Free Propaganda

I thought I'd add my half-cent's-worth on Columbia University's invitation of Mudmood Ahmuddungjihad to a speaking engagement on campus. I keep hearing talk of free speech. I think I'll engage in a little free speech, myself, in labeling this cop-out as a steaming pile of horse hockey. Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with it; moral relativism, on the other hand, is an integral facet of the decision. Foreign despots have no right whatsoever to speak at a podium on an American university campus. Having free speech means having the right to speak unimpeded, not having the forum of your choice provided on a silver platter. Not even American citizens have this right. Heck, even illegal aliens don't retain this privilege; and we all know that they are a special class of faultless individuals superior to the common citizenry. Just ask el segundo Bush. The issue of free speech is hilarious for another reason, as well: the speaker's religious beliefs demand the squelching of free speech at every conceivable opportunity, and the government of his home country practices this as an art form. I wonder if Columbia U.'s administrators would be screeching about unhampered expression if the guest speaker were Ann Coulter, or the dean of Bob Jones University?

Other than a trumpet for propagandizing the world on Iran's behalf, what possible value could be derived from a speech by Ahmuddungjihad? He hates Israel, hates America, and denies the Holocaust ever took place. What a peach he is. As I suggested over at Vox's, that someone would actually invite this swine to appear says far more about the moral perversity of the school's administrators than anything else. Would they request that Uncle Joe Stalin take a few moments out of his busy schedule of purging imaginary enemies and bleeding the proletariat and spare them a word or two, were he still kicking around, today? I'm sure they'd bask in his lecturing tone about the excesses of capitalism, and the philosophical purity of communism.

Arguments of freedom of association hold no water with me on this particular matter. We're talking about a self-described enemy of the United States. If that's not a disqualifying factor, I don't know what is.

Championing the Wrong Cause

Scott Hatfield writes on his blog:

Consider the following claim: "Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created by a supernatural being, Yahweh." This turns out to be really difficult for science to directly investigate. The clause ‘supernatural being’ is, in essence, a conceptual ‘poison pill’ for the scientist who defines the natural world as the subject of scientific investigation. No matter what evidence the scientist adduces that contradicts the first part of the claim (‘Genesis is a literal account of how the world was created’), the believer has an ‘out’: Yahweh’s supernatural, and so Yahweh’s actions don’t have to follow natural law, and so evidence from the natural world can’t be used to ‘disprove’ either Yahweh’s existence or action. The claim has the curious property of being immune to disproof based on any evidence a scientist could present!

I think this is a strange characterization. The concept of a supernatural being shouldn't pose a problem for scientists; the notion offered no dilemma for Isaac Newton or a veritable host of other past scientists. Interesting that it stirs up so much concern, these days. Where current scientists see an obstacle to be overcome, others not bogged down in a secular or evolutionary mindset find a doorway that leads them into inquiries about the creation.

As for the natural world being the subject of scientific investigation, well, no kidding. Science is unequipped for the investigation of anything else. Science deals in observation, experimentation, and drawing conclusions from the former. Since the supernatural cannot be observed in a test tube or on a slide under a microscope, since it's not subject to repetition, it falls outside science's purview.

I would love seeing the supposed cornucopia of evidence against a literal six-day creation emptied of its contents, so that we might sift through these proofs and gain understanding. Instead, I see castles of speculation erected upon mounds of presumption, and opinion paraded about as a seige tower of impregnable facts. I don't suggest that I have all knowledge at my disposal, but what I have seen repeatedly are statements of fact that, when delved into with a fine-toothed comb, turn out to be something other than facts, or even convincing fiction. Of course, this doesn't deter "scientists" from demanding that we, the poor benighted masses, accept their judgment as final; those who demur are fools or flat-earthers. Alas, if we'd only attend university for eight or ten years of natural humanistic indoctrination, why, then we'd come into the light.

Why is it that scientists go out of their way in excavating unbridgeable gulfs between religion and science, while demanding that religion be held to scientific standards? As we have been assured so many times from on high by the brights of our age, religion is not science. If we accept this, then why subject religion to scientific criteria? Atheists and those who embrace Man's explanations of reality as loftier than God's can't have their cake and eat it, too. If religion isn't science, then the devout have no obligation to provide falsifiable theories in a neat little gift-wrapped package.

