Archive for 2009

Politically correct bad science

The accuracy of environmental science research is critical because decrees by the United States impact the world, along with the consequences of that science.  So, shouldn’t we question environmental science?  And, if that science is solid, shouldn’t questioning be welcomed, rather than feared?

One of the problems with  environmental science is that it can become politically influenced; leading the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and international organizations to conclusions  and rulings with too little questioning.

Moreover, the likelihood of reversing an erroneous EPA ruling is slim because hell can no longer freeze over now that global warming is “fact.”

Christmases past

December 26th my wife and I celebrate our 28th anniversary.  The year we married I was a single father with a three-year-old son, whom my wife later adopted.  And, this year is the first Christmas it will be just the two of us.  After cutting down our 28th Christmas tree, we reminisced about some special Christmases past.

Our son’s eighth Christmas was difficult.  He was having doubts about Santa Claus.  He was too young to lose that belief and he desperately wanted his friends to be wrong.

Free market economy?

Discussing the economy, the President said the private sector is “still nervous about whether they want to go ahead and take the risks that are inherent in a free market system.”  But, the private sector is not afraid of free markets, it is afraid of continued government interference and fears how much more it will interfere.  The government’s job is to regulate the “playing field” of the markets, not to control and manipulate them.

What is public and what is private?

Does the public have a right to know everything?  Does freedom of the press have any limits?  Is anything private?  Is everything fair game?  How might Tiger Woods answer these questions?   “Yes, no, no, yes.”  Moreover, these questions have little to do with any claimed right to privacy, and all to do with the Constitution. 

As it turns out, most anything the media reports is constitutionally protected by “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press.”  You would assume this scrutiny is reserved for a public figure, whatever that is.  But public figure is a legal term used when suing for defamation of character.  Moreover, if the court decides you are a “public figure,” proving defamation is not enough, you must also prove the media acted with “reckless disregard for the truth,” acted with malice.

The damnpolitician and the farmer

Last week, I proponed the Founding Fathers had only two requirements to be president of the United States because they wanted to protect the people’s power to choose the president.   They did not want those writing the Constitution and those later “interpreting” it to be able to limit our choices. 

They assumed people like you and me would give time to our country and return home to live as everyone else, rather than staying in Washington becoming a member of the political aristocracy, becoming a career politician.  Perhaps one of the greatest failures of the Founding Fathers was not anticipating the career politician.

To be President of the United States

There are only two constitutional requirements to be president of the United States of America.  You must be a natural born citizen of the United States and at least 35 years of age.  That is all that is needed for the most important job in the world.  Although considered enough in 1787, is that enough today; or should we set more criterion for the office?

 

Today’s presidential races have entered the rock star media age of politics, an obvious difference between pre- and post-television presidential campaigns.  Candidates now have image consultants and are “packaged” for public appearances just like actors and actresses, even including $400 haircuts.

Robert Gibbs is a verb

The most entertaining moments of this presidency are watching Robert Gibbs explain the ramblings of Vice President Biden.  With a straight face, a feigned sincerity and accompanied by the laughter of the press corps Gibbs says, “I understand what he said and I’m telling you what he meant to say.”  He invented a new verb — “gibbsing,” a verb that well describes earlier rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

In 1803 with a 4-0 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court used the question before them to expand their powers beyond what the Constitution enumerated.

“Earn this. Earn it.” – Veteran’s Day

Who are the men and women we honor each year on Veterans Day?  An anonymous person offered the following description – “A veteran is someone who at one point in life wrote a blank check made payable to the United States of America for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.'”  What makes them write this check, make this promise, show this love of country, this loyalty to country?  Could you or I write this check?

Who really has the power?

“The United States Constitution has proved itself
the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules
of government ever written.”
                           –President Franklin Roosevelt

 

Did the founding fathers create a “marvelously elastic” Constitution as Roosevelt suggested?  No, they created the antithesis, granting their new government limited powers, enumerated to prevent it from evolving into another all powerful government.  Remember, they feared the very government they were creating, feared it would grab unlimited power just like the ones they left in Europe.

Who has the power – government or “we the people”

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article
of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress
of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money
of their constituents.”
                   –James Madison, 4th U.S. President
                   father of the United States Constitution

 

How does Congress constitutionally justify spending money on anything it chooses?  What happened to Article V of the Constitution which requires agreement of 2/3 of each House of Congress and approval by 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution?  In fact, why would we even need Article V if Congress has unlimited powers?

Spending the people’s money

“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal

 with a big appetite at one end and no sense of

 responsibility at the other.”

                                 − Ronald Reagan

 Is it an appropriate use of taxpayer money to fund a “tattoo removal violence prevention program,” a Sparta Teapot museum, a program to communicate with extra-terrestrials, the Pleasure Beach water taxi service, a Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative and a swine odor and manure management program?  Moreover, where in the Constitution is the power for Congress to spend our money this way?

The entitled generation

Last week I watched a news report on a new type of life crisis.  Well, sort of.  A young reporter discussed the many difficulties facing the 25-year-olds as they finish college.  Wait a minute?  Why are 25-year-olds just finishing college?  Did they take a few years off along the way?  How did they do that?

