What’s Going on in the Israel

There are a multitude of positions and reasonings on the recent Israeli attacks on military and military support structures in the Gaza Strip. The attacks, in short, are the result of internal Israeli and Palestinian governmental conflicts as well as the long-shared enmity and claims of the two peoples. Ultimately, though, it should be understood that Hamas has ignored a long-running ceasefire, taking potshots with missiles targeting Israeli civilians over the last several months, and the Israeli’s have decided to end that.

 

Israel has recently launched extensive and effective airstrikes on the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip. These airstrikes are directed at Hama targets in what is claimed to be retaliation for Hamas’ launching of rockets and mortars into civilian areas on the Israeli side of the border, despite a cease-fire agreement between the governments of Palestine and Israel. All of this had roots in recent Palestinian elections that brought Hamas into power. Over the past summer, these elections brought defeat to the old party of the Palestinian Authority, with which most Americans associate Yasser Arafat, the late leader of the original PLO terrorist organization. While the PLO evolved itself into the political entity that became the foundation for the Palestinian National Authority, Hamas, like Hezbollah, has shown little political inclination towards Israel and has preferred a policy of violent confrontation over diplomatic conversation.

 

Hamas is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization, and, like Hezbollah, has formed political structures in order to advance their agenda through political means where possible. Hamas came to power in the Palestinian National Authority in a campaign to eliminate widespread corruption and incompetence of the then ruling Fatah party which had internally crippled the Palestinian government. Hezbollah concentrates on Lebanese issues, but is a known and regular supporter of anti-Israeli Palestinian efforts including those by Hamas. Like Hezbollah, Hamas has stated one overriding goal; the destruction of Israel through jihad. While Hezbollah is an essentially Shi’a organization, Hamas is Sunni; but they share many objectives, most of them Socialist, bordering on communist, and always anti-Israel. Both parties have retained high regard among the Palestinian people for their conservative, fundamentalist political and moral platforms, and they have succeeded in generally avoiding the pitfalls of corruption in their governmental incursions in Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine. These parties are seen as protectors of the interests of “true” Palestinians and resisters of corrupt Western and Israeli influence.

 

Hamas has used its ascension to Palestinian governance as a cover and conduit for advancing its jihadist agenda, consistently provoking the Israeli’s into confrontation. Most frequently, they use mortars and rockets to strike fear over the border in the Israeli population. The latest counterstrikes by Israel and the apparent Israeli intention to send in ground troops seem to be part of the Hamas plan. It seems that Hamas thinks that it can win against an Israeli ground offensive, because such a move would enrage the Palestinian people into a general revolt against Israel and lead, perhaps, to a successful insurgency. It would also appear that Hamas has this part of its strategy wrong; the Palestinian people are almost certainly too weary of war and conflict to en masse take a significant role in the current Israeli-Hamas hostilities. Hamas also believes that they can win a ground war in Gaza against Israeli infantry and armor. Two things tell Hamas this: The mud and urban landscape of Gaza disfavor tanks and infantry formations, and Hamas has, as they have in the past, the civilian population of Gaza to use as shields. With a terrain-slowed offensive and mounting civilian casualties, Israel will be pressured to end the operations quickly.

 

The Israeli offensive has shown great restraint towards and concern for civilian casualties among the Gazan population and is mindful of the need to minimize collateral damage, Hamas, on the other hand has targeted Israeli civilian populations exclusively, virtually ignoring viable and legal military targets. Israel has already disavowed any intention of using the conflict with Hamas as a rationale for re-occupying the Gaza Strip, and seems intent only on breaking Hamas control over the Palestinian National Authority. Much of the recent violence has been fomented by Hamas in its internal struggle with Fatah for control of the Palestinian government.

 

Also telling is the generally muted reaction of the Arab/Muslim world. The only country showing real support for Hamas at this time is Iran. Yesterday Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki issued a statement condemning the attacks for the toll on civilians. Egypt has, in fact, closed its Gaza border and fired upon Palestinians and Hamas members attempting to flee the Israeli onslaught. It appears that Hamas has, through its programme of violence isolated itself from the international community and the Arab world.

 

George Bush has not even bothered to shorten or interrupt his vacation, so, it would seem that the American government knew that this was going to happen. Whether the President knew from direct communications or had known because this Israeli incursion was forecasted by the intelligence community and State Department is unclear.

 

All of this indicates that the Israeli’s, much as they experienced initially during the Second Lebanon War with Hezbollah, has been granted at least tacit consent from the world at large to eliminate the terrorists of Hamas in favor of those who would prefer negotiation over confrontation. However, the pressure is beginning to initiate a new cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Israeli’s must act fast, be decisive and, as always, be very selective with their targets. The tension here is to reduce the threat posed by Hamas while minimizing civilian casualties, and as chaos reigns in Gaza, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe from innocent.

Letter to Georgetown Mayor

Dear Mayor,

Not only did your minister friends deceive the city council on 1 December, but they have, in all likelihood, been deceiving you for all of your life. The alcohol is evil mentality espoused by the Southern Baptist Convention is the result of an appeasement to pro-temperance forces of the late 19th Century, coupled with private interests in keeping taxes and legitimate competition away from bootleg liquor and justified with an heretical, or false, teaching based on a deliberate misinterpretation of scripture.