Speaking of falsifiability, we're tsk-tsked that religion presents a non-falsifiable face to the world. But a thought always pops into my mind, when I hear this talking point regurgitated by contemporary illuminists: perhaps a belief in God is non-falsifiable because it is not false. We may not have the power or knowledge to demonstrate God's existence beyond doubt; but disproving Him is impossible, if He empirically exists.

But what about the alleged consequences of that claim? If the Genesis account is held to be literally true, then a host of consequences should follow, consequences in the natural world that are subject to scientific inquiry. And the fact is, a host of alleged consequences of this particular claim have been falsified.

Given that scripture speaks of the pre-Flood world's annihilation and obscuration, the completeness of our evidentiary puzzle is debatable. That said, we have evidence--admittedly inconclusive--of a young Earth. Observed rapid fossilization, a fossil record that speaks of catastrophe befitting the biblical Deluge, not accumulation over eons, etc.; plus scriptural evidences, such as meticulous geneologies and Jesus' interpretation of Genesis as describing literal events. This subject requires a whole series of posts, to do it justice, so I'll not go further.

Plants didn’t appear on the third day, and then the stars on the fourth day.

See, Mr. Hatfield was present, at the time, so his word is law. I hope he'll allow me a pleasure jaunt in his time machine.

Seriously, this is a specious argument, if, indeed, it can be called an argument. Mr. Hatfield dubs himself a Christian. Apparently, he takes no issue with God creating the heavens and Earth. However, temporary preservation of plants without the sun's presence was beyond His creative powers. How else can we characterize this, except as forcing scripture into harmony with a particular worldview?

Most importantly, overwhelming evidence contradicts the claim of a 6-day creation.

Evidence which remains unprovided in the post. Why is it that six-day creationists must provide footnoted documentation of every aspect of their beliefs, while evolutionists give themselves a pass on meeting the same criterion?

Now, does this demonstrate that there is no supernatural being, Yahweh? Not at all, but it does demonstrate that the world revealed by scientific investigation is not consistent with the consequences of the claim of Genesis being ‘a literal account of how the world was created.’ Given sufficient evidence contra the consequences, an intelligent person is free to reject the claim on the absence of any positive evidence in behalf of the claim.

This is falsehood. Ignored evidence is not the same as nonexistent evidence. Again, we have demands for Genesis 1 to meet scientific rules; ignored is the inconvenient fact that those selfsame rules have inherent biases and foundational assumptions.

Besides, science can verify that the realm in which it operates actually exists: religion can hardly do the same.

What a bizarre claim from a believer. It's accurate, so long as religion is judged within scientific parameters. Utilizing its own metric, religion most certainly can demonstrate that the supernatural exists. As a professing Christian who presumably experienced a salvational transformation at some point in his life, Mr. Hatfield should know this well.


Update

Just to clarify, if you reject a literal six-day creation event for reasons of non-falsifiability, you also should disclaim religion itself, for the same reason. God's existence isn't subject to falsifiability any more than a face-value reading of Genesis 1, assuming that you hold a similar view as that of Mr. Hatfield.

Temporary Separation

Much scripture offers comfort in times of suffering or sadness, but some of my favorite verses are found in I Thessalonians 4. Verses 13 through 18 say:


But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Wherefore comfort one another with these words.


This is an important passage because it reminds us that our loved ones who passed away in Christ haven't ceased to exist, or winked out like candles and faded into oblivion. They are with the Lord, all suffering removed, and they will see resurrection and restoration, some day, as will all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. I have many loved ones who have gone on to be with the Lord, so I need this reminder, now and again. It makes me feel much better knowing that our separation is a temporary one.

Expectations

Because of a shortage of maids, the minister's wife advertised for a manservant. The next morning a nicely dressed young man came to the front door. "Can you start the breakfast by seven o'clock?" asked the minister.

"I guess so," answered the man.

"Can you polish all the silver, wash all the dishes, do the laundry, take care of the lawn, wash windows, iron clothes and keep the house neat and tidy?"

"Say, preacher," said the young fellow rather meekly, "I came here to see about getting married but if it's going to be as much work as all that, you can count me out right now."

Dire Straits

"They come here to work."

