Health Reform Constitutional?

http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/104493/Health_reform_Unwise_not_unconstitutional

Fortunately, David Frum does not decide what is and is not Constitutional. And neither does the Supreme Court. For something to be "Constitutional" it must be something that *I* agree should be in the purview of the federal government. That is the only standard of Constitutionality, and no one can tell me something is Constitutional when I believe it is not. What I decide to do about the circumstance (namely that the Federal Government agrees amongst itself that my personal health care / insurance / banking / transportation etc. falls under their jurisdiction) is an entirely different subject.

Statement of Faith (a work in progress, but a good start)

I believe that the people, places, and events of the Bible are real. I have read the accounts of those people, and believe that the God they spoke of is real, including all that he said and did, and promised to do. I believe the accounts spoken and written down about the man Jesus, who was called the Christ, the Messiah. I believe that the claims he made of himself were true, that he is the Son of God, who was and is and is to come. I believe that he was slain in my place, that he was executed for my transgressions. I believe the account of those who saw him raised from the dead, in physical form that they could touch, feel, and talk to. I believe that just as he was raised from the dead, so I will have new life through my faith in him. I believe this new and eternal life is a gift, freely given, and is not from any worthiness on my part. I believe I do not deserve it, and that no one does. But I believe it was offered freely, and I have freely accepted it, in faith.

I believe that humanity has been holding the burning coal of the knowledge of Good and Evil in its hands, ever since Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the same. I believe all of our struggles as humans stem entirely from that event, and everything we do can be cast in the light of our attempts as humans to deal with that knowledge, whether to bury it, to put it back, to try and absorb it unto ourselves, to try to pass it on to get rid of it or at least share the burning pain, or to just wither under it. I believe the only way to deal with this knowledge and its resulting condemnation of ourselves is to ask for forgiveness from the God who made us, and accept his offered sacrifice of his only begotten Son, Jesus the Messiah, to account for that condemnation.

I believe heaven will be literally greater than I can possibly imagine. I believe that I will be counted worthy of entering into God's glory there, not from my own merit but from him whose blood covers my iniquity.

I believe when Jesus said on the cross that it was finished, I believe he meant it. I believe that the Gospel, the good news of human salvation and restoration to God through the death and resurrection of Jesus was complete and perfect the day the curtain to the Holy of Holies was ripped, and when he walked out of the tomb on the third day. I believe that our attempts to enhance and improve upon the Gospel are far more likely to be a regression back to the pagan heritage of our culture, than to be progressive advances in our spiritual maturity.

Therefore, I believe that our civilization is not advancing to a Utopian climax, but is only reflecting the seeds of its character, in proportion to its size. As humanity grows, so we see the fruits of those seeds clearer, but their character has not changed. I believe that at the right moment, God will remove the good fruit from the earth, and destroy what is left. I believe that this judgement is for God to perform, and not our place as humans, in this age, except within ourselves against the evil fruit in our own lives. Yet, I believe that wherever possible, and with whatever strength is given to us, we should defend those around us from the evil of this world.

I believe that Israel has been reconstituted according to God's will and is fulfilling the Biblical prophecies made about that nation. I believe that the Biblically prophesied war of Gog and Magog may happen within my lifetime, and that the nations and alliances of that war are almost all nearly in place. I believe that my country, the United States of America, has created a government founded on Biblical principles in a way unlike any other in history since the ancient nation of Israel, and like that nation it will not achieve the perfection it seeks until Christ reigns on the throne.

Meta-physics Model for a World without Time

It has been posited that our universe is actually only one of an infinite number of universes comprising the Multi-Verse, in which every possible state of being is captured.

I would like to posit that these are not disconnected universes, but rather form a single matrix of static 'verses, which in and of themselves do not change. There is in fact no dimension of Time at all. Rather, what we experience as time is actually the sequential movement through an infinite series of Universes, each with a different static state, much like a finite state machine. In my model, this "Infinite State Machine" has inputs for the current state of the Universe, and our "free-will" inputs as the remaining inputs, which the infinite state machine (again, in my model, God or his Creation) then uses to point to a new Universe.

