Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

The Gun Device

Sunday, July 26th, 2009

Peace is a wonderful ideal, worthy of the efforts of those who pursue it, but those who honestly seek peace must be mindful of those who employ dishonesty in pursuit of different goals. So it was with Munich and so it is with the Middle East peace process. The difference between Munich and the current debate involving peace in our time is about 3000 to 4000 years, give or take a century or two. Abraham has a nearly numberless posterity. The intervening generations have bickered and battled over the rights of inheritance with greater or lesser intensity, depending upon their relative states of military preparedness. Little has changed through the millennia.

Now comes George Mitchell, Obama\’s special envoy; the man who negotiated the baseball players strike. I do not doubt his sincere desire to see peace in this strife-torn region. What person in their right mind does not want peace? Hint. The question contains the answer. But this is not baseball. These are not merely competitive men striving for seasonal victories in a capitalistic forum, to be assuaged with a banner, a ring and extra zeros on their paychecks. In stark contrast, most of the players and coaches in this ancient contest are hyper-agendized religious ideologues whose only relationship to sports can be summed up in Vince Lomardi\’s famous words, \”Winning isn\’t everything; it\’s the only thing.\”

Quoting Mitchell:

\”I told President Assad that President Obama is determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. That peace means between Palestinians and Israelis, between Syria and Israel, and between Lebanon and Israel. And of course, ultimately, the full normalization of relations between Israel and all of the countries in the region. This is what the Arab peace initiative calls for, and it is the ultimate aim of the effort we are undertaking.\”

All well and good but completely impossible while Hamas and Hezbollah and their sponsors (now to include the US government) fully reject Israel\’s right to exist.

Extreme efforts to force a peace on the peoples of this region has interesting parallels in physics. The first nuclear bomb employed what was known as the \”gun device\” wherein two pieces of fissionable material, each less than a critical mass, are brought together very rapidly to form a single supercritical one, resulting in a nuclear explosion. Putting a gun to either party\’s head to force them together to accept what has forever been unacceptable will not produce peace, unless one considers the termination of hostilities brought about by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be peace.

No one should be surprised.

And That\’s The Way It Is!

Friday, July 17th, 2009

I wouldn\’t want to be Walter Cronkite right now! After infecting journalism with super-subjectivity and subjecting the rest us to agenda-driven propaganda disguised as news, and after having nearly single-handedly snatched defeat from victory in Vietnam (with all the horrific consequences that has wrought), Walter has gone from being the \”most trusted man in America\” to perhaps the most busted man in the universe, at least until he is joined by the more prominent members of our current governmental power structure.

Nice Stache!

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

The speech was brilliant! The mustache that framed his moving lips was spectacular in its understatement (but the Arabs got it)! The words were well-chosen; the thoughts imparted, carefully crafted. It would have been a politically ingenious creation and a luminous moment in modern history but for the fact that his actions, particularly domestically, speak much louder than his words. What about freedom in this country? Why encourage Iran to build nuclear power plants when he will not permit them to be built here? This is but one significant point of departure in the divergence of his words and deeds. But what would one expect from Big Bro? It would also have been helpful if the guest lecturer had a better grasp of the historical facts. Palestine was the creation of the British Empire and certainly one of the colonial problems to which he made reference. Equating the national aspirations of Israel, the ancient land of the Jews, with an historically non-existent \”homeland\” for the perpetually homeless Bedouin Arabs only serves to further the misunderstandings. But what would one expect from the smartest man in the world? If history tells us anything it tells us this; this man, filled to overflowing with hubris and deceit, is a first-class tyrant in the making.

The Dark Ages Revisited

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

I flew over the southern tip of Greenland yesterday. I had opened the window shade of the Airbus 340-600 (the world\’s longest commercial airliner) to stare in awe at the black and white vastness of Denmark\’s nearly lifeless colony. (Denmark, rare among nations, still has a colony owing to the wisdom of selecting a place where almost no one lives and still fewer wish to live.) All the shades had been closed by the flight crew, for reasons you will have to determine, whereupon I was told, in no uncertain terms, to close it. Understanding that flight crews are, for all practical purposes, deputized to maintain order in the once-friendly skies, I stifled the urge to resist this seemingly thoughtless demand and allowed discretion to be my guide.