How many times have you heard someone say this, in defense of illegal aliens sneaking into our country? I don't use the word "defense" lightly, but I see no better way to characterize the observation. It's a bizarre notion that we should allow an invasion's continuance because the invaders want a job.

If someone breaks into your house, helps himself to the contents of your fridge, your children's piggy-bank, and your wallet, then beds down in the living room and demands that you make him part of the family, determining his reasons for doing so won't appear high on your priority list. When he insists on free medical care and education, your response most likely will be: "Just a sec, while I get my gun."

Interesting how people ignore problems on a national level that they'd find intolerable on an individual scale. The man who shrugs and laughs at illegal aliens running amok about the countryside would bodily remove a home invader--piece by piece, if necessary. The person who says, "They just want a job," is like the man who sees the intruder in his home and tells himself, "He just wants a snack." It's a stupid comment that reveals more about the person uttering it than the actual dilemma at hand.

When I hear, "They just want to find work," my initial response is: "So what? How is this relevant?"

The reasons for their presence interest me far less than the time and method of their speedy departure. If a stranger enters your house uninvited, which is uppermost in your mind: the "why?" of his "visit," or his prompt and efficient removal?

I dispute the assertion that they all come here seeking work. It's a simpleminded half-truth. But even if one concedes this dubious claim, the point has less value than chopsticks in a soup-kettle. These people are criminals. They respect neither U.S. sovereignty, nor U.S. law. Good impressions aren't formed in violating the law of the land as one's first act upon entering a country's borders.

Worse, the problem isn't a handful of people. It's double-digit millions. The U.S. government estimates that over a million illegal aliens enter our country annually. So we're not fumbling around a static or sporadic issue, but an ongoing and growing one.

We've entered dire straits as a nation. We're facing a problem more massive than at any other time in our history. It looms over the silly sideshow in Iraq, or the antics of al-Killya and other Islamic murder, inc. groups. We're facing a choice: the preservation of America and our way of life, or the transformation of this great country into something far different--and far inferior--to what we've retained in the past and present. With a rejection of Christianity and government's ever-reaching grasp, it rounds out the top three American issues of our time.

Making Mistakes

My wife sent me this in an email:


A minister and lawyer were chatting at a party.

"What do you do if you make a mistake on a case?" the minister asked.

"Try to fix it if it's big; ignore it if it's insignificant," replied the lawyer. "What do you do?"

The minister replied "Oh, more or less the same. Let me give you an example. The other day I meant to say 'the devil is the father of liars,' but instead I said 'the devil is the father of lawyers,' so I let it go."

Not exactly PC

While publicizing the 1974 film, Deathwish, Charles Bronson was questioned by Johnny Carson on how a magazine could quote him saying he would commit murder to avenge his family.

Bronson looked at him and said: "Because the quote is accurate. I really could, and would."


Now I remember why I liked him so much.

The Value of Reading

Having blogged about the large number of people who read little or not at all, I thought I'd elaborate on the importance of reading.

Reading fires one's imagination; it expands and strengthens a person's vocabulary; it opens the mind to possibilities, and facilitates an educational process. It's one of our primary ways of obtaining knowledge. Illiterates still have the guiding hand of experience, yes, and the efforts of others to help them along. But a person who reads has a much higher potential for the acquisition of knowledge than someone who doesn't. It's that simple. Scrutinize your stored knowledge. How much of it came from reading on your own? I'm betting a significant portion.

As for the value of nonfiction versus fiction, I'm of the opinion that nonfiction is more important. But that's not to suggest that fiction is unimportant--especially if one sticks to serious literature, like the classics. Fiction opens a window into cultures and times and places, creating an added dimension that goes hand-in-hand with nonfiction. For example, suppose you read Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or Xenophon's Anabasis. OK. Now suppose you read Ben-Hur and The Illiad, or some other novel about the ancient Greeks. If these latter works pay careful attention to historical detail, you not only can learn from them, but you can look through a window into these worlds, as it were. I see nonfiction as essential, with fiction playing an important supplementary role.

As worthwhile fiction, I'm not including the filth that often passes for literature in today's market. "Her heaving bosoms split the seams of her brassiere as his swollen member bored into her with all the force of a jackhammer" might make for interesting reading, given the proper mood and combination of drugs, but it's not lasting literature, nor will it elevate your mind above gutter-level. I also include material that subverts traditional values or denies God with the rest of the trash. With these few exceptions, I think reading has far more of benefit than detriment about it.

