Rave #2 - The North American Record for "Fakery"!

It seems even the left is tired of Mrs. Clinton, or Ms. Rodham, or whatever else she prefers to be called. Ms. Senator seems appropriately PC...

After a rant or two, I have to rave about such tidbits as this...

I read today what ever-faithful-to-the-cause Jimmy Breslin wrote in NYNewsday today about Hillary Clinton's lack of backbone or denounciation of the war in Iraq. And I smiled.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47653

"Hillary Clinton today holds the new North American record for fakery," he writes. "She copies. She sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day."

What is particularly fulfilling about this report is that we all know the political Right will never buy her story. Her attempts to move to the middle are a vain attempt that even John Kerry wouldn't believe.

• In January, earlier this year she gave a speach in which she emphasized that abortion, though a legal right, is "always and everywhere a moral tragedy".
  http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20050127
• She has also recently complained about the negative effects of the recent influx of illegal aliens.
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050126-121258-1641r.htm
• She said last winter, "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles."

Next thing you know, she'll be decrying the effects of government intervention in the health care industry, and voting for Judge Alito, up for Supreme Court nomination this coming January. Democrats faced an abysmal loss in the elections of 2004. Not only did they fail to paint Bush as a seat-stealer, but they lost by both electoral and popular vote. Not only did Michael Moore fail to paint Bush as a war-mongering, Muslim-hating psycho sending our children into the flames of his dirty little game, but Americans expressed their confidence that at least Bush in a principled leader; agreeing with those principles is another matter. But at least he HAS them!

Meanwhile Democrats were coming across as middle of the road people-pleasers. Build a big tent, stuff in all the keynote speakers and cultural diversity you can find and invite everyone in, hypnotizing them with messages about environmental capitalism, Socially Conservative Democrats and other moderate points of view. They thought it would work; after all, Bush became a moderate Republican and it was working for him. (NOTE: it unfortunately works for Republicans, because there are more people who are middle-to-right than left. The Democrats will try anything to build their base beyond a 40% minority, but like their party platform, they're flush out of ideas that work.)

But they lost... and by a wide margin. They lost by a whole state of Oregon's population. Decisive loss. So they went soul searching and came up with a brilliant idea I wish the Republican party would embrace: reform your party platform and move back into your corner of the political spectrum, represent your constituents, and stop trying to be all things to all people. See, the Republican party carved their tablets in 1994 and they took over the Congress. Due (at least slightly) more so to Clinton's lack of moral leadership than anything else, Bush won the 2000 election (barely) and now the Democrats were desperate; but they discovered in 2004 that Americans can't be fooled by fakery. Enter Howard Dean, certainly no fake. A bit on the loose end, but no phony. He makes bold and courageous moves to bring his party back to it's bread and butter. Yet, now the front-running candidate for the Democratic Party in 2008 is making the same mistake!

What is so glorious about this development is that the Republican Party is going to have more elbow room to run their best candidate in '08, whether Hillary runs or not. They won't be forced to groom and preen Ms. Condi Rice into the perfect candidate (although she might be a fine candidate, nonetheless). The left is tearing itself apart again, just as it has been doing since 2000 when their sky fell in. What I think the Democratic Party must face is that for decades they have survived on the premise that there are people who need something from the government. They've had to maintain this concept of negativity and constant need in order to nurture a constituency that is consistently becoming more prosperous than the generation before. Conservative economic principles for the last 25 years have developed the most successful economic era in modern history, and every year there are less and less people that "need" a Party of Entitlement; hence the negative rhetoric.

The party of "Doom & Gloom" sans Joe Leiberman (nod to Rush Limbaugh) is continuing their march into the horizon, like a flock of lemmings jumping off a park bench; no certain death, just a few headaches and back around again for another ride...

