Green jackets: Women at Augusta National

If sports isn't your gig, you may have missed that Augusta National, home of one of the most prestigious events in all of sport, The Masters, will be admitting women to the formerly all-male club. Yep, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and another woman, the CEO for some company, will be donning the green jacket later this fall.

Needless to say, the MSM lauds the decision like it is some kind of Emmancipation Proclamation. ESPN's Rick Reilly took the opportunity to stick his thumbs in his ears and nyah-nyah the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Great Britain for being some kind of Neanderthal organization of club-wielding maroons because they haven't entered the twenty-first century and retain their all-male status. With his nose at an altitude approaching geo-synchronous orbit, he avers that this male only policy "has to change."

The question must come back, "Why?"

Let's drive right to the heart of fundamental freedoms. Can a private group on private land admit and restrict any from membership for any reason that they choose? If you say no, why do you say no?

Can Boy Scouts be for boys only? Can Girl Scouts be for girls? If not, why not?

Here's the rub. Men and women are different. Were you watching the Olympics? Is it sexist to have women's gymnastics and men's gymnastics? And in other sports, when has a top of her game woman ever been able to compete with the top of his game man? We are different, but not just physically.

There is something to be said for male-bonding, for the fostering of esprit and fellowship. There was a time when such was welcomed, when in such organizations and fellowships the ideas of constitutional republics and free enterprise were honed. Why in the name of all that is sacred would we besmirch such an entity and neuter its very existence by admitting a woman?

From the dark depths of the human heart (Jeremiah 17:9) comes this covetousness (pronounced "kuhv-i-tuhs-ness"), this green-eyed envy for the green jacket that another wears. Being born in poverty does not give anyone any right to Bill Gates' fortune. Being born with certain reproductive plumbing does not give me the right to compete in women's olympic volleyball. None. Them's just the cards we've been dealt.

So should we rejoice because feminist groups and the liberal media have pressured August National to alter its very identity, or should we weep? 

Me? I'm a bumming unit.

Conceal carry: "You'll have to leave that in the car"

Does it strike you as ironic (tragic may be a better word) that the locations chosen for mass murders by gunmen are places that citizens are not permitted to carry concealed weapons themselves?


Many theaters ban those who have a concealed handgun license (CHL) from doing so on their premises.


Colleges and universities ban those who have a CHL from doing so on their premises.


So, too, hospitals.


Such folks cannot carry on the grounds of public education, elementary through high school.


The only mass murder in Texas in recent memory occurred on, of all places, a military installation (Fort Hood) where it is--you guessed it--illegal to carry. Let's see, when I flew the F-16, I was entrusted to take off carrying 500 rounds of live 20mm ammunition and 4000 pounds of high explosives and to not drop them on an American city, but I can't carry my 9mm with me on base???


I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to tote a weapon into these locations, but for those who have been through the screening and the training, I'm at a loss for why folks cannot carry in these places?


There are two locations here in Texas that I somewhat understand and can abide when it comes to banning firearms.  One is in establishments where liquor accounts for over 51% of the sales. You wouldn't want some guy getting all liquored up and bandying his .45 about lamenting Leona Mae's leaving him. The other is in stadium events where security is already very tight. And in reality, a case could be made for carrying in those locations, too.


The tidbit of logic that seems to escape the gun-controllers is that when guns are banned in a particular location, the only people who won't tote a gun into that place are law abiding citizens. A "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign isn't going to slow a crook or a nut job for a picosecond, and then you've just opened up the folks therein, those you were trying to protect in the first place, to criminal mischief.

A few years back, while visiting my mom in Wisconsin, we stopped by an A & W Root Beer diner. It happened to be the week that Wisconsin began its foray into CHL life. Needless to say, the lefties around Madison were coming unglued.


On the door of the A & W of all places was a very legal "no guns allowed" sign. While we drowned ourselves in icy cold, on-tap root beer, I took the opportunity to chat with the manager.


"I saw your sign banning folks from carrying firearms into your establishment."


"Yes, sir," she responded.


"Do you understand that folks who have a CHL have to go through training and a background check to be able to carry their weapon?"


"No sir, I didn't," she answered honestly.


"Do you understand that law-abiding folks, when they see your sign, will respect the wishes of your establishment and leave their guns in their vehicles, but that sign will do absolutely nothing to thwart criminals from toting their .357 into your establishment and robbing you blind?"


"Um..."


"Did you know that the only reason I carry is to protect my family from harm, and that your sign prevents me from doing that and potentially from protecting any of your customers from harm?"


"Gee, sir, I hadn't thought of it that way. The owners of the establishment had those signs put up but I will pass on to them your concerns.  Thank you."


"My pleasure," for it truly was.


Is it really that hard? CHL folks aren't looking for the first opportunity to pull a John Wayne and start shooting up the place. You see, John never did that. Bad guys do that. John Wayne pulled his gun when the bad guys pulled theirs (like this).


If anything, the nightmare in Aurora should ease the constraints upon those who carry and not further restrict them. Further restrictions will only delight the thugs and endanger the citizens.


