A perspective from history

The Sad State of Race

2009-10-15T12:39:00.000-07:00

A young man enjoys football. He makes friends playing on the Varsity team. His coaches and fellow players don't see him for his race. They see him because he's a hard worker. His fellow students cheer him and the team on. They don't win every game. Probably will never go to the State Championships, but that doesn't stop this young man from putting his heart into the game. But he's not just a knucklehead jock. He carries a 3.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale. His teachers are happy with his performance. He's looking at good solid schools where he can carry his love of football and learning on to new heights and make his talents on the field pay for his studies off the field.

He has friends that cross race and gender and age boundaries. He teases friends who are both black and white. He makes no discrimination. This young boy has never been a victim of racism. He has never known racism. He is too young to remember most of the major racial revolutions in our country's fine history.

But today? He was stung with the sharp whip of discrimination. The boy, his coach, his parents, his entire family, and probably his friends were brought to tears. Because the boy was discriminated against. He was told "You can't play football." "You shouldn't be at this school." Not because of his grades or because of any trouble. But because of race. This young man, striving to live the American dream. Trying to make friends and get ahead in life, was thrown aside. Why? Because he's white.

That's right. This victim of racism is white. But how can that be?! I mean whites are always on top of the food chain. They always get special treatment. They're always the ones BEING racist!

Bullshit.

So how do I substantiate my claims? Well let's first define racism.

Racism is a misnomer to begin with. None of the differences between black, white, yellow, red, or whatever 'color' people are have anything to do with race. There is one race. The human race. The 'racial' differences are caused by slightly different skeletal structures and skin pigmentation. No more. The rest? It's all culture and ethnic heritage. Germans differ from the French who differ from Russians who differ from Greeks who differ from the Portuguese who are different than Italians who are different than Spaniards who differ from the British. Yet all of them are considered 'European'. All would be considered 'white'. But do they have different traditions? Different culinary persuasions? Different religious heritage? Certainly. It's why each nation is separate. But they can all reproduce with one another. There is no racial separation.

But despite the misnomer that is Racism, we'll use it as long as we keep these things in mind. We'll even use it as it applies to skin color. And in speaking of skin color, we shall use two terms, going along with this absolutist mentality that racism brings about. Minority and White. White meaning Caucasian of course, and minority meaning... well... everything else. Please understand that these definitions I have given are not my personal beliefs, they are just defining terms so we're ALL on the same page when you read what I have written below.

So what is the rallying cry of racists? What drove/drives racism? What do the KKK and other organizations want?

A commonality between all of them is the notion of 'racial purity'. Hitler wanted Germany for Germans. The Japanese believed in the superiority of their own race. It is, in the best term, a separation of 'us' and 'them'. If you are not one of 'us' then you must be one of 'them'. It separates. It divides. It creates a world of absolute black and whites in an existence that at the best of times, is a thousand shades of grey.

In an effort to combat this separation that created the policy of 'separate but equal', the high court of the United States, the US Supreme Court, handed down decisions requiring schools and facilities to integrate minorities with whites. No longer could a school tell a black child that they could not attend a school because of their race. No longer could a person be denied employment or a place to live because they were of a different race. Instead? A new era dawned in tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

But did everyone pick up and move to make sure that our nation was a patchwork quilt where ethnicity was evenly distributed? No. Even today there are school districts where a majority of students are minorities and others nearby where a majority of students are white. Is it the school's fault that the majority of families in that particular school district belong to certain ethnic groups? Nope. The school isn't at fault. Is it the city or county or even the state? For not enforcing the equal opportunity housing laws like the 1968 Civil Rights Act (also known as the Equal Housing Opportunity Act)? Not at all. Is it simply the desire of mankind, an inherently social creature, to be surrounded by an environment including other humans that they identify with? That probably has something to do with it. This sort of segregation based on 'chance' is known in law as de facto segregation. Which for those who can't figure out that simple bit of Latin, basically means 'it is how it is'. It's not planned. It isn't forced. It just happens to be that way.

But segregation, according to the law, is segregation. So even though it is not this young football player's fault that white people HAPPEN to be the majority in his school district, he is still being punished and held accountable for it when his family moves out of the district and attempts to get dispensation so he can finish out his Junior and Senior year there where he has been going since the 5th grade.

"But what does all this have to do with race? How was he supposedly discriminated against?"

Remember the mention above about the US Supreme Court handing down that decision to integrate? Yeah. Close to 50 years ago in the late 1950's and into the 1960's, the Courts handed down those decisions to the states to enforce. Now, that said, the states CANNOT force people to move to other areas. That violates the 1968 Equal Housing Opportunity Act. BUT the Court's findings have created a Catch 22 scenario. Requiring schools to maintain a certain minimum percentage of minorities in their schools means that the simple Out of Area Request form is automatically approved for minorities wishing to go to this White majority public school. (That's right folks, this is a PUBLIC school don't forget). But because of the fact that this person is white, and there are no mitigating circumstances, his out of area request form is being denied.

Solely on the basis of race.

This child's opportunities to be scouted by colleges for football scholarships are being cut off, since he is not allowed to play football. His opportunities to continue the friendships he has forged over the last 6 years are being cut down because he may be forced to switch schools in the middle of his Junior year. His ability to attend college may be hampered because neither of his parents are rich enough to pay out of pocket for college if he doesn't get some sort of scholarship or grant.

Racism has robbed this child of innumerable opportunities. Racism, that is the making of decisions on the basis of race, needs to end. This young man is disadvantaged now because of his own ethnic heritage. A young man who has never made a racist decision, has never oppressed anyone, has stood up in defense of those who can't protect themselves, and has made his teachers, coaches, and family proud is now the victim of a terrible and vile ill that plagues our society. Racism.

People? The sooner you stop concentrating on the differences. The sooner we can get focused on the similarities. The sooner that happens? The sooner racism ends. The more we draw attention to 'white', 'black', 'yellow', etc. only prolongs the life of racism.

So why am I writing about this? Why do I care? How do I know so much about this individual case?

That football playing kid that has made everyone who knows him proud? The young man who can make people smile? The guy who believes in equality and conducting himself as a gentleman? Is my brother.

A Brush with the Headlines

2009-10-05T20:06:00.000-07:00

So today was gonna be like any other day. Well not like EVERY other day. I mean. I was driving from my parents' home in Ocala to my apartment in Tampa. And from there I went to class. Got on campus and waited dutifully for the very very slow on-campus traffic to move along so I could find parking. And just as I got out of my car, that was when it happened.

Air raid sirens and a crackly announcer's voice stating that all students should remain indoors. Keep the doors locked. Get to a building and basically barricade themselves in. I was only half a dozen steps from my car.

Then the text message came to my cell phone. "Alert Tampa Campus - EMERGENCY: Armed Intruder on Campus. Stay Inside. Lock Doors. Emergency Personnel Responding."

That text message came at 1:49 pm.

The all clear was never given until 5:57 pm.

Now... Me being the sensible sort of person I am, I turned around, got back into my car, locked the doors, shut off the radio, pulled my handgun out of the center console, checked the clip, and set it right there beside me. One hand on the wheel. One hand resting on my protection. I refuse to be a victim.

But it got me thinking... Many many questions, not the least of which that ran through my head, was "Why am I not allowed to carry my gun on campus?" "Why does it take 4 hours for the police department to clear campus and give us the OK?" "Why does it take the police department 10 minutes to call in outside help and get officers to the scene when there are not one, but multiple armed persons on campus?"

Yeah. Apparently it wasn't just one. It was two or possibly three.

So that's my school. Yep. Great university.

But the biggest question on my mind is still unanswered. "Why does the left wing believe that guns must be the problem, when the University of South Florida experiences this sort of emergency on a semi-regular basis, and yet none of the students or faculty are allowed to carry weapons? (Including the ROTC guys)" In a little utopian microcosm of liberality, where Marxism is a required subject that everyone must read and learn and write a little paper on 'why Marxism is relevant' (Yep. I had to write one of those in grad school here.), and guns do not exist except for the criminals who bring them on campus, why is there so much of a problem?

Ok so I get the whole "We want to avoid a Columbine/Virginia Tech shooting where a student goes postal." Ok. Cool. That's fine. I can grock that sort of backwards logic (both Columbine and the Virginia Tech students used weapons that they hadn't acquired in a legal fashion and were both utterly mentally unstable). But why penalize the normal law abiding students, such as myself, and demand that we sit on campus locked in classrooms for 4-5 hours while the police take their time showing up and doing a job? Are we supposed to quietly and politely ask these people "Please don't shoot us?" Perhaps in the egalitarian Marxist theory, there would be no crime because these people simply don't exist? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. But it's a creepy place when I'm going to school and I have to fear for my life.

By the way. For those of you who read the article? I park at the library EVERY TIME that I go to class. Closest parking to the building I need to be at. The second notice about the guy with the hunting knife? Yeah. Cooper Hall. A 1.5 minute leisurely walk to the Social Sciences building (Where all my classes are).

My logic as I climbed back into my car? "No class is worth dying over. If the prof. doesn't like it? Tough." Thankfully my professor understood and even emailed all of those of us who couldn't make it to class.

So just remember. Guns are a problem. They cause violence and death. Just like porn causes carpal tunnel and tennis elbow.

Until next time!

Religious Freedom

2009-09-29T21:27:00.000-07:00

So I sat down tonight and relaxed a bit, or tried to. Life being as stressful as it is with all its various ups and downs, one can never be truly relaxed, only a little less stressed than before. While flipping through my daily news wires, I came across this story.

Now, I know I'm young. I know I don't know everything. I know I may be full of addled theories and facts and interpretations from all my college courses jumbling in my brain. But really? Come on now. If a group of high school cheerleaders want to quote inspirational Bible verses and cheer on their team, shouldn't we be applauding this effort moreso than wearing skimpy uniforms and trying to act provocative? So why do those cheerleaders need to stop? Because of the first amendment? Pft. I don't think so.

Amendment one reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thank you Mr. Pocket Constitution.

Now can someone please tell me where it says in there that individual students cannot express their religion? Or perhaps it's the fact that it occurs at a public school which, although it receives federal funds to support its workings, cannot enforce any law to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The fact of the matter is people that Freedom OF religion does not necessitate Freedom FROM religion. Atheists who don't like that? Tough crap. Don't like it a whole hell of a lot? Move to an atoll in the Pacific somewhere, make up a flag, and create your own country where religion is outlawed.

The fact of the matter is this: Congress cannot make a law which supports and gives money to any religious institution (churches, mosques, buddhist temples, synagogues, etc.) This does not include groups like 'The Fingerprint Initiative' which works toward humanitarian goals because of their foundation on a Christian basis. Because while the Fingerprint Initiative may be Christian at its core, it does not force its workers to be Christians, does not leave bibles in the houses they help build with Habitat for Humanity or other such religious incursions. Congress also cannot make any law whatsoever that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Which means that if Cheerleaders want to paint a sign that says "Go Team! Yay God!" Congress has no power whatsoever to say 'That's wrong, you can't do that.' The same way they can't tell a local coach and football team that they're not allowed to pray for the health and safety of their members, or the speedy recovery of a sick teammate.

The history behind all this goes way back to England. I'll be uncharacteristic here and keep it very brief. Henry VIII was upset that the Pope would not grant his divorce from Catherine of Aragon. So he came up with a new system where Henry VIII as the regent of England, was the head of the Church. It wasn't really all that new of a system (Henry II of the Holy Roman Empire was known as 'God's Servant' and Henry III of the Holy Roman Empire was known as the 'Vicar of Christ' a title today reserved for the Pope). But I digress. Henry VIII then outlawed Catholicism. And when the Anglican church splintered even more, he and his successors outlawed and persecuted those factions as well. Many of the dispossessed factions who were not reincorporated into the British System of government until the mid to late 1800's, set sail for the new world for new opportunities. Opportunities like owning land, participating in government, and worshipping how they wished were all denied them back home in Jolly Old England. (Pip pip and all that sort of thing old boy)

That is why the very first of the Bills of Rights that the Anti-Federalists demanded be added into the Constitution contained the now called 'Establishment Clause'. Everyone can easily remember the first part of that. It's a rallying cry for Atheists and the ACLU everywhere. 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...' But they conveniently forget the second half, which I would argue reinforces and potentially nullifies the first part 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...'

Congress cannot make a law that specifically supports a religion, or deny the individual citizen of the United States their rights to freely exercise those religious beliefs.

So ya know what girls? Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School is going to be in my prayers for a while. Mostly that your school administrators who publicly admit that they agree with the free exercise of religion should change their minds and let you display your signs freely. Keep being good kids. Keep being proud of who you are and your religious roots. There's a lot there to be proud of.

Obama Care

2009-07-27T23:33:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first day of the rest of your lives. Today, facing our country, is a massive health care reform. Let me strike that. A massive health care takeover on behalf of the government. What a lot of people are not aware of, is the full extent of the damage that this bill can cause. Before I continue into a discussion of HR3200, the bill's official government designation, let me go into a small side discussion on health care.

Currently you may hear that 47 million americans are without healthcare. That sounds like an awfully big number. A large number that when weighed against the values that we Americans hold dear, like charity, neighborhood, and community, seems like a terrible tragedy. 47 million people? That's roughly 18% of the American population. Out of a random 100 people, 18 of them are uninsured. So when weighed against that idea, the concept of government run health care that is universal, sounds like a near blessing. Healthcare for everyone, regardless of where you work or how much you make.

Therein lies the smokescreen fellow citizens. That is what the Obama agenda is attempting to pass through the legislature at the national level. The ultra left is depending upon the values of charity, community, and better human nature to obscure the truth of the bill that they are proposing. Let me share a few simple facts on healthcare in America. First? Exposing the lies. First and foremost, the 47 million people.

According to a CNS news report*, the figure of 47 million uninsured takes into account 9.1 million American citizens who earn over $75,000 per year who specifically choose to remain uninsured. They opt not to purchase health insurance. Does anyone else remember the old adage? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink? These are those people. It is their right and their freedom to choose to manage their own health without insurance. This figure also includes 9.73 million foreigners living in the United States. These are migrant workers, illegal aliens, and others who are not covered by health insurance in the United States. This brings the figure from 47 million, down to 28.17 million American citizens without health insurance. Those are 28.17 million American citizens who do not have health insurance because it is either unavailable to them, they are ineligible for it, or they simply cannot afford it. That still seems like a very large number. The 28.17 also includes children who cannot buy insurance for themselves and require their parents to have plans. All things said and done, the 28.17 million is approximately 9.1% of the total United States Population of 307 million people**. That is where the current statistics lie with our current private insurance free market healthcare supplemented by Medicaid and Medicare.

Now for some new statistics.

The HR3200 stimulus bill contains a proposed immediate 13.2 billion dollars in cuts t0 home healthcare Medicare coverage, with more over the next 10 years***. Senior citizens and even not so senior citizens who are bound in their homes with health issues can currently gain help in their treatment from nurses who go to their individual homes and provide a similar level of care to their patients as one would receive in a hospital. Approximately 12 million Americans receive home health care to stay in their homes. Approximately 1 million Americans are employed by home health care organizations. That is 13 million Americans that will be in serious jeopardy if funding to health care organizations that provide home health care, is cut. Apparently Universal Health Care does not mean that it is truly 'universal'.

Enough with statistics for now. Here are a few facts about Bill HR3200 straight from the pages of the text****.

Page 30 of this 1017 page bill admits that a government committee will decide what treatments and benefits that you receive with no chance of appealing the decision, not your doctors or local hospital, but beaurocrats.

Page 50 outlines that all non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. Paid for entirely by the legal American citizen.

Page 59 outlines that the federal government will have direct, real time access to all individual bank accounts for EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) to pay for medical treatment services.

Page 72 states that all private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. In other words? You agree with us, or you're not allowed to operate.

Page 84 then outlines that all private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange. In other words? You have to participate, no compromising, and in order to participate, you must agree with us.

Page 124 Despite anti-trust laws already in place, no company will be allowed to sue the US government for price-fixing, in effect protecting the US Government run monopoly on Healthcare from the Judiciary Branch's power of Judicial Review.

Page 145 All employers must auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan.

Page 167 Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (see Pages 72 and 84), will be taxed an additional 2.5% of their income. Translation? You don't like it? You get to pay even more.

Page 203 "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." In other words, when it says in the US Constitution, that the Legislature will have the power to tax? If it isn't a tax, it does not necessarily fall under the purview of the Legislature.

Page 241 Doctors, regardless of specialty, will be paid the same. The vascular surgeon, the geriatric oncologist, the neurologist, the neonatal specialist, and the general physician you see when you have a cold? Will all be paid the same, regardless of how long they spent in medical school or residency, regardless of how good they are as doctors. The best doctor in the country will make the same money as the absolute worst. Wherein lies the incentive for doctors to provide top level care or pursue even more challenging specialties if there is no greater reward?

Page 272 Cancer patient health care will be rationed based on quality of life and diagnosis.

Page 280 Hospitals will be penalized financially for what the government considers 'Preventable re-admissions'. Thus leading to less money to spend on equipment and continual education for doctors to give you the best healthcare possible.

Page 318 Hospital expansion is subject to governmental approval. A hospital wants to expand an ICU? Add an Obstetrics and Neonatal Unit? The government needs to debate and decide upon it first, thus denying patients that could use that care, the proper care they need.

Page 354 Government will restrict enrollment of 'Special Needs' individuals. In other words, universal government run health care is only for the healthy. Chronic patients need not apply.

Page 427 Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government will dictate how and when your life ends by cutting off medical treatment. In other words? If your condition is too expensive to treat? The government wants you to go home and die quietly.

Page 429 Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans from the government. See page 427.

Page 489 Government healthcare will cover marriage counseling and family therapy, getting involved in how your family dynamic and marriage relationship should be run if you have problems.

These above examples are but a few snippets from the first 500 pages of an over 1000 page document. An interesting side note. Politicians that are voting on this? Will not be subjected to it. They will retain their own private health insurance that they currently have. To the government, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Citizens, what can we do? When we're faced with such an overwhelming threat to the personal liberty of how one dictates their own life, we have but one option. Stand up in defiance of the threat. How can you help? Call your senators. Fax your congressmen. Email both. Tell them how you feel about these invasions of your life! Obama-care attempts to point out similarities between Canada and the United Kingdom with this proposed care package. However, neither the United Kingdom, nor Canada, have provisions for the government to step in and deny health care to their citizens regardless of age, current medical conditions, or other criteria. The Canadian health system does not tap into your private bank account and withdraw funds, nor does the United Kingdom. Do not allow yourself to fall victim to the sweet lies being presented by people who claim to know how to better manage your life and your privacy better than you do.

American citizens must stand up for what is theirs. Their life. The first of our basic inalienable human rights. Call, fax, or in some way contact your representatives to Congress immediately and remind them that according to the American government, they are beholden to us! We are the people that vote. We are America.

Bibliography and Notes

* - Health Care Lie: '47 million uninsured Americans'; CNSNews.com: 'Obama falsely claims there are 47 million uninsured Americans'

** - US Census Bureau

*** - Home Care Statistics

**** - Library of Congress: HR3200 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009'

Living and Dying

2009-07-10T05:47:00.000-07:00

So a while back, almost 6 months ago now, in January, I wrote a piece on this blog called "Dignity of Human Life". It was in response to a great number of things, but mostly to the Obama lifting of sanctions against funding abortions world wide. The post talked about life, how we define it, and how it is sacred.

Not long ago, Florida, and indeed the entire world faced the Terry Schiavo controversy, which was shortly followed up by His Holiness the Pope, John Paul II, dying in a scarily similar manner. It was a question of death, and where life and death met. Not many people liked the answers. Heck. No one really liked the questions either. Do we go through expensive therapies? Do we hook ourselves up to machines for long term care? Do we hold on to hope? Or give it up at the first signs of trouble?

No one can answer those questions for another human being. No one has the right to do that. Whether Terry Schiavo really wanted to live or die in her state will forever remain a mystery. No one has the right to determine whether another living human being should die and when. The only time it is remotely justifiable is in the defense of one's own life or one's family.

Just over 2 years ago, my grandfather died of terminal cancer. It had spread throughout his body and was, in the end, what caused a complete shutdown of his body. He died at home. He died with loved ones around him, and I thank God for the opportunity to be by his side when that happened. He fought for over 14 years against this horrible affliction. There were many times when he was close to death and he fought to bounce back. In the end, it overwhelmed him.

So what do we do about dying? Do we fight? Do we accept God's calling to come home? What do we do? A story written in the New York Times about a town in my home city, Rochester New York, hit me today as it showed up in the little podunk paper for the sleepy little town my parents live in here in Florida. The Sisters of Saint Joseph in Pittsford NY meet death with dignity. It's difficult in America, to talk about death. Talking about death for the average American, or even advocating death with a sort of dignity conjures up images of Jack Kevorkian and assisted suicide advocates. It's something we sadly, as a culture, have to overcome. Death with dignity does not mean prematurely ending a life. It does not mean giving up on treatment that is certainly viable. It does not mean rotting away to nothing simply because you're sick.