I’ll work this backwards, because it is explained easier that way. The heresy is in teaching that the wine mentioned in the Bible is non-alcoholic. In the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldean languages, the words used in scripture then are the same words used today. Today, as in times past, those words for wine meant a fermented, alcoholic beverage. There is no difference; if one goes to Greece or Israel and finds a product with any of the scriptural words, one will find an alcoholic beverage. The “new” wine argument is equally heretical, as “new” means now, as it did then, only that the wine has not aged, not that it is unfermented. The semantic play that biblical wine was grape juice doesn’t hold up to any reasoned analysis; there were ancient words for grape juice, and those words are not in the scriptures used to justify the anti-alcohol heresy. One last comment on this; It may be said that the “wine” isn’t the same, because yeast wasn’t added. This is partly true, but only in a misdirected manner. The grapes of the Mediterranean area are naturally coated with an external growth of yeast, so it is not necessary to add any for fermentation. Grapes for direct consumption (from the bunch), such as the Concord varieties, have been selected and bred so as not to produce this otherwise naturally occurring yeast.

Post Civil War, temperance societies sprung up across the US and the world, though internationally they were less prevalent. Many ministries joined in the movement under pressure from more conservative members of their congregations. There was also, in the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction South an impetus, not just from conservative church members, but from those profiting off illegal liquor trade. By joining the temperance call, these groups were able to claim non-alcoholic communities, some very few of which were so in fact, relieving bootleggers from two sources of concern: competition and taxation.

The issue of non-alcoholism first came before the Southern Baptist Convention around 1870, but did not become an Article of Faith until 1896. This means that the current Southern Baptist mentality and teaching on alcohol has only existed for 112 years of the nearly four hundred years of the Baptist faith. Remember, Elijah Craig, the famed developer of Bourbon was more famous in his time as a Baptist minister. The hypocrisy of the teaching is evident in the general informal ministers’ guidelines of the “two hour” and “no one sees” rules.

So, in short, the anti-alcohol Southern Baptist teaching is itself heresy and forms a cover for criminal activity. It is also being abandoned by many member churches of the Southern Baptist Community.

As for the obvious attempt by those ministers who spoke at the city council meeting on 1 December to influence government, the Southern Baptist Convention Position Statement on Church and State reads thus:  “We stand for a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other. We support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with its "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.”

You once claimed ethical high ground in talking with me; in allowing and, quite possibly, sponsoring these ministers to posit a denominationally-specific religious view supported by bogus “facts” in an attempt to stifle a measure beneficial to the community as a whole, I must question your ethics.

Caroline Kennedy should not go to the Senate

Word in the news and on the back alleys of politics has it that Caroline Kennedy is going to be the choice to replace New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who, as all should know now, has been selected to be the Obama administration’s Secretary of State. This is probably, in this writer’s opinion, not a good move for America. Caroline Kennedy will bring to the US Senate all of the values and positions of her predecessor, with a few new twists. While the people and state of New York may accept these values and positions, there are a couple that should give all of America pause; they do me.

 

Caroline Kennedy would bring not only the liberal values of her predecessor, but also the interesting marks of Massachusetts liberalism. Also, Caroline might be more willing to espouse and fight for her views than Senator Clinton has proven. Caroline Kennedy would likely join forces with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in pushing a more liberalized agenda upon what seems to be turning out to be a pragmatic Obama administration.

 

Caroline Kennedy professes two anathematic positions that should make every sane and rational person in the US think twice about her. For one, she is an ardent and strident supporter of gun control along the lines of Sarah Brady; this pretty much automatically makes her susceptible to the influence of billionaire financier/shipping magnate George Soros. Her second offensive position is favoring abortion- not so bad, in my opinion, except that she supports the idea of minors being able to obtain one without parental consent or even knowledge!

 

On gun control, the unenlightened Kennedy has said that she would support a return to the so-called assault weapons ban of the Clinton years. This is unfortunate in that all of the evidence suggests that the ban did nothing to reduce crime, as such weapons are the least likely (as in 1% involvement in crimes of violence before, during, and after the Clinton ban)to be used in an act of violence. I think that some of these people see the spree killings which have occurred since 1985 as a source of concern over these weapons. Unfortunately, thanks to intensive cover-up work by the American Medical Association and pharmaceutical companies, few people realize that spree killings and Prozac use, unlike assault weapons, have a 100% statistical correlation. Yes, gun grabbers, a specific drug is more likely, so far every time, than a specific sort of firearm, to be involved in the spree killings we all fear. Every single spree killing, of which there were very few before the introduction of Prozac, since the introduction of Prozac has had at its helm a Prozac patient. Even the foreign ones in Europe. Better regulation of Prozac and its similar pharmaceuticals would do more to prevent the massacres feared than more regulation of weapons.

 

There is no rational reason for the expansion of abortion rights. The first trimester should be plenty of time for over 90% of women to detect and decide about her pregnancy. Except for recent Bush administrative decisions that will be shortly overturned, the rules already generally allow for exceptions in the event of potential risk to the mother’s life. And to suggest that a minor female should be able to opt for abortion without parental consent or knowledge is just foolishly permissive. A child cannot legally drop out of school or seek out other forms of elective surgery without parental consent; how can one legally justify allowing them to have an abortion?