God controls the frequency at which the states are traversed, and therefore our "Time" has almost no meaning to God. A thousand years are as a day. Also, we are not just occupying a single Universe, but rather are connected to every Universe, or possibly only a theoretical connection to infinite universes, since really only one universe would need to exist at any given time.

*Speculation* (as opposed to the previous iron clad mathematical proofs)

Perhaps, with this model, we would see the results of the famous quantum physics experiment, whereby a single "interfering" molecule stream behaves as a continuous wave, since a discrete stream of particles taken at subsequent states would appear to be a continuous stream. That is, the previous state *for that stream* was the previous particle issued, and so subsequent discrete particles interfere with the previously issued particle, creating the impression of a continuous stream.

Health Care Debate - Some Thoughts

Firstly, it has been posited that a private Insurance company is only in it for the money, and therefore will not have your best interests at heart. I would like to point out that the if a private company is just in it for the money, then the gov't is just in it for the power! Frankly, I'd rather be broke from an Insurance company sucking down my pocket book and still be free, than to have cheap health care, some extra money in my pocket, but be a slave to the gov't. And then have the gov't tax that extra money in my pocket so then I'm still broke.

Secondly, Insurance Companies do not have a problem of Capitalism (which is implied by them only being in it for the money), if anything they have a problem of Socialism. They are tasked with distributing money pooled together by a group of people, and trying to make sure they have enough left to make it worth their while. If they couldn't, they'd be doing something else more productive with their time! So, why would gov't, who would essentially be doing the same job, distributing pooled money out to people, be any better? Just because they won't keep any extra for a profit? They still have to pay all the people to do the work, and have you seen the gov't union retirement / benefits plan? Not cheap. But hey, if you don't think your insurance company shouldn't be making a profit, then fire them! Get someone else, or start your own! You can't do that with the gov't. Actually, a bunch of people have already started their own non-profit co-op insurance companies. Why not use them?

Thirdly, the Gov't doesn't magically change the amount of money available out there for all these health services. The only thing it has is an ability to borrow astronomical sums of money because of the guaranteed revenue stream from us, the tax payer. If you think that borrowing money to pay for increased health care for an entire nation in perpetuity is wise, then maybe we should also try filling the Sahara desert with water from a Dixie cup, which would be about as effective.

All gov't can do is redistribute the money differently. If you think its more equitable to have a "company" that you can't fire and compels you to use it making all your health choices, then I ask you, why can't we at least leave it to the State Gov'ts?

For my next post: "Why For-Profit ventures are better than Not-For-Profit ventures"

The Paradox of Freedom: Part I

The PROBLEM as I see it: We find our selves as a country wrestling with a conundrum, a living hypocrisy that is eating away at our body politic. That is, our country has been founded on the notion that there are some things that we as a collective society of individuals must agree to do together, in order to maintain our status as individuals. And therein lies the problem. Having accepted the premise that there are some things in which we must work together on (and hence sacrifice our sense of individuality), it now becomes difficult to argue which other things we must not be required to work together on.

Put another way, our founders decided that a nation of individuals, being a most high ideal, could not be obtained by those individuals remaining completely such. That is, for an instant in time they were indeed individuals, complete and sovereign (politically), owing no allegiance to anyone but themselves. But immediately after that moment they began to choose to join in compact with other sovereign individuals, for the purpose of defending against those that would remove their individuality.

But was this a bargain with the devil? When the first colonial said to the second colonial, "let's take up arms together, so that we may protect ourselves. We'll stand back to back so that no one may sneak up on us," was that the end of their lives as pure individuals? Or was the choice they made as individuals the very validation of themselves? After all, they chose to join together, and no one else made them to do so. And when a thief did sneak up and was shot by the colonials, did not they preserve themselves, to go on making choices?

"The freedom you enjoy, is the freedom enjoyed by others to use against you," they reason to themselves, after all while they walked where they would, so could the thieves! "But the freedom you sacrifice is the freedom sacrificed of others that they can no longer use against you," they reason further, and decide they have done a good thing. After they were joined, they could only walk where the other desired and vice-versa, but the thieves were denied walking behind the one or the other now.