These nuns are quite a vibrant little community, and very diverse. They receive medical treatment for things like cancer, as Sister Mary Jane Mitchell did, aged 65. Like Sister Marie Albert Alderman, 84, who sees a kidney specialist and manages her health closely to keep herself from having to go through dialysis. These are women who pray and live in the Gospel every single day, praising life in the Lord. To say that these women 'welcome' death is a blatant fallacy.

But one thing that must be remembered is that these women draw a line between extraordinary means and normal health care. The Catholic position, as they state in the article, does not equate to 'Do everything humanly possible to save a life'. Pope John Paul II elected to die with dignity when he had his feeding tube removed and passed on.

While life is certainly important, and must be defended, natural death is just that... natural. It is a part of the life we have as human beings.

So on that note. Hug your loved ones. Tell them you love them. Fight for your beliefs. And make the seconds and minutes count.

The Father of our Freedoms

2009-07-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

Picture it. A hot day in July. People standing around arguing, complaining, whining about taxes and governmental regulation and power. They complained about a recent war that they, the people living here in America didn't want. They complained about the ineffectual leadership of their executive branch and demanded action. They demanded resolutions. They were a diverse group from across all walks of life. Some were lawyers. Some were brewers. Some were farmers. Some were ne'er do wells. They came from all over. New York. Georgia. Virginia. Massachusetts.

Some of these men were very educated. Some of these men were barely educated at all. There were lecherous men and there were pious ones. These were simple people. They were average. They drank liquor. They smoked and chewed tobacco. They enjoyed the fruits of their labor.

And they were all brought together for one purpose... To complain.

To issue a complaint so powerful it would change the course of human events over the next two hundred years of Earth's history.

Around 50 men gathered together and decided the fate of a nation.

July 4th 1776.

233 years later, we are sitting here in America. Many of us feel disenfranchised. We're living in a system where taxes are being raised, unemployment is rising, and we're expected to feed ourselves on messages of 'hope' and 'change'. Change is not necessarily good.

The result of 2 wars against Great Britain, 2 World Wars, a Civil War, and multiple smaller wars like Vietnam and Korea and Desert Storm has been to create and protect freedoms for the United States of America. We've fought to defend freedoms like the right to a redress of grievances from the government. The right to peaceably assemble and protest.

So this July 4th, I and my father will be attending a protest. I've received mixed reactions from this. Some have said "Go for it!". Others have expressed taking offense.

One in particular puzzled me. Saying that I should be sitting home with the grill and fireworks like most of America celebrating the freedoms we've won in the past. As a member of a military family, he took offense that I'd be spending the 4th of July protesting the Obama government.

Nothing like resting on our laurels.

Now more than ever is a time that we should remain vigilant. The Democrats haven't been lax in the last 8 years and now the opposite must remain true if our liberties are to remain intact.

So I will be going to that protest. I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with men who came before me. I will be standing alongside men like Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and countless others who stood up and refused to rest while their government ran amok.

Happy Independence Day (albeit a little early) and remember. Freedom is not free. It is bought and paid for constantly by the vigilance, blood, and tears of those who fight to believe in it. It isn't won by complacency.

Papal Props!

2009-05-12T19:52:00.000-07:00

The Holocaust. Sixty-four years after troops entered Dachau, Auschwitz, and the other concentration camps that Germany erected for the eradication of those that did not meet up with their version of the Master Race, it is still on everyone's mind. Gays, Gypsies, Jews, and Academics all met with death at the hands of the Third Reich. Death on a grand scale and genocide will forever mar German history in such a way that to even broach the subject is a touchy subject. So the Pope has come home to Germany and delivered a speech on the subject of the Holocaust. The same Holocaust that killed 6 million jews, 2-3 million Soviet POW's (the rest of the Allies captured were put into separate prison camps), 2 million Poles, up to 1.5 million gypsies, the disabled and mentally ill, Freemasons, political rivals, and Jehovah's Witnesses all died in the camps.

Oh... And so did the Catholics.

Catholics were vociferous advocates against such actions. According to some sources, the T4 program, (the elimination of the mentally ill and disabled) ended due to overwhelming Catholic public pressure. Catholic and Protestant theologians were killed by the Third Reich. Pope Pius XII, the occupant of the Holy See at the time of World War II opened the Vatican to Jews, offering to shelter them. He appointed Jewish academics who were forced out of Italian universities to positions within the Vatican. Pius XII issued the encyclical Summi Pontificatus, denouncing anti-Semitism to all Catholics. Outside of these and other re-affirmations of the Church position against Anti-Semitism, history records the Church as being quite 'silent' on the matter. Why? Because the Pope didn't grab a gun and go commando? Because he didn't order the Swiss Guard to attack the Third Reich? In fact Pius XII overrode one of his predecessors, Pius XI. In the encyclical Divini Redemptoris, Catholics were forbidden from giving aid to Communists due to the extreme anti-religious fervor exhibited by both Lenin and Stalin in the former Soviet Union. Pius XII in fact determined that the bull did not apply to Catholics helping the Soviet Army defeat the Third Reich!

So you can understand, perhaps, my upset at reading an article complaining about the current Pope, Benedict XVI and his speech given in Germany. He denounced the Holocaust, and pledged to work to ensure that it would never happen again. But is that enough? Apparently not! Apparently, the people expected an apology from the Pope. The Pope who, at the end of World War II was only 18 years old. The Pope who entered into the Hitler Youth under penalty of being labeled a political dissident and thrown into a camp himself. The same Pope who's cousin that suffered from Down Syndrome was murdered by the Third Reich's T4 program, who was drafted and forced into serving in the anti-aircraft corps at the age of 16 while he was away at seminary. But apparently the people at this meeting expected some stronger words, even close to an apology.

The Holy See has committed itself to fighting anti-Semitism. It has supported Jewish-Catholic relations in the modern era, and it did everything short of militarizing the Vatican and clergy to fight the Third Reich.

Pirates Ahoy!

2009-04-11T22:16:00.000-07:00

The United States has had a long and very tumultuous history with pirates and freebooters. Even before the American Revolution, pirates like Blackbeard were actually welcomed into American ports because of the lack of British tariffs and taxes, meaning that the plunder pirates seized from legitimate merchants was sold off for a lower price than the merchants could afford to sell it for. But only twenty years after the British surrendered at Yorktown, in 1801, the First Barbary War was waged against pirates off of the North African coast. These pirates attacked private American citizens, stole from them, killed them, and caused mayhem for any economic traffic in the Mediterranean. Ending in 1805, the First Barbary War showed that the United States would not accept attacks from pirates and private groups upon her citizens or mercantile vessels. It is from this war that the Marines earned their nickname 'Leathernecks' and the line from the Marine's Hymn that goes '. . . to the shores of Tripoli'.

In 1812, the famous (or infamous) War of 1812 began. The British, eager to keep Napoleon Bonaparte landlocked on the continent of Europe, vigorously expanded their navy. In order to crew these vessels, press gangs would go through local British towns and grab almost anyone and force them into service under a policy of 'impressment'. However, to the British, seizing British citizens was simply not enough. They began seizing American merchantmen and impressing American sailors into their navy as well. This kidnapping and forced labor for a foreign government was enough to send America over the edge into war with Britain. The treaty of Ghent effectively ended the War of 1812 in 1815. For a second time in its, by now, 30 year history, America proved its willingness to fight for the safety of its citizens to the bitter end.

Just after the end of this war, America was eager to continue trade and its economic opportunities abroad. Once more looking to the Mediterranean and North Africa, America found opposition from the same source it had in 1801, the Barbary Pirates. Here, our recent enemies of the War of 1812 became our allies as the British and the Americans both fought against the so-called 'Barbary States' of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis. Piracy was once more firmly decried as the two former enemies fought against the common enemy, these state sponsored pirates, known as privateers. In 1816, after brutal bombardments of Algiers, the Second Barbary War was ended, and these lawless countries were eventually taken over by European powers. Tripoli returned to the possession of the Ottoman Empire, and Algiers and Tunis were, over the course of the rest of the century, acquired by France.

In 1916 during the Mexican Revolution, General Francisco "Pancho" Villa led a cross border raid on Columbus, New Mexico, stealing 100 horses and killing 18 men, ultimately leading to a punitive expedition to track down Villa led by General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing. Pirates didn't need to attack by sea to provoke a response from the United States and her military.

Now we have seen that America, in her history, may have dealt with dubious pirates, though it is worthy to note that it was off the coast of Virginia where Blackbeard met his end after a conspiracy of British sailors and the British Governor of the Virginia set up a trap for Captain Teach. While dealing with pirates, America as a nation has never tolerated attacks by private groups, even state backed privateers, on our citizens. We've even gone to war over pirates attacking our financial interests. Pirates, of a sort, even hijacked four planes on September 11th, 2001 and attacked American interests and private citizens. Yet in our recent 2008 election year, we were promised "Hope" and "Change" by now President Obama. Three months into his rule as President of the United States shows not one, but two fairly major hostage crises one right after the other as pirates capture two vessels, one cargo ship, and the other a tugboat.

Off the coast of one of the poorest nations in the world, Somalia, these pirate attacks have no particular vendetta against American shipping, yet here we have President Obama attempting to negotiate with them and failing utterly. Since when did America become a nation of cowards who's strongest reaction to acts of international piracy and terrorism is that of a few harsh verbal reprimands and head nodding? The United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. We have a long proud history of making sure that these rats (my apologies to the perfectly good rodents who may take offense to this), are sent scurrying back to their holes. But apparently "Hope" and "Change" only mean that the United States government isn't willing to back up their harsh reprimands with any force, entrusting its own citizens to fend for themselves. Ladies and Gentlemen, if this is "Change" for the future, if this is "Hope", then I want none of it. The price of paying taxes to a government for protection only to have to protect myself from outside private groups is not taxation at all, it is extortion. Mister Obama. Keep your Hope and Change. I'm certain that many American people only want to be safe and to have our country back.

Capital Problems

2009-03-09T10:30:00.000-07:00

So we have bailouts for banks. We give millions upon billions of dollars to Auto manufacturers. And we tell people now that we're going to help take care of their mortgages. All of these things save jobs. Save investments. They keep American people in their homes. But at what cost? Trillions of dollars in 'bailouts' and 'stimulus' bills spending money to float short term government loans to businesses whose practices got them to this particular spot in the first place.

Ladies and Gentlemen. What Barack Obama is trying to do is put a band aid on the hull tear of the Titanic and call it 'progress'. Do not be deceived! I'll tell you something. We elect these 'well educated' politicians. People who studied political science, law, and other disciplines that graduate from Ivy League universities run our country. Yet, any high school Government and Economics student can tell you how these people are failing our country.

Let us, ladies and gentlemen, revisit a few basic theories of economics through history. We won't be going too far back in time, I promise. Just before the founding of America.

In the late Middle Ages and into the Rennaisance, there was the great standard of economic theory. Mercantilism. That is, that basically a state's economic clout and power was tied directly to raw resources and valuable capital. Gold Bullion, Timber, Beef, Aerable Farmland, Silver, Iron, and other such sources and means of production were the key. Why? Because in that day and age, Mercantilism held that there was only a finite amount of wealth in the world. Therefore? If England wanted to be a bigger more powerful nation than say... France or Spain or Portugal in the 16th century (which it did), then the race was on to claim territory in the New World: The Americas. The thought process was that whomever could carve out the biggest chunk of the new colonial territories would be able to wage war in Europe far more effectively, as America had vast tracts of unclaimed, unused natural resources.

Fast Forward...

1760's England. 40 years really before the rest of Europe and the world catches on to the Industrial Revolution, it's starting here in England. Entrepeneurs open small factories of weavers in the university town of Oxford, followed by Birmingham and other 'industry' towns. These are not landed nobles of the Mercantilist theory. Nor are they the working poor. These are the middle class. The class of people who, during the Middle Ages, represented towns as the burgesses. In the Holy Roman Empire? Burghers and Burghermeisters. In France we come to a term many are familiar with, the Bourgeoisie. All of which mean the exact same thing: A freeman of a borough (in England) or burgh (Scotland) who was selected to represent the small village/town (borough or burgh in the modern UK) in Parliament after 1215. Now of course the English people don't want just any idiot representing their town to the King, so they select educated people. These were days well before public education, so the only way to be educated was to be a nobleman (who were never burgesses), or to be independently wealthy. The only independently wealthy people in the Middle Ages were the merchant class, which evolved into these Entrepeneurs of the Industrial Revolution. Fronting cash to create factories and hire workers, they knew that money was to be MADE, not merely discovered and hoarded as Mercantilist philosophy seemed to suggest. Capitalism revolved around, instead of the State's relationship to property and the means of production, but the personal relationship between property and means of production! No longer was it the state's duty, according to Locke, North, Hume, and the great Scottish economist, Adam Smith, to gather up resources and use them as the state saw fit. Now it was the state's job to take their hands off and let people do the production! After all, the theory goes that when people are producing their own goods and can earn the profits and see their work come to fruition, they're proud of it, and being proud, consistently perform better and better. The state's job, is to protect the rights of personal private property through legislation and military action if necessary.

When our forefathers wrote the Constitution in the late 1780's, it was a document created specifically for this purpose. After all, Mercantilism had been the catalyst of the Revolutionary War in United States history!

Whoa whoa whoa! Economics? The almighty dollar? (or in those days, the British Pound Sterling). What about Truth? Justice? The American Way? (Well first off that's Superman, and second off, YES! Economics!).

The cause of the Revolution was one of ideals and political integrity. "No Taxation without Representation!" was the rallying cry of the rebels, meaning that the American colonies shouldn't be taxed without having equal representation in Parliament. (A totally separate argument exists as to whether or not the Parliament DID represent them or not that I will not digress into here). In Europe, Frederick II of Prussia, also known as Frederick the Great, along with his British Allies, are at war with France, Austria and their Allies. The war rages on from 1756 to 1763 in what we know as the Seven Years War. Now, a small digression into military tactics. An Army marches on its stomach right? Right. The Economic stomach of any military at the time was her colonies, providing raw resources, giving over vast amounts of wealth to the mother country. For France? This was the huge dominion of Canada. For Britain? The 13 Colonies of Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (Interesting factoid for those of you who don't remember grammar school social studies. Your 13 red and white stripes on the American flag represent these 13 original Colonies!) For Spain? Florida, Mexico, much of Modern Day South America, the Carribean basin, and a large portion of the modern Western United States. Portugal? That means Brazil and a number of islands overseas. So if you want to hit the army's stomach. You hit those colonies. Those colonies far far away from the crown and the central government of Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, etc. Consequently, the French and Indian War breaks out between the 13 Colonies and France as an extension of this Seven Years War in Europe.

1763 rolls around (See? And you thought I wouldn't get back to the 1760's! Oh ye of little faith!). Britain is hurting, so is France, as are Spain and Portugal. Wars hurt in this Mercantilist society. So what does a government facing a money shortage do to rectify it? Raise taxes. For the people of England this isn't a big deal. They've been paying taxes for quite some time now and have their local Parliamentary representative fairly close at hand where they can talk to him. 3000 miles away however? America has different problems. They have no direct representatives, yet they're now paying tax after tax after tax to help pay for the expense of British troops defending British interests from French aggression which was started because Great Britain joined the Seven Years War. Britain jumped into it and tries to pass at least part of the bill off to the colonies. The colonies are indignant about it, and la dee dah dee dah we have the American Revolution. July 4th 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, later on the Battle of Yorktown on October 19th, 1781 which ends it all and ta da! Here we are! America! Land of the free and home of the brave! A land where Adam Smith's book, The Wealth of Nations carries considerable weight. The entire Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of property over and over and over again. Everything from protecting people from Illegal Search and Seizure, Freedom of the Press, Protection from Quartering of Troops, and other Amendments, uphold this idea of Capitalism.

Now again we fast forward this time to Germany in 1848. Karl Marx writes his Communist Manifesto, believing that the truly best way to handle the government involvement in economics is the creation of a government led economic monopoly where the means of production (Land, Labor, and Capital) are controlled exclusively by the government.

Now we have a crisis. Bad loaning practices, horrible decisions with production of vehicles and labor disputes, as well as bad investments have brought banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers to bankruptcy or reorganization. Now what is the state doing with these bailout stimulus bills? We're taking over, via a communist ideal, one of the means of Production. Publicly traded companies like GM, Chrysler, AIG, and others that get stimulus money are beholden to the shareholders. If the United States Government becomes the majority shareholder, then it is the United States Government that these companies answer to for the majority. Undermining the very spirit of the Constitution, these new financial 'boosts' are going to strangle America's industry.

So what's the alternative? Thousands upon thousands of layoffs? Businesses closing left right and center? Unemployment on the scale of the Great Depression? Yup. Pretty much.

But if you've ever read any shred of Capitalist economic theory? The same economic theory which has run this country successfully for over 200 years while theories like Communism and Socialism have faltered and utterly failed in under a quarter of that time period, proscribes that Capitalism is based on competition. If GM, Chrysler, AIG, and other companies go out of business, it creates a vacuum. It is a vacuum which can only be filled with 1 thing: Competition. Competition drives innovation and ingenuity in the respective manufacturing fields. In order to maintain a positive growth of a market share, a given company has to be competitively priced and create a good product. As Henry Ford once said: "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." What has happened, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that prices have gone up while wages have increased, and in order to maintain profit margins, the qualities of various produced goods have gone down. When competitors enter the marketplace, they hire workers from business that have closed their doors. In the short term? Times are hard. In the long term however? They're extremely prosperous.

We need competition to enter the marketplace. We need innovation and creativity. We do not need a bandaid on the hull tear of the Titanic for the next four years just so Obama can win re-election. Ladies and Gentlemen, problems are solved by action, not merely sitting back and throwing tremendous amounts of money at them that our grandchildren (Yes, OUR Grandchildren, the grandkids of Generations X and Y) will be paying off in their lifetimes. It's been a month and a half since Inauguration day, and already Mister Obama has issued spending orders that even FDR would have flinched at.

God help us for the next few years.

CON Report!

2009-02-27T20:15:00.000-08:00

So I spent the day doing two things I love the most of all.

1.) Hanging out at my college Alma Mater while I proctored an exam for a friend and professor there.

2.) Hanging out with friends and geeks from all walks of fandom at MegaCon in Orlando Florida.

Note on Number 2: Lar Desouza and Ryan Sohmer and Derrick Fish? Three of the NICEST guys you'll ever meet.

After getting into the convention and heading into the dealer's areas I found Ryan and Lar first, bought a few books from their Least I Could Do strips, which both artists signed, and then found Derrick and purchased a sketchbook, which he promptly did a sketch of two of my favorite characters, Dandy and Bernard from his comic Dandy and Company.

If you're in the Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland or some nearby area? I suggest going over and hanging out with these awesome people as well as the others that are nearby. It's so cool that Chewbacca even decided to show up.

Education or Indoctrination

2009-02-18T11:01:00.000-08:00

The difference between Education and Indoctrination is a gray line. It can often be confused, and when that happens? Calamity ensues. What is education? What is indoctrination? What is the difference? These are questions which may have different meanings, but the end result is always the same. Education gives people the facts in an objective manner, allowing them to use reason, logic, and their own God-given intellect to come to moral decisions regarding any given issue. Indoctrination is the opposite. Selectively giving facts, giving half truths you might say, and instead of allowing interpretation, teaching which interpretations are correct and which are incorrect so that the people arrive, through no volition of their own, at the same conclusion you arrive at. The difference? Education gives someone all the facts, and supports the notion of self-determination and free will to allow them to choose their own path, their own judgments. Indoctrination robs the person of their ability to create their own opinions, instead forcing other opinions on people.

This can work both ways. Many forms of abuse, child abuse, spousal abuse, all depend on indoctrination. The hard right can do it. They did it in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The hard left can do it. They did it in Communist Russia, China, and continue to do it today, even here in America.

But where do they do it in America? The only place that they can get away with it. Higher Educational Institutions. Colleges? Universities? Even local Community Colleges are wide open for liberal domination. Professors like this one use the education system to indoctrinate their classes. Does it mean it happens all the time and every professor is a liberal whack job? No. Not at all. But it is a problem.

I find it quite interesting that these professors who teach our future generations about the evils of Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and other absolutist governments where there is only one way to think about any given issue fall victim to the very same sorts of prejudice, closed-mindedness, and hate-mongering that they protest so loudly. Then again, empty cans make the loudest noise. What makes it all the more vexing? The fact that the liberal left are typically the ones fighting to expand Free Speech rights. Apparently that only applies to like minded left wingers.

So what can we students do? Stick to your guns. That is the best thing anyone can do when faced down by liberal professors. Every single college or university in the United States has an appeals process for grades earned unfairly. They have feedback forms for students to speak their minds about professors. All else fails? Find the Dean of Academics or the President of the College and go to their office for an appointment. If all else fails? Just smile and nod. Get through it. Bear it out and stay true to your beliefs, but keep them quiet. Throughout history we see heroes who quietly bore oppression.