The flight crew may have seen enough of Greenland\’s frozen wastes but it is not something I get to do everyday! As I was seated on an exit row I still had a fish-eyed, coffee-saucer-sized glass opening through which I was able to observe and witness the openly available evidence that climate change (aka \”global warming\”) is a hoax and a scam as large and as bereft of accessible benefit as Greenland itself. For hours we flew over the more-than-frosty expanses extending from Iceland to Hudson Bay while most of the rest of the world naturally suffered from the sweltering approach of the coming summer.

Another member of the crew was queried about the practice of pulling the blinds and we were told that it was the result of a passenger poll in which it was was supposedly revealed that most people would rather sleep and preferred the darkness to the glare that exists above the clouds at 37,000 feet. I was only moderately appeased by this information. It was only 8:oo PM where we had all come from. Who goes to bed at that hour? Don\’t most people maintain a crack in the darkness every night as they sit in front of their TV\’s? Many marvel at the HD documentaries that reveal the earth in its shimmering splendor and here we were with a rare, bird\’s-eye view of Greenland\’s mountains, glaciers and frozen fjords and we were told that we were prohibited from looking out the window! Why?

I had spent the last three weeks in the most conservative part of Germany, if not all of Europe; the lush and picturesque rolling hills of the Alpine foothills of Bavaria where I was thoroughly immersed in the comings and goings of friends and family. It will take yet a while before my reflections of these full and eventful days properly and cohesively crystalize but one thing is abundantly clear; even the most traditional and seemingly well-informed of the Europeans have been fully propagandized.

One must know and understand that there is no freedom of the press outside of the United States. Governments thoroughly control the news. While this can also be said of our major news outlets there remains, here, a free flow of honest information mostly in the form of radio and internet communication. The overwhelming majority of Europeans have no interest in, or access to either of these sources of information. I felt like I had been sucked into a black hole. I found no Wi-Fi and only a few internet cafes, the majority of which were scarcely populated and unable to provide access to anything Mac-related. I might have had better luck in Munich but even the large cites were devoid of public access points to the information super highway. In the endless concourses of outdoor cafes I saw but a handful laptops opened upon the mostly occupied tables.

Discussion was largely limited to weather, soccer, food and drink and the inexhaustible debate over Germany\’s past sins and the price they continue to pay although only a very few of those responsible for the misdeeds remain. It is similar to the discussion of slavery in this country; no one here was ever a slave and no one here ever owned a slave. How long are the sins of the fathers to be visited upon the children? When is enough enough?

Nearly everyone with whom I conversed spoke in very positive terms about our new president. They were surprised at my observations. This was the clearest evidence of dominant influence of the modern European press. Joseph Goebbels had nothing on these people! Tell a lie, make it big and tell it over and over again and soon everyone will believe it. This was the Goebbels\’ philosophy. Today\’s practitioners have made it an art form.

People who cling to traditional values and religion are considered to be right wing extremists. Where have we heard this before? They are also considered to be a danger the state. Hmm? Everyone associates Hitler with the right even though his movement was an extreme leftist-socialist movement.

A recent revelation about the murder of leftist student demonstrator in Berlin in 1968, an incident that forever radicalized a large number of German youth and lead to the Green movement, has required anyone with a brain to re-think the genesis of the modern international leftist movement. It has been discovered that the German police officer who shot and killed this young demonstrator was not the \”right-wing\” extremist he was made out by the press to be but rather a Stasi (East German Secret Police) spy with orders to assassinate this particular young leftist. The moral of this story revolves around the foolishness of displaying loyalty to a master who is not only incapable of corresponding but who will not hesitate to take your very life if it best suits his purposes. So it is with all brands of tyranny and all forms of vacuous ideologies. Someone once quipped, in reference to Oakland, that there is \”no there there\”. The same can be said of socialism. It is a pit that can never be filled, even with numberless concourses of victims.

The churches that once dominated the skylines of every city and village are mostly empty. The church bells peal but bare no appeal for the vast majority of of the once-faithful. They now merely toll at the passing of time. Most of the citizens of Bavaria cling to the notion of being Catholic, as a tradition, but church attendance is minimal even on the most holy of occasions. But everyone is at the recycling centers on Saturday! Wind turbines now claim dominance above every horizon. Green is the new religion. It was reminiscent of the classic movie \”Invasion of the Body Snatchers\” in which the normal people were replaced by zombie-like aliens each resembling those marked for substitution.

The birth rate among the Europeans is between 1.1 and 1.8 children per family. This is unsustainable. There will be virtually no Europeans left in 50 years.

