Archive for July, 2005

A Place For Everything and Everything—–

Wednesday, July 27th, 2005

In another grand display of hypocrisy, those who so frequently demand the avoidance of the mere appearance of impropriety are openly supporting the use of public space and taxpayer dollars to again promote what they call art. The particular piece in question is a “painting\” of the flag draped map of the United States sitting in a toilet bowl. This “painting\” is on display at the California State Attorney General’s office in Sacramento. In spite of significant protest from many who complain not only about the desecration of the symbol of America but also about the use of this setting for this obvious political statement, the AG, Bill Lockyer, has refused to remove it. This work does illustrate a significant point, however, that leftists are consistent in their taste for art; this fits perfectly with the Mother Mary in Dung and the Crucifix in Urine. This “art\” should be displayed somewhere to be certain, but would more appropriately be aired at the Department of Public Works, Sewerage Treatment Division.

PC RIP

Tuesday, July 26th, 2005

Affirmative action is racial profiling.

Pre-school Politics

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

If there is anything of value that the Plame game has taught us it is this; the Clinton Era was even worse than we thought. It wasn’t bad enough that the liberal agenda was being actively marketed by a rabid band of ideologues, but now we understand that, as serious as these people sounded, a considerable number (Valerie Plame among them) were just playing “house\”. We knew that some of the White House interns were playing “nurse\”, but Plame’s attitude, as recorded in her husband’s description of their third date, clearly displayed a complete lack of maturity in consideration of the important post she held.

If you haven’t already heard, Valerie, in a moment of Parisian passion, confessed to her future husband that she was a CIA spy. One must wonder how many others she told, or was Joe Wilson the only guy to get more than two dates with the mysterious Mata Hari wannabe? One must wonder, especially given the professionalism with which “Slam Dunk\” Tenet ran the Agency, just how many more loose cannons there were out there. And given the ultra-sensitivity of the CIA’s mission, just how many less sensitive governmental agencies were staffed by less sensible employees? The prospect of a bunch of spoiled, snot-nosed, puerile punks purchasing their posts (along with nights on the four-poster in the Lincoln bedroom) with campaign contributions and other favors is almost too painful to contemplate, but can we explain the juvenile ineptitude of the Clinton Administration in any other way? These people were fiddling around while the USS Cole, two of our African Embassies and the bodies of American servicemen were burned; all put to the torch by Bin Laden and his boys. When it was time to fight fire with fire, all we got was Robert “the Torch\” Toricelli, who gutted our intelligence gathering capabilities leaving us with the likes of the sober, sophisticated, secretive Valerie Plame.

Johnny Cakes

Monday, July 18th, 2005

Johnny Cake appears to have been one of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s favorite foods. Mentioning this particular dish in his writing appears to be indicative of his fondness for the crispy little corn cakes, while simultaneously providing a lesson on the subject of gratitude for the simple things in life. They are clearly a part of New England\’s culinary heritage. It is certain that the pioneers made this dish a part of their regular campfire rituals as fare for breakfast or dinner. It is traditionally a sweetened corn flour batter fried in a bit of oil or grease until golden brown on both sides (some recipes call for baking the dough into a cornbread-like dish). It was then consumed with honey, molasses, syrup or gravy.

(The author confesses that his very first solo attempt at cooking, at about age 5, was mixing corn flour, salt and water into a paste and cooking it on a hot rock pulled from a fire he had built out back of his home when his mother was too busy with the other kids to pay attention to the mischief in which her oldest son was engaged. It was good! My fondness for corn remains.)

The Johnny cake described below is an adulteration of the old recipe; a marriage of modern pancakes with the corn component. The addition of blueberries and maple syrup are a tribute to the Prophet’s New England roots.

Ingredients: for approx. four servings

1 cup buttermilk pancake batter (homemade or from your favorite mix: try Krusteaz)
½ cup corn flour
1/8 tsp. baking soda
1 tsp. baking powder
¼ tsp salt
¼ cup buttermilk
1 cup cold water
½ cup blueberries
Pure maple syrup
1/8 pound butter

Mix the dry ingredients (although pancake mix already contains leavening, the addition of corn without additional leavening will make for heavy, thin cakes) and add the buttermilk and water until you have achieved the proper consistency. The longer the batter sits the thicker it becomes, so you might want the batter to initially be a little thinner than ultimately desired. Preheat skillet to medium heat (325-350 degrees) and lightly grease, removing excess oil with a paper towel. Pour batter onto griddle into desired size and spread blueberries evenly all around. Cook for 2-3 minutes, or until golden brown. Flip (or is that “flapâ€?—- I mean, they are after all flap jacks, not flip jacks—-well, never mind. I don\’t want to get into a flap over flip or flap, and besides who really gives a —-flip!) the cakes and cook for another two minutes. Serve with warm syrup and butter (melting the butter in the syrup is quite good!). Use real, pure maple syrup. It is far superior to the fake stuff. (Sorghum is also good.) Before cooking more cakes, be sure the griddle is scraped clean of blueberry goo and then re-oiled.