P.S. While pondering this thought, review some more "flip-flop" politics from the greatest liberal hawk of all time, Ted Kennedy: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45591

Misgiving #1 - The betrayal of a former "leader"

This morning I woke up with a freshness I rarely have on a Monday morning. I actually looked forward to going back to work after my Thanksgiving break, vacation in Texas and the road trip there and back. See, I have the fortunate gift of working a job I actually love to do. Yeah, I smile when I walk in the office. But then I read an article on Fox News.com this morning (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176858,00.html) and read that despite to the systematic assassinations of Saddam Hussein's lawyer team, Saddam's been blessed to land the biggest fish of all.

This lawyer has great credentials, including founding the International Action Center and defending some of the most notorious war criminals in history, as well as advising Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic.

Not to put a bad taste in your mouth for defense lawyers, but here's a few more items on his resume:

• He successfully summoned the United Nations to hold an inquiry of the alleged war crimes committed by NATO in the war of Kosovo.
• In 1998 this high-power lawyer attended (and keynoted) a "human rights" convention in Baghdad, Iraq and declared to the enemies of Democracy that "the governments of the rich nations, primarily the United States, England and France... showed little concern for economic, social and cultural rights." Stick it to the man, and earn a good living as well.
• In the 90's he traveled to Belgrade. While there advising the Milosevic team, he earned an honorary degree, telling his colleagues "It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious!"
• Traveled to Grenada to advise the defense team of Bernard Coard, who assassinated Prime Minister Maurice Bishop.
• Defended Karl Linnas, an ex-nazi concentration camp guard, overseeing the extermination of 12,000 Jews and resistance fighters.
• Defended Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Rwandan leader accused of telling Tutsi's to hide in his church, then summoning Hutus to their whereabouts; they were later massacred in their hiding place. Later the Pastor was discovered leading killing squads through the chaos that followed that year.
• Was quick to cheer on the brutal Chinese repression of the indigenous culture in Tibet (which sent the Dalai Lama and 80,000 refugees packing).
• Clark represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly tourist who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986.
• At an Oct. 26, 2002 IAC rally he referred to President Bush's foreign policy as "criminal offenses, they are high crimes, they are indictable offenses, and they are impeachable offenses." And this was even before the 9/11 commission's findings of faulty intelligence.

Instead of being marginalized as an extremist from a young age, this man has managed a very impressive road of professional success, and is considered among the more respectable minds in America regarding criminal law and especially war crimes. As well he should be, considering he was once the U.S. Attorney General during the mess that was the Vietnam War under President Lyndon Johnson! That's right, Mr. Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General, now defending the worst of mankind's criminals. Once prosecuting the laws of this most precious system, he now vilifies the system he hates before the world.

Mr. Clark has very little support in America for his views. Perhaps by coincidence if not by common sense, detractors from both the right and the left denounce Clark for his "straightforward dishonesty," calling him the "tyrant-in-chief," a "traitor" and "the war criminal's best friend".

It's one thing to disagree with your leadership about policy, it is quite another to actively seek rebellion against the nation it leads and it's very principles, joining in arms with the scabs of humanity in resisting the change of Democratic reform in dens of terror.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country."
- Theodore Roosevelt

If you have any concern or conscience for your nation, then keep in mind how important it is to know the future trajectory of those we appoint to high office. This is my misgiving, that America can appoint a radical man of such heartless (and mindless) ideology to an office that commands the respect of men under law.

The rest I'll leave up to you, below I've left some of the links (among many) that bookend the background of this "leader" in law.

How did this man make it through the system? Maybe he was Kissinger's back pocket ace all along.

Of course, defense lawyers on Saddam's team are becoming more scarce these days.

Mr. Clark please beware: Apparently the Iraqis don't like your new employer all that much either.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176858,00.html
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29524
http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/NeighborhoodBully.html

Rave #1 - The Number One American Right...

....The right to be offended!