That's dumber than rocks.

Chick-fil-A anti-gay? Really?!

I had other things to do this morning, but vent I must.

A few days ago, I read an article about Dan Cathy, current president of Chick-fil-A and son of founder, S. Truett Cathy (you can read it here if you wish. I thought it a great article about a man who tries to live out biblical principles in his life and in his work. It is his company, for pity's sake. He makes plain that it's not a Christian company, there can only be Christian people ("Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me"), but he goes on to say,

"...As an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

Within the article, he responds to a question about how Chick-fil-A has been opposed by liberal and homosexual America for encouraging the traditional family (i.e. husband and wife, if you've forgotten). His response:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that."

Because of such audacious statements, homosexual America has erupted. In a blog on the Huffington Post (here), Cathy is referred to as anti-gay and as thinking that everyone must be a Christian. They find it shocking that one who holds a biblical world view would support other organizations that do so as well, to include one organization that tries to help those who struggle with homosexual attractions. The article lauded universities for "squashing" plans for on-campus Chick-fil-A's.

Here is where we are as a nation. Many believe that a Christian man should not be able to run his company by Christian principles. He he should not be able to declare conduct or actions good or harmful based upon the clear teaching of the Bible. Cathy stands upon biblical principles. It is getting to be in our country where you are permitted to stand anywhere but upon those.

Ah, the tolerance of the tolerant.

(Of interest, I don't believe a homosexual has ever been denied service in any of his establishments. That would be something Cathy would not tolerate. For more on our widening national divide, go here.)

I read the news today, oh boy

The headline on Drudge this morning: 

SANTORUM'S SATAN WARNING.

Drudge dangled the bait, and I bit. It was a Drudge exclusive. Here is what he reported (in it's entirety).  (As an aside, this is NOT a commentary on Santorum's politics but on his assessment of the theological temperature of our country.):

Tue Feb 21 2012 09:27:20 ET "Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.
"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

MORE

The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.

"This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country - the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

"He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions."

Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.
MORE

The White House contender described how Satan is even taking hold of some religions.

"We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."

Developing...

Provocative comments?  To Drudge, this is radical. Through a biblical lens, though, Santorum's comments are spot on. One of us is way off base. 
We've entered a time in America where living and breathing your relationship with Jesus Christ and living the Bible as the truth of God that it claims to be (Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5) leaves you in conflict with the culture and more and more so with the government. The media, and even Drudge who many believe leans conservative, think it's abhorrent to speak with such religious flourishes when in our country's nascency, if you look back at the speeches of the presidents of our first hundred years, such discourse was normal.


We scoff at the religious oppression of Iran and Saudi Arabia, but is the oppression that comes at the hand of secular and atheistic America any better?

Be ready, Christian. It's getting toasty in here. 


-----------------------
NOTE:  After writing this post, I came across these verses from Peter, friend of Christ, called to be an apostle.

• 1 Peter 2:21  - For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
• 1 Peter 4:13-14 - But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
• 1 Peter 4:16 - Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.
• 1 Peter 4:19 - Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

Get up for it, saints!

NBC

In case you missed it, NBC successfully neutered the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance during their opening segment to the U.S. Open golf tournament this past Sunday (here).  The bit had children reciting the pledge and cut-aways to patriotic images around the D.C. area where the tourney took place this year. When they cut away after "...one nation..." they returned to "...with liberty and justice for all."

When the phone calls began to swamp their switchboard, they fumbled their on-air apology by referencing an omission that may have caused some offense, but the offense was not intended. Ah. Okay.

NBC has done this with intent before (here). Really, this should surprise no one. We are a post-modern and certainly a post-Christian nation. Francis Schaeffer noted that art accurately reflected the heart of a culture or where that culture would go. Find a family on TV whose relationship to the Creator is treated with respect (maybe CBS' Bluebloods where they actually pray before they eat). It's not just our entertainment. We allowed our government to drive prayer from the public schools. What politician will be elected or professor be hired if it comes to light that Christ informs their life in all matters? God has been driven from the American public square.

Call it spiritual entropy. The beautiful package deposited on our doorstep in the late 1700's has been mashed to pieces, not by some hooligan or vagrant, but by us. Jesus Christ is not merely unwelcome, he is not tolerated.

Here's the deal. Whether NBC recognizes it or not, we are a nation under God. In fact, whether or not any nation recognizes it doesn't change the reality that every nation is under God. That is reality. I can deny it until my face turns red, white, and blue, but the God who created the universe and created my DNA created government to be his implementer of justice in the world (Romans 13). I can bow my knee today and submit to him acknowledging him as Lord of all or I will bow my knee one day future when it will be too late (Philippians 2:9-11, Matthew 25:46).

Am I surprised by what NBC did? Not really. Saddened, mostly. It breaks my heart to see my country turn its back on the God who has secured for us such freedoms and such opportunities.

It's time to take up the prayer of Daniel (Daniel 9:1-19).

