The Right Slant
Johnson's lack of foresight can galvanize Charlotte's charitable spirit: A billionaire NBA owner is losing money and it's your fault. Now you can help. (664)
D.C.'s efforts to thwart Heller, and liberty
August 5, 2008
A few weeks ago I wrote a column analyzing the Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia vs. Heller and the political rhetoric that followed. Essentially, the Court's ruling affirmed what most Americans already know: the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to bear arms. It was a welcome ruling.
However, my optimism was tempered by the Court's 5-4 majority, which alerted me to the fragility of our freedom. D.C.'s city council has wasted little time in proving my concerns well-founded.
In a press release dated July 14th, Councilmember Phil Mendelson said, “I wish we were not forced to lift our ban on handguns in the District. . . .” To validate that point he expressed his willingness to work with Washington's Mayor, Attorney General, and Police Chief to draft more gun control legislation.
Councilman Marion Barry condemned the Heller decision, too. His press release stressed his desire for “strict policy” and “zero tolerance,” and bemoaned the “theft of legal guns.” Each point is crafted to provide the Councilman with a tough on crime façade. Those words may strike a lofty tone, but they are utterly meaningless.
Mr. Barry went so far as to declare that a person's ability to defend their home “sends the wrong message to criminals.” Such a statement would be astonishing if it weren't coming from a politician's mouth. Would Mr. Barry prefer for the District's decent people to put out a welcome mat for Washington's notorious criminal element?
Here's a news flash for Councilman Barry. D.C.'s gun ban never worked as advertised. Washington has consistently produced one of the nation's highest homicide rates. All Councilman Barry has “zero tolerance” for is liberty, the Constitution and common sense.
Not to be outdone, Councilmember Kwame Brown added his two cents. While expressing respect for the Court's authority with one side of his mouth, he promised to do everything in his power to circumvent its decision with the other. His press release showed disdain for his constituent's ability to defend life and property while praising trendy, but nonsensical, gun elimination schemes.
Predictably, the attitudes of the tyrants controlling Washington, D.C.'s local affairs produced the city's latest assault on liberty, the Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008.
True, the bill does require the District to issue weapons permits. But it also demands registration and ballistic identification of legal handguns. No doubt criminals will rush to their local police station to comply. It also stipulates that firearms be unloaded and locked away unless there's a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm,” a measure Heller specifically declared unconstitutional.
Should we conclude that the Council's idea of self-defense is for a homeowner to call timeout during a burglary? The intruder--undoubtedly an honorable but misunderstood sort--will surely wait patiently while the homeowner unlocks and loads their legal weapon, at which time the burglary can continue and the imminent threat can be addressed accordingly. That is the definition of self-defense that D.C.'s “common sense” gun law would have us accept.
For all practical purposes the D.C. City Council has told the Supreme Court to take a flying leap. Although Justice Scalia's decision clearly identified an individual right in the Second Amendment--a right that is inherent in humanity, not a benevolent gift from government--D.C.'s politburo will continue to make it difficult for lawful residents to exercise that right. Of course, street gangs, dope dealers, and assorted other thugs can persist in using weapons the same way they've used them for the last thirty years.
Yet, somehow, activists will hail the council's efforts as “sensible” gun control. That should tell us all we need to know about the tyrannical mind, and how governments become unmanageable, unresponsive, and hostile toward individual liberty.
Someone must be sued. But who?
July 28, 2008
It's a pitiful thing, seeing children suffer. That's especially true when you see them suffering on a playground, which is supposed to be a happy place. Yet that's what has happened in New York City.
The padded mats beneath playground equipment, installed to prevent injuries when children fall, get very hot in the summer sun. Barefoot children are being burned when their feet touch the mats. In turn, angry parents are blaming the New York Parks Commission for not posting warning signs so playground visitors will know that sunlight heats outdoor material.
You just have to wonder if warning signs will, or even can, make a difference. Kids likely to use playgrounds either can't or won't read the signs, no matter where they're posted. And if a parent is too dense to realize that playground equipment gets hot in the sun, it's probable that they can't read the signs either.
A park commissioner offered a simple solution. Parents should make their kids wear shoes on the playground. However, parents say it's not that simple. But what part of that suggestion is complicated? Kids either wear their shoes or their parents take them home. If they give their parents lip, they get their tails dusted. What's so problematic about the commissioner's suggestion?
Obviously, the complaining parents can't be expected to ensure their children's well-being. In modern society, that sort of thing has become someone else's responsibility. So, whoever that someone may be must be held accountable, and the best way to do that is to sue. Heaven knows we've become a litigious society. But who should be sued? That's the $64 question.
The obvious target is the New York City Parks Commission. That department chose and installed the offensive padding. Shouldn't they have realized that black absorbs more heat than lighter colors? You may counter that parents, too, should realize that black padding is likely to be hot, and that parents should take appropriate action to protect their kids. If so, you're missing the point. No fault or blame can rest on the parents. Therefore it must lie elsewhere.
But how can they sue the parks commission? It is an arm of government; and government is our protector, our benefactor. Government is our friend and provider. Yet blame must be placed and personal responsibility must be shifted. To where, or toward whom, remains the quandary.
I have it! It's the playground equipment manufacturer that must bear this cross. Placing profits above people is all too common for such evil, greedy, corporate entities. We all know that businesses exist for the sole purpose of harming the innocent. Why think that this company is different?
I'll bet that the equipment maker purposely designed this product to inflict severe harm and pain upon innocent children. The business owners undoubtedly wanted the offspring of these trusting parents to fry like bacon on a hot skillet. Thus they intentionally chose the material that would absorb the most heat and transfer it to a child's unprotected skin. Then they laughed all the way to the bank.
Yes sir, there's the culprit. That company should be sued. It should be sued because parents are too stupid to check the temperature of a surface that has been baking in 90-degree heat prior to allowing their kids access to the playground equipment. It should be sued because it's too much trouble for parents to make kids wear shoes.
The fact that these parents would accuse the playground equipment company of negligence if there were no padding, and would sue if their child were hurt on an unpadded playground, doesn't enter the equation at all. This company must bear the responsibility for protecting children because it's become too much of a burden for parents to do so.
Earnings reflect your contribution to society
July 28, 2008
The minimum wage has increased and we can expect politicians to play it for every vote it can yield. However, the entire concept of a minimum wage isn't such a great idea. In fact, it has detrimental effects that far outweigh its slight increase in buying power.
Economists argue that an artificial wage floor actually harms the people it's supposed to benefit. Younger workers, who are generally inexperienced and untrained, become less attractive to employers. The same can be said for older workers who, due to a lack of skills or education, become unattractive to employers when wages increase artificially.
This doesn't prevent proponents from crowing about how people deserve a “living wage.” But the funny thing is that they never bother to define the term. Does $6.55 an hour, the new federal minimum, constitute a “living wage?” Can the head of a household provide food, shelter and clothing for a family on $262.00 per week? If not, shouldn't the federal minimum wage be $10 an hour, or $15 an hour, or even $20 an hour?
Why stop at providing a “living wage?” Why not make the lives of such workers extend beyond simply making a living? Why not provide them with some luxury, too? If $6.55 an hour is a minimum wage--and $10, $15, or $20 an hour is a “living wage”--then $30, $40, or $50 an hour would surely provide the worker with a living plus some gratifying perks.
