Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Reasons to Believe, Part Two: Conscience

From Dictionary.com--Conscience: The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong. The faculty, power, or inward principle which decides as to the character of one's own actions, purposes, and affections, warning against and condemning that which is wrong, and approving and prompting to that which is right; the moral faculty passing judgment on one's self; the moral sense. that faculty of the mind, or inborn sense of right and wrong, by which we judge of the moral character of human conduct.

Furthermore, my own illumination of the word's meaning: Conscience is that nagging little voice in the back of your mind, pushing you toward or away from certain behaviors or thoughts. It's that little thorn pricking your spirit, telling you how to act. It's the heat you find rising in your neck from the shame of that publicly blurted curse word, or from making your wife cry during a heated argument.

So why do we have a conscience, in the first place? This question particularly is relevant for those who deny God's existence. From where does such an alarm system or voice derive?

I submit that the existence of a conscience within every man or woman is a reason for believing in the Creator. It points toward something or someone higher than us, who has certain expectations for us. This view rests in perfect harmony with Christian teaching and the Holy Bible. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he illuminates the subject: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. . .(Romans 2:14-15) I've lifted this verse from its greater context to make a point, which in no wise diminishes the verse's meaning. Part of Paul's message, here, is that whether adhering to Jewish law or not, all people have a basic understanding of right and wrong dwelling within them. He goes on to make further comments not relevant to our discussion. But the Bible has much else to say about the conscience, how it is with us constantly, and how it may be "seared with a hot iron" (I Timothy 4:2), or muted and ignored. The conscience is instilled within us by God, probably a remnant of our once perfect state of existence in the Garden of Eden, now marred and decayed by the Fall's effects. So the conscience is an imperfect guide, but we have it all the same, and it is a gift from God.

Stepping outside the circle of belief becomes tricky, however. Assuming one is an agnostic or full-blown atheist, how does one explain the conscience? What is its purpose? I've heard the argument stated thusly: "Perhaps the conscience is nature's way of keeping us from destroying each other, of ensuring our continued success as a species and perpetual propagation. Perhaps it's hard-wired into us." Of course, this explanation remains unsatisfactory. As I stated in Part One of this series, such a view lends human or personal attributes to nature, even devine ones. So we have stepped within a different circle--albeit a religious one, as well: the circle of pantheism, or the worship of the creation. What a strange conclusion. Stated candidly, the so-called atheist must say: "I do not believe in God, but I do believe in nature personified, with the ability to think and reason and provide failsafes within the human's inner self--just like a god." Bizarre. G.K. Chesterton said it best: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing--they believe in anything."

I have never heard a secular rationalization for the existence of conscience that makes the slightest bit of sense. Most often, in fact, the subject is skipped and evaded, like a bad memory or an unpleasant task. But a question worthy of an answer is this: If there is no God, how do we know our conscience is even correct? All have experienced the flaws in thought and action of mankind. Isn't it possible that the conscience, too, is mistaken completely, and should be ignored? Another observation: If man is a law unto himself--and himself only--then even if my conscience lead me down a different path than yours, we both are heading in the right direction. Let's demonstrate this absurdity. Your conscience quails in horror at the thought of murdering someone, yet I have no such compunction whatsoever. So, either we are both right, or both wrong. I see little difference between the two conclusions. If murder is not an offense against Almighty God in the extinguishing of one's life made in His image, if it is not a grave sin, then where's the harm in acting out such brutal fantasies of mayhem? And don't talk to me about the law, civilization, or just treatment of my fellow man. Apart from God, these ideas merely are human constructs; and that which is constructed is made to be demolished; or in contemporary vernacular: laws are made to be broken. So, civilization is a human construct--the imposition of one man's will over that of someone else--and God does not exist. Is murder wrong? Impossible to know. All opinions are pure conjecture. Perhaps murder has consequences--even dire ones--but this is no evidence that it is wrong. You may say: "But laws against such evils keep civilization from crumbling, chaos from ruling." I, the atheist content in all his smugness, ask simply: "Evil is a word with religious connotations; therefore, it is meaningless to me. Who are you to determine the good or evil of a situation? Furthermore, why is the collapse of civilization--or even the destruction of the human race--a bad thing? Why should society not be torn apart and thrown down like a house of cards in a tornado? Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die."

When not garbled to the point of incoherency, the explanation tendered by secularists for the human conscience is a baffled look or a disinterested shrug. I expect more from people who proclaim the righteousness and correctness of their worldview. I expect more from those who would laugh at me and call my Christianity foolish superstition. I expect more; and yet, my great expectations wait, unanswered, and unanswerable.

I'll leave this subject with another quote from Chesterton: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

"The New School Prayer"

Her's a funny poem I filched from World Net Daily:

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule.

For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the "unwed daddy,'' our Senior King.

It's "inappropriate'' to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments'' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot, my soul please take!

Supplemental Observation: Isn't it funny how those concerned with being non-offensive always come down on the side of secularism? With Christians, the policy is: "By all means, offend away."

I, Robot

Not a bad movie. Especially if you've never read the book.

The movie had many good characteristics--amazing special effects (some of the best I've ever seen), some riveting action sequences, a thought-provoking concept, emotionally-engaging moments,and interesting commentary on human/robot relations and the question asked in so many sci-fi movies: What does it mean to be human?

Those were the high points.

The film was fraught with negatives, though. Will Smith's character is abrasive and annoying, early in the movie. As the story progresses, he becomes more likeable, but the weak and fairly simple plot works against him. All in all, standard action movie fare, as far as storyline goes. Bits of the dialogue were inane and silly, and the obvious advertisement for Converse All-Stars tennis shoes early in the flick was as subtle as a two-by-four over the head. Also, there were at least two scenes in the movie where "surprises" were sprung on the audience, though these revelations were common knowledge to the film's characters. Only those of us watching in the theater were kept in the dark for most of the movie.

The biggest flaw in the story is the laughable idea that it's based on the works of Isaac Asimov. As a huge science fiction fan and voracious reader of the genre, I can assure you that this movie has almost nothing in common with Asimov's stories. Only the Three Laws of Robotics and a few character names bore any relation to his fiction. Asimov wrote his stories as rivals of the Golden Age of sci-fi's typical robot-as-clanking-monster story. He envisioned a world where robots were not threats to the human race, but assets. They coexisted in harmony with humans. Apparently, the filmmakers found this idea boring--thus the decision in favor of flipping the idea on its head and producing a film in Asimov's name that he would scarcely recognize as his own creation.