The Jews under Greek rule of the Seleucid Empire. The early Church fathers under the Roman Empire. Protestants under Catholic rule in France and Spain. Catholics under Protestant rule in England and Germany. Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Catholics under Nazi Germany. Jews, Christians, Georgians, and Intellectuals under Communist Russia. Buddhists, Hindus, and others in Communist China. Christians today in many countries of the Arabic world where Christianity is illegal under Theocratic dictatorships in Muslim nations.

So when in doubt? When you feel yourself intellectually repressed by a liberal majority? When you feel your rights in jeopardy because of this 'all or nothing' liberal mentality that abjures truth and ignores history? You're in good company if you choose to just bear it out and continue holding true to your belief.

Freedom, ladies and gentlemen, is not free. It's been bought and paid for by those willing to stand up and die for it. It may not be free, but it is easily misused. The very freedoms we enjoy can be taken away by people using those freedoms as a shield to strip freedom from the rest of us. The cost of freedom besides the blood of those who purchased it, is eternal vigilance against those who would seek to take our liberty away. Our forefathers understood this. Their forefathers understood it in countries throughout the world and nations wherein the laws of the land provide liberty for the people and protection from oppression.

State and Federal Dope

2009-02-05T07:44:00.000-08:00

So as I was taking a break from reading a fascinating archaeological book about the Athlit naval ram dating from the 2nd Century BC, I decided to check the headlines and see what was up. And that was when I came across this. This wonderful little article has President Obama giving in to the marijuana lobby. But even more than giving up to illegal drugs and laying down to a tiny minority lobby, President Obama is disrespecting the past. That's right. He's flouting history and legality.

The year? 1830. Congress passes a bill with a 103 - 87 vote to spend Federal dollars for internal improvement of a road located entirely in the State of Kentucky. President Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States, vetos the bill. It was nothing against the road being built. It was nothing against the State of Kentucky. It was over the federal submission of money to the State of Kentucky for road improvements located wholly and entirely within 1 State. Had the road moved outside of Kentucky? It would have been approved most likely. But the fact remained that it was declared unconstitutional for Federal authority to bend to the will of a State.

The year? 1860. Abraham Lincoln is elected as our 16th President of the United States. Slavery is a main forefront issue of politics in the time period. Southern States advocate new territories being made into states be allowed to choose between Slavery and Abolition, with hundreds upon thousands of people leaving Slave states in the south to go to these new territories, like Kansas, to vote on the issue, insuring Slavery in the new territories. Abraham Lincoln and the Republican controlled Congress declare the Missouri Compromise. It isn't enough. Various causes surrounding slavery lead many of the Southern States to declare secession from the Union of the United States of America. The belief of this being, that the States as individual bodies ratified the US Constitution, and therefore, since they voluntarily joined it, a similar vote could be held to voluntarily leave it. This fundamental idea of State empowerment and determination over Federal power and authority causes the Civil War. Over a million lives lost and a dozen years later through Reconstruction, Federal authority is finally assured by 1877. Three Civil Rights Acts, 3 Constitutional Amendments all supercede State authority, demanding that blacks be given the rights to vote, to due process of law, to a fair trial, and freedom from slavery and terrorism by the emergence of White Pride groups.

The year? 1920. The 19th Amendment supercedes State Laws in many states, demanding that Gender qualifications for voting be abolished. Women are given suffrage and allowed to vote. Minorities across the board are now enfranchised in the American political system. "Freedom and Justice for all." Finally rings true.

The year? 1954. Supreme Court Case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Topeka Kansas wants to segregate schools between white and colored. Under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896, this is perfectly legal. By 1954? The Earl Warren Supreme Court says 'no'. The Kansas law violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Segregation is overturned.

The year? 1957-1968. Jim Crow is rampant in the South, and in this 11 year stretch, 4 Civil Rights Acts are passed through Congress. 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. These Civil Rights Acts are Federally Authorized packs of laws that destroy many of the local and state segregation laws. It is important to note that the only reason President Obama was even allowed to run, much less be elected, is because of this Federal superceding of State authority.

The year? Now. DEA agents raid California businesses selling Marijuana for 'medicinal use' to just about anyone who knows how to forge a doctor's note, thereby enforcing Federal drug statutes. President Obama undermines 179 years of legal and historic precedent which demands Federal authority to supercede State authority in EVERY instance by declaring that the DEA can no longer enforce Federal drug laws prohibiting Marijuana in the State of California. Effectively? President Obama has come out and said that California's laws dictate on a higher legal plane than Federal laws.

Congratulations Mister Obama. You've dishonored millions of people who have fought, bled, and died for Federal authority over State authority. You've flouted 179 years of legal precedents in the annals of US History. And you've done so on one of the most dangerous topics of our time: Drugs.

Dignity of Human Life

2009-01-23T17:12:00.000-08:00

All throughout the last 6 years, since March of '03 when the Iraq war began, the Democratic party has been opposed to much of it. Though several senators, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and others all voted to support the measure going to war. Since then, criticism over the inhuman treatment of people under the American led coalition forces has hit our headlines daily. Who can forget Abu Ghraib? Who can forget Gitmo? The waterboarding scandal. Torture allegations. All of which drove Democrats mad. They were upset at the blatant abuses of human dignity and human rights.

It occurs to me that the Democrats are quite hypocritical in this matter. It's ok to protest the death penalty as applied to adult persons who willfully commit a heinous crime depriving someone of life and/or liberty. It is ok to protest warfare against adult combatants who disguise themselves to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. And it's also ok to tax the American people more to spend money funding foreign abortions of unborn children.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Funding foreign abortions with OUR tax dollars? Is THIS the president we elected!? Yep. It certainly is. It's ok to spend money murdering innocent unborn children, but it's not ok to spend money killing and imprisoning terrorists who want to murder everyone else. Born and unborn alike. I guess that means Obama and his government don't want competition?

So let's examine this in small detail, shall we?

According to statistics? 76.5% of America is Christian. 23.9% of Americans are Catholic Christians, the largest single denomination in the United States. 51.3% of Americans are Protestant Christians. 1.7% are Mormon Christians, and 1.6% are some other denomination of Christian.

Now. We know for a fact that the majority of Protestant Doctrine comes from the Catholic Church. While differences in belief and practice and liturgy have evolved over time, I think it's safe to say that when The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendant dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him . . . Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. The teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies. (Matthew 5:43-44) Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with the hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy." (Part III: Life in Christ, paragraphs 1929-30, 33).

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble, United States Constitution)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Preamble, 2nd Sentence, Declaration of Independence)

More than 400 million dollars are being spent overseas to 'family planning'. Which means abortions and handing out contraception. The latter? I don't think anyone should really have a problem with. The former? Every person with a conscience, soul, or sense of morality, should be abhorred at. And please do not think for one minute that these are 'medical' abortions done for a legitimate medical purpose to save the life of a mother for example. No, these abortions run the gamut of 1st month to late term abortions. Intending upon killing innocent children just because their parents in the rest of the world wanted to have sex, but not deal with the consequences of offspring.

Now we've seen America's stance on Life and the Sanctity of the General Welfare. We've seen the Catholic Response to human life. I really recommend buying a copy of the Catechism. Even if you're not Catholic or religious at all, it certainly shows, in the strongest language, the relationship between God, Government, and Humanity. It is the duty, therefore, of every Christian person. Indeed every HUMAN person, to stand up against this and demand that the sanctity of life be kept sacred.

The only difference between a human fetus and a 90 year old human being is time. Given time and opportunity, that human fetus can grow up to be a 90 year old human being. Given that reality, it is the same crime, if not a greater one for the amount of time lost, to deprive a developing human life of their chance to grow up and grow old, of their liberty to live life and pursue happiness, as it is to do the same thing to an 18 year old adult. Only that spiritually speaking, the 18 year old adult isn't necessarily an innocent soul. Theologically? Most likely that 18 year old isn't.

For those who don't believe in God? Very well. Here's a challenge.

In biological taxonomy, that is to say, the classification of life, there are 5 Kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Monera.

Protista, Monera, as well as a good deal of the other three Kingdoms, are comprised of single celled organisms. The entire science of microbiology is devoted to single-celled organisms. Plankton to Viruses, Algae to Bacteriae.

We define these organisms as 'living'. They carry out the basic necessities of Biological life.

Conventional Definition of Life requires satisfaction of 7 different criteria. If the 7 criteria are satisfied, the organism in question is considered 'alive'.

Homeostasis - Regulating the internal environment to maintain constancy.
Organization - Being constructed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism - Consumption of chemicals and conversion to energy (anabolism) and decomposing material (catabolism).
Growth - Maintaining a higher rate of Anabolism than Catabolism.
Adaptation - Ability to change over time in response to environmental changes.
Response to Stimuli - Exhibiting response to a certain stimulus affecting the organism.
Reproduction - The ability to produce new organisms.

By these 7 Criteria we define life. A human fetus exhibits Growth, Metabolism, and Organization as well as Homeostasis from the time of conception when an egg is fertilized. That's 4 down, 3 to go.

Adaptation - The human cells in the body react constantly to environmental stimuli. The growing fetus will change. As it grows older in the womb and displays higher and higher levels of organization, babies like to kick and punch. While we coo and giggle, and mom is usually groaning in pain from having the little tyke beat her up from the inside out, this is a reaction to environmental stimuli. An Adaptation as the infant grows older and fights for room. Shifting and moving around. Not good enough? A mother's nutritional stimuli can give a child problems. Changing the environment by getting sick or eating unhealthy leads the child to have to develop other means of dealing with, or adapting to, these changes. Also, these adaptations result in the formation of the Umbilical Cord, which becomes useless after birth, and that's why it is snipped and falls off after a time.

Response to Stimuli - A fetus has an immune system, one that reacts if mommy gets sick, or even if mommy's blood type is too different. We've seen ultrasound images of unborn infants shying away from the harsh instruments used to perform abortions. But then again, it's only natural to shy away when someone is trying to dismember you.

Reproduction - The creation of new organisms. Here is where things get tricky. Children, even born, cannot reproduce. They have to at least enter puberty for reproduction to be viable. So if the production of other human being offspring is the definition of reproduction? I'd have to say that every child fresh from the womb to about 9 or 10 years old at the beginnings of puberty is not 'alive', failing at this crucial reproductive stage. But then again, so are puppies and kittens and every newborn infant child of almost any species on earth. Even plants and fungi take time to mature before they are able to reproduce. But what we DO reproduce, is cells. The basic unit of life which, by itself in single celled organisms, comprises probably into the 80's if not 90% range of life on the planet Earth. From the moment we are born, our bodies renew themselves and reproduce the cells that we need to carry on life. Even babies lose skin cells and their blood cells die to be recycled in the body. So if that is how we define reproduction, or if we are to say 'wait until maturity' then humans, including unborn fetuses are alive.

Please note: There is not one mention of religion, morality, Christianity, or anything outside of the realm of simple grade school biology here.

That said, we've defined human life in a spiritual context as well as in a scientific context. Both seem to agree that a fetus is a human life. Biologically speaking a human fetus carries on the 7 life functions. Theologically and Philosophically speaking a human being is a human life, regardless of the biological stage of development.

So Mister Obama. You were just inaugurated. While I forgive you for this... abomination against human life and dignity, I abhor your actions and those of your fellow people who consider themselves 'enlightened'. You've sent a clear message Mister President. It's not ok to defend life and liberty in America by stopping terrorism overseas and killing terrorists. But it's perfectly ok to deprive an innocent unborn child of their life and liberty.

So much for Hope.

So much for Change.

A problem from the Crusades

2009-01-14T12:22:00.000-08:00

So I've gotten through my first week and a half of Graduate school, and so far? I'm LOVING it. A hell of a lot of work? Oh yeah, you bet. I'm reading so much, that I swear I've got thesis statements, primary sources, and commentaries coming out of my ears. I decided however, to check the news today, and found a little something refreshing. A Hollywood star, Mickey Rourke, saying that Bush isn't to blame for everything in the world. Including Islamic Terrorism! What a concept! While whack-jobs like Michael Moore and others tend to blame the United States for terrorism, Mickey Rourke seems to hit the nail on the head. Especially when he says "I don't give a f**k who's in office, Bush or whoever, there is no simple solution to this problem... I'm not one of those who blames Bush for everything. This s**t between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades, doesn't it?"

Indeed. It goes back to before the Crusades actually.

In a day and age when we have nations like Iran rattling a nuclear saber, Muslim extremists willing to suicide bomb buses, planes, trains, and any other mass transit service in the West that they can manage to get on, and even more rumblings from the Middle East, it occurs to me that there are a lot of people asking 'Why?'.

Well, let's examine a brief outline of the conflict between Muslim and Christian and Jew in history.

In the beginning... Wait wait wait. Too far, right? Well not really.

The time? The Roman Empire's hey day. The very first Imperator has been declared as Augustus Caesar has wiped out his enemies including Cleopatra and Marc Antony. The Battle of Actium decided 31 years prior, Augustus is secure in his power.

In a tiny little backwater called Palestine by the Romans, Judea specifically, there's a little child that is born that will shake and crumble the very foundations of the Roman Empire. In His name, wars will be fought, wars will be ended, and a world will be saved from utter destruction and desolation. On the local level? He's going to shake up things for the Rabbis of the Temple of Jerusalem like they've never been shaken up before. The birth of Christ on Earth is one of the biggest fundamental changes in Antiquity, and at first? There was outright war and persecution on this sect. Not originally its own religion for a very, very, very long time, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism. Indeed, it isn't until Saint Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, that we see non-Jews really take up the Christian lifestyle and faith.

Fast Forward 300 years or so. Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Day before the battle, according to legend, Constantine, outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and having to take a crucial choke point, receives a vision. In the sky, he sees the Greek letter Chi imposed over the Greek letter Rho. A voice echoed out to him, and he heard the phrase "In hoc signo vincit". "In This Sign, You Shall Conquer". Quickly ordering his soldiers to paint their shields with the symbol, Constantine won an insanely impossible victory, securing his dominance of the Roman Empire. Constantine claims that it was the God of Christianity which aided him in the battle. And why not? After all, the word Christ in Greek is spelled with the first two letters, Chi and Rho. And that God has a tendency to help his people in battles. Remember the walls of Jericho? The Ark of the Covenant? See? Watching Indiana Jones IS educational! So Constantine decides later on that he needs something to unify his new empire. What better to do it, than religion? Judaism is too difficult. Too localized, restricted, and would force the Romans to give up WAY too much to be observant of Jewish tradition. Why not stick with paganism then? Well that's too fractious. One city venerates and holds major ceremonies for one god, the next town over is celebrating a totally different one. How can anyone be unified in an empire where they can't even agree what festival to celebrate to honor which deity? Christianity? Ahhhh now there is an idea! Christianity venerates their patrons in a certain manner. By Constantine's time, men like Saint Paul, Saint Peter, Saint Jude, etc. were spoken of reverently. And if Constantine was right? Then it was the Christian God that helped him out at the battle that gave him his power to begin with. So what does he do? Legalizes Christianity. Persecution stops, and the mortar of The Roman Empire is laid down to stop the cracks from forming. Indeed, it helped keep the Roman Empire going long after it should have fallen. Through controversy and heresy, Rome existed because Christianity gave stability to a world where there might be 5 emperors in any given short period, each one assassinated by the ones which came after.

Note that while the Empire has legalized Christianity, persecution didn't necessarily end entirely. Later emperors would rescind Constantine's orders and reopen persecution. During all this time, Jerusalem is in the hands of the Romans, who have given local control over to governors that rule over the Jewish people. Effectively? It's in the hands of the Jews who run most of the day to day operations of the people. The Romans just sit around collecting taxes and occasionally dispensing justice. As with any conqueror, the Romans only ever wanted the Three T's of conquest. Taxes. Tribute. And No Trouble.

Ok. Now to fast forward about another 300 years and simultaneously rewind a bit. Yep. We gotta do both. Out in the desert wilderness, a young pagan Arabic man named Muhammed receives a vision, apparently from the Archangel Gabriel, declaring that Muhammed is the new prophet of Allah, that is to say, God. The new religion? Islam. Now for the slight rewind and the very beginning of the conflict between Islam and the Western religions.

Theologically, it's all about inheritance. In Judeo-Christian theology, God came to Abraham and told Him that Abraham and his wife Sarai would have children and descendants that would be greater than the number of stars in the sky. Sarai, doubting the Lord, and her own fertility, (they were both well into their old age, we're talking REAL old), gives up her slave, Hagar, to sleep with Abraham. A bit later, Hagar turns up pregnant. A bit later than that? Sarai, now known as Sarah, turns up pregnant! Hagar's child, Ishmael, is born first. He is the first born child. Sarah's son Isaac is the second born child, but is the only of the two children to be born within the legitimate marriage of Abraham and Sarah.

Hagar and Ishmael are sent out into the desert while Isaac inherits the covenant with God. Islam traces its theological roots back to Ishmael, claiming that as the first born son, however legitimate, the God made His covenant with Abraham pass to Ishmael. And thus, Judaism basically after the book of Genesis is outside of the Grace of God. Jesus? Although this claim is made, they still hold that Jesus is one of the Prophets or Emissaries of God, and that the 'one who will come after' that Jesus was to prepare the way for? Muhammed.

In the desert, Islam splits as Muhammed dies, and left in the wake of these three religions, is one major city that has had so much blood shed inside of it, it's a wonder that the streets aren't permanently dyed red.

Jerusalem. Revered as the site of the Temple of Solomon, today only to be seen as the Western Wall, or the Wailing Wall. It is an important city for Jews. Revered for the same site, which Jesus, in his later life, cleansed of the moneylenders. As well as being revered for the sites of the Last Supper at the Cenacle, and the "Mount of Skulls" Golgotha, where the crucifixion of Christ is reputed to take place, as well as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre all mark this as a very significant pilgrimage for Christianity. Islam too lays claim to Jerusalem, in 620 A.D., Muhammed was apparently teleported there to the Temple Mount where he ascended into Heaven and met with the prophets of Islam. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, marks this place for Islamic pilgrims. And because of this, it becomes a holy city to Islam as well.

Fast forwarding a wee bit further, though not too much, to the 11th century. The West is starting to come into its own. The East under the Byzantine Empire, is a fraction of what it once was, comprising a bit of Western Turkey, much of the Balkans, and several of the larger islands of the Aegean Sea. A very benign Arab ruler, Omar Ebno 'L Alchitab stated that regarding religious privileges of pilgrims, "They shall be protected and secured both in their lives and fortunes, and their churches shall neither be pulled down nor made use of by any but themselves.". This sort of 'peace' was kept for hundreds of years, until closer to the end of the 11th century. With the fall of the city of Jerusalem to the far more vehement and savage Seljuk Turks, thousands were massacred, and heavy taxes were levied upon Christian pilgrims attempting to visit holy sites in the city. Those pilgrims who could not pay the tax? They were beaten or killed. Back in the West, Pope in exile, Urban II declared "Deus Vult!" "God Wills It!", opening the First Crusade in 1092. Armies all over the Christian West, and even in the Byzantine East, mobilized to fight the Islamic Seljuk Turks. The Byzantines had been fighting them for years, and were fairly relieved that their Western brethren were mobilizing to come to their aid. England, France, and the Holy Roman Emperor marched to war. Stephen, Count of Blois, and Hugh of Vermandois represented France. From England, the elder brother of King William the Conqueror, Robert of Normandy marched. Other major barons and lords took part in the successful Princes' Crusade. Antioch was sieged first, in 1097. By 1099? Jerusalem fell after an apparently miraculous vision led a priest, Peter Desiderius, to recreate the marching around the walls of Jericho. The holy land came into Christian hands at a bloody cost. Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Byzantine Christians alike were slaughtered. Nearly everyone in Jerusalem. According to Fulcher of Chartres? "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared." Such is the brutality of medieval warfare. We must remember however, that a similar slaughter took place when the Seljuk Turks had taken over Jerusalem, and the killings of pilgrims over the years until the First Crusade were also held in the minds of the Crusader Knights.

Throughout the years following, until 1291 with the Siege of Acre, it was really a matter of coincidence who's hand various parts of the Holy Land remained in. By 1291 however, the Crusades were effectively ended, as the main region of Judea and Palestine remained in Muslim hands until 1918. The Ottoman Turks had picked the wrong side in World War 1, and as a price? Paid for their mistake with their Empire. The Empire which lasted from around 1299 to the years following 1918, was destroyed and handed over, much of it at least, to British hands, including the Holy City. In 1922, the League of Nations at the Conference of Lausanne gave the British, the Palestine Mandate. Were things quiet? Not particularly, no, but they weren't violent either. The British, after all, were very good, historically, at keeping people in check. We see in India that it's only a short time after the British left, that massacres between Hindus and Muslims began. The same occured in Jerusalem. When the United Nations in 1947 moved for the creation of an International Regime to rule over the city of Jerusalem. In 1948 however, the British pulled out of the Palestine region, and war erupted. In 1949, the citizens of the declared Independent Israel had reached an armistice agreement with Jordan, dividing the city of Jerusalem much like Berlin was divided after 1945. Jordan's actions of annexing East Jerusalem have only ever been recognized officially by Pakistan. No other nation has ever recognized that as valid.