People who are not fond of pancakes love these Johnny cakes! The 325 people for whom I prepared these cakes on Saturday sure seemed happy. And I must comment on those who helped spread the blueberries on each cake. By their purple-stained fingers they looked like they had voted in the Iraqi election, \”Chicago Style\”.

Enjoy!

The Picture of Dorian\’s Day

Thursday, July 14th, 2005

Rick Santorum is correct to assert that the behavioral permissiveness sponsored by liberalism is at least in part to blame for the homosexual abuse of young men at the hands of some Catholic priests as well as others.

There can be no doubt that many recently sensationalized incidents of molestation and murder would simply not have occurred but for inadequate or inappropriate applications of “justice� by liberal judges. Even before the offenders first appeared before the bench, attitudes engendered by the liberal elite allowed for the excusing of all types of behaviors heretofore considered aberrant. Under modern enlightenment thinking deviancy from societal norms is rarely the result of that individual’s conscious choice. In fact the norm has been expanded to include countless predilections previously perceived as perverse.

Quite recently a noted and widely respected psychological journal removed the human practice of having sex with animals from under the heading of pathological behaviors. This means that sexually abusing animals (could this ever be considered consensual? Only if one is a pet psychic, right?) and simultaneously oneself, is no longer considered to be aberrant but is merely an alternative lifestyle. When conclusions such as these can be reached, the culture is in serious trouble. From whence do these bizarre notions emanate? Not from conservatism.

In a society where everything that can be excused is excused on the basis that the depraved were somehow deprived, all lifestyles become equal. This being the case, that which once was aberrant is now viewed as normal and acceptable; except for certain inconsistent applications of the logic. For example, why is it okay for the ACLU to promote the North American Man Boy Love Association (and a host of other immoral behaviors) but it is not okay for priests to act upon identical fantasies with the young boys in their congregations? Why is it okay to have sex with one’s sheep but not with one’s flock? Of course the problem is not that the behavior is perverse, but rather that the perp is a priest. Naturally a priest should know better, but so should everybody else.

As we observe the Political Correctness movement in its death throes (it was mortally wounded on 9/11), we become more and more aware of the gruesome consequences of its failures to face the truth; the truth that choices come with consequences and that people are responsible for the choices they make. Witnessing the unfolding of the results of four decades of intense exposure to liberalism is very much like being present for Dorian Gray’s deathwatch.

Kennedy and Clinton can foam and spew at Rick Santorum all they want but their indignation will not change the truth.

The Plame Game

Wednesday, July 13th, 2005

This rave over Rove is a typhoon in a teacup. It is much less than much ado about nothing. The phony expressions of indignation emanating from the Left are breathtaking. Where were these people when real crimes were being committed in the White House?

“And the award for best acting in a political farce is Harry Reid! It was a close contest among a host of competitors from across the leftist spectrum, with politicians and media types vying, one with another, for the title of “Most Sanctimonious� in a leading role. Best actor in a supporting role in the same category goes to Bill Press!�

The bottom line in this \”Who Named Plame\” Game is that there is no there there. But in the midst of this disgusting display of partisanship there exists a bright ray of hope; that the average American will see through the charade and behold the true character of these moral midgets; men and women who defended the practice of lying under oath, who permited the sexual abuse of interns in the highest office in the land (after destroying Bob Packwood for far less), yet now feign outrage when a target of political opportunity arises.

The Spectre of Specter

Tuesday, July 12th, 2005

We need to remind ourselves that Senator Specter, Chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee; the man who, today, asked the President to replace Justice O’Conner with a nominee who would “Unite Us�, is the very same Arlen Specter who came up with the “Magic Bullet� theory while he was acting as counsel to the Warren Commission. If we could find a “Unifier�; someone who could bridge the diverse interests of the Left and Right, he or she would have to be more agile (politically, morally, constitutionally and ethically) than the bullet that did all that damage to President Kennedy and John Conally; the bullet that emerged unbelievably unscathed; the bullet that “unified� the evidence with the lone gunman theory.