Was the movie good? Yes, in many ways. Could it have been much better? Definitely. I think there's an overdose of egotism involved in going out of one's way to attribute a story to a specific author, then telling a completely different tale from that which the author penned. Happens far too often. Either tell it right, or leave it alone.

Monday, November 29, 2004


Here's a neat story, about a near-future space collision--a man-made one!

Deep Impact — as the spacecraft is called — will travel six months to reach a comet, named Comet Temple 1. It will then release an 825-pound impactor to search out and collide with the 5-mile long, 2-mile wide comet.

It's amazing what people can do, when they put their minds to it.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Stuffed Turkeys

Well, Thanksgiving is over, having come and gone in a blur. I personally engorged myself on enough food to feed two fifth-world countries for about a week.

I have so much to be thankful for, I won't attempt making a complete list. But I would like to mention that I appreciate every single one of my readers/commenters.

I hope you all had a great holiday with your families. Take care of yourselves, and God bless you.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Reasons to Believe, Part One: Beauty

This is the first in a series of posts about why one should accept that God exists. There are many reasons for believing.

Beauty is the first one I'll address. But before we begin, let's first form a clear idea of what beauty means. Dictionary.com lists more than one description: 1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. 2. A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling. 3. An assemblage or graces or properties pleasing to the eye, the ear, the intellect, the aesthetic faculty, or the moral sense.

Going a step further, here's my own supplemental definition: Beauty is a recognition of the innate value of a person, place, thing, or idea. This value may stem from its physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, or moral characteristics. Not only is it an acknowledgement of this worth, but an admiration of it.

Now that definitions are out of the way, there are two universal truths worthy of mention. 1. We all accept that beauty exists. 2. We all share a common understanding of what the term means.

This even accounts for individual taste. Let me elucidate. You may find a particular woman beautiful, while I see her as merely pretty. Our individual perceptions differ, since that is the nature of individualism. These preferences are partially inborn, and partially molded by our environments and experiences. Yet, whereas we may part ways in what we find beautfiul, both of us accept beauty's existence, and share a basic awareness of its essence.

So, if everyone believes in beauty, and understands what the word means, then why does it exist? What purpose does it serve?

Personally, I think the concept makes no sense apart from God. Beauty is unnecessary for survival. In a cold, utilitarian world peopled with creatures transmogrified and "uplifted" by evolution, such a construct is useless. And let me head off a couple of naturalistic arguments up front. You may ask: "But isn't it possible that beauty is used by nature as a means of bringing together opposite sexes for propagation?" My answer is no, for two reasons. First, animals pair and breed out of an instinctual need--not because they find each other physically attractive and admire each others' beauty. So nature has proven that propagation occurs in spite of a lack of beauty's awareness. Second, if this is beauty's purpose, why do we find it in situations and objects that have no relation to reproduction?

Another inquiry might run along these lines: "Isn't it possible that beauty is nature's way of making living organisms happy and productive to their ecosystems?" Again, my answer is a resounding "No." Why? Because human beings are the only living organisms on planet earth capable of recognizing and celebrating beauty. If you've noticed, the line of reasoning in the above two questions reveals an anthropomorphizing of nature--its personification, if you will. Or perhaps a better term would be my own invented one--deiopomorphizing--ascribing godlike powers to nature. If nature is a living, thinking entity, capable of making decisions and judgements, this comes very close to an acceptance of God. I find such a belief a grasping at straws--a willingness to believe anything, except that there is an almighty God who holds us responsible for our actions and has a plan for our lives.

This leaves us with the Christian explanation for beauty--the one which I embrace. Beauty exists because we are creatures capable of recognizing it. Its presence makes life more interesting and thrilling. God created us in his image; and clearly he revels in the beauty of his creation. Thus, being like Him in many ways (though pale imitations of His majesty) we, too, find zest in beauty's evocation. I stand in awe at God's genious. Isn't it amazing that we reside on a planet where things grow and breathe and move that we just happen to find beautiful? How is it that our discernment of beauty precisely coincides with all that the earth has to offer our senses? Coincidence? A result of random natural processes? The product of an atheistic evolution? I think not. I find this more fantastic than the simple acceptance that God is real, and we are His creation. Our experiences and senses point toward such a conclusion.

Watch the moon's silver crescent as it slices the vault of heaven. Admire golden waves of wheat lapping at a roadside. Feel the inward rush of breath at the thought of what lies beyond that green hillside or cloud-haloed mountain. Bask in a new morning's sunrise, or thrill to the salmon skies of a glorious sunset. Find appreciation in a poem or a melody, the warble of a songbird, or the twinkling eyes of a child. Get lost in the wonder of life, and know that God created you to enjoy such experiences, just as He enjoys them, Himself.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Our Knowledge is a Drop in the Bucket

Every time a scientist begins glowing and puffing up in self-congratulation and pride with the scope of his knowldege, he should stop praising himself for a moment, and read this.

Some 13,000 new marine species have been discovered in the past year, according to information released by an international alliance of scientists.

The Census of Marine Life (COML) has also uncovered previously unknown migration routes used by fish such as tuna and shark.

"We're just skimming the surface," said Dr Ron O'Dor, Chief Census Scientist, based in Washington DC, US.

"We know something about the first 100m at this point but we know almost nothing about what lies down in the deep.

"Our analysis shows that if you catch a fish below 2,000m it is 50 times more likely to be new to science," he told the BBC News website.

We know a lot, and we're gathering more information and knowledge, every day. The point is, we should be humble and in awe of God's creation. We should be open-minded to accepting the premise that we don't know everything. Man--in his attempt to christen himself a god--has discarded the real God for his own ways and ideas. But God continues showing us that we don't know everything--and we never will.

We have a lot to learn.

Thanksgiving Without God is Like a Liberal Without a Cause

What a great idea! Public schools teach about the "historical" aspects of Thanksgiving, yet omit the religious connotations of the holiday's origins.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland public school students are free to thank anyone they want while learning about the 17th century celebration of Thanksgiving (search) — as long as it's not God.

And that is how it should be, administrators say.

"We teach about Thanksgiving from a purely historical perspective, not from a religious perspective," said Charles Ridgell, St. Mary's County Public Schools curriculum and instruction director.

School administrators statewide agree, saying religion never coincides with how they teach Thanksgiving to students.

This is political correctness teetering over the abyss of insanity. Do these "educators" have even a shred of knowledge about Thanksgiving?

Too much censorship can compromise a strong curriculum, some educators said.