Proposing such changes in the wage law will prompt even the staunchest minimum wage advocates (except, perhaps, for Sen. Obama) to declare it unworkable. This raises an obvious but pertinent question: if an artificial wage is detrimental at the higher rates, why is it praiseworthy at the current rate? What's more, it highlights the inherent problems with having Congress regulate earnings, especially when it has no constitutional authority to do so.
The fact is that each of us would like to make more money. Another fact is that most people believe that everyone else earns too much while they earn too little. A third fact--and one most people find difficult to accept--is that we make exactly what we're worth at the moment.
Here's a shocking piece of news; wages aren't determined by how hard someone works or by what a third party arbitrarily decides the worker should receive. Wages are determined by a worker's efficiency and productivity. Workers are compensated according to their value to their employers or clients.
For example, suppose a man is a master with a shovel and can dig a ditch to perfection. What's more, this man works extremely hard. He's a real go-getter, digging more ditch in a day than a man can reasonably be expected to dig. He works hard and he's good at what he does.
There's another man who digs ditches, too. In fact, he digs them nearly as well as the first man. However, he uses a backhoe instead of a shovel, enabling him to dig five ditches before the man with the shovel can finish one. Which man will make more money? If you said the man with the backhoe, take a gold star.
He doesn't work any harder than the first man, and his ditches are of comparable quality. But his efficiency allows him to provide more value, in the form of a higher number of quality ditches, to his fellow man. His compensation is a direct reflection of his greater contribution.
This relationship between contribution to society and return of wages is lost on minimum wage (i.e. wage control) advocates. Also lost is the idea that earning a higher wage should rest on a person's ability and motivation to provide greater value to others, not an ability to influence congressional representatives.
Words have meanings; choose them carefully
July 22, 2008
A wise person will avoid certain subjects, with race being at the top of the list. But since the “n-word” reared its head on a recent airing of ABC's The View--spurred by Jesse Jackson's use no less--I just couldn't let it pass without tossing in my two cents.
According to The View's black co-hosts, Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd, the “n-word” should never be used by a white person to address a black person. Alright, fair enough; I can certainly appreciate that position. All but the most virulent white supremacist will avoid such usage like they would the Bubonic Plague. However, Goldberg and Shepherd contend that a black person can direct the slur toward another black person and all's well. Shepherd even said, “I can use it as a term of endearment.”
That seems more than a little odd. How can a word with over 200 years of negative history be considered endearing? If the “n-word” can have dual meanings, and as such dual usage, shouldn't the user's intent, not their race, determine the level of offence? Yet a white person can't even identify the word without the risk of being branded a racist.
The “n-word” has in fact transcended offense to become perhaps the most politically-charged word in the English language. Even using a similar sounding word--such as niggardly, which means to act in a miserly or stingy manner--can destroy a person's career and tarnish their reputation. Now we're taught that the “n-word” is fine for blacks to use, but it's unutterable for whites even when there's obviously no racial implication attached. That's not logical.
During the televised exchange Whoopi promised to explain this seeming contradiction. She went on to say next to nothing, which is about par for Whoopi. Yet she did offer one nugget of useful wisdom. She said the “n-word” has meaning only when it's allowed to have meaning. Let's look at it.
There will always be people who will disparage others to boost their own sense of importance. Invariably, the disparaging person is quickly revealed to be the greater fool. However, if the target allows the fool the satisfaction of offending, then the target has granted the fool an undeserved legitimacy. Perhaps it reveals a weak constitution on the part of the target, or a low sense of self worth. Why else would someone grant defining authority to a fool's opinion?
It's ironic that the “n-word” is now accepted within the black race. A term so steeped in slavery, Jim Crow and government enforced segregation must be derogatory even when used by one black person toward another. This raises an interesting point.
If blacks insist on referring to each other with defamatory language, how can they claim outrage if other races relate to them according to the terms they have defined? When blacks refer to other blacks as “niggers”, they squander the respect and credibility that previous generations suffered to achieve. It's like a group of young women openly calling each other “slut” and “whore,” then becoming gravely offended when young men treat them that way.
Does this mean that I believe other races are free to label blacks with the slurs and epithets of yesteryear, the ones they've now adopted? Certainly not, and blacks are free to call each other whatever names they choose. But when blacks so degrade each other while claiming that “black hole” and “devil's food cake” are racist terms--as two black county commissioners from Dallas, Texas recently did--it becomes difficult to take genuine racial problems seriously.
No person, regardless of race, can expect others to grant them greater respect than they will grant to themselves. If blacks expect macro-society to move past the “n-word”, it should become unacceptable in their micro-society as well.
An Iran plan that'll satisfy everyone
July 15, 2008
There's very little on which the left and right can agree. If they agreed, there be no left or right. Those in the middle--the oft-praised moderates--believe that both the left and right are both right and wrong. In short, they're noncommittal.
Perhaps no other international issue highlights these divisions like Iran's nuclear program. The debate turned hotter still with Iran's announced missile test. Iranian TV broadcast the launch, which included a missile capable of reaching U.S. forces in Iraq and Bahrain as well as the hated, evil, Zionist dogs in Israel. Such a test is provocative without Iran's typical rhetoric. Then, right on cue, the rhetoric flowed, too.
Iran has vowed reprisals should the U.S. or Israel attack their nuclear facilities. Iranian General Hossein Salami said, “Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch.” Those are forceful words, General. But may I remind you that we have missiles, too? Furthermore, ours work. Maybe that knowledge can help our nations avoid conflict.
It turns out that Iran's missile test contained more hot air than a desert wind. Despite the initial worldwide alarm, it appears that Iran launched no new missile capable of striking Israel or our Middle East bases. The video itself was doctored to conceal the failure of at least one missile, with even Al Jazeera reporting the fraud.
What now? If Iran's grandstanding reflected a genuine capability it would fuel the argument for military action. But, since their eye-opening claims appear to be a snooze-inducing lie, is Iran no longer a threat? Hardly.
The doctored images could've been a poorly executed bluff intended to make the world think Iran possesses advanced missile technology. It's also possible that Iran wanted the fakery exposed. What better smokescreen for a developing nuclear weapons program than public failure? But conspiracy theories aside, Iran's hostile intentions have long been clear.
President Ahmadinejad has openly called for a world without Israel and the United States. What's more, he believes that goal is achievable. Last year Iran seized 15 British sailors in international waters. This year, Iranian boats threatened U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. Their open antagonism dates to the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979. Not a threat? How can we logically consider Iran otherwise?
So, should we go to war? The timing couldn't be worse. Activists were so successful in demonizing the Iraq War that it's hard to envision support for attacking Iran. America's attention span simply won't focus on another war front. We're too concerned with gas prices, economic uncertainty, and “bad news” from Iraq. Any operation would be deemed a failure unless it revealed an Iranian countryside littered with nuclear missiles.
However, there's good news afoot. I've developed a solution that will please everyone.
For the leftist doves, we simply leave Iran's nuclear program alone and hold unilateral talks with their radical leaders. But, those private talks will adopt a hawkish attitude.
We let Iran know that they are responsible for any electron, neutron, or proton that we find offensive. As little as one split atom for the glory of Allah will result in Iran's total, unrestrained and indiscriminate annihilation, no excuses accepted.