 

Caroline Kennedy is already admittedly in possession of at least two of the least reasonable positions of the far left. Yet, when it comes to issues of wealth and taxation, she appears to lean back to the right in opposing a more equitable graduated income tax-distribution scheme. It seems that perhaps Caroline Kennedy’s liberalism may be reserved for only those who can afford it. In recent interviews, she has primarily leaned to the more extreme end of the Democratic Party on social issues while backing the Republicans on economic and wealth issues. Her positions have not been explained fully enough to analyze her reasoning, but then again, she may be looking to popularity socially while protecting her own economically. This combination of discordant views tends to indicate an unfocused, and perhaps less than informed, worldview. In any event, she draws the concern of this writer.

A Humbling Experience

Georgetown City Council Meeting 15 December 2008

 

I have to admit that my appearance during the “community concerns” segment of the city council was not my best outing in public speaking. For some unknown reason, I got a bad case of the “butterflies”; this is a rare occurrence for me. Perhaps it was the realization that not only was I challenging the mayor and a couple of city council members, but also a significant, if waning, and influential faction of Georgetown; to wit, the leadership of the Baptist churches of Georgetown. As I’ve written previously, when Georgetown’s City Council held its first reading of the proposal to permit Sunday alcohol sales, the principal opposition came from First, Gano, and Faith Baptist churches. Leaders of these churches presented many misleading and even false statements to the city council. I have written and been published in the Georgetown News-Graphic on my views of the issue and the falsity of the opposition’s claims. I have written the members of the city council, as well as the mayor, pointing out the deliberate deception presented by opponents to Sunday alcohol sales at the Georgetown City Council meeting that took place on the 1^st of December. At the city council meeting of the fifteenth of December, I spoke on those issues for my allotted three minutes, and, in my opinion, did miserably; but, I did manage to get the rebuttal of the previously referred “facts” in. I stuttered and sputtered and did the “chained-elephant” dance, and generally suffered a humbling experience at my own hands. For this, I must apologize to those who are hoping I am able to get the city council to revisit Sunday alcohol sales. Still, the council seemed to hear and believe what I had to say. Some appeared shocked as I went down, item-by-item the list of deceptions foisted on them at the previous council meeting. The mayor appeared uncomfortable with her mouth pinched as I explained the truth to council. As I left after my three minutes were up, I realized that a prior thought of mine was probably true. I have thought for the last week and a half that the Mayor set up the opposition appearance during the first reading and stacked the deck against passage of the Sunday alcohol sales proposal.

 

Now that I have chosen to engage the city on this matter, I realize that I cannot just drop it, despite initial apparent failure. While I may be dealing with a lame-duck council and a do little positive mayor, the issue of Sunday sales must be kept in front of the council, even if that means keeping it there until the new city council members take their seats.

Georgetown Council Deceived

I have been reviewing the video of Georgetown's last City Council meeting, and checking the facts, and was thereby compelled to write what follows. On the 1st of December, Georgetown’s City Council was deceived by many of the opponents to Sunday alcohol sales at the first reading of the proposed ordinance to permit Sunday alcohol sales. Dr. Hambrick made a multitude of false causality statements. His references to child, domestic, and sexual abuse, along with his mention of fetal alcohol syndrome, are about ten times more likely to be associated with in-home drinking enabled by package sales rather than liquor-by-the-drink. Liquor by the drink tends to reduce these trends, as the necessary social atmosphere reduces the opportunity for abusive behavior. In citing fetal alcohol syndrome, Dr. Hambrick is entirely misleading as it is next to impossible that any responsible restaurant, bar, or server would serve alcohol to a known or obviously pregnant individual. Dr. Hambrick referred to alcohol as a gateway drug; in this, he is relatively alone in the medical and scientific community, as both the American Medical Association and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse both declaim alcohol and cannabis, both, as gateway drugs. Sunday sales will not contribute to underage drinking, because we are talking about public consumption, whereas underage drinking requires some degree of privacy, which is facilitated, again, by package sales. Dr. Hambrick also mentions and praises Ed Tedder’s letter to the editor in the News-Graphic. Ed Tedder’s letter, as can be expected from this dry group, is as misleading as anything else presented by the opponents of Sunday sales. Seems Mr. Tedder sought to make finding the article he mentioned from the American Journal of Public Health difficult by not including its title. This may be because the referenced article and study refer to Sunday package sales in New Mexico only, and sheds no light on by the drink sales, which is the issue at hand. Dr. Hambrick conveniently neglected to mention that he is a minister at Faith Baptist Church. Wayne Lipscomb of Gano Baptist Church claimed that as a police chaplain in Boone County he was thankful that he knew that, because of that county’s dry Sundays, that Sunday was one day he would never have to notify a family of a loss of life due to alcohol. Lipscomb’s statement is misleading, because, during the twenty year period ending 2006, Boone County averaged one alcohol-related traffic fatality per year. So, of the 365 days available during the typical year, Lipscomb was relieved that that one day never fell on one of the 52 Sundays.  

The opponents brought no legitimate evidence to the harm caused by Sunday sales because they couldn’t find any. All reliable scientific studies available on by the drink sales on Sunday indicate two consequences: increased local revenues with no corresponding increase in alcohol-related tragedy.

City of Georgetown or City of Georgetown’s Baptist Churches?

In a time of economic crisis any government has a responsibility to look to its income as much as possible without hurting its constituency. The City of Georgetown City Council has refused to do both and has, as it has so often, caved to the demands of a minority special interest while again refusing to look to the expansion of local business and the positive impact upon the business owners, their employees, the consumers, and the revenues of the City of Georgetown. The opposition expressed from the community, later cited as a rationale for pulling the proposal, came almost entirely from a single source, the Baptists of Georgetown. The Council claimed that opposition to the measure from the community was their reason for suspending the second reading due on the 15^th of December.