"Schools don't want to do anything that would influence or act against the religious preferences of their students," said Lissa Brown, Maryland State Teacher's Association assistant executive director. "But the whole subject of religious toleration is a part of our history and needs to be taught."

Mentioning that the Pilgrims were Puritan is about as close as most administrators are willing to step to integrate religion into their curriculums.

"We mention they were Puritan but students usually just understand that they had a belief system and not much more than that," said Carol Williamson, Queen Anne's County Schools' associate superintendent.

Thanksgiving is usually taught as a part of social studies and emphasizes cultural immersion.

"The Pilgrim Story is read in Spanish and English," said Alfreda Adams, principal at Mills-Parole Elementary School in Anne Arundel County where 70 Hispanic students attend. "We make sure that we celebrate all cultures."

How does one discuss the historical story of Thanksgiving, without so much as a mention of Christianity?

The Pilgrims were a Christian denomination. They put together the inaugural Thanksgiving dinner as a way of showing gratitude to God for helping them through all sorts of trials and tribulations, and to fellowship with each other and the Indians. It was their Christian beliefs that led them to such a decision. If anyone doubts this, please read William Bradford's On Plymouth Plantation. Over a century later, George Washington called upon the nation to celebrate a day of Thanksgiving, as a means of honoring God for pulling the country through the war with England. For years afterward, states celebrated their own individual Thanksgiving festivities--all within a religious context. Finally, in 1863, Abraham Lincoln instituted Thanksgiving as a national holiday, to be recognized each year. His reasons also pointed toward a recognition of God's hand in the affairs of this country. The idea that Thanksgiving may be divorced from its religious connotations is asinine, rendering the holiday meaningless. Not to mention that this flies in the face of historical fact.

That the public schools and the teachers' unions that run them can call themselves "educators" is an absolute joke. They ignore the historical raison d'etre for Thanksgiving, then claim their teaching is strictly historical. They speak of a "strong curriculum," but leave out the most integral information. They wring their hands in worry about Censorship and religious toleration--all the while excising from the story any hint of its real religious meaning. Isn't that censorship? Isn't that intolerant?

And did you catch that "celebrating all cultures" line? It's clear that the hollow halls of "education" are feeding our children sugar-coated cyanide capsules. If you really want to celebrate all cultures, don't be half-hearted about it. Just have each student draw a picture of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, George Washington, Mohammed, Jesus, communists of all sorts, capitalists, and Nazis all holding hands and playing ring-around-the-rosies in a field of buttercups. Or maybe depict them skipping down the yellow-brick road, arm-in-arm.

I like my ironies complete and fully-formed.

Monday, November 22, 2004

Founding Quotes of Note XVIII

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin

I apologize to all those who partake of the welfare check. I realize that, even now, you are hissing and fleeing your computer area like a vampire from sunlight, a secularist from a church parking lot, or a hippie from a bar of soap. Please forgive the impertinence and insensitivity of Ben and myself.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Sitting on a Time-Bomb

Here's a shocker:

The National Council for Resistance, a grassroots Iranian organization, said Tehran was producing enriched uranium and testing biological and chemical warfare projects at a secret plant in northeast Iran which had not been disclosed to United Nations inspectors.

Military sources say the nuclear plant is hidden many feet below a development of luxury villas in the Iranian suburb of Nour in the Lavizan district of northeast Tehran. They say families of Iranian diplomats and top employees of Iran's Modern Defensive Readiness and Technology Center live in the villas, which contain entrances to a subterranean nuclear facility used to produce weapons-grade uranium and test chemical and biological warfare agents.

"If the U.S. or Israel wanted to hit these facilities, they'd have to target actual homes," one source told WorldNetDaily.

I'm stunned. A totalitarian government using its people as a shield for its nefarious activities. Isn't it interesting that this hotbed of terrorism even pursues its nuclear program with a terrorist mindset? Their rationale is obvious: If you attack us, you consciously will kill innocent civilians. And of course, we wouldn't want that, would we? Particularly in this time when people are scurrying about, lifting every slimy rock or sticking a hand in every dark crevice, hunting for a reason to hate the U.S. The irony of the situation is that many will hate us anyway--no matter what path we take. So let's worry less about what foreigners think of us, and more about the dire straits of Iran's nuclear intentions.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Ivory Tower Liberals

From Michael Peroutka's website, written by John Lofton:

We all know that the national media tilts to the Left with a Liberal/anti-Christian bias --- particularly the Cable News Network. Still, it's a shock to personally experience such blatant prejudice, as I did at the end of our Presidential campaign.

As Michael's director of communications, I got a call from CNN saying they wanted to do a report about our campaign on their program Inside Politics. The reporter would be former CBS News correspondent Bruce Morton.

When Morton and I talk to set something up, he says he's been looking at our Web page. He wants to know if Michael is elected, "will he repeal the First Amendment which separates church and state?" I tell him that there is nothing in this Amendment calling for such a separation.

Morton: "Well, it says you can't have an established religion and your guy sounds as if he wants one. He wants a Christian country and that sounds like establishment to me. But, I am no Constitutional scholar."

Indeed he is not. I patiently explain to Morton that what our Founders did not want was a national religion established by the Federal Government. I say Michael doesn't want this either but he does not believe --- like our Founders --- that you should separate God and government. Referring to our campaign themes --- God, family, republic --- I note that the Declaration Of Independence speaks of unalienable rights, from God, that it is the purpose of government to protect.

Morton: "Yes, I've read it, thank you."

But, Morton persists: "So, you would leave the First Amendment alone?"

I tell him I'm trying to take his question seriously but I can't. I ask him what have we said that indicates we would not leave the First Amendment alone?

Morton: "Well, you appear to want a specifically Christian country."

I reply: "Well, no, we actually want a Christian world. But, again, we do not want a Federally-established national religion. And, again, we believe what our Founders believed, that our unalienable rights come from God and it is the role of the civil government to protect these God-given rights."

Morton: "Good enough."

I reply: "God bless you." He hangs up.

Here's what CNN broadcast in its entirety:

Morton says: "Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party is on the ballot in 36 states. He wants a government that believes in God and is much smaller than the one we have now. No Federal money for old age pensions or education, for instance." Then a film clip of Michael is shown saying: "We need to honor God, defend the family, and restore the Constitutional republic."