The left is happy. Iran's been left to their own devices and we've established dialogue with an adversary. And if Iran or an affiliate nukes an American city, leftists can consider it just compensation for our past imperialist aggressions.
The right is happy, too. If the predictable becomes reality, we fulfill our promise and we're rid of this backward nation of rug weavers. Even Iran is happy. With modern civilization obliterated the surviving Ayatollahs and Imams can blissfully live in the Seventh Century, which they seem to prefer.
And what about the moderates? They'll just have to find contentment in their wavering.
A few questions in need of answering
July 10, 2008
A lot of time goes into writing these columns. Research is required, and each source commands documentation. A filing system is necessary for retrieving sources as needed. These things are imperative. Unless I can substantiate my positions they have lost whatever influence they may have.
Research is certainly rewarding, and can be interesting. There's nothing quite like discovering a study or statistic that validates what common logic has long held to be true. Still, the constant review of websites, newspapers, wire services and media archives borders on the mundane. But piling through judicial decisions, with their cited precedents and legalese, is the worst of all. I'd just as soon cut my lawn with a pair of tweezers.
However, perseverance being beneficial, the tedium of research has granted me a bit of knowledge and insight. Mostly, I've become more cognizant of my ignorance. As the lyrics from an old rock song state, “And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know.”
Inevitably, I've asked questions to which I've found no answers. Some of them are serious; some are undeniably silly. Others may be funny, foolish, odd, or irrelevant. This is where you come in. Help me answer my questions. And don't fear being wrong; any answer you provide will beat what I've come up with. Here goes.
Why do people who think that foreign spies and illegal aliens are innocent until proven guilty see no problem with the IRS considering native-born Americans guilty until proven innocent?
Why does the phrase “state-run television” conjure images of gulags and propaganda ministers while “public broadcasting” sounds innocent, non-threatening and pure?
Are people who celebrate diversity really celebrating diversity? Or, has the term become cover for people who obscure fact, logic, common sense, and tradition with vapid, emotional rhetoric?
Why shouldn't I take the American Federation of Government Employees' endorsement of Barak Obama to indicate that Obama plans to grow government exponentially?
How can anti-poverty activists justify the forced redistribution of wealth on the basis that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us?
How can government demand that private malfeasances (such as football's “spy gate” and baseball's steroids scandal) be investigated by outside sources, yet retain the right to investigate itself on all internal matters?
If Democrat Hillary Clinton figures out a way to steal the Democratic presidential nomination from Democrat Barak Obama at the Democratic Convention in heavily Democratic Denver, how will it be President Bush's fault?
Does anyone else think that American Idol is nothing more than the Gong Show on steroids?
What article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to determine which Americans constitute “the rich” and what their “fair share” ought to be?
If slavery is the engine that drove America's economic prosperity, why was the Confederacy poorer than the Union? Furthermore, why did wealth increase dramatically during the 20th Century, long after slavery was abolished?
Why do people who distrust President Bush's government seem willing to trust that same government to manage their retirement, healthcare, medicine, food, housing, job, fuel, etc., if the administration has a “D” beside its name instead of an “R”?
Why is it that a man who notices an attractive woman in the presence of his wife lands in hot water? But, if the wife comments on the pretty woman and the husband simply agrees, he's in the clear?
Maybe you can shed light on a few of these dark areas. Maybe you're scratching your head, your confusion as profound as my own. But why not ponder these questions for a while? You could solve a riddle that has plagued mankind for years. And it's a better use of your time than watching American Idol, or the Gong Show for that matter.
Love him or hate him, you knew where Jesse Helms stood
July 8, 2008
With the news of Jesse Helms passing came the predictable, made-for-the-media commentaries. Political allies and adversaries spoke glowingly of the former Senator, even the ones who disliked both Helms and his conservative philosophy. It seemed odd to hear liberals publicly praising Helms' legacy, so I decided to look where liberals would air their views uncensored.
Ever hear of Democratic Underground? It's a website dedicated to liberal discussion, liberal ideas, and liberal politicians. In fact, posting conservative content on the site can result in your account being suspended. How's that for the free exchange of ideas that we hear liberals crow about? As you may expect, members of Democratic Underground had some interesting takes on Sen. Helms and his death.
“Mad_Dem_X” wrote, “One should only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good!” “Badgervan” chimed in, “Damn, I've hated this cretin for many decades. Hope he's enjoying face time with his boss, Lucifer.” “Dankira” posted, “Hopefully his death was slow and painful. . . We are all much richer for having lost him.” These are but a few of the heartfelt eulogies marking Helms' passing at Democratic Underground.
Publicly, Helms' most strident adversaries chose to speak politely of his passing. But considering his passion for frankness and straight answers he may have preferred the toxic reactions of his far left “mourners”. Especially if the stories are true that Helms faithfully collected virulent anti-Helms editorial cartoons and displayed them prominently on his office wall.
That thick skin endeared Helms to his constituents. No matter your opinion of him or his politics, you knew he would stand firm for his beliefs. He never wavered and he didn't compromise his principles. If you didn't want to know what Jesse thought of an issue you were better off not asking.
Jesse Helms was a consummate conservative, tirelessly fighting against high taxes, bureaucracy, and overbearing regulators. Although he was a part of the federal government for 30 years, he always maintained that people could better manage their affairs than could a Washington agency.
Long before the “no fear” attitude came into vogue, Helms had embraced it with gusto. He didn't consider it his place to please the New York Times or the Washington Post. Making nice with Dan Rather wasn't high on his list either. Even when called a bigot, he abandoned neither his Christian beliefs nor his moral principles. And charges of racism didn't derail his opposition to affirmative action, which he rightly identified as the same government sanctioned discrimination aimed in a new direction.
Both allies and opponents could deal with Senator Helms. They knew what he thought, and they knew he wouldn't be swayed by trendy policies or avant-garde notions. Therefore, he commanded respect if not agreement. He wasn't perfect; no one is. But he gave the Senate guts, transparency, and candidness, qualities that are rare in that chamber these days.
“Just another conservative praising Helms,” you say. Not so fast. I agreed with Jesse Helms, and unashamedly so. But there are Democrats I respect too, for the same reasons I respect Helms. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is one. Joseph Lieberman is another. I don't agree with them. But, like Helms, I seldom had to guess about their positions.
Whether you loved or hated Helms, you always received the genuine article. His views weren't poll-driven, media-indulging, or focus-grouped. And they weren't tossed aside the morning after Election Day.
Jesse Helms was Jesse Helms 100-percent of the time. He tempered his forceful opinions with a genuine warmth and Southern politeness that is disappearing all too rapidly from our culture. Furthermore, you could always count on him giving you a clear choice on Election Day.
Rest in peace Senator Helms. The Senate could use more men like you, on both sides of the aisle.
Second Amendment ruling welcome, but with an asterisk
July 4, 2008
The Supreme Court has confirmed what a majority of Americans already knew; the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms. The decision recognizes, in part, the Founding Father's vision.
“A well regulated militia” is the nail upon which gun control advocates hang their misguided agenda. But the Founder's considered the militia to include everyone, and everyone is an all-inclusive pronoun. George Mason defined the militia as “the whole people.” James Madison concurred. And Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
To enjoy freedom we must have a way to protect it. Armies and navies can fill that job against external threats. However, any military force--including our own, for which I have great respect--can be unleashed against the internal population. What then?