TSA: Just ordinary folks--gone horribly awry

I remember as a kid the Vesuvius-like joy that filled my soul when Dad said we had to go pick up someone from the airport.  The wide-open terminals, the cool little shops (to include the arcade), and airplanes!  What was not to like for a little kid?  I didn't even have to be the one flying.  Airports were great places to be.

Not any more.

In fact, it took us two days to drive to Wisconsin.  You could have handed me five round-trip tickets from my front door to my mom's home and I still would have taken the two-day drive and night in a hotel to get here.

First, I can leave when I want.  I don't have to cater to whenever I can get the tickets.

Second, we have a 'burb full of goodies to snack upon when we travel.  Good eats and sweet fellowship with the family.

Third, my woman and I read to one another while driving.  Not much better way to pass the miles than to read with your bride.  The teen hibernated.  The girls watched movies.

Fourth, and the impetus to this micro-venting, I don't have to go to the airport.

What has become of our airports?  While I never traveled in Eastern Europe in the days of the Iron Curtain, I imagine that getting through the Brandenburg Gate back in the day proved far easier than getting from the front door of any big-city airport in America to the departure gate in 2010.

The fact that my government sees all of its citizens as suspect grieves my heart the most.  While I can seldom bear Ann Coulter's screaming-meemie approach to political observation and discourse anymore, she sums the problem up nicely in a recent article.  In a nut shell, howz-about we target those most likely to target us?  Not the nuns.  Not five year old children.  Not the WWII vets trying to visit their great-grandchildren.  Considering every major atrocity committed against the US in the last three decades has been committed by someone of a conservative Islamic persuasion with a heritage that usually springs from a locale well east of the Mason-Dixon, what say we scrutinize folks like that?

That would require a fundamental shift from the top down not likely to happen in the next two years.  Janet Napolitano has studied internal national security from the likes of old Heinie Himmler and Joe Stalin.  Nope.  She's set and President Obama doesn't appear to be reigning her in.


An American Travesty


So what happens when the order comes down to the TSA agents that they MUST do a nude scan or full-body grope of Sister Mary Catherine before she can board her plane?  Have any balked?  Have any of them quit their job in an economy where jobs are scarce because they could not carry out such heavy-handed tactics against friends and neighbors?

Personally, and like many others, I believe what the TSA is doing to American citizens is criminal, a shaking down of individuals who have provided no impetus to the government for this unreasonable search and sometimes "seizure."  At this point, I come to understand how ordinary men and women could lead other human beings into gas chambers.  Really, it's not that extraordinary a leap.  When national leadership tells you that it's for the good of the nation, that the safety of the country depends upon what you are doing, a sense of civic duty rises up and you answer the call.

Until you take a hard look at what you are really doing.  Unfortunately, I have heard no stories of TSA Agents quitting over what they've been tasked to do.  My heart grows heavy every time I see a picture of the TSA groping folks that ought never be groped, body-scanned or metal detected. 

When will this all end?  I don't know.  Our government of the people is doing this to us.  We have let it tether itself around our freedoms.  It's up to us to say, "No more."

Until then, I'm steering clear of airports, getting out on the wide-open road, and praying they don't institute highway checkpoints between states.

The silenced pulpit

The one place folks should expect to go and get a clear barometric reading on the political scene is the church, but for fear of losing their tax-exempt status, most churches have been bludgeoned into a pledge of silence over issues political.

Constitutionally, this should NOT be so, and in actuality it is not so.

The Alliance Defense Fund, the white-hat version of the ACLU, has done the leg-work for pastors and church members for determining what you really can and cannot do in church.  You'd be surprised.  This link will take you to a wealth of information for ensuring your church keeps its people informed and does not run afoul of the ever-growing Big Brother.

1776

The Declaration of Independence in its entirety.  If you haven't read it in awhile, now's a great time to read what impelled our Founders to shake its ties with Britain (highlights, mine).  Note especially the reasons listed for the break.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --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, laying 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 shewn, 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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
• For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
• For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Just another day: Fun at the Arab Fest

Thomas Sowell wrote a piercing piece earlier this week on the erosion of the rule of law in our land and the increased frequency with which our government operates outside its constitutional border.  Sadlly, most folks won't take the time to read it.  No pictures.  And it's about government.  Yawn.  We'd rather watch the World Cup.

The ideas Mr. Sowell discusses do not exist within the realm of theory alone.  What he argues has begun tapping on the shoulders of folks like you and me and hauling them off to jail.

For those with a cursory understanding of American geography, Dearborn, Michigan evokes blue collar imagery.  Hard-working factory folks on the skirts of Detroit.  Does it make you think of mosques?  It should.  Did you know Dearborn has one of the largest Islamic populations in the country?  Indeed.

It should come as no surprise that Christians compelled to preach the Gospel of salvation in Christ alone would seek to share that good news at Dearborn's annual "Arab Festival."  As Christ himself said, the healthy do not need a physician, and so a few bold Christians sought out the masses of sick.

Oops, bad choice.  I guess discussing what Muslims believe in the hope of having an open door to present the hope of the Gospel at an Arab festival is not protected by the Constitution.  These folks were not part of the Westboro Baptists, that foul group of individuals that picket funerals and carry heinious placards and that has little understanding for what the Bible plainly states.  The arrested individuals went with cameras (for their protection) to seek out those willing to talk.