Of course, the real question is can you make a choice to have no more choices? Can the first colonist choose to be joined forever to the second colonist? And is it really a choice if you cannot return from it?

Let us suppose that the colonists find themselves among many other like minded individuals, so many that the use of them all for a defense requires an overseer to coordinate the project. The overseer is chosen by a means agreed to by all the individuals, and performs his function of coordinating the defense of the group of individuals. The overseer then decides to coordinate the building of a wall around their dwellings, which the overseer says is also arguably for the defense of the group. The overseer then coordinates the building of public sewer systems within the walls, in case of prolonged siege, again for the defense of the group. Hospitals follow, along with safety regulations and management regimes, to ensure the group's resources are properly used, and that everyone is well fed and healthy to be ready for action "in defense of the group."

Soon the overseer has taken charge of every aspect of every individual action the "individuals" of the group might make. Many of the more trivial actions are permitted, such as which street to walk down, but the extent of those actions is approved by the overseer and documented in the group's laws. Did the individuals desire this outcome? The original purpose of appointing an overseer was so that they could conduct their individual affairs more freely by denying those who would seek to control and conquer them a divided and easy target. But in the end result, they have become precisely what they sought to avoid.

The first colonial decides, after reviewing the affair, that he would rather be shot in the back by a thief and at least have the freedom to walk where he liked without the by-your-leave of the overseer. After all, he reasons, "it is better to die trying to live free than to live as a slave forever. Perhaps I'll invite the second colonial as well, and we can go on protecting each others backs again as we used to."

The overseer cannot find anything in the book of the group's laws that say that "individuals" are allowed to leave the group. In fact, on closer inspection, the overseer cannot find anything about individuals at all any more, as everything has come under the purview of "the defense of the group" which does not contain the sense of individuals any longer. In fact, anyone who does not recognize themselves as being part of the group is then jailed for not contributing taxes for the "defense of the group."

The second colonial gives up and works within the group, since he'd rather have the illusion of freedom than to be jailed and have no sense of freedom at all, although he'd still rather walk freely and risk being shot by a thief, given the chance. The first colonial tries to make a run for it, but he finds there is no where to run to. The walls of the group have extended to the very sea itself. So the colonial decides to start over again right where he is, and is promptly arrested for non-payment of taxes, and thrown into jail.

While he sits in jail, he contemplates the paradox that has brought him and his follow colonials to this point. Namely, that they agreed to have any of their liberty as individuals taken away, in order that they might preserve their status as individuals, and thus eventually had all of their liberty taken away, and became individuals no longer! He reckons this in two ways: By the first reckoning, when some amount of liberty was removed, he was protecting the latter half. But by this reckoning, it implied there was a happy balance of liberty lost to liberty gained. Why, he could even lose up to half of his liberty to protect the other half and still come out even in the end! But was it possible to have a happy medium? Is not a single shackle just as constricting as ten shackles?

And so he tries to reckon a second way. How does a shackle not become a shackle? When you have the key, of course! In fact, forget the shackle, and turn those agreements into ropes, ones that we hold on to, and more importantly can let go of any time we would like. In fact, the only shackle he wishes to have any longer, is the one that will prevent all others from taking hold. The only agreement he wishes to make is the one whereby he will always be able to "let go" of the rope. And therefore the only agreement of freedom without paradox is ironically to agree to be able to break an agreement.

"But surely this is Anarchy, is it not?" says the colonial to himself. Ah, but then he considers that the freedom to break an agreement is also the freedom to make agreement anew. The freedom to make and break agreements is not a statement of Anarchy, it is only a means to either Order or Anarchy, as seen fit by the individual. "Wherever agreements breakdown into Anarchy, individuals may choose to make new agreements to bring Order to Chaos." Or so his thinking goes, as he ponders the paradox that is the basis of the government of his world.

