Kicking Broadswords

Surprise, Surprise

2005-03-21T06:01:00.000-08:00

Did you hear that the liberals are now the defenders of the 10th Ammendment? They'll do anything to murder Terri, even calling upon their (arguably) least favorite aspect of the Constitution. They don't care about the 10th Ammendment, which gives states all powers not given to the federal government. Here's my proof:
-Universal Healthcare
-National Firearms Act of 1934 and all other gun control laws
-Medicare/Medicaid
-Roe v. Wade
-Child Labor Laws
-the Civil War, which denied sovereign states the right to leave the Union
-Almost every law ever passed under the "interstate commerce" clause (i.e. Civil Rights Act of 1964)
I reiterate: They don't care about the 10th Ammendment. They only believe in it when it could cause a life to be "terminated".
I don't like the idea of the federal government getting involved but it is, unfortunately, necessary. The 14th Ammendment extends the Constitutional rights to the states as well, meaning that all rights guartanteed to citizens in dealing with the Federal government must also apply to them when dealing with the state governments.
Government serves only 2 functions: 1) punish evil-doers and 2) help protect its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic. The judge who ruled in this case and Terri's husband are enem ies and the government's job is to both punish those two and protect Terri.

The State of the Union

2005-03-18T20:58:00.000-08:00

There are times I hate America. I'll always love her potential, her Constitution, and much of her history but I hate what we've become. Roe v. Wade forced the government to allow murders to occur. Now we've gone a step further: the government is murdering a living, breathing human being. They're not even giving her a quick and painless death but are instead slowing torturing her to death. I spent 2 months in africa and visited refugee camps. I've seen what starvation does and it's a cruel, grusome death. Now in addition to gassing and burning civilians to death over a possible tax violation, shooting a mother while holding a young baby, and shooting a 14-year old boy while he was running away, we have to add starving a woman to death.
This is a sad day for America. I hope and pray that somehow, someway, Terri's life can be saved.

Faith and Reason

2005-03-07T10:30:00.000-08:00

It's an interesting discussion over at smallestminority.blogspot.com about evolution and creation. The discussion stemmed from an article which implies Christians are just close-minded idiots who are unable to think for themselves. In many ways, he is correct. Many, if not most, Christians don't think for themselves. We focus so much on feeling God and living a Godly life that we forget forget to "renew our minds". God desires humans to use their rational faculties. Reason is a wonderful gift of God that's only harmful when it presumes to be equal with God. Walking into many churches today one can see the "dumbing down" that's occuring. Instead of deep, insightful hymns there is rock music with repitious lyrics. Churches subscribe to advertising techniques and slogans instead of the ancient Creeds. Many churches are trying to overcome this engrained stupidity but it's too little too late.

Christians have been taught since grade school that religion and reason are entirely separate. Christian and science are seen as unable to coexist, despite that Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton were influenced by their religion to practice science. Wittenberg Seminary, under the direction of Martin Luther, studied the works of Copernicus. Luther didn't agree with the theory but thought it necessary to study both sides and to expand his mind. Christianity fostered a scientific environment that likely would not and could not have occured without it. Christianity presumes the 1) the universe is real, not imaginary like many eastern religions; 2) a belief in human reason that would make study possible; 3) that God is trustworthy and so won't trick us; 4) that God created nature but is not nature itself like the pantheists believe, which would make the study of nature be like raping God; 4)That the universe is orderly and able to be studied; 5)That creation is good, even very good; 5) that we are not God and therefore can't know everything- we can only study what God has already made. There are several others but this gives you a taste of why Christian nations led to science but not others. Islam had a short experience with science but this came to be viewed with hostility by most because it was presummed that humans shouldn't understand the workings of the universe. Isaac Newton believed the universe was rational and therefore synthesized the study of the earth with the study of the stars. Before his generation, the stars had seemed so different from the earth that they didn't see any connections. His theory of gravity wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't believed in intelligible universal laws, a very Christian concept.

I mentioned the dumbing down of Christianity but that's only half the story. Evolutionists as well are just as close-minded and unable to question as some Christians are. I've studied evolution in high school and college, taught from a pro-evolution perspective. Ad hominem attacks against Creationists are the norm. Intelligent Design is never discussed other than to say it's not science. Evolutionists believe that unless something has a naturalistic explanation it's not science. They throw away the whole theory without even looking at it. The view that naturalistic explanations are the only possible answers is very new- coming from Decartes and his "mechanistic" science. He thought that every movement had a mechanical explanation- even gravity itself was guided by some invisible mechanism. Darwin fiinalized the naturalistic view of science. The problem with it is that it assumes all evidence to the contrary is impossible. Looking at this from a religious standpoint, it would say the miracles of Jesus are impossible despite all evidence to the contrary. They never ask "what if" but rather call it impossible no matter what.
Even a religion professor at a school I went to said that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid. This is just as dogmatic and close-minded as the most fundamentalist of all preachers.

Christianity and Darwinism have both produced fruits. Christianity (in its true form) brought about science, gorgeous music and literature, human rights, and wonderful groups like WorldVision and Samaritan's Purse. The evil done by Christians is contrary to the religion itself. Darwin, on the other hand, brought Social Darwinism- still in existence today with the view that some humans are expendable (the very young and the very old), moral relativism, Marx, and Stalin (who became atheist after reading Darwin). These are all natural extensions of Darwinism. When I'm back from Idaho, I'll post part of a long essay I wrote on Social Darwinism and who it's a necessary albeit unpopular conclusion of evolution.

In conclusion, the worst aspect of this Creationist/Evolution split is the closing of minds- the inablility to think outside the box, whether that box is the rigid naturalism of Darwinism or the simplicity of modern churches.

Stupid blogspot (or me)

2005-03-04T13:07:00.000-08:00

I didn't even start my actual post and somehow it posted. What I intended to say is that I'm going to visit my parents out in a sane part of the country where people yield to pedestrians, carry openly, have gun racks in their trucks, talk to strangers, and want the government to leave them alone. I'm from the area of where Randy Weaver was shot. Even the liberals out there don't care much about banning guns.
I'm so tired of people here who want a nanny government and don't care at all about the Constitution. I'm a broken record in class, always asking where the president has the power to do whatever it is we're discussing since it's not in the Constitution. My textbook is atrocious (never read Paradoxes of the American Presidency or Considering the Bush Presidency). They say the Republican party is getting more and more conservative and that Bush catered to the far right. If he tried to do that, his political strategist needs to be fired. Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal is always right next to Nixon. The scandals of Clinton are never discussed other than Monica. FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln are the heroes while Reagan is a low-average overrated president.
I'm counting the hours til I'm in a land that has heard of the BATFE, Weaver, Waco, the Constitution, and that values freedom from an opressive government.

Going to visit home

2005-03-04T13:05:00.000-08:00

Poor Elian

2005-03-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Never forget the perfidy of our liberal/socialist media in their lapdog support of Fidel Castro,
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001420.html .
And they wonder why no sane person trusts them.

High School Years

2005-02-28T14:53:00.000-08:00

Reading smallestminority has got me thinking about my own high school years. In high school, I wanted to join the Peace Corps, conquer capitalism and replace it with a utopian communist society. I read the Communist Manifesto when I was 15 and believed in it with my whole heart. In economics class we had to write a paper about whether we would used progressive or flat taxes. I wrote two papers, one which followed the teacher's assignment and the other which denounced both as evil. People should pool their money and hence dissolve all private property and, eventually, money itself. On my way to visit Evergreen State College I read Ecotopia, a book my parents had read in the 1970's. You can guess it's basic theme.

The obvious question is: what changed me? The answer is very simple- I became a Christian, in particular a Lutheran. That taught me to believe in original sin. Man could never have a utopian society because man was not perfect. Marx is correct- religion is the opiate of the masses. I replaced my view in a perfect earth with a longing for a perfect heaven after I die, not before. I was also given a set of absolute morals and even though I disagreed with many, I had faith God knew what He was talking about. Suddenly, high taxes weren't a glorious thing but rather theft, which is forbidden. They take from one and give it to another who doesn't deserve him. In that instant, Robin Hood became nothing but a wretched thief.

If the world had no sin, I would immediately become a liberal again. If man could truly rise above his nature and make a perfect society, why fear government? Why not ban guns and raise taxes- eventually a perfect society would exist where all could live in harmony. Unfortunately, this is not the way of the world. The true world is much messier and ugly, filled with Pol Pots and petty tyrants.

Shocked! Shocked I tell you!

2005-02-25T16:25:00.000-08:00

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Mideast_Conflict

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

My theory is this - that neo-Judaism is based on the fact that Israelis are a 'chosen people', and everyone else is merely 'goy' or 'cattle'. You can lie to them, cheat them, steal from them, it doesn't matter, since they're not really people. They're just 'cattle'.

