Friends,
We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Wow! Is that a shock to any of you? Let me start off by saying that I am no economist. I’m just an average guy who is trying to look at this situation in the most logical way possible.
Here is the way I see it. In the mid ‘60s, President Johnson brought about the Great Society which, among other things, sought to alleviate the “crushing weight of poverty.” He wanted to solve these problems with a new form of “creative federalism.” Those of you who regularly read this column will remember my posting of 21 Oct of this year:
So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?” In his speech, he urged the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals; no one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as government agencies tried to “distribute the wealth”….
The slippery slope was firmly set in place.
Let’s fast forward now. Under President Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. This was a law that forced lenders to violate good commercial practices by making loans that were, at best, questionable and at worst, unsupportable. The slippery slope had just developed a more pronounced down-angle.
Once again, let’s fast forward. Under President Clinton, even more disadvantaged borrowers were able to take out mortgages to achieve the “American Dream,” irrespective of their ability to support that dream. President Clinton “encouraged” lenders to even further violate good business practices and make more money available to these disadvantaged borrowers. Remember the mantra that there are more homeowners in America than ever before? Did anyone in Washington ever bother to look to see whether these homeowners could afford the “American Dream” they had achieved?
One of the great joys in my life has been the accomplishment of a goal through hard work. When I want something enough to work for it, the satisfaction that comes through achievement makes all the effort worth it. The message sent by the federal government to the so-called “disadvantaged” was that it did not want them to feel left out; therefore serious shortcuts were made available to them. Nobody bothered to tell them that they had to work to support their dream.
Once again, let’s fast forward to today. We have had the collapse of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and a host of others. The way I see it, there are two culprits in this debacle. The first is the federal government which had the arrogance to interfere with the free market system. This was wrong for many reasons. The Founders were wise enough to keep the federal government out of the free market. I am no constitutional scholar, but I am aware of only one situation where the Constitution allows the federal government to get involved in commerce within the US, and that is when there is a dispute between the States (some of you scholars can correct me on that one).
The other culprit is business and industry allowing the federal government to get away with their meddling. Truly astute business professionals should have been able to foresee the coming economic collapse caused by the meddling of the federal government and stopped it.
Now we are soon to be saddled with over one trillion dollars worth of debt that could have been avoided with the foresight of a sophomore economics student. What makes this situation even worse is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are fighting each other to see who can give which industry more of our money. The latest polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans bitterly object to the bail-outs taking place, but Congress seems to be made up of people whose wisdom is so superior that they do not need to listen to their constituents.
There are a few brave Congressmen and Senators who have attempted to stand up against this tax against our future, but not enough. We have about a year to put together a slate of candidates that will decisively overturn this rampant growth of our debt, debt that is a direct result of government interference in the marketplace.
This interference in the marketplace is not limited to the front office; it extends down to the union halls and the massive corruption and power flexing that exists in the union hierarchy. That will be the subject of my next posting.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
Dan Lanotte
- The Carpenter's Mate
- Falcon, Colorado
- I am a 31 year Navy veteran, 15 years as a SONAR Technician and 16 years as an Intelligence Officer. I am a Goldwater-Reagan Conservative with a deep love for this wonderful country of opportunity and am concerned about the continued abrogation of our freedoms. In addition to putting my thoughts and political philosophy in these pages I enjoy teaching firearms and personal protection in keeping with the spirit of the Second Amendment. My courses are listed at www.carpmateconsulting.com.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
The New Administration
Friends,
We have a new administration due to take charge on 20 January. For those of us of the Conservative persuasion, it was a disappointing election season. A large number of people were disenchanted with the Republican ticket that was foisted on us by the main-stream-media. Many of these people stayed at home instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Because of this, we may deserve what we will have to endure for at least the next two years.
There is a fairly wide variety of opinions on how we Conservatives are to approach the new regime. Numerous pundits have advocated sitting by and give the new administration and their Congressional Stooges a chance; that they may surprise us (oops, did I give myself away?). I am not cut from that cloth. I firmly believe that it is our responsibility to hold their collective feet to the fire. Obama made a lot of very liberal and socialistic claims during the campaign but now that he has been elected he seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. He is keeping Gates as SECDEF, but his choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, is an avowed gun grabber.
When you step back and examine where he came from you have to realize that his political roots are definitely not conservative but are they truly liberal? They may be best described as opportunistic. The political machine that spawned Obama, Chicago, is opportunistic to the extreme. Looking at the “auctioning off” of Obama’s Senate seat, this should not shock the astute political observer. I was gratified to see that Obama’s organization took on the investigation of how much contact his people had with Governor Blagojevich concerning the auction. On the surface, the fast reaction of the Obama organization is laudable; do I believe any findings they will “uncover,” unlikely. (Refer back to the second sentence of this paragraph.)