It earned them abuse from the "security team" and arrest from the local police.  Neat.  Read it and watch the videos here.  Maybe one day on American streets the voices of Christians proclaiming a free and restored relationship with God through Christ will be silenced.  Then where will we be?

Ironic note. Drudge reports this afternoon that an earthquake felt from "Detroit to Buffalo" rumbled across the northern tier.  5.0 on Lord Richter's scale.

Ironic note II (here).  "Lord," as in "the year of our LORD," is being removed from a Connecticut high school's diplomas.  Neat.  That's surely offended three or four people over the past century.

Ironic note III (here and here).  There's a liberal bias to college's summer reading lists.  A whopping 2% of recommended books were considered conservative.  Well, it's something.  At least gay lit is taking off (here).

Sorry for the digressions, let's get back to Dearborn.  You might not like to hear the Gospel and you might not want to receive a pamphlet discussing what the Bible says, but you have the freedom to pass the person by or to trash the pamplet.  You do not have the freedom to prevent the person from discussing that idea with others.  It's not Constitutional.  This is not Russia amidst the height of Communism.  It's not China under Mao.

It's America 2010.  Do you know where your freedoms are?

Healthcare: The unconstitutional juggernaut

"Healthcare is your basic right."  Sure sounds good as a political promise, but I couldn't find it in the Declaration of Independence.  That dusty, old document says something antiquated about God being the one who gives man his rights.  Among them, it avers, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which has a far different meaning in the minds of the peripheral coasts than it did in the minds of our founders).

Since the Big Three are "among" those unalienable rights, there must be other unspecified rights "among" which the Big Three find themselves.  Healthcare must be one of those, loitering in some unspecified location between the penumbra of the Declaration and the Constitution.  So if healthcare is "among" the rights alongside the Big Three, surely there must be other important rights that have not yet been brought to the fore of congressional or presidential minds. 

That got me thinking.  (Cue the ominious "Twilight Zone" music.)

Shelter's pretty important.  I should have a right to shelter.  And since we've already noted the high standing of healthcare with the "among" rights, my home should be toasty in the winter and nicely chilled in the summer.  That means it should have good insulation and energy efficient windows.  To save American money, I'd be willing to take a hit for the team and live in San Diego where the temperatures remain at 75-degrees give or take 3-degrees throughout the year.  It's my right, afterall.

I need to work, too.  Therefore, employment is a right.  But I'll need to take care of my kids, too, so I'll only be able to work between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. because I need to drop my kids off at school and pick them up in the afternoon to get them to play practice, football practice, bassoon lessons and their Feng-Shui classes.

If I'm going to work, because it is my right, you know, I'll need to get to work.  Therefore, with the logic of a Sicilian when death is on the line, having a car must be a right, too.  Since there is some question as to whether or not the environment is in jeopardy, nuts to the green cars.  Gimme a hot Porsche.  And since I'll be pooling my kids to school and all events extra-curricular, I'll need a family vehicle.  How about a Yukon with DVD's for the kids (educational videos, you know).

I must certainly have a right to eat as well.  Since I'll be so busy commuting my kids all over town, I'll need someone to prepare the food.  I guess that means I have a right to live-in home service, too.  Perhaps a personal cook and maid and a masseusse to take care of the stresses of my day.

And...and...and...

Whoa.  Hey, was I sleeping? 

You get the idea, though, don't you?  If we take "healthcare as a right" to its logical conclusion, we will be required nothing.  We will be handed everything.  My rootbeer induced delusion speaks of human needs NOT human rights.  The rights (and God-given they are) provide us the freedoms to live our lives as we see fit to meet our needs.  Success or failure?  They are up to us.

When Ma and Pa Ingalls headed out of the big woods and onto the prairie, they didn't lean on the hope or change of Grover Cleveland to bail them out if their buckboard sank into Plum Creek.  Their success came about because of the blood, sweat, and tears of Charles and Caroline.  What role did the government play?  It stayed completely out of their vittles.

Healthcare is not a right, it's a need.  And thereby, it's no business of the government to provide it except to protect my God-given rights to try and procure a livelihood for my family and me.

I don't think Congress or the President will listen to me.  Maybe they'll listen to US?

The sin of universal health care, Part II

Nothing certain in the universe but death and taxes, goes the old saw, but like Al Gore trying to stop hurricanes in their tracks, the government, headed by President Obama and a Democratic Congress, is trying to stop the sting of death (that's already been accomplished, but they ignore that fact). Universal health care! Now, there's the ticket!

And why is this a good idea? The impassioned plea of Facebook posts everywhere reads:

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day...."

In my last post, I discussed that sticky problem of death (here). It's a bullet that can't be stopped. It's here because we sin (sinned). We are rebels against an Almighty God (He's provided the solution for that predicament, but that's not the topic of this post).

