My last comment on the 2008 Presidential election.

I want everyone who reads this to understand something right up front: I am not being snarky or sarcastic. I know it can be hard to tell in blogs and emails whether or not someone means what they say. I want to assure everyone, I do mean this, I am not being facetious. I really would like my Christian friends to consider the following.

On October 22nd, Governor Sarah Palin said "God will do the right thing on election day." Indeed:

“And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

In response the renowned and popular minister James Dobson, with whom Governor Palin was speaking, said that he and his wife were praying for the right outcome as well. I am sure millions of faithful conservatives prayed all year, right up to the election, that God would do the "right thing" on election day. That's a lot of prayers going to God. Yet, at 8PM Pacific Time (when the West Coast polls closed) on the 4th of November, every major news network declared Barack Obama to be the President-Elect.

I honestly, honestly want my conservative friends to consider something. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the outcome God wanted.

I know President-Elect Barack Obama does not seem to have the exact Christian values espoused by a lot of more Conservative Christians, in particular regard to salvation exclusivity. Would this however be the first time God made someone who was not orthodox in their beliefs to do His work?

Pharaoh gave the Israelites sanctuary during famine at the behest of Joseph. He was obviously not a follower of the God of Abraham. God chose a man raised as an Egyptian to lead His people back to Canaan after successive Pharoahs enslaved the Hebrews. Nebuchadnezzar assisted Daniel and in some stories is the first human to proclaim the Christ. The Roman Empire's roads, language, and technology carried Christianity to the world when it should have been nothing more than a minor sectarian disagreement in the First Century. Saul was a man who actively persecuted the nascent church until he was quite literally knocked off his ass. Jerome, a monk who couldn't keep his hands off the Nuns, gave the Church the Latin translation of the Bible, which would be the Word of God until Vatican II. Thomas Jefferson, a man whose "Christian beliefs" were FAR more unorthodox* than Barack Obama's, rolled the Word of God secularly into our nation's birth with the phrase:

"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."

So why do we have to think that everyone who does God's work agrees with a specific orthodoxy? Isn't God far more able and capable than to be stymied by a presidential campaign? Isn't He perfectly capable of having someone be part of the plan, regardless of specifics?

So, I ask only for a moment's consideration, and perhaps a prayer tonight to ask the Lord His opinion: Governor Palin said God would do the right thing on the 4th. Maybe, just maybe she was absolutely correct.


So that's it, I am done with politics here for a while. Next post will probably be about how much I am starting to dislike the new Star Trek movie, while I am keeping a close eye on the new President since it's We the People's job as his employer. Hopefully this President remembers that far more than the outgoing administration.




*If you don't believe me about how unorthodox Jefferson was, check out his Bible Translation with a miracle-free Jesus...

Rights and Left

All over the Liberal Media (and when I say Liberal Media, I mean those who are self labeled as such, i.e. Air America Radio, etc), I see a flurry of accusations regarding the current administration's attacks on American Civil Liberties. From the suspension of Habeas Corpus, Warrant-less wire tapping, the Patriot Act allowing for search warrants to be issued by law enforcement agencies without a judge's signature provided it's under the auspices of national defense-- it would seem there may be plenty of reason to fear the intentions of the current administration. (For a timeline of alleged civil rights violations, check out this site . Check this site out. They also enumerate the violations of civil liberties by the administration.)

So what do you do? How do you keep these violations from expanding? The Democrats won Congress in 2006, but that hasn't really changed anything. Citizens have conducted protests all over the country, but it hasn't really changed anything. Courts have not been able to hold members of the administration accountable for anything, even as egregious as outing our own covert agents engaged in fighting the War on Terror.

At this time only the most crazed of talking heads are talking about subjects like martial law, or certain people refusing to leave office, but what about three or four administrations down the road? If there is another terror attack on U.S. Soil could a future administration take that step in an emergency, and then refuse to reinstate due process for our Republic when the crisis passed? Unfortunately, history is on the side of the Tyrants. Every Republic in history became an Empire; every Democracy in history fell to the rule of might over the rule of reason. If only the Founders could have had the foresight to provide a means to protect freedom from an overzealous administration so our children will be free to waste their time on TV and pizza too. Oh wait...

It's called the Second Amendment, and recently the Supreme Court upheld the fact it supports the individual's right to own a firearm. The Liberal pundits have not been pleased. Now, I am no lawyer, and far more intelligent people than me have interpreted the Second Amendment to mean things like the National Guard, hence the use of the term “well regulated militia” in its text. I have seen the arguments about how “you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer, or to protect your family from crime.” I even heard a Liberal commentator for whom I have great respect make the argument that the firearms protected by the Second Amendment would be firearms similar to those which existed in 1789.

Again, there are people far more versed in Constitutional law than I, however I don't understand why there is confusion over the intent of the Amendment. The Right to Bear Arms is not about hunting or stopping crime. The Right to Bear Arms is so the Citizenry can defend itself from tyrants. How can I come to this interpretation? It's called “context.” ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are to protect the citizenry from an overzealous Federal Government. You may remember (or maybe you don't) that there were two primary factions when the Constitution was written: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As a compromise between those who wanted a strong central government and those who feared it descending into tyranny, the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights. This is an enumerated list of rights the Federal Government could not screw with to ensure justice for generations to come as the Nation grew.