If we are to remain free there must exist some mechanism to resist enslavement and defend liberty. Hence the right of a free people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and freedom. Minus the means to forcibly resist tyranny, our liberty is--at best--an arbitrary privilege.
In the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms apart from active militia service. Justice Scalia's opinion recognized the Founder's fear of government and that private arms are the ultimate check against government abuses. However, the fact that the ruling was 5-4 and not 9-0 underscores the contemporary necessity of the right to bear arms and the perpetual threat government poses to liberty.
Justice Stevens wrote in dissent that the Second Amendment holds no interest in limiting government regulation of private arms. He added that the right to bear arms applies only to military service and the use of arms for military purposes. So, Justice Stevens would submit that a free people can possess arms to defend government against citizens but not citizens against government? Such an attitude is precisely why a free people must be armed.
Unfortunately, he isn't alone in his disdain for individual liberty.
Justice Breyer wrote that there's no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in your home, not even in “crime-ridden urban areas.” Therefore, Breyer would render you at the mercy of the violent predators that he and his judicial ilk routinely return to the streets.
D.C. politicians, from the current mayor and police chief to the crack-smoking former mayor Marion Berry, vowed to circumvent the ruling. District Attorney Peter Nickles promised to continue the city's trigger lock requirement in direct disregard for page 64 of Scalia's majority opinion, which holds that rendering firearms inoperable for immediate self-defense is unconstitutional.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said the ruling could turn colleges and towns into “potential incubators of terrorism.” Mr. Mueller, gun bans (including D.C.'s) have been in effect from the time of the Iran Hostage Crisis through 9/11 to today. How well, Mr. Mueller, have gun bans worked in preventing terrorism? Yet, if Americans retain their right to bear arms, they are the potential terrorists.
Such are the arguments of tyrants and the accepted creed of slaves. From Justice Breyer to D.C.'s political “leaders” to Robert Mueller, they are tyrants one and all. If you accept their positions you can readily see the category into which you fall.
Heller is a boon not just to the Second Amendment but to liberty itself. Yet its aftermath highlights the hostility toward freedom that exists throughout modern American culture, as well as the subservient nature common to many of our countrymen.
The reaction of opponents to Heller should forever prove why the Second Amendment's individual interpretation is essential to personal liberty. However, that jubilation should be marked with an asterisk. The slim majority ruling and its political aftermath proves that the fight for liberty, which began 233 years ago at Lexington and Concord, is far from over.
Give the “Fourth of July” its due respect
June 28, 2008
Happy Birthday, America! Someone need convey that wish, for it seems fewer and fewer people can spare the time. Maybe we've become ignorant of the Fourth of July's significance. Perhaps we're complacent, or simply too busy to care.
Most Americans will celebrate the Fourth of July in some way, be it a family cookout, a ballgame, or a vacation. But why bother celebrating the Fourth of July if you're only celebrating the Fourth of July?
There's a July 4th in Canada. England too, although it's significantly less meaningful than it should be here. In fact, there is a July 4th in any culture that follows the Gregorian calendar. The date itself is insignificant without an associated event.
Let's look at it this way. Do you give 25th of December presents to your family and friends? Do you gather at grandma's house for a turkey and dressing dinner in honor of November's fourth Thursday? Does our society--shaped by Christian history whether the ACLU likes it or not--celebrate the first Sunday following the first full moon of the vernal equinox?
Most of us quickly realize that we celebrate Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter, not the dates on which they fall. Doesn't July 4th deserve honor for what it represents? It's not just a date on the calendar and it's far more than a day off from work or an excuse for grilling burgers. The Fourth of July is Independence Day and it should be recognized as such.
It is the day when our Founding Fathers formally pledged to each other--and to a fledgling nation--their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. At the moment John Hancock applied his artistic signature to Thomas Jefferson's inspired Declaration of Independence the colonies became a sovereign nation, no longer subject to King George's crown.
More than 10,500 Americans were killed or wounded to preserve that sovereignty. All told, over 2.6 million of our countrymen have been killed or wounded to preserve American autonomy. To their memory we recognize Independence Day as if it were only a date on the calendar?
But perhaps there are reasons we no longer hold independence in the same esteem our forebears did. Daniel Webster once said that subsequent generations should celebrate Independence Day “with bonfires and illuminations.” That might also include celebratory gunfire.
However, many purported lovers of liberty within our government would ban the private ownership of firearms given half a chance, recent Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding. And how many governments have decided that fireworks--a form of illumination--are too dangerous to be used safely? Our paternalistic government guardians must fear that we'll put out an eye.
No doubt that unlimbering grandpa's old double-barreled shotgun or firing skyrockets in an urban environment isn't the best idea. But the point is that we've become far too complacent, subservient, and sheepish to celebrate our nation's birth for what it was and is--independence from outside rule.
We aren't celebrating the Fourth of July. That date came and went before our Founding Fathers made it special. Why not return to the spirit of Daniel Webster's oration if not the absolute letter?
Celebrate your sovereignty, America! Celebrate your republic. Celebrate your Independence Day. We are not bound to the United Nations or to a thus far unrealized North American Union. We are an emancipated people, fully capable of self-government. Let us not become Pavlov's dog, conditioned to quietly accept our destruction.
The Fourth of July is far more than a date on a calendar and a day off from work. It is our Independence Day, the day on which our Founders told the greatest empire on the face of the earth to take a hike.
If we cannot undertake to celebrate Independence Day for what it is, no wonder we're squeamish when called to defend the freedom and sovereignty it represents.
One happy ending in 50 million
June 18, 2008
Every now and then there's a happy ending. This one began when Jodie Percival decided to abort her pregnancy. She feared that her child would inherit a potentially fatal, hereditary kidney disorder, and her fears were grounded in reality. She had experienced the death of one son due to the condition. A second son is living, but with only one kidney.
Why Jodie thought that ending the pregnancy was the compassionate option is anyone's guess. Either way the child would likely die. But a funny thing happened on the way to the bio-waste container. The abortion didn't take.
Jodie's son, Finley, was born premature and with minor kidney damage. Otherwise he's fine and expected to live a normal life. Jodie is now thrilled with her son and grateful that the abortion failed. Finley can't yet offer his assessment of the situation. But you have to assume the outcome pleases him, too.
The only people who are likely to be upset are Planned Parenthood staffers--and NARAL Pro-Choice America activists--who never seem to meet an abortion they don't think is necessary. Why should Jodie or Finley care what they think anyway?
No one can predict what the future holds for Finley. His kidneys could yet fail and he could die young. He may take the wrong path and spend his life in prison. Or, he could live a long and productive life, possibly becoming a national hero. We just don't know.
The point is that Finley will have those opportunities. He will get the chance to live, to make the decisions that will determine his worth. Far too many babies are deprived of that opportunity. They are deprived of the blessing of birth, all for the sake of their parent's convenience.
“Doesn't a woman have a choice in pregnancy?” you ask. She sure does, and she makes that choice when she decides to lie with a man. If she doesn't want to accept the responsibility that comes with sexual activity--i.e.: becoming pregnant--she should abstain. The least she can do is take preventative measures. But it's the mother and father who bear responsibility if those measures fail, not the predictable result of their union.