It's amazing, really. People like this Morton character demonstrate the utterly misinformed portrait of Christians/conservatives aired daily on tv. Perhaps the man's full of deceit--or perhaps he has no clue what constitutionalists, conservatives, or Christians stand for. Liberals of his ilk apparently believe the goal of their political opponents is nothing less than a scrapping of personal liberty and the enthronement of a theocratic form of government. Where to start in explaining the absurdity of such opinions? To make matters worse, he revealed contempt for gathering facts about the political views of those he interviews--and his is supposed to be a medium dedicated to political commentary!

Remember the old adage: "Know your enemy."? Perhaps lefties actually should do a modicum of research and learn what their foes believe and where they stand. Getting acquainted with your enemy sometimes leads to the epiphany that he's not quite the zealot or froth-mouthed maniac that you assumed.

This is one lesson liberals have stricken gleefully from their playbooks.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Arafat Dead of AIDS?

If true, would this surprise anyone?

Born-Again "Dupes"

Here's a letter to the editor of World Net Daily, from Nov. 13. Problems abound:

Joseph Farah: If morality can only be dictated by true Christians (Republicans, fascists, neo-cons and born-again dupes) why do the "red" states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, prostitution, drug use (methamphetamine epidemic), along with a disproportionate number of satanic cults and gun-related crime per SMSA [Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas] data in the country? I think you need to clean your own house before lashing out against others.

Born-again "dupes?" Hm, I wonder if he's ever cracked the Good Book and taken a glance. And, of course, I find his assertion about the red states highly dubious.

As a Roman Catholic, I have no need to be "born again." I have never been without Jesus Christ. From birth to today He has blessed me with a love so unimaginable, yet His greatest gifts granted me have been sympathy, understanding, tolerance and grace. I pray for people like you. You just don't seem to get it. When you die and face the Lord Christ, the only question He will ask you is "I have no care of what you have done for yourself. Tell me, what have you done for another?"


He has no need to be born again? Hm. Tell that to Jesus. The Lord certainly contradicted this proclamation with his own words: There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:1-3.)

Don't get me wrong, here. Some of what St. Patrick said is true. Obviously, God is concerned about what we have done for others--the poor, orphans, widows, the unsaved, etc. But His primary concern is: "Have you accepted me as your Lord and Savior?" If not, all the good works in the world will not give you entrance into Heaven.

Pro-Life Cause Illuminated

JoeK emailed this interesting article to me, a couple of weeks ago. It deals with how the pro-life movement needs to clarify aspects of its outlook. I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. I'm not sure if I agree with every facet of the article, but it certainly is a thought-provoking read. Highly recommended.

Here's an excerpt:

But the real issue is the sanctity of God's law and the resultant dignity of human life. Because of how He created us, we do have a permanent dignity. This dignity is grossly insulted with the abortionists' weapons, but it cannot be removed. The suction tool does not exist which can remove the image of God.

But still, while having great dignity, human life is not sacred. When we speak as though it is, we leave the distinct impression that the foundation of our humanity is the source of our law, and thus the source of our protest. This is how much of our pro-life involvement has become humanistic instead of biblical. Human life has become a god instead of a gift, an idol instead of a valuable creature.

Such pro-life absolutism would force us to charge God with "anti-life" crimes for His destruction of the children of His enemies. As any Bible reader knows, He gave repeated commands to Israel's armies to utterly destroy various rebellious enemies (Josh. 6:21; 7:25; 8:26; Dt. 20:16). Sometimes God wanted His enemies to perish. Their lives were not sacred. God's law alone has this sanctity, and because He is holy, He visited the dignity of punishment upon rebellious creatures.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

My Cup Runneth Over

Many thanks to all of you who answered my prayer request. Tons of thanks, also, to those of you who may have read my words, whispered a silent prayer, but didn't comment. You know who you are, and I appreciate you. If you ever need similar help from me, just let me know.

Founding Quotes of Note XVII

"The Constitution--which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People--is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington

I wish someone had taught the "our-Constitution-is-a-living, breathing-document"-revisionists this little tidbit as they skated through their public school years. Of course, I suppose expecting government schools actually to dwell on our Founders' intentions is much like expecting to get through the checkout line at Wal-Mart quickly: it jest ain't gonna happen. By the way, for all those who believe our founding document is more malleable than Play-Doh, I have a question: If the Constitution should be defined and reinterpreted to fit the times, why was a clear means of revising the document included within it? I'm referring to the amendment process. This is the method its authors found best for change--this and no other. Doesn't this belie the whole contemporary, situational interpretation of its words? Rather than a "living, breathing, palpitating" document, I see it as one that has fallen into respiratory failure--asphyxiated by black-robed relativism--and dead on arrival.

Ben Franklin on Legacies

"If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are rotten, either write things worth reading or do things worth the writing." - Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

I read this quote for the first time, recently. It tickled my funny bone and struck me as true.

Back--With a Simple Request

Hello, all. I'm back.

My wife received a phone call on saturday night, informing her that her grandmother had passed away. She was around eighty years old, and was like a mother to her. Originally from the Philippines, my wife is scheduled for a series of flights that will take her back to her old home, to attend the funeral. She leaves tomorrow, at 11:20 A.M., E.S.T.

I ask that each of my regular readers--and anyone else who is so moved--to send out a prayer to the good Lord for her safety on this long trip--for a safe journey there, and an equally protected trip back.

Thank you all in advance for your prayers. I believe God hears us when we speak to Him. Your words and thoughts on her behalf mean a lot to me.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

A Brief Respite

I'll be away from the blog for a couple of days. My wife and I have plans to visit her father, on the other side of the state. We're leaving saturday morning, but we'll be back monday evening. So expect me to return to my regular blogging on tuesday, perhaps even monday night, if I'm not too tired. Try not to get into much trouble, while I'm away.

God bless and keep you all.

Y'all come back now. Ya heah?

Hoosegow Scooter

Well, ol' Scott Peterson was found guilty by a jury, at long last. I didn't follow the intimate, day-to-day specifics of the trial; and tv shows like Gretel Von Cistern's show on Fox (AKA "The Scott Peterson Show") bored me to tears. How will she carry on, now that the trial is over? Ah, there are still a few discrepancies in the O.J. trial--like the fact that he's guilty-- so maybe she'll do a little harkening back, or something. Sorry for the digression. Anyway, Peterson appeared guilty as sin from day one, to me. A few of the neon warning signs of guilt:

1. He claimed that he went on a fishing trip, alone, on the day of his wife's disappearance--Christmas Eve. Who goes fishing on the day before Christmas, when he has a pregnant wife at home, alone? Bizarre.