In one Louisiana county, The ACLU said it has filed three lawsuits in the past 10 years on behalf of "offended parents" with children in the Tangipahoa Parish district regarding religious issues.
http://www.aclu.org//religion/schools/16261prs20050405.html

Also…
The absence of black musicians in major orchestras has frequently been named as an example of white racism, some leading to lawsuit threats, despite the fact that many orchestras audition musicians behind a curtain.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0705/p18s01-almp.html

And…
Some of us are aware of the fiasco surrounding the name of the Marquette University sports in Milwaukee, WI. Traditionally called the Warriors for over 50 years, someone discovered that a couple Native Americans were offended by the “warrior” label and the swinging hatchet mascot, Willy Wampum. Obligingly the school has been frantically and amusingly trying to appease a few people to the dismay of the far majority in the school, and even most Native Americans who are strangely proud of their strong, courageous heritage. Add to this the Florida Seminoles, or any other of the various NCAA teams that have been slapped in the face and treated like bigots.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/nov05/368348.asp

Finally...
In the small city of Novi, Michigan, a Christian Iraqi family has been dealing with some local harrassment themselves over their embrace of the Christian holiday we all know as Christmas. Oh they put lots of decorations out just like anyone else. They have a Santa Clause, a Minnie Mouse and even a Whinnie the Pooh outfitted in red. That did not bother their neighbors apparently, so the local ban on lawn ornaments was never called into question. But when their beautiful nativity scene went up, someone blew a gasket. Despite strong support from many neighbors, and frequent visits from others around town who've heard of this beautiful display, they are facing possible fines of up to $100 a week. They've been instructed to remove the nativity scene for reason of violation, but none of the other lawn ornaments.
http://detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051129/LIFESTYLE04/511290380

After a rant or two, I have to rave about an idea every once in a while...

These of course are political, and civic social issues, not personal. But I think it’s an amusing footnote to the larger and more obvious problem of the sinful nature in each of us, and how we forgive. Let’s consider how we are offended, and how we react, either internally, externally or both.

When someone mistreats or merely opposes me, my instinctive reaction is to devote all my energies to defending myself and ultimately defeating my opponent. (Ken Sande: The Peacemaker) Sound a little dramatic? Stop for a minute and think how you respond internally to this sort of thing…. ..........

Ok, it’s not so dramatic. Most of us are guilty of this very instinct. And it’s just that, an instinct, natural, second nat… no, first nature!

Eph 4:22-25
In reference to your former manner of life, lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each of you to each other, for we are members of one another.

This verse may be applied directly to the teaching that we are to learn to forgive others and lay aside our offenses, because we are of the same fabric.

Forgiving others may seem to be a choice, and in one sense it is a choice, but God has been very clear about forgiveness. The Bible says,
"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins" (Mark 11:25).
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:37).

God is saying that it is in our own best interest to forgive! He is not talking about what is in the best interest of the person who needs to be forgiven.

Learning to forgive implies that forgiveness is a learned process, not an automatic response. Our sinful nature (our flesh) has a high resistance to laying these offenses aside. It prefers to take on an offense and use the energy that the offense brings with it, in every negative way. Every part of our un-renewed mind, our carnal mind, has a preference to take on an offense and a propensity to hold grudges, and seek its own sense of justice.

I don’t know about you, but I have a very strong sense of justice.
When something is done wrong, when someone treats me wrong, or treats someone else wrong, I make it a constitutional issue; a big case. But God’s way is different.

Within the human mind, retaliation is most often a driving force, it has to get even! Our flesh, unbridled, prefers to be judge, jury, and executioner of the offender.

What about when you’re in a situation that looks like it’s going to blow up and become big problem? Have any of you ever faced something like that? You know that the other person is wrong, but they are just as convinced that they are right, and have just as much proof that they are right.

God asks us to turn the other cheek, walk an extra mile, bless those that curse us, love our enemies. These are proactive forgiveness. It assumes that the problem doesn’t matter. The love of God and the glory of God matters, and disunity is the biggest hindrance to God’s glory on earth.

Have you ever heard that perspective is reality? Well, it’s true. Not literally, of course. There are clear truths, right and wrong. But when dealing with conflict, this little phrase has helped me keep myself in check. Because I know that we can be looking at the same animal, but see two different ends, one side pleasant, the other side just… plain… ugly! I have found as I begin practicing this that it is so much better to just let go of offenses and release them to God.