Please refrain from offering the tired, old “what about rape and incest” argument. If those crimes were the source behind every abortion performed legally in America there'd be about 10,000 abortions annually, not an estimated 1 million.
We have surpassed the 50 million mark in legal abortions since 1973, a dubious milestone at best. Although abortions are declining, it's too late for the lives already discarded. Have you ever wondered what the unseen consequences of 35 years of abortion on demand might be?
We bemoan the lack of cures for deadly cancers. What if the physician who would've found a remedy for one or more lethal cancers was aborted by his or her mother? What if the child who would've cured Lou Gehrig's Disease, AIDS, or the common cold was aborted?
Perhaps the scientist who could've developed a cheap, clean, renewable fuel source and the industrialist who would've invented the replacement for the internal combustion engine were discarded at an abortion clinic.
The leader who could've returned our nation to its constitutional roots may never have drawn a breath. He or she was just too inconvenient for the mother. The evangelist who was intended to lead the next Great Awakening may never have seen the light of day.
Can I prove any of these scenarios? Of course not. But abortion activists can't disprove them either. In a control group of 50 million-plus aborted babies we've undoubtedly missed out on some potentially world-changing lives.
Finley is fortunate. He received a second chance to be born, a second chance at life itself. I pray he makes the most of it.
Leftist pundits apply the assumption of innocence selectively
June 12, 2008
One of the great protections Americans enjoy is the presumption of innocence. Our courts never declare a defendant “innocent” of an alleged crime. Being found “innocent” implies that guilt existed beforehand. Instead, an exonerated American is declared “not guilty”, a verdict which is consistent with innocence until guilt is proven.
This basic right of a free and respectful people protects individuals from wrongful, politically-motivated convictions. While railroading and wrongful conviction remains possible, assumed innocence provides a vital check against miscarriages of justice. What a shame it is that politically-driven pundits apply that assumption selectively.
In November, 2005, a roadside bomb killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, a Marine on patrol in Haditha, Iraq. The blast's aftermath left 24 Iraqis dead, most of the world wondering what had happened, and the American left criticizing the Marines like they were Nazi storm troopers.
In a 2006 letter to the Los Angeles Times, one reader said the Haditha Massacre represented our soldier's actions throughout the Iraq War and that our Marines had exacted vengeance “on the nearest defenseless Iraqis.” Another wrote that we have blood on our hands for justifying murder.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd used the incident to lament the lack of ethics, values and decency in our troops. Apparently, she fully believes that US Marines kill women and children for kicks, resurrecting the “baby-killer” label that was unfairly pinned on our Vietnam soldiers.
Marjorie Cohn--writing for truthout.org in May, 2006--summarily dismissed the Marine Corps' account of the Haditha firefight. Conversely, she readily accepted the idea that American troops are cold-blooded murderers while referring to our enemies as “resistance fighters.” She drew her conclusions based on unidentified sources, locals who may have been in league with the enemy, and conspiracy theories.
Each and every accusation was lodged before the investigation was complete or a trial had begun. It's a good thing the military courts have more respect for presumptive innocence. Had these “compassionate” leftists had their way, our Marines would've been convicted and punished two years ago, without benefit of trial.
Lt. Andrew Grayson was recently found not guilty on all charges related to Haditha. He is unique in being the first Marine tried in the case, but the sixth to be exonerated. How's that possible? It seems there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the first five defendants.
Only squad leader Frank Wuterich awaits trial for direct involvement in the incident, and he's charged with manslaughter, not murder. He doesn't deny that civilians died at Haditha. In fact, no one has denied that civilians died at Haditha. But he maintains that his actions and orders were based on the situation as it existed. I'll bet he's exonerated, too.
Most of us will never experience those circumstances--thank God--and can't imagine what Sgt. Wuterich faced. That includes the agenda-driven media pundits who were so eager to pronounce our Marines guilty.
Military victories can be glamorous and heroic. But war itself is dirty and ugly at best. It's not unusual for civilians as well as soldiers to die. In fact, it is rather common. I'm confident that our Marines were fired upon in Haditha. I also realize that they could've erred and raided the wrong house, with catastrophic results. But left-wing pundits and activists couldn't get past their unfounded biases long enough to consider such possibilities.
From Maureen Dowd to Marjorie Cohn to the readers of the L.A. Times, leftists were unable to hide their disdain for our military. They rushed to condemn our troops without the benefit of trial, all the while defending the rights of captured terrorists. Along the way they trampled a basic tenet of American justice.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if leftist pundits would grant our soldiers the same presumption of innocence that they so readily bestow upon Islamic radicals?
Politicians can't save us
June 12, 2008
Maybe it doesn't matter much now. The North Carolina primary is over. Hillary Clinton lost and has since dropped her presidential ambitions, at least for 2008. However, I was amazed when Gov. Mike Easley endorsed her candidacy.
Oh, I wasn't surprised that he endorsed a Democrat. Easley himself is a Democrat, a big government Democrat. And both Hillary and Obama are big government Democrats, as alike as two peas in a pod. So it's wasn't at all surprising that he endorsed one of the two. What was surprising, and a bit unnerving, was the reaction of the audience when he made the announcement.
They shouted. They screamed. They acted as if their favorite team had just won the Super Bowl, or like they were attending a Jeremiah Wright sermon at the Trinity Divided Church of Christ. They did everything but cut flips. It's sad to think that anyone's mind is so vapid, and their existence so inconsequential, that a rather predictable announcement can propel them into a frenzy.
As the prophet Hosea wrote, “But even if we had a king, what could he do for us? They make many promises, take false oaths and make agreements; . . .” Why trust your happiness to such hands?
My friend, no politician can make your life better through government programs. It doesn't matter if it's Barak Obama with his ambiguous hope and change, Hillary Clinton with her clearly defined class envy and socialism, or John McCain's maverick moderation. It can be Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul, or Mike Gravel, or whoever. No one person can make your life better by sitting in the Oval Office.
The greatest president in this nation's history could occupy the White House for the next four years. That president could restore this republic to its constitutional principles. He or she, white or black, could rein in the bloated federal bureaucracy, cut every wasteful government program and eliminate each department or agency that is beyond Washington's constitutional authority. That president can open the floodgates of capitalism, creating an economy that grows exponentially. Yet, if you refuse to participate it will do you no good whatsoever.
One person, however, can harm your life from the Oval Office. If a president implements policies that drain the economy, increase government regulation, expand the scope of government and stoke the federal bureaucracy's insatiable appetite for taxation, that person can thwart your hard work. They can leave you in worse shape than before.
Isn't it time to realize that it's each individual American who makes this country work? It's not representatives in statehouses. It's not governors. It's not district representatives or Senators in Congress, nor is it the President. It's not bureaucrats implementing volume upon dusty volume of burdensome regulations that even they don't understand. It is not government!
You should realize that your efforts make this country thrive. Whether your collar is white or blue, professional or trade, you make America work. You make it wealthy. You drive America's gross domestic product and you need not feel threatened or intimidated by anyone who claims otherwise. And you're the one with the God-given ability to ensure constitutional government and unbridled prosperity for this nation.
You're not beholden to politicians. They are beholden to you, the voter. For without you they have no power; they have no authority. Therefore, to see emancipated Americans stand and shout at a political endorsement as if that candidate can single-handedly make their lives better is depressing.