 

Last Monday’s City Council meeting explored the first reading of a proposed ordinance to permit the Sunday sale of alcohol in restaurants. The majority of opposition to the measure came from Baptist ministers and Baptist laity speaking on the evils of alcohol and respect for the Sabbath. One speaker of the opposition, a pediatrician with membership in Faith Baptist Church, spoke of fetal alcohol syndrome, an affliction which will not be impacted by the sale of alcohol in restaurants on Sunday. The remainder spoke almost entirely on the sins of alcohol and the need to preserve the Sabbath. Not one person opposing the Sunday sale of alcohol spoke on any matter truly relevant to the City of Georgetown and its governance. Neither were the opposition speakers able to cite any empirical data to back up claims of potential damage to the community. Across the nation, Sunday alcohol sales have increased local revenues and expanded local economies while having no impact on DUI’s or underage drinking.

 

Chad Wallace and the City Council cited pressure from the community and the desires of the community in pulling support for the measure. Once again, the City Council has spoken and acted in accordance with the pressures exerted by a vocal minority of the community, rather than the greater good of the City of Georgetown as a whole. The City Council frequently cites community pressures in its decisions, but never have they conducted a poll or survey. It seems that their “community pressure” comes from a few people with whom they converse on regular basis and those who manage to create access to advance the cause of their special interests.

 

The Baptist Churches have no legal or constitutional right to present a religious argument favoring or opposing measures before city government. While they may be heard out of courtesy, their arguments reflecting religious beliefs must be disregarded. This nation, with all of its constituent lower level governments, is based upon the idea of representative democracy, not theocracy. That is the thrust, and the parry, of the separation of church and State. The Constitution is clear on this issue, as are the various writings available from the Framers of the Constitution, men like John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few. All of these men evinced suspicion of church influence on government as well as government adoption of religion. Apparently, the Georgetown City Council believes itself wiser than the Framers of the Constitution. The Separation protects not only religion from the interference of government, but also the government from the interference of religious interests. Georgetown’s City Council has abdicated its responsibility to represent the interests of the bodies civic and politic while heeding the call of a religious body. They have quashed a responsible measure that would definitely increase revenues and possibly stimulate economic growth at a time when both are desperately needed.

The American Christian Nation in the Words of the Founders

A Prelude to: City of Georgetown, or City of Georgetown's Baptist Churches?

 

 

The United States of America is a Christian nation only in the same sense that it is a Caucasian nation; the argument cannot be supported by legal documentation except as census data denoting a demographic domination. This simply means that Christians, like Caucasians, comprise a majority of the population. And, as is the case with Caucasian demographic dominance, Christians are not legally entitled to any particular preference in matters of law or governance.

 

The Founding Fathers deliberately set up a government absolutely separated from the religion(s) of its constituents. These men were products of Enlightenment thought and sought to put an end to the constant internal and external petty bickering and often warring predicated or justified over religious issues that had dominated European politics for centuries. They modeled their new government not on the ostensibly Christian Holy Roman Empire, but upon its pagan predecessor, the Roman Republic, with additional influence drawn from the lessons of the equally non-Christian Iroquois Confederacy. There was never an intention, evinced or concealed, to form a United States based upon any religious model or even morality. The only confluence there was that all religions, even humanism, teach a nearly identical code of moral behavior. The Founders wrote little in official documents regarding issues of Christianity or religion because they had no cause for reflection upon what, for them, was an unspoken given. Where they did write on the issue of religious influence of government, as in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, the Founding Fathers and their government always disparaged and disavowed the idea.

 

Though there are vocal minorities who falsely claim that the United States is a “Christian” nation, theirs are arguments that run counter to the many statements and acts of those who created this country. In the words of the Founding Fathers themselves is found the absolute denial of the concept of America as a Christian nation in law. Those who wish to frame the US as a Christian nation need a Constitutional Amendment undoing the First Amendment if they wish their statements to be true in fact. Otherwise, their claim is unconstitutional, un-American, and unchristian. A Constitutional Amendment alone will not be sufficient to overcome that final obstacle to claiming the US as a Christian nation.

 

 

George Washington:

 

Washington said to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789 that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson:

 

In the many letters of Thomas Jefferson, he revealed his lack of belief in angels, spirits and other superstitious trappings of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

 

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

 

While Jefferson admired the morality of Jesus, as one might today regard Gandhi, Jefferson did not think Jesus divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

 

 

John Adams:

 

John Adams, widely regarded as among the most pious of the Founders, still found it necessary to say, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

And, “. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

 

 

James Madison:

 

Often referred to as the father of the Constitution, James Madison voiced very strong views favoring the separation of church and State which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

 

 James Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. Madison wrote in his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

 

He went on to say, “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

 

 

Ben Franklin:

 

In an essay, “Toleration”, Ben Franklin writes of his disdain for Christianity:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

 

 

Thomas Paine:

 

Thomas Paine of Revolutionary and Constitutional thought literary fame, wrote in his The Age of Reason, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

 

Paine, author of many respected pieces now considered US historical documents, also wrote, "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

 

 

Early US government documents:

 

The Constitution of the United States reflects the views of our founders on their establishment of a secular, non-religious government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "The idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety." The reason there was little mention of any god, or calls upon Christ was that the Founders themselves showed little of any of the Christian faith and preferred to allow each man’s conscience to dictate his choices in faith as personal matters, keeping them entirely out of the realm of government.