Would we then refer to the President’s choice as the “Pristine� nominee? That’s what it will take to get more than 55 votes. Whoever the nominee, he or she will not emerge unscathed.

Arlen was dreaming back in 1964. How else can one explain such an amazing hypothesis? What other peculiar notions are percolating beneath that pearly pate? We probably don’t want to know. Come to think of it, that probably explains how someone so marvelously mediocre is able to cling to the levers of power. He really knows what happened on that dark November day in 1963, but there are still others who don’t want us to know.

The \”TP\”ing of America

Tuesday, July 12th, 2005

In spite of vociferous protestations to the contrary, the problem is not with the Protestants or any other denomination generally referred to as the religious right; people once content to quietly observe their faith in the tradition of the Founders. These people have been recently prodded into political activity as a direct response to the challenges of the \”godless\” Left, which professes that their belief in \”no god\” trumps the rights of those who profess a faith in a God; in this specific case, the Christian God.

It is likely that this is a case of \”four legs being more equal than two\”. If the neo-secularist faith was on equal footing with other religion-based faiths, there probably would be no problem. But such is not the case as we witness the removal of time-honored Judeo-Christian symbols from public life; as we see groups like the Boy Scouts persecuted for practicing their professions of faith in God; as we observe attempts to have God removed from the Pledge of Allegiance; as we contemplate the banishment of prayer from schools, etc.

The Left freely trashes much that is good and supplants it with manifestations of their own corruption and degradation; the tax payer funded, so-called civil rights cases (read “Jihad against Christian valuesâ€?) brought by the ACLU (pro bono defenders of the North American Man Boy Love Association); by the tax payer funded art exhibits showing crucifixes in urine and the Mother Mary in manure; by attacks on religious symbols; by the Court\’s blatant, biased misinterpretation of the \”Establishment Clauseâ€?; by the endless attempts of leftist legislators to prevent people of faith from serving in the Judiciary, etc.

These are things the Founders did not have to contend with. They did not have to raise the banner of their God in the fight for Independence. Even their enemies believed in God. We are to be grateful for the Founders. They recognized a great injustice and they took steps to remedy the situation. (As an aside, if Ted Kennedy and John Kerry had been in Massachusetts in 1775, instead of Samuel Adams and John Adams, Americans would not have tossed the tea overboard in the night but colonists would still be drinking tea in the afternoon.)

In order to protect themselves from a greater evil than that aligned against the Founders, many people of faith are now standing up to be counted. Jesus counseled to turn the other cheek but he demonstrated, by driving the moneychangers from the Temple with a scourge, that the corruption of that which is sacred is not to be tolerated. Tocqueville said that “America will cease to be great when Americans cease to be good�. To those who believe, as the Founders did, that this is God’s Country, its sacred nature is beyond dispute. It is the duty of all good men to come to the aid of their country; always.

The members of the Left’s Tolerance Patrol (TP) are the least tolerant among us. If they would quit persecuting the Christians, the vast majority of Christians would be content to raise their families, do their work and worship their God in reverent, respectful silence. Before that can reasonably occur, atheism and agnosticism will need to be publicly, legally recognized for what they are; belief systems legally equal to all other faiths.

In Support of the Boy Scouts

Saturday, July 9th, 2005

What did the Boy Scouts ever do to the ACLU? Why is there such animosity, such visceral hostility for this most American of American institutions? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the Boy Scout Oath.

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Maybe it’s the Boy Scout Law? After all a Scout is;

TRUSTWORTHY
A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.
LOYAL
A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.
HELPFUL
A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.
FRIENDLY
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.
COURTEOUS
A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.
KIND
A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.
OBEDIENT
A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.
CHEERFUL
A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.
THRIFTY
A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.
BRAVE
A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.
CLEAN
A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.
REVERENT
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

Could the problem be the Scout Motto?

Be Prepared.

Or the Slogan?

Do a Good Turn Daily

Perhaps the problem is the combination of all these things. The virtues observed and practiced by Boy Scouts set them apart from and make them better citizens than the vast majority of the balance of the populace, thus making many uncomfortable in comparison; especially the hedonists and moral relativists at the ACLU. These virtues are apparently antithetical to the agenda and purpose of the ACLU. Why else would they actively engage in the persecution of this organization?