Islam states that a Muslim is better than a non-muslim, and that a muslim can lie to, cheat, steal etc, a 'dhimi', or, non-muslim. Non-muslims, you see, aren't really people, they're just dirt underfoot.

You can see how two groups of people with this kind of attitude, religiously inscribed, will not treat each other fairly or negotiate in good faith.

Add to that, I think, the recognizably monstrous failure that islamic fascism results in (such as in the PA, and in former Iraq) juxtaposed against the tremendous success that democratic capitilism results in, and someone's going to get a wee bit jealous.

Finally, the sheer hatred of sinful mankind toward a loving God, and the awful pain that results from the knowledge of God's wrath (the law, and believe me, Islam knows the law) without knowing His Redemption in Christ. All that muslims know is that God hates them, and that must drive them to utter desperation.

Ann Coulter is right. Democracy will not stabilize the Arab world. Only the Gospel can release them from their anger.

GO HERE

2005-02-24T10:25:00.000-08:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ex=1266901200&en=d9bc5fbe39eed505&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

And tell me there is no such thing as Original Sin.

Annals of Rome (and America)

2005-02-21T19:17:00.000-08:00

I recommend Annal of Rome by Tacitus to anyone seeking to understand modern America. The Roman Republic collapsed in large part because of three circumstances: they neglected morality; had a good balance of powers spread between three groups, the Senate, the Consuls, and the polity (people); and most of all desired liberty over security.
Where Rome had once valued morality and the absence of corruption, politicians could later be bought. Bribery had once been a capital crime in Rome. Boys had once been taught from early the importance of bravery and sacrifice and had heros to look up to. Those heros died out along with the morals of the people. Polybius had written in the golden age of Rome that their religion and therefore morals were their greatest strength.
To quote an old, disallusioned man writing in 109 A.D., "They preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past". Augustus gave the people what they wanted- cheap food and fun entertainment. As long as they had a hot meal and exciting, bloody sports, there was no risk of uprising. He gave the nobles wealth and the people food in exchange for obedience. I wrote in a previous post that this is the method the devil uses- he promises safety, power, or wealth if a person will obey him. Looking back at history, this seems to be the goal of so many people. We want safety but at what price? How far can a people go until they've become slaves?
With the Senate and Consuls being given wealth in exchange for going along with the emperor and the people kept out of the way and apathetic, the balance of power was eliminated.

Today in America, morals are considered personal choices and are not mandatory. No moral is better than another. Boys are drugged up and prevented from being boys and masculinity is either distorted into hypermasculinity by gang cultures or looked down on by teachers, often parents, many churches, and so forth. I worry about America and its fascination with Social Security and sports- with bread and circuses. Why is the government so interested in regulating sports? Why do more people watch the Superbowl than vote? The people have lost all power, as have the states, thus giving the Federal government far too much power, particularly in the judicial and executive branches.

We share so many characteristics with the declining Romans. History repeats itself time and time again for there is "nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). May we once again learn to relish freedom.

A New Companion

2005-02-20T18:02:00.000-08:00

Full Disclosure: I did not actually get my old Hi Power back, as I had drill that weekend and was not able to pick it up. A customer came in to that store on Saturday, the salesman called my wife and she said to sell it.

After all, we are looking it the thing as an exercise in Christian discipline; to not be so attached to objects. Still, I missed the poor unshootable thing terribly.

So, after much searching..

Everyone needs a carry pistol..

Welcome the new member of the household..

(OK, since Blogger won't allow me to upload a picture, go to www.czusa.com/01.detail.php?id=33). I hate blogger sometimes... as soon as I can set up my own page, I will.

A CZ 75 B SA in .40 S&W, which fits my hand like a glove, has a good caliber and a wonderful trigger ( I can see why Jeff Cooper has such good things to say about CZ pistols). It is lighter than a 1911, holds a bit more ammo, is easier to strip.

And it fits my hand so beautifully.
Perhaps I have a new companion. :)

Clarification

2005-02-16T20:40:00.000-08:00

Let me clarify my post on questioning boldly the statements/opinions of others..

Since it is right to question things of drastic, even cosmic import, such as the existence and nature of God (and it is right to do so), why then does our society state it is wrong to question the existence and nature of non-cosmic things? I do not mean to limit the question to any event, or to belittle history. The answers to one affect the universe, and all time. The answers to one don’t involve any eternal soul.

The question I have is not, as I had hoped to express, ‘did the holocaust (revolution, renaissance, reformation, name the event in history) happen the way some say it did, the question is, ‘why can one not question if the holocaust (etc, etc)?

One thing I fear is unquestioning acceptance of others ideas or views, and that society places such a boundary on them. TheKlutz rightly identifies this as nearly a ‘slippery slope’ - if we are not allowed to question one side’s version of events, are we even allowed freedom of thought at all? Surely it has been infringed, and if there is one such infringement, others will follow.

Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before...

2005-02-16T20:14:00.000-08:00

There’s a conservative fellow sitting in a coffee joint, reading a copy of Michelle Malkin’s book, Defense of Internment.

Along comes Mr. Loony Left, asks what the fellow is reading and jolts in shock..

"That horrible, wretched woman! She wrote that book to put all muslims in gas chambers! Eeek!"

"Well, Mr. Left, that is kind of why I’m reading this book. I want to see what she has to say, and how she argues her case. By the way, are you sure, really sure, that she wrote that she wants to gas all the muslims?"

"I know this because Professor Jones, a noted authority on the Middle East, insists that is what she truly means. Even if she did not write as much, such a desire is secretly hid in her breast".
"Mr. Left, how do you know what she wrote, as you did not read her book? And, if you did read it, and you think she is using all kinds of code words and such to convey her wishes, how do you know what is going on her hidden self? For we may only take documents at face value, and we cannot read the minds of others".

At this point, the conversation mercifully ceases, establishing only two things. A., that Mr. Left is a hateful, bigoted automaton, B, that Professor Jones is similar.

(OK, that may not be a verbatim transcription, but you get my gist - and he did say the part about muslims and gas chambers..and he described Mrs. Malkin in uncomplimentary terms...)

“Question Boldly Even the Very Existence of God”.

2005-02-14T15:51:00.000-08:00

Permit me, please, to digress a bit..
First, I want to thank RNS and others who broadcast our story about our local Republican class president (or something, whatever he is..). And I want to thank RNS very much for all their work over on the upper Left Coast, exposing loony lefties, and helping us citizens do things by ourselves, and for ourselves.

Second, I want to explain something..

“//When my husband would make me question the Holocaust's killing of 6 million//”

“From another post at that particular blog. I'm hoping it's not implying what it appears to be, but it does give me the creeps.”

Posted by: Dan at January 14, 2005 12:53 PM

A month ago, a reader made this comment in another forum, which made me think, and caused this thought to run through my head:

“Good”.

I don’t want to sound like a mean guy. I don’t want to scare anyone. However, in some way, I do like ‘giving the creeps’ to someone else. And not in some scary way, like jumping out from some bushes and yelling ‘Boo!’.

Well, have you ever been walking down the street, maybe a trail, and something ‘gives you the creeps’? It has to me. I’ve gotten ‘the creeps’, or, that ‘creepy feeling’. It makes my hair stand up. It makes me stop whatever I was doing, and pay attention – look, feel…It makes me ask myself, ‘what is going on’? It makes me aware. This ‘creepy’ feeling makes me pay attention to things in a way that I hitherto had not. Sometimes I pause, look around, listen, think…

Does it do the same for you? When you get a ‘creepy feeling’, do you stop, and pay attention, focus on trying to find what gave you that feeling? I know it does to me, and to my wife, and to a couple of people I’ve met in my life. In fact, I’m sure that you’ve experienced ‘the creeps’, and that they made you stop, and look, and listen, even in a frightened or exhilarated way, and smell, and think.

Which comes around to the title, a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson. When I say that it is good that I gave the creeps to Dan, I don’t mean I revel in my scaring of him. What I want is to make him think, to have that feeling you get when your hair stands up on end and makes you look around and attempt to ascertain, or, ask questions, what is going on?

Question Boldly!

The best compliment I ever get is ‘you made me think’. Whenever I show my essays to people, or speak up in class, inside, I hope for that compliment – ‘you made me think’. I hope that Dan is able to read this, and I hope, I truly hope, pray, that Dan acts on that creepy feeling to ask questions. To stop, pause, focus – what is giving me that feeling? Why that feeling? What is that feeling?

And I want to end this note with a question to many – if it is acceptable to question, boldly, even the very existence of God (and it is), why is it not acceptable to ask, ever so politely or demurely, about the extent and nature of the Holocaust?