Term Limits

A lot of talk has been bandied about lately, either through the Tea Party movement or other forums, about imposing Term Limits on congressional representatives and senators.  It's not that I think this is a bad idea per say, but rather that there are unintended consequences.  It is not a cure-all, not even close, and may be worse than what we have now.

First of all, from a philosophical viewpoint, what are Term Limits?  They're a limit on the people that are being represented.  "But wait," you say, "isn't it a limit on the candidate?"  Currently, the people have the right to vote out the candidate every two years, no restrictions.  If you put term limits in, you've limited the right of the people to choose who they want to represent them.  What we're really saying with Term Limits is that we don't like who the people have chosen, or we think the people are too stupid to figure it out, and therefore we need to limit the damage the people can cause to themselves by kicking the representatives out for them.  

That doesn't sound like representative republican democracy.  It sounds like people trying to escape the accountability, that democracy demands, of the people for whom they elect (which I argue is one of the defining reasons for any democratic system).  This is not "Conservative" in my view.  Conservatives don't believe we need Government to protect ourselves from our own stupidity.  We only really need to protect ourselves from the stupidity of Government.  We'll deal with our own stupidity on our own, and with whoever we can convince to help us!

Second of all, we have right now people like John McCain, who have been in politics forever, who can't even get the point of entry of the 9/11 terrorists correct.  And these people are supposed to have experience.  Fine you say, let's kick them out, since experience means nothing.  But who will these new senators and congressmen rely on for the information to make their way through congress?  Will they not have Career, Life Long, Washington Insider staffers to grease the gears?  If so, we are now not just stuck with an incompetent life-long politician, who we can at least vote out of office, we are now stuck with scores of staffers who we can't vote out, and who will end up running our government.

I know, they probably Are running it right now.  But I guess that's my point.  Term limits will not change that fact, and may make it more of a fact.  And, they will limit our own choice.  There really is no solution to the "Staffer" problem.  We can only vote for and hold accountable politicians who are going to rely on good people, people that we can trust to serve the interest of those they represent.  Anything else would be unfairly limiting the representatives, telling them who they can and can't get help from (say, with term limits for staffers).

Of course, one change we might make is to get rid of the congressionally provided money they are allowed to hire staffers, but the unintended consequences are still there.  The richest representatives would drown the others in staffers hired from their own pockets (do they do this now?  Not sure, but probably), and overwhelm the congress with process and procedure.

No, the only real recourse is to reduce the power of the National Government (per Mark Steyn, "'federal' doesn't seem the quite the word anymore") to limit the damage career politicians can have.  And learn from our mistakes and vote in citizen legislators who won't be run over by career staffers.  To that end, I think it was mistake (and a massive power grab) for us to limit the size of congress.  As we grow ever larger, the portion of repesentation grows ever larger with it, till a citizen legislator just doesn't feel right in such an August Esteemed Body.  If they were still held to 1:30,000, we might actually know who our representative was without them having to have a major scandal to get on the news. 

Intentional Civil War

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9485

I so called this one. If only there was some kind of reward, instead of getting stuck in the middle of it all.

The Anti-Federalists Were Right

It is taken as gospel in our country by both the political Left and Right that the Constitution, to one degree or another, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, I recently read about some of the concerns from those opposed to the original signing, who were known as the Anti-Federalists. What I read gave me chills up spine:

From the Introduction to "The Constitution of the Unites States with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation", by R.B. Bernstein

Anti-Federalists insisted that the Convention exceeded its mandate by writing a new Constitution instead of revising the Articles.

Anti-Federalists feared that the general government would swallow up the states, destroying the people's right of self-government.

Anti-Federalists denounced the Constitution's system of representation as inadequate. They mocked the House of Representatives and the Senate as too small by comparison with the large state legislatures. They argued that this unjust scheme of representation would limit service in Congress to powerful, wealthy men.

Anti-Federalists, distrusting the Presidency, charged that the President was not accountable, that impeachment was too difficult to use against him, and that he would work to ensure his repeated re-election for life.

Anti-Federalists denounced federal courts as unnecessary and expensive. They worried that federal courts would swallow up state courts, wiping out distinctions between state laws and leaving the people subject to a tyrannous federal bench.