2. He sold his wife's Jeep while she was missing, when her fate was still up in the air.

3. He spoke of his wife in the past tense, when talking to his mistress on the phone.

4. He dyed his hair and attempted flight, but was stopped by the police.

5. He repeatedly lied to various people.

6. He exhibited not one iota of emotional distress or pain. You love your wife and unborn child, yet when they vanish without a trace, you sit around with a look on your face that would chill a viper's blood. Uh-huh.

Of course, there are other suspicious factors, as well. In a nutshell, if he wasn't guilty, then he sure did a brilliant job of convincing everyone that he was.

The conviction was strange, though. First degree murder for his wife, but only second degree murder for his unborn child. Say what? The jury believed that his wife's murder was premeditated, but not his son's? How does one reach such a ridiculous conclusion? Did the jurors firmly believe that Peterson thought the baby would survive inside his mother's womb, at the bottom of the ocean? That's absurd.

So Peterson is getting what he deserves. Bully for the judicial system for putting away a bad guy, for a change. But I'd love to see what's rattling around in those jurors' heads, that led them to convict him in this fashion.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Gone to His Reward

It seems Yasser Arafat is no longer among the living. I find no pleasure in the death of any human being, but clearly, some people deserve to die. And if anyone ever deserved death, Arafat did. His is a legacy of brutality, hatred, murder, and lies, culminating in the corruption of an entire subgroup of people within Israel. If human governments had a genuine interest in justice, he would have been dead long ago. His entire life's work was based on falsehood and viciousness, in destroying any hint of peaceful coexistence and reveling in chaos. Like Castro, it seemed that he would live forever. Brings to mind the old saying: "Only the good die young." Of course, entropy finally caught up with him, as it does with us all. And yet it bears mentioning that a man who thrived on violence died not by gun, knife, or bomb, but from frailty, age, and sickness.

It troubles me when I ponder the probable destination of his eternal soul, since I wish damnation on no one. But I think it would be dishonest of me not to admit that the world is, indeed, a better place, now that he is no longer in it.

Founding Quotes of Note XVI

"[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own." --George Washington

Can I get an Amen?!

Veterans' Day Sentiments

I came late to my pc, tonight, since I've been pretty busy for most of the day. But here are a few belated words I'd like to share:

For every man or woman the world over who wears the uniform of our armed forces--whether in the thick of combat or behind a desk--God bless you. May He watch over, comfort, and guide you along the way.

For every man or woman who once wore the uniform of our armed forces--God bless you, as well. I respect and honor your service.

For every man or woman who once wore the uniform of our armed forces, and died wearing it, thank you for your sacrifice, and for your belief in the idea of America. Here's one country boy who will never forget you.

To all of you--thank you for your service. May the departed rest in peace. May the living be showered with blessings from on high.

Someday, when the Lord returns, there will be no need for a military; but until that wonderful day comes, I will continue to stand amazed at the selflessness of our patriotic armed forces!

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Bush's Future Agenda

I thought this was interesting, so here ya go.

From the Constitution Party:

November 8, 2004

Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

In his first press conference since his re-election, President Bush said that his victory means he’s earned "political capital" and he intends to spend this capital on his "agenda." Good idea. Strike while the iron is hot, as they say.

So, what about the so-called "moral mandate?" What does Mr. Bush have on his agenda that addresses the concerns of the "value voters," the millions of evangelical Christians who many are saying are responsible for his re-election? What, for example, does he plan to do to restrict abortion which has killed more than 40 million innocent, unborn babies --- more than 25,000 of which have had their innocent lives snuffed out since Election Day? What does he want to do to defend traditional man/woman only marriage?

Well, evidently, nothing. Because he said not one word about either of these issues being on his agenda.

In his opening, prepared statement, Mr. Bush mentioned: his war in Iraq; the need for Congress to pass some appropriations bills; intelligence reform; the economy; frivolous lawsuits; health care; education reform; the tax code; Social Security.

A little later, when asked if his re-election made him feel a little more free, Mr. Bush mentioned, again, that he plans to work on: Social Security; tax reform; the economy; and education. He also said he would "press forward" on: his HIV/AIDS initiative; the Millennium Challenge Account; and feeding the hungry.

When Mr. Bush was asked about his strong support by Christian evangelicals in particular, he said he will be president of everybody "regardless of your faith." He said no president should ever try to impose his religion on society. He said the "great tradition of America" is that anybody can worship anyway they want to worship --- or not worship --- those choosing not to worship being "just as patriotic as your neighbor."

The "great thing that unites us," Mr. Bush reiterated, is that people can worship or not worship as they please. He said "you’re equally American" whether you are Jewish, Christian or a Muslim and this is "a wonderful aspect of our society."

But, of course, from a Christian/Biblical perspective, such assertions are pernicious, incoherent nonsense. What possible "unity" could there be where everybody worships who or whatever they choose, or doesn’t worship anyone or anything at all? None. And Mr. Bush’s mindless ecumenism is NOT in the "great American tradition." Our country was founded as a Christian nation by Christians. And it is a Christian/Biblical view upon which our government and system of laws is based.

In his press conference, when asked if he would seek a "consensus candidate" for the Supreme Court if there is an opening, Mr. Bush said only that he would "pick somebody that knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law." He noted that the judges he has already appointed were "well qualified people who know the law, who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with and who are qualified to hold the bench."

Does "well qualified" people mean people who are for or against abortion? Does "well qualified" people mean people who are for or against homosexual marriage? Mr. Bush said nothing at all about these issues.

Finally, in his press conference, Mr. Bush said he wants to "reach out to everyone who shares our goals." But, if what he says is true, why, in speaking about his agenda, did he totally ignore some important concerns of the millions of evangelical Christians who voted for him?

For God, Family, & the Republic,

Michael A. Peroutka

I think a Constitutional amendment on marriage is a mistake, but I strongly favor resisting homosexual marriage, as does Peroutka. And the party's stance on abortion is spot on.

Constitution Party Election Results

From Scott T. Whiteman, Campaign Manager for Michael Peroutka, November 8:

On Tuesday, 129,255 people went out and voted for Michael Anthony Peroutka for President. Rather than providing a detailed report on each state, I want to highlight some of our brightest spots, and save the detailed analysis until the official results are in.

The top-ranking state was Utah, with 2,131 votes per Congressional District. This constituted .76% of the popular vote in Utah. Alaska followed with 1,612 votes per District, or .66% of the vote. Idaho, Montana and South Dakota followed with 1,538 (.52%), 1,405 (.36%) and 1,106 (.28%) respectively.