A federal (or is that feral?) judge has just ruled that the Pentagon can no longer spend money on their traditional hosting of the National Boy Scout Jamboree because the Scouts violate the (non-existent) “separation of church and state� clause in the First Amendment. The ACLU has even managed to wrangle-up a few misguided ministers to join them in this cause. They say that the Scouts are not the issue; that the problem is the tax payer money going to support the scouts.

Who was that artist that depicted the Virgin Mary covered in dung? Didn’t he get money from the tax payers for his show? How many private interests get public money? Wouldn’t an investment in the Boy Scouts and the qualities that Scouting promotes be as good an investment as it is possible to make with tax payer dollars? Yet, the ACLU battles the Scouts at every turn.

Something is dreadfully wrong with this picture! What can you do about it? You could send some money to the Scouts and their defense fund (it’s a sad day when the Scouts need a defense fund).You could write or call your Congressman and Senators. You could email the White House or the Pentagon, and then call the EPA! These people have polluted our courts and our culture beyond any possible harm that the burning of hydrocarbons poses. Even if global warming was the problem that some claim, what real value would a solution represent if the air above the moral morass and cultural corruption was one or two degrees cooler?

You can do all these things and then, in the next election, vote against the ACLU’s best friends; the Democrats, who promote and perpetuate this insanity.

The Name

Thursday, July 7th, 2005

In response to several comments on a recent post regarding the fact that the founders of this nation were overwhelmingly men of faith; adherents of various denominations of the Christian faith. Some argue that there is no evidnce to support this contention based upon the Founders\’ preference for using names like \”The Almighty\” or \”Providence\”, instead of God or Jesus.

It is not at all unusual that direct references to God and Christ are few and far between when found at all. I\’m not an expert on the Jewish religion but I do know this; God did give the Ten Commandments to the Jews. The name of God is never to be written and not to be spoken. Yahweh is reduced to the tetragrammaton YHWH. Jehovah is contracted to JHVH. Jews used these four-letter symbols to avoid writing the names but both signify the ineffable name of God; the name too holy to pronounce. It is impermissible for these names to be spoken. In prayers, Jews use the name Adoni (my Lord) and refer in written form to Hashem (the Name). All of this in response to the commandment regarding the prohibition of the taking of the name of God in vain. Vowels were generally unemployed as they represented the spirit embodied in the word.

This Commandment regarding \”taking the name of God in vain\” has applicability in Christian terms as well, although in Christian theology the arrival of Christ in the flesh fulfilled the Law of Moses and many other religious strictures. Still, there is some confusion among Christian denominations as to what exactly is meant by \”taking the name in vain\”. Nevertheless, direct references to God and Christ were traditionally held sacred and limited to very personal speech. Many things of a sacred nature continue to be held very closely and personally by adherents of various sects. As little is sacred in our modern culture, it is easy to understand the lack of sensitivity to these issues; sensitivities that once went without saying.

Beyond this obvious reason there existed a general attitude of tolerance for a broad spectrum of beliefs; a tolerance engendered by the intolerance of state sponsored religions in Europe that drove soon-to-be Americans to these shores. It would not have been unusual for a public person to be mindful and considerate of others\’ faith. Considering that the men about whom we speak were the authors and signatories of the founding documents, and that those documents codified religious tolerance, it is highly likely that they would have been especially careful about public expressions of their own personal beliefs.

Further, it is known that Washington did not offer prayers in a Mosque prior to taking the oath of office as our first president. With all the evidence that exists, he would have been found guilty of being a Christian, even in the Supreme Court.

Arguments to the contrary are simply the sophists\’ attempt to rewrite history, to defame the Founders and to minimize their testimonies that this nation was brought forth by the Hand of God.

Admiral James Stockdale

Wednesday, July 6th, 2005

America still has heroes but we lost one yesterday. Admiral James Stockdale, most widely known to most Americans as Ross Perot’s running mate in the 1992 Presidential campaign, past out of the mortal realm at the age of 81. Though he gave a halting performance as the Independent candidate in the Vice Presidential debate between Al Gore, Dan Quayle and himself, he was far and away the better man.