I would rather have someone forgive me for something I didn’t do, than spend the rest of my life trying to prove that I was right.
In at least half the cases with people close to me, time reveals the truth silently. If I was right, they will find out, and know they were wrong. When I’m wrong, I often find out the truth and feel reeeeeally stupid. Then I feel uncomfortable broaching the subject again! Being married really gives me a chance to practice this, and I admit I often fail at it. But when I do, it’s amazing the results I get from it!

Actively seek unity with people, and with people you don’t get along with. Look for ways to relate to them, not to alienate them. If someone has a perspective you think is off, reach out and try to see the world from their eyes. And if you have the opportunity to show them the truth, they will accept it because they respect you.

So in my mind, our #1 inalienable American right is the right to be offended. Throw at me what you will, but the grace of God is going to help me keep a smile on my face, and crush disunity with a hammer of dismissal; and I'd pay $400/mo. in fines to prove my point.

Rant #4 - The ugly plus of Capitalism

Context: Richard Grasso of the NYSE was compensated tens of millions. After weeks of withering criticism over his $140 million basic pay package, NYSE chairman Richard Grasso was forced to resign September 17, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2003-09-17-grasso-meet_x.htm

I wanted to go back in time a couple years ago to a moment when people were in such confusion: is this system that has built our society and culture we enjoy today a total sham? How can it be so corrupt? With so many lying accountants, false witnesses and fudging CEO's you have to wonder if there is a better way.

I'm about to go off on a rant...

So, within all this meandering through facts and fiction, and trying to decide whether it is right or wrong for Grasso to have been compensated so heavily, I have yet to see someone attempt to address the issue of capitalism and the market economy at it's core. I believe understanding it with a respectful eye would avoid many of our negative impressions.

First of all, I believe (or would certainly hope) that every fellow fiscal conservative in this nation would agree that capitalism is not perfect. Yeah? Ok. Of course it isn't perfect, simply because theory can be proven, but the human character cannot. The only thing you can always depend on mankind for is that one will always resort to looking out for # 1. Game theory 101. No, i'm not going to get into it; look it up.

Anyway... In the end, every man will die to protect his own freedom and that of his family. He will "greedily" seek out the best possible way for himself to succeed. Any economic model allows certain groups to achieve this, but only one, by nature, allows everyone the opportunity. Maybe not EQUALLY, but nonetheless, everyone can achieve his/her dreams if they really dedicate themselves to doing so. I am a firm believer in this.

Capitalism takes for granted man's inherent passion for acquiring wealth and seeks to set everyone free to do so at his/her discretion and level of ambition.
What is does not do is put everyone on the same playing field to start. But should it? Is it really the job of the "powers that be" to force this upon a free-thinking and moving people? Culture, personal habits, family background, disabilities, etc. are all factors in deciding whether one succeeds or not. The government ought not to be placed in the position of having to figure these factors out for every individual. (The exception would be for those who are physically or mentally underprivileged) There is no ONE formula for fixing every economic issue in the world. It is open game for anyone who decides to take part. Hence the name "open-market" system. At the risk of sounding libertarian, I would propose that the best economic model is one which regulates only inasmuch as it protects the rights of others (less endowed or privileged from birth) to achieve the same success as the most powerful among us.

Consider: We have Bill Gates', Larry Ellisons, George Bushes and Warren Buffets in every race, every nation on earth; people that are capable of achieving the same level of financial success and public power, relative to their own culture. The only thing holding them back is the proliferation of open-market philosophy and their own respective cultures. But it doesn't make them any less "wealthy".

Granted, not every culture even DEFINES success the same way our western world does. Alas, African cultures despised the thought that they were "uncivilized" when European colonialists attempted to subject them to their political forces and cultural prejudices. In their cultures, success was defined far differently, as it is in many places around the world. Do we not consider our wives, kids, time, homes, pets and hobbies valuable to us? Aren't they just as important a factor to us in defining our success as money is? If not, why?