The influx of workers from Islamic nations has been steadily growing. The average Islamic family in Europe has 8.2 children. In the not-distant future Mullahs will be using the towers of vacant churches and cathedrals as minarets for the calling of the faithful to prayer.

The Europeans are committing suicide, slowly but surely. The soft hedonism of \”Gemuetlichkeit\” has eroded the senses and sensibilities of the overwhelming majority of those who appear to live less recklessly than their offspring who have little or no respect for the antiquities they occupy or the traditions of their respective races. Three times during the 20th Century, America saved the Europeans from each other but we are powerless to save them from themselves.

In appreciation for the quality of the food I told one person that if I had to live in a socialist nation that I might prefer one in which the daily bread was better. His surprised response was that he did not live in a socialist nation. Right! And the Greens are neither red nor brown!

It occurred to me, as we touched down in San Francisco, that the shades had indeed been drawn to maintain the darkness and to keep the passengers asleep.

Right Wing Extremists

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

According to a new report issued on April 9 to all domestic law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security, you are a right wing extremist if you fall into the following categories (aka, profile):

You believe in the right to life or the sanctity of life.
You believe in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments
You believe that the Federal government is acting in any way unwisely or unconstitutionally
You support Third Party political candidates
You are not in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens
You have recently purchased a firearm or ammunition
You think Obama is the wrong person for the job
If you are at all concerned about the actions of the UN or the creation of a \”New World Order\” that erodes American sovereignty
If you are a veteran returning from Iraq or Afghanistan

This excerpt is from the report (the whole report is available at www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf)

— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.

— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.

The mere act of purchasing weapons and ammunition makes you an extremist by definition.

And you thought the Department of Homeland Security was protecting the nation against other forms of radicalism! A government that is more concerned about law-abiding citizens than with illegal aliens, foreign terrorists, pirates, Iranian dictators, North Korean madmen, street gangs, ACORN and the Mafia is legitimate cause for concern, is it not? If you think so, you are a right wing extremist.

Happy Easter

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

Today we celebrate the most important event in all of human history; the resurrection of Jesus Christ, His victory over death, His gift and promise to all who have ever lived that each may also claim this resurrection as a right and privilege at some future point, not distant. We all have a sense of our immortal nature, including those who otherwise publicly insist that \”when you\’re dead, you\’re dead\”. In their private hearts they know that this life is but a brief, though important byway. If there is genuine hope to be had it arises from the understanding that we are eternal beings who are no longer manacled by the limits of mortality.

May you accept God\’s blessings. Happy Easter.

In Light of Recent Events

Monday, March 30th, 2009

It is time to re-post my initial posting from 2004.

\”How do you cook a frog? And what happened to the great melting pot?

Alexander Pope posed the problem poetically,

Vice is a monster of so frightful mean
As to be hated needs but to be seen
But seen too oft, too familiar that face
First we endure, then pity, then embrace.

“Character is destiny\”, wrote the Ephesian, Heraclitus. The least degree of immorality (or unethical behavior, if you prefer to present this concept in secular terms) can only serve to corrupt one’s character and destroy the future of those who are thus tempted or engaged. We fortunate citizens of the United States can be proud of Tocqueville’s profound pronouncement that “America is great because Americans are good\”, but we should never forget his equally sobering prediction that “America will cease to be great when Americans cease to be good\”. We are nearly equally divided between those who still respect God and an emanating set of governing principles, and those who support a more secular, a more temporal worldview in which the overarching purpose is not the observation of principles but rather the evasion and avoidance of consequences. We can only imagine what awaits us if the balance is tipped in favor of the latter orientation; when the majority is finally hooked on hedonics.

Is it too late to alter our course? Perhaps, but we as individuals must continue to do what we know to be right and proper. That is why I have chosen to erect this website and offer my views on cultural and political issues, opinions gleaned from 55 years of life, from a penchant for history and a passion for truth. I know how to cook frog legs. I was a chef for nearly 20 years. (You may even find a recipe or two in these pages. We all must eat regardless of our divergent philosophies.) So, how does one cook a frog? If thrown directly into hot water, he will immediately jump out. If you put him in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will quietly endure the incremental increase in temperature, then only too late will it be obvious that he has become poached frog.\”

Is it getting hot in here or is it just me?

Mengele Lite?

