What Are We Entitled To?

My friend and co-author, Brandon Alt, sent an e-mail last week asking that question. It went out to a large group of his friends, and I wish I had saved my answer, but I didn't. In my mind, the only thing God gave us was life, and the opportunity to do something with that gift. We have a country which was founded by people who believed that God granted us the right to choose for ourselves, to be free to choose for ourselves. We have a country preserved by the blood of people who agreed with them. And today we have a country where a small group of people are trying to force on the rest of us their idea of a government. That government does not allow us to choose for ourselves, does not even trust us to choose for ourselves.

In the same week, someone pointed out to me that if people made their own choices, without the government forcing things, that women would not be equal citizens, that civil rights would not have worked, and that other groups, such as the disabled, would be under-employed (whatever that means). I disagree entirely! All of those things came about, not because the government forced them, but because people stood up for themselves.

The government didn't *give* women the vote, they took it. The government didn't *give* the black people, the Indians and others, civil rights, they took them. The government didn't *give* jobs to the blacks, the disabled, and other minorities, or *give* equal pay to women for equal work. They took it. They stood up for themselves, and *then* the government passed amendments to the Constitution or laws which changed the way business was done.

I don't believe government had to pass the laws, because I believe the people standing up for themselves were changing things already. Making amendments to the Constitution - that's a fine way to change our government. It's the way the Constitution is designed to work. Passing laws on top of laws, none of which really changes society or the attitudes of society, is not the most efficient way to work. You can *force* people to do something, but you can't force them to change their attitudes and opinions, and true reform requires a change of attitude and opinion. That is not the same thing as being politically correct.

So, what do you think you are entitled to? For one side of the argument, the side with which I totally agree, see Brandon's Feb. 28 post.

Muslim Terrorist

Veteran's Day has rolled around again. This year, more than ever before, we've seen the mission of our veterans broaden to include all of their job - to defend the country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Earlier this year, outside a recruiting station, a home-grown Muslim jihadist gunned down a fine young soldier. In this last week, another home-grown Muslim jihadist and terrorist gunned down over 40 people, 13 of whom died.

Only 60% of Americans, in one of those polls we've become so fond of, think this should be investigated as an act of terror by the US Military. 27% think it should be investigated by civilian authorities as a criminal act. 13% aren't sure. Way to take a stand. I'm in the 60%, and I don't understand how every American isn't. An officer of the US Military has gunned down his fellow soldiers, screaming the Muslim Jihadist favorite words, "Allah Akbar", and this isn't an act of both terror and treason?

When are we going to stop being politically correct? I do not care a fig if this man had a troubled childhood. Most of us do, and we aren't running around killing the soldiers who defend us. I don't care if his co-workers stressed him out. Mine always did, and I didn't shoot them. I don't care if he felt dissed as a Muslim. I get dissed as a Christian. So freakin' what? It's life. Grow up!

No, what I care about is that he killed 13 people and wounded dozens more. One of the 13 he killed was a newlywed who was two months pregnant, so in my mind, he killed 14 people. He was a jihadist, a terrorist, and he performed acts of treason. He needs to be investigated, questioned, tried and then punished. Forget alleged acts. He was caught actually committing the acts in question.

Copenhagen CO2 Treaty

Yes, folks, negotiations going on to make America pay reparations to the rest of the world, based on the fact that we are causing global warming.

Lord Christopher Monckton, an expert in this area, pointed out today that right now, we have 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions world-wide now, per year. 2 parts per million, makes 15 billion ppm per year.

With me so far?

When you do the math for the predictions for the next 100 years, according to those working on the treaty, we will be looking at 7 trillion tons per year in 100 years. Their math is wrong, but they say that equates to 7 F. degrees warmer. (Lord Monckton showed that the true number would be only 1 F. warmer, and nothing to concern ourselves with, if the globe warms at all.)

In order to reduce that result by 1 trillion tons and 1 degree, the entire world would have to spend 33 years with no electricity, no cars, nothing at all that gives off CO2 emissions. So after 33 years of *no* energy, we reduce 1 of the 7 degrees predicted.

What is wrong with us? Are we so stupid we will take Al Gore's word for anything if he makes enough noise and ignores all opposition? And when did we begin to apologize for everything we've ever accomplished, and feel that we need to pay *reparations* to those who haven't bothered to build the life that they envy? When did we begin to help our enemies dismantle our lives brick by brick?

DO THE MATH!

My Forehead is Sore

Yes, I've been pounding my head against the wall. I had an ah-ha moment this afternoon during Glenn Beck. I've known for some time that the progressives in Washington were working on more than "health care reform." Otherwise, why would they keep submitting bill after bill that covers so much more than health care?

Today, Glenn talked about the new health studies being done about the health care issues involved in *gun ownership*. What? As near as I can tell, it should be an obvious benefit - less stress if you own one and can defend yourself against both domestic criminals and the government.