I thought about what would have happened to my brothers or me if we tried to explain to our father how we needed a few years off to find ourselves, to figure out what we wanted out of life, to see where we fit in this world.  That was a brief thought.

More jobs, larger tax base, fewer entitlements

The government continues wasting our money, leading us further into socialism and worse.  Our leaders refuse to understand that the free market economy works, but only if the government stops trying to help.  Nonetheless, government continues handing out “free” money, people little noticing that they are becoming dependent on those monies and losing the incentive to be self-sufficient.

To promote the president’s socialist admonition to “share the wealth,” the government spends money on cash for clunkers, new home purchases, mortgage, bank and auto bailouts.  Instead of redistributing the wealth, why not spend it competently on new jobs, a larger tax base and cuts in entitlement programs?

Values and common sense

Do you ever wonder about our lost values, our disappearing common sense?  Where is our foundation, our cornerstone, showing us the values that are America?  Our foundation is crumbling and a cornerstone is hard to find.  And we have fewer anchors to look to for help understanding what we are, and what we should aspire to be.

Nearly 30 years ago, I met such a man, such an anchor, although I did not realize it at the time.  Our first meeting was in the emergency department of Bannock Memorial Hospital.  He was a bit confused when I very kindly, but firmly, asked him to please read, and sign, about 500 pages of consents.  With a boisterous voice, he suggested that might be excessive; I suggested it made a great deal of sense.

Teaching children to murder

Littleton, Colorado, 1999; Santee, California, 2001; Cold Springs, Minnesota, 2003; Jacksboro, Tennessee, 2005; Cleveland, Ohio, 2007.  These are just a few of the 60 school shootings occurring since Columbine in 1999, double previous decades.

The propensity to kill is a learned behavior, not something children do naturally.  So, where do we learn about teaching people to kill to better understand what may be happening to our children?

Our military must teach killing.  How does it do so?  What are some of the practice techniques they use?  Are there any similarities with our children?

Our children, violence, and murder

What is happening to our children? Children with guns murdering children. Does this support the need for gun control, as advanced by the media and the politically correct, both with a fanciful capacity to not allow facts to interfere   with their opinions?

But if the data shows guns are not the cause of violence, and gun control does not work, why then have we witnessed rises in all types of school violence during the last several decades, including bullying, non-gun violence and gun violence.

Move to the sound of the gun

“Let’s roll.”

Response of Todd Beamer, one of the heroes of Flight 93, just before he and fellow passengers rushed the cockpit upon hearing that three other passenger planes had been used as weapons on 9/11.

 

Have you ever watched a sheepdog working with sheep?  Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of the book “On Killing,” discusses sheep and sheepdogs, drawing comparisons between sheep, sheepdogs and us.

The sheepdog herds the sheep, keeps them where they belong, makes them follow the rules, and nips at them when needed; all a bit irritating to the sheep.  Moreover, the sheepdog is always nervous, always sniffing the air, always watching, always on the alert.

The healthcare agenda

Why is the government continuing to push healthcare reform, ignoring, dismissing and disparaging anyone who disagrees?  Why have so many members of Congress refused to have town hall meetings during the August recess?  Why are they afraid to face us, their employers?

Even if we ignore the United States Constitution and agree that healthcare is a constitutional right, is government control the answer to the current failed healthcare system of state and federal programs, private programs and employer sponsored programs?
The government is convinced it can competently run the healthcare system.  But, can it?  It runs the nearly bankrupt Social Security program, the nearly bankrupt Medicare program, and just last week admitted it underestimated the deficit by a mere $2 trillion.  Not much of a track record.

Claiming racism be racist

Four police officers and two men; one black, a noted Harvard professor, and one Jewish, a famous singer –each with a recent police encounter.

Returning from a trip, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates found his front door jammed.  He tried to force it open and then he and his chauffeur got in through the back door.  According to Officer Figueroa’s police report, a neighbor called the police saying she saw “a man wedging his shoulder into the front door as if to pry the door open.”  And contrary to media reports, she did not identify the men by their race.  Further, Figueroa, the second officer on the scene, is also black.

Abortion – call it what it is

 

Killing a fellow human being is not new to us.  We already accept killing in war, capital punishment and self-defense.  Society has made a distinction between murder and killing.

So, if we already accept killing a fellow human being, why do we soothe our conscience trying to prove abortion is not murder or killing?  For 35 years pro-abortion experts have failed to prove that the fetus up to a certain point in pregnancy does not have what is needed for legal protection – personhood – claiming it is acquired at some unknown time later in pregnancy.

Abortion British Empire Business congress Constitution Death democracy Economic Education family Federal government of the United States government Gun politics Health History Human Illegal immigration Iraq Iraq War James Madison Law Marriage Mexico Middle East Murder Politics Pregnancy President of the United States Recreation Ronald Reagan Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court Supreme Court of the United States Thomas Jefferson United States United States armed forces United States Congress United States Constitution United States nationality law United States Supreme Court values Vietnam War Warfare and Conflict Washington D.C. World War II