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

The Obma administration intends to overturn a law that protects doctors and nurses from potential legal entanglements that can and will arise from exercising their consciences and their religious beliefs when it comes to issues of life and death, i.e. abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. If a health care professional, a private citizen, cannot act upon his or her own conscience within the realms in which he or she operates as a private citizen, how close are you to losing your rights to exercise your conscience within the scope of your day to day activities?

Medical professionals must have an ethical code and a high moral sense and purpose or they will be in heightened danger of investing their skills in the pursuits of those who have no similar attachment to morality. How far away does this extra-constitutional manipulation of private practice place the medical profession from the dark days of Dr. Mengele? Not very far at all, it would seem. All that\’s missing now are the camps. But with the closure of Guantanamo and the arrival of terror suspects within our borders, we will have reason to build those new camps. Then, all that is required is for someone to be designated an enemy of the state. While some may think this assessment is quite a leap, it is only a short step to the slippery slope. And people on the left were worried about the Bush administration\’s so-called abuse of civil rights?!

Is the proposed new health care plan a naked attempt to exercise government control over more than just our physical \”health\”? It would appear so.

Is the new assault weapons ban, a clear breach of the 2nd Amendment, a naked attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens in advance of more Draconian measures to follow?

There were good Germans; lots of them. There were far, far fewer after the war. Millions did not survive their failure to act while it was still possible to do so. Ten\’s of Millions of others suffered death and cruelty, as well, as a direct result of the Good Germans\’ abdication of personal responsibility for those who acted in their name. What will be said of us? What will history call us if we permit the further erosion of our freedoms and our honor? What kind of \”Good Americans\” are we to become?

Three Degrees of Separation

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009

It was over before it began. The stage was set, the event was choreographed, the show went on. The audience was behaved. The CA Assembly Judiciary committee chairperson called the \”hearing\” to order precisely at 10:30AM. The first order of business of the new committee season and session was not the impending fiscal implosion of the Golden State. No, the first order of business was to hear and vote upon a resolution to encourage the CA Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8.

I arrived early; 7:00AM, and laid solitary claim (it was raining hard enough to ward off the competition) to the entrance to the underground garage where the members park their cars, reminding them with my small yellow sign as they arrived, that both Obama and Prop 8 received 53% of the vote on that long ago November day. From their frowns I knew that they understood the point. At 9:30, I went inside to the committee room and claimed first place in a line that exploded to hundreds within minutes. The next three people were, like me, opposed to the resolution but we were about it for the first 200 or so people in line. I was beginning to feel like a Bronco fan at a Raiders\’ home game. I was very happy they weren\’t selling beer. Approximately 1000 supporters of the resolution were on hand and were stashed in rooms all over the capitol.

One woman pressed to the front of the line and asked me if she could take my spot in front because of some knee problems she was having, and I naturally obliged. When her wife arrived, we were properly introduced and I discovered that this woman (Robin) was some legendary lesbian activist from LA. While Robin\’s wife spoke to me, Robin called Gloria Allred on her cell phone and directed her to that spot. The Sergeant at Arms then arrived to bow and scrape before the Grande Dam (Robin, not Gloria), assuring her that all was well and that everything has been prepared for their comfort. We were led into the hearing room. I could have seated myself with them but I couldn\’t muster the necessary progesterone. I am not uncomfortable around homosexuals having worked with many over the years but I was uncomfortable with Robin, who was directing everyone hither and thither and using her wife as a prop. I felt bad for her wife but she is probably used to it.

New Assembly member, Tom Amiano (from SF, of course) was asked to introduce his resolution. He claimed, as previously anticipated here, that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional as it was a revision of the Constitution, not an amendment. He then dwelt for a few minutes on the emotional side of the issue and handed off the remainder of the presentation to his three sidekicks who were equally unable to make a legal argument. One question was asked by one of thee Republican Assembly members to which no coherent answer was proffered. The fix was in.

A solitary witness was brought forward to oppose the resolution. She stated the case rather well, noting that the electorate had the absolute right to amend the Constitution. That Prop 8 was not a revision. She also pointed out the existing law treats all Californians equally, which it does. (I am also prohibited from marrying a man, though I could have gotten some mileage by proclaiming that my first wife\’s name was Kevin—another story—\”she\” was born on St. Kevin\’s Day to a devout Irish Catholic family.) At this, the snivels and snickers percolated to the surface causing the chairperson to ask for respectful silence. To their credit, the audience behaved in a refreshingly civil manner (unlike the days immediately following the election), apart from a kind of 4th grade giggle and undertone that rippled through the room from time to time. I\’m sure they had all been warned not to tease or terrorize the animals. No members questioned the opposition witness.