I don't think it's coincidental that the most learned people I've ever known were also voracious readers.

"Do Unto Others. . ."

I've been watching the lying and distortions of viewpoints that goes on over at Vox's on a regular basis. Someone will sniff the air for signs of an opportunity to attack Vox, then go straight for the jugular. Invariably, these people fail, and end up looking like idiots, as a special bonus. With few exceptions, the "brights" who engage in this sort of debating tactic are secular-minded individuals. In my admittedly limited experience, the more secular someone is, the less problematic he finds outright dishonesty. I've dealt with it first-hand in the blogosphere, and I've witnessed others enduring the same nonsense.

My blogging philosophy is pretty simple: allow people freedom to express their views, even if they diverge widely from my own. I don't ban people or censor their ideas for the atrocity of disagreeing with me.

If you come here and behave in a respectful manner, and at least make an attempt at understanding what I'm saying, we'll have no trouble getting along. On the other hand, my pet peeve is when someone lies or deliberately misrepresents my viewpoint. I've been cursed at, lied to, called names, had my views twisted beyond recognition, and mocked; somehow, I've yet to banish anyone. However, I also don't treat people who sink this low with kid gloves.

In the end, it's all about common courtesy. How you treat people in the "real" world is how you should behave online. Those words typed in little comment boxes that pop up on your screen came from flesh-and-blood people, not ghosts in the machine.

My belief is that those who carry the biggest chip on their shoulders online are the most docile creatures in person. Either that, or they're the ones who sport the most scars.

Idiocy Enshrined

This is what happens when inmates run the asylum:

MESA, Arizona — Officials at an Arizona school suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates.

Administrators of Payne Junior High in nearby Chandler suspended the boy on Monday for five days but later reduced it to three days.

Chandler district spokesman Terry Locke said the crude sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and that threatening words or pictures are punishable.

Isn't it dumbfounding? If the above picture is offensive, then I submit that watching Bugs Bunny is the equivalent of viewing a snuff film.

In a morally confused society, wanton evil is explained away and tolerated, while benign actions are condemned like witches in seventeenth century Salem. This also reveals how foolish, ethically infantile people like this Terry Locke character become school district spokesmen.

I see this as a sign of the feminist agenda's nihilistic touch. The child received punishment not for committing an egregious act, but for being a normal teenage boy. What young male has not drawn pictures of guns, or played cowboys and Indians? Heaven forfend that he owns a gun and fires it on occasion. This is the same mindset that transforms little boys into drooling dullards (courtesy of Ritalin) for daring to fidget in their seats after hours of sitting in a classroom, listening to a "teacher" drone on and on about global warming's destruction of the speckled howler monkey's untainted ecosystem.

When I was thirteen, my parents bought me a single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. Though it vexed me so, I somehow made it to adulthood without killing anyone, or even maiming them just a little bit.

Functionally Illiterate

What a sad and pathetic commentary of the state of our country:

One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.

Wow, that's deep. Pun intended.

The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories.

At least this is a good sign that many have their priorities straight, when it comes to reading material.

A Master of Vo-cab-lee-ary

A few days ago, Vox posted about Houghton Mifflin's "100 words every collectivist drone should know," or some such thing. I thought I'd take a crack at defining a few:



bowdlerize: crushing w/ a very large rock.



ziggurat: a rodent that runs in zigzagging patterns.



chicanery: another term for the feminist movement.



enfranchise: opening a McDonald's restaurant.



equinox: when everyone has a hard-knock life.



evanescent: when you smell just like Evan.



fatuous: obese.



hegemony: a garden kingdom.



homogeneous: an exceptionally intelligent "gay" person.



hypotenuse: an uneducated guess.



impeach: the act of peppering someone with fruit.



incontrovertible: a non-ragtop automobile.



irony: metallic taste.



jejune: month that comes after memay.



kowtow: ancient bovine martial art.



paradigm: twenty cents.



photosynthesis: feng shui hanging of framed photographs.



supercilious: when Superman has a bout of the giggles.



taxonomy: what the government would like to pass more legislation favoring.



vacuous: the newest Dirt Devil model.



winnow: a minnow whose husband died.