He was unflinching in his commitment to his country and unfaltering in his dedication to the men he served for 7 ½ years, as their senior officer in a North Vietnamese prison camp. After flying over 200 missions over the Communist North he was shot down and taken captive in 1965. He rallied his men to their duties and instilled a sense of honor among those who had been broken by their captors, all the while enduring nearly endless torture (real torture) for his failure to kowtow to his Communist tormentors. They demanded of him obeisance; he displayed instead the dignity, honor and the highest ideals of the American serviceman. He refused to relent and for this his body was permanently bent.

For his service to his men and his country, he received this nation’s highest accolade; the Congressional Medal of Honor. His citation follows:

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while senior naval officer in the Prisoner of War camps of North Vietnam. Recognized by his captors as the leader in the Prisoners\’ of War resistance to interrogation and in their refusal to participate in propaganda exploitation, Rear Adm. Stockdale was singled out for interrogation and attendant torture after he was detected in a covert communications attempt. Sensing the start of another purge, and aware that his earlier efforts at self-disfiguration to dissuade his captors from exploiting him for propaganda purposes had resulted in cruel and agonizing punishment, Rear Adm. Stockdale resolved to make himself a symbol of resistance regardless of personal sacrifice. He deliberately inflicted a near-mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated in their employment of excessive harassment and torture toward all of the Prisoners of War. By his heroic action, at great peril to himself, he earned the everlasting gratitude of his fellow prisoners and of his country. Rear Adm. Stockdale\’s valiant leadership and extraordinary courage in a hostile environment sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

It is well for us and for him that he was not subjected to further humiliation by those who, for sport or political purpose, routinely pillory public servants. Admiral Stockdale fulfilled his duties and performed his public service more than admirably. He will never be forgotten by the men he served or by his faithful fellow citizens.

Thank God for men like James Stockdale.

Get Along Little Doggie

Wednesday, July 6th, 2005

One of Independence Day’s most interesting events was the 90th Annual Hot Dog Eating Contest sponsored by Nathan\’s Hot Dogs of Coney Island. The young Japanese competitor, Takeru Kobayashi, once again defied the illusion that space makes place and provided a home for 49 little doggies; 13 more than his closest competitor in the 12 minute contest. Kobayashi failed to best his own record set at last year’s event in which he wolfed-down 53 dogs. The relatively diminutive champion has won the last five contests against a field that included Asparagus, Cheesecake and Oyster eating champs from around the country. Most of the competition possessed advantages in size but failed in technique.

Kobayashi employed what has come to be known in hot dog eating circles as “the Solomon Technique�; with reference to the wise king’s decision that two mothers who were fighting over possession of one child should cut the child in half. This ploy revealed the real mother who insisted that the other woman take the child in order that it might live. The dogs were not so lucky. Though breaking the dog in two and stuffing both halves in the mouth at once is surely a part of the winning strategy, it is the not the secret to his success.

I entertained a Japanese student in my home for six months. His mother was an excellent cook and had taught him well. He prepared several noodle dishes (soba and udon) that were quite delicious, but the most indelible memory of those days were the way he “slurped� his noodles directly into his stomach without having to even chew them. I am certain that this cultural adaptation is the factor that gives young Takeru the edge. He wastes little time on the act of chewing; minimizing the moments invested in masticating and concentrating on swallowing are the keys to victory. The big guys (referred to as the “Four Horsemen of the Esophagus�) might have had more room for the dogs but their advantage was lost in the gnashing of teeth.

While some people believe that this is merely a grotesque display of gluttony, it seems to me appropriate that if we include “America’s Pastime� in our celebration of America’s birthday, we should frankly relish the ballpark’s favorite fare.

A Christian Nation

Monday, July 4th, 2005

The storm clouds on the horizon are not a new phenomenon and certainly nothing to fear. The vagaries of the weather have taught us to expect and to deal with difficulties beyond our control. If our attitudes were conditioned by the weather, we would need Doppler to tell us how to feel and think. In the mature individual a strong internal constitution will provide a foundation sufficiently firm to withstand the storm.

So it should be with the ongoing conflict over our nation’s Constitution. This is appropriate to contemplate at any time but most especially now in light of the anniversary of the birth of this republic and in view of the storm that gathers over the composition of the High Court.

This is nothing less than the ongoing battle between good and evil. Will long established principles (principles established before our form of government was ever contemplated) prevail or will the plague of self-destructive hedonism be allowed to metastasize by judicial decree within our body politic? This is far from hyperbole, although some of you will gasp and guffaw at the notion that evil actually exists. Some will call this “hate speech�, others will write this off as the moronic ramblings of a right-wing religious fanatic. This has always been the response of the adversary and his followers; the response of those who cannot defend their positions in the light of the evidence at hand, who must disguise their agenda with attempts to darken the actions, beliefs and character of those who stand against them. The truth is often hard on those who ignore it.