American Slavery in 2005

2005-02-14T05:25:00.000-08:00

Someone once wrote that 90% of people have the mentality of a slave. I agree entirely but with one addition- we want the semblance of freedom. We want to light our fireworks on the 4th of July and wave our flags crying out "Freedom" but deep down, we fear and despise it. If Americans wanted true freedom, our politicians would honor their oaths to the Constitution. Social Security, income tax, Medicare, Medicaid, modern public education, gun control- all would be gone. What a slave mentality desires is a false sense of security.

Populism is not given due credit. Most assume it's dead but it's the system of choice for Republicans, Independents who vote for either party, and moderate Democrats. Populism preaches conservative social values but liberal economic ones. They'll vote against gay marriage and shout to save unborn babies (thankfully) but don't understand that giving such power to the government will open the door to even more death and tyrany. By focusing on the symptoms of a large government instead of the cause, the government stays powerful and stays safe.

In my talk with the president of College Republicans, I mentioned how gun control is the issue I'm most passionate about. He responded with confusion, wondering how such a trivial thing could be compared to issues like abortion. People don't understand that to be pro-life means far more than caring only about the unborn but also means providing an environment where life is valued and the people have the means to resist a dangerous gang/terrorist/government.

I mentioned that people want the semblance of freedom. Abortion protestors want to be able to protest abortion (which they should and if Christian MUST). We want the freedom to go to the grocery store and buy the food we want or complain about our taxes. This is not freedom but the status quo. So many freedoms have disappeared and not only do people not realize this but they prefer it. They prefer to have Big Brother care for them, feeding them lies from preschool on up about the wonders of modern society and the kind government which cares for them.
Imagine if Patrick Henry saw the FCC, the BATFE, the Patriot Act, taxation levels, gun control, public education, etc. He would be doing far more than merely smelling a rat.

Something about humanity makes us fear and abhor true freedom. That something is Sin. God offers the only true freedom a person can have- freedom from sin. Freedom from death itself but people reject Him over and over. We prefer to believe the Father of Lies, the Great Deceiver who promises us the world but delivers us to Hell instead. The promise of the Devil and of Big Bother varies greatly in degree but not in substance. They both promise safety in exchange for only one tiny thing, one bend in the knee- one act of obedience.

Terrifying Class Discussion

2005-02-10T11:22:00.000-08:00

My American Presidency class had just gotten out and a couple of us stood around discussing politics. The teacher (Democrat) asked if there was anything we agreed with about the Democratic Party and the president of the College Republicans brought up public education. I did my John Dewey socialist rant and when that didn't seem to work I brought up the Constitution. I asked him where in the Constitution the feds have the power to control education. He acknowledged that it didn't but remarked:

"I don't really believe in the Constitution"

Go John Gibson !

2005-02-08T21:48:00.000-08:00

Via the Geek with a .45, I see someone big sees a part of our conservative viewpoint.. :)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146461,00.html

Social Security

2005-02-07T06:12:00.000-08:00

Even Democrats unknowingly acknowledge the horrendous mess called Social Security is in. I was reading (against my better judgement) the Milkwaukee Journal Sentinel, long acknowledged to be among the most liberal in the nation. They said Bush had no definite plan on how to prevent the elderly of today from losing benefits if privitization works out. There's the problem- We are supposed to pay OUR OWN Social Security. Joe pays in $100 a month for all of his working career and then gets the money (plus interest) back when he retires. Joe is not supposed to get Mary's money that she paid in. Liberals admit that it doesn't work that way. The unfortunate thing is that they don't want it to work the way it was supposed to. They'd rather billionaire Bob pay tons into Social Security that he'll never get so lazy poor people can remain irresponsible.

Liberals don't really want poverty to end or they would have eliminated the welfare state long ago. Instead, they want people to remain dependent on the system. My husband and I aren't rich and could, if we were grossly irresponsible, easily become truly poor but we DON'T. We save money, invest monthly in retirement accounts and so forth. Every American could, through hard work, "make it". Instead, they go to public school and hear that they can't. They hear that they should depend on government, that Big Brother will help them. Of course, Big Brother wants something in return....
(you)

Ah, our schools...

2005-02-05T17:32:00.000-08:00

Found at the wonderful Mrs. Malkins...
http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2889805&nav=1PubVshc

I'll see you all later, and tell you about the new toys in our unit. :)

Rendering unto Caesar

2005-02-02T06:09:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately I have class so this will be short (so fortunately for anyone reading this).

My poli sci prof was talking about how good taxes are and how it's godly to pay them due to the old "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...." I'm certainly not going to dispute God's Word but I am in disagreement with the professor. I have no problem giving Caesar what is due but what if 1) Caesar breaks an oath (the Constitution)
2) What if he wants far more than is necessary and most of the money will be used unConstitutionally and immorally.

I was researching the tax rates of the Roman Empire during the time of Christ. The exhorbitant taxes rates of the day were far less than 10%- one percent head tax and a wealth tax for the community. Augustus, because of the complaints of the people, replaced the farming tax with a head tax. The farming tax had been a progressive taxation based on income and the people disliked it. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

People complained about taxes and Jesus told them to pay up. I believe the current system is no longer taxation but pure and simple robbery and coveting. The government covets your money because they covet control and power. High taxes are not Biblical and rather break two Commandments. The Small Catechism, which Lutherans accept as correct, tells people they MUST help their neighbors defend and protect their property. Theft, whether by the government or a stranger, is still theft.

Anecdotes and Data

2005-02-01T18:21:00.000-08:00

Anecdotes are not data. This is true. No one disputes this.

But, follow this…

Let us suppose that Private Joe has just been issued his shiny new M16A2, and Private Joe takes it to the range. It won’t work. It doesn’t feed. It doesn’t extract or eject or anything. He tries different lubricants. He tries different lots of ammo. He tries different magazines. The bloody thing just won’t work.

So Joe remembers this story, this solitary anecdote, and files it away in his memory. He even tells his friends.

Now let us suppose that Private Bob takes his M16 out to the woods. He cleans it, of course, immaculately, beforehand. It doesn’t work. It won’t work. He cusses, he lubes, he frets, he recleans. It is adamant in not loading, the bolt is stubborn in not moving. He remembers this experience of his.

I think by themselves, these stories, these experiences of Joe and Bob may mean nothing.

But they may mean something.

Many people ‘know’ that the M16 is unreliable at worst, finicky at best, precisely because of their experiences. The anecdotes of Bob, and Joe, and I, and many others accumulate into data. The one anecdote is merely one story.

But hundreds or thousands of anecdotes coalesce into data, they are collected as many different lights prism’d to one beam. Different refractions gathered into a bright truth that cannot be ignored. Alone, they may be worth nothing, together they tell us of how things are.

You see, one story of one M16 means that one man had one bad experience with one gun. Thousands upon thousands of stories of M16s means that it was not one man with one bad gun, it accumulates, it adds up to the belief, correct belief, based on experiential data, that the M16 has given many soldiers nightmares by it’s bad behaviour.

So when we say that ‘anecdotes are not data’, we are only mostly correct. We ignore the fact that they are references which can guide us to truth. When someone tells us that M16s are wonderfully reliable, we try this statement against our experiences, our memories, our anecdotes, to test its veracity. Anecdotes are data, for they are personal bits of data from personal experience.

We add them up to find fact.

free market=free politics?

2005-02-01T09:52:00.000-08:00

In my western civilization class we discussed whether or not a free market leads to a free political system and the professor declared that the two do not go hand in hand. I whole-heartedly disagree. He used China as an example. They have a free market but an unfree political system, according to him. The problem with that statement is that it ignores the "grey" shades.

When Mao attempted to completely take over agriculture, millions were killed and he was at the peak of his power. When some high-up people started to add elements of a free market, the famine went away and there was slightly more freedom until the Cultural Revolution, where the same cycle began anew. China is not free but it's not as bad as it was and that is in part because of the free market. When capitalism is followed, individual workers are more than easily-replacable slaves to the state. The average person becomes the means of economic survival. China HAS to let people run their own businesses because without them, China would collapse. That is a far cry from the days of Mao. China is no heaven but if I had to live under Mao or in the current regime, I would choose the modern times.

Free market systems create freedom because people are more than government property to be cared for by the state. When the state controls the economy, the state is supreme. When the PEOPLE control the economy, than the government must try and stay out of the economy for it to function. The government stays out and that creates freedom. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every other dictator the world has ever seen wants to control the people. A state-controlled economy will necessarily attempt to control the masses. To use a phrase my teacher says frequently- "It can be no other way".

North Korea- state-controlled economy and unfree
South Korea- free market and more free
Japan- free market and more free
Europe- mostly state-controlled and getting less free by the day
USA- mixed free market and state controlled (getting more controlled by the day) and more free than Europe (for how long.....)
Etc, Etc, Etc......

Finally!