See, publik skewel learnt me gud!

Something Like an Admission

Yesterday, Bush met with Larry and Curly of Canada and Mexico in Quebec on the matter of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which some believe is a precursor to a North American Union. Notice how the government invents happy names for questionable policies. Congress could pass a law tomorrow, demanding that all Christians be rounded up and put into concentration camps; no doubt it would be dubbed the "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" Act.

At a news conference after the meeting, a Fox News reporter asked them some direct questions:

"As you three leaders meet here, there are a growing number of people in each of your countries who have expressed concern about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. This is addressed to all three of you. Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union? Are there plans to build some kind of superhighway connecting all three countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of transparency from this partnership?"

Bush offered a three-paragraph response without answering the questions put to him:

"We represent three great nations. We each respect each other's sovereignty. You know, there are some who would like to frighten our fellow citizens into believing that relations between us are harmful for our respective peoples. I just believe they're wrong. I believe it's in our interest to trade; I believe it's in our interest to dialogue; I believe it's in our interest to work out common problems for the good of our people.

"And I'm amused by some of the speculation, some of the old – you can call them political scare tactics. If you've been in politics as long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracy and then force people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate. I'm here representing my nation. I feel strongly that the United States is a force for good, and I feel strongly that by working with our neighbors we can (sic) a stronger force for good.

"So I appreciate that question. I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and what some are trying to say takes place. It's quite comical, actually, when you realize the difference between reality and what some people are talking on TV about."

There's nothing of substance in his entire retort. We have dripping arrogance, yes; we have ridicule; we have a misrepresentation of the reporter's questions; we have false accusations. What we do not have is a straightforward answer. Mr. Bush, no one said relations are harmful. No one said they were against trade. No one laid out a conspiracy. No one asked you to "prove" anything. You had a chance to nip uncertainties in the bud, if this amalgamation isn't moving forward; instead, you opted for BS artistry. Imagine my surprise.

When you're asked a question--a question voicing concerns with facts backing them--you have an obligation to answer it for the sake of those who put you in office--those you supposedly represent. If we wanted a haughty, elitist snot in the White House, we'd've written Hillary's name on the ballot long ago.

Putting Drunken Sailors to Shame

Here're a few examples of events that have transpired in Iraq, courtesy of U.S. government efficiency:

DynCorp was paid $43.8 million for building and storing a residential camp that was never used, including $4.2 million on VIP trailers and an Olympic-sized swimming pool that were not authorized.

Parsons Global received a contract in 2004 to construct 150 primary health care centers at a cost of $243 million. After $186 million had been spent, only six centers were complete. The contract was terminated, with the contractor required to complete only 14 more.

Bechtel lost its contract for the Basrah Children's Hospital when a $50 million project had reached a cost of $98 million and was about a year behind schedule.

I'm sure one could write a whole book listing nothing but stories like these. The silver lining is that all this blown money came straight out of the taxpayers' pockets. Isn't it comforting that Uncle Scam is putting our funds toward nonsense like this, when it would serve us better as kindling at the hearth? The people involved in such colossal waste should hang their heads in shame. It's criminal, and it's the kind of behavior that would land each of us in jail, if we put it into practice. Of course, when you have a limitless monetary supply, there's no such thing as living beyond your means.

(references taken from John Duncan's Washington Report)

Lopsided

A quarterly newsletter I receive from my district (east TN) congressman, John J. Duncan, Jr., makes some interesting (and unsurprising) revelations about the defeated amnesty legislation:

In a typical week, we receive between a thousand and two thousand letters, emails, or postcards and roughly the same number of phone calls in our four offices put together. Roughly half will be about the bills or legislation, and about half will be from constituents who need some type of help or information. In all my years in Congress, I have never even come close to receiving as large or lopsided a volume as I have on immigration. In addition to all those who have called or written our offices, many, many others have expressed their opinions to me at meetings and events of all types throughout the District. The calls, letters, and comments from our constituents ran more than 50 to 1 against the bill in the Senate or any effort toward more liberal immigration. (emphases mine)

The Holy Spirit

One area in which some Christians tangle is the doctrine of the trinity. Particularly as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. I've never understood this conflict, as scripture is crystal-clear on the subject. In essence, it's a matter of whether or not you've read and believe the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is referenced in scripture in ways that make no sense, unless he is an individual personage. For example:



--Isaiah 63:10 talks about the Holy Spirit being "vexed."


