Liberty and responsibility are inseparable

"Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences of his actions... Liberty and responsibility are inseparable." (From "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960))Friedrich von Hayek

von Hayek has expressed in these few sentences the key to democracy. Citizens of a democracy must be willing to face the consquences of their actions if they wish to have liberty. You cannot be free without it. If the government tells you they will provide everything you need, what is your motivation to participate in the provision of your own sustanance? What then occurs to the society? When everyone recieves all they need without responsibility, they will not participate fully in its provision. This is the basic flaw of socialism and communism. If people are free to do as they want, they will not work to the best of their ability. They will need to be forced by government to work, losing the liberties of choice.
When one has responsibility for their survival, they will work to the utmost to provide what they feel they need. (See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ).
Only a careful balance between liberty and responsibility can make people truly free.
Several years ago, when my daughter was in middle school, the principal used to tell the kids, "Everything has a consquence". If you study and work hard, you will be better prepared to succeed. If you goof off and spend all your time at the local hangout, you are preparing to fail. If you hit someone, you will be punished. If you speak badly about someone, people will react.
We are often told about supposed 'rights' that people think exist... the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to housing. These are not rights. These are things that people receive when they have been responsible enough to work to the best of their abilities to achieve.
The Founders were very careful in the wording of the Constitution. We are not told that we have the right to life, liberty and happiness, we are told we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is a result of responsibilty and liberty.

Saddam was the WMD

I was listening to talk radio this morning when a woman named Janet called in to the Michael Smerconish Show. Janet is the mom of a soldier serving our country in Iraq. The discussion was setting a timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. The discussion veered to the original reasons for entering Iraq and the assumption of WMDs.
Janet crystallized the WMD discussion precisely. She said, "Saddam and his sons were WMDs." They killed hundreds of thousands of people using gas and bullets over their years of power. They had threatened to do the same to us. They were the Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Al-Queda is not the only group of terrorists out there. Groups like Hamas also wish to kill us ALL.
As President Bush said, "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them (my italics)." White House Archives, 9/11 Speech
Right now, thousands of those who would like to kill us are trying to stop us from helping the Iraqis overcome their influence in the region. We abandoned the Kurds once before, after the Gulf War. Thousands of them died. The terrorists are counting on us doing it again.
Our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world are stopping those who would kill us from doing so. Give them, and our President, the support they need to win the war over these evil people.
Let's hope and pray, in the long run, Iraq can become the shining beacon in the heart of Islam for how people should act.
Thank you, Janet and thanks to your son for helping us to see what it means to protect this country. Let's Roll.

But it's for the kids...

Why is it that every discussion these days seems to be how it will affect "the kids"? It's as if adults are insignificant.
Parents have responsibilities. It's not the responsibility of government to baby-sit our children. There was a time when if a child was punished at school, they were afraid to tell their parents because they knew they would be punished again. Children learned something they rarely learn these days at school, Respect.
This summer, I was with a group of Boy Scouts on a camping trip. Several of the Scouts were chopping wood incorrectly and dangerously. Most of the boys respected me when I told them to stop immediately. One young man, however persisted. I told him several times to stop (fearing he may hurt himself). He finally came over to me and I told him to give me the hachet he was using. He refused saying it was his. He finally put it on the ground rather than hand it to me. I told him he had to go to his tent, which he refused to do. When I put my hand on his shoulder to direct him to his tent, he said, "Don't ever touch me", implying that he would tell his parents I "abused" him. Thank goodness the Boy Scouts have a 2-deep rule for being around children. One of our Junior Assistant Scoutmasters helped to defuse this situation by letting him know his parents would hear what really was happening from someone else.
We have come to a point where we allow children rather than adults to control situations. This has to stop.
As horrible as pedophiles are, the vast majority of adults want to help children to mature and learn personal responibility. Laws that prevent teachers, coaches, scout leaders, and other adults who teach children need to have the support of parents when it comes to the teaching of their children.

An Open Letter to all US Senators

Dear Senator:

I am asking you to actively oppose all "hate crimes" bills, including the "Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act" (S. 1145), and the hate crimes amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R. 3132), which allow federal prosecution for crimes based on "actual or perceived" sexual orientation.