2005-01-31T05:18:00.000-08:00

I finally have the time to blog. I started back to work last week and was there 6 days in a row (I normally only work 4 10 hr days). I'm a cook at a university and the beginning of the new semester is always busy. I'm also taking classes and am struck at how deep the liberal mindset is in the minds of even "conservative" college students and professors (I attend a "christian" university).
My history professor rants about Hitler being the "face of evil" and that Germany caused two world wars. We'll be spending 4 classes on the Holocaust and only one on all of Germany's history up until the Reformation. I fear to wonder what will happen if I mention I have doubts about the Holocaust. I want answers, not ad hominem attacks. One of our textbooks discusses a "holocaust denier" but spends more time mentioning the picture of Hitler on his desk than his arguments.
My Biblical class is fine- no complaints. My history class focuses on primary documents thankfully- so we'll be reading the Republic, not merely reading about it. There are some problems- we've had to watch a horrible movie Supersize Me. The point of watching the movie was to make us see how easy it is to select and manipulate facts while ignoring the other point of view, which was fine. The problem was that the students agreed with the movie. They agree that McDonalds is to blame for obesity- not the poor choices of consumers. They gave me blank stares when I mentioned supply and demand. The average student in a university, whether they graduated from a private or public school, has a Marxist mindset- a deterministic view of the world coupled with a disregard for personal responsibility. Most wanted the government to step in and fix the problem.
My final class should be interesting. I hope to make people think. The subject is the American presidency and the teacher is the one of the only democrats on the staff. The president of college republicans is in the class. Students think they're so different from the professor but they only vary in degree and honesty. The prof will admit he wants big government. The students will say they love small government but have no idea what that means. We rated Bush and he got an A from the Republican pres but this man also says he loves Reagan. Bush stands for MORE government while Reagan stood for less. He wasn't perfect but he was sure better than Bush. Too many republicans vote for party members but not for traditional party values. One of the class members doesn't think Ahnold is a RINO!
Mention eliminating Social Security, making full-autos easier to buy, eliminating the FAA (or drastically reducing it), burning the Patriot Act, not funding the NEA, federal art programs, Pell grants, and most other government programs and see the looks you'll get.
John Dewey got what he wanted when he changed public education- he got a flock of socialist sheep, ready and willing to head the call of "big government".

Little to no blogging...

2005-01-27T20:49:00.000-08:00

As blogger keeps dumping my essays..

The Iraq conundrum

2005-01-24T17:48:00.000-08:00

Grrr....
I wrote out this blog earlier but then the stupid computer quit working and deleted my post. Here's try number two.

The War of Terror has two likely outcomes and one fantasy ending (meaning it'll never happen).

1)The first possibility is that Americans keep fighting in Iraq and then possibly move on the other countries in an attempt to force Western democracy on people. Many will be very grateful but not most. Most will in fact resent us. Iran didn't become a fundamentalist regime until AFTER American business and aid had pulled the country out of dire poverty. People can't rise up until they have the means and motive to do so. The motive is simple: Islam. We are infidels to them and deserve to die. Allah commands that they slaughter infidels. There are some verses that sound nice but far too many that make it apparent that Islam is not a religion of peace. In this scenario more Americans are killed, although fortunately most of the fighting will be over there, not in America. However, Bush's dream of ending tyranny will not happen.

2) In four years American's will prove once again how cowardly our culture has become and will elect a man weak in foreign policy who's main message is that maybe (hopefully) they won't attack us if we just bend over backwards and give them what they want. Iran wants nuclear material? No problem- we don't want to offend anyone. When they realize they can kill Americans without fear of retribution they will. Civil liberties will be thrown out. Remember, it was Lincoln who suspended the Constitution and he was not particularly conservative. The uproar by liberals is very dishonest as they like civil liberties about as much as Feinstein likes guns in the hands of "commoners"

3) This final "possibility" is my dream scenario because Americans wouldn't try and do the impossible (a world free of tyranny) but won't look like cowards. Just like Switzerland, America would issue good rifles and provide military training (once a month or so) to every male of suitable age in the country. States, not the federal government, would run this. If Muslims did try to do something stupid they'd have half the American population to deal with (and more if women decided to learn at least rudimentary marksmenship). Muslim can then live in their own squalor and self-destruct and all those who would have been grateful to America for liberation can come right on over. Kick all those illegals out who don't want to be americans but rather desire to be rich mexicans. Any who wish to come to America and be Americans would be welcomed.

There may be another solution but I don't see it. Possibly establishing some sort of relative democracy (or at least not a violently anti-American government) in Iraq but not expecting too much might help but wouldn't be nearly as effecting.

To cut and run now would make us look like cowards and would make us more supseptible to attacks. To stay and try to bring about world freedom will backfire and make them resent us and thus try to kill the soldiers (and civilians if they can). Hence

A new toy :) :)

2005-01-22T16:52:00.000-08:00

Some weeks ago I ordered a Hawken flintlock rifle kit from Cabelas. Over the past two weeks I have been rust browning the barrel. Last night, I did the final finishing and put it together.

I need to figure this picture thing, as I think the new flintlock looks like the real thing from a gunsmith back in the day - unstained wood, oiled stock and browned barrel. :)

The sights are modern, but they'll stay until I have the money and inclination to change that. :)

So, a crappy week at work, but, fun with a great wife and a gun at home.

And to all a good night.

"I didn't buy a gun-really I didn't"

2005-01-22T09:53:00.000-08:00

I have a husband who's obsessed with guns and there's one sentence I've learned to dread. "Honey, I didn't buy a gun. Really, I didn't". Yeah, right. When he says that, I'm already running through his wish list of guns figuring out which one he bought- the K31, the enfield, the 10-22......My brother was trying to keep a secret from my dad once and told him he could guess what his present was but he couldn't guess a saw. Guess what the present was. Kids do the same thing when they do something wrong. "Mommy, I didn't do hit my sister". Two seconds later, the sister comes in crying.

When I read smallestminority's blog about the new anti-racist math, I couldn't help but compare it with my husband's dreaded sentence. They're telling these kids over and over "there's no difference, all are equal, we're the same, racism is bad, racism is horrible". Why do you have to repeat something over and over again unless you don't believe it? I went to a school in North Idaho that was rather old-fashioned- we learned reading and writing and were spared most of the politically correct garbage. It was a mostly white school but there were a few hispanics and blacks. I never heard them called a racist name- short of the word "nigger" (learned from T.V.) I didn't know a single racial slur. It wasn't until I went to a politically correct college in southern california that I learned what a "spic" was.

My husband told me about a kid named 'elliot' he knew growing up who was black. No one thougth anything of him- he was just one of them. No big deal until there was an assembly about blacks at his school and elliot was pointed out. From that day on, he was never treated the same.

People often ignore differences until they're pointed out. The world is suddenly "us" vs. "them". Cramming anti-racism down kids throats won't do anything except make them wonder why it's being crammed down their throats. These are the same kids who go home and say "mommy, I didn't hit my sister". Could it be that the school has to continually tell them blacks are equal because deep down the school believes they're not?

One thing that strikes me about liberals is how incredibly racist they are. They're patronizing towards blacks and assume they can't make it without help from whites. Blacks are the "white man's burden". which is why they rush to give more welfare to blacks. Conservatives realize that blacks and whites are equal and trust that a black man or woman can get ahead through hard work. Christianity itself is the greatest anti-racist force- God died for ALL people, for all the sins of the world whether done by blacks or whites.

Evolution and the Constitution

2005-01-20T19:23:00.000-08:00

I'm in the middle of writing a research paper for my class about Social Darwinism and how it's not such an absurd idea to an evolutionist- the only reason he doesn't accept that facet of Darwinism is because he doesn't like the consequences. In my research I discovered a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a justice of the Supreme Court. He writes that the justification for any law is "not that it represents an eternal principle," such as justice for example, "but that it helps bring about a social end which we desire".

When reading the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade one will find an interesting statement that says abortion must be considered in relation to "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial" issues.

Funny me- I thought the Constitution wasn't malleable. I thought it was the supreme law of the land, not subject to the whims of personal opinion.

Stop me if you've heard this one before..

2005-01-20T18:43:00.000-08:00

Supervisor Smith invites Worker Wilson into the office. Supervisor asks that hated question,

"Worker Wilson, do you like your job here at Acme Widget Co?"

Worker gives the expected answer of

"Why, yes, sir. I love my job selling widgets. I love the interaction with all kinds of people and the challenges I can overcome. I look forward to my work day. In fact, were I to be offered a million dollars, my own caribbean island and a thousand young nubile concubines, I would not even consider leaving my job here at Acme Widget.'