This is a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. The Founders were overwhelmingly ardent believers in God; the Christian God, not Allah, not Krishna, not Buddha. Evidence of this fact can be found in their writings, private journals and letters, and in their public pronouncements; not just occasional, offhanded references to God. Consider this from among the first of many similar pronouncements made by George Washington during the prosecution of the war that won this nation’s independence.

“If I should rise superior to these (adversities), I shall most religiously believe that that the finger of Providence is in it.�

This he wrote to a trusted friend and confidant on the eve of the humiliating withdrawal of the British army and navy from Boston in March of 1776. Interestingly, it was not a battle that forced the British to retreat, but a storm (read David McCullough’s excellent book, “1776�). Who controls the weather? How many times has the weather determined the outcome of historic conflicts? History is replete with examples on a scale that defies any other explanation than “miraculous�.

The written record is also replete with overwhelming documentation of the Founders’ unambiguous conviction that the hand of God, their God, was to be seen at every hand in the struggle to claim this nation a free nation.

Much has been poured into the effort to prove that Washington was not a Christian. His attendance in church has been interpreted by neo-secularists as the mere response to tradition, and the trappings of his high station. His declining, in later years, to partake of Communion has likewise been interpreted by these same apologists as evidence that he had no belief or faith in Christ. While it may be true that he declined to take the Sacrament, that in itself is not proof of a lack of faith. It is entirely possible that it was a significant display of reverence brought about by a deeply repentant attitude. One should not take the Sacrament if one is troubled by sin or remorse. Is it not possible, indeed more likely, that Washington, who regularly took Communion before the War, was inclined not to do so in consequence of all the death and destruction in which he played an active part?

Additionally, he was a member of the Episcopal Church, the Americanized Anglican Church (better known as the Church of England); a Christian Church. Is it not possible, after the long and bitter war against the British, as President and in the context of the secular state he was instrumental in establishing, that he would choose not to endorse, via Communion, the state-established Church of England?

Or is it possible that he understood that the religions of the day were merely precursors or predecessors of the true religion; the church that would emerge from the fertile fields of freedom; fields cleared by the Continental Congress, plowed by patriots and fertilized by the faithful? If God did have His hand in the victory over the British and in the establishment of the Constitution, as universally claimed by those who were present, would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that He did so for a specific purpose? Was it purely coincidental that “Freedom of Religionâ€? was among the first of the inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution? Is the American nation critical to God’s plan? Is it possible that Washington, obviously inspired on so many occasions, would have received some personal revelation relative to these possibilities? These reasons make much more sense than those put forth by those who go to great lengths in their attempts to debunk the idea the idea that this is a Christian nation and that the Founders were secularists first, and religious only for political expediency. Washington\’s first inaugural address should dispel any notion that he was just being PC.

\”Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. \”

I have sat in John Adams seat in the church that serves as the final resting place of the second President, his wife Abigail and their son, John Quincy Adams, our nation\’s sixth President. Of the two sides of the argument; that these were either hypocrites or Christians, I believe the latter on the basis of the available evidence. You may of course believe as you wish.

It is not possible to convince those who choose not to examine the evidence, and evidence alone is certainly insufficient for those whose motives run contrary to traditionally held beliefs, but if you have an open mind and you really want to know, please accept this challenge; close your eyes and in all sincerity ask the God that made you if He had a hand in the formation of this nation and further, whether or not it was for the bringing to pass His purpose; the re-establishment or restoration of His gospel that was swept from the earth with the martyrdom of the Apostles, shortly after the death and resurrection of Christ. If you truly wish to know, your Heavenly Father will reveal the truth of this to you.

I spent my early years as an agnostic and a seeker of pleasures. I doubted the existence of God, but I can honestly tell you that He is generous and forgiving and that when I accepted the challenge put forth above, He revealed this much and more. It matters not that the world might scoff. God knows, and I am certainly more concerned with what He thinks.

The Declaration of Independence contains this well-known phrase;

\”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. \”

Are these mere words or do they specifically impart the essence of the intent of those who established this nation? Can one seriously doubt that the Founders were men of religious faith and zeal? Are there rights that predate and precede the establishment of our government? Is the government responsible for the acknowledgment and perpetuation of these rights?