Overall, "third party" voters constituted under 1% of the popular vote. This is a drastic contraction since the modern dawn of "third parties" in 1992. In 1992, with Ross Perot and the birth of the Constitution Party (then, U.S. Taxpayers Party), "third party" voters constituted 20% of the popular vote (20,363,723). By 1996, "third party" voters shrunk by half, to 10% (9,799,522). In 2000, "third party" voters constituted less than 4% of the vote, and in the most recent election, less than 1%. Amidst this contraction, the Constitution Party's share of the "third party" vote to be had has increased, while the other "third parties" have decreased. Let me explain.

In 1992, Ross Perot had 96.7% of the "third party" vote; the Libertarian Party had 1.4% and our founder, Howard Phillips, had 0.2%. In 1996, Perot received 82.5%, the Libertarians 4.9% and the Constitution Party 1.8%. In 2000, the Green Party had its advent with Ralph Nader, which immediately grabbed 73.3% of the "third party" vote, the Libertarians grew to 9.5% and the Constitution Party received 2.5%.

By 2004, the pool of "third party" voters had contracted to only 5% of what it was in 1992. There are simply less votes to be had. While the Libertarian share of the "third party" votes increased from 9.5% in 2000 to 35.8% in 2004, their actual number of voters decreased by about 5,000. This was a contraction of 1.4%. Additionally, the Nader/Cobb Green Campaign experienced a contraction of 82.9% since 2000.

I attribute the great contraction of the "third party" pool of voters to the allegedly heightened Boogie Man factor of recent elections. Since 1996, both the Republicans and the Democrats have been running fear-mongering campaigns, villifying their opponant, and scaring their base into voting for an acknowledged "lesser of two evils." Both Ralph Nader and Michael Peroutka experience this in the Campaign.

Despite the contractions, and the Boogie Man, the Constitution Party's share of "third party" voters increased from 2.5% to 12.5%, and in real numbers increased by more than 30,000, which is a 31.1% expansion, rather than a contraction, in four years.

Not a bad showing, but not nearly good enough, either. We have a long way to go before the Constitution Party makes a significant impact on a presidential election. I'm disappointed that we didn't do better; but, of course, I never expected a win. It was a vote of principle, for me.

Monday, November 8, 2004

AIDS from Mexico

Yet another reason for curbing immigration, particularly illegal immigration:

Last year, government researchers from Mexico and California announced plans for a joint study to explore the spread of HIV among migrant workers and their families. The study focused on seasonal farm workers, day laborers and urban workers in Fresno and San Diego counties, as well as similar groups and their relatives in the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Michoacan (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 2/7/03).

The first study of 600 migrant workers in Fresno and San Diego counties showed that as many as 1% of workers -- or 20,000 people -- are HIV-positive. That prevalence rate is more than three times as high as the rate in the general U.S. and Mexican populations, according to researchers. The second study, which was published in the Nov. 1 issue of the Journal of AIDS, found that HIV prevalence among pregnant women at Tijuana General Hospital in Mexico is more than four times as high as the rate among the general populations in both Mexico and the United States. According to Dr. George Lemp, head of the Universitywide Program who worked on both studies, previous research had "suggested that the epidemic was remaining stable in Mexico and that it was a fairly minimal problem among migrants," Lemp said.

Previous research has shown that migrants engage in high-risk behaviors -- such as sharing needles -- while in the United States, but there was "little evidence" of HIV infection to "go along with that risk," Lemp said, the Times reports.

Male migrant workers typically contract HIV in the United States through sexual contact with other men, as well as through the widespread use of shared needles to inject antibiotics and vitamins. Although it is "common" to inject antibiotics in Mexico, and syringes are available without a prescription, migrants often share needles in the United States because clean needles are not easily accessible, according to the Times.

Moreover, most workers do not know how HIV is spread or that their female sexual partners can contract the virus from them, the Times reports. Currently, at least 33% of migrants living with HIV/AIDS reside in the Mexican states that "export the most workers to the United States," according to the Times. "We've known it's just a matter of time before we started seeing these kinds of numbers coming from Mexico," Terry Cunningham, director of the Office of AIDS Coordination at San Diego's Health and Human Services Agency, said, adding, "It's alarming."

Don't hold your breath while waiting for the government to address this problem. Have a nice day!

Dear Democrats

Here's a letter to the Editor that I found on World Net Daily--from Canada, of all places!:

This is just a little letter to the Democrats in the U.S. wanting to come to Canada:

This is getting scary; thousands of Democrats wanting to immigrate to Canada. We already have way to many liberal nuts in this country as it is, so please don't come here, you'll only make things worse. Of course, I can't stop you, so at least do yourself a favor and go to Ontario or Quebec. You will be welcome there, I'm sure.

However, I can't say the same for my province, Alberta. Here we believe everyone should have lots of guns, that Kyoto is a waste of time and money, that homosexuality is sin, that government should be small and stay out of our lives, and that Michael Moore is a nut, just like John Kerry. Please stay away; Democrats are not wanted. Thank you.

--Tyler KnelsenTofield, Alberta

This letter made me smile. There's hope for our neighbor, yet!

Spook Supports Bush?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Insisting he has no litmus test, the Republican in line to head the Senate Judiciary Committee pledged Sunday not to stall President Bush's judicial nominees, even if the prospective judges oppose abortion rights.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate from Pennsylvania who backs abortion rights, said he has supported judicial nominees in the past who do not agree with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

"The fact is that I have supported all of President Bush's nominees in committee and on the floor. I have never applied a litmus test," Specter said on CBS'"Face the Nation."

It seems he's changing his tune, after the backlash. Backpedal, Senator, backpedal. We'll see whether he's sincere or not.

Founding Quotes of Note XV

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

It's hard to be more clear and direct than that, eh? Am I crazy, or shouldn't our "leaders" be required to prove their familiarity with our founding documents? I propose this: anyone elected to Congress, the Presidency, or appointed to the Supreme Court should be obliged to demonstrate that they've read and understood the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and The Federalist Papers, among other documents. Ignorance of such weighty matters probably is not an impeachable offense (though I'm open to that possibility!); but wouldn't it be nice to see it trumpeted across the tv, internet, radio, and print media, whenever some elected demi-god can't describe what the First or Second Amendments say?

Sunday, November 7, 2004

Illegal and Fancy-Free

Here we go again.