 

The Declaration of Independence makes no comment about rights secured by Christianity or the Christian god and eschews entirely the modern Christian foundation implications thrust upon it.

The god mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is not that one of Christianity. The Declaration mentions “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This “God of Nature” is an enlightenment phrase generally describing the natural order of things and how legal considerations should respect that above any particular religious ideology. It allows the humanist and rationalist to possess a faith while denying that faith a say in legal/governmental issues.

 

 

“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” -Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

 

 

In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States decision, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." While this might be interpreted as a legal endorsement of the concept, Justice Brewer wrote this in dicta; it was personal opinion only and cannot serve as a legal pronouncement.  Justice Brewer later felt it necessary to provide an explanation, lest others misuse his statement, as they have: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."

 

 

Jesus:

 

As for the unchristian element of the claim to a Christian nation, Jesus himself said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, render unto God what is God’s.” This teaching is a commandment that very directly points to the separation of religious and political interests. Much of Jesus’ ministry was pointed at breaking the people free from intertwinement of religion and politics that had occurred with the Roman occupation of Judea (or Palestine, if one prefers). The Jewish religious leaders had become heavily involved in the Roman administration and begun acting in manners unfit for priests because of their political relations with the Roman governors. Jesus sought to teach that one should not become overly concerned or involved in such matters, as they tended to corrupt one another, to the detriment of all.

 

 

The United States of America is not now, nor ever has been, nor was ever intended to be, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers reflected easily upon centuries of various Christian nations and knew that the concept would always produce inequality and strife, internally and externally. They desired to create a nation that would at least rise above that particular pettiness so that true equality and freedom in matters of religion would be protected by the government’s guarantee of disinvolvement. This has largely worked to the advantage of the American people. However, there have been groups that have sought to dissolve that wall of separation and involve politics in religion. Those who seek to do so defy the wisdom of those who have gone before and whose words and example on the matter are expounded upon herein. These groups, in unwisely seeking to meddle in politics through the pulpit prove themselves in defiance of the Constitution, the United States of America, and the teachings of the Christ.

Updates on things I’m considering writing about

I have on file copies of a news article and my sentencing/plea deal statements which show that in my current felony case, the State was willing to accept a dismissal of charges, but that the judge chose to assert himself as prosecutor. From a January 3^rd article in the Batesville Guard paper titled “Tragedies, education, crime among news from Sharp County” written by Larry Stroud: “ 40-yr-old James Snyder Jr., was sentenced to 20 years in prison with 15 years suspended on reduced charges of manslaughter. The state contended that Snyder was an unwilling participant.”

 

On 1 December, Georgetown City Council shows that the Baptist Church runs Georgetown. At a time of great economic distress, Georgetown shelved a measure that would have allowed Sunday sales of alcohol in restaurants, with the prospects of improving Sunday tax revenues on both food and drink sales. The measure was shelved because of opposition primarily from ministers with the Georgetown Baptist Church and members of same. The opposition brought no empirical data, because there is none that supports a rational disagreement for Sunday sales. Instead, they brought up respect for the Sabbath, which, as an argument in a government forum, is unconstitutional. There were other anecdotal references to the horrors of alcohol, but these had no relevance to the discussion, as alcohol sales are already permitted.

 

Terror in Mumbai. The terrorist assault in Mumbai, India, targeting mostly westerners and Jews was a well thought out and planned assault against which the apparently undisciplined, untrained Indian Police had no effective initial response. The attacks are not the act sought to be portrayed as one of Kashmir separatists struggling against Indian rule in the on-going dispute between India and Pakistan. The attacks are a diversionary measure designed to put Indian and Pakistani troops facing off against one another so that Pakistan’s military attention diverts from the tribal areas in which al-Qaeda and the Taliban seek refuge from their conflict in Afghanistan. The intended effect was to focus the attention of Pakistan and India, as well as that of the nations whose people were targeted, mostly American and European, as well as Israel, on the ongoing dispute over Kashmir, which both Pakistan and India claim. This would have diverted intelligence and military resources toward Kashmir and given the operatives of al-Qaeda and the Taliban some relief in the tribal areas bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan.

More Evidence of Republican Malfeasance and the Crumbling Economy

More Evidence of Republican Malfeasance and the Crumbling Economy

 

In its AP Impact series, the Associated Press illustrates that the Bush administration, against the advice of reputable economists and regulators, relaxed regulations and rules on mortgage loans in 2005, allowing the current economic crisis to start. The article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_ignored_warnings;_ylt=Ao01gt3K.7mp.j9OJOOqBuSs0NUE

The article correctly points out the warnings from regulators and economists as well as the pressure brought to bear by lobbyists for the mortgage industry and the Bush administration’s compliance with the interests of the mortgage lenders.

 

This did not happen in a vacuum; the administration of George W. Bush was helped along in its decision making by Party pundits and members of Congress who shared the now proven foolish belief in absolute free markets and deregulation. The article by the Associated Press makes the attempt to place all of the blame on lobbyists first and the administration second, thereby relegating all responsibility to now fading from the scene actors. This is misleading, and consistent with the demonstrated Associated Press bias towards the current administration and “centrist” Republican/conservative policy supporters, including a former Presidential candidate and a current Kentucky Senator. The article skirts the issues of responsibility and refuses to point to the true “smoking gun” of Republican economic theory.