During the ensuing 6 Day War of 1967, where Israel fought Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, the city of Jerusalem was unified, and modern Israel as we know it was created, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip being under Jewish Israeli rule.

By the end of 1967, we'd come full circle in about as many years. From a tiny Roman province mostly under the control of Jewish people who paid their taxes, to a modern Israeli state, we see that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have all fought, killed, and died for the city that all three religions consider holy. The question we must ask ourselves is this, ladies and gentlemen. We know that Israel has opened up pilgrimages for people of ALL faiths to visit their respective shrines and the city. Is this something that we can afford to lose to radical Muslim domination? The kind which is exhibited by Iran? Or the Taliban? It seems to me that it would be far better to leave the city in Jewish hands and just forget the whole thing. To be content with visiting our sites freely, and enjoying the religious freedom afforded by Israel's current rulership is a far better thing than to fight over it and ruin it for everyone. Muslims today are claiming that Israel has no right to claim Jerusalem, and that Muslims where there since 1299. I have news for those Muslims. Christianity and Judaism have had claim for far longer than Islam. Live and let live. While not the case in the historical past of the Crusades? It is the case now. And who is it that is constantly suicide bombing plazas? restaurants? etcetera? Christians? Jews? No. Radical Islam. The only religious child born of the same cradle of the world in that same general region that cannot be content to live and let live with its brothers.

You're right Mickey Rourke. It has been going on since the Crusades, and a whole heck of a lot longer. And honestly? If Radical Islam doesn't whip itself into shape, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new round of modern Crusades start up.

Merry Christmas and Christianity

2008-12-26T11:47:00.000-08:00

No sooner do I finish the last Christmas post, explaining how fundamental Christmas and the birth of Christ is to Christianity, than I sign in to my favorite news source and see a link there to this story.

Long story short? The employee wanted to say Merry Christmas since she doesn't recognize Hannukah or Ramadan or Kwanzaa. After all, Jews don't recognize Christmas as a legitimate holiday, nor do Muslims recognize Christmas or Passover during their holy month of Ramadan. Do they realize that there are people out there who celebrate other holidays? Yes. But by professing faith in one religion, we profess that we do not hold other faiths and their observances as valid. Observant Jews do not believe in or celebrate Christmas. Why? Because Jesus is not the Messiah to a Jew. That is their particular choice in faith, and they are welcome to it. In America we have a freedom of religion, a freedom of religion that apparently, certain employers, even as deep south as the state of Florida, do not recognize. What does freedom of religion entail? It entails that any person in the United States is entitled to practice their faith openly without fear of repercussions, without fear of persecution, and without fear of being oppressed.

So why then are Christians everywhere forced to say "Happy Holidays" and in a small way, betray their faith by recognizing the legitimacy of other viewpoints? Do not mistake my question for one of intolerance and saying that Christianity or any religion is entitled to deny other people their right to worship. Only that Christians do not have to accept the doctrine of Islam that requires them to recognize Ramadan, just as Jews do not have to accept that Christ is the Messiah. Yet every year around Christmas more and more companies force their employees to be 'politically correct' by telling them that Christmas is not allowed, effectively suppressing an employee's religious freedom. It isn't just Christianity that suffers though, it's every religion who suffers because someone out there in left field believes that someone else will be offended by it.

In the above mentioned story, we have a woman who refused to say Happy Holidays. She doesn't believe in those other 'holidays' because she is not of the faith that those holidays derive their doctrine from. She's not Muslim, so Ramadan to her? Is something for someone else. Hannukah? Again, something for someone else, but it's not a holiday to her and her faith. She opted, instead of saying Merry Christmas, which apparently the company would not allow her to say, and instead of saying Happy Holidays, which went against her belief, to use the non-Holiday telephone greeting that her company uses the other 330 days a year.

This was apparently unacceptable to her supposedly 'Christian' employers. "We are a Christian company and we celebrate Christmas," said Andy Phillips, the company's president. Really? Then why is it such a big deal? Why is it big enough to fire her over? She's not violating company policy by answering the phone the way she does for most of the year. And no company. No government. No person on this Earth has the right to force their beliefs and values on any person.

A response to this news, was written by one G. Thomas Harper, a Jacksonville based attorney who works in employment and labor law. "I wouldn't think an employee has the right to insist (on saying Merry Christmas) unless that really is a tenet of their faith. She would have to make a strong case that was part of her beliefs, if not, it becomes insubordination," he said.

One would think that Christmas, being a Christian holiday, would be considered a tenet of the faith as much as Easter and the rising of Christ from the dead. The two most talked about things in the Bible, from the Old Testament Prophets such as Isaiah, to the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul and other Saints, are Christ's birth and Christ's death, with Christ's death being the subject of the most importance.

Apparently the courts have to decide on this one as the employee's lawsuit goes to trial. Hammurabi's law codes are fine to be displayed in a court. But the law codes of the Hebrews are not. It's fine to say "Happy Holidays" but to wish someone a Merry Christmas is not. It's all right to have a moment of silence in a school, but it's not ok to say 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance or allow students to pray.

Our society has become so obsessed with political correctness and the fear of offending someone that it has offended time and again the majority of people in that society. When atheists comprise less than 3% of society in the world, why are we concerned with their feelings at the expense of the other 97%? Perhaps it is in the religious, Christian, Judaic, and yes even at times Muslim teachings, not to mention the Eastern religions which teach profound respect for the sanctity of other people, that we set ourselves up for failure. But it is time to stop. Sadly? This woman is forced into an inferior job because one supposedly Christian company attempted to circumvent the Constitution. It's a shame really. And what will be more of a shame? Is if the court denies this claim. The law is made to protect individuals from persecution. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in America. As well as the right to freedom of religion. Yet companies like Counts-Oakes Resorts Properties Inc. apparently don't feel the same way as the Founding Fathers of this great nation (all of whom were religious).

Christmas post #6 - Joy

2008-12-26T10:19:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I'm a day late. Story of my life. My apologies for not getting this out on Christmas Day, but I admit between the presents, family, food, festivities, and enjoyment of spending the holidays with my parents and brother, I got caught up and carried away.

On the very day of Joy, we are called to remember that Christ was born. We all know that Christmas is the birth of Christ. We know about the wise men. We know about the shepherds. And now? An exploration of Joy. Of happiness and the instructions for the Christian faith contained in the song Joy to the World.

Originally composed by George Friedrich Handel, as part of the Oratorio "Messiah", written in 1741, Joy to the World has been adapted slightly as the words have been changed over time. Perhaps one of the most well known Christmas songs, Joy to the World is an easy standard of Christianity.

Joy to the world! the Lord is come;
Let earth receive her King;
Let every heart prepare him room,
And heaven and nature sing,
And heaven and nature sing,
And heaven, and heaven, and nature sing.

Joy to the world! the Lord is come/Let earth receive her King/Let every heart prepare Him room/And heaven and nature sing/And heaven and nature sing/And heaven and heaven and nature sing.
Expressing Joy at the coming of the Lord is natural. It's what we're supposed to do. We saw explained in O Holy Night how the world was waiting for a long time in sin, waiting for the Joy of the birth of the Savior. Earth truly DID receive her king. As the old medieval feudal hierarchy points out, God is the ruler of Earth. Every heart should prepare Him room. Now what about this? Jesus came to prepare the way, just as John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus. Jesus, at his arrival, was the road upon which the Holy Spirit traveled into humanity and gave us a renewed connection to God. Heaven and Nature. Earth and God's own realm, should sing in praise. Remember the prayer to the Lord that Christ taught? "Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." As above? So below.

Joy to the world! the Saviour reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.

Joy to the world! the Savior reigns/Let men their songs employ/While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains/Repeat the sounding joy/Repeat the sounding joy/Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.
A repetition of the message of the first verse. The Earth repeats the Joy that the will of God is being done as Christ is God incarnate upon Earth.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

No more let sins and sorrows grow/Nor thorns infest the ground/He comes to make His blessings flow/Far as the curse is found/Far as the curse is found/Far as, far as, the curse is found.
This verse refers to the parable of the sower found in Matthew 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-12, and Luke 8:4-10. A sower, scattering seeds, has several different outcomes. Satan scoops some away immediately as birds come down to eat the seeds on the path. Some fall on rocky ground and spring up quickly, but without deep roots (faith), they die as soon as the sun came out. Other seeds fell among thorns, that is to say, other people, who choked the life from and persecuted the faith of those seeds, and they were choked and killed. Other seeds fall on fertile soil and produce grain. This verse is saying that Jesus has come to make his blessings known to all of the world as far and wide as the 'curse' that is, the curse of a broken relationship with God through Sin.

He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.

He rules the world with truth and grace/And makes the nations prove/The glories of His righteousness/And wonders of His love/And wonders of His love/And wonders, wonders, of His love
Referring both to the works of the Apostles after His death, working wonders in His name and proving His grace and truth, as Jesus gathered together Apostles from disparate nations and backgrounds, as well as to the modern world. He calls upon us to work wonders of His love. Not moving mountains whole or parting oceans, but working for Him and His will, treating our neighbors and our fellow human beings as well as our environment with love, respect, and compassion.

Christmas post #5 - Night

2008-12-24T18:20:00.000-08:00

The night has arrived. In Bethlehem nearly two thousand years ago, a small manger, normally filled with hay or barley to feed to animals, was filled with a new kind of food. A food for the soul. A food that nourishes the heart. That manger, from which humble donkeys, sheep, and oxen would normally eat, now held the babe that would feed thousands. Who's words would inspire some of the greatest acts of compassion, mercy, love, and charity that the world has ever seen. Chicken Soup for the Soul? Christ was a feast fit for Heaven itself, and who was it for? Everyone. From the most holy of the rabbis at the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, straight down to the beggars in the street. To observant Jews, and practicing pagan Gentiles. To those who had come before and died, those who walked in His presence, and those who were yet to be born. Children, the elderly, and healthy adults alike, Christ came to give up His body and blood to fill the hunger and thirst of our souls. The hunger and thirst for the love, that pure unadulterated and unconditional love that only our grand Maker in Heaven can have for us, His broken children.

That holy evening, wise men from nearby Persia who were students of astronomy and astrology came to a tiny town in a backwater of Judea, the City of David, and brought gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Shepherds came to wonder at the child. The very child who united rich and poor. Who cared not about skin color, language, culture, but only of the human heart.

In the 19th century, French poet and wine merchant, Placide Cappeau wrote a poem for Christmas for his friend, a parish priest. In 1847, Adolphe Adam wrote music for the simple poem, Minuit Chrétiens. In1855, Unitarian minister John Sullivan Dwight translated the words into the song we know today: O Holy Night.

O holy night! The stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of our dear Saviour's birth.
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
'Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

Fall on your knees! O, hear the angels' voices!
O night divine, O night when Christ was born;
O night divine, O night, O night Divine.

O holy night! The stars are brightly shining/It is the night of our dear Savior's birth
It was the night of the birth of our Savior. And that night, there was a star, which glowed brightly in the heavens. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold there came Wise men from te East to Jerusalem, saying "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his Star in the East, and are come to worship him." . . . When they had heard the King, they departed, and loe, the Star which they saw in the East, went before them 'til it came and stood over where the young child lay." (Matthew 2:1-9).

Long lay the world, in sin and error pining/'Til he appeared and the soul felt its worth/A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices/For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn
For a long time, the world had been wallowing in Sin. Sin, being a state of a broken relationship with God, makes the soul cry out for the love of our Father, pining away, wanting for that relationship to be healed. It was this state until He appeared in human form, Jesus Christ, and the human soul rejoiced. Weary no more, the soul had hope. Darkness ended, and the Light of lights descended from heaven.

Fall on your knees! O hear the angels' voices/O night divine, O night when Christ was born/O night divine, O night when Christ was born
The night of Christmas, that holy evening, was when Christ came to us, and it was then, as we see in the Gospel according to Saint Luke, that "the Angel said unto them, Fear not: For behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. . . . And suddenly there was ith the Angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and sayng, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, and good will towards men.'" (Luke 2:10-14). Fall on your knees world. Fall on your knees and thank God from the bottoms of your hearts for the beautiful gift of love.

Led by the light of Faith serenely beaming,
With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand.
So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming,
Here come the wise men from Orient land.
The King of Kings lay thus in lowly manger;
In all our trials born to be our friend.

He knows our need, to our weakness is no stranger,
Behold your King! Before Him lowly bend!
Behold your King, Behold your King.

Led by the light of Faith serenely beaming/With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand/So led by light of a star sweetly gleaming/Here come the wise men from Orient land
Led by the light of Faith. Faith, that beautiful word. It is in our Faith in Christ as God that we heal our broken relationships and find salvation. It is in our Faith, not works, not pride of our good deeds, not attending church luncheons, not singing in your local choir, or donating to give your church that new sound system. It is in Faith that we are drawn to Jesus. Even today, the Holy Spirit, the God within us that Jesus paved the way for with His presence, draws us in on our Faith, bringing us into the Grace of God. With glowing hearts, hearts glowing with the light of mankind that John referenced in his Gospel: "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4). Comparing us with the Wise men who were drawn to Christ from the East, we too are drawn by the light, not of a star, but of Faith.

The King of kings, thus in lowly manger/In all our trials, born to be our friend/He knows our need/To our weakness, is no stranger/Behold your king! Before Him, lowly bend!/Behold your king!/Behold your king!
Story time. In the Russian novel, "The Brothers Karamazov", the fervent rationalist brother, Ivan, argues with his brother Aloysha who is an Orthodox Priest, that there are so many supposed 'good Christians' in the world who betray themselves and their faith by acting towards their fellow men with barbarity, including to children, citing several horrific examples of child abuse that would even make our modern hearts cringe in disgust and pity. Ivan makes the point that if believing in Christ and salvation means that people are saved who act like that? That he would 'hand the ticket back, for the price is too high'. But that's just it. In those trials, in those hardships of those children, Christ was there. Christ was not some distant figure who died almost two thousand ears ago. Christ was not some being who doesn't care and is so far removed from humanity that He cannot be there for us. Christ was human. He loved. He cared. Especially for children. And in all of our trials, He was born specifically to be there among humanity. To be there with us through everything in the form of the Holy Spirit within us. The King of kings was born as lowly as can be, to be with us. The common people and the rich alike.

Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother;
And in His name all oppression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we,
Let all within us praise His holy name.

Christ is the Lord! O praise His Name forever,
His power and glory evermore proclaim.
His power and glory evermore proclaim.

Truly He taught us to love one another/His law is love and his gospel is peace
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath no one, that someone lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13), as well as "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35). The commandment of love, and peace. That is how we know what God is. Jesus IS God. And Jesus loved and commanded us to love one another.

Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother/And in His name all oppression shall cease/Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we/Let all within us praise His holy name
Meant originally as a theological support for Abolition of Slavery in Britain and the Christian world, one can see the very Christian meaning here. The oppression of Sin. The bondage we were in to the powers of hell. All of it ceased. Why? Faith in Christ. Faith that He allowed us to have. The slaves ARE our brothers and sisters, brothers and sisters who live in Sin that we can save from oppression through the ministry of Christ, but it should never grow into a ministry of oppression. We should praise Him, in those sweet hymns of joy that mimic the angels. Remember Luke 2:10-14? "You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) With all we have and are, we should praise Him.

Christ is the Lord! O praise His name forever/His power and glory evermore proclaim/His power and glory evermore proclaim.
Christ IS the Lord. He is not merely the Son of God, created for a purpose. Remember the Arian controversy? Christ is of the same essence as the Father. Christ IS God. Christ IS Emmanuel, God with us. His power and glory evermore proclaim that HE is the answer to our prayers for salvation.

Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow is Christmas Day. I sincerely hope that any of you reading this will have a safe, beautiful, loving, blessed Christmas. Even if you are far away from family, even if there are those who will never be there around the Christmas tree again, know that we are all united in that beautiful Christmas gift that rested under a star so long ago. That gift of love, faith, and hope that God gave to us. Merry Christmas, and I hope some will tune in, perhaps after the holiday, to see my open gift on here, an analysis of another song especially for Christmas Day.

Christmas post #4 - Angels

2008-12-23T23:15:00.000-08:00

So we saw in post number 3 the mentioning of angels. And we put angels or stars on top of our Christmas trees. Why? Because it symbolizes the Archangel Gabriel, the chief of God's messengers. God's own herald. He's that great guy who came to Joseph and told him about Mary being pregnant. He told Mary she was going to BE pregnant. He's that neato guy that led the heavenly host in the 'glory of heaven' when he announced Christ's birth to the shepherds in the fields. He was the same guy who also came to Joseph and warned him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt to avoid the slaughtering of the children by King Herod (Yeah that guy was REALLY nasty in antiquity). So in a bit of a tribute to good ol' Gabriel and all his work that he did for God being the grandest messenger boy (and probably the patron saint of the postal service) in the history of the world.

The year? 1739. The person? Charles Wesley, brother of John Wesley the founder of the Methodist Church in England. The next person? Felix Mendelssohn in 1840. And last but not least, in 1855, William Cummings, an English musician. Charles Wesley wrote the original song and lyrics, but was a fan of the much more somber and grave songs that had dominated ecclesiastical music for centuries. A hundred years or so later, Felix Mendelssohn wrote a piece of music for a cantata to commemmorate the creation of the printing press by Gutenberg. Lastly? William Cummings said "Hey this piece of music fits these lyrics and makes a pretty wonderful song..." And combined Mendelssohn's music with Wesley's words, creating what we know today and the subject of this Christmas post: Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!

Hark! The Herald Angels sing:
"Glory to the newborn King"
Peace on earth and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled.
Joyful all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem!"
Hark! The herald angels sing:
"Glory to the newborn King"

Hark! The Herald Angels sing/Glory to the newborn King
As we've seen in Silent Night and Let All Mortal Flesh..., the Angels proclaiming the birth of Christ as the King is well established in both the old and the new testament.

Peace on Earth and mercy mild/God and sinners reconciled/Joyful all ye nations rise/Join the triumph of the skies/With the angelic host proclaim/"Christ is Born in Bethlehem"
We see in the book of Isaiah, Chapter 9, Verse 6 "For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". That very Prince of Peace is Jesus Christ come to Earth to spread the mercy of God "but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:7). God and sinners are reconciled. The broken relationship dating back through Original Sin all the way to now is healed. Jesus as God with Us (Emmanuel) preparing the way for the Holy Spirit who is God withIN us. All the nations rise and join the triumph of heaven. All people of all nations, not just the nation of Israel, have cause for celebration.

Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Christ by highest heav'n adored/Christ the everlasting Lord!/Late in time behold Him come/Offspring of a Virgin's womb/Veiled in flesh the Godhead see/Hail the incarnate Deity
"Of the increase of His government and Peace there will be no end..." (Isaiah 9:7). Christ IS the everlasting Lord. This also refers to the Temple in the sky that Christ references as building without hands throughout all four gospels. It took a long time for Jesus to come. The Israelites were constantly being shoved into one exile after another. First they tried a patriarchy with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and the rest. That didn't work. Then they thought of high Judges. Well we saw how well Sampson worked out sporting a crew cut. Then there were the Kings, Saul, David, and Solomon. Those didn't work out too well to be honest either. Finally we have the prophets. Isaiah, Elijah, and Elisha, as well as the minor prophets that follow. During this time we also had Moses leading them out of Exile in Egypt only to have them relax just so the Babylonians could come take them away and return them again as a very fractured people. Jesus definitely came late to the party. The Virgin Mary is something that not many Protestants understand, so I'm going to take the simplest answer I can and plop it out here. Original Sin is something that is a human trait. We're all born with it. We're all created by it. Jesus is fully human and fully divine. That's the dual nature of Christ in one person. He's fully human so He is one of us and can feel and experience all of the things that we can and do. He's fully divine so that He can conquer death and reconcile God to us. He IS the living bridge between Heaven and Earth. In order however, to make sure that His human side was not tainted and broken away from God by Original Sin, the Sin of Adam and Eve in Eden, Jesus had to be born without it. But how is he going to be born without it if Mommy dearest, Fully human mommy dearest, has Original Sin? Simple. Make Mary a virgin birth as well. Mary was utterly clean and came into and lived in this world as an obedient and Virginal woman, free from Original Sin. THAT is why Mary is so very important.

Pleased as man with man to dwell/Jesus, our Emmanuel
Christ came to this world not as an Angel. He didn't come down as a burning bush. He didn't come down as anything else that could be encountered by people who would immediately know Him as God. As a matter of fact, He came down here as an ordinary guy. Even the Apostles never really figure it out until the Transfiguration found in Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36. And even then it's only three of his Apostles, Peter, John, and James, who find out and they're sworn to secrecy! So Jesus was content to come live among humanity as a man without everyone knowing, and of course Jesus is God as well. Jesus, our Emmanuel, the God with us.