NOW, I say all this to make the point that as flawed as it is, Capitalism is proven to be the best system to compliment AND operate DESPITE man's flawed nature.
Indeed, it takes advantage of that flawed nature, each individual's weaknesses AND strengths simultaneously, turning each action into a direct force upon the whole. There will always be those who are better off than others, and they ought not to be penalized OR DEMONIZED for being so. Likewise, the law ought to protect and set free the less advantageous to achieve the same -- When and IF they do, they ought not to be afraid of losing that freedom. Unless your liberty and control of your own destiny is being undermined, you live at your station in life BECAUSE of the decisions you are MAKING RIGHT NOW. Every day can improve upon the former; each day can end with more money, more time, more peace than the one before, but it ought to be up to us, not Washington. We must never complain about from where we start, because in a truly free society we are the ones who determine where we end.

"The one who complains about how the ball bounces is often the one who dropped it."

Richard Grasso, admittedly made a fortune at the expense of others. It was extravagant, and unfortunate. I am glad that he stepped down. And yes, CEO's are paid incredible amounts of compensation, and yet they make decisions that affect millions of lives. Yet, I would also say that while these men lay off thousands of men and women, they also employ thousands more. And in every circumstance, the actions are taken to assure those thousands of employed that they can keep their jobs. And, in the case that they are NOT taking the COMPANY'S interest above their own, the law intervenes, as in the case of Enron, or Worldcom, etc. This is why we have the SCC; oh yeah, and shareholders.

Indeed, Capitalism does not allow CEO's the same rights we have, because as they succeed, they must keep the interests of others in mind ALONG with their own, or fail completely. (Insert old Biblical principle: "To whom much is given much is required") If you redistributed a CEO's pay into the average salary of that of their pink-slipped entry-level workers, it would make only a dent in the savings of the typical layoff picture. $3-5 million may seem ridiculous and unfair, but I would deny it as such. Like I said earlier, they keep companies running, flowing and moving forward. Case in point, GE's "Jack The Great" laid off thousands, but led the company into unprecedented growth (double-digits for years on end), ultimately re-hiring many of those workers (and thousands more) while benefiting shareholders, execs, local governments, consumers, etc. Yes, he was paid enormously, and therefore many of us "working class" can easily complain that he "Doesn't deserve it". But who are we to say that? He worked just as hard if not harder than most of us; moreover, he lost his family, sleep and personal time over it all, and probably his hair too. If the man loses everything else WE value in life, except his money, then let him have it. It's all he has now. 15+ years of 80 hour weeks, constant global travel, stress 24/7 and public exposure (and at times, scrutiny and humiliation) are certainly things we would never ask to live with. So let him take his pay. In the meantime, he'll spend it. And, ultimately it'll find it's way down the line to you and me. Yeah, the forbidden phrase of the 1980's "Trickle-Down Economics".

I am of the persuasion that capitalistic economics are less of a totem pole, as much as it is a circle.
Or a wheel, for that matter, with spokes and a center. We all depend on each other, and what "goes around, comes around". I support limited regulation of corporate operations, and fair taxation. But I also support the encouraging of business and increased corporate efficiency. Without it, we'd all be out shucking corn.

While it's easy to complain about Grasso making his $140 million, think about it: he resided over the hub of the very engine of capitalism, which generates trillions of dollars every year, and keeps 2/3 of the world running every day. Sure, I'd like a piece of that $140 million. But I'd rather have the freedom to pursue success with my own family than be bound by increasingly restrictive rules as I achieve the very thing the rules are meant to give me: a fair shot at achieving financial independence.

The rules are supposedly made to protect the "little guy", right? Yet, when the hand of the "protected little guy" reaches higher, the very rules made to protect him bind that hand.
This is what happens when you attempt to combine the greater aspects of two opposing systems: Socialism and Capitalism.
It's not only a circle, it is a vicious circle. But I'm not complaining. America is the land of opportunity, more than any other nation on earth (at least for now) and I intend on doing what I can to keep the system working. Meanwhile, food is on the table, the heat and power is paid for and I can sit at Starbucks and drink a white mocha while writing this reply.

It's a wonderful world, please... stop griping!

Rant #3 – In Time of War (Patriot Act)

Is the Patriot Act (which was recently extended and expanded, though some limitations were placed upon federal and local agencies) worth the liberties is restricts or intrudes upon? What are the pros; what are the cons? Is it a con? Or is it an evil necessity?