Should the Second Amendment be frozen in time? Does it apply only to the weapons that existed when the Bill was written? By that reckoning, the First Amendment could only apply to speech or religion which existed in 1789. The Internet would not be protected by the First Amendment. Gangster Rap would not be protected by the First Amendment. Comic books would not be protected by the First Amendment. Television or radio news commentary would not be protected by the First Amendment.

Arguing that the Second Amendment is outdated would mean the Administration is right-- the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, all of them are outdated and the Founders were too shortsighted to imagine the War on Terror. As Liberals argue the Second Amendment is outdated, they are giving tacit approval to the Administration's assertion that other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are outdated.

Now, I do think there is validity to the idea the Second Amendment calls for a State-run militia to regulate the armed citizenry. However, I cannot accept this as being the National Guard for one simple reason: The National Guard can be activated under Federal control. Indeed, I served with National Guard folks in Babylon, not exactly a force meant to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government (unless we are now saying the Bill of Rights extends to Babylonians too. If the Bill of Rights DOES extend to the Babylonians, then it certainly extends to those in Guantanamo Bay...).

So it comes back to my original confusion. Liberal pundits believe the administration is bordering on tyranny and bending the Bill of Rights to their own interpretation. Yet, it is a similar misinterpretation they wish to apply to the Second Amendment. Conservatives are just as bad when saying it's OK to take Habeas Corpus from certain citizens, but dear God don't touch my guns. We can't have it both ways. The Second Amendment is there to protect us from Tyranny- of course you try to resolve any issues in the system first. Of course voting and protest and the legal system are the primary weapons against tyranny. Of course we as a citizenry have the responsibility of acting like adults if we are going to keep our right to Bear Arms, and if you have violated the social contract by committing a crime, you forfeit the right to be part of the body politic. But when all else has failed, if a President some election decides two terms are not enough, and he is now President for Life. When the rights of the citizens are no longer considered and the infringement of those rights is the norm and not the horrid exception, the citizenry must be prepared to fight for their rights just as the Founders did with the right the Founders gave us for just such an occasion- the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms.

I don't think we are there, and I am most certainly not calling for armed revolution, but I applaud the Supreme Court decision, and ask my friends on the Left in this Country why they are complaining about THIS Constitutional Right being upheld when so many others are not. I ask my friends on Right to apply the same vehemence to protecting the other nine Amendments as they do the Second. It's what keeps us free, and keeps this Nation one worth defending if you love liberty, and attacking if you are a tyrant.

Dear Right and Left, the Constitution exists independent of your party politics, and objective to political wants. It is a marvelous document that history has not yet progressed beyond. Now, on this anniversary of our Nation's birth, I reprint the greatest gift one Generation ever gave succeeding Generations, The United States Bill of Rights. This is what I have sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those enemies include apathy, greed, and closed-mindedness. Right, Left, open your minds and look upon the self evident truths enumerated below granting We the People our Freedom. Amen.


The United States Bill of Rights.
The Ten Original Amendments to the Constitution of the United States Passed by Congress September 25,
1789 Ratified December 15, 1791

I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II
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.

III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re−examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Use them together, use them in peace (OK- that's actually from 2010:Odyssey Two, but you get the idea...) Happy Fourth.

Would you look at that...

Well, we went and did it. GW is back in for four more. The only good news here is we don't have to listen to John Kerry for a while. It will be interesting to see if this means we are looking at another four years of half-assed imperialism, if we're going to back off and play nice while cleaning up the mess of the first four years, or if we'll throw off the sheep's clothing and have four years of real imperialism. The American Empire isn't so bad an idea necessarily, but there's a few things we need. One, we'll need a much bigger Army- hell, we need a bigger Army just to maintain our current level of meddling. Two, we need to actually wipe out a few cities in the next country-that-will-become-an-American-province. The reason I still have Babylonian mortars and rockets falling on my head while I'm trying to sleep is because we didn't secure this country with an iron fist. If we're going to stick our nose (or tank barrel) in another country's rhubarb, we need to actually take over that country! Otherwise you're again looking at more post-victory deaths than war time ones.

Am I supporting the idea of America shoving our brand of pseudo-democracy up the world's collective rectum at every opportunity? No. But I wish the Powers That Be would understand that is what they are doing, and act accordingly. There are no friendly Empires- that way lies a fallen Republic.


So that brings up another issue. Here we've got this Government thing, and this time we actually had decent voter turn out. Guess what lads and lasses: it doesn't end there. Civic responsibility starts in the voting booth. From there are the petitions, e-mails, phone calls, and general bothersome contacts to make sure your elected representative knows what his or her boss (that's you, tiger) wants them to do. You see, a Republic like ours is a lot like a puppy. If you don't teach it what you want it to do it goes wild and ends up peeing on your rug. Of course, this puddle looks a lot like higher taxes and more Federal meddling into how you want to live your life. I beseech thee- once a year drop a letter to your congressional folks. Even if you like what they're doing, let them know you are paying attention. Remember, Tommy Jefferson wants us to have a government by us, for us, and of us. Let's keep it that way.