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!/Hail the Son of Righteousness/Light and life to all He brings/Ris'n with healing in His wings
He is the Prince of Peace. He is the Son of God who by definition is Righteousness, Justice, Love, Virtue, and Grace. Jesus brings Light into Darkness (See John 1:1-14). You know that bit in Genesis where there was Darkness and suddenly there was Light? Then life? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5) It was through Jesus that God created everything. Pretty powerful stuff we're dealing with here now. Risen with healing in His wings. His entire mission here on Earth, the purpose behind Him coming down was to heal the rifts between Heaven and Earth. Could Jesus have set up shop in Jerusalem as a worker of wonders and just tapped people all day long to heal their diseases? Sure He could have. But that's not Christ's job. His job isn't to heal the physical ailment of the body, something bound to the Earth. His job is to heal the ailment of the soul that is the separation from the Eternal love of our Heavenly father.

Mild he lays his glory by/Born that man no more may die/Born to raise the sons of Earth/Born to give them second birth
What did I just say? He lays the Glory of Heaven. He leaves it all behind to be here among us, meek and mild mannered. Born that man no more may die, to raise the sons of Earth, to give them second birth? He's come to give us eternal life in heaven with God. He's come to raise up the sons of Earth, us, humanity, humankind, and give us a new life. A NEW life, not the OLD life. A NEW life, a Second Birth. One where we will not be separated from the love, glory, and grace of heaven and our Father.

If there was ever a Christmas gift given, that is bar none the greatest one of all. A Father who loves all of us, yes ALL of us, so much that He is willing to tear Himself open, to share in our suffering by dying for all of us. Why? To prove a point that He's God? To guilt trip us every Sunday into feeling bad about what we did Monday through Saturday? No!

Because God hurt and ached when humanity betrayed God's love in paradise. When humankind turns away from that grace that God offers, it hurts. And God has reached out to everyone, offering them a hand, saying in a quiet, demure, mild voice of a man dying on a cross, that He would not be God without us. That He refused to exist any longer without us in His life. He was willing to live for us and give us life to be with Him. And He was willing to die for us to bring us back closer to Him. There is no greater love ladies and gentlemen, than to live and die to be there with another person. God did that for everyone, past, present, and future.

I hope those reading this enjoyed number 4. Only 2 more to go! Join us tomorrow evening, Christmas Eve, for O Holy Night, and then Christmas Day for that beautiful work by Handel, Joy to the World!

Christmas post #3 - Mortality

2008-12-22T21:54:00.000-08:00

I apologize for this one being out late, but it couldn't be helped. I had difficulty figuring out which song I'd work on today, but when it hit me, boy did it ever HIT me. I think a Mack truck would have left less of an impression. The song today isn't a Christmas song, though it certainly has the lyrics of one. It's been put into Christmas CD's and others specifically because of its content, though you'll never hear it on any radio broadcast, not even likely on the Christian stations. The only reason I know about it was from an experience many many moons ago (about 11 now) when my piano teacher (who also taught voice) got together her students to sing in a full on choir to produce a Christmas show with narration. One of the songs in there just hit me with its arrangement, and it stuck with me. The song "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" is extremely solemn. Its words very poignant in their meaning, and very quiet, express some of the fundamental beliefs in Christianity.

Written as early as the 4th Century (that's right, before Rome fell people), as part of the Divine Liturgy of Saint James, it was intended as the Cherubic hymn for the Offertory. It was written originally, not in Latin, but in Greek.

So what? What's the big deal between Latin and Greek? That simple difference in language? Is a HUGE difference. But what it points to is that this song was not written in the Latin Roman West, nor was it truly likely used in the West as much as in the East. By the 4th Century, there was a clear split in the Empire between East and West, and especially after the Emperor Constantine relocated his Capitol City to Constantinople in the Eastern section of the Emperor. The dominant culture in the Aegean basin was Greek ever since the end of the Hellenistic Age started by Alexander the Great in the 300's BC. Despite Roman domination of the region, Latin never truly took hold. The Romans, great copiers of culture, were never able to copy Greek philosophy, learning, medicine, architecture, or legality enough to supplant Greek on its home turf. In the West, Latin became dominant. In the East, Greek reigned supreme, and this cultural and linguistic barrier would eventually lead to a full on split in the Christian church between the Latin Roman West and the Greek East, but this hadn't happened by the 4th century, even though the groundwork was there. The big significance we see from history affecting this song is the meaning and the symbolism. We've seen in Silent Night and before it in Veni, Veni Emmanuel, that the symbolism is there, yes, but it's not as driving or powerful as the words and symbolism here in this song. In later centuries as the split grew wider in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Church grew more and more dependent upon the Russian Empire, where illiteracy was rampant well into the 20th century. In order to give religion to the people and ensure that the meaning was plain, Eastern Orthodoxy developed as a sensory religion, moving away from liturgies filled with readings from a Bible and filled their liturgies with incense, chanting, ikons (extremely richly decorated paintings of biblical figures, mostly the Virgin Mary and Christ), as well as songs like this with descriptive imagery. Without further ado: "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence"

Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.

Let all mortal flesh keep silence/And with fear and trembling stand/Ponder nothing earthly minded
A reference to the 12 minor prophets of the Old Testament, who are collected in the Book of Habakkuk "But the Lord IS in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him." (Habakkuk 2:20). And with fear and trembling stand. But why would anyone fear God? Because. By all rights our own Sinful natures as human beings have forced our backs to be turned on God. By all rights, God should punish us, and in the Old Testament we see a lot of that. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Great Flood, the plagues on the Egyptians during the Israelite's captivity just to name a few of the more commonly known ones. Ponder nothing earthly minded. Referencing Paul's letter to the Galatians. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked: For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption: but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." (Galatians 6:7-8).

For with blessing in His hand/Christ our God to Earth descendeth/Our full homage to demand
This is why we should fear, but in truth we do not need to. That is one of the many miracles of God. His forgiveness and redemption, showcased right here in this 4th century hymn. Does Christ our God descend to Earth with vengeance and anger? No. With Blessing. All He asks in return is homage, which is faith that by knowing Jesus one knows God, and thus heals the relationship that was broken by Sin.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.

King of kings, yet born of Mary/As of old on earth He stood/Lord of lords in human vesture/In the body and the blood
Referring to the Gospel of John, an anti-Docetic gospel. Docetism was a problem plaguing the early church, as was the Arian controversy of the 3rd century, just 1 century before this hymn was written. Docetism denied that Christ was truly human, and Arianism, propogated by a Christian teacher named Arius. Short history lesson, I promise. 3rd Century rolls around. Great Christian teacher named Arius lives in Alexandria in Egypt. People come up and ask him, "Is Jesus the Son of God, meaning that God created Jesus?" Arius says "Yes! God created Jesus!" The bishop of Alexandria (A guy by the name of Alexander) at the time gets all sorts of distressed and goes to his chief scribe and theological buddy, Athanasius and asks him if that's really the truth. Athanasius says "Heck no! Jesus is of the same essence, begotten, not created or made by the Father". Long story short? Riots break out as Christians debate homoousia (the same essence) or homoiousia (similar essence). Constantine, new Emperor of the Roman Empire, calls a huge conference at Nicaea in 325, to help decide the whole issue. Athanasius' argument wins out. Why? Here's why. If Jesus is not God, then Jesus cannot forgive sins or save the souls of humanity. Only God can do that, and not even Arius would debate that fact that only God can save souls. End result? Arius was banished, the Nicene creed was written and made part of Christianity forevermore, and the whole thing happened again in 381 when the debate over the Holy Spirit arose. Back to the lyrics! Lord of Lords in Human Vesture/In the body and the Blood. Countering the heretical belief of Docetism, that Christ was not human, and making reference to John 1:14, as well as Paul's letter to the Philippians "But made himself of no reputaation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." (Philippians 2:7-8)

He will give to all the faithful/His own self for heavenly food
Do I really need to explain this passage? This is a pure reference to the last supper, and as I pointed out before, it was part of the Offertory section of the Liturgy of Saint James. This was sung in mass as the bread and wine were being brought to the altar, the Bread and Wine that, through the process of transubstantiation, become the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it: For this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:18-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25) This is the "Blessing in His hand" that He offers in exchange for our homage.

Rank on rank the host of heaven
Spreads its vanguard on the way,
As the Light of light descendeth
From the realms of endless day,
That the powers of hell may vanish
As the darkness clears away.

Rank on rank the host of heaven/Spreads its vanguard on the way/As the Light of light descendeth/From the realms of endless day
The host of heaven is the angels. Making reference to both the birth of Christ, where "the Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them..." (Luke 2:9) as well as the rest of the Bible, where the angels are mentioned, places like First Kings: "And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left." (1 Kings 22:19). The Light of lights is a reference to the opening verses of the Gospel according to Saint John "And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. . . That was the true light, which lighteth every man that commeth into the world." (John 1:5, 9)

That the powers of hell may vanish/As the darkness clears away
'The darkness comprehended it not'. Jesus Christ is God, and the message Jesus brings into our lives defeats the powers of hell. The temptations that Satan lays before us cannot compare with the redemption and grace that God offers to us through Jesus.

At His feet the six winged seraph,
Cherubim with sleepless eye,
Veil their faces to the presence,
As with ceaseless voice they cry:
Alleluia, Alleluia
Alleluia, Lord Most High!

At His feet the six winged seraph/Cherubim with sleepless eye/Veil their faces to the presence/As with ceaseless voice they cry/Alleluia, Alleluia/Alleluia, Lord Most High!
Referencing the different types of angels, first mentioned in the book of Isaiah. Seraphim were the six winged angels that sang the glories of the Lord. "I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the Temple. Above it stood the Seraphims: each one had six wings, with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly. And one cried unto another and said: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:1-3). The Cherubim were the angels sent to guard the entrance of Eden and are referenced time and again in the Old Testament, but perhaps very well by Paul in the letter to the Hebrews. He referred to the Cherubim as the guardians of the Holiest of Holies in the Temple of Solomon, wherein the Ark of the Covenant and the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments were held. "Above it were the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat." (Hebrews 9:5). It isn't just the Seraphim, it's the Cherubim as well, it's the whole of the heavenly host of angels that's crying with a ceaseless voice, the praises of the Lamb of God's coming into the world, and in covering their faces, even the angels of the heavenly host are showing deference to the Lord God, Jesus Christ.

Of all the renditions I've heard, I preferred the one arranged by Bob Krogstad for his show "The Thrill of Hope", but I recently found an arrangement of all four versus sung by a man by the name of Ryland Angel which is quite beautiful. Until later today folks! Tune in for Installment number 4 of the Christmas posts!

Christmas post #2 - Silence

2008-12-21T08:44:00.000-08:00

Welcome back Christmas fans and all you true believers (Sorry Stan Lee, I couldn't resist). For today's installment of the Christmas songs blog that we'll be visiting the song, Stille Nacht, or 'Silent Night'. A beautiful little song that most people know the words to. It also brings us a bit more into the modern day, since the song wasn't written until the 19th century. Josef Mohr and Franz Gruber sat down and wrote the lyrics and the music in 1818. It was originally composed as Stille Nacht and sung in Saint Nicholas Catholic Church in Oberndorf. It wasn't until 1863 that John Freeman Young translated Stille Nacht into Silent Night, the carol we enjoy today, though there is a lot to be said for hearing the carol in its original German. It is indeed, a very moving piece.

The piece is so moving in fact, that in 1914, the first year of World War 1, it silenced all war and hate. The First World War nearly died in its first year because of this season and faith represented by this song. Sung back and forth by German and British troops across the trenches. The songs, sung in disparate tongues, still conveyed the message of hope, love, and redemption for mankind, and all the guns were silenced. The trenches and no-man's land became a place of celebration as both armies crossed over, ate together, shared Christmas gifts, even played a few good natured games of soccer with one another. In subsequent years, Sir John French and Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien of the British military vowed that it would never happen again, and ordered continuous shellings on Christmas Eve to destroy any peace that might be fostered there in the midst of war. So remember that the next time someone claims that religion is the cause of all wars, point out to them that human beings cause war, and that the love preached by most religions is the counter-agent to war, and has even brought a stop to it.

Without any further ado, Stille Nacht/Silent Night.

Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!
Alles schläft; einsam wacht
Nur das traute heilige Paar.
Holder Knab im lockigten Haar,
Schlafe in himmlischer Ruh!
Schlafe in himmlischer Ruh!

Silent night, holy night!
All is calm, all is bright
'Round yon virgin mother and Child.
Holy infant so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace.
Sleep in heavenly peace.

Silent night, holy night/All is calm, all is bright/'Round yon virgin mother and Child.
Referring to the setting, the very night of Christmas. As the gospel of Luke puts it, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed" (Luke 2:1). The taxation rolls of the Roman Empire required a census, and the best way to ensure that citizens paid their due taxes, was to have them report to the city of their birth. After all, in one of the largest empires in history, and THE largest Empire in antiquity, it would be very easy for a merchant to claim that he'd paid his taxes in one city, move to another city, and claim he'd already paid his taxes elsewhere. In days where communication took months, even possibly years to reach from one end to the other, and well before the split of Western Rome and East, tax fraud must have been rampant. In order to counteract this, taxes were collected by census rolls which were kept by the Roman government. Joseph and a very pregnant Mary traveled to Bethlehem. By the time they got there, they were some of the last to arrive, so the night of Christ's birth into the world was indeed silent, holy because of His presence, all was calm, and all was bright. Around the Virgin mother, and the Child. The Virgin mother, Mary was born without the taint of Original Sin (Adam and Eve's disobedience to God in Eden), and as such, Jesus was born virginal, meaning that he did not inherit Original Sin from his mother.

Holy infant so tender and mild/Sleep in heavenly peace/Sleep in heavenly peace
The Holy infant, Jesus, was always mild mannered, even into adulthood, Christ was among the meek who subverted his will to the will of his Father. This hearkens to the words of the Lord's prayer "... Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." The peace of heaven is granted by the advent of Christ. And while it may strike you as a bit morbid, many tombstones throughout the world sport the letters R. I. P. standing for Requiescat In Pace, which is a short prayer that the deceased may rest in peace. Because of the coming of the Holy infant, so tender and mild as Jesus was, the dead may rest in peace without fearing the fires of damnation. A very comforting image if you truly stop to think about it.

Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!
Gottes Sohn! O wie lacht
Lieb' aus deinem göttlichen Mund,
Da uns schlägt die rettende Stund’.
Jesus in deiner Geburt!
Jesus in deiner Geburt!

Silent night, holy night,
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from heaven afar,
Heav'nly hosts sing Alleluia;
Christ the Saviour is born
Christ the Saviour is born

Silent night, holy night/Shepherds quake at the sight/Glories steam from heaven afar/Heav'nly hosts sing Alleluia
What sight? The quiet holy night? No. From the Angel that came to the Shepherds. "And there were in the same country, shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo! The Angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid." (Luke 2: 8-9). So why shepherds? Why were they afraid? Why were the hosts singing Alleluia? Who better than lowly shepherds to welcome into the world the Lamb of God? The very Lamb of God who's blood would be shed as the lambs were at Passover during the exile of the Israelites in Egypt? The Lamb of God, who's blood paved the way for salvation of those people to return to God. Why were they afraid? What's there NOT to be afraid of? Picture it. Low campfires, quiet night, nothing happening, then suddenly heaven's glory comes around. It's all a rather frightening experience. Why did the heavenly hosts sing Alleluia? Because of joy. Joy that finally, humanity was getting its Messiah, finally humanity was going to return to closeness and oneness with God.

Christ the Savior is born/Christ the Savior is born
The Alleluia chorus of the angels highlighted this very fact, that Christ the Savior was indeed born into the world.

Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!
Die der Welt Heil gebracht,
Aus des Himmels goldenen Höhn
Uns der Gnaden Fülle läßt seh'n
Jesum in Menschengestalt.
Jesum in Menschengestalt.

Silent night, holy night,
Son of God, love's pure light.
Radiant beams from Thy holy face,
With the dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus, Lord at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord at Thy birth

Silent night, holy night/Son of God, love's pure light/Radiant beams from Thy holy face/With the dawn of Redeeming grace/Jesus, Lord at Thy birth/Jesus, Lord at Thy birth
The Son of God, as John tells us, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." (John 1:14), was indeed love's pure light. Why love? As Saint Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians "And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13). As the greatest is Love, so too is the son of God the greatest of the three virtues, Love's Pure Light. Radiant beams from Thy holy face? The very sight of Jesus and the fact that He came into our world brings the redeming grace of God to all of mankind. Going back to John we see the Light there "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:4-5) as well as "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that commeth into the world." (John 1:9). Jesus is the Lord God made flesh, so even from birth, Jesus was the Lord.

Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!
Wo sich heut alle Macht
Väterlicher Liebe ergoß
Und als Bruder huldvoll umschloß
Jesus die Völker der Welt.
Jesus die Völker der Welt.

Silent night, holy night,
By his love, by his might
God our Father us has graced
As a brother gently embraced
Jesus, all nations on earth.
Jesus, all nations on earth.

Silent night, holy night/By his love, by his might/God our Father us has graced/As a brother gently embraced/Jesus, all nations on earth/Jesus, all nations on earth.
Jesus' love and presence in the world is not just for the Hebrews or Jewish people of Israel. One of the greatest Apostles and prolific writer in the New Testament, Saint Paul was known as the Apostle to the Gentiles, meaning non-Jews. He was also a Roman citizen, and even in our modern day, there are very few places on Earth where one cannot find a Christian place of worship. The 'brother gently embraced' refers to all of humanity where the love of Christ and God our Father unites all of us.

Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!
Lange schon uns bedacht,
Als der Herr vom Grimme befreit,
In der Väter urgrauer Zeit
Aller Welt Schonung verhieß.
Aller Welt Schonung verhieß.

Silent night, holy night,
Long ago, minding our plight
God the world from misery freed
In the dark age of our fathers decreed:
All the world is redeemed.
All the world is redeemed.

Silent niight, holy night/Long ago, minding our plight/God the world from misery freed/In the dark age of our fathers decreed/All the world is redeemed/All the world is redeemed.
In the times before Christ, the descendants of Abraham, that is, the Hebrew people, were very keenly aware of their own sinful nature. The rather rigid code of Hebrew/Mosaic law outlined in books like Leviticus was debated and turned over and debated some more by the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, and the rest. Interpreting and teaching the Laws of Moses was the realm of the rabbis, the teachers of Hebrew society. God the world from misery freed? Living in a state of Sin, or a broken relationship with God, is perhaps the most miserable a human being can ever be. To be separated from pure love, light, and surrounded in darkness. That is the fate that God freed us from by sending His only Son. In the dark age of our fathers decreed All the world is redeemed. It was in this "Age of Darkness", without the Light of God as we saw in John 1:4-5 and John 1:9 that God spoke the Word, the Word that is Jesus Christ as we saw in John 1:14, and thus redeemed all the world.

Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!
Hirten erst kundgemacht
Durch der Engel Alleluja,
Tönt es laut bei Ferne und Nah:
Jesus der Retter ist da!
Jesus der Retter ist da!

Silent night, holy night,
Shepherds first saw the sight
Of angels singing Alleluia
Calling clearly near and far:
Christ, the Saviour is born.
Christ the Saviour is born.

Silent night, holy night/Shepherds first saw the sight/Of angels singing Alleluia/Calling clearly near and far/Christ, the Savior is born/Christ the Savior is born.
A reprise of the second verse, reminding us that Christ the Savior is born. Witnessed by the shepherds, the Lamb of God came into the world to save us.

That's about it for today and Silent Night, tune in tomorrow for installment number 3 and see what song we'll be doing then!

Christmas post #1 - Emmanuel

2008-12-20T08:19:00.000-08:00

So it occurs to me in this particular time of the year, that faith seems to burn a bit brighter, and people run about with ideas of what Christmas is all about. Now we've all seen bits and pieces of those 'street interviews' run by people like atheist activist Bill Maher, comedian Jay Leno, and others including former 'Man Show' hosts Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Corolla. In these interviews they ask 'common sense' things to people, and usually those people respond with the most idiotic answers, apparently proving their various points, that on the whole? People are dumb. Meanwhile those of us watching securely and warmly at home marvel at the stupidity of our fellow Homo Sapiens and wonder just where they dredged these morons up. So I sat down one day, not too long ago, and wondered. Have people really forgotten the memory tricks we've taught them? The little reminders that wing their way over the airwaves? Those wonderful little encyclopedias, full of knowledge both of Christian tradition and Christmas knowledge? Oh yes, in case you've not quite figured it out, I am referring to Christmas songs. But do they really teach us all that much? They teach us a lot, just as much as teaching a child to sing the Alphabet song to learn their letters, Christmas songs can teach us everything there is to know about Christmas as well as a hefty dose of some of the core Christian doctrines. I'm not talking about the more modern songs like 'The Christmas Shoes', or even 'The Christmas Song'. I'm talking about 'O Holy Night', 'Stille Nacht' (Silent Night), 'O Come All Ye Faithful', and others, the ones that people know of, but perhaps aren't politically correct. After all, it's been decided by the Supreme Court that having Santa Claus (Originally a Catholic Saint) depicted in the commercial center of a mall doesn't constitute a breach of the 'establishment clause' contained in our First Amendment, but having a manger scene does since it references a specific religion's ideals and beliefs.