Anti-Federalists found the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights their most powerful argument.

Anti-Federalists objected to the clause authorizing a permanent capital, which would become a citadel where the people's enemies would shelter themselves against the people's wrath.

New England Anti-Federalists denounced the Constitution's ban on religious tests for voting or holding office, fretting that a Jew, a Turk, or an infidel could become President.

Anti-Federalists in New England also denounced the Constitution's slavery clauses...

Reviewing these objections over the last 200+ years, taking them in order, we have Maybe, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes - even after the Bill of Rights was added it apparently didn't go far enough, Yes, I'm Not Going There, and Darn Yes.

Of course, each of these objections had very intelligent, possibly very well meaning retorts by the Federalists, which of course won the day. They also happened to be all very wrong. At the least, they were proven wrong over time.

But I hold out the possibility that it worked better than any other system for longer than any other system, until we have gotten to the point we are at today, which is right where Great Britain was back in 1776. Still, I think there is an even better possibility that a revised Articles of Confederation would have worked its way through the immediate crises of the time, and saved us all a lot of pain.

But what's to say that other Americans wouldn't have grabbed at power again when the next crisis hit, as they have for the last 200 years? We have a chance every 2 years to reduce the power of the Federal government, and I'm hard pressed to find more than 2 years in the last 200 where it actually happened. This is akin to going back to the Garden of Eden and trying to stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. Eventually, they were going to get a good bite!

The Three Year Old Politician

Recently I was listening to some political free speech about the actions of our federal government, in the course of which it was suggested "we the people" contact our representatives and yell at them for their bad behavior. Then I was struck by a thought. What if these same politicians actually Like to be yelled at? Of course! They want us to yell at them. That's what gives them their power. I know that our founders wanted to ensure we had the right to petition our government for our grievances, but I don't think this is what they had in mind (not all of them, anyways!), a system whereby the politicians can generate their own political capital at will.

Here's how this machina horribilus works. First the politician thinks of some action to take that will offend a good chunk of his electorate. This outrages people. He or she then apologizes, claims a mental health day and reverses course. People rejoice that they have had an effect on their representative, and feel genuinely grateful that he or she has listened them. The politician has just created "political capital" out of thin air, protecting people from him or herself! Its one of the oldest rackets in history, and is also know as "extortion." This bizarre attention getting behavior is exactly the sort practiced by my three year old child.

But the machine grows ever more horrible. What happens if we try to ignore this childish behavior? Alas, like the three year old, the actions get progressively worse until they Make you pay attention to them, darn the consequences. So in fact, the only way to deal with these children is to vote them out. Responding to their "altruistic" calls for "connecting with their constituents" just seems to increase their already enormously bloated power.

The same goes for the critics. Why should we give the politicians warning that we're displeased with them? They might reverse course and stay elected. If we're displeased, we should vote them out, period. If we all ignored them, we would only end up with politicians who actually had to govern by their own principles, and not by their moist finger poking out into the political winds. They might actually have to feel accountable for their actions. They might start following their campaign promises, and we might actually have to start listening to them.

Social Nationalism

I haven't actually read this article yet, but I was struck by the headline. I think Blankley is openly but cryptically calling Obama a Fascist. I think the term works well, "Collectivist Nationalism." National Collectivist might sound a little too much like National Socialism. State Capitalism is the most accurate, but nobody gets the reference; it sounds just as good to people today as to the Germans under Hitler. Maybe "Social Nationalism." It would take people a few moments to reverse it, and until they did they would think it sounded great!

He's not my President?

Okay, I admit I'm being a little contrary here.  I'm just tired of being bombarded by the constant refrain:  "he's President of ALL of us now" and "is he YOUR President?"  I feel like theSadducees & Pharisees are trying to trip me up by asking if it is right to pay taxes to Caesar.  So I'll try this answer:  The President is who he is.  Or perhaps, he is as much my President as George W Bush was yours.