If such attitudes represent the thought process that will determine the course of government we are diving headlong into an empty pool. There remains but one conclusion. No matter who wins the White House this November, no matter their party affiliation or who controls Congress, we will get exactly what we deserve.
N.C. Senate bill is reminiscent of slavery
June 4, 2008
A bad government program is one thing. We've seen enough bad government programs so that they've become old hat. But when a bad government program is sold on the basis of social betterment it should send up a red flag. Therefore, Sen. Tony Rand's S-2079--filed May 28th in the North Carolina Senate--should have North Carolinians waving red flags from Johnsonville to Knotts Island.
Rest assured that this immoral bill is filled with lofty platitudes and pretentious goals. Sen. Rand claims that his sanctimoniously-titled Eve Carson/Abhijit Mahato Community Service Program will grow the economy, lower crime, ease racial tensions and alleviate gang activity. This will all be accomplished when college students mentor at-risk teenagers for at least 20-hours per semester.
“What's wrong with that?” you ask. Plenty! In fact, there's so much wrong with it that it cannot be adequately addressed in this limited space. Even long-standing champions of social engineering--who think Sen. Rand's sentiment is laudable--questioned his approach to the problem. I say both the approach and sentiment are dubious.
Sen. Rand has displayed a total contempt for freedom, a lack of respect for people and a colossal ignorance of volunteerism. Worse yet, he acts under the assumption that you and I are too stupid to see his bill for what it is.
The proposal's text refers repeatedly to volunteerism. However, a volunteer gives freely. A volunteer may donate time, money, or property. But a voluntary act cannot be made under duress. Students will have no choice if Sen. Rand gets his way.
Section 1 of S-2079 reads, “Participation in this program shall be a requirement for any baccalaureate degree awarded after January 1, 2012.” If this bill becomes law no college student can receive their bachelor's degree without having passed through Rand's “community service program”. This is student volunteerism? A more apt definition is that they're being conscripted or shanghaied.
Sen. Rand considers college students--your sons and daughters--to be state property. He will force them to serve other people's needs regardless of their desire or qualifications to do so. And he'll withhold the degree they've earned, and that you or they have paid for, if they don't do his bidding. Worse yet, Sen. Rand doesn't even have the cover of war to legitimize his version of the draft.
Maybe it's time to remind Sen. Rand that the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished “involuntary servitude” within the United States. And make no mistake; this bill is the 21st Century descendant of 19th Century slavery.
Even the name is offensive. You remember Eve Carson and Abhijit Mahato as the UNC and Duke students who were murdered earlier this year. Their murders were perpetrated by the very demographic Sen. Rand would've forced them to serve. That's not to say that all “at-risk” teens are capable of killing their mentors. But it does prove that Sen. Rand has no qualms with forcing your kids to enter into a possibly dangerous situation against their will.
This legislation has no redeeming qualifications whatsoever. It assumes the false notion of compulsory volunteerism. A segment of society--college students--is deemed state property. It capitalizes on the emotional connection to the Carson and Mahato murders to create support. Worst of all, it grants government the authority to force one human being to serve another, against their will. If that is not slavery, and it meets the definition pretty well, it is at least tyranny.
The Eve Carson/Abhijit Mahato Community Service Program, while unlikely to become law, should never have seen the light of day to begin with. What's more, the bill's text indicates a legislator, Senator Tony Rand, who is so hostile toward freedom and self-government that he should be removed from office.
Then again, in how many ways is government already forcing us to serve our neighbor's needs?
To the Graduating Class of 2008
May 30, 2008
Life can be summarized as the continual pursuit of milestones. Some milestones lead toward greater accomplishment. Others are reached and soon forgotten. Without regard to their overall importance, milestones open new doors.
Your first accomplishments, or milestones, were walking and talking. These were reached at a young age and aren't likely remembered. You can, however, remember your first day of school. It was your first milestone moment, and it opened the door to more accomplishments in later years.
Sometime following your first day of school you brought home an “A” on your report card. You scored your first run, touchdown, or goal. You completed elementary school and became a teenager. Not long after came the first boy or girl who made you sweat more than an oral book report.
At some point during your childhood you began to anticipate your 16th birthday. Since birthdays are somewhat a milestone themselves, what made that one special? I'm betting that it wasn't high school algebra. When you turned 16 you were able to drive, and it was a time you'll never forget.
However, like every important moment since the first day of school, driving was more a rite of passage than a milestone. Nearly anyone can get a driver's license, and if you don't believe it just try driving in rush hour traffic. You took driver's education, passed your test, and you were on your way. There are far more important achievements.
For you, Graduate, a true milestone is at hand. The culmination of 12 years of classes, homework, book reports, club meetings and ball practices are here. Thousands of you will receive your high school diploma. This is more than a rite of passage. It is a monumental event that opens a new chapter in your life, drawing you to higher accomplishments.
It's true that your diploma doesn't guarantee your success. However, it does mark a significant transformation. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man (or woman), I put childish ways behind me.” You're now an adult, and it's time to act like one.
Prayers and advice will accompany the cards, gifts and letters from family and friends. Many of them will encourage you to hold fast to your dreams. They mean well; they really do. But their advice is inadequate. Far better for you to establish goals, then pursue them doggedly.
No effort is required to dream. Anyone can dream, for dreams demand neither plan nor action. Dreamers too often become wishers, hoping for an outcome they haven't pursued. It is a recipe for frustration and failure.
I don't suggest that you hold onto dreams. Instead I urge you to change dreams into goals, becoming more than a dreamer. Goals compel you to act, for they won't attain themselves. Define your goals, aiming higher than you think you can reach. Then, even if you fall short, you will have accomplished more than otherwise possible. And when you reach a goal, set a new one. To be content is to be thankful; to be satisfied is to be stagnant.
Pursue all ends with honor and integrity. And despite the best efforts of political correctness, the Ten Commandments are both valid and viable. Discover God's purpose for you and ground your life on that knowledge. When you're knocked down-and you will be, more than once-get up. Self-pity produces nothing. And never, ever, listen to people who say you can't.
The door is opening and it's time to step through. Transform those little boy and girl dreams into mature man and woman goals. If you rely on dreams you will someday look back and wonder why you've accomplished nothing. Establish goals and you'll look back with amazement at how far you've come.
Congratulations, Class of 2008. God Bless each of you.
The old definition of hero still works
May 27, 2008
Memorial Day just passed. Between cookouts and ballgames I hope you found a moment to recall the millions of Americans who've died in wars or who passed away sometime after their military service. Now I hope you'll consider the new definition of “hero”.
Matthew Chiroux is the new face of military heroism to a vocal segment of America's population. He served six years in the Army, some of that time in Afghanistan. But when Chiroux's unit received deployment orders to Iraq, he decided he wouldn't go. Sgt. Chiroux said, “"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation…”
The legality and constitutionality of the Iraq War has been questioned ad nauseam. Yet there've been few explanations for the charge. Has Sgt. Chiroux acted heroically by refusing an illegal order? Let's look at it.
In 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. That resolution outlined Congress' reasons for authorizing military force and granted power to the President to use force as he deemed appropriate. The result of that action is a close as the nearest news outlet.