We take our next step in this discussion understanding that we will all die some day. Would you pay an extra million dollars to live one more day? That question raises a thousand others. Here are a couple:

1. Do I have a spare million lying around?


2. Do I have a spare fifty million lying around?


3. Would someone else be coughing up the million?


4. Would a million someone elses be coughing up $1?


5. What would be the state of that final day? Would I have the vitality I had at 22 or would I be comatose?

Let's step out of the health care arena for a moment. Let's talk about your broken-down car. And let's assume you didn't get cash for your clunker but that it's sitting out in your driveway. Pretend, too, that you are a cash-strapped camper with no credit cards. How do you get your car fixed?

The solutions are pretty old-school, but here's how I see 'em:

1. You don't get it fixed until you earn enough from your job to pay for the repair.


2. If you need to car sooner, you take another job. Unless you're riding your bike, that might compound the problem with your car.


3. You talk with the mechanic. Maybe he'll take a few bucks now and you can pay the rest over the next few months.


4. You take out a loan. Not ideal, but it might come down to that.


5. Perhaps your family can help you out, no interest, and you can pay them back. Or you plead with folks in the community to help you out, you know, neighborliness.


6. Someone foots the bill for you, a gift.


7. You could learn some basics of auto mechanics that might solve the problem.

Doesn't seem to be a morally objectionable option amongst the lot of them. Now, try this one.

8. The mayor of your town knows you really need that car and makes everyone in town cough up 50-cents to pay for its repair.

The difference between #5 and #8 is choice. When I choose to help my fellow man, it's called charity (that's old English for love). If I am coerced through legislation, it's called stealing! The government couches it in nice terms. Fredric Bastiat calls it "legal plunder." The government makes laws to give a facade of legitimacy to their crime.

Crisis care (gushing blood, severed limbs, etc.) should be covered by community taxes and townships. It's not different than the fire department or the police department. Beyond that, should you pay for the doctor to determine I have strep and should you pay for my penicillin?

Let's pretend that medicine was still affordable (that's a different issue, too). There would be procedures Bill Gates could afford that I could not. Should that surprise me? Nope. What if the docs suggest a procedure I could not afford? Well, options 1 thru 7 above seem viable, don't they?

For the government to take your money to pay for my aspirin or my apendectomy is criminal.

Here's the rub. Health is not a right, nor is medical care. I do my level best to take care of myself and understand that "man knows not his time." I may get a form of cancer that I can't afford to have eradicated. If 1 thru 7 avail nothing, I play the cards with which I'm dealt. I don't take your cards from you.

There are things worse than death. Government coercion of its citizens is one. Worse than the government stealing from me is their robbing us of the opportunity and responsibility for looking after my neighbor.

WE have a responsibility to take care of ourselves. And WE have a responsibility to look after one another...by choice. Government strong-arming is NOT the way to go about it.

I'm off my soapbox.

The sin of universal health care, Part I

Contrary to popular opinion, there are worse things than death. Just ask the folks who established New Hampshire. They went so far as to make it the state motto. "Live free or die!" they challenged. Cutting to the chase, we'll go to the mattresses over our fundamental freedoms. I wonder, if they were motto-less, what would they come up with today? "Cover my health care or go to jail!"

Last night a friend posed a question about a viral challenge floating about Facebook.

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day...."

My friend knew I would not agree, hence the question. This, in a nutshell, is the argumentation of the politicos as they seek to cram universal health care down our throats today, a program that wouldn't be implemented for three-years worth of tomorrows.

On the surface the argument appeals to that same corner of our being that laments the puppy in the pet store window. Awww...how can you resist? Anyone who walks on by has a heart of stone. Don't you know--gulp--that if you don't purchase this pup (dab at the eyes) that it'll get gassed next Tuesday?

(That really is an ironic argument considering that that same political party touting that rhetoric has been seeking to make abortions available on-demand for the last 37 years.)

I don't mean to be crass, but we will all die, regardless of the status of our health care. I have no doubt that if in every case doctors were to apply every possible medical technique known, they would be able to prolong the lives of a majority of the folks. In the end, they will all die. That's the first problem with the pet-shop attitude about health care.

I'm reading a bio of Jonathan Edwards even now. I haven't gotten to the end yet, but I know what will happen. He'll die. In fact, he'll die at 52-and-a-half on March 22, 1758. You know why? I don't either (I haven't gotten that far), but I do know that medicine didn't deter his death.

Medicos can't figure out why we die, but the Bible explains it plainly.

"...Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."

Because of sin, death entered the world. The image of God in man remains, but that visage is marred. From the moment we are conceived, we carry the sentence of death (a good topic for another post some other day).

Ultimately, the universality of death points to the problem of universal health care. I'll get to that in Part II. To say that none should die for lack of health care ignores the fact that all will die for any number of reasons at some point along the timeline.

So, how far should we go to save a human life? Good question. We'll look at that in the next post.

Minnesota

Cut me, do I not bleed 10,000 lakes? The Minnesota of my youth, a wondrous mystical place, is now a place of distant nostalgia.