Actually, to me he is nothing more than the person who presides over the Federal Government.  He is not my President because he does not Preside over me.  If I was a government employee, he would Preside over me and would be my President.  Sure, you can claim him as your President if you wish, that's your silly choice.  

But he was not elected god, or Emperor, or even King, where such an appellation might apply.  He was not even elected by the voters, he was elected by the states, and the electors as they so designated.  Which is to say, the position of President was not supposed to play such a role in our lives.  If it were to, we would vote for him or her directly, as we do our representatives (yet another reason to keep the electoral college, I don't want to have a directly elected President who can claim to Preside over me).

The President is simply a convenient way to organize the executive responsibilities of the Federal Government.  The position has a couple of well defined roles in the constitution, and everything else is delegated to it by Congress through legislation.  Now I grant that over the years Congress has seen fit to delegate a lot of responsibilities to the President that were not its to delegate in the first place.  This has imposed the Presidency on the citizens far more that it should.  So, to the extent that the President's powers have been forced on me beyond the original scope of presiding over the Federal Government, then I have to say, yes, he is my President.

But wait, that brings up a good question.  People keep asking, "is he your President?" or "will you say 'he is my president'?"  That implies a choice, no?  You mean, I actually have an option here?  Is there some other path beyond my attempted semantics to say "he's not my President?"  If you're really offering me a choice, I'll take the "no, he's not my President" option.  But, as I stated earlier, I don't think I really have a choice.

And so, maybe what is really being asked of me is some sort of loyalty test.  Should I say a Pledge of Allegiance to the President?  Last time I checked, my Pledge was to the Republic, not a Man.  As George Washington said, ours is a "nation of laws, not men."  Now I'm starting to feel like Nebuchadnezzer is asking me to swear fealty to him and his statue.

It feels like the President's supporters are looking to either find another reason to castigate those of a different persuasion (from a cynical point of view), or to build bridges (from a generous point of view).  More likely it is somewhere in between, a sort of lack of conficence in their own success.  They won!  Why do they need our support?  Our laws are made by the majority, not unanimously.  Go out and govern based on your ideas, and then we'll see if people like them and their results.  Why should you need our support, just to make you feel better about yourselves?  Is it to assuage your guilt over eight years of utter disrespect for the guy I voted for?

The Presidency is a political position.  If we disagree with the President philosophically, we shouldn't feel like we have to support him, anymore than we support each other as fellow Americans.  Like the "flair" scene from the move Office Space, if they want us to express ourselves more than they should make it a requirement.

So, back to the choice thing.  If asked if he's my President, and I say no, what then?  Or put another way, "What happens if I say No?"  I guess I'd just get called Un-american, for disrespecting the democratic process, even though as I've described aove it's I who am respecting the actual process.

Final thought.  As I've said, the President is elected not as Emperor, King, Dictator, or Tyrranous.   He or she is hired to be a manager over our Federal Bureacracy, not a manager over us.  He ior she cannot fundementally be my President.  At best he or she is my employee, however unwilling I was to hire him or her.  So, do I accept that this individual has been hired by the American Citizens, of which I am a part, to be our employee, the executive manager?  Well, when you put it like that, yes, I suppose so.

Asymmetrical bombing in Gaza—a view from Haifa

A good summary of the situation from Israel.

Asymmetrical bombing in Gaza—a view from Haifa

The Counter-Bureaucracy Revolution

I have an idea for the coming peaceful political revolution. It's called the Counter-Bureaucracy, and it works something like this:

Why should the government be the only one allowed to have a bureaucracy? Why should not the citizens have their own bureaucracy? Clearly, we avoid it like the plague, but that doesn't mean we can't have it and use it.

Imagine the following scenario: You go to your local public school to enroll your child. As the administrators are taking down your information you stop them and say, "wait, you haven't signed my form yet!" They look surprised as you pull out your own form, and start asking them for their information. They are even more shocked when you ask them to sign the bottom of the page, below a disclaimer reading something to the effect of "I understand that I am providing a service to the parents of this child in educating them, in return for the taxes being paid by said parents. I recognize the parents as the final arbiter of my conduct as the child's educator. I also recognize that the parent has the final responsibility for this child, not the state." And perhaps also, at the end, "I recognize that the parents do not have to choose public schooling for their child, and I appreciate them choosing our school to provide this service."