If you've read my previous thoughts on Iraq you know that I support the effort. My reasons go back farther than 9/11 and extend beyond terrorism and WMDs. I also recognized some good arguments against the invasion. However, legal and constitutional matters weren't among them.
The aforementioned resolutions may not have “declared war” in so many words. But Congress did empower the commander-in-chief to use force in Iraq at his discretion. Therefore, it's hard to declare the Iraq War illegal or unconstitutional regardless of a person's current view of the war or its progress.
“But Bush manipulated evidence and misled Congress,” you say. If so, you must also indict the prior administration as well as Members of Congress from both parties, for those parties accepted the intelligence reports about Iraq's activities even before 9/11. You can argue Iraq's successes and failures. You can argue tactics and plans. You can even argue Scott McClellan. But Congress authorized Bush to take military action against Iraq.
No soldier is obligated to follow blatantly illegal orders. The “just following orders” defense went out with the Nuremburg Trials. Even so, Sgt. Chiroux has no defense based on his deployment being unconstitutional and, therefore, an illegal order.
Still, Chiroux has become a hero to people who consider the current administration illegitimate and the Iraq War unconstitutional and illegal. If the traditional image of a military hero fit the Matthew Chiroux mold, I doubt that our nation would be here today.
While Sgt. Chiroux was making his “heroic” declaration at a Capitol Hill press conference, Spc. Ross McGinnis' family was preparing for a ceremony in which their late son will be awarded the Medal of Honor. It is our nation's highest military decoration, and all too often presented to the surviving family of a soldier who sacrificed their life to save others.
Then Pfc. Ross McGinnis was on patrol when an Iraqi insurgent tossed a grenade into his Humvee. He was in the gunner's hatch, a position from which he could've escape with his life. Instead he ducked into the vehicle and dove on the grenade, sacrificing his life so his friends could live. It sounds like a scene from Saving Private Ryan. But it was very real to Ross McGinnis. It will be forever real to his family.
We now have contrasting images of a military hero. Sgt. Matthew Chiroux, who will likely face desertion charges, represents the contemporary version. The traditional role is played to perfection by Medal of Honor recipient, Spc. Ross McGinnis, God rest his soul. You must decide which man better fits the definition of “hero”. For my money, the traditional way works pretty well.
Is Obama the latest Democrat appeaser?
May 26, 2008
President Bush is a lame duck. Very little that he says or does over the next seven months is likely to cause a stir. But he sure got the Democrat's attention when he referred to them as the party of appeasers.
There exists the idea that America should reach out to hostile leaders. It's as if good intentions and diplomatic dialogue will alter a tyrant's lust for power and conquest. Bush contradicted that position saying, “We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Sen. Barak Obama and Democratic Party leaders were quick to take offense. However, since President Bush never mentioned Obama by name, the question becomes whether or not his assessment is accurate.
During the 1970s the United States pursued a philosophy of détente with the Soviet Union. It began with a Republican administration and escalated greatly under a Democratic one. The idea was based on both superpowers being morally equivalent. But that basis was flawed, for Soviet communism had respect for neither humanity nor freedom. By 1980 we had fallen behind the USSR in terms of nuclear weapons and military preparedness. We had bartered away our areas of superiority, such as the B-1 bomber and decreased trajectory missiles.
Appeasement, or détente, was so successful that Leonid Brezhnev once said, “Come 1985, we will be able to extend our will wherever we need to.”
When North Korea's nuclear ambitions became known in 1993, a Democrat met with Kim Jong Il. The parties struck a deal in which North Korea would shut down plutonium producing reactors in exchange for economic and energy concessions. The world praised the agreement with a collective sigh of relief. But the North had violated the pact before the ink had dried.
By 2002 North Korea had expelled nuclear inspectors and withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. While Kim Jong Il's nuclear capability remained questionable, it was plain that he had double-crossed his negotiating partner and appeasement had failed.
Hezbollah guerillas entered Israel in the summer of 2006. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers and rocketed Israeli towns, then scurried back to their holes in Lebanon do hide among the civilian population. When Israel retaliated, Democrats blamed the Jewish state for the rising civilian death toll.
There was nary a peep about Hezbollah launching raids and rockets from Lebanese towns and using residents as human shields. Today, Hezbollah is on the verge of taking Lebanon outright, creating an unquestionable puppet state for Syria and Iran. Democrats see no problem and appeasement has failed yet again.
We dealt with Saddam Hussein via diplomacy and negotiation for ten years. In return, Iraqi forces fired on US planes in the no-fly zone, thwarted weapons inspectors, violated arms control agreements, and established a lucrative money laundering scheme otherwise known as the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program. We've offered similar olive branches to Syria, Iran and Hamas. And Obama himself has promised unconditional negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Remember the North Korea agreement?
I'm not advocating war against every country or entity with which we disagree. However, I don't advocate legitimizing thuggish regimes by groveling at their feet, either. Ask Czechoslovakians how well appeasing a dictator worked in 1938. Chamberlain legitimized Hitler's ambitions, which resulted in 55 million deaths, untold human suffering, and Czechoslovakians living under communism for 45 years.
President Bush accused Democrats of practicing appeasement. And in recent history, Democrats have led the charge in snuggling brutish regimes and organizations. But Bush mentioned no one by name, including Senator Obama. Yet Obama was quick to claim offense. Doesn't that seem odd?
Perhaps Bush's comment struck a bit too close to Obama's heart. There's an old saying in the rural South, “a hit dog barks.”
Burma dictators exemplify government's natural course
May 10, 2008
“The hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water. The scoundrel's methods are wicked, he makes up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just.” Isaiah 32:6, 7.
Isaiah's words are prophetic indeed. Keep them in mind as you consider the Burmese government's response to cyclone relief efforts. What little bit of food and aid Burma's dictatorial leaders have allowed into the storm-ravaged nation has been immediately impounded by government officials. Their callous attitude has prompted shock and outrage around the world. But we shouldn't be surprised at all.
All government--yes, even legitimate government--exists to control their populations to a certain degree. It isn't government's natural tendency to ensure the protection of human rights or to ease human suffering. It is government's natural tendency to protect itself. No wonder Thomas Paine referred to government as, at best, “a necessary evil.”
The Burmese government has faced unrest within its population and will take no chance that its authority will be challenged. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that all humanitarian assistance entering Burma would be subject to government confiscation and inspection. Burma's dictators won't take the risk, however slim, that weapons could be smuggled into the country along with the aid packages, weapons that could prompt an oppressed and desperate population to armed rebellion.
The Burmese military junta would rather see millions of its own people starve to death than risk the slightest threat to its totalitarian control. Does that sound harsh and incomprehensible? You bet it does. But it is the natural progression of government. We've seen it too often not to believe it. Governments starved, killed, executed and enslaved their citizens by the millions throughout the 20th Century.
The Soviet Union persecuted people at the drop of a hat, even to the point of a contrived famine in Ukraine. Josef Stalin imposed grain quotas on collective farms that couldn't be achieved. Since the government received the first fruits of all collective farm production, there was little left for the collective farmers themselves, who went hungry. People who refused to relinquish the grain were often shot. Stalin's forced famine, which killed between six and seven million Ukrainians, was proclaimed a great success.