Here is the text: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf

IN TIME OF WAR, STEPS HAVE HAD TO BE TAKEN TO TRACK, PROSECUTE AND AVOID FUTURE DOMESTIC ENEMIES.
But these policies are strictly for wartime purposes, and even then they must be bound to the constitutional guarantees of liberty. Or, shall I say "blessings of liberty". Yeah, I like that. What I don't like is the fact that the overtly moderate Bush administration (and Alberto Gonzalez in particular) are giving us the impression that the government has enemies among it's own people, and they must be stopped at all costs... ALL COSTS. No, the constitution was written clear so that the American people would never be considered enemies of the government. In fact, the constitution takes great pains to emphasize what could be considered a threat to the PEOPLE among their government. Not the other way around. I understand that for the sake of safety and liberty we must all be willing to live within some level of order and libertarian compromise - A truly libertarian utopia can never exist among human beings - but this must be constantly regarded as a contagious and dangerous (if unbridled) philosophy (that is, limiting people's freedom in the attempt of protecting them).

WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The Patriot Act is a wartime provision given to the government in time of our "war against terror", and ought to be limited exclusively to pursing justice on that front alone. Never ought this to be the case for the demostic justice system; tracking, tapping, raiding, collecting information on individuals without proper proof of suspicion or criminal activity. And let me say one more thing to those who say we've been winning the war on Terror because of provisions like the Patriot Act... The primary reason for our victory is because our leadership has the resolve to take this war to THEIR doorstep and on THEIR turf, not here. Albeit a dragged out effort with a few human errors thrown in, this war has successfully kept the enemy preoccupied in their own backyard rather than above Central Park. Anyway...

SHALL WE JAIL EVERY SUSPECT WITHOUT BAIL OR CONTACT BECAUSE OF UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS?
Would the Bush administration get away with Japanese-American style concentration camps today, simply because we have citizens who are reasonably suspicious? No. It was wrong to do such a thing to the Japanese groups then, and we realize it now, long after the damage was done and the trust destroyed. But then, in the heat of war and the fear of tragedy, we looked the other way while innocent people - and the American Ideal - were violated. Now we stand at another crossroads today: should the government be allowed to evaluate, uninhibited, whether mass numbers of Americans ought to be tracked, CIA style? Or shall we maintain that the greatest danger to a truly free society is a govenment unbound by principle law and unbiased justice? Some would say that the dangers facing us today are historically unique to this nation and call for drastic and sometimes uncomfortable measures in order to assure our physical safety.

I INSIST THAT OUR GREATEST FEAR OUGHT TO BE FEAR ITSELF (Salute Mr. Roosevelt),
and that my personal liberty is of higher priority than even my own physical safety. America is blessed to be remarkably safe and civilized. We have never known (not even after 9/11) the horrors of daily terror and militia raids, like other poor souls have suffered in other freedom-starved nations. Quite frankly, I would rather live my life holed up on my property with a constitutionally protected shotgun above my fireplace (and fully free to decide my own destiny) than surrender one more right after another in the name of "homeland security" to a government that regards me as a possible suspect.

TO ME, AN UNBRIDLED AND UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT IS MORE A "TERROR THREAT"
than an uncivil, violent criminal. Give me my gun and the liberty to use it, and I'll show you true "homeland security". (Sorry, I needed to satisfy a temporary rhetorical urge!)

NONETHELESS, GOVERNMENT IS ENDOWED WITH THE PURPOSE AND MISSION OF PROTECTING IT'S CITIZENS. 
Sobeit, and may it remain a government OF the People that protects them, not merely a government TO the People. Why can't our "patriotic" president speak optimistically of the quality and sincerity of the American people to protect themselves, rather than instilling fear into all of us of an "enemy within" (and our subsequent need for only THEM to protect us)? And even further, to use this wartime policy against our "innocent until proven guilty" criminal suspects is itself criminal and a "terror threat" for us all. Arrest the men and women... but then charge them! Do not hold them in cells for three years until enough evidence to build a thin case is collected!