The last couple days, the Twins played the Texas Rangers in Arlington. Living in Texas, I get to see all the Rangers games and have adopted them as a pseudofavorite since a I rarely get to see the Twins play. Watching them both slug it out for three days was a real treat.

Watching the Twins vaults me to the time of Killebrew, Carew, Allison, Blyleven, and Kaat. While the Twins have remained as scrappy as ever and the lakes haven't lost their luster, Minnesota is not the place I left.

When Al Franken earns a senate seat, something has tipped in the cosmos. Has Minnesota has lost its political mind? First Jessie Ventura. An aberration, I thought. But Al Franken?!? Outright insanity. You don't elect a cartoon to political office.

But it's not just in politics where Minnesota has changed. A recent news article highlighted Minneapolis' problems with Somali gangs (here). What's mostly from absent from the article is any reference to Islam. The predominant religion in Somalia is Sunni Muslim. For a comparison, that's Saudi Arabia's freedom-focused, laissez faire brand of religion. [Saudi Arabia is the source of funding for what have become a drove of Islamic charter schools, the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy one of their shiny pennies going so far as to refuse to fly the American flag (here).]

What's to blame for the problem with the Somali gangs? The article suggests the standard socialist saws: poverty, bias of authorities. Hmmm...how about refusal to assimilate? Unwillingness to submit to US law? Poverty driving that? Nope. Minnesota, like Michigan, has an infestation of fundamentalist Muslims, the kind who don't want to play well with others, the kind remove the opposition not with the vote but with the scimitar or the C4 vest. The FBI is right to be watching the Twin Cities' Somali community (here).

What about the Somalis and the Muslims who do want to live in peace on Minnesota soil? They should be distancing themselves from their mutant cousins and decrying all such conduct. Say the pledge. Fly the flag. Or move out. Perhaps those are the Somalis who have lost their lives at the hands of the demons.

Al Franken is bad enough, but if this keeps up, brats will be banished from the ballpark and the National Anthem is sure to follow.

Remembering

They marched for scores of miles through the snow for there were no half-tracks. The trail left by these beleaguered soldiers required no Indian scout to follow. The blood from their feet clearly demarked where Washington's army had been and where it went.

Farmers and their sons took up arms against their Mother Country not understanding the nuances of failed diplomacy or the particulars of Britain's increasing oppression. They did know that their farms and lives were at stake and that the British demands would only grow greater. War was upon them. Without a uniform, ill-clad and unshod, oft with farm implements as their weapon, the men of the American Revolution went to fight for freedom. And to die.

Do the young men and women enlisting today understand the hatred of Koran-believing Islam toward things of the west, toward America and western Europe? Many, probably not. Do they know the beauty of our Constitution and the soul-stirring weight of the Declaration of Independence? Do they understand the difference between a Republic and a Socialist state?

Probably not.

Many today will certainly swear an oath to the United States of America to serve in her military with hope of getting an education. Many want to see the world. Some just follow their friends. But during the Revolution, there were farmers and preachers, barbers and teachers, who took up arms because that's what others were doing. Their motives may not have been the red, white, and blue.

And still, they shed their blood.

Today we have fresh graves of folks little older than boys and girls who were willing to wear the uniform of our great nation though perhaps not full grasping why we fight. They died fighting the enemy though they might not have fully comprehended why he was the enemy.

For all those who, little understanding why they swore an oath, died in service to the United States of America, I thank God. I give thanks to their families for raising sons and daughters willing to lay down their lives for their friends.

Dear God,

For the graves that are fresh, bemarked by a new white cross,
For the graves that are freshly mowed and have been so for two centuries now,
For the graves that are unknown, a spot in some forest, perhaps beneath where a city has grown up or where now stands a baseball field,
For those who have died on the field of battle in service to the United States,
I offer my deepest gratitude.

Please bless their families for the great sacrifice they have made.
Bless the sons and daughters who will not know their dad or their mom. Help them to one day know what an extraordinary thing their parent did on that fateful day. Help them to know that their dad or their mom is a hero.
Bless the moms who did not want to see their child go into service but let them go anyway. Bless the dads who instilled in their child courage and character.

Until you return and set all things right, we will continue to war. Hasten the day of your return so that fresh graves would no longer be necessary.

In the name of your Son, Jesus Christ, who made the greatest sacrifice,
Amen.

Inconsistency of the left

When it comes to moral and ethical politics, elected officials who say one thing and do another or take two contradictory positions are legion in Washington. Never before has a political movement tried to live out such contradictions as the political left in America today. There is perhaps no better image of proclaiming and believing two opposing views than Barack Hussein Obama.

Since taking office, the President has dismantled most every barrier erected by former presidents for making abortion rare. This week as he ponders the politics of a nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, President Obama has made plain that he will appoint a pro-abortion lawyer.

On the other side of the ethical arena, the President has called for closing Guantanamo Bay and exposing our interrogation techniques to bring such actions to an end. All of this in the name of civil rights, of acting human to our fellow man. Why is this an issue? First, these men are NOT prisoners of war and should not be afforded the rights of such under the Geneva Convention. Second, they are NOT US citizens and should not be afforded the rights of such under the Constitution. They are terrorists and, like the pirates off Somalia's coast, should be shot.