Faced with a deluge of illegal crossers and the burden prosecuting them places on the courts, the U.S. Attorney's office has drawn up new rules that dramatically limit who will be prosecuted and who will merely be sent back to Mexico.

This is a joke. So what we have is a situation where our government limits the number of illegal aliens--many of whom are repeat offense felons--who will be prosecuted for crimes. But deporting them isn't so bad, right? I mean, at least it gets them out of our hair, right? Well, only if we secure the border. Otherwise, what stops these same people from coming right back in and continuing their crime sprees where they left off?

"(The) number of alien smuggling cases presented to our office has increased significantly over the last year," Steven Peak, an assistant U.S. attorney, wrote Paul Blocker Jr., the Border Patrol's acting San Diego sector chief. "Alien smuggling cases are manpower-intensive and often difficult to prosecute successfully."

Many of the illegal immigrants with criminal histories his office deals with, wrote Peak, had committed their earlier crimes outside of Southern California or had not been arrested in 10 or more years.

The new guidelines, Peak has informed the Border Patrol, will "scrutinize more closely the immigration and criminal history" of suspects.

But unhappy Border Patrol agents have told San Diego's KGTV News the increased scrutiny means only those "convicted of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape or multiple felonies in the past five years. If they have committed a crime longer than seven years ago, it will not be considered – that includes crimes like child pornography, weapons crimes or terrorism."

The new policy will mean releasing potentially violent illegal immigrants back into Mexico, say the agents who note "we will be facing them the next night."

Can you believe this? We supposedly are in a "War on Terror." If we go by what our government daily pounds into our heads, "terror" is the worst enemy we've seen in the last fifty years. But we will not prosecute illegal aliens--even if they have been convicted of terrorism in the past--unless such a conviction happened less than seven years ago.

Border Patrol spokesman, Sean Isham, said the agency was working closely with the Justice Department and emphasizes that the new guidelines are still only proposals.

But Shawn Moran, a representative of the union for San Diego area Border Patrol agents, sees it differently. "We're not happy about it," he said. "It pretty much just raises the bar on the threshold for prosecution."

If you want to keep your finger on the pulse of these matters, pay close attention to how the Border Patrol views them. I see a trend of new, wishy-washy policies, concern or even outrage from the Border Patrol, and a curt dismissal of their concerns by the government. Those who guard our borders are the closest to this problem. They are affected most tangibly, on a day-to-day basis. They are in the best position for viewing and experiencing the inherent flaws in the system. And yet our "leaders" ignore them.

They deserve better.

Friday, November 5, 2004

Suffragettes for Kerry

Earlier today, my wife told me that she'd heard on Fox News on November 3 that the majority of Kerry voters were women. Shocking! Just shocking, I tell ya!

Draw what conclusions you will.

A Specter is Haunting the Senate

From Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party candidate for President:

Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

Well, it didn't take long, did it? That flapping and squawking sound you hear are some pre-election, far-Left, Liberal chickens coming home to roost. That such a thing would happen was thoroughly predictable. In fact, I predicted it.

An "Associated Press" story (11/4/04) reports that Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who is expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year, has "bluntly warned" President Bush "against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or who might otherwise be considered too conservative to win confirmation."

In this "A.P." story, Specter is quoted as saying: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely." Mr. Bush, he added, "is well aware of what happened when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster ... I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

Commenting on Specter's "blunt warning," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, says his threats are "the height of arrogance and ingratitude." He says Specter "has a history of pandering to the aggressive abortion lobby" and his becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be "disastrous." Perkins concludes by saying: "Our pro-life President and his colleagues in the Senate MUST NOT ALLOW Sen. Specter to determine the makeup of the courts! Sen. Specter must not become the next Judiciary Committee chairman."

So, what's wrong with this picture? Well, a lot of things. For openers, Mr. Bush did what no truly pro-life president would ever have done -- he campaigned enthusiastically for Arlen Specter, as did Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Bush also campaigned for Specter in the GOP primary helping to defeat a stronger pro-life candidate Rep. Pat Toomey.

Commenting on Mr. Bush's support for Specter, and Sen. Rick Santorum's (R- Pa.) support for Specter, Timothy P. Carney says, in an article published by "National Review Online" (11/3/04): "Santorum and Bush were wrong. They were morally wrong, and they were wrong politically. These men saved the man who saved Roe v. Wade, and now the costs to the pro-life cause, the conservative movement, and the Republican Party -- for so little benefit -- could be deep and long-lasting." Well, amen! And I said many of these same things during my campaign. In my television ads in Pennsylvania, which showed a photo of Mr. Bush and Specter with their arms around each other, campaigning in the Keystone State, I said I, as President, would NEVER do this. I said: "Mr. Specter has been pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortion, which is really infanticide ... As President, I would NEVER, EVER support a person like Arlen Specter -- NEVER! I would NEVER put party over principle -- NEVER! ... If Mr. Specter is re-elected, he will most likely become head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This would mean no pro-life judicial nominees would EVER get out of his committee because he is pro-abortion."

For the record, it should be noted that President Bush has never said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. In the presidential debates, he twice passed up opportunities to criticize this Supreme Court decision which has resulted in the deaths of more than 40 million innocent, unborn babies. Mr. Bush has said repeatedly that he would have no "litmus test" for judges which means, obviously, no pro-life/anti-abortion litmus test. And he said in 1999 that he was not for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion because this would be getting ahead of "public opinion."

For God, Family, & the Republic,

Michael A. Peroutka

For the staunch Republicans out there, here's a question to ponder: If Bush is a conservative, and if he has the nation's best interests at heart, why in the world would he vehemently fight against someone who is pro-life, while championing someone who diametrically is opposed to doing away with abortion?

Thursday, November 4, 2004

Keeping the Status Quo

The following commentary was authored by the American Life League President, Judie Brown. I offer it here because I agree largely with the sentiment it expresses:

Many pro-life groups are gleefully declaring victory following George W. Bush's apparent re-election, but I cannot share in their enthusiasm. It is true that Mr. Bush defeated one of the most solidly pro-abortion candidates to ever seek the White House. However, the Bush administration's first term has been less than sterling in terms of total commitment to the pro-life effort.

Let us not forget the only record that matters: whether a Republican or Democrat has been working in the Oval Office, during each four-year presidential term in recent memory, between 4 and 5 million babies have been slaughtered by surgical abortion, and countless others died as the result of chemical abortions and in the science lab. The killing continued unabated during Mr. Bush's first term, and indications are that abortion on demand will remain decriminalized during the coming four years.