When Cambodians welcomed communist forces at the end of the Vietnam War, their acquiescence was rewarded with death and hardship. People were forced from their urban homes, marched for days on end with little food and water, and forced to build new towns in jungle wastelands while communist party leaders and soldiers lived in their former cities. People who couldn't keep pace with the forced marches were shot or left to die by the side of the road.
Hitler used his brown-shirted thugs to establish Nazism in Germany, and then killed them when they were no longer useful. Nazis burned and looted Jewish homes and stores. Nazis dragged Jews to concentration camps where they were overworked, beaten, starved and gassed. Anyone found disloyal to Der Fuehrer earned a trip to the grave.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used peasants to overthrow landlords, “workers” to overthrow capitalism, and brute force to control each oppressive action. The CCP stifled religion, using violence and oppression to establish communism as the only true faith, and executing people who didn't renounce their religious beliefs. The Great Leap Forward, a policy based on unrealistic promises and outright lies, produced a famine that killed millions. And the Cultural Revolution, orchestrated primarily by the “benevolent” Chairman Mao, resulted in at least seven million “unnatural deaths” in the late 1960s.
There are other examples: North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, and any government where collectivism or centralization is or was considered superior to individual liberty. With so many examples, you'd think we'd have learned this lesson by now.
High prices may produce an unexpected benefit
May 8, 2008
Looking beyond the storm clouds to find a silver lining or a single ray of sunshine can be a daunting task. According to a Gallup poll, 86-percent of Americans are having a tough time finding a ray of sun in the current economic storm. Fuel prices are rising. Food prices are rising. Fact is, nearly all prices are rising. That stands to reason, since nearly all commodities travel via some form of motorized conveyance.
Alternative fuels have been billed as the savior of all things green. However, the quasi-worship of bio-fuels has contributed to a very real food shortage in much of the world. Here in America we are still the land of plenty. But we may not remain so if we continue to turn our efficient foods into inefficient fuels.
Ethanol, which is a corn derivative, is all the rage in environmental circles. But if ethanol didn't receive government subsidies it would cost more per gallon than gasoline. It also produces less power than gasoline, meaning more ethanol is required to propel your car the same distance at the same speed. And some European scientists now claim that bio-fuels pose a more detrimental long-term environmental affect than current fuels.
Ethanol can't travel via pipeline due to contamination concerns. Therefore it must travel by truck or rail, increasing expense. In short, ethanol couldn't survive in a free market. Its main benefit thus far is helping drive the aforementioned food shortages that have led to riots in third world countries. Trendy though it may be, ethanol isn't a ray of sunshine.
Yes, the economic clouds are thick, and the doomsayers claim that the sky is falling, America's declining, and civilization is ending. With all the gloom that exists, perhaps we should take another look for that sunbeam. It's possible that economic uncertainty will produce some much needed financial reprioritization. Maybe we'll realize that certain “must have” items aren't so indispensable after all.
Cell phones are a business and personal convenience, and an absolute blessing when your car breaks down. But are cell phones that play games, access the Internet, snap photos and record movies a necessity or a luxury? And do teenagers really need unlimited text messaging so they can keep in contact with friends they see throughout the day? Satellite and cable television are enjoyable. I like to watch certain programs and events as much as anyone. But are 250-plus channels a need or a pleasure?
Don't think I'm down on consumerism per se. I'm all for people buying items and services that they believe will make life easier or more satisfying, as long as they can afford them. But if rising prices make us focus on essentials first and frills second, they may be the ray of sunshine we're seeking.
Americans don't mind spending money. The problem is that many Americans want to spend their money only on fun, convenience, status, or trends. We'll shoulder repressive debt for an unaffordable home, a fancy car, a boat, a motorcycle, or an RV. We'll shell out thousands to be the first to own the latest video gaming system, or a cell phone that will call the International Space Station.
We'll exhaust our credit limits so our kids can wear $150 shoes and $80 jeans. Then we'll bark and whine about the cost of things we really need, such as gasoline, food, and routine medical care. We assume that these things should be cheap, or free, so we can spend our earnings on fun and entertainment.
Our spending philosophy has come to mirror that of the federal government, which has taught people that it's perfectly fine to live at their neighbor's expense. If higher prices cause us to reassess our responsibilities and priorities, we've found our ray of sunshine.
Shark attacks, Burma cyclone blamed on a familiar scapegoat
May 6, 2008
Two shark attacks near California and Mexico have left two swimmers dead. Other swimmers have been injured in shark attacks off Florida's coast. This year alone, four people worldwide have died from shark attacks, compared to only one in all of 2007. While four fatalities is a relatively small number, it causes you to wonder why attacks have risen.
According to Dr. George Burgess of Florida University, human activity has much to do with the increase. That's sensible. The earth's population is growing in both number and affluence; therefore more people are visiting beaches. Increased interaction between sharks and humans means more attacks are likely. Other reasons include an abundance of seals near populated areas and a disruption of the food chain due to overfishing. But there's another explanation, and it is agenda driven.
Now, what is the cause du jour for every calamity that befalls mankind? If you said global warming or its ugly sister climate change, take a gold star. Yes, man-made global warming is responsible for the increase in fatal shark attacks, just as it is blamed for every catastrophe we experience. In theory global warming is driving sea temperatures up, which in turn drives sharks into areas they wouldn't otherwise be found.
However, a Great White shark attacked the swimmer off California's coast, and a Tiger shark was blamed for the attack in Mexican waters. Blacktip, Tiger and Bull sharks are responsible for most Florida attacks. These predators, while not natural man-eaters, are common to the waters in which the attacks occurred and known to bite people either from curiosity or mistaken identity.
Finding this information is not advanced science. You don't need a doctorate in marine biology to learn that the shark species blamed for these attacks were in their native waters. All you need is access to the National Geographic and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration websites. Yet, that doesn't stop alarmists from blaming global warming for the presence of sharks in their natural habitat.
Shamelessly, shark attacks aren't the only catastrophe that climate change prophets are using to spread their hysteria. It didn't take long for Al Gore to blame global warming for the devastating cyclone that struck Burma. The death toll is at least 20,000 with another 40,000 missing. Some analysts say those numbers could rise above 100,000. That's unimaginable. But what's even more unimaginable is that Al Gore would use this disaster to promote his environmental agenda.
Gore claimed that Cyclone Nargis, a similar storm in Bangladesh last autumn, and Typhoon Saomia--China's strongest cyclone since 1949--are all the result of global warming. But man-made global warming wasn't an issue 50 years ago. So, what caused the storm that Gore used for a comparison? And if it wasn't caused by man's assault on the environment, why can't the latest storm be attributed to natural phenomena as well?
Following Hurricane Katrina, global warming activists claimed such storms would increase in frequency and violence. Forecasters boldly predicted massive hurricane seasons in 2006 and 2007, with several major storms hitting America's eastern shores. However, there were few major storms and none of them made landfall in the United States. And yet we're supposed to believe that forecasters can accurately predict the global temperature in 2100.
As far as scientific consensus goes, consensus isn't necessarily synonymous with reality. Scientific consensus once held that the world was flat and that the sun orbited the Earth. When incontrovertible evidence was uncovered to the contrary, those unanimities were proven false.
Shark attacks catch the public's attention, and natural calamities elicit our sympathies. Yet for Al Gore and the prophets of doom to use such misery and death to further an unproven hypothesis deserves neither sympathy nor attention, only condemnation.