Innocent life gets every protection possible under law removed leaving it naked against a hostile world. Those guilty of atrocities against our nation get protections awarded to them beyond our law leaving them more armed and more equipped to blend into the society they so loathe.

We must extend the protections of humanity toward the innocent toward the defenseless. We must do everything in our power to bring the .45 caliber end of justice upon those who unleash their hatred upon American soil or Americans abroad. But in today's political Wonderland, we're giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

QotD: Napolitano's terrorists

It's interesting when a public servant softens the word used for enemies against our country and then begins to bandy that word about toward our own citizens like she were juggling tennis balls.

In commenting on Janet Napolitano's indictment against a large segment of our population, Andree Seu concluded (here):

"My daughter and I are reading Orwell’s 1984 together at bedtime and it is barely keeping up with the news developments."

You are a "Radical Extremist"

Over the last thirty years the greatest evil wrought upon America and Americans fall into two general categories, the school shooting and the terrorist mass-homicide.

Isn't a school shooting a terrorist mass-homicide? Well, yes, but the perpetrators of these heinous acts against God and humanity are distinctly different. School shootings have generally come at the hand of kids from broken, messed up homes, while terrorist mass-homicides crash upon us from those who hate us, our government, or our way of life. Essentially, they hate America. In the last three decades, apart from Tim McVeigh, everyone in the latter category has one thing in common. Islam.

So if you were the head of Homeland Security, where would you focus your attention to thwart acts of terror on our soil? Would you home in on a little hamlet west of New York City founded upon the tenets of the Koran and that doesn't permit outsiders or would you delve into the seditious activities of the Veterans of Foreign Wars? Would you focus on Islamic charter schools and mosques where those who have fomented terrorism have trained and been trained, places that refuse to raise the American flag, or would you delve into the shady character of that radical James Dobson and his chillingly named organization "Focus on the Family?" If you're Janet Napolitano, the actual Secretary of Homeland Security, you choose the latter in both cases.

If you haven't heard, you can catch her statement released to police departments across the country warning them of the grave threat posed by radicalized right-wing groups here. It's worth our time...and it's creepy.

What would cause such folk to be targeted by Ms. Napolitano's henchmen? You might be "hate-oriented." Well, you may be thinking, I'm not hate oriented. That may be so, but it has been a common slander from the left that those who hold to a plain reading of the Bible by calling sin "sin" propogate hate speech. To call homosexual conduct "sin" is already criminal in Canada and is becoming so in our nation, if not de jure then certainly de facto.

You might believe that our Constitution holds that states have greater responsibility to govern than does the federal government, that the Fed gets its power from and came into being by the states and not the other way around. Such thinking would make you "radical."

You may have served in combat, and since Oliver Stone has given us the truth about war, you are now seen as a threat to your country. Just look at Timmy McV.

This is getting surreal. North Korea launches a vehicle that could hold a nuclear payload, and the President calls for the free world to denuke itself. We get throttled by Islamic fundamentalists for decades and Homeland Security casts the hairy-eyeball at folks that look an awful lot like our Founding Fathers.

A warning to you. Be careful what sites you visit on the web. You may be ID'ed as one of "them" because you read the posts of a God-fearing, Bible-believing, gun-toting, one wife, six kids, conservative, small-government kind of guy.
------------------------

As an aside, here's a great article by Walter Williams on why our Founders shunned democracy in favor of a republic. Be smart about who we are. It may not be long before we aren't.

Stimulus: The physics of our demise

Stimulus - (n) some act or impetus intended to elicit a response.

Well, here's my response to The Stimulus.

It's absurd.

It's godless.

It portends our nation's demise.

No, it's not multiple choice, but the answer is all of the above.

I cannot believe that the populace hasn't erupted against the ludicrous tax-burden that will crush us. Let's get this straight. I don't blame Barack Obama. He simply waltzed through the door that George Bush blew wide open for him. But, oh, the glee with which he walked.

Let's step through this inch by inch, and it may take a few days. Lousy bankers made lousy decisions with money that wasn't theirs. It was ours. Those lousy decisions lost our money and tanked those banks. Sadly, it wasn't just one bank. When banks begin to heave, folks sit on their money. When folks sit on their money, they don't invest it, and companies don't have the ability to expand and grow (i.e. create new jobs). In fact, if the storm gets bad enough, companies will downsize to protect themselves against an economic downturn.

That happened last spring through last fall. Here's where the former President stepped in. Rather than let than let the storm pass and let folks slowly, and wisely, begin to reinvest the money they had left, George Bush and many lawmakers (law makers, mind you!!!) figured we needed money in the marketplace NOW! No prudence. No wait-and-see. Hundreds of b-b-b-billions pumped into the economy.

Now here's the "absurd." Who got the money? Corporates who ran their ship aground!! That's like giving the captain of the Titanic the helm of the Love Boat. You might as well make Benedict Arnold the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "You ruined your company? Here's $500 million." That's like giving the man in debt for $10,000 playing the slots another $8000 dollars to walk back in the casino. Are you kidding me???