So I have decided to revisit some of those Christmas Standards, some that most artists love to put on their albums, including people like Nat King Cole, Natalie Cole, Kenny Rogers, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby, and many others. Since I'm the one writing this blog? I'll start off with one of my favorites: "Veni, Veni Emmanuel", known in English as "O Come, O Come Emmanuel".

First? A bit of history. The song comes from the ancient Christian tradition of the O Antiphons, songs sung on the countdown to Christmas in the past. The last Roman scholar who spoke Greek in the Western World, Boethius, referenced these, including the last one O Come Emmanuel, as early as the 5th Century A.D., meaning that they had to be around at least a bit longer than that. The original song lyrics as we know them in the Latin today, were written as a Gregorian Chant (Yeah, the ones those monks do, speaking in Latin as they sing in a very narrow tonal range while singing A Capella). History is unclear on just when the words were written, but it was sometime around the 9th Century. By the 15th century, the words were put to music that was used as a processional for nuns. The original text was all in Latin, and only translated to English in the 19th century. Why so late? Because educations before the 20th century usually required courses in Latin and/or Greek. It's only been a recent phenomenon to replace those languages with requirements in Spanish, French, or other languages. In this blog I'll examine the words, first in Latin, then translated, and then, where appropriate, extract (or attempt to) the underlying Christian doctrine being communicated.

Veni, Veni Emmanuel;
Captivum solve Israel,
Qui Gemit in exilio,
Privatus Dei filio.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel;
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here,
Until the Son of God appear.

Explanation:

O Come, O Come Emmanuel refers to the coming of God in human form, Jesus Christ.
Referenced in Isaiah Chapter 7: Verse 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Immanuel, in Hebrew, means 'God With Us', which is certainly what Jesus was, God walking and talking and living among us.

And ransom captive Israel/That mourns in lonely exile here/Until the Son of God appear.
Israel, both under the socio-political domination of pagan Rome, as well as the spiritual domination of being cut off from God by the original sin of Adam, needed to be ransomed or saved. Roman law and custom, forced on the Hebrews, gave many of them problems. One problem for example, came from coinage that was stamped with the Emperor's profile. By Jewish law, observant Hebrew worshippers were forbidden to use such money, which is why there were money changers at the temple. The Temple was considered so holy that Roman money, which bore a 'graven image' (that of the profile of Caesar), was not allowed to enter it. The money changers stood outside on the steps and would change the Roman money for acceptable coinage to give to the temple. Jesus came to Earth as the Son of God in order to heal the gap that existed between humanity and God, ransoming us from perdition by offering us the salvation and grace of God.

Veni, Veni O Oriens;
Solare nos adveniens,
Noctis depelle nebulas,
Dirasque noctis tenebras.

O Come, Thou Day-star, come and cheer;
Our spirits by Thine advent here,
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death's dark shadows put to flight.

O Come Thou Day-star, come and cheer/Our spirits by Thine advent here.
The Day-star of course, is Jesus Christ. 'Cheer our spirits by Thine advent here' is referring to the souls of humanity rejoicing that God will come to humankind and give us cause for celebration by living among us.

Disperse the gloomy clouds of night/And death's dark shadows put to flight.
Referring to the darkness surrounding humanity without the Light of God, Jesus Christ, that upon His arrival, the clouds of night which brought such sadness are cast away. The latter line 'And death's dark shadows put to flight' refers to the offering of Eternal life that faith in Jesus Christ offers to Christians. The faith and love of God offers new life to all people.

Veni, Clavis Davidica!
Regna reclude caelica;
Fac iter tutum superum,
Et claude vias inferum.

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads to Thee,
And close the path to misery.

O come, Thou Key of David, come/And open wide our heavenly home.
This refers to the biblical link between David, inheritor of the covenant of Abraham, and Jesus Christ. Matthew Chapter 1:Verses 1-16 trace the lineage. Verse 17 sums it all up. The Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy and the law. The ultimate way to fulfill the law and the covenant of Abraham with God, is to be the direct descendant and inheritor of that covenant.

Make safe the way that leads to thee/and close the path to misery.
This refers once more back to Isaiah Chapter 40: Verse 3. "The voice of him that cryeth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a high way for our God." This coupled with the previous verse points to the fact that the high way to God, that express lane to Heaven, is through Jesus, the inheritor of the Abraham covenant and the fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy.

Veni, veni Adonai!
Qui populo in Sinai,
Legem dedisti vertice,
In maiestate gloriae.

O come, O come, great Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height
In ancient times once gave the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.

O come, O come, great Lord of might/Who to Thy tribes on Sinai's height/In ancient times one gave the law/In cloud of majesty and awe.
This entire verse refers to the giving of the Ten Commandments on the top of Mount Sinai to Moses, who in turn gave it to the Israelites, God's chosen people. This is the law that Jesus comes to fulfill, not to replace, as I mentioned above.

There are other lyrics in English, but the official Latin lyrics end there. The rest of the English lyrics go on to speak about Jesus in terms of the Rod of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1) delivering people from Satan's tyranny and delivering the souls of humanity.

From Florida where I will be decorating a palm tree (Yes, I really do decorate a palm tree), here's me wishing all of those who read this, a very merry Christmas. Tune in tomorrow and see the next installment of Christmas lyrics I'll be breaking down!

Big Game Hunters

2008-12-14T04:53:00.000-08:00

So I woke up this fine Sunday morning and decided, like I usually do on every day I wake up, to check my web comics. People like to start their day off right with a smile, many times brought on by a Sausage Biscuit and coffee from McDonald's or maybe a Venti Caramel Macchiato from Starbucks. Whatever their pleasure, they can have it. I like my comics. Well, this morning I read a little comic which lampooned an article written by Bill Croke, a writer for the online journal "The American Spectator". In this article, he cites two researchers and attempts to correlate video game violence to poaching. "Since it's apparent that a small percentage of kids can actually suffer psychological problems from playing these games, an empathy deficit if you will, I think it might be an easy jump to get up from a computer game, go out and pull the trigger on an elk or a deer, and then walk away with a laugh. After all, it's only a game." Really? An easy jump to get up and go kill things after playing a video game on a computer? Yet the next thing on his page is that hunting numbers are actually DOWN by 8%! So tell me Bill, how is it that if video game violence is inducing people to kill animals and the like, why are hunting numbers down? In the scientific community, when two variables act independently of one another in test after test, they are not considered co-dependent.

But I'll bite Bill Croke, I'll bite. So let's look at media violence throughout the ages and see, just what sort of problems the media causes.

The year? 1778. Pierre Beaumarchais finishes a fantastically witty comedy "Crazy Day", also known by its complete title, The Marriage of Figaro - Crazy Day. From 1778 to 1784 it was banned by the aristocracy in many places, including Vienna. And in only 11 years, the principles of denouncing noble privilege would be carried over into the French Revolution as the entire European world was embroiled in approximately 25 years of barely ceasing conflict from 1789 to 1815. Did Pierre Beaumarchais himself go out and kill Louis XVI? or Marie Antoinette, the proclaimed "Austrian Bitch" (the French really loved her)? Probably not. Did people in the crowd after its censor was removed in 1784 go out and participate in the Revolution? Sure. I guess the Marriage of Figaro is responsible for the French Revolution then, according to the same logic. I mean after all, it's an easy jump from watching a comedic play where no one really gets hurt, on a stage with colorful costumes, to getting up and starting a revolution based on the ideals expressed in the play.

OK so one example from history, big whoop. Well how about another one? Stravinsky's Rite of Spring! A beautiful selection of music, Le Sacre du Printemps, the Ballet follows an ancient pagan ritual to reawaken the spirit of Spring, including a highly erotic dance by a beautiful young ballerina. In 1913, the Paris theater where the ballet premiered erupted into violence. First starting with cat calls and whistles at the provocative music and dancing, then degenerating into a riot that even the Paris police could not fully quell. Stravinsky fled the theater in shame. Classical music, a ballet, something we in our modern Western society oftentimes associate with high society and the ultra wealthy, caused a riot. And it wasn't the first time music had done something so provocative. Strauss, the composer for The Blue Danube among others, composed the operas Salome (A biblical story), and Elektra (from Greek drama of antiquity), both of which caused riots when they were premiered. Salome had to be closed after just one night. Ballet Mecanique, by American composer George Antheil caused riots at the very same theater as Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in 1913!

But these media outlets are all live action! Opera, Ballet, Symphonic music, and Theater all have living people acting things out! So let's move to a more virtual world, one of special effects, visual illusions, and makeup. TV and Movies! The year? 1956. The person? None other than the King himself, Elvis Presley. 1956 saw a rock and roll legend standing next to old stone face himself, Ed Sullivan. So what? A Rock and Roll icon who sang about blue suede shoes, jailhouse rock, and hound dogs. When the New York Daily News reported on Elvis in 1956, they had this to say: "gave an exhibition that was suggestive and vulgar, tinged with the kind of animalism that should be confined to dives and bordellos" followed up by the San Francisco Chronicle, which deemed that Elvis' performances were: "in appalling taste". Ed Sullivan realized the ratings increase from Elvis being on his show, but also realized that controversy could hurt his show in the long run. Elvis was shown from the tummy up for the first segment, and in the second, in a full body. The second segment caught everyone's attention and caused the scandal Ed Sullivan wished to avoid. Did Elvis shaking his pelvis on TV make millions of people world wide go out and have sex? Not hardly. But let's look to movie violence!

This report, conducted by researchers at University of California Berkeley, and University of California at San Diego draws an interesting conclusion. Movie violence actually reduces violence and even alcoholism in society by providing a substitute to these more dangerous activities. Surprised? You shouldn't be. The Ancient Romans knew just how important that visual violence was to the people. Why do you think gladiatorial games, races at the Circus Maximus, and other blood sports were so popular? It fulfilled a basic human craving for blood without masses of people committing the crime. It gave us our 'thrill kill' as Bill Croke likes to coin the term, without us doing the killing. We saw the blood. We heard the crying screams. We even smelled it on those really hot days when the bodies were dumped after being killed or eviscerated. But people really DID die.

Movies and TV? Special Effects. Opera, Ballet, and Theater? Tricks of lighting, dramatic acting, and bodily motion. Literature? Simile and Metaphor. Video games? Pixels, ragdoll physics, and video card capacity. Does video game violence cause real life violence? Especially in illegal hunting? No. Especially since the vast majority of illegal hunting is done in the 3rd world of Indo-China and Africa, places where people can barely find food and water, much less get the latest copy of Grand Theft Auto. Sorry Bill, but you're way off base here. Better get back to criticizing human nature, since we've evolved over hundreds of thousands of years as a predatory omnivorous species and clawed our way to the top of the food chain. Cavemen hunted critters to extinction, yet I don't think cavemen knew who Turok the Dinosaur Hunter was.

It seems to me from all this that, like the critics of old, Bill Croke is just one sad little man in a long line of critics ready to journalistically stalk, pounce, and eviscerate their prey of the latest media sensation. Just like Parisian and Viennese papers did to Figaro, NYC's papers did to Salome and Elvis Presley, Bill Croke and the rest of the video game onslaught are attempting to drive a stake through the heart of the video game industry with the attitude of "Video games are mindless, as are the parents who let their kids play them." I'm certain someone said the same thing about Elvis, Stravinsky, Nabokov, Strauss, Cagney (James Cagney that is), and others who have helped propogate their respective genres of expression and art into the next century. All said and done though? Bad parents shouldn't blame childhood behavior on the media. Ignore your children at their own peril ladies and gentlemen, but please don't blame Super Mario Bros. because you were never there for your child and didn't pay attention.

The Truth about Global Warming, Climate Change, or Whatever they call it this week...

2008-12-06T14:31:00.001-08:00

Picture this if you will.

For a number of years, human society has watched as they've slowly hunted animals to extinction. Animals that once roamed the earth in hundreds of thousands now number perhaps in the dozens, if not less. Lately it hasn't been as cool outside when the local Tom, Dick, and Harrys go out to provide for their families. The polar ice caps are melting. Glaciers like the ones in Greenland are receding. The earth is changing! And it must be the fault of mankind! By gosh it must be the eternal fault of those creatures, Homo Sapiens, those darned people who run around hunting and slaughtering animals left and right and driving them to extinction, who practice slash and burn agriculture, who obviously pillage the land and destroy it. Golly yes, it must be. Especially since this scene I'm describing was 10,000 years ago towards the end of the last Ice Age that mankind witnessed. The animals that were hunted to extinction while climate change also thinned their numbers? The Wooly Mammoth, Mastodons, Smilodon (Known as the Sabre Tooth Tiger), and other prehistoric creatures that were hunted for food, tools, shelter, and clothing as well as hunted (in the case of the large cats) for purposes of competition for food.

So what are we to do? Who are we to blame for this catastrophic climate change? Buses and cars? There wouldn't be any of those for another 9900 years. Ah! Fossil Fuel Burning like coal and oil! Not for another 9400 years or so. (Though some archaeological evidence places burning of coal at around the Dark Ages, close to 500 AD).

So what could have caused it? Where should the blame lie? Well let's look at the effect, known as The Greenhouse Effect, which caused this gradual heating of the world's climate. Listed, by abundance, are the top Greenhouse Gases that force heat to be contained within Earth's atmosphere rather than escaping.

1.) Water Vapor (Anywhere water boils or is evaporated, there is water vapor. Whenever it's humid out? That's water vapor.)

2.) Carbon Dioxide (Every non-plant species in the world gives off some measure of Carbon Dioxide waste. It's called respiration, and it occurs on the celullar level as well as the macro-organism level)

3.) Methane (Every time someone or some animal passes gas or excretes solid waste? It's Methane. Decomposing matter that smells like rotten eggs? Methane. This simple compound of NH4 is an entirely natural gas, also given off by sea vents where the Earth's Crust is expanding and shifting beneath the ocean floor)

4.) Nitrous Oxide (While you may giggle at Laughing Gas, it's number 4 on the list of most abundant greenhouse gases, and one of only two that is man-made)

5.) Ozone (O3 is the way to be! We like our Ozone layer right? And guess what? Every time you go outside during a lightning storm and smell that heavy coppery scent on the air? That's ozone! Another nature made compound)

6.) Lastly, CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons, those things that make your hairspray shoot out of that pressurized bottle, make the pesticides fire out of that can of RAID, and when company comes over, it pumps the fragrance out of that can of air freshener. The only other manmade compound on this list of greenhouse gases) (N.B. - CFC's were banned by many countries including Norway and the USA starting as early as 1978)

Now let's look at the evidence for Earth's climate change in a logical manner. Please do your best to follow me through this?

CFC's were created only as early as the 1920's and N2O (Nitrous Oxide) as early as 1775. Now we KNOW for a fact that prehistoric man did not have cars and factories to increase the amount of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Water Vapor in the world. So barring manufactured sources of these gases, the only recourse we have is to look at the natural sources for greenhouse gases. Swamps, plants, animals, oceans, lightning storms, volcanos, sea vents, and other such phenomenon all cause and contribute to greenhouse gases. Those natural causes, 10,000 years ago, caused the end of the most recent Ice Age.

So what about today? Obviously with our industrial technology, CFC's and Nitrous Oxide must be the most highly effective greenhouse gases, right? Wrong. No matter how hard Mankind tries, you just cannot improve on Mother Nature herself.

Water Vapor accounts for up to 70% of the Greenhouse Effect. Carbon Dioxide? Up to 26%. Methane? Anywhere from 4-9%, and Ozone, anywhere from 3-7%. That means that CFC's and Nitrous Oxide must count for less than a bare few percent of the Greenhouse Effect.

So we have evidence that natural Greenhouse Gases are the cause of Climate Change. We have evidence that many of these natural Greenhouse Gases are caused by the life cycles of living organisms (Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor).

So please someone tell me why Farmers should have to pay money for violating the Clean Air Act when their cows and pigs decide to let one rip or make a pie in the middle of a field? If we are to do our best to 'crack down' on Methane and Carbon Dioxide emissions, let's start corking the pie holes of a few politicians. After all, Democrat or Republican, I think we can all agree that they're the biggest organic sources of hot air in the world.

The Truth About Guns and Crime

2008-12-04T11:40:00.000-08:00

So gun sales are up 50% since November 4th and just before when it looked more and more like Obama would win the election. In my previous article on the difference between a citizen and a subject, we explored the reason why people are afraid, but now let's look at some of the reactions to this article reporting on the increased gun sales.

Thomas Mannard works with the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Let me make this abundantly clear, violence against the innocent citizens of this nation with ANY weapon from fists to hijacked airplanes is reprehensible and plain wrong. But, it is also the right of every person to defend their lives against those who would try to deprive them of their sacred rights to Life and Liberty. And as the saying goes, never bring a knife to a gunfight. So when Joe Perp breaks through your front door at 11:30 pm, or walks up to your car to jack you with his 9mm, you really shouldn't try to fend him or his bullets off with harsh language and holding up your hands. The only person that that even remotely works against is Dracula. We are strong in the Lord!. (Sorry, I couldn't resist, and for those of you who didn't get this joke, watch Bram Stoker's Dracula).

Thomas Mannard has come out in that previously mentioned article as saying "More guns definitely equal more death." Really? They do? Someone should tell the people in Washington D.C. that.

Let's do a quick comparison, shall we?

Washington D.C. has, as of a 2007 report: 588,292 citizens with a violent crime rate of 1414.3 per 100,000 citizens, and 4913.9 per 100,000 citizens in property crimes (including auto theft and burglary). With nearly 600,000 citizens, that means that there were, on average for the 2007 year, 8,485.8 Murders, Rapes, Aggravated Assaults, and Robbery as well as 29,483.4 Burglaries, Larceny-thefts, Motor Vehicle Thefts, and Arsons. Grand total? 37969.2 crimes reported in 2007 in Washington D.C.

Now for the sake of comparing apples to apples, let's look at the crime rate in El Paso Texas, which has a population of 616,029 (according to the exact same FBI run survey for 2007). El Paso, according to the survey, has a violent crime rate of 418 per 100,000 citizens, and 3201 per 100,000 citizens worth of property crime rate. Doing out the math, that comes to 2508 Murders, Rapes, Aggravated Assaults, and Robbery as well as 19206 Burglaries, Larceny-thefts, Motor Vehicle Thefts, and Arsons. Grand total for El Paso? 21714 crimes reported in 2007 in El Paso TX.

What's the difference? Why is it so disparate? With a 30,000 person population difference, the law of average dictates, nay, REQUIRES the city of El Paso to have more crimes. So why, in 2007, were there approximately 16,000 crimes LESS than in Washington D.C.? Let's look at some fundamental differences between Washington D.C. and El Paso.

First and foremost, El Paso is in Texas. Texas, along with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee, have adopted 'Castle Doctrines' which hearkens back to the days of merry old England (not that it was ever 'merry' in England) in which, in English Common Law of the 1700's states:

"And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles (believes or treats) it his castle, and will never suffer (allow) it to be violated with immunity . . . (Latin Text dating back to the Roman writer Tully) that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case."

So what does this mean? Simply put, it means that while otherwise in 1700's England you weren't allowed to pull out your flintlock pistol and shoot someone, if they barged into your home and you were defending it, you were perfectly in your rights.

In the United States, this 'Castle Doctrine' was expanded in 1895 by the court case Beard v. U.S. (158 US 550) in which the decision was made "A man assailed on his own grounds, without provocation, by a person with a deadly weapon and apparently seeking his life is not obliged to retreat, but may stand his ground and defend himself with such means as are within his control; and so long as there is no intent on his part to kill his antagonist, and no purpose of doing anything beyond what is necessary to save his own life, is not guilty of murder or manslaughter if death results to his antagonist from a blow given him under such circumstances"

What does all that mean? Simply put, it means that as a citizen of the United States, I have the right, anywhere within the United States, to defend my life by whatever means are readily available.

But that still doesn't explain the massive differences in crime rates!

Ohhhh yes it most certainly does. While Texas, including the city of El Paso, has a castle doctrine modified with a 'stand your ground' law, supporting this 1895 court decision, Washington D.C. has neither doctrine. What does that mean? It means that when Joe Perp comes up to you waving a gun, you are bound by law to run away. Joe Perp wants your car? You are bound by law to give it to him. Joe Perp wants to break into your home, commit a rape, steal jewelry and a DVD player? You are bound by law to run away and let him.

Furthermore, all firearms in the District of Columbia must be unloaded and either trigger locked or locked away in a safe. But considering the fact that the District of Columbia doesn't offer immunity to prosecution (both criminal and civil) if you pull out and load that handgun and the person dies from you defending your life, then you are likely to be arrested and brought up on criminal charges.

El Paso Texas? No such luck for Joe Perp. Not only can you defend yourself in your car or your home, but if Joe Perp gets injured or killed in the process of trying to murder/rob/rape you or your spouse? Tough luck for Joe Perp as you won't be brought up on charges.

So my question to all the Thomas Mannard liberals out there is this:

If "more guns definitely equal more death", then why is the city of El Paso Texas, where gun laws are relatively relaxed, safer than Washington D.C.?

(Hint: Criminals break laws, they don't follow them)

(Another Hint: People who follow laws can't defend themselves in Washington D.C.)