Worker thinks in his head

"Oh, Lord, NOOO!!! Why do you have to ask such a stupid question?! I wake up every morning in dread fear of the work day, I go to bed at night wondering what awful sh*t is waiting for me the next day. I work with and for lying jackasses. We're always told to do the impossible for the ungrateful and have to pull success out my rear end. If food, rent and web were free I'd quit yesterday! I hate my job with a consuming passion! AAARRGGHH!!'

What a week. Thank God it is nearly over, and Sabbath rest shall soon be upon us. In a couple months, hopefully, I'll be able to relate the story.

God be with us, even those of us at Acme Widget.

God help us

2005-01-18T11:22:00.000-08:00

http://www.nealknox.com/

God has called Neal Knox home, our most stalwart defender of our first freedom.

Please join me in making a salutary and thankful gift to the Firearms Coalition Neal Knox Memorial Fund.

May God raise another in his place.

Quid custodit ipsos custodes

2005-01-17T20:47:00.000-08:00

"Who shall guard the guardians?"

First, please read http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul03/158933.asp and http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2004/September_04/09232004_02.asp .

One paragraph from the second article runs as follows;
"Earlier investigations revealed that Klobukowski had no training in the use of the Survivair Quick2000 Escape Hood Respirator, which is designed to filter potentially contaminated air in the event of a nuclear, chemical or a biological attack. He put the hood over Sheridan’s head after the 20-year-old, according to police reports, became belligerent after being taken into custody."

The first question one may ask, what on earth is this mask supposed to do as a restraining device? Second, what was this dip of an officer thinking when he used this mask? If you don't know how to use a gun, find out how before you do something really bad, like killing someone. The same with driving a car, or cutting with a tablesaw. The officer, I think, must have known that the mask somehow inhibits or restrains by restricting the airflow. After all, it's a mask, and Klobukowski used it as a restraining device.

Personally, either Klobukowski is shockingly, unbelievably, stupifyingly 'cannot breathe and walk at the same time', 'just plain dumb' stupid beyond our wildest dreams,
Or,
He's lying.

An internet commentor writes this;
"If I advanced the idea that, oh, let's say, Enron, should conduct their own investigation, I would be considered retarded. Why then do police do their own internal investigations? It's a situation with an obvious propensity for corruption--and corrupt it is. Without the risk of real punishment for abuse of authority, the police have become almost unimpeachable. "

My thanks to contrarianistic for this note, as it sums up what I've been thinking. If the officer who killed this kid, and the one above him who did the drunken hit and run, go unpunished, what does this tell us about our 'guardians'? What does this say about us who do not insist on defrocking those who are obviously too stupid or too criminal to wield the authority of the State? May I remind the blogosphere that Lon Horiuchi, the murderer of Vickie Weaver, is still drawing a hefty Federal paycheck? Are we in control of the policemen, or, are they in charge of us? Why do the defenders of such incometence and vility always say, 'well, look at it from the policeman's perspective, and you will understand'. It seems the reverse is never true to these defenders: look at it not from the point of view of the State but from the citizens? Who is in charge in a Republic? The State or the Citizen?

We all have 'bad cop' stories, and there is often more than one side to them. I think Rodney King was a criminal and got himself in trouble. I also think the cops may have gone too far. I oft think the cops go way, way too far. And we trust them to police themselves? Ever notice they always get off? Two months of paid vacation is not punishment, it's a reward. And Lon Horiuchi was never even wrist-slapped for his repeated perjury, murder and attempted murder.

We Christians talk of accountability. Accountability is a good thing.

Martin Luther wrote that Christians do not need policemen, as we are willing to shoulder responsibility ourselves, and serve and protect others. He did write also that the police need Christians, as the Ten Commandments are more necessary for those in authority than others. Constabularies need Christian ethics. Or they are no constabularies, but public mafias.

Which brings me to a question that I need answered. St. Paul wrote, famously, that evildoers must fear the civil government, and that the civil authority does not bear the sword in vain. What about when good men must fear the civil government, for it propegates and protects evildoers? What about when the civil authority does bear the sword in vain, not to protect order but to protect itself? When it serves not the law, not society, but it's own, greedy, power-hungry self?

My one quibble with all that Luther wrote was that I think he placed too much faith in the civil authority. I don't think he understood that the guardians need to be guarded.

Lessons Learned

2005-01-16T17:37:00.000-08:00

First, I learned that it is brutally cold out there - -12F. :( Brr brrrrr brrrr

And second, if I had any affection for the M16 before, it's gone now. All weekend, from Friday afternoon till Saturday night, they simply would not work. We used CLP, LAW and LSA, and nothing made them work. The bolts wouldn't go back, they'd lock back, they'd go forward partway. I carried a SAW all weekend and it never, ever malfunctioned despite the bitter cold, rough use and lack of care. The poor riflemen were cleaning and lubing at every chance, and the darn 16s still wouldnt work. I would far rather hump miles and run across a field at high ready with a SAW that works than any M16 clone that doesn't.

If there are any fans of the finicky M16, and I'm sure their are, just note that in my 13 years, they have given me and everyone I know nothing but trouble. There is a reason I jump on the SAW or M14 given the slightest chance.

M16s are nothing but garbage. And I hate them more now than ever.

Unsurprising bad news

2005-01-14T19:52:00.000-08:00

A report I read today by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America should have angered me more than it did. Instead, I'm almost numb. They've been debating for years how to deal with gay pastor and same-sex couples. They formed a committee which gave its report on the 13th. They've decided to take the worst course possible- to do nothing. They will "agree to disagree" and keep their old standards but not necessarily disipline people should they choose to break those rules. They've decided that the Word of God is second to the appeasement of men.

I have several problems with their approach besides the fact that it goes against God's Law. For one, they're blinding themselves to the fact that they ALREADY HAVE ordained pastors that are openly gay. See, ELCA has pulpit exchanges with the United Church of Christ. A pastor from that church is free to preach in an ELCA church and vice versa. We have to make a public testimony of our faith and they are telling the world that homosexuality is fine and not a problem.

Where leftists often go wrong is in assigning malicious motives to Christian's seemingly harsh laws. I don't have a blind rage against gays and I'm not trying to be mean- I'm trying to be loving. I want them to turn from their ways but they will not turn unless they know it's wrong. ELCA is showing by their actions that they care more about not hurting someone's feelings then where they'll spend eternity. That's not loving- that is the cruelest thing a person could do. Imagine a mother who didn't stop her child from touching a hot iron or crossing the street without looking. This is why the Lutheran church historically focused on Law and Gospel- to bring people down to the point where they see they have no hope save one- Christ. The Gospel would not be sweet without a knowledge of sin.

ELCA is trying to do nothing, to just avoid the issue but they have made their stand. Those who stand for nothing necessarily stand for something- and not necessarily something good. "Better hot or cold than lukewarm". I hope and pray ELCA will turn from their ways but I'm not holding my breath- the line has been drawn.

gone but not forgotten

2005-01-13T16:02:00.000-08:00

There shall be no blogging for a few days from me, I'll be out of town 'on business'.

God's Peace and mercy to all.

treachery

2005-01-11T20:16:00.000-08:00

Boring anecdote time.

When I was in the Army, close to getting out, I bought a used, battered, beaten Inglis Mark I* hi-power in 9m/m. All my friends, big 1911 fans, taunted me about this. I shot the heck out of that already well-worn pistol. I like the way it felt, though the sights were tiny, the manual safety hard to use and barrel nearly a smoothbore, the blueing quite gone, and rust spots in places.

After I got out of the Army, I worked in a gas station for a bit (only a few months), the boss allowed me to carry, so I carried the only pistol I had (One of two guns, the other an ancient Lee Enfield). It was a comforting presence on my hip, under my shirt or coat.

One night, after closing (somewhere around 2 or 3 a.m.) a group of teens gathered outside the door and began hollering, and banging on the door, cursing, etc. I told them we were closed, they said they wanted alcohol. I told them I would call the police, they said they 'were not afraid no man'. I told them, again, I would call the police, and as I told them a second time, I reached around my hip and exposed the gun, putting my hand on it. It was still holstered, they were still outside. Their eyes bugged out of their heads. I wish I could show a picture, and I wish there was a stopwatch faste enough to record how fast they bugged out of the area.

I don't remember all the details of that night. How many of them. How long they pounded on the door. All that they said. I remember being very concerned. Not scared. And I remember the feeling of the grip of the Hi Power in my hand, and the wave of comfort, near serenity, that came over me, knowing. Just knowing. I don't remember all the rest of that night, or where my other hand was, what clothes I was wearing, exactly. I remember that feeling.

I carried that battered, rusted, reblued, resighted, rebarreled, retriggered, respringed thing until the gunsmith told me that the guide rails were going (they were getting rounded, he showed me). That gun rattled like heck when you shook it, even if you picked it up gently, it'd rattle.

I don't know how much I've shot the poor gun, tens of thousands, at least. It never did like hollowpoints, so I carried FMJs in it.