20 minutes was then allotted to the proponents and then the opponents in attendance. Any interested person was permitted to express their \”feelings\” in approximately one minute segments. I was surprised by the number of opponents to rise (many were apparently ushered in from other rooms). I had considered speaking up but because the speakers were being lead out of the room after each had spoken, I decided to stay and listen to the end. The public testimony can be reduced to this; on the proponent side it was \”Please save the Constitution from the intolerant right-wingers and end this cruel discrimination\”. From the opposition rose the chorus of \”The voters have approved this measure twice. What is it that you people don\’t understand about democracy?\”

A few Democrat members then spoke, yammering canned pleasantries about love and tolerance and equality. Two Republicans asserted that Prop 8 was a proper amendment and that it was not the Assembly\’s job to instruct the Judiciary. The Chair then made these points, which will be the talking points for the next month or two; Prop 8 changed the Constitution by violating its equal protection provisions (a real stretch, as marriage, love and sexuality are not addressed at all in the Constitution), and that it also violated the separation of powers provision, usurping the powers of judiciary in it\’s role as sole \”revisor\” of the Constitution in the absence of a Constitutional convention. The vote was then recorded; 7-3, along strict party lines. The Proponents cheered and clapped. Most in attendanace lined up outside the Senate hearing room where the farce would be replayed at 12:30 to the delight of all those who wore the blue \”I Do\” buttons.

As I wandered off, too disinterested in the sequel to want to sit through another two hours of muddle and mush, I wondered what this was really all about. No legal issues were discussed. No real arguments were made, apart from specious and frivolous allegations and the well-rehearsed appeals to emotion. Nothing of slightest substance was accomplished. This matter was exclusively in the hands of the court. This resolution, in view of the doctrine of separation of powers, had no effect whatsoever. Then it came to me in a flash! Yes, this really was about separation, but not separation of powers! This was all a show designed to separate the homosexual community from their money. This was nothing less than a well-orchestrated scam to shore up the coffers of the Senate and Assembly Democrat campaign committees; nothing more than a grand fundraiser! The state of California and its fiscal crisis be damned—-as long as the Dems can rake in the campaign cash!

The hurry in all of this now seems apparent; the Democrats in power are not confident that the Supremes will overturn the Proposition. Their legal challenge is very weak, at best. As the legal argument will not sway the judges, an appeal to their egos and emotions is the last resort. It is doubtful that this will do the trick. At least one of the justices that overturned Prop 22 will support Prop 8. This is all that is required. Then, fully frustrated at the failure of their efforts in the political arena and the failure of those to whom they paid good money to deliver the goods, the generosity of the members of the homosexual community will abruptly end. Homosexuals as a source of political milk will udderly dry up. All that will be left is Sean Penn on DVD. The CA Democrat party chose to act now to extract as much additional funding as possible from this interest group because after the Supremes rule there will be little or no interest in continuing to fund the socio-emotional extortionists in the CA Democrat party. (The Republicans are the real girlie men in all of this. While they are willing to show a little testosterone on tax issues, they have been completely cowed on the social and cultural front, not willing or emotionally able to deal with the PC backlash from the harpies in the media.)

I was encouraged by these thoughts for a moment but then felt a strange sadness for the \”I Do\” people. Their tender hearts will be broken again by the empty promises of the political class who use them as a cash cow and then, doubtless, joke about them and their gullibility in their absence. But I am certain that they treat all their victims equally.

There really ought to be a law.

PS. The next morning.
The rain stopped long enough this morning for a rainbow to appear in the direction of downtown Sacramento. While some will view this as an omen of good report for their cause, it would be well to remember the original meaning of this sign; not by flood. Not this time.

The Public Good

Monday, February 16th, 2009

The California Senate and Assembly are holding committee hearings this Tuesday to determine whether or not to support virtually identical resolutions to ask the California Supreme Court to once again reverse the will of the majority of California voters by striking down Proposition 8; 14 words added to the constitution defining traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. The rationale for co-opting the inherent power of the electorate is an obscure CA Supreme Court case titled Livermore vs Waite (1894) in which the right of the electorate to amend the Constitution was re-affirmed and in which a decision was rendered clarifying the distinction between an \”amendment\” and a \”revision\”. An amendment, according to the ruling court, is a modification \”within the lines of original instrument\” whereas a revision alters or reforms the government and is limited to the circumstance \”when the public good may require\”.