 

However, the article by the Associated Press is more than gentle on our Republican legislators who all but unanimously backed the easing of restrictions on high risk loans. Republican Senators and Congressmen, in lockstep at the end of their control of both Houses of Congress, equally lobbied the administration to show favoritism for their mortgage industry “friends”, in a push for the fruits of the Republican economic policies of deregulation and “free” markets. AZ Senator John McCain and KY Senator Mitch McConnell were at the early head of the list for supporting these deregulation measures which ultimately proved fatal for an already troubled economy.

 

It is important to remember that “free” markets and deregulation always lead to domination by the greedy who have no interest other than short term profiteering. Monopolies and workplace hazards, as well as ultimate crushing of the thing sought to invigorate are the end result of Wilsonian Economics, the driving market ideology of the Republican Party and the cause of the Great Depression. It is regrettable that the Republican party has, twice in a century, proven itself short-sighted on economic matters. The Republican Party sells its economic theory to the masses talking about how their ideology is good for business, especially small business. This, while curiously believed by many who are the policies’ victims, is simply not true. Republican business favoritism is not beneficial for the greatest number of business owners, just as Republican tax policy is not beneficial for the greatest number of tax payers. Republican business, economic, and tax policy is beneficial only for the greatest amount of money in these areas, which, still remains in the hands of a very few. Whether on Wall Street or Main Street, regulation helps to ameliorate the abuses of power that seem to naturally coincide with the accumulation of wealth.

 

While no one should begrudge the wealthy the entitlement to the fruits of their labors, it is reprehensible to suggest, as the Republican Party usually does, that the fruits of those labors should entitle pre-emptive right to the fruits of the labor of others. Wilsonian Economics, again, the economic theory of the Republican Party, through its trickle down mechanism does exactly that: the poor and middle class are taxed at effectively higher rates than the rich, and the money is then re-distributed to the rich. The costs associated with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare pale in comparison to the amount of federal (our) money put into the hands of the already wealthy. This is in part explanation for why so many small businesses and farms fail during normaleconomic times while it requires a fiscal catastrophe to fell the industrial-economic behemoths.

 

What has really been at the root of our current economic meltdown has been the steady, Republican policy-fueled, decline of the middle class. In Wilsonian Economic theory, trickle down predicts that money fed into the upper branches will “trickle down” to the roots. Unfortunately, the theory doesn’t work in practice and the roots wither. The money and profits enjoyed by those at the top of the economic stratum has not “trickled down” to the bottom or even the middle. This money has mostly remained at the top, where there is, in truth, a very limited consumer base. These policies have steadily eroded the ability of the consumer base, where most of the goods purchasing takes place, to participate in the market. In a consumer-driven economy, any policy which reduces the consumers’ ability to consume is pure foolishness. With no one in the lower economic strata able to purchase goods because of the concentration of wealth at the top, eventually the supply of money for the top will also slow and eventually fail. Unregulated greed has its own reward, and that reward is failure, as current events have shown. The economic crisis at the top has been predicated by the long ignored economic crisis at the bottom, which in turn, was caused by the Republican/conservative economic policies which favored the top.

 

National Heritage Day: Racism Continues

Yesterday, Friday, 28 November was National Heritage Day, the day on which the US recognizes and celebrates the achievements and contributions of America’s native population. Did you know about it? Did you hear about it? I hadn’t until about 10 AM after the Associated Press ran a very brief article about the day. The holiday was only recognized by Congress and the President a month ago, after years of efforts for America’s peoples to have a day of their own. Unless additional measures are passed, this will be the only year for the observance, however paltry, of National Heritage Day.

 

This year’s observation of National Heritage Day the day after Thanksgiving shows the continuing institutionalized racism present in the US. Despite the election of our nation’s first black President, we still have much ground to cover before we come to recognize that, upon this, our creator’s, Earth, given to us, there is only one race, and that is the race of man. We must stop thinking of race relations in terms of colors and shades and realize that there are cultures and peoples who have come and gone before and who live on in the most unlikely of individuals. We must not marginalize others because of the dilution of blood through intermarriage; the spirits of the ancestors live on in their progeny, even if that progeny, in this particular case, looks just like his Irish and German rather than Saponi forebears.

 

If we, as a country, were to properly honor our Native Ancestors, then the day of observance should be separated from other holidays on an annual basis and not hidden on a day better known for shopping stampedes the day after gluttonous excess. Our Congress and President can and should do better by the people who served as an inspirational model for the representative democracy ideals upon which our government was based. Perhaps we could replace National White People Invasion Day- better known as Columbus Day- with National Heritage Day. But, still, for those who missed it and appreciate our native national heritage, whether in blood or spirit; take a moment and reflect on the meaning of that heritage and the meaning of this act of marginalization.

 

Remember, too, that, as with other minorities, the US government and Sates have, in the not distant past, taken active measures to dilute and diminish the presence of Native Americans. From the 1930’s until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was common practice to place Native orphans with Anglo families with specific instructions that the orphans be not informed of their true origins or given any instruction respectful to Native culture. 