I took that gun to be consigned today, as I'm trying to afford a carry piece besides my battered old cz, such as a Glock.

I feel like I've turned traitor to an old and loyal friend.

I've spent a few hours crying.

God willing, I'm going to the gun shop tomorrow at noon and taking it back.

I might not shoot it much anymore, but it's been loyal and kind to me. The least I can do is to be loyal back. They'll charge a fee. I'll gladly pay it, to have my friend back.

anger, and a reader :)

2005-01-11T20:02:00.000-08:00

Anger is a pet sin of mine. So is lust, but I think I get taken over by anger more often, and more passionately.

Recently, a pre-seminary student and coworker of mine lied on his time sheet, writing down that he had been working such and such an activity, for so and so long. When I asked him about it, he shrugged it off as if laziness, dishonesty and theft from an employer were no big deal.

I exploded at him. I still haven't forgiven him, nor has he asked for forgiveness. We are still marginally cordial, but a deep friendship is out.

When I sin, as I do often, too often I know I am sinning. I make no bones to say that lust is no sin. It is. I get very angry at unrepentant sin. Perhaps, too angry.

In my honorable and noble profession, I have much time to think about chaos, the breakdown of the world, the inexorable disordering of creation wrought by our sin, and I often feel a near-helpless rage at the evil in the world. How helpless we are to stop the effect of sin. Sin gave us life-destroying waves, life-taking murderers. How creation must groan under this awful weight.

.. On the other hand, I am more pleased than I can record that not only are there those who are reading this, but that I am not alone in my sentiments. I felt great anger when I posted at another sight and was repeatedly insulted by those who completely missed the point. That anger is abated now that I know that there are those who understand. You see, I am not a complete fool after all, or, at least, there are other fools like me.

So, my gracious thanks to a reader nicknamed after a fine, fine rifle, and a linker named after a fine, fine pistol.

Should no one here have read www.winceandnod.blogspot.com, please do so.

Thank you, and God's gracious Peace.

An excuse for the angry rant

2005-01-10T13:04:00.000-08:00

Please excuse the rant- we all get angry and sometimes we go too far.
Try to go beyond the rude and angry attitude and get to the heart of the post. Many of us fear for the future of this country and there is good cause for concern. May God, our Helper and Redeemer, help us make our country the land it was meant to be and if that's not His will, may He teach us patience as we eagerly anticipate His return.

Self-sabatoging gunowners

2005-01-10T05:27:00.000-08:00

I've recently become aware of the incredible ability people have to live in a dream world and ignore all evidence to the contrary. This lack of knowledge can lead to destruction, as it likely will in the case of gun owners. We don't want to be believe our cops are evil, our government tyrannous, and that Jefferson might have meant his statement about spilling the blood of patriots to be followed. We like our dream world. As long as we can have our government's permission to buy and carry guns and can keep our "assault" weapons (oh- wait we gave those up for 10 years), we will never have true tyranny. Every gun you buy from the store IS registered- stores have to keep the paperwork. Those instant background checks ARE invasions on your privacy (and faulty at that).

The controversy regarding FishOrMan is the same issue. We don't want that level of tyranny in our government- we don't want to know what government agents get away with. So we come up with excuses. The du Toits were once very much pro-FishOrMan. Maybe they didn't like where that would lead. They are big fans of saying we don't have a tyranny (yet)- no where close. The case of Jason would have been one more little hole in their argument. You would have thought Waco and Weaver but also have blown some holes in the theory but there's an excuse for those as well- they brought it on themselves! They should have surrendered...wait- Waco people TRIED to surrender. They wanted a guarantee they could go to hotel, not prison. The Feds wouldn't go for that. Some tried to surrender in the final stand. Many of those were shot running out of the burning building. Vicki got shot while carrying her baby. A BABY.

We don't have the gulags or re-education camps. Tyranny doesn't require those- it requires simply "oppressive power". By the time the gulags come, it will have been MUCH too late to do a thing about it. We all talk about fighting back if they take our guns.....don't you think that might be a little too late? (For all government pricks out there- here's my disclaimer- I am not writing to incite imminent and immediate violence- only in my dreams would I be that brave).

Here's my prediction- the government will keep gaining more and more power and will have ultimate control over our lives, controlling education, healthcare, and so on but don't worry- we'll get to keep our assault weapons- they'll know we're too cowardly to use them.

Should vs. Force

2005-01-09T16:22:00.000-08:00

The American government will send, as we've all heard, $350 million (plus ships and personnel) to aid the Tsunami victims. It's hard to see anything wrong with this because it sounds like a "nice idea". However, the cliche "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from somewhere.

There are many things a person should do. We should help our neighbors and be a good samaritan. To not do so would be evil. However, there is a greater evil- the evil of forcing people to do good. When money is not given freely but rather doled out in our name, the government is forcing citizens to be "good". They are taking YOUR money. This is not the government's money- this is YOURS. My husband and I donated and were glad to. Tens of millions of others have done so as well because we are as a country caring and willing to help. That type of giving is the kind that's needed- the kind done from the heart.

Pres. Bush has good intentions but he is pursuing a dangerous and evil path. Whenever a government resorts to compulsion (and make no doubt- using your money without asking IS compulsion), a very slippery slope has been formed. What if the federal government wants to use your money to give everyone health insurance? New "multi-cultural" curriculums? More law enforcers to get rid of evil guns? All done in our name for the betterment of society...and all destroying our country even more.

We face a problem in America- the betrayal of our federalist roots. Originally, this country emphasized STATE'S RIGHTS. This meant a state could do what they wished; they weren't even bound to follow the Bill of Rights. Each state could operate the way the people wished. State X (blue) wants government healthcare, welfare, environmental rights, etc. State Y does not. Both sides would get their wish. Federalism would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives because the Civil War would not have had to be fought. Don't like the idea of slaves? It was dying out anyway. Don't want to wait that long? Have rich abolitionists and states pay for the slave's freedom. Slavery ended, union perserved, no lives lost, and a government our Founders would be proud of.

The Civil Rights Act forced Southerners to follow Yankee expectations of what's right. Is it really right to force another to serve a certain person in a restaurant or sell them a house? Is that a "good idea" or an example of the government overstepping its bounds? Look where the basic idea has led- people afraid to criticize homosexuality, afraid to stick up for their faith, an army which will toss out all officers that don't tow the P.C. line. Ending segregation sounded like such a wonderful idea but it has led to the government thinking it's their job to force others to be "good". Here's where the democrats have it wrong- republicans don't want to force others to follow their standards of subjective morality- democrats do.

I love the truth, despite its ugliness. As a Christian, I prefer to know when someone hates me for my religion. I hate the false airs people put on. When government forces people to act a certain way, the truth will never get out and the foundations upon which our country was founded are destroyed.

And personally

2005-01-08T18:14:00.000-08:00

Yesterday was the big, important meeting. And all went well, I now have a complete reccomendation by all to go on for the Doctorate.
God's will be done, and we thank Him for it.

First, bash the preachers

2005-01-08T17:46:00.000-08:00

Yay, I've been linked. :) :) And as soon as I figure out the linking thing, I'll put up a bunch of my own. :)
As I've been thinking about all the positive (a few) and negative (a whole bunch) experiences I' ve had with cops, I've also been thinking about it's corollary.
There are many people who seem to think that the uniform makes the man, or, in other words, that because a person is a policeman, that alone makes them worthy of deference. As if the vocation, or profession, makes the person 'holy'. This is an argument we Lutherans have long held against other sects. For instance, the Roman church believes that because a person is frocked, or belongs to an order, that this makes a person 'holy'. That some vocations are more holy than others.
See, wrapped up in the 'asshole' debate, and noted by 'addison', is the belief that some vocations are more holy than others. We Lutherans believe that the profession is not what makes a person above reproach, it is the level of our sanctification, or the state of our regeneration before God.
When we go to a church, we don't automatically confess all our sins and misdeeds to a pastor. We get to know the pastor first. Because we don't know whether he is trustworthy man of God, in the pains of second birth. Or, if he is a satanic jackass. The truth of this world is that their are many ordained people who are satanic jackasses, even the President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
And just because of the uniform of a pastor he is wearing, this does not mean he is a pastor. After 9/11, our secular President Bush was far more Biblical and Pastoral than most 'pastors'!!! Many people I've met in my theology and pastoral college courses were as pastoral as the Father of Lies himself. -This, by the way, ticks me off and got me in more trouble than my reaction to the hypocrites like the du Toits and many of their readers. For Christians of principle cannot be forgiven short of repentance for openly and defyingly disobeying the Two Tables. Those who do not know the law and do not live by principle can more easily tolerated when they vacillate, struggling to decide upon one morality or the other. Those who do know the law and deliberately violate it, even to the point of saying that stealing is right, are much worse off. One does not know of a moral paradigm to abide by. The other does.
So, the 'germinating essay' will have things such as to have us stop looking at things solely from the side of one we assume to be right. Pastors should be held to higher standards (as should cops) because of Who they represent.
In this, there is also a thought about about the civil government and it's role and the role of the agents of the civil government.