HERE I DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THOSE WHO WOULD MAKE CLEAR ACTS OF WAR AND THOSE WHO ARE STILL PROTECTED BY
the People for the freedom OF the People. I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzalez (and retired Mr. Ashcroft), but you'll have to give us the same freedom to profile you and limit your freedoms long before I'll let you come through my door without a warrant or reasonable suspicion. And even then, your homeland security will learn from me what true patriotism is over a hot chat by my fireplace.

Think about it...

Rant #2: The Entitlement Mentality

The Entitlement Mentality of our generation is a degenerative disease...

The Entitlement Mentality has created a militia of ragged, angry civilians of all races and backgrounds.

Rush Limbaugh had it right when he put the Hurricane Katrina mess into context: "What we've seen in New Orleans is first and foremost the utter failure of generation after generation after generation of the entitlement mentality." Flood victims had been victimized twice by nature and by the perception that government would somehow save them from nature's rage, he said. "They had no idea what to do because they've been told somebody else was going to fix it." After fostering dependency among the citizens of New Orleans, Limbaugh said state and local officials failed to respond to the dependency they helped create. And not just local and state, but federal as well.

As far as the public is concerned, the promises from Washington to fix the reading problems Tommy's having at his local 5th grade class is a sign that they know what's going on and have the power to fix it. Then a hurricane comes (with days of advance notice) and everyone is wondering why the government didn't bring in every helicopter, ship and airplane to bring everyone out just before the storm hit. And why wasn't there food to eat, or clean porta-johns to use? And why wasn't everyone in New Orleans who didn't have the money to buy a car, given one by the Federal government? I mean, if Oprah can give away cars to her audience, surely Washington can find it in their hearts and pockets to pony up a Chevy, or at least (if unfortunately) a Kia.

Beginning in the 1850's we began to turn over control of our education to the government. Poor communities and distant farm children needed a place to grow and learn and climb the ladder of American society. And surely, that was a noble goal. But 150 years later we have given over the right to teach our children everything from how to eat right and who made the universe to sex education and career planning. All this, so mom and dad can spend their time making more money so they can buy a bigger house that is less and less occupied every year, and pay more and more taxes so that Tommy and Gina can be taught the very things God instructed parents to teach their children in the first place. Then we complain that the system isn't teaching what we want our children to learn.

As I stated in another post: while churches that have been charged by God to take care of the "homeless, alien and without inheritance" build more beautiful buildings with glass atriums and larger parking lots, our individualistic mindset sentences us the concept that we'd rather the governement "servants" mop up the dirty mess, and keep our doorstep free from beggars and the needy.
Quarantine is the new charity: it benefits both sides.

I don't pretend to defend this administration in every respect, I think it has only furthered our dependence upon it either by neglect or otherwise increasing our beauracracy. I do however, defend the office and the function it is charged to hold. More importantly, the initial purpose of the office. And it didn't include education, or entitlement programs or federal housing, it was to defend our nation against internal strife, crime and foreign invasion. I defend the right of this administration to conduct it's agenda domestically and foreign the way it sees appropriate, because we've given government that right in every capacity. Whether I agree with Bush's Medicare Prescription benefit or not, it doesn't matter. Even if I don't like the way the politicians have conducted the war, or handled judicial nominations, or spent the tax dollars it has been trusted with, we placed government in the awkward position of relying on a simple majority vote to determine it's course. "Just poll it!" And now when it makes a decision we disagree with, we criticize it.
*sigh*

We (The Entitlement Generation) are hypo (and hyper) critical sucklings of a surrogate parent.

Rant #1: Only YOU Serve your best interests

I'm about to go off on a rant...

It is incredibly easy to criticise and stigmatize those in power, simply because they are in power.

We all do it to those we work for everyday by the water cooler. And surely, there are good reasons for holding authority in check in regard to accountability. There are abuses of power, and our very system of government is designed (or at least WAS designed) to protect the people from one branch going it's own way. But ever since the scandal of Watergate, and the brilliance of TV investigative reporting, people outside the "management circle" have come to believe they know what is the best course of action in nearly every government decision.