Apart from being a real stretch, legally, this mind-numbing attempt at logic ignores some basic realities. First, sexuality is not defined in the constitution; neither is marriage. Prop 8 is within the lines of the original document in that it merely validates the historic definition of marriage. It does not change it. Because it does not change anything it therefore does not alter or reform government and cannot be held to be a revision. Marriage is an institution which predates all secular law and is derived from religious observance. Any attempt to alter the traditional definition of marriage is, in fact, a violation of the First Amendment.

Where law does historically address the make-up of families we find that it is clearly illegal for Johnny to have two mommies. Ask the polygamist communities. All citizens are accorded the same rights under the laws regarding marriage; each is free to marry a person of the opposite sex and each is prohibited from marrying someone of the same gender. Where then is the discrimination that critics claim as the basis for their complaint? Where is love addressed in the Constitution?

As regards the \”public good\”, it is more than abundantly clear that a home with a mother and a father is healthier for a child than a home with one gender missing. Studies of this subject are legion and virtually unanimous in their conclusions that children fair better with a mother and a father. Is this benefit to the child in the \”public good\”? Further, there can be no \”public\” or public good without a mom and a dad. The European nations that have approved homosexual marriage have seen marked declines in their respective birth rates and the holes in their populations are being filled by the adherents of Islam. Sharia law is now approved in Britain. Is this in the \”public good\”?

Lastly, the politicians voting on this resolution (and running for re-election) would do well to remember this: minority populations overwhelmingly supported Prop 8, and this; Obama-53%: Proposition 8-53%. Invalidating one necessarily invalidates the other.

My Prayer for President Obama

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

I pray that the burden of responsibility that he has taken upon himself as president and Commander in Chief will instill in President Obama an appropriate sense of America\’s historic mission and purpose, that he will be granted wisdom sufficient to the task, that he will work tirelessly for the betterment of this nation and its people, that he will be a stalwart example of our better natures, that he will not forget that he, too, is a citizen of this great land. I pray that his themes of hope and change will cause him to ponder and reflect upon his personal and public obligations to act in harmony with truth and in concert with the principles that set this nation apart. May he always seek to know and to do the will of the God of Heaven and and earth and the founder of this nation. Grant those with whom he works a significant measure of the same.

Amen

Hollywood Hanks Craves Relevance

Saturday, January 17th, 2009

Tom Hanks, an Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California\’s Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here\’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who\’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let\’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

Three points that Hanks failed to comprehend; first, no Mormons gave money to their church for Proposition 8. Individual Mormons gave money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Additionally it seems that Tom failed to consider (if he knew to begin with) that the Supreme Court long ago ruled that campaign contributions are the equivalent of political (i.e., free) speech. Three; existing law applies equally to all people, so how can it be discriminatory? His description of the Mormon defense of traditional marriage as \”un-American\” (the word itself should jolt Hollywood elites into some level of consciousness after Hollywood\’s own negative experience with that word back in the 50\’s) misses the mark entirely as their chosen method of participation embodies the essence of the First Amendment as it relates to Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, but what can one expect from Forrest Gump? Someone once observed that he was always runnnning! Now, it appears, he\’s just runnnning his mouth.

\”Stupid is as stupid does\”, his momma always said.

Prop 8 Maps

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Some wildly misguided person has taken the names and addresses of each donor who contributed to the passage of Proposition 8 and merged that data with Google maps on his or her website. The identity of this person is unknown. Of course this places each person who exercised his or her First Amendment right to free speech (yes, campaign contributions equal equal free speech) in jeopardy of the very real possibility of falling victim to someone loosely tethered to reality. This is unambiguously unfriendly at the very least but it is the bad news and the good news. Everyone on this map throughout the state should immediately contact their local sheriff and and demand a concealed carry permit for their own personal defense. That is the surest way to get this site shut down in a hurry without the negative PR baggage that comes with merely complaining. The other option is to file a class action civil rights lawsuit against everyone associated with this and any other action that seeks to intimidate people in the exercise of their freedoms of speech and religion; the very essence of civil rights.

The Real Issue

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009

This was written in response to an article in today\’s Sacramento Bee on the subject of Prop 8 and one prominent local union organizer\’s reaction to the election result in view of the marriage entered into this past summer between his son and another man. In the article, the organizer wanted to know \”on what basis would some SOB\” deny his son the right to marry. I am not sure I qualify as an SOB, but this was my online reply.