Hillary for Secretary of State

            It is becoming increasingly apparent that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State in an Obama administration. This bodes well and ill, like most political matters, and the boding generally depends upon one’s perspective. While many are ecstatic or at least well pleased with the selection of HRC, others think it to be a foolish or dangerous choice. One writer, Ken Silverstein of Harper’s, lists five reasons to see Ms. Clinton’s selection as a mistake. http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003860

I disagree, not with Mr. Silverstein’s reasoning, but with his conclusion. While it is true that Hillary, and Bill, will, as usual, pursue their own agenda(s) within the office of the Secretary of State, that agenda will be personal rather than political in nature. The ability of the Clintons to significantly impact matters of legislation and governance will be limited by the international, rather than domestic, nature of the office. Clinton loyalty has always been a dubious thing, but it will be almost irrelevant in an office where the platform is global and the fanfare will satisfy their egos so that their historical intrusions on U.S. issues will be minimized. I believe that Barack Obama has made a wise and well-thought choice in tapping Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

 

            In the Secretary of State’s Office, the Clintons will not be so disposed to interceding in domestic policy, as they will have a much larger stage on which to play their roles. Being the chief diplomat, Hillary’s focus will be global, and she will probably lose sight of some of her less agreeable domestic agenda items while interacting with world leaders to bring about diplomacy and recognition the need for work on women’s issues, trade, and poverty, as well as addressing, in a limited way, environmental concerns. The international representation of the United States and repair to our foreign reputation is a monumental task suited to the astounding abilities of this woman and her husband. The job heading the State Department will keep both Clintons busy and out of the way for the work that must be done domestically.

 

            The selection of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State is beneficial for all parties. This eventual appointment satisfies the Clinton ego and expands their stature while giving the U.S. a pair of known and generally liked representatives to the world at large. Their reputations and personalities will simplify the task of presenting a new American agenda and policy set to governments now grown justifiably suspicious of U.S. motives and goals. And, this appointment will have the added benefit of effectively nullifying further election aspirations for the Clintons, signaling a transition to a better domestic political environment, where new ideas and new thinkers can capitalize on the realignment of the American political system. While the Clintons will undoubtedly have some input, it will be the input of past experts rather than current contenders.

How to Handle the Big Three Automakers

               Detroit is in trouble; General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have squandered resources and missed opportunities for decades now, and their greed and lack of foresight have made them vulnerable to bankruptcy, takeover, or outright collapse. Of course, the leadership of these troubled companies has gone begging to Washington for help. The automakers shouldn’t be helped; they should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. They have received enough federal assistance over the decades that the fault for their current crisis lies firmly on the shoulders of upper level management. Let those who created this crisis pay for their misdeeds by failing as a consequence; we will all be better off if they fail.

 

            Instead of bailing out Detroit, bail out its workers; use the proposed 25 billion dollars to keep the loyal, faithful, talented, and skilled American auto workers around, so that they will be available for whomever should pick up the pieces of the broken American automotive industry. Keep those workers’ paychecks and insurance going; in the short and long term, this will be cheaper than having them go on unemployment. For everyone above middle management, let them join the increasing ranks of the unemployed. This is fair; for over thirty years, Detroit’s answer to increased payroll costs was to cut the bottom ranks while enriching the top. Those who have benefitted so long from these irresponsible, reckless policies of profiteering should now be the ones to suffer for driving their industry off a cliff.

 

            The Big Three have been protected for years by Congressional legislation designed to frustrate foreign competition and promote American company built vehicles, to include generous defense and GSA contracts from which foreign companies have generally been excluded. Yet still, with all of the US subsidization, Detroit has failed to successfully compete, even domestically. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have consistently sought to make the quick buck for their leaders while failing to look into the future and modernize their operations and products. At one time in America, the rallying cry was “Buy American”; but seriously, given all of the scandalous behavior by American auto makers, and their failure to provide quality at a reasonable price, it has become increasingly evident that better options exist. Risk-to-profit-ratio assessments as a justification for putting unsafe products on the road gave an incredible boost to the domestic market for foreign cars, while foreign manufacturers aggressively sought to build factories in the U.S.

 

            Contrary to opinion at the time, the foreign automakers actually provide better, here and abroad, for their employees that the Big Three ever did. The reality behind that disparity comes from a more egalitarian and far less bloated sense of the responsibilities of and compensation for management. If Detroit should fail, than those foreign automakers, especially Toyota, Honda, BMW, and Benz, will be more than able to step in and restore dignity to American auto manufacturing and to its American workers. They may even retain or restore American labels, although that shouldn’t really matter. These companies do not generally look to their workforce and quality control first when it comes time to cut costs or increase profits; the foreign companies take a much more holistic and proactive approach. Foreign automaker takeover of American manufacturing, in the long run would prove beneficial to everyone, from the consumer to the auto workers, but would rightfully leave out the architects of the American auto industry collapse.

 

            Financial sector bailouts were necessary to protect the overall economic system of the U.S. and the world; even so, we saw in the few short weeks following the bailout talks the same executive extravagance that preceded the very collapse it caused. Detroit would do the same with a bailout. Detroit would continue to lay off workers while granting bonuses to their failed executive corps, and still fail to modernize their thinking, products, organization, safety, and technology. If there is to be a bailout for Detroit, let it go exclusively the workers who will be needed to repopulate the factories after transition and just let the executives and their institutions of greed fail.