Or perhaps this scenario: The Child Protective Services decides to forcibly enter your house, because a neighbor complained you were homeschooling your children (because the public school refused to sign your form). You stop them at the door and say, "you can't come in until this form is completed," and hand them a "Proper Conduct Upon Forcible Entry Form 12/34-5." This form states that every 5 seconds of time spent within the premises incurs a $50 charge, for each person. Furthermore, upon the determination of unlawful forceful entry (as determined by the Home Office Review Board, a.k.a. the Parents), the state will be fined an additional $5,000,000 for each child inconvenienced by the event. If they actually sign the form, you hand it back to them and tell them it needs to be notarized.

Of course, no government agency or agent would ever sign such a document. But that's the point, isn't it? When they refuse to sign your document, you simply refuse to sign theirs.

The Other Problem with Socialism

As if there were not enough problems already with the evils of Socialism, there's this gem that I discovered this morning: Socialism not only views its own actions as a morally correct path, it defines them as the morally correct path. And not to follow that path is conversely morally evil. I don't see how you could see it any other way. So, when George W. Bush does not use the power he has to bring about Socialist policies, he is in fact committing evil, though all he has done is chosen not to steal from one person to give to another.

I hit on this perspective while considering the tipping point for various peoples to reject their government, after watching the movie "Valkyrie" last night. This is a dicey topic, to say the least, and I in no way reject our government beyond any of the legal political mechanisms that our founders were so kind enough to set in place. The fact that I had to spell that out is a sign of our times.

But my connection between the two topics was made by blogersations (conversations in the blogosphere) with a liberal friend of mine. We argued about the election, and about the abject hate directed at Bush. She said it was justified based on Bush's actions. Given that these people were comparing Bush to Hitler (not in passing, not in jest, but actually really giving them the same standing), I think we had better start examining EXACTLY what those actions are, what Hitler's actions were, and what actions we truly think ought to spark a revolution.

Again, this was from the words of a liberal friend of mine, who thought the comparison was justified. Maybe they don't understand what making that comparison means. Maybe after watching the movie I just watched they'll understand. What I think it means, although I think there was a lot of smoke being blown as well, was that they thought some kind of non-political revolution might be justified, particularly if Bush was not gotten out of office (and a political-clone was not put in to replace him). But, that is the beauty of our political system, that we can blow lots of smoke and have it exorcised when we vote. Even if we lose, there's a certain catharsis to having at least cast our vote.

Finally, the point is that Socialism's tipping point in determining the evils of a president or leader is not in terms of whether he thought torture was good, or had some personal scandal of monumental sin (boy, Bill Clinton proved that!), but in whether they implemented Socialst policy. If he had used his power to advance Socialism, then all would have been forgiven about the War on Terror, etc. (As if he needed to apologize for what the Terrorists did to us). If they thought he was trying to bring about Socialist utopia to Iraq, and the far off reaches of the earth, the conflict would be justified. But to bring about anything less, then forget it, no dice, no pass, you're Hitler.

I leave you with one final thought, a topic for another article another day. Since I as a conservative believe that Bush has embraced Socialism, at least tentatively, where does that leave the Socialist Left? Their anger was predicated on his lack of Socialism, but here at the end he has given them everything they wanted and more. If this had happened at the beginning, would things be different?

"Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear." - I Peter 1:17

Pro-Homosexual Arguments Against Sodom

It has been argued by Christian proponents of the Homosexual movement that the sin for which Sodom (& Gomorrah) was destroyed was not the sin of homosexual immorality, but rather the sin of greed. This argument in itself presupposes an argument against homosexuality, that because of the homosexual nature of the inhabitants of Sodom, God saw fit to destroy it.