I am adamantly opposed to so-called "hate crimes" laws for several reasons. Should we punish people for their thoughts rather than their actions? How does an officer of the law determine beyond a reasonable doubt someone's thoughts? Similar laws have been used in this nation and others to silence those opposed to the homosexual and similar lifestyles. The Communists specialized in this type of speech control. Additionally, the First Amendment of the Constitution specifically forbids laws which limit speech of any type, not just political speech. Because someone disapproves of the conduct of a person does not mean that person hates the other. God tells us to hate the sin, but love the sinner. No "hate crime" is committed.

We need to stop slowly eroding our rights of free speech and religion in the name of "protecting the children". Our rights of free speech and religion have been under attack for 40 years, ripping apart our society. These laws stop the protection of freedom.

The future of our great nation is in your hands.

The First Amendment Revisited, Part 2

"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."

In a previous post I talked about the establishment of religion clause. Nowhere in this clause does it comment on the "separation of church and state". That statement was from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and his personal opinion, not the Constitution signed by and agreed to by the 13 colonies and their representatives. For more information about Jefferson's views, I would recommend the book "Adams vs Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History)" by John Ferling.
Let's now look at the next clause, the "freedom of speech" clause. Growing up I was always taught, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Now we know that names do hurt emotionally, but the real meaning was if someone has an opinion about you that is wrong or cruel, that is their issue, not yours. Somehow in the past 20-25 years, we have twisted this around. These days if anyone is "offended" by speech or "dissed" by someone, people think a crime has been committed. IT HASN"T!!!
Read the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about political speech only. It doesn't say you can't call me a "Kraut" (which I heard from time to time growing up) or "Whitie" or "Hater" or "@#$@# Christian" or any other name. Other than inciting a riot, we have the RIGHT to say whatever we want. Those who oppose us have the RIGHT to say whatever they want.
Some are complaining about things that are said and written that disagree with current liberal philosophies of race and social standing and religion and homosexuality. We have the RIGHT, given to us by the Constitution of the United States, to say what we want. If someone wants to call me evil because I state that, according to the Bible, God says homosexuality is sin, they also have that right. But I haven't committed a crime and neither have they. By the way, that statement does not come with the caveat "Not that there is anything wrong with it"... There is something wrong with homosexuality and it should once again be illegal.
The concept of "Hate Crimes" seems good on paper, but now it is being used to stop discourse within our society about what is right and wrong. Not everything in this society revolves around race and sex.
Part of living in a free society is to have responsibility for your words and actions. If your words and actions are not acceptable within our society, you should expect to have people call you on the carpet for it. This is how a free society works.

World Events

My next post was going to be about the first amendment to the Constitution, but due to world events, I will finish those comments tomorrow. I ask anyone reading this to pray for those who have been devastated by the events of the past days and the past 2 months. The need is so great Give with all your heart and pray. Be sure to pray that they will hear the true Word of God as well as receive their physical sustanance.
All these events do bring one of Jesus' statements to mind. In Matthew 24, the people around Jesus asked Him about the future. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
His answer is significant to the modern age.
Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. ⁵For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. ⁶You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. ⁷Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. ⁸All these are the beginning of birth pains... (My italics)
Is this the time of Christ's return? We don't know for sure, but everyone needs to be prepared. Pray that those who don't know the Truth, hear about it and accept it as what it is, the acceptance of God's presence in their life.

The First Amendment Revisted, Part 1

"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."

Let's look at this amazing statement and what it means to the American way of life. The very first statement in the Amendments, that were designed to speak about our rights, was that Congress can't pass a law to establish a religion or, and this is key, prohibit the free exercise of religion.
What does that mean? I know I don't see any statment about a separation of church and state in that statement. It just says Congress can't establish a State religion or stop us from worshiping. It also limits the statement to CONGRESS, not the states! The states are given the ability to speak of God; as the framers understood that there is a place for God in the public arena.
Does it say anything about Ten Commandment displays in State government centers? NO Does it say anything about using the words "Under God" in public statements? NO Do we at any time use the names Jesus or YHWH or Allah or Vishnu or any other establishment? NO.
Use of the word God does NOT establish any religion over another. How about the atheists? Their religion is belief in man as God, which is what they are trying (and in some cases succeeding) in establishing. So for them it would mean "Under man." What's wrong with that? The real reason they fear the word God, is that deep inside, they KNOW He is real, but they want to be Him.
It's time for our society to get back to what it does best. Allow people the freedom to find God, and in our everyday lives, allow God's presence to announced everywhere. We are free to speak about Him in any public setting.