Thus the status quo on abortion is going to be maintained, as will the ongoing public perception that we have a pro-life president. Organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee and Priests for Life now will focus on the Supreme Court. However, the justices will never focus on the true issue - personhood - unless they accept the proper case. Even in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, the abysmal fact is that this would only return regulation of abortion to each state, which would do nothing to guarantee the protection of preborn children.

The malaise that will accompany Mr. Bush's re-election, I fear, will eat away at the edges of the pro-life battle without generating a clear victory for the personhood of every innocent human being. The definition of what it means to be pro-life will take another hit. Due to decay from within, this could spell the end of what we have known as the pro-life movement.

Mr. Bush is educable. He could learn that all abortions are bad, not just "partial-birth" abortions. He could learn there is no reason to excuse abortions in alleged cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother's life, or fetal deformity. He could pressure Congress to support personhood by passing the Right to Life Act. It is the responsibility of every pro-life leader to take whatever steps are needed to provide this education and cease patting Mr. Bush on the back until he adopts a true pro-life position. The babies are waiting.

Right and Wrong. . .Sort of

In case you missed it, I was right. Of course, the prediction about Kerry cannot materialize, now. But I still stand by my explanation for thinking as I did. The appropriate circumstances did not arise; but if they had, I'm sure Kerry would have reacted as I described.

And may the other prediction never come true.

Wednesday, November 3, 2004

Itty Bitty Clarification

Just so I'm clear, I loathed the very thought of a Kerry presidency. Nor do I subscribe to the notion that the two candidates are mere clones of each other. I see Bush as bad for our nation. I see Kerry as even worse for our nation. And though I am far from a Bush fan, I was ear-to-ear-grinningly delighted to see Kerry lose. No man born of woman ever deserved defeat more. And Bush has done some good things--like his tax cuts. But dropping coins in the offering plate and then pickpocketing the pastor as you stroll out of the sanctuary does not a saint make.

So yes, I'm glad that the dreaded Kerry succumbed in the fires of Mount Bush; but am I happy about the current occupant of the oval office?


Election Aftermath

As Repuglicrums bay at the moon and highfive each other over the bloodied carcasses of their foes, I sit back and wax philosophical about the near future of our country. Based on Dubya's first term in office, we may reasonably assume:

1. Another possible tax decrease.
2. Enough spending to make Red Kennedy's stomach explode like a sodden, post-Halloween pumpkin.
3. Even more spending proposals from Bush, for the greater good of Ameritopia (had to be said).
4. Moderate judges appointed to Supreme Court. I predict this because Bush has never fought hard for conservative appointees, though he may attempt appointing some. We'll see.
5. Continued challenges of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and continued ignoring of such attacks by the president.
6. Massive funds pledged to prop up medicare, social security, and other socialist inventions.
7. Another attempt at reinstituting the draft, led by the Democrats as they charge up liberty's hill and assault the bulwarks of freedom.
8. In general, a moderate to leftist looney presidency from Bush.
9. Further caterwauling from the Demonbrat Party, as they bemoan the supposed illegitimacy of a secong Bush term. Of course, these are the same folks who would be screeching an identical mantra if Bush won 100% of the popular vote, and only bin Laden voted for Kerry via absentee ballot.
10. More talk on the righteousness of the nebulous "War on TERROR," and how it must be fought at all costs--including the further cost to our liberty.
11. More ablutions to the U.N.
12. That's all I can think of, at the moment.

So in short, more of the same. I expect no major backtracking to follow a more Constitutional path, on Bush's part. And just think, Kerry would've been even worse.

Cyber Termite Exterminated

Well, after much nail-biting and gnashing of teeth, the problems afflicting this blog appear solved. According to Blogger Support, a bug (probably a cyber-termite) gnawed its way into the system and gobbled up my template. As a result, I had to rebuild this tower of achievement from the ground up. Anyway, for those of you who visited and saw a black page over the the last week, and ran screaming from your pc to curl up in a fetal ball in the corner, quaking in withdrawal--fear not. I'm back, and my regular posting schedule shall resume.

And thankee kindly, Blogger, fer helpin' me git back on track.

Founding Quotes of Note XIV

"Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." --James Wilson

I've always loved this quote. Short, to the point, and right on the money.

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

Election Day Stream of Consciousness

I hope everyone voted his/her/its conscience, today. Of course, voting is only useful if you have a clue about the candidates, the issues, and the world you live in. I've known quite a few people who are so ignorant of all three that I strongly suspect that they are extraterrestrials.


Don't the "MTV rock the vote" commercials annoy you? Every time I see one, my fists clench and my teeth grit, grinding against each other like a liberal's at an NRA meeting. These ads offer no perspective on why one should vote. Rather, they bludgeon you with their unsubtle message: "Vote! Vote, you stupid sheep! Queue up and wait your turn! No matter who you choose, it can't be a ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d decision. Vote even if you can't tie your own shoes, mop up your own drool, or remember your own name. Voting is the be-all and end-all. The alpha and the omega. Voting in and of itself is important, though you likely couldn't point out the candidates if you were in a locked room, alone, with them. Vote for the sheer joy of yanking a lever or thumbing a button. And with a spring in your step and a gleam in your eye, exit the booth and stride proudly from the polls, knowing that you did your part in electing the next in a long line of political prostitutes, selling themselves to the populace for a vote. Ah, the elation!"


As I've stated before, I still believe Bush will win--love him, or hate him. I say this with no preconceived bias at heart. I voted for Michael Peroutka, of the Constitution Party.


I suspect the mainstream media will be talking about what a tight race it is until Bush's next inauguration.


I'm having problems with my blog, which I have brought to Blogger's attention. Thus most of you probably won't even read these words until after the election, anyway. Oh, well, it gives you something to do during the commercials on "Wheel of Torture."

Monday, November 1, 2004

Gollum for President

After a long and agonizing process, I've settled on the ideal third-party candidate--


Here's a brief excerpt of a recent speech:

"We wantssss it, we doessss. Give it to ussss! The presssidency, preciousssss! No more Kerryses. No more Bushes. Gollum. Gollum. All this talk of bifactionalissm hurtss uss. It burnsss uss. Smeagol hatesss it, precioussssss. Wantss to rip out their lying bonesses and gnaw the marrow, we doess. Staw away from Demo-orcsess and Republigoblinss! Yesssssss! Gollum. Gollum.

Oh, well. Perhaps he's not the most articulate frog in the pond. But voting for him makes almost as much sense, preciouss.