Quiet Night

2005-01-07T23:13:00.000-08:00

As this is a nice, quiet night, the klutz is curled up a ball and reading Harry Potter. I've been working on wood. I have put several coats of Tru-Oil on a walking stick/staff for her, as well as the refinishing of a K-31 Schmidt-Rubin and a Hawken .54 kit. All of this promises to turn out very well indeed.
I'm germinating a 'hate the cops' essay in my head, not too far unlike my 'long comment' below. I am reviewing so many experiences from friends, family, myself, that are leading to something.
Another blogger wrote that "the plural of anecdotes is not data". This is only mostly true, for if enough people state 'I saw birds flying south for the winter' the accumulation of anecdotes can lead to general conclusions, such as 'There are birds who fly south for the winter', which is a fact, a piece of data.
I guess the idea that I am opposed to that many others support is this 'All policemen everywhere are at all times perfect human beings, and for this reason they may be trusted to be our overseers, and we are at all times to held in abeisance to them'. I also do not believe that simply because a man wears a clerical collar, that he is perfect. This outer piece of cloth, or the uniform he is wearing, does not confer holiness to the man.
To all the world, good night.
Especially to www.publicola.mu.nu and www.contrarianistic.blogspot.com .

Not Shooting

2005-01-07T20:29:00.000-08:00

We're not going to the range for the next couple weeks - Not only am I working, but it is darn cold out there, and, well, I'm a pansy.
However, in February, we should be making noise and punching holes again. :)
Let us know if you live around Milwaukee and want to come along.
Smelly

Worldviews and pre-conceived notions

2005-01-06T20:51:00.000-08:00

Each and every person carries with him a worldview, a filter by which they discern truth from falsehood. The filters act very well. I've learned that when people say they have an open mind, thus no filter, there are generally two worldviews they themselves possess. Either they believe in nothing (if your mind is truly open, all information would flood in and then promptly leave) or, as is the general case, the open minded will be open minded to everything....except every opinion they disagree with. The trick is figuring out a balance of the two, meaning one would be open enough to be able to question his previous beliefs but still believe in something and know how to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Along with this framework comes "preconceived notions". Question those and people can easily become rude, nasty, and even violent. See some of the responses to my husband's comment on kim du toit. They don't refute his claims- they either think it's a rambling mess (a very small percentage of those who have heard his ideas) or denigrate his writing ability (one of his greatest talents) and grammar, despite that other posts also have errors in grammar and that has nothing to do with the ideas expressed in the essay. In other words, they either CAN'T see it- their filter is too strong and won't let them or they will do everything possible to question his credibility without actually having to think about the ideas he expressed. It's much easier to attack someone's spelling then a view you see as wrong but can't prove why. People see what they want to see. The reason the outcome of the Waco and Randy Weaver shootings/burning didn't produce more outrage than they did is that people didn't WANT to see their government as tyranous and so they didn't. They instead blamed the victims themselves. There are two types of "conservatives"- those that essentially wish to maintain the status quo and those that realize the very status quo that is so comforting is the problem.

Over the course of 4 years I've changed from a gun-fearing, Marxist, non-Christian poorly educated youth to the opposite (I'm still working on the education part, but I'm learning). When my husband would make me question the Holocaust's killing of 6 million or showed me the Southern perspective on the Civil War, I would lash out in anger. There were times I would break down into tears at having my world fall apart- my views of God, science, history, and more. "Things fall apart; the center does not hold". Everything I "knew" was true and wouldn't even have thought to question were squashed.

To live without challenging yourself and your views would be an easy life but also a cowardly one. The devil is the Father of Lies and I for one want the Truth. I may have lost my former foundation built on sand, but I gained a far deeper one- my life is built on the solid Rock of Christ and I will strive (and frequently fail and always be forgiven) to mold my worldview to be more like the Creator's. We are made in his image, after all.

Someone agrees with us :)

2005-01-06T18:33:00.000-08:00

"Gun Owners As Ambassadors Or Assholes?"
publicola.mu.nu/archives/062058.php

The Epiphany of Our Lord

2005-01-06T17:51:00.000-08:00

On this high feast day we celebrate the giving of the frankincense, myrrh and gold to the Christchild. In this house, this is when we give gifts to each other. On Christmas Day, God gave us the single most important gift in the history of man. On Epiphany, men gave gifts to a fellow human. It is with this knowledge and this habit that helps keep Christmas centered (in our little corner of the world) on Christ and the Gift our Father gives.
May His Word dwell among us richly and brightly. Joyous Epiphany to all.

Long Comment

2005-01-05T21:39:00.000-08:00

First, go read "Policing Our Own", http://www.mrsdutoit.com/ee/index.php?/C47/.
When I was in college I worked at the security office, "Campus Safety" it was called. It really involved nothing more than locking doors at night. However, we did have cameras installed just about everywhere. At the end of the semester, there was a "Minority Dance" at the gym. At this dance, local hoodlums augmented the college ones and one door was broken, two tables, at least one window, and a whole bunch of fights broke out. The alcohol freely and rather openly flowed. The Campus Safety line was ringing off the hook and we spent the whole night in nervousness (‘hmm, fifty of them, two of us.. Hmm’) at the gym.
The head of our shift is a former cop, I’m given to understand, and so is the head of the security office. The priority of the school is to look good, as is the priority of most people, places and things. Part of looking good is saying how safe and clean and secure your neighborhood, city, campus... etc, etc... is.
At the end of that nervous, vandal-ridden night, not a thing was written up. The ex-cop said he was not going to write anything, because his chain of command didn’t want to hear about bad things like fighting, gun-waving, alcoholism, vandalism, you name it. The ex-cops gave the university the "safe" atmosphere it wanted, not by making things safe, but by lying about how safe the place was.
That door? How did that get broken? We don’t know. And those large, folding, broken tables? Don’t know either. Window? Dunno.
Nothing bad happened, we’re nice and safe. (cough, cough)
I was talking with a hung over guy where I work, who is studying to become a cop. I got on his good side, and he spoke something about things only being wrong if you get caught doing them. Like beating people up - it’s fine as long as you can get away with it. That’s why he wanted to be a police officer, to legally beat up random people. He was a big boy, too.
Even more years ago, in high school, I used to walk to school and got kind of wet one rainy day. I put my wet hat and gloves on a heater by my locker, whereupon some bully and some of his bully entourage took them and made fun of me. I remember that goatee, and how it stretched across his fat chin when he smirked. His theft was secure, as he was with friends, a senior, and big. I, short, skinny, glasses, alone. Years after that unhappy incident, but years before now, I ran across him at a local community college. He was accepted by the local police department, finished with most of his training and degree, and taking to the streets.
Back to the present, where I work, there are two or three, at least, coprophiliacs. One of them is in the program at a school to become a LEO. This copro not only enjoys smearing it on himself, but on everything else as well, and reportedly smears it on things just so he can enjoy the thought of the cleaning lady in misery on her knees scrubbing it up. What a great, honest, gentlemanly, reasonable, "Officer Friendly".
There are those who say that if we have a negative reaction to a "blue shirt and badge", that there is something wrong with us. I say that my negative reaction is not to that badge, it is to the corruptible nature of man and to the corrupting nature of power. As well as that, the negative reaction is the nature of one who is attracted to a position of power over others.
I do not hate badges. I hate the fact that too many let that authority get to their heads. I hate that sinful mankind wills itself to become petty tyrants if allowed. Theodore Dalrymple correctly writes that men will commit the evil they are capable of. If men are allowed to lie, to murder women holding their infant children, they will do so.
Part B of my disagreement with Mrs. du Toit is when she writes that if approached by a policeman, we should prove that we are good and honorable people. This I most heartily disagree with. It is not the duty of a citizen, gun-owner or not, to prove his honor or innocence to the agents of the state. It is the duty of that LEO to assume my innocence until proven guilty. Our system of liberty is based on the state's assumption of a citizen's innocence, leaving the state with the onus of proving guilt. If the state assumes guilt, and we must prove our innocence to it's agents, then we are no longer in liberty.
The most controversial of my opinions here, and, please respond to them, is that the policemen involved with FishOrMan were abject cowards, as are most cops. Recently, a cop was running around on a rooftop in NYC, spotted a guy and shot him for no reason. The LEO had his gun unholstered and reacted to the potential threat. In other words, rather than face risk or danger to himself, this cop would willingly murder an innocent man. This is not valour. It is not heroism to avoid danger at all costs, even to the extent of taking innocent life. This is cowardice. Most cops will go to long lengths to avoid putting themselves in harms way. The postulate given to us in cop classes was this:
Suppose a police officer were to hear of a call on the dispatch to go to a store in response to what may be a robbery. The officer enters the store, sees a commotion, spots a shiny object in a man’s hand and opens fire, killing the man and possibly wounding others. It turns out the shiny object was a pen, and someone had complained the store’s prices "amounted to robbery". Did this officer do anything wrong? I was the only member of that class to argue that the cop was wrong to shoot. We call cops ‘heroes’. We honor them for ‘facing danger’, for manning a ‘thin blue line’ between citizens and evildoers. In this example, that officer faced no danger, not because the poor shot man held a pen, not a gun, but because he refused to face the possibility that he might be endangered. He would rather shoot without knowing what was going on than possibly get hurt.
Remember all those photos from Fallujah showing the terrorrists shooting at Americans from behind cars, behind women who were in front of the cars? I do. Those cowards would do anything to avoid being shot, preferring to endanger civilians than face bullets. Many cops are the same - they will endanger citizens than face bullets. They that put you at risk to avoid it themselves are not ‘heroes’. They are not standing between you and danger, the citizen and the criminal. They are cowering simps, terrorrists themselves.
There are brave men, in uniforms, and not. These men establish their honor by putting themselves in harms way to protect the innocent, even if it costs them all. A male who would allow his family to be harmed to avoid harm himself is no male but a worm, and we rightly judge him so. Those get in between the evildoer and the innocent, endangering himself in the process, we rightly judge a brave man.
FishOrMan, as I have read him, when I have read him, is a brave man, willing to protect his family from evil, imposing himself between the two.
Perhaps those cops were jealous, inwardly knowing his courage and their lack of it. Perhaps they use that knowledge of his courage to enable their lies. Perhaps they need no such enabler, as some will say that if a person is assertive to an agent of the state, that agent is justified in lying. The dishonest cop, these dishonest cops, will not need to apologize for their lies. Mrs. du Toit defends it for them.
May God grant that I am too harsh on the honorable and enjoyed Mrs. May God protect us from evil men.