--1 Corinthians 2:13 characterizes the Spirit as a "teacher."


--Ephesians 4:30 admonishes us not to "grieve" the Spirit.


--John 14:16 and John 14:26 both refer to the Holy Spirit as a "Comforter." In 14:26, Jesus uses the pronoun "he" in describing the Spirit.


--John 15:26 differentiates between all persons of the Trinity, and shows Jesus using the term "whom" in speaking of the Spirit.


--John 16:7 again describes the Spirit as a "Comforter," and with the pronoun "him" from Jesus' own lips.


--Matthew 28:19 again treats Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons.


--Mark 13:11 talks about the Spirit "speaking."


--Luke 2:26 tells us the Holy Ghost can "reveal."


--Luke 3:22 informs us that the Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove to Jesus. Yet again, scripture distinguishes here between the Trinity's members.


--In Luke 4:1, the Spirit "leads" Jesus.


--Acts 5:3 reveals Peter criticizing Ananias for lying to the Spirit.


--Acts 5:32 calls the Holy Ghost a "witness."


--Acts 13:2 characterizes the Spirit as "speaking" to Paul and Barnabas.




***




I can go on, but I think the point stands on the above verses' merits. I believe Christians who question the Holy Spirit's personhood should reexamine scripture for themselves and discover that the Bible is not vague or unsatisfying in its elucidation of this matter. If the Spirit merely is the power of God, how can we vex or grieve an inanimate force? How can it teach and comfort us? How can it speak or reveal truths to us? How can it appear in physical form? How can it lead, and how can we lie to it? How can it be a witness? Why does scripture include the Spirit with Jesus and the Father, as a unique individual? And most important of all, why did Jesus Himself use terms in describing the Holy Spirit that we utilize solely in referring to people?

This is a controversy without legitimate dispute. I know we live in a time when dogmatism is the gravest perceived sin of religious people; yet sometimes people are dogmatic because the answer is obvious. The situation is as simple as: have you read the relevant scripture for yourself, and do you believe what it says? If you do so with prayer and meditation, you'll reach the only reasonable conclusion scripture allows.

Constructionism

I want to expand upon a point I made in the comments section recently, because it's one far too many people fail in grasping. When interpreting the U.S. Constitution, we cannot limit ourselves to the text alone; we must take into consideration the intent behind the words: what was the goal or end the authors were trying to meet? If we neglect this obligation, we create a comfortable zone for misinterpretation.

For example, let's take the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The local militia was a volunteer organization, peopled by free individuals who owned guns. They formed this body for the protection of their homes and families against Indians, road agents, etc. The militia was not an arm of the government. Rather, it was a communal effort. We know this by examining history. Militias as understood by the Founders don't exist at present in most states. Ignorant people who know little about the Constitution and even less about the time in which it was drafted claim that the National Guard is the current equivalent. Wrong. National Guardsmen are government employees, beholden to bureaucratic whims. They usually serve their respective states; but in some cases--the current Iraq fiasco being one--the federal government takes hold of their reins. The neighborhood watch movement bears closer resemblance to militias than the National Guard.

All of this leads me to my point: if militias don't exist, now, and we cannot contextually examine anything outside the Amendment's textual confines, we soon draw (or become susceptible to) the conclusion that the right to bear arms is defunct, obsolete. However, if we study history and the writings and speeches of the men who cobbled the Constitution together, we realize that they understood the Amendment as covering individual rights, for purposes of self-defense and taking action or making a stand against a corrupt, overreaching government. But this reality doesn't dawn upon us by reading the Amendment; it becomes apparent by knowing our history and the intentions behind the words.

Constitutional constructionism doesn't mean enslaving oneself to the phrases of the document; it means reading the words and abiding by the original intent behind them.

Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful

After a nice dinner of dog chow mein at my favorite local Chinese restaurant, I cracked my fortune cookie and read these words:

"Rarely do great beauty and virtue dwell together as they do in you."