It suddenly dawned on me why the "health care reform" is so important to the progressives. If they don't get it, they can't keep pushing us and pushing us on issues like gun ownership, smoking, and other things the government wants and the people don't. The health care bill is an umbrella disguise for Sunstein and other progressives to "nudge" us into the progressive lifestyle we conservatives don't want.

If not so, then why is the original excuse of covering all Americans now down to a bill that still leaves almost 20,000,000 Americans uninsured?

A Little Bit Pregnant?

Have you ever heard of an ethics waiver? Apparently, it means when the president wants someone to do a particular job, and there's an ethical reason why that person shouldn't, a waiver is granted to allow them to do so.

This is not something new to the White House, though it's a foreign concept to me. How can there exist such a thing as an ethics waiver? How can you say that it doesn't matter that there's a conflict of interest, or a past association or behavior that is no longer important in light of the fact that we want you to do this job?

A person, a government, a nation is either ethical or it isn't. It's like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren't. You can't waive a person's ethics! And yet, this White House has done that 16 times in the last 9 months. It was pointed out, by the person the president appointed to be in charge of ethics for the White House, that this is less than 1% of the 1890 jobs awarded. That makes it okay?

I don't know how these numbers stack up against previous administrations, and it doesn't matter. I didn't realize this was going on, and now I do. The previous administrations are over. This one is ongoing. They can make the argument that it is fewer waviers, though I don't know that it is or isn't, but that is a specious argument. There shouldn't be any waivers of ethics ever! A thing is either wrong or right.

You can't be a little bit pregnant or a little bit unethical.

Read the Sept. 4, 2009 article on The Hill website.

By Their Fruits

Forget the school lesson plan. This is more important.

Let's keep it simple.

Iran is being led by a man who is a Twelver. That is, he is part of the Muslim population who believes that the 12th Imam is the Messiah and will appear after blood and violence and chaos and bring peace to the world. They believe they can hasten his coming by causing the blood and violence and chaos. They believe that Jesus will come introduce him as the Messiah and will be his aide, more or less.

So, on the one hand we have a Muslim sect in power which has many, many followers and believes that death and destruction and chaos must take place in order for their Messiah to come.

On the other hand, we believe, as stated in Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall ve preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." So Jesus preached that in spite of wars and desolation, that when all the earth had been taught the principles of love and redemption, the Messiah would come and bring peace. This is the foundation of Missionary Work.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Speech Lesson Plan, Part 3

I had no objection to the president speaking to school children. Truthfully, not even to his doing it during school hours. I did object to some districts making the watching of it mandatory, and accompanying noncompliance with additional punitive work to be done. I did object to some districts telling parents they could not be there for the speech and discussions. I did object to the issuance from the Department of Education of a lesson plan to enhance the experience of listening to the president. I most strongly object to the lesson plan itself. Here is part 3 in my series about that plan.

After the Speech

1. Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes, or place notes on a butcher‐paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, such as citizenship, personal responsibility, and civic duty.

2. Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

• What do you think the president wants us to do?
• Does the speech make you want to do anything?
• Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
• What would you like to tell the president?

I've probably said it all in the last two posts, but here we go again. There is nothing wrong with the first suggestion. As long as the teacher doesn't tell children what to think or how to think about the speech, as long as the ideas and discussions come from the students, this could be a great discussion. If children have not already been discussing these topics, it could be lame. If all their knowledge is drawn from this speech and teacher guidance, it will be one sided.

Let's look at these terms, which overlap considerably in the new political spectrum. Citizenship, civic duty, personal responsibility. Does that mean the same thing to the Obama White House as it does to an Independent or a Constitutionalist, or a Reagan Republican? I doubt it. If you read Charles M. Firestone's article on the Huffington Post website from last October, you will have a good idea of the current liberal meaning of citizenship. It starts by sounding fairly traditional and reasonable. By the end, it turns out we need financial, environmental, and cultural "literacies" in order to be a good citizen.

Even Wikipedia, with an unknown author, doesn't go that far: "'Active citizenship' is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens."

A more general definition: "Citizenship is membership in a political community. The term derives from membership of a city (as was the term citizen), but now normally refers to a nation. Citizenship carries with it rights of political participation; many also consider it brings duties to exercise those rights responsibly."

Founding Father quotes:

• Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. ~ Thomas Jefferson
• It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it. ~ George Washington
• Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.~ John Adams
• I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. ~ Abraham Lincoln (not a founding father)

Now let's look at the questions of part 2. The second and third ones are bad questions. They can be answered simply yes or no, therefore requiring little or no thought. The first one is a basic knowledge comprehension question. The last one would be okay, if the discussion were not guided toward telling the president that you are going to take his advice and do just what he tells you to do. Chances of that? Pretty slim.

Part 4 tomorrow. The extended activities, probably the most objectionable part.