine the meaning of traditional marriage. "You don't work? Oh, that's ok, you will still eat! We have a social program for that!" And to make things more difficult, these seniors are trapped into voting for a nanny-state that provides for their financial and medical security and call it Social Security and Medicare. Do they vote? Yes. Is it follow through? Yes. But it is follow through that is based on fear, not principle, and it is follow through that pits the practical concerns of these seniors against the moral values they hold so dearly.
Since the vehicle is the election process, it has thrown the rider, the American voter. Tonight, there was news that the Democratic National Committee may force a revote in Florida and Michigan. Obama is crying foul that his name was not on the polls in Michigan (and I don't blame him). The American voter is being thrown off the horse though, when a committee such as the DNC can seem to arbitrarily decide how to come up with a candidate, and there are no ends of loopholes for casting doubts on election results. Just as a nail lends integrity and stability to a horse shoe, the strength of our electoral process depends on the integrity of the voting process. At-large super delegates? No accountability to the wishes of the voters is what it sounds like to me. Revote sanctioned by committee, and not by law? That is reassuring to me (not). But let us not forget the Republicans in this either. Remember how Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were almost completely ignored during the debate at the Reagan Library? We voters were thrown off the horse. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul, like him or hate him, even think him a kook, he had the most reasoned and well thought out platform because his platform was based on established principles, as outlined in our Constitution. But he was not given the time of day by the media. I will leave the reasons for that to the conspiracists among us (though I probably agree with much of what they say about him not getting a word in edgewise during the whole election). The principles were overridden by the sound bites being offered up by the dashing Romney and elder stateseman McCain. Flash won over substance, and we were thrown off the horse.
So here we Conservatives are, thrown off our horse, most likely voting for someone we have no confidence in. Democrats, you should realize you have been thrown off the horse, too, because the election has been decided not on principles, but on the advent of change for the sake of change, and not for the sake of principle. We are strange bedfellows, Republicans and Democrats, because we had no nails in our electoral shoes, and now we watch as the well-oiled machines of special interests and globalism take over our kingdom. We are helpless to do anything but watch them ride off into battle, and take over this kingdom we call the United States.
God help us all.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
It is so amazing to me how the smallest things in life are often overlooked. Last night I heard a lecture where the speaker spoke of "full follow through". Full follow through requires that one not just make sure the projector works, it makes sure that the spare bulb is available, and that it works also. Full follow through requires that one not only make timely travel arrangements, but that a person rents a car ahead of time so he will not be told a car is not available. Full follow through is the missing nail for most of the discourse we see in local, state, and federal politics. Promises are made by candidates, but where is the follow through? We rail against a voting record, but where is the follow through by the American voter? If follow through is the nail, then what are the consequences of the lack of follow through?
For starters, the vehicle (or horse, for sake of the analogy) of this unique American enterprise is the election process. However, the average American has either no follow through, or they have improper follow through on the actions of the those they are voting for. They blankly vote party lines, and not on principle. How sad it is that so many people hold moral principles in line with the most conservative of churches, yet blindly vote for a candidate whose party embraces a moral philosophy and value system that is the polar opposite of their beliefs. How do you mean, oh Conservatarian? Well, since I am a Conservative, let me explain it from my Conservative perspective:
Most people born before, during and immediately after the Depression era (1929-1940's) are the epitome of the "hard worker". Eschewing material comforts for financial security, they sought to save their money, and did not buy anything unless they had saved the cash for it. Even when they had the cash, they still looked for the best deal available. In their opinion, anyone who did not care to work was considered lazy. God forbid that anyone get pregnant out of wed-lock, and two men being "friends" was absolutely unmentionable. These people are now the elderly among us. Yet, they vote for a party whose ideology is antithetically opposed to their values: a party that wants to provide funds to illegal aliens, endorse same-sex marriage, and undermine the meaning of traditional marriage. "You don't work? Oh, that's ok, you will still eat! We have a social program for that!" And to make things more difficult, these seniors are trapped into voting for a nanny-state that provides for their financial and medical security and call it Social Security and Medicare. Do they vote? Yes. Is it follow through? Yes. But it is follow through that is based on fear, not principle, and it is follow through that pits the practical concerns of these seniors against the moral values they hold so dearly.
Since the vehicle is the election process, it has thrown the rider, the American voter. Tonight, there was news that the Democratic National Committee may force a revote in Florida and Michigan. Obama is crying foul that his name was not on the polls in Michigan (and I don't blame him). The American voter is being thrown off the horse though, when a committee such as the DNC can seem to arbitrarily decide how to come up with a candidate, and there are no ends of loopholes for casting doubts on election results. Just as a nail lends integrity and stability to a horse shoe, the strength of our electoral process depends on the integrity of the voting process. At-large super delegates? No accountability to the wishes of the voters is what it sounds like to me. Revote sanctioned by committee, and not by law? That is reassuring to me (not). But let us not forget the Republicans in this either. Remember how Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were almost completely ignored during the debate at the Reagan Library? We voters were thrown off the horse. Of all the candidates, Ron Paul, like him or hate him, even think him a kook, he had the most reasoned and well thought out platform because his platform was based on established principles, as outlined in our Constitution. But he was not given the time of day by the media. I will leave the reasons for that to the conspiracists among us (though I probably agree with much of what they say about him not getting a word in edgewise during the whole election). The principles were overridden by the sound bites being offered up by the dashing Romney and elder stateseman McCain. Flash won over substance, and we were thrown off the horse.
So here we Conservatives are, thrown off our horse, most likely voting for someone we have no confidence in. Democrats, you should realize you have been thrown off the horse, too, because the election has been decided not on principles, but on the advent of change for the sake of change, and not for the sake of principle. We are strange bedfellows, Republicans and Democrats, because we had no nails in our electoral shoes, and now we watch as the well-oiled machines of special interests and globalism take over our kingdom. We are helpless to do anything but watch them ride off into battle, and take over this kingdom we call the United States.
God help us all.
Welcome to The Conservatarian
Hello all,
I hail from the beautiful middle Tennessee area. My family and I have been living in Tennessee for about 18 years now. I am a Constitutional Conservative Libertarian, and I am creating this blog to get news out to help other Conservatives, Libertarians, and other "right-of-center" groups get information they need. Also, another purpose of this blog is to help enlighten other people of certain other political persuasions with reasoned, principled, Constitutional arguments and reasoning. My extremely beautiful wife (she will be referred to as the "EBW") and I have been married for over 27 years. Whatever I post, it will be reviewed from a Constitutionalist/Conservative view point, drawing on the words of our Constitution for guidance, with historical background as needed to show the intent of certain laws and statutes. And yes, I will be putting in my opinion as well, with my obligatory scriptural references (I am a Baptist preacher after all!).
At any rate, I look forward to seeing you around, so take care, and look for my first Op-Ed piece tonight or in the morning. Thank you!
The Conservatarian
P.S. I have learned since creating this blog a few minutes ago that there is another blog out there with the same name/blog address as this one except without the word "the". These two blogs are not related. Nor is this blog related the the Conservatarian movement (if there is actually is one). I thought I was being crafty by creating the word "Conservatarian ", but I am not nearly as original as I thought I was!
The Conservatarian
P.S. I have learned since creating this blog a few minutes ago that there is another blog out there with the same name/blog address as this one except without the word "the". These two blogs are not related. Nor is this blog related the the Conservatarian movement (if there is actually is one). I thought I was being crafty by creating the word "Conservatarian ", but I am not nearly as original as I thought I was!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)