Absurd, Part II. Who's money? Here's where things get vague, but I'm thinking the Saudi shiekdoms aren't coming to the rescue. Probably not Vlad Putin, either. Pry open that wallet, boys and girls! It'll be you and me. Taxes. Taxes and more taxes. Those hundreds of b-b-b-billions are coming out of our pockets!! And get this: If we pay more taxes, we have less money to invest in the economy. If we're not investing, companies aren't growing. Jobs are not being made, and again for preservation's sake, they're likely paring.

Absurd, Part III. Presidents Bush and Obama believe government slathering our money about will stimulate the economy. I asked the question to some co-workers, "Outside the military, what has the government done well." Cricket. Cricket. "The interstate highway system," one young man finally offered. Okay. That's one. Who do you think has a greater interest in seeing that your money earns interest, you or your congressman? Hmmm?

Our Founders did not create our federal government to dance in the economy. Even good brokers will only clear you 15% growth annually on a regular basis. Walter Williams wrote a great column the other day on the how buffoonish (and unconstitutional) the government is when it comes to matters of economics (read it here, it's a great read as Williams always is). How do bureaucrats determine who gets the money?

These folks didn't and won't invest our cash. Our elected officials steal when they take money from one group and give it to another.

That takes us to the godless nature of The Stimulus...next time.

Land of the Free...still

I mentioned in a recent post stepping in some goo as I trod the wilderness of the web. What it brought to mind, despite the conviction that we are on a swift slide toward becoming socialist Europe, is we remain a free people. Others don't have it quite so good (which makes me want to bang my head on the concrete as I try and figure out why we want to become like them).

• China. Remember those fun-loving folks from the Olympics? Remember the magic they wrought amidst the Bird's Nest and on the 10-meter platform? Remember that wonderful illusion of freedom on display for all the world to see? In the middle of Barack Obama's inauguration, when he got to the part, "Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions," the communists strategically broke away to one of their ministers of thought to put their spin on what he was really saying (here).
  
  Censorship remains alive and well.


• Cowardice. Remember Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film maker murdered on the streets of Amsterdam for his cinematic critique of Islam? Rather than begin to root out and exterminate the cockroaches that perpetrated such inhumanity, the Dutch went one better. They bowed to the butchers and kissed their boots. It became hate speech to speak against Islam. Seems ol' Theo got his comeuppance in the minds of his countryfolk.

Well, the Queen of Heart's jurisprudence continues in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, a member of Dutch Parliament and also a filmmaker, won't have to worry about getting his noggin schwacked for making a film about the War on Terror. Why's that, you ask? Because he's been indicted for inciting religious hatred against Islam with his film (read the insanity here). Perhaps local constables should arrest the jewelers for whipping the kleptomaniacs into an uncontrollable frenzy.

Has the world gone utterly mad?!?

Justice is turned back,
And righteousness stands afar off;
For truth is fallen in the street,
And equity cannot enter.
So truth fails,
And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.

Isaiah 59:14-15

(Pictured: Theo van Gogh from Wikipedia)

Islam's rise

Islam continues its burgeoning growth throughout Europe. It's not the message. It's immigration.

"Native" Europeans are not procreating at a rate to sustain their population, but to sustain their socialist programs they need bodies to tax? How to make that happen? Open the doors to immigrants. From whence cometh those tax payers? The Muslim Middle East. As the immigrants enter the land, they continue their baby-producing ways (no problem sustaining and growing their populations).

So what? Many predict an Islamic Europe by the turn of the next century. Others bump that closer to 2050. Mark Steyn, in America Alone, goes so far as to refer to the continent as "Eurabia."

So what, again? All's well and good if we can all get along. That's the point of Marvin Olasky's recent column (here). The problem comes when rather than accommodating themselves to the culture into which they move (when in Rome...), the Muslims have begun to alter the culture to accommodate them, a case made plain in Steyn's book and in Diana West's recent article (here).

We have become brainwashed by T-ball. Someone, somewhere thought it would be nice for each child to bat (likely the parent of a terrible ball player). Someone, somewhere thought it would be nice for the score not to be kept (likely the parent or coach of the team perennially trounced).

But life is not that way. Cream rises...always. Worldviews, the way folks believe and live out their lives, are distinct and are NOT equal. The Islamic worldview and the Christian worldview are, if I may, worlds apart. A cursory study of the foundational documents, the Koran and the Bible, and of the fruits that have been borne out of the societies that truly practiced that which is found within yields the difference between Saudi Arabia and America, England and Iran, and despite the chaos that is France, France and Syria (though as France has moved further and further away from the Bible, they in their godlessness, begin to look more and more like Syria).

Our Founders knew Islam and they knew Sharia law. They chose the principles of Christianity upon which to build a free nation, a nation of responsible citizens, where religion could be practiced freely without pressure from the state, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or pagan.

As the pressures of Islam begin to push from within and from without, America must stand for the principle of unchanging natural law and the Constitution upon which we were founded. Or by 2100 AD we might just become Amerabia.