A**holes and open carry

2005-01-05T05:49:00.000-08:00

This is the Klutz writing-
There was a case recently where a man legally open carried in his car. The gun was unloaded, as dictacted by Washington State law. He was pulled over because of a warrant issued after an incident with a cop in his hometown regarding (legal) open carry- he wrote a letter to the cop explaining his rights and it ended with a warrant out. When we was pulled over, the police arrested him, accused him of being a "Constitutionalist" (the horror), talked to his wife in not the kindest of manners, and threatened to lie, saying he had threatened the police. Instead of being appalled/agast/scared/etc many "pro-gun" blogs are now blaming him, saying he should have been kinder, been less of an a**hole, in their own words. I wonder how being "nice" would have saved someone in Stalin's gulags? "Geez, Stalin- I'm so sorry. Please don't torture me." Imagine them calmly, nicely explaining their rights. I'm willing to bet you're thinking the same thing as me- that wouldn't work. Policemen are often power-hungry and do not wish to be proven wrong. Jason (the gunowner's name) wasn't as nice as he could have been, but it wouldn't have made a difference. More so than that, even if it would have made a difference, it DOESN'T MATTER. Being a gentleman is a good and noble thing but it is gentlemanly to call evil evil. It is noble to fight for the rights guaranteed in this Constitution. Being a gentleman does not mean being "nice"- it stands for valor, honor, integrity, and plain and simple guts.
It doesn't seem to me that Jason was being an a**hole, but even if he was, that also wouldn't matter. Policemen must know the law- must know the rights they are supposed to protect. If they don't, they cease being public servants and become tools for oppression. It was the police that denied blacks in the South their licenses to carry. It is police now in New York and Chicago (and S. Africa) that judge whether or not a gun is "needed" for protection. This is tyranny. We shy away from that word but there is no other word for it. Agents of the government are determining what people can protect themselves and what people will have to live in perpetual fear for their lives. Remember- the shot heard 'round the world world was first shot because people's gun were going to be seized by the English government. They considered that and high taxes to be tyranny. Kind of makes you think, doesn't it......

Hello from Smelly

2005-01-04T21:19:00.000-08:00

This may come as a shock to all, but the last two posts were not written by me. No, they were written by an impostor, someone who knows my habits and shamelessly copied them, falsely attributing them to me. ... my very own klutz... how could she do this? :)
What I want to do, as I am engaged in a noble and respected profession, is keep a running tally of what I have to deal with, so the world can feel sympathy. Does anyone know how to do this? Such folk as Smallest Minority have a tally of those he has taken to the range, so the tally is possible.
By the way, if you have never read the Smallest Minority, shame on you. Go and read him at www.smallestminority.blogspot.com.
I hope to establish a blogroll shortly, composed of the likes of Powerline, CaptainsQuarters and Kim du Toit.
And before I go for the night, here's a thought. Christianity is the most science-oriented religion in the world. First, because of it's assumption of an ordered and reasoned universe; God created the world in six days in an ordered and rational fashion. Second, that there is a "Natural Light" or reason that is a gift of God that is a remant of the image of God preserved from the Fall; we have a token, or shadow, of the reasoning (sentient) ability that God has. Third, that since we are indeed made in His image, His rationality and our rationality are not totally dissimilar; our reason is clouded, and we cannot understand the Creation perfectly, but we can understand it in part.
That's my controversial postulation for tonight. What do y'all think?

Was it worth it?

2005-01-03T06:11:00.000-08:00

I have spent many hours pondering one question in particular- was the Revolutionary War worth the cost in blood? If the Founders had known how our country would turn out, would they have even bothered? I won't claim to know the answer. They planned a great country with unprecidented freedoms but above all, they intended a small federal government. The Constitution is sort of job description for the Federal government. They have failed disastrously. The Congress controls whatever they wish under the name of interstate commerce and the Supreme Court lets them get away with it. Even worse, citizens don't know and don't care. Look at the public outcry to fix, not eliminate, goverment-funded and controlled public education. Where's that in the Constitution? The Republicans and Democrats alike are competing to see who make the government's public education system the biggest. Modern public education was founded by a "lovely" man named John Dewey- a socialist who knew socialism doesn't work on individuals- we must have a corporate view.
Here's incomplete list of government activities you will find NO WHERE in the ORIGINAL Constitution but most Americans, even "conservative" ones never question:
-Applying the Bill of Rights to the States- that's the point of SMALL governments- let people choose how to live. If states protect rights, wonderful, if they don't- the people can either elect new reps and governors or it's their sign to the other states that they don't WANT those rights.
-Farm subsidies and rules on how many crops to grow- didn't work during the Depression and doesn't work now
-Social Security- same reason. Only 3% of the elderly needed help from the Government (the rest had families to help them or savings) and they didn't get the help anyway- it took years. Now, all the elderly "need" their checks. What a kind, loving gov't we have- giving people their OWN MONEY BACK.
-Gun Control. The Founders intended ALL able-bodies men to have a good rifle- a war rifle. That was a flintlock, now it's a machine gun. They never intended a $500 tax stamp to be required to exercise a right.
-Abortion- the Constitution protects the right to kill a child? Am I missing something?
-Civil Rights legistlation- Forcing the Southern states to sign the 13th and 14th Amendment to reenter the Union. Wait- didn't the North declare they had never really left, hence calling it a CIVIL war? Later, Congress used the interstate commerce clause to justify civil rights leglislation forcing private citizens to ignore race in selling homes and operating stores. Should whites treat blacks equally (and vice versa)- of course. But it's a greated evil to force the unwilling to do something they despise and it's demeaning to both. I'd rather know who didn't like me so I could avoid them. I wouldn't want them to pretend they cared for me.
-Incredible tax rates which hurt the wealthy. Shouldn't we reward the wealthy? After all- they pay my salary! Robin Hood may be popular but he's no different from any other thief. Read Martin Luther's Small Catechism about the Commandments (especially the one regarding stealing)- we're supposed to help our neighbor defend and protect his property, not steal it- or covet it.
I could go on and on but I must go to class- History and Philosophy of Science. No work for 3 more weeks- then I'll be taking 9 or 12 credits plus working 40 hours a week cooking for right, ungrateful, mean college students.

First blog

2004-12-23T20:40:00.000-08:00

My first blog posting- and probably not a long one at that. This blog will discuss the falling apart of America (both of us) and guns (my husband).
The center never does hold- not even in a land with such great potential. Original sin takes over from there. My husband and I are conservative politically (and I mean truly conservative- go to the right of Scalia). We're orthodox lutherans (LCMS, for those of you that care) but weren't raised so. My husband was atheist and I was hilary clinton methodist going to a hippie college. How things change....