Next time... How the freedom of speech clause is being usurped.

What difference does it make what you believe

One of the most common things you hear these days is that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe something. The problem with that is that, when it comes to God, there is Truth and there are all the rest of the ideas which are wrong. So how do we know which is right? Is it just faith? Or can we be sure of what is Truth?
We can be sure, if you're willing to listen to God. Actually read the Old and New Testaments. Look at how Jesus continues to affect the whole world. Look at the world around you. His face is reflected everywhere.
Jesus is the only way you will find God. He is the promised Messiah of the Torah and the Prophets. He has taken people's sin on himself. He suffered for MY sins. Why? Because God who is fully good cannot ignore our sin. It must be paid for with death. Thats why He (yes, God) died for us. Because of who He is, He was able to overcome death.
Should we be in Iraq fighting the Jihadists? Yes, becuase their fake faith has pulled millions of people away from God. We were told their would be many fake prophets. Mohammed is the biggest of them. We need to stop them now, and we will with God's help.

Time for Profiling

Growing up, I often was the object of scrutiny. Why? Because my parents had just come over from Germany in 1951, 2 years before I was born. WWII was still fresh on the minds of everyone, and many people hated Germans (with good cause at the time).
This time our enemy is the Jihadists. These are the men who have been brain-washed in the schools of Islam around the world. They have been taught since they were small that we (meaning all Americans, Christians, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and yes Muslims living here) should be killed.
So, who should we be looking for when we are searching for those who would hurt us? Are we still looking for Germans and Japanese people? No. They (we) are fully assimilated into the American Dream. How about the British? We hated them once too, back in the 18th Century.
No, we are looking for 16-35 year old Arab Muslim males. We are at war with Jihadistan, the PC word for Young Muslim Men.
Don't want us to "harrass" the poor boys? Fine, let's revoke every Muslim's visa and deport them all. While we're at it, let's also deport the the illegal immigrants in the country. We have legal ways to enter this country, if you really want to participate in the American dream.
I don't want to die because some kid has decided it would be great to have 72 virgins to have sex with. Guess what kids? There are no virgins, just separation from God for the rest of eternity for committing mass murder. Profiling will work. Let's Roll.

First Blog Posting

I'm new to this so bear with me.
Why am I starting this blog? As a conservative, I have been fighting the good fight to stop liberalism from infecting more of this country.
Today, however, I'm commenting on President Bush's nomination of Miss Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. From all I have read so far, Miss Miers is an excellent attorney (the term we use for lawyers we like). She most likely agrees with my conservative sentiments, at least on the social side. I have no idea what her thinking is on economics, property rights, etc. The President of the United States respects her enough to nominate her. In other words, she is a great person.
MY question is, how does this qualify her for a lifetime position on the SUPREME COURT of the United States? Being the President's attorney, I'm sure she has studied a great deal of law, but has she focused on the Constitution and its ramifications of all areas of law? How often has she even presented before the Court?
The Supreme Court of the United States is, as Chief Justice Roberts said in his hearings, (paraphrasing) the umpire of the government. They focus on whether laws which the elected members of government have passed are legal within the confines of the Constitution and the other laws of the land. They are not supposed to be conservative or liberal. They are not supposed to add to the law. They are not supposed to apply laws to the Constitution, rather, they are supposed to apply the Constitution to the laws. They are not supposed to use International law or foreign law to determine whether a law should stand. It is the Constitution of the United States of America and existing law that must exclusively be considered.
Supreme Court Justices have one of the most dificult jobs in government. They must review laws with which they do not agree politically, but rule according to its constitutionality ONLY! Our elected representatives make the decisions on whether the laws are laws we want.
Miss Miers has spent her career finding ways to interpret law according to her client's needs. What has trained her to ignore her personal views and use the Constitution alone? With all the other extremely well qualified candidates that are available, why would the President select an unexperienced, unqualified candidate?
If Miss Miers is confirmed, which at this point I hope does not happen, I pray that her single focus will be to bring herself to the understanding that only the Constitution should guide her decisions.