What is Life? Liberty? The Pursuit of Happiness?

Life is defined as “the existence of an individual human being or animal�. We have an unalienable right to exist, to live.

Liberty is defined as “the state of being free from oppression or imprisonment�.

Happiness is defined as “a state of well-being and contentment�.

Viewing these in terms of the inevitable debate over the newest member of the High Court, let us revisit the notion that this is a battle between good and evil.

The liberals in the Legislature will fight against anyone who is not for abortion; the termination of the right to exist. Does this run counter to the unalienable right to live, to exist? Relative to the concept of liberty, the liberals believe that the government is more important than the individual and that the will of the government trumps the rights of individuals. Look at recent Supreme Court rulings and at the tax and spend mentality of the liberals in the Legislative branch. Look at the nearly limitless social programs that imprison the victims of the welfare state. Look at the nearly limitless stream of regulations and legal stipulations that act as friction on the everyday workings of individuals, businesses and society as a whole.

Happiness, contrary to the modern application of the word, is not pleasure. Pleasure can be a component of happiness, but it is not happiness. One can experience pleasure from a drunken orgy but such activity will not produce “a state of well-being and contentment�. Happiness is derived from an acknowledgement of one’s ability to overcome obstacles, to establish meaningful relationships and from the heartfelt gratitude arising from the contemplation of one’s opportunities and talents and their source. The pursuit of happiness is not license to take liberties. Hedonism never was happiness.

The ACLU and their minions are not about the promotion of traditional liberty. They are committed to the cause of sensual self-indulgence. Christianity is antithetical to their cause because of its stipulations governing consequence. Sinful behavior carries a consequence. Just as one cannot pick up one end of a stick without affecting the other end, one cannot sin without triggering the consequence. This is what the hedonists dislike about Christianity. It spoils the pleasure (of course so does the use of a condom employed for the prevention of a natural consequence). What the ACLU and their mercenaries are really after is freedom from consequence. As this is ultimately impossible, the next best thing is to promote the destruction of the instrumentality that broadcasts such things; Christianity. They will point to the actions of men in circumstances like the Inquisition, the episodes of homosexual child abuse, or those engaged in other discredited practices among a small percentage of the adherents of certain Christian denominations and try to smear the entire enterprise, all the while they will defend, pro bono, the North American Man Boy Love Association.

You must decide dear reader, whether or not a battle between good and evil rages in our culture and in the halls of government. If you believe that evil does exist and that we are in a monumental fight, you must do something or pay the price. If you don’t believe this is so, if you are convinced that all is well in Zion, you had best hope and pray that you are right.

The Declaration of Independence goes on to say;

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.�

Amen.

Full Court Stress

Saturday, July 2nd, 2005

With all the nice things being said about Justice O’Conner on the announcement of her retirement, let us add one more; it is nice that she is retiring. She will be primarily remembered as the first woman Supreme (if we don’t count Diana Ross). If she is remembered beyond that, it will be for the ignis fatuus quality of her judicial temperament. There will be little found to bind her collected work on the bench to a particular set of principles. One would sooner require an atlas as a law journal to track the rationale for her decisions. Her positions on the issues have been all over the map. As a result, her place in history will have but one footnote; the first woman to serve on the highest court in land.

Her role as the ultimate centrist on the court, throwing her weight to one side and then the other, unbound by consistency or logic, has indeed made her a unique member of that body and caused a great deal of yawing and sloshing on the ship of state. What has provided the key motivation for her decisions? Tradition? Hardly. Precedent? Not necessarily. The Constitution? Please! Emotion? We may be getting close. It is not that she is a woman; Ginsberg is a woman but she is hopelessly devoted to the Left. One can count on that former ACLU bigwig to be constant and consistent. O’Conner could only be counted on to be the wild card in the dock.

The clamor from the Left will be to find someone with a similar temperament. Zelig, perhaps! In spite of all the “nice� things Chuck Schumer had to say about O’Conner, he would have been first in line, had he been there at the time, to revile her when she was a nominee simply because she had been appointed by a conservative; Ronald Reagan. Count on Chuck and his left-leaning Senate colleagues to howl and rail against anyone Bush sends up as a replacement. A battle royale being an absolute certainty, it is to be hoped that Bush will send up a real conservative, not another mushy, lukewarm, fickle, feckless, benchwarmer. Just as we need Bolton to tune up the UN, we need a staunch Constitutionalist to batten down the Court.

How about Judge Roy Moore?