\”Now we are getting to the real issue; love. Where is love found in secular law? Ask a polygamist. Love is, however, addressed in scripture. Both homosexuality and adultery are sins in nearly all religions because they are a misuse of procreative power (in which humans partner with God in the creation of life). Religions get involved in this debate for two reasons; one, because marriage is a religious compact predating all secular law (and preventing the free exercise of religion is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution), and two, because believers are admonished to encourage the sinful person to reconsider his actions for the eternal benefit of that individual (also called love or sometimes referred to as tough love). Christians are even commanded to love all men, but this does not mean marrying all those that one loves.

To accuse believers of being hateful is 180 degrees off. Love is a wonderful thing. It is not limited by contract. The people referred to in the article should love each other regardless of secular law, or even in spite of it, but the union of two people of the same gender is not now and cannot ever be legitimately called marriage.\”

Concentration Camp?

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Cardinal Renato Martino, a former Vatican envoy to the United Nations and now Pope Benedict XVI\’s top official on issues of peace and justice, said in the interview that Gaza now resembles a \”big concentration camp.\”

Commenting on Israel\’s two-week military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Martino told the online newspaper Il Sussidiario.net that both sides were concerned only with their own interests.

\”But the consequences of this selfishness is hatred, poverty, injustice. It is always the defenseless populations that pay,\” he was quoted as saying. \”Look at the conditions in Gaza: It looks more and more like a big concentration camp.\”

The Cardinal may be right about Gaza looking like a concentration camp but if so, it is due to the Palestinian leadership\’s failure to look after the best interests of their people. Like race mongers in this nation, Hamas (and the PA Fatah movement) cling to and perpetuate the issues of injustice (real or imagined) in order to justify their own hypocritical existences. They have no power if they permit their people to prosper.

Facing Adversity

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

I had decided some time ago that I would be pulling for the Oklahoma Sooners in tonight\’s NCAA Football Championship game but then I saw the Florida quarterback, Tim Tebow. He had written \”John 3:16\” on the anti-glare patches under his eyes. Anyone that unabashedly devoted to Jesus Christ here in the modern world deserves enthusiastic support. Adding that kind of courage in the face of our PC culture to the determination he displays on the field, we discover in Tim a true champion. There is even greater depth to this young man. He has lived in an orphanage and a leper colony, bringing a message of hope and an exemplary attitude as he travelled the world as a missionary, uplifting the majority of people he has met. God can use more men such as he, and so can we.

The way it should be:
1. Utah
2. USC
3. Florida
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma

Islam and Neo-Secularism

Sunday, January 4th, 2009

There are two groups in the modern world that are pre-approved by the PCH (Politically Correct Hierarchy) for bigotry, scorn and revulsion; Christians and Jews. Who have these two groups offended so seriously that they have qualified to be held up as nearly universally acceptable targets of derision? Islam and Neo-Secularists (the PCH), that\’s who. Why? Because both Islam and Neo-Secularism are self-contradictory and cannot withstand serious scrutiny and must therefore defend themselves and their internally inconsistent ideologies not only by attacking the ideologies of others but also in refusing to debate or discuss the questions that arise from even casual examinations of the facts that pertain. Employing the principle (one of the few principles they observe) that the best defense is a good offense, the radical adherents of both Islam and Neo-Secularism have, in their toxic zeal, become the most virulent and violent of the enemies of freedom.

Most of us have witnessed the same dynamic at work on a personal level, as well, as the unerringly prideful, refusing to invest a fraction of a moment in pondering even the most remote possibility of the existence of any personal fallibility, lash out at those who in any way threaten their commitment to notions for which there is no logical defense.

What do we do about it? Both Christian and Jewish traditions are replete with admonitions for their adherents to love their enemies. This makes for a different kind of tough love but serves to fulfill other requirements to exercise patience, kindness and long-suffering. There is a point, however, when accepting the unacceptable is no longer reasonable; when the actions of the aggressors jeopardize the entire human enterprise by undermining the true meaning of \”choice\”. It is at this point when fighting back with everything at one\’s disposal is wholly appropriate. This moment appears to have arrived.