I reject the first argument, and therefore the response by the pro-Homosexual movement. My view is that it was not only homosexuality that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but rather a host of sins, including homosexuality, greed among them. I firmly believe that sin does not exist in a vacuum, but rather where there is one sin, you are very likely to find many sins. Which came first, greed, then sexual immorality (of all types, I'm sure)? Probably. The point is, it's preposterous to try to claim that when the cities were destroyed it could not have had anything to do with homosexual behavior.

At the very least, we must conclude that it was possibly the reason, and perhaps continue to look for guidance on the matter, perhaps from other Leviticul sources. It is also dangerous to think that there was only one sin for which the cities were destroyed, and that somehow by avoiding that one sin we too can avoid destruction.

2008 Federal Election Position Paper

This post is a little late, a little obsolete. But, not completely so. I believe in putting things down for the record, for myself if no one else. I don't believe time ends when an election is over, so it's really not too late to put down my position on election. So, that said:

Caveats / Preface

I. COMMUNISM / SOCIALISM

I have decided that Socialism, whether National or International, Violent or Non-violent, is morally wrong, like Communism and Marxism in all its derivative forms. I cannot find anything in this vein of philosophy that justifies forcing the transfer of one person's blood, sweat, and treasure into the hands of another person. I cannot accept the premise that the ends justify the means. The means of all forms of socialism is stealing, which I believe to be morally wrong.

Why is it that we don't think it is okay to take things from our Neighbor to give to someone we feel is more deserving, but we do think it is okay to authorize our government to do the same? Also, why is it that we make a distinction between so-called peaceful Socialism, and its more violent cousin Communism? Can I opt out of either system? Am I allowed to refuse to contribute to either system? Will the police not come and arrest me for refusing to be stolen from, or not supporting a system that will steal from others just the same under Socialism as with Communism? Not only do the ends not justify the means, but the means do not justify the ends, when the ends are themselves morally wrong.

Socialism takes away my choice, my freedom, to give of my own accord. It assumes I am not compassionate, and forces it upon me. It takes away my own ability to decide who is deserving, who is needy, and gives that authority to, who? Is it given to some vastly greater alien intelligence, who is unaffected by the human condition? No, the authority is given to other humans, politicians who consistently demonstrate the principle that all humans are corruptible, that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The moniker of government does not erase their humanity, it enhances it through the addition of power and authority.

Socialism, et Al., seeks to erase a human condition through force that in fact can only be erased through the changing of people's hearts and minds.

Barack Obama is a socialist. His voting record, his associations and political alliances, and his own words all bear this out. And Joe Biden? See section II. John McCain is not a socialist, although he tolerates socialism in the interest of being bi-partisan (ick). Sarah Palin is not a socialist.

II. VIETNAM

The salient point here is this: Not long after John McCain was rotting in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Joe Biden was voting to suspend all aid to South Vietnam, dooming them to slavery under Communism (and everyone else in the region not protected by a good size chunk of ocean). Also about this time, Barack Obama was being introduced to a highly regarded Communist intellectual in Hawaii.

The sheer fact that Biden and Obama were involved with undermining what McCain was fighting for and being mentored and tutored by the cause that McCain was fighting against, is enough to boil my blood and pull the lever for McCain.

III. TAXES

See section I., Socialism.

IV. CONCLUSION

McCain is possibly my last choice for a Presidential selection, at least on the Republican side. However, given the overt proclivities of Obama / Biden towards all things socialist, I have to make the statement against them by voting for McCain. Even then, I do not think I could do so if not for Sarah Palin. As McCain has taken her as a political hostage, I feel compelled to bargain for her political life by voting for her, even though it means voting for McCain as well.

In addition, I find myself in the position of not being able to "Not Vote," which would truly be my preference, as I do not feel I have a viable alternative. As always, I pray for the best result, and I cast my vote asking that God will bless it, and use it for his purposes.

Okay, I wrapped this up way sooner than I wanted. I just have too many other things to do! I had several other pages on Vietnam, which I guess I'll post another time. Darn the inherent slowness in converting thoughts to words on a page. Of course, I can't read all the stuff I want to as it is, so I guess that's a good thing in the end.