Rush Limbaugh: Influential Moron

                Rush Limbaugh is fun to watch or listen to, in the way that the Three Stooges were fun to watch or listen to. He has no clue as to what is going on and no idea wherein lies the truth, and he really doesn’t care, so long as he is watched and heard. Rush Limbaugh is an absolute idiot, as far as politics, the economy, conservatism, or what really matters to the American people are concerned; he is a genius at showmanship, hate and fear mongering, and the construction of mountains from molehills. He is also expert in rumor generation, propaganda promulgation, and disinformation dissemination, as well as character assassination, and lie dispensing.  

 

                On a recent show, as a case in point, Rush elaborated on a plan posited by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, as if this one obscure professor’s plan constituted the whole of Obama economic policy. Rush has spoken as if this single professor, who has no role in, and no connection to, neither past nor present, the Obama campaign, the Obama transition, or the Obama Presidency, is the individual who will be in charge of re-vamping social security. He is outraged that this woman’s plan calls for a nationalization of 401(k)’s requiring employees to place their retirement money into government bonds. While this one professor’s plan amounts to as much, her work is published in an obscure leftist periodical that gets little real traffic, and again, she has no connection, past, present, and probably future, to Obama. This is nothing more than a Rush Limbaugh standard tactic of making up the news where there is none.

 

                Rush Limbaugh is in no way conceivable a journalist, Rush is a shock jock. He has no qualifications whatsoever and seems perennially, fundamentally incapable of telling the truth. His projections and pontifications are proven wrong, like the case in point referenced above, something close to 98% of the time. Rush Limbaugh briefly attended Southeast Missouri State University where, according to his mother, he flunked everything, including Modern Ballroom Dance. Southeast Missouri State University is an unknown school, and like most unknown schools, it is exceptional. Exceptionally easy to excel in, but Rush couldn’t hack it; he couldn’t handle the requirements of a school, that, in its undergraduate role, has no national ranking.  Ergo, Rush has no legitimate talent, intellect, education, or training in any area of honest enterprise. So, much like Pamela Anderson, he is an entertainer.

 

                As an entertainer is the only way in which Rush should be taken; his espoused views on so many topics are not the product of any education or information. Rush Limbaugh’s frequent rantings on topics of politics and the economy, as well as religion, are the product of an undisciplined, ill-trained, inadequate mind coupled with an overbearing ego. He is not to be taken at his word, and any who seek to find truth or news from him will be deceived. He can entertain, if only to witness the incredible delusional mental gyrations he must perform to arrive at his always ill-founded, most usually fraudulent conclusions.

Georgetown Mayor Vetoes Just Cause Ordinance

                On 5 November, Georgetown Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames vetoed the City Council passed “Just Cause” ordinance that would have required the mayor to provide justification for the firing of city employees. Mayor Tingle-Sames has developed something of a reputation in Georgetown for autocratic firing within the city government, frequently citing “loyalty” issues as her rationale. Karen Tingle-Sames, voiced her objections to the ordinance in a letter provided to the City Clerk and City Council. In this letter, she stated that just cause is the start of acknowledging union employment and that the taxpayers of Georgetown do not want city government recognizing union employment. Karen Tingle-Sames claimed that she stood with the majority of the community in her decision.

 

                Stephen Glass and Mark Singer both voted against just cause in the City Council resolution for the ordinance that passed 6-2. Stephen Glass noted that he would have to review the mayor’s reasoning before he could declare for or against the ordinance should another vote on it come up. Councilman Glass also stated correctly that the mayor is part of the problem. Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames has shown a penchant for unnecessary and demoralizing patronage-based personnel decisions in which she punishes those who disagree with her and rewards her supporters. Most famous of these decisions was the firing of the long-time fire chief for “loyalty” issues and his replacement with a supporter of the Mayor- the “loyalty issue was the now-former chief’s support of Ms. Tingle-Sames’ opponent in the previous election. This, along with other personnel decisions, has left a city government unable to posit contrary viewpoints, stalling the free exchange of ideas necessary in an economically challenging environment.

 

                Mayor Tingle-Sames’ rationale posted in the News-Graphic rely on two logically fallacious arguments. The first is her “slippery slope” argument that just cause will lead to unionization; this slippery slope leads to her “straw man” argument against fears of unionization. Requiring rational basis for employment decisions does not, in any way, lead necessarily to unionization, and it improves city government accountability. Unions are not a major issue for the City of Georgetown, and the organization required to get one started will tip off those in charge long before the matter could come to a vote. A feeling of greater job security among city employees that would be fostered by the just cause ordinance would actually help the city stave off any future efforts at union organizing and would also improve the content of city governance discussions, leading to better decisions. The union threat is not real. I do not know what Karen Tingle-Sames considers to be the taxpayers of the community or the majority. As for her “majority of the community”, I don’t seem to recall any referendum measure or poll, by which the community consensus might be gauged, to have happened. As for taxpayers, everyone in the community is a taxpayer, so perhaps the Mayor is referring to those paying property taxes, which would specialize her pool of opinion somewhat. Still, I haven’t heard anyone speak to the legitimacy of the Mayor’s comments and veto.

 

                Mayor Karen Tingle-Sames’ veto of the just cause ordinance strikes this member of the community as an attempt to maintain absolute autocracy over city employees in order to build a city government responsive only to her needs and those of her supporters. There are many good reasons why patronage employment has been rejected by communities across the country. Her rationale for the veto is deceptive and misrepresentative, I believe, of the wishes of the City of Georgetown as a whole. While the only information I currently have on this issue at the moment is that from the News-Graphic article on her veto, I am reasonably confident that the analysis will withstand scrutiny, while the Mayor’s motives will not.