My wife rolled her eyes, but she knows deep down that truer words were never spoken.

(Speaking of virtue, Chinese cuisine probably is the one redemptive quality of that ideological cesspool).

Citizens and Aliens II

I thought I'd continue the last post by appending relevant quotes on immigration from the Founding Fathers:


John Adams: (Referring to public office applicants) "Among the number of applications..., cannot we find an American capable and worthy of the trust? ...Why should we take the bread out of the mouths of our own children and give it to strangers?" (Letter to Sec. State John Marshall, Aug. 14, 1800)

***

Benjamin Franklin: "The importation of foreigners into a country that has as many inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the new comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country; but they will gradually eat the natives out. Nor is it necessary to bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country for such vacancy will soon be filled by natural generation." ("Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind and the Peopling of Countries," 1751)

***

Thomas Jefferson: "Yet from such [absolute monarchies], we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." ("Notes on Virginia," 1782)

***

Alexander Hamilton: "The opinion advanced [by Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, [italics in original] so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." ("Examinations of Jefferson's Message to Congress of December 7th, 1801," Jan. 12, 1802)

***

James Madison: "Our kind reception of emigrants is very proper, but it is dictated more by benevolent than by interested consideration, tho some of them seem to be very far from regarding the obligations as lying on their side." (Letter to Richard Peters, Feb. 22, 1819)

***

George Washington: "My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them." (Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)

Citizens and Aliens

In recent comments, Erik and GlennT made observations that have led me to the writing of this post. The question on the table is: does the U.S. Constitution apply to legal and illegal aliens? Having studied the issue, my answer is yes and no.

It's clear to me that Mr. Madison and the numerous Founders who lent their input to the Constitution's formation were drafting a document for U.S. citizens, not those of Mexico, China, England, Russia, or France. This is self-evident, for in the Preamble itself we are informed that:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The document differentiates between citizens and non-citizens. For example, aliens cannot hold the offices of U.S. Representative or Senator. Article I Section 8 bestows Congress with the power to create uniform Rules of Naturalization. Section 9 reveals that Congress may not hinder individual states in allowing the migration or importation of people who meet the states' approval. We're also told that Habeus Corpus may not be suspended, with the exceptions of invasion or rebellion. Question: If 1.1 million illegal aliens entering our borders annually doesn't constitute an invasion, pray tell, what would?

Article II Section 1 informs us that non-citizens may not hold the office of the President. By extension, the Vice President also must meet citizenship requirements, since the possibility exists of his becoming Chief Executive in a time of crisis. Electors must be residents of the states they represent, disqualifying illegal aliens.

The point of the above is to illustrate that the Constitution--and those who molded it--made distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens did not hold the same rights and privileges as citizens.

Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights and its application to aliens. Amendment 1 provides freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. It only applies in part. It's absurd on its face that aliens should have the latitude to become members of our press, initiate assemblies, or petition the government. I have no gripe with extending freedom of religion or speech to aliens.

The Second Amendment deals with gun ownership. The idea that aliens have a right to bear arms within our borders is asinine and conducive to chaos.

Amendment 3 is not applicable to this conversation. Amendment 4 entails search and seizure rights. I believe this applies to aliens, because private property is just that, regardless one's position on a map, and should be held inviolate.

Amendment 5 details due process and just compensation. This extends to aliens, because it harkens back to the natural rights of all men: life, liberty and property, except where due process has run its course.

Amendments 6 (speedy trial, confronting witnesses), 7 (trial by jury in civil cases), and 8 (no cruel or unusual punishment) are relatives of Amendment 5, so they apply to aliens. Amendments 9 and 10 are general statements about the Constitution's nature, and the powers of the states and their citizens.

For length purposes, I'll not deconstruct the other Amendments. We have a mixed bag. When we speak of life, liberty, property and due process, the Constitution sides with everyone in our territories, not just citizens. This harmonizes with a key principle fleshed out in our earlier Declaration of Independence, which states:

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.

Fitting aspects of our Constitution apply to all people within our borders, whether citizen or alien. Outside these parameters, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that other elements in the Constitution should be construed to elevate aliens to the level of citizens. After all, if aliens share all the same rights and privileges as citizens, then there is no such thing as citizenship. This idea is diametrically opposed to everything our Founders held dear.