(Last Hint I swear!: According to the Department of Justice, 80% of guns used in gun crimes are purchased from illegal sources!)

The difference between a citizen and a subject

2008-11-24T12:03:00.000-08:00

"The armed man is a citizen. The unarmed man is a subject."

Statements like this have been the rallying cry of pro-gun advocates including people like Wayne LaPierre, Charleton Heston, and just about every other NRA member and devotee.

Yet on the opposite side of the coin, these people are depicted as violent, backwards thinking individuals, by liberal opponents of gun rights.

Let us take a look at some of the interesting points to this debate. Starting in earlier history with the foundation of the United States, the Constitution of the United States, and more specifically the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, are an explicit documentation of the natural rights of a human being as defined by the United States. They are, as follows in a brief summary:

1.) Right to freedom of speech, property, congregation, press, and religion (see Amendment 9)
2.) Right to keep and bear arms and a well regulated militia
3.) Protection from quartering of troops. (Private Citizens do not have to surrender their homes to the military to shelter troops)
4.) Unlawful search and seizure (Private homes and property cannot be searched or confiscated without due cause and a proper warrant)
5.) Right to Due Process, Protection from Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, and Eminent Domain
6.) Right to a trial by jury (as well as Miranda rights as outlined in the case Miranda v. Arizona 1966)
7.) Right to a CIVIL trial by jury
8.) Prohibition on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment
9.) Protection of rights not specifically enumerated. (Right to freedom of religion, etc.)
10.) Powers of the States and People (All powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are given to the individual states)

So why were such important rights debated over? Well the answer is that the rights themselves were not debated over. Both Federalists (people who opposed the Bill of Rights) and Anti-Federalists (people who supported the Bill of Rights) agreed on most of the freedoms outlined here. The question that divided them was a matter of implicit rights versus explicit rights.

In the English Commonwealth that America had so recently left and defeated (less than a decade before), there was no, and currently IS no explicitly enumerated constitution. The English version of the Constitution stems back to the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215. Ever since that point, no other real major constitutional documents have come forward that included those rights as well as others, instead, dockets are created with centuries of court and legal precedents set out as constitutional law.

The Federalists wanted to follow this precedent from England, and allow rights to simply be 'understood'. Men like Alexander Hamilton argued that explicitly stating laws and rights such as this would limit people to only those expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, and thus actually constrain the rights of the people.

The Anti-Federalists including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry argued that since the rights were not implicitly stated as they weren't in English commonlaw, they could easily be forgotten or removed at the whim of the government.

History shows us that the Anti-Federalists compromised with the addition of the 9th Amendment and the Bill of Rights was approved and added to the United States Constitution.

Skipping ahead to the Reconstruction Era of American History (1865-1877), the NRA was founded in 1871 by Union Colonel William Church, and General George Wingate. The first president was former Union General and Rhode Island Senator Ambrose Burnside. Sorry southerners, the NRA was a Yankee creation.

Skipping ahead a bit further to more modern times, the NRA has changed its focus since 1871, which started as the training of people to improve marksmanship into a more educating organization, focusing on gun safety, education for hunters and gun owners, and even more recently since 1975, legislative action. This latter fact cannot be understated as George Stephanopolous (former Bill Clinton Spokesperson said), "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

Does this mean owning a gun is part of being a good citizen? Not necessarily. Plenty of people write, lobby congress, vote, and they've never owned or even touched a gun before. But is gun ownership critical to a person being allowed to be a citizen? Yes. But how can I say this? This is so blatantly pro-gun! Let us look around the world to another country and their gun laws.

Germany in 1928 passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition which overturned a previous 1919 law that banned outright all private firearm ownership. However, the 1928 Law moved from an outright ban to strict registration and control measures approved by the government. In 1933 when Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power, they extended and modified this law in 1938 to restrict firearm ownership to "... persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show need for a (gun) permit." People who expressly could not gain permits? Jews. People who were exempt from permits? Government workers under the Nazi Regime, Nazi Party members, and those holding hunting permits. November 11th, 1938 saw the passing of the "Regulations against Jews' Possession of Weapons." A very convenient way to disarm your political enemies, arm your political supporters, and regulate everyone in between who was not expressly one way or ther other.

In Russia under Stalin and Lenin, the laws were very similar, though indeed they were more honest as you had to be a party member to even own a gun. The Red Bolsheviks who fought the Russian Revolution against the White Armies wanted to ensure their power despite their numerical inferiority.

So why is gun ownership necessary to so many United States citizens? Why is it such a hot button topic? Why do we Americans need guns?

That topic goes into a long discussion regarding more modern phenomena including use of force in arrests, police brutality, excessive force, and other such periphery issues. But let us look to United States examples in the more modern day.

2005 marked one of the greatest disasters our country (United States of America) has ever seen with the landfall of a Category 3 hurricane, Katrina, slamming into the city of New Orleans.

In the wake of this horrific event, anywhere from fifteen percent to thirty three percent of the New Orleans Police Department went AWOL. The rest were stretched thin and often powerless to prevent the rape, murder, vandalism, looting, and brawls that occurred throughout the ruined city of New Orleans. This presented police with a real problem, and indeed, it presented Mayor Ray Nagin with a huge problem: What to do with the remaining police?

So what did Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Eddie Compass do to help crack down on gun problems? They played their hand on the wrong side of the bench. Rather than go to the dead center of the city where these crimes were happening, and getting tough on crime, Ray Nagin and Eddie Compass sent the officers out to the higher surrounding land where crime was not occurring, and ordered people to surrender their guns.

Wait-what?! Instead of tackling, shooting, and/or arresting criminals who were only contributing to the horrors of Katrina and the aftermath, they go after law abiding citizens on the outskirts of town? People like Patty Konie, a frail, 58 year old (at the time) woman found out just what that meant. Especially when Patty Konie, who by this video photographs I'd estimate to be around 100 pounds (and that's a pretty liberal estimate). Gets tackled and bodyslammed by a police officer weighing easily more than twice her weight when she displayed and dropped an unloaded handgun, putting it on the floor in front of her after Police asked her if she had any guns in the house.

This was a 58 year old woman in a house on dry land with a decent stockpile of food who was in her home owning a legally licensed and registered gun. Police did NOT have a search warrant and were acting under directorship of a Police Superintendent and a city Mayor. They entered this woman's home, and assaulted her. Meanwhile across town, we can't truly say how many rapes, murders, beatings, or other such illegal activities were going on in the center of New Orleans.

Moral of the story? Take it away Ben Franklin!

So why do we need guns? Why do Americans feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves? Because of people like Mayor Ray Nagin. One city Mayor gave the order to violate one of our oldest national laws, the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and did he get away with it? In a manner of speaking, yes he did. Because while US District Court Judge Jay Zainey ordered an immediate cease to the seizure of legally owned firearms and the immediate return of confiscated weapons to their lawful owners, the bureauocracy of New Orleans has since prevented the return of these weapons. The NRA filed suit against Nagin and his government appointees for contempt of court for violating the consent order which was handed down to return those weapons to their owners and cease confiscation. Two men, two conspirators, took advantage of a crisis and circumvented Federal law, resulting in the disarming of innocent, law abiding citizens in favor of allowing the criminal element to wreak havoc on the innocent citizens of New Orleans.

Thankfully, in the years since these incidents, states such as Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana have passed "Katrina Laws", upholding the Second Amendment freedoms from local authorities like mayors, county officials, and others that might try to remove a citizen's right to bear arms.

The question remains however, does a gun allow a man to be a citizen? Does a weapon allow a man to be more than a subject? It does. How? Well let's go up and enumerate what was violated in the case of Patty Konie.

1.) Second Amendment Rights obviously.

2.) Fourth Amendment Rights (Police had no search warrant or probable cause to enter or seize the weapon or Ms. Konie. Even under Martial Law in the United States, only Habeus Corpus (producing the body of evidence for imprisonment) is suspended. New Orleans was not under Martial Law at any time during Hurricane Katrina).

3.) Tenth Amendment Rights (The State in this case violated an expressly enumerated right of the Federal Government, also contradicting the Maysville Road veto legal precedent of 1830)

4.) Fifth Amendment Rights (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation)

5.) Fourteenth Amendment Rights (The 14th Amendment specifically enumerates that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.", effectively reinstating the 10th Amendment and Maysville Road Veto ideals).

Five of her Constitutional rights have been violated in one way or another by a City Mayor and a Police Chief.

When faced with the tyranny of a tiny minority such as the radical left wing Mayor Ray Nagin, it is the only defense of the law abiding innocent civilian. Police and military power rest with the executive branches of government. If we are concerned about our rights as human beings, remember that our Bill of Rights is just that, a billet of RIGHTS, not privileges, then we must be prepared to defend ourselves against the possibility of the government stepping in to separate people from their rights.

Does everybody in the world need their own fully automatic version of an M16 for home protection? No. Does every citizen need to have a stockpile resembling a US Armed Forces Armory? No. Does every citizen need to be prepared for the eventuality where they might need to defend themselves against a criminal or against governmental corruption and tyranny? Yes. How does one defend oneself from these nightmares? A gun.

There's a reason that the Samuel Colt .45 caliber Army revolver was known as "Peacemaker".

Inouye, a synonym for real Americanism

2008-11-20T03:31:00.001-08:00

The date was April 21st, 1945. Second Lieutenant Daniel Inouye, part of the US Army, Company E, 442nd Regimental Combat team was ordered, along with the men of his company, to attack a heavily defended ridge beside a road in San Terenzo, Italy. As the company moved up the hill, three German machine gun nests opened fire, pinning the company down. Inouye moved in. Throwing a grenade, he was shot in the right side and didn't even realize it until his own men pointed out he was bleeding. Once it exploded, he moved in to wipe out the gun crew. The first gun nest was destroyed. He continued up the hill, throwing two more grenades into the second gun nest, destroying it. He fell in weakness from a loss of blood. Yet Daniel Inouye, not yet even 21 years old, crawled to the third nest. He pulled his last grenade, and stood to throw it. At that moment, a German soldier fired a rifle grenade which hit Inouye in the right elbow, almost tearing off his arm. Prying the grenade out of his own dead right fist, he threw it at the third bunker, lurched forward, and fired his Thompson submachine gun left handed, but not before yet another German shot hit him in the leg. He refused evacuation until he was certain that the hill was secure. The remnants of his right arm were amputated. He finished college, studied law, and is currently residing in both Hawaii and Washington D.C. as one of the two Senators from Hawaii. He was the first Japanese-American elected to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He was given the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award in the United States, on June 21st, 2000.

The man works for the Democratic Party.

Now I've been told by some that I have a slant to my blog entries here. That I hate Obama simply because of his party. That I supported and voted for McCain and Palin simply because they were Republican and that it must be because I'm somehow rich and not poor (I've been unemployed since late April 2008 with the exception of about 2-3 weeks of work in August, barely living off of student loans).

So in an effort to bring some balance to this blog and prove a few people wrong about me (which I must admit, gives me a certain warm joy in my heart), I offer this particular entry regarding the appointment of Daniel Inouye to the position of Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

People talk about the color purple as being the true wonder of politics. And it is. It is the spirit of compromise, of freedom, of teamwork, and has brought unity to this great nation a number of times. President Elect Barack Obama even used this metaphor for his own campaign, calling himself a candidate who in the Senate, did a lot of 'crossing the aisles'. Yet for all his bluster and muster, President Elect Obama has a record of voting that shows which side of the aisle he's really on.

Perhaps he could take a lesson from a real compromiser and politician like Inouye. "Many insiders regard him as a team player, often doing what the Democratic leadership wants but not shying away from telling his superiors to do what he thinks is right." From all accounts, Inouye is a rather quiet compromiser, preferring back room deals and calm phone conversations to the rhetoric of Senator Robert Byrd, his predecessor.

Well that's great and all, but what do the Republicans think of him?

“I have never had occasion to go to him and ask for something reasonable that he did not respond [to] in a positive way. I feel so comfortable with him,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

"Inouye will hold the gavel of the powerful committee without his friend [Republican Senator Ted Stevens], whom he calls “brother.”"

Brother? In a political world like America, that terminology is dangerous to use, especially towards someone convicted of corruption charges. Yet he continues to stick by Ted Stevens. Loyalty? In a politician?? To his friends??? What a concept!

Both Inouye and Byrd voted against the Iraq war, yet only Byrd has received funds from liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org. Why? Because Inouye actually does something called compromise? While Byrd and other Democrats, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden have voted against war funding bills, Inouye has expressed his concern for the fighting men and women in Iraq, and done his best to ensure that they have the supplies they need.

Quiet courage is something that often goes unnoticed in our world today. When rhetoric, celebrity, and showmanship count for 9/10 of politics, true character is often pushed to the background in favor of 'razzle dazzle politics'.

It's written in the Gospel of John, Chapter 15, Verse 13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

For compromise. For loyalty. For dedication to the American Armed Forces. For dedication even in giving your own blood for a freedom that you believe in, for all these things and more, I salute, and indeed invite you to salute a REAL compromising politician and a REAL American, Senator Daniel Inouye. There are a lot of people who could learn from his example on both sides of the political equation, and I certainly hope that, although Senator Inouye is quiet, that they take notice of the 'still small voice' from Hawaii and follow his leadership.

Diplomacy, UGH! What is it good for?

2008-11-20T01:47:00.000-08:00

Now that I'm done making probably half the hippie population in the world roll over in their graves with that simple title, I'd like to sincerely ask the question: "What IS Diplomacy good for?" Reading a news report dated November 19th, 2008, the article explains how Iran has increased its stockpile of nuclear material from a reported (by the IAEA) 480 kg of uranium to 630 kg in the span of about 3 months. This news comes on the heels of a news article which displayed new missile technology implemented in a test firing from Iran with a missile that can reach Israel. Iran is currently under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is the same person who has been quoted as saying “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.” and “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." and "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

So let us take stock of what we have.
Iran under an Anti-Semitic President.
Iran increasing its nuclear stockpile of Uranium, enough that early next year it could have enough to enrich and construct a nuclear device.
Iran threatening the nation of Israel.

So let us go back through the pages of history and investigate. How likely is a muslim state to use weapons like this on a nation like Israel?

June 5 1967 - June 10th 1967: The 6 Day War wherein Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt simultaneously acted to attack Jerusalem interests and blockade their access to resources such as the Red Sea.

Sept. 5-6 1972: The Munich Massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Summer Olympic Games 1972.

Oct. 6-26 1973: The Yom Kippur war wherein Egypt and Syria launched a simultaneous attack on Israel.

1991: During the Gulf War, Iraq fires 39 Scud missiles into Israel, a neutral nation which had no presence in Iraq.

It occurs to me that in the history of Israeli/Arab relations, that Arabs... don't like Israel. Yet it also occurs to me that of all the nations in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel are the three most pro-Western countries there, with Saudi Arabia's reputation being tarnished by repeated human rights violations including amputations, floggings, and other punishments. And please, let us not forget the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981.

All of these events perpetrated by Arab, largely muslim nations against non-muslim states make me wonder what President-elect Obama is really saying here versus here. Is Iran a threat? Or isn't it? Is it a threat to the United States? Probably not with a conventional nuclear attack. But since when have Islamic terrorists (that Mr. Obama has recognized time and again are supported by Iran), used conventional means? The last major terror attacks that the world has seen have been surprise attacks carried out by civilians. These attacks of course include the 9/11 /01 attacks on America, the 10/12/02 Bali nightclub bombing, the 3/11/04 Madrid train bombings, the 7/7/05 London bombings, not to mention the innumerable bombings made by Palestinian and other Arabic nationals on Israeli soil.

Will Iran launch a nuclear warhead that will wipe Washington D.C. off the face of the map? Not likely at all. Would some of Iran's nuclear material 'happen' to fall into the laps of an extremist group that could create a smaller nuclear device that could be transported somewhere populous? It's definitely within the realm of possibility.

In history, we have seen racial extremists such as Mehmed V, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Milosevic attempt to eradicate people. Mehmed V for eradication of Armenians from 1915 to 1918. Hitler for his massacre of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Gays, and any other dissenters in the Holocaust (Which Iran denies ever happening), Stalin in his attempts to purge Ukranians in the Holodomor from the Soviet Union, Hussein in his 1988 Anfal campaign, and Milosevic in his roles for inciting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia.

We now have an Iranian president with missiles that can reach Israel, who continues to increase his nuclear stockpile. Tell me please, when we attempted diplomacy with Hitler (which failed), Stalin (which failed), and other leaders like Hussein (which failed), and Milosevic (which failed), WHY would we even think that diplomacy is going to work now with President Ahmadinejad?

This is a man who received his degree in Political Science from Columbia University in 1983, with a focus on international relations! Has he forgotten the history of the 20th century genocide attempts? For the sake of the lives of innocent people everywhere, I sincerely hope and pray that President Elect Barack Obama will realize that in terms of Iran? Diplomacy and negotiation are truly not options. The history of negotiating with dictators and extremists is clear. It does not work. The history of genocidal maniacs is clear. They do not listen to reason and humanitarianism. The history of the Arab world is fairly clear. They despise the West. Reasons being what they may be, the situation at hand is the one to deal with. Iran is not going to stop its nuclear buildup. Iran funds and supports terrorism. Iran wants to destroy or see destroyed, pro-Western Israel and any nation that recognizes it. I do not honestly know how things could be any clearer than that.

Democratic Thugocracy

2008-10-16T10:51:00.000-07:00

ACORN and the Democratic Party. What a mix! While ACORN goes out of its way to submit fraudulent voter registrations (for the Democratic Party I might add), the Democratic Party go out of their way to block Republican attempts to clear up the fraudulent voter registrations. If this isn't a sign of lapsed ethics and no faith in the electoral process, I don't know what is. It certainly shows one thing: The Democratic party is willing to compromise ethics in order to win this 2008 election in the United States.

The Secretary of State for Ohio is a Democrat, and she's appealing a court decision demanding her to take off about 200,000 voter registration cards, a ruling which was decided in favor of the Ohio Republican Party. Sounds like voter disenfranchisement, but things are not always how they sound. Those 200,000 voter registration cards all have something wrong: mismatched data. Social Security numbers, addresses, names, dates of birth, etc. All of this type of data is being skewed. So an attempt to keep elections honest and open for people who have legitimate voting rights, the Republican Party sued. The Democrats have mounted a legal defense for illegitimate voter registration cards.

At least 73 of those fraudulent voter registration cards were filled out by 1 person! A 19 year old who was bribed with cash and cigarettes and begged to sign up by ACORN officials. Sure, the kid's 19. Sure he can vote. But he gets to vote one time. Not 73. A homeless 33 year old man was begged and given a sob story to sign up over 13 cards with his name on them! Yet these are the people in ACORN that the Democratic Party is attempting to defend! It doesn't even end with real people signing multiple registration cards. Apparently ACORN-ites have taken to writing down fictitious characters as registered voters! I'm curious to see if Minnie Mouse will follow her beau's politics and vote with Mickey.

I wish it ended here folks, but it doesn't. See, the Democratic party is apparently not content with merely committing voter fraud, it's turning slowly into a modern day thug-ocracy. With Barack Obama's exhortations to "[I want you] to argue with them and get in their face.", throngs of people obsessed with this liberal ideology have taken to do whatever they can to subvert the Republican cause. But please, don't blame Obama. After all, this is a trend with the Democratic party.

The defenders of the common man and personal liberty will only allow someone to exercise those political liberties if it's in the defense of their ideals. Let's take a look at Democrats through history, starting around the time of the American Civil War. In the Aftermath of the American Civil War, Federal Union troops occupied the Southern States, enforcing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments as they came out as well as the Reconstruction agenda of the Union. African-Americans were allowed to vote as long as the Yankees were standing by the ballot boxes.

By the 1870's those Federal Troops marched out to The Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Jim Crow marched in to the tune of Dixie. Jim Crow laws were passed throughout the south as Democrats returned to power in the vacuum left behind by Reconstruction Republicans who left the formerly rebellious southern states. The laws varied from state to state, but included poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and other such problems to prohibit people from voting against a Democrat. After all, in the wake of the Civil War, who was an African American likely to vote for? A white former slave owning Democrat who only a few years before had owned a plantation with forty slaves? Or the white or black Republican who had campaigned for years to abolish slavery and through Republican influence, had given the African Americans the right to vote, right to due process and citizenship, and right to freedom in the first place?

The KKK rose up. Where? In the deep Democratic South. The White League formed in Louisiana. The Red Shirts formed in Mississippi, and the Carolinas. These thugs went out to the polls and did whatever they could to preclude people from voting that they felt were a risk to the white Democrat racist ideals that they held so dearly. These laws continued well into the 1950's and 1960's until the Federal Government through the Civil Rights Acts, Court Decisions, and others forced these Democrat strongholds to give up on the racist agendas.