This Christmas Season, Grant Them Their Wish

Sunday, December 28th, 2008

Sadly, there is but one course of action for the people of Israel to take and they have taken it. Israeli citizens cannot live in security and peace, and neither can their Arab neighbors (inside or outside the boundaries of the state of Israel) as long as Hamas (and Hizbollah and their respective sponsors) are allowed to employ violence against the Jewish State. It is the intransigence of these terrorist organizations that has ultimately forced the hand of the Israeli Defense Forces. Many others in the world, including the worse-than-useless UN, do not accept this fact or acknowledge Israel\’s right to defend itself and its people. The consistent failure to condemn Hamas for its incessant and indiscriminate cease-fire violations only serves to highlight the utter lack of moral clarity within the community of nations.

There is but one way to respond to those who have committed themselves to Jihad, and that is to grant them their wish; that they might die battling their enemies.

What Can Brown Do To You?

Friday, December 19th, 2008

Once again Jerry Brown, California\’s AG, has rendered a thoughtless opinion that has the potential to unnecessarily intensify the bitterness and animosity over Proposition 8, set to run the judicial gauntlet again in March. He claims that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It is not. It is part of the California Constitution. He finds that Proposition 8 is discriminatory. It is not.

Listen Jerry, it is really quite simple. Discrimination means treating someone differently than someone else, based upon an individual\’s or a group\’s immutable characteristics, right?

First of all, a behavior is not an immutable characteristic; it is a choice. More importantly, both homosexual and heterosexual individuals have the very same rights and the same prohibitions; both are permitted to marry a member of the opposite sex and both are prohibited from marrying someone of the same gender. How is this then discriminatory?

Some say that homosexuality is their nature. All of us, save a few, were born with all manner of natural inclinations, such as the inclination to hurt someone with whom one greatly disagrees. Is this inclination not something to be resisted? If all of us were genetically encoded to act in a certain way, what would be the purpose of law; secular or religious? Rules would be nonsensical if no one was given a choice relative to their behaviors. The rules would have already been imprinted in everyone\’s genetic material and we would all have to accept the value and validity of everyone else\’s reality no matter how inappropriate or sinister. Law would be completely irrelevant. Judges would have to seek other work, as would lawyers, legislators and police officers. In fact, government itself would have no purpose if our settings were fixed upon arrival.

Viewed scientifically, Charles Darwin may have said it best. \”Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.\” Darwin could not possibly be wrong, or?

What, then, is the true point of dispute among the No on 8 crowd? Their claim must be that they are unfairly treated because they are not permitted to marry the object of their affection; the person(s) they love. Where in the Constitution is this right found? Where is love to be found among the list of those things qualified to temper the judicial doctrines of the land? Ask the polygamist community. It is not to be found.

There is a place, however, where love is is enshrined in doctrine. It is the church; the very church against which the homosexual community rails. Why? Because there is a prohibition against homosexuality contained in those doctrines. Why? Because that behavior is a misuse of procreative power, as is adultery, a behavior prohibited by all serious religious institutions. That Moses delivered the commandment (among the other nine, now banned from courts of law in this nation) prohibiting adultery (a completely meaningless concept in the absence of marriage) is extraordinarily clear evidence that marriage is a religious institution pre-dating any secular doctrines, including the Constitution. Along with the other inalienable rights granted by our Creator, government interference, by the courts or the legislature, in the free exercise of these rights is constitutionally prohibited.

Sin is a reality in religious belief. Religions deal with the manifestations of sin as an essential part of their mission to perfect the individual, to the degree that perfection is possible. Moral cleanliness is a universal prerequisite for admission into the presence of Deity. Religions exist to put people on that path by helping the sinner cleanse himself of all sinful behavior, for the eternal benefit of that individual. Why? Because God loves his children. Who determines what is sin? Religious organizations. Is the government permitted to interfere with the free exercise of religion? According to the First Amendment it is not, even if a majority of people think otherwise. In this case, however, the majority agrees with the Constitution. That sinners complain should not be considered unusual.

After graduating from a Jesuit seminary, Jerry Brown should exhibit a better understanding of these facts. Perhaps the illustrious Governor Moonbeam has taken this turn toward the dark side for purely political purposes.

Rest in Peace Cardinal Dulles

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

\”Many politicians, like much of the American public, seem to be unaware that abortion and euthanasia are serious violations of the inalienable right to life. These are not just \’Church\’ issues but are governed by the natural law of God, which is binding upon all human beings. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights, since a person deprived of life has no other rights.” – Cardinal Avery Dulles