Joe Schmo in Michigan believes he has the answer to solve the social security "crisis", reduce the budget deficit, springboard the world's most complicated $13 trillion economy, and oh yeah, how to solve this war problem as well. You know, he'll tell exactly how it should be done, and by the time he has calmed down and taken another drink of his double short latte, you've begun to realize just how numb our nation has become to our own failure.


And this is the heart of my frustration: every time an American has a need, there is someone who promises they can fix it for them. And they fall for it! That good-hearted American believes in them and gives them their own birthright of independence to represent that need to the most inefficient corporation in the world, the Government. One by one, over scores of decades, we have pursued our right to success over preserving our right to freedom.

The American public is made of such diverse backgrounds and beliefs, and we expect the government to make a place for each of them. The problem with cetralized thought and governance is that it is impossible to be all things to all people. While the needs of some are being met by much needed government services, the currently dysfunctional system allows a disadvantaged family to rot in their dilapidated housing while their children learn more from their peers on the streets than in the classroom. Eventually those children will be unemployed, homeless and holding a gun in a store clerk's face. This of course is an extreme scenario, but one that many minority groups use to paint a reason the government should intervene and fix those problems. Give the family a new house, they say. Give them a car to get a new job that is gauranteed to them (no matter the merits). Give them free health care so they never miss a day of school, or a day of work. Good intention; bad function.

And that brings up another peave of mine... Where the heck is the church in all of this??!

The churches that have been charged by God to take care of the "homeless, alien and without inheritance" build more beautiful buildings with glass atriums and larger parking lots. There are a select few; my previous church in Portland, OR (http://www.hofcc.org) excercises their faith through taking care of those in need and helping people get jobs and learn new skills. (Including my own family) THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH OUGHT TO BE DOING!

Back to the government...

If everyone has such a quarrel with the government over how it runs things (and it pretty much runs everything), then take liberty back into your own hands. Instead of handing over authority to control our destiny in exchange for "security", keep it, use it, live and die by it. Give government the authority to protect you from foreign invaders, and build infrastructure; nothing else. Utilize the concept that you are your own and best representative serving your best interest. Do your best to make sure your children and grandchildren have a better launchpad than you did, instead of depending on a building full of men 2,000 miles away to do it for you.

You and only you serve your best interests.

Fortress Made of Man

The men are few who are bold enough to stand; fewer still are those brave enough to fight. All men are called to the first, but some are simply born for the latter. What separates the two is that dream which God gives the strongest of us, while the thankful are those who make a home for their safe return. While many dissenters believe that peace comes free, these men of dreams stand watch to ensure that it truly is.

Fortress Made of Man
To The Valiant Knights Abroad

A man of many dreams, Did strive to make them right.
He bore the sword of peace, And swore to us his life.
While men of hell go wander, He stands there in the sand,
Where no one dared to build; A fortress made of man.

Strands of men have died To weave their flag in mud;
The banner of a thousand voices Lifts high o'er the blood.
‘Tis peace in life, at home, in sleep, That good men go to fight;
For what, does hell do sleep ‘Cause coward men deny?
No! Dungeons wreak of horror; The sins of men gone stale.
Upon this we take no chances, For peace should never fail.

Our land of natural lines, With shining walls of might,
Needs warriors of steel Defending yours and mine.
Now, lesser men do banter, Using freedom never earned;
While man of dreams stands cover Till the hell of earth is spurned!

Thank you, Eric

Edward Paul Willing, II
Copyright ©2004 WND Publishing/Edward Paul Willing, II

A Place for any freedom-minded American to vent their musings

I have been running a blog on this server for a study group I moderate stemgroup.blogspot.com
But I decided recently to jump in and offer my own little tidbit of political/social musing. Here you will find articles and rants of a fairly conservative (in the traditional sense) libertarian mind. No anger, no threats, no pointless arguements that bore you, just constructive exposition and assessment on the social, moral and poltical fibers tying this diverse nation together. More on this later...