Today? Democrat supporters attempt to take a page from history by enforcing the draconian and highly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, stating that people would be prosecuted for making statements against Barack Obama. In the 2004 election there were several cases of liberals assaulting people carrying Bush reelection signs, including one held by a child, who at the time, was only about 4 years old. The Democrats are traditional supporters of the First Amendment to Freedom of Speech. When they stage anti-Republican rallies they cry out that their rights are being suppressed, yet when a Republican marches to stage an anti-Democratic rally, charges are filed and the Democratic idea of Freedom of Speech goes out the window. Other countries have experimented with a similar form of Conditional Freedom of Speech, most notably, Germany from the years of 1933 to 1945 and Russia from about 1917 to the 1980's.

When the Ancient Greeks wrote and spoke of governments, they came up with several types, a good and a bad form. The Republic was good. Democracy was little more than mob rule. That is the sort of game that the Democratic party is running. It's up to you to decide where you stand in 2008's election, but please vote intelligently and honestly.

Racism and the 2 party system

2008-10-13T10:12:00.000-07:00

The Democrats and the Republicans. Bitter rivals for close to 160 years of American history. The Democratic party in its current phase truly came out of reforms after the Civil War, though it can trace its roots back to the early 1790's with the Jeffersonian Democrats. Since then, to the present day, one of these two parties has been the party of racism. Founded in 1854, the Republican Party has been on the scene a bit later than the Democrat roots. One of these two parties championed abolition of slavery. It was under one of these two parties that African Americans, and indeed all people of every race, were given the Constitutional Amendments number 13, 14, and 15. Amendment 13 abolishes slavery in the United States, freeing countless African Americans from the bonds of slavery. It was enacted in December 1865. The 14th Amendment guarantees due process of law and citizenship for former slaves. It was enacted in July of 1868. Amendment 15 gives African Americans the right to vote. It was enacted in February of 1870. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1957, 1960, and even in 1991 were all passed. Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by one of these parties. The famous (or infamous) Little Rock Nine, African American students escorted by the Federal Government in 1957. All of these examples of bridging the gap of racism and bringing together white and black, and truly, bringing together members of every race and ethnicity, were passed under one party. Add to this the first and second African American Secretaries of State.

In contrast, the KKK have arisen, not once, but twice. Thomas Dixon, writer and playwright of several racist works including, "The Clansman" and "The Leopard's Spots" advocated one of these two major parties. Opposition to the 1957 Civil Rights Act, as well as the 1960 Civil Rights Act came from the opposite party as well.

According to this news article from this morning, that party is obviously the Republican party that supports racism and denounces civil rights and liberties. Or is it? Let's look through the history books and see just which party supports racism.

Starting with the Constitutional Amendments. Please remember that in order for ratification of Amendments, it requires state approval of 2/3 of the states in the Union (at the time of enactment) in order to become an official Amendment

December 1865 - 13th Amendment for the Abolition of Slavery - Enacted under President Andrew Johnson (Republican). Based off of President Abraham Lincoln's (Republican) Emancipation Proclamation.

July 1868 - 14th Amendment guaranteeing Due Process and Citizenship - Enacted under President Andrew Johnson (Republican).

February 1870 - 15th Amendment guaranteeing universal suffrage of all races (women's suffrage was the 19th Amendment) - Enacted under and strictly enforced by Federal power by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)

Running Scorecard:
Republican Constitutional Amendments against racism - 3
Democrat Constitutional Amendments against racism - 0

Now to the Civil Rights Acts.

1866 - Extended the rights of Emancipated Slaves - Passed under Republican Congress, over presidential veto of Andrew Johnson who only vetoed it because he felt it would act in favor of one race over another. Still a Republican Act.

1871 - "The Klan Act", making the KKK an illegal organization and granting federal power to shut it down - Proposed by Benjamin Franklin Butler (Republican), a former Union General, and passed by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican).

1875 - Prohibited Discrimination (Later overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883) - Proposed by Charles Sumner (Republican) and the same Benjamin F. Butler (Republican) who wrote the 1871 Klan Act. It was overturned by the Supreme Court because it enforced government regulation into private affairs.

1957 - The establishment of the CRC (Civil Rights Commission) to enforce voting rights and overturn the Jim Crow laws of the predominantly Democrat south. Written into law and enforced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), it's interesting to note that James Strom Thurmond (Democrat) held the longest single manned filibuster in American history to try and stop the bill.

1960 - Further increased enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 15th Amendment, allowing Federal oversight into all elections, including state and local elections to allow people the right to vote. 18 Democrats divided into 3 teams of 6 to create a continuous filibuster to stop this bill. This became the longest overall filibuster by any party in American History, lasting for 43 hours from February 29th to March 2nd. The bill was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)

1964 - Guaranteeing the rights of the past Amendments and rewriting the 1875 Amendment to allow it to pass Judicial Review - Proposed by President John F. Kennedy (Democrat) and passed with Bi-Partisan support. An interesting note, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat), the current incumbent Senior Senator from West Virginia opposed this measure.

1968 - Fair Housing Act - Signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (Democrat). This Act went along with the Act of 1866, which guaranteed citizenship rights (including holding property like real estate), to African Americans.

1991 - Regulation of Discrimination Claims - While it may sound limiting, it allowed for new damages, including emotional distress, to be awarded by the courts. Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush (Republican)

Running Scorecard:
Republican Civil Rights Acts - 6
Major Republican Protests - 1 (Andrew Johnson's Veto)
Democrat Civil Rights Acts - 2 (1964, 1968)
Major Democrat Protests - 2 (1957, 1960)

Now to the action. The grit.

Writing of "The Clansman" and "The Leopard's Spots" by Thomas Dixon - 1905 - Dixon commented on his writing these fictional tales and representing them as historical fact by stating that they were "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!"

D.W. Griffith - The Birth of a Nation (1915) - The greatest KKK piece of propaganda ever created. Made, no less, by the son of a Confederate Colonel.

Brown V. Board of Education - 1954 - Supreme Court Case banning discrimination in schools under Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by President Eisenhower (Republican) - 1954. It is of note that every other justice on the Supreme Court at the time was appointed by either Harry S. Truman (Democrat) or Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat). However, Justices are there only to interpret the law and hold up any law against the constitution to declare it either Constitutional or Unconstitutional.

The Little Rock Nine - 1957 - Federal Troops escort 9 students in Little Rock, Arkansas to school to enforce integration legislation. Enforced by order of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)

Running Scorecard:
Democrat movements: 2 for racism
Republican movements: 2 against racism

Appointments to Public Offices:

Thurgood Marshall - First African American Supreme Court Judge - Appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)

Clarence Thomas - Second African American Supreme Court Judge - Appointed by President George H. W. Bush (Republican)

Colin Powell - First (and so far the only) African American on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and First African American Secretary of State. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he worked for President George H. W. Bush (Republican), and as the Secretary of State, he worked for President George W. Bush (Republican)

Condoleeza Rice - Second African American Secretary of State (First African American Woman) - Appointed by President George W. Bush (Republican)

Running Scorecard:

Democrat Appointments: 1
Republican Appointments: 4 (The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an appointed position)

The final scorecard:

Republicans actions against racism: 15 (3 Amendments, 6 Congressional Acts, 2 uses of Federal power being Brown v. Board and the Little Rock Nine, 4 appointments to high public office)

Republican actions for racism: 1 (Andrew Johnson's veto)

Democrat actions against racism: 5 (2 Congressional Acts, 1 Appointment, Brown v. Board of Education, 1 Nomination of Barack Obama)

Democrat actions for racism: 4 (The longest 2 filibusters in history against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, Dixon's writings, and "The Birth of a Nation")

Please note that several facts have been left out with the intention of me getting this done in a somewhat timely manner. Jim Crow laws passed mostly by Southern states to prohibit voting were almost entirely passed by states dominated by the Democratic Party. But since I'm not willing to research all of them, you'll notice that they are not represented in the scorecards.

I'm a history major, so with that final tally of major movements for and against racism, I'll leave you to do the math and your own research on the REAL history of racism in America. But to me? It looks like the Democrats are the party of racism. It's pretty sad that people sleep through history. It's amazing what you can learn by reading a history book rather than the liberal media.

The lie of the feminist left

2008-10-07T11:29:00.000-07:00

"1.) Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility.

2.) The purpose of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of woman and man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and especially resistance to oppression.

. . .

11.) The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of woman . . .

. . .

13.) For maintenance of public authority and for expenses of administration, taxation of women and men is equal; she takes part in all forced labor service, in all painful tasks; she must herefore have the same proportion in the distribution of places, employments, offices, dignities, and in industry."

- Olympe de Gouges, Declaration of the Rights of Women, France, September 1791

The French Revolution perhaps marked the high tide of woman's involvement in the French government before the modern period. Women like Olympe de Gouges wrote about demanding rights for women equal to men while the National Assembly began according liberties to French people who heretofore had had no rights under the Ancien Regime.

Over two hundred years later in America, the left continues to 'champion' the cause of Women's Rights and the individual rights of a woman to be equal to men, to hold public office, to communicate freely and speak their mind. Well... Maybe not speak their mind. After all, since Democratic hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) failed to gain her party's bid for President, the left has been disgruntled. Ah but there is hope! Or is there? Sarah Palin, the Republican Governor of Alaska, a middle class hockey mom turned politician accepted the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican McCain ticket.

One would think that feminists everywhere would be overjoyed, especially those feminists who vote Democrat. Their own party betrayed them first by not making Hillary Clinton the Presidential nominee, and secondly by Sen. Obama's pick of Joe Biden as his running mate. For someone who wants change from the 'old white man's game' of politics in Washington D.C., Senator Obama certainly seems willing to play to that tune. Yet, for all their bluster about women's rights, what has the liberal left, including hollywood celebrities, done about Sarah Palin? Mocked her. Threatened her. Called her a 'pig with lipstick' to paraphrase Senator Obama's own comments. They've even barred her from attending shows.

Brigitte Bardot, a French legend of a former actress, called Palin a disgrace to women? Why is that? Because she's been successful in rooting out corruption in her home state? Because she's had just as meteoric a rise as Senator Obama and proven that women can easily compete with men? Because she's stuck to her principles on tough issues like abortion by having a mentally handicapped child rather than killing it? Or is it because she recognizes that humankind alone is not 100% of the cause of every problem facing our environment right now? Perhaps Sandra Bernhard can answer when she gets over her foot in mouth disease after making a gang-rape joke about Sarah Palin.

The liberal left is full of hypocrisy, and it is time that Democrats and Independents realized it. Sadly, they cannot stomach a woman who thinks for herself and comes to the conclusion that a family is important. The liberal left cannot stomach the idea of a woman reaching political heights with conservative ideals. They can't put aside their own agenda long enough to cheer for the fact that a woman, if the McCain/Palin ticket wins in November, will be in the highest elected office of this nation for the first time in history.

Feminists, where do your loyalties lie? To the cause of a woman's right to choose her own destiny no matter what that life is? To the cause of advancing a woman's political participation in the government of these United States? To the cause of educating women to be above the sway of politically motivated alarmists? Or is it to the cause of the liberal left, which loves to play a carrot and stick game with social, ethnic, and religious minorities?

Ladies, the liberal left had the chance to put a woman in the white house, and they failed twice in a row. The conservative right has picked up that slack and given you a candidate that is both a strong woman, and a good mother and role model. The choice to anyone who wants to support the cause of women's rights is clear.

Moral Responsibility And Genocide

2008-10-06T22:18:00.000-07:00

As corny as it may sound, beloved Uncle Ben from Stan Lee's famous comic book superhero "Spider-Man" may have said it best when he told a young Peter Parker "With Great Power, comes great responsibility."

I hate to sound corny if I can avoid it if at all possible, but it's the truth. I don't pretend to support war, killing, death, etc. Life is sacred. That's a universal truth, and it transcends all boundaries including age, mental development, gender, skin color, sexual preference, faith, and nationality. Thousands of times in history's grand panorama, power has been misused and people have been downtrodden. At times, those oppressed were driven into extinction. The persecution and wholesale slaughter of a group of people defined by any common thread is genocide. We define genocide as wiping out a race, but what is a race? Hebrews? Africans? Arabs? Indians? Orientals? Europeans? Slavs? Balkans? They're all races, yet are made up of different groups. Some from specific countries, some from specific geographical regions, some having a certain skin pigmentation or other phenotype that sets them apart from other people who aren't like them. Yet others still are bound by economic class or faith. The systematic attack and extermination of any group of people can thus be considered genocide.

So why do we pick and choose who we save from this crime?

Hitler and his allies rounded up Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and anyone who didn't fit their perfect ideal for a human being an sent them to Dachau and Auschwitz. The Ottoman Turks attempted to wipe out the Armenians living in Northern Turkey a few decades earlier. Slobodan Milosevic waged an ethnic war against Albanians in the Balkans. In Russia under Stalin, estimates have gone as high as five million people killed in class warfare known as 'De-Kulakization'. In Northern Iraq the Kurds faced genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Every day in Africa tribal groups live under the threat of warlords trying to wipe them off the pages of history. There are other instances, such as the Chinese cleansing of Tibetans and Buddhists near the border of Tibet and China, but these aforementioned examples are some of the more major ones.

Hearkening back to good old Uncle Ben, we are the USA, the leaders of the Western World in many respects. Europe hasn't acted internationally too many times without the United States' lead since the end of World War II. We have the power in the palm of our hands to stop injustice by rallying the greatest governments in our modern world and stopping crimes against humanity, but we hesitate.

It took Pearl Harbor to get us involved in World War II. Yet FDR knew exactly what Hitler was doing and what was going on at Auschwitz and Dachau and other camps. Hell, Henry Ford even gave Hitler $20 million dollars to carry out his Final Solution. Around that same time, Communism wore the mask of Father Stalin in Russia and exterminated 'wealthy' farmers in Soviet Russia. Yet there we ignored it completely, choosing instead the route that led to a cold war. Cuba under Fidel Castro in 1958 made pleas to the United States for help after he and his revolutionaries kicked out the extraordinarily corrupt government that was tied directly to the American Chicago mafia. People died in each of these instances, yet America did nothing. Why?

Now in our modern world we've raced in with UN and NATO backing to stop genocide against the Albanians and arrest Milosevic. As the horrors of these former genocides and economic cleansing came to light, we became determined and vigilant to stop it. The eagle spread its wings and became watchful. Yet since Hussein was put into office in 1979, he'd been waging a war of genocide. And we continued to let him, until recently in 2003 when the US-led Coalition forces attacked Iraq. Even then, the reason for going into Iraq wasn't to stop that genocide, it just happened to be a by-product.

The Western World has a moral obligation... We have the power. We have the moral obligation to put it to use to stop the horrors and atrocities being committed against people all over the world. We cannot and must not afford ourselves the base luxury of being racist to choose which people we will defend. And do not believe the newspapers and TV news which would have you believe that our forces are not welcome in these genocidal conflicts.

Working in the auto industry I have had an opportunity to meet a very diverse group of people. One of which was an Iraqi American who owns a car lot here in the State of Florida. His family including his 8 brothers and sisters were, at the time of the invasion, still living in Iraq. We always wondered how he felt about the goings on in Iraq, until one day a friend of mine and I spoke with him. We asked how he felt and he had tears in his eyes. He said he had been up for days on end waiting to hear from his family, and had just heard from them. They managed to escape to nearby Jordan and contact him to tell him that they were all right after the Republican Guard had set up their positions within Baghdad itself and the Coalition soldiers had to fight street to street among civilians to stop the remnant Iraqi army still loyal to Saddam. He asked us if we could tell him why it took America so long to come over there. He came to America because he loved this country and our way of life. He was only grateful when America invaded Iraq because it provided an opportunity for his family to experience freedom from tyranny and freedom from annihilation under a dictatorship.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here in the United States we have a wonderful document that contains the words, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'

Well ladies and gentlemen, those words do not just pertain to Americans. We have the moral responsibility to ensure that those inalienable Rights are applied equally to ALL men. The very declaration of our independence. The statement that men fought and died for. That ideal, is what is at the core of the American identity, and guess what? It is a universal identity. I've heard people say throughout my time on this earth that we don't have a right or any business messing in other countries, or that we shouldn't send troops abroad to meddle in the affairs of other nations.

We have a great power here in the United States. The power to sow hope and reap a harvest of prosperity by application of diplomacy, force, and justice with the global community, or the power to sit back and allow hate to prosper and fester. We have an obligation to use it for the betterment of humanity and the world around us. We have an obligation to leave the world better than we found it.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." - John Stuart Mill

Debates and Polls

2008-10-03T10:34:00.000-07:00

So I find myself writing about what probably half the world of blogging is writing about. The Sarah Palin - Joe Biden VP debate in the USA last night. I have to admit, I have great respect for both of the candidates who stood up there last night. Both were courteous to one another, both were passionate about their views, and both had the luster of being professional while they were up there as well as at least the veneer of being in touch with their constituency. Biden talking about walking down the street and spending time talking to people from his home town neighborhood worked well for him, while Palin's homey attitude and 'Say it ain't so Joe' responses probably touched more Americans than even she realized. It was good to see politics like that, especially at the end when both families came up and were talking and socializing with one another. That is politics the way it should be, at some of its finest.

So who won? What do the polls say? It depends on the poll. WESH channel 2 ran a poll throughout the debate and displayed the results as the debate progressed. At any given time both candidates were up with a 20 point spread in the poll. By the end, WESH 2's poll among viewers had Biden up in the mid 60's percent tile while Palin was in the mid 30's. This morning on the Drudge Report it showed Palin up over Biden 70 - 28 with 2% saying that neither candidate won.

Polls are used to determine public opinion on just about everything. Run by schools and news media and politically minded organizations, polls do their best to showcase what America wants to the rest of the world and to the candidates. But polls are never the be all or end all of the political world. Don't believe me? If he were alive I'd say you ask Thomas Dewey, Republican candidate against Harry Truman in the 1948 Election. The Chicago Daily Tribune, based on polls, showed Dewey defeating Truman. In 2004, Kerry was shown by all the exit polls as being far ahead of Bush, yet Bush won by a substantial margin. So how can polls be so terribly inaccurate from the truth?

The key lies in the democratic process. We as citizens, are required to go to our local precincts, check in with some form of ID, be a registered voter in our precinct, and vote at a single location. The line can be rather long at times. It all depends on where you live. Many of us work during the day. Our 9-5 jobs keep us pretty busy, so we vote when we can. Usually racing to the voting booth after work, or leaving early to make sure we get the vote in before we start the workday. Polls however, are conducted usually by phone. And usually they're conducted during the day to early evening. Who's home during the middle of the day? The unemployed. Students. Homemakers. The unemployed are, statistically, more likely to side with Democratic candidates. Students at colleges? Very likely to side with Democratic candidates. (Another post will be written about liberal colleges, I guarantee). Homemakers are typically more conservative in their viewpoints. So polls showing Obama leading McCain by 9 points? Obama takes it to mean that he's actually ahead. McCain seems to be smart enough to know that polls mean nothing. What matters, in the long run, is getting up and getting out to vote. Students? typically don't vote. Obama can hold all the rallies he wants at college campuses across the nation and it won't do much to increase the statistic of 18-21 year old voter apathy.

So what should we Americans do when faced with polls? Ignore them. They're about as accurate at predicting the true outcome as a pain in your hip is at predicting rain. Though I'd bet on the pain in your hip more than the polls.

The liberal death of Personal Responsibility

2008-10-01T09:39:00.000-07:00

What does Personal Responsibility mean in our modern culture? The way that we deal with problems. There's a story called 'The Spendthrift and the Swallow' in which a man sells every possession he has, including his coat because he's seen a swallow, a sign of coming spring. The next day, the winter is still there and it's colder than ever. The spendthrift sees the dead swallow and blames it for him being cold in the winter.

Our modern society has become increasingly willing to push the blame for someone's actions onto other circumstances. We look at convicted killers and blame drugs, parental abuse, mental illness, societal pressures, just about anything we can to take the blame off of the person who has committed a crime against society. Why? Why is a man or woman no longer responsible for their actions? And at what point does a society draw the line?

E.g. - A couple of years ago there was an elderly pedophile living in Citrus County. He and his sister in law were habitual drug users. This old man broke into a home, kidnapped a nine year old girl, raped her, and buried her alive. At trial, he was continually brought before mental health experts, claiming he was mentally handicapped and thus was not in control of his actions. Mental illness and drug abuse had forced his hand into kidnapping, raping, and killing a young girl. If we take that as true, then logically it must follow that every mentally handicapped person or drug user or combination thereof will act criminally. However we see from hard evidence that mentally handicapped citizens are not always criminals.

But personal responsibility is not limited to illegal activities alone. The United States education system has been battling over sex education for a long while now. When to start it? What is appropriate to tell children in schools? In some of the more liberal states, there are reports of handing out boxes to girls and boys filled with contraceptives. Condoms to the boys, and birth control pills to the girls. With many states allowing abortions without parental consent, states such as Connecticut, California, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, and Nevada as well as others. The schools equip children with birth control and condoms, a virtual pass saying 'feel free to have sex'. And when children in those schools do have sex and a pregnancy results, children can go to the local neighborhood abortion clinic and have an abortion. Yet any time someone mentions talking to kids about abstinence, it's considered draconian.

Is responsibility that difficult to teach? Is it so horrible to teach children respect for the society in which we live that being culpable for our own actions is considered outdated?