I do not intend to give the Obama administration a “pass” for one instant. I urge all Conservatives to adopt the same attitude.
As always, I welcome comments/discussion.
We have a new administration due to take charge on 20 January. For those of us of the Conservative persuasion, it was a disappointing election season. A large number of people were disenchanted with the Republican ticket that was foisted on us by the main-stream-media. Many of these people stayed at home instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Because of this, we may deserve what we will have to endure for at least the next two years.
There is a fairly wide variety of opinions on how we Conservatives are to approach the new regime. Numerous pundits have advocated sitting by and give the new administration and their Congressional Stooges a chance; that they may surprise us (oops, did I give myself away?). I am not cut from that cloth. I firmly believe that it is our responsibility to hold their collective feet to the fire. Obama made a lot of very liberal and socialistic claims during the campaign but now that he has been elected he seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. He is keeping Gates as SECDEF, but his choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, is an avowed gun grabber.
When you step back and examine where he came from you have to realize that his political roots are definitely not conservative but are they truly liberal? They may be best described as opportunistic. The political machine that spawned Obama, Chicago, is opportunistic to the extreme. Looking at the “auctioning off” of Obama’s Senate seat, this should not shock the astute political observer. I was gratified to see that Obama’s organization took on the investigation of how much contact his people had with Governor Blagojevich concerning the auction. On the surface, the fast reaction of the Obama organization is laudable; do I believe any findings they will “uncover,” unlikely. (Refer back to the second sentence of this paragraph.)
I do not intend to give the Obama administration a “pass” for one instant. I urge all Conservatives to adopt the same attitude.
As always, I welcome comments/discussion.
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Increasing Terrorist Threat
Friends,
Over the last several days the world has witnessed incredible carnage in the name of religion. Fox News reports “Indian police said Sunday that the only surviving gunman told them he belongs to the Pakistani militant group Lakshkar-e-Taiba. The group is seen as a creation of the Pakistani intelligence to help fight India in the disputed Kashmir region. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, has also operated in Kashmir. Both are reported to be linked to Al Qaeda.” In that part of the world, religion is inextricably linked to politics and foreign policy.
We are also hearing reports that Muslims across the Middle East are condemning the violence which has killed more than 170 people. These “conscientious Muslims” are afraid that the violence will tarnish the image the world has of Muslims. I find this attitude astounding to the point of hilarity. Palestinians have been shelling Israeli settlements for years. The only reason they have not amassed the kill rate of the Lakshkar-e-Taibi is because they are so inept. They keep shooting small rockets into the Israeli settlements with no idea where they will land.
When you compare the average Muslim extremist attack with that undertaken in Mumbai last week, it is like comparing the bush league with the majors.
The BBC reported that the planning for the Mumbai attacks was extensive. At least one ship was hijacked and used as a mother ship to transport the attackers close to shore. They then went ashore in dinghies in two to four-man teams to conduct their attacks. The targets were preselected. All indications are that the attacks were rehearsed and well choreographed. The attackers were very well armed for the selected targets to affect maximum casualties. While a large number of people were killed, it doesn’t look like those killed were completely random victims. The attackers were specifically looking for people with American and British passports. They also specifically targeted the residence of an Israeli priest who had frequent Israeli guests.
This attack shows a high degree of planning and coordination, possibly with the complicity of elements of Pakistani Intelligence.
On the other hand, looking at the average Muslim extremist; young Muslims, mostly young men, are more than willing to strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up along with anyone who happens to be close by. But this is in the name of – well, I don’t know what they are trying to accomplish – I guess they are trying in some perverted way to advance Muslim principles. In my view this is a prime example of cowardice, not on the part of the suicide bombers, but on their handlers. If it is so glorious to die for Allah, why are they recruiting the young, passionate believers? Why do they not prove their devotion and blow themselves into the arms of their 72 virgins?
While fanatics can and often do create havoc, they are not the major concern for America; rather, it is the calculating and organized groups that may or may not be affiliated with Al Qaeda. However, certainly Al Qaeda has been an inspirational influence in the world of Islamic terrorism. The planning that took place before the Mumbai attacks reflect the thoroughness of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the planning did not take nearly as long, but it was certainly as thorough. This shows that the enemy is still willing and capable to undertake the requisite planning for a successful attack.
What really worries me is that the exact same scenario can be used right here on American shores with only a few alterations to the plans. These highly coordinated groups would like nothing better than to conduct a successful attack against a high profile event.
With a change in administration and a change in national emphasis the next couple of years will tell how the world of terrorism views the United States. If we are viewed as ineffective or uncommitted to the war on terror we can expect renewed targeting of US assets, if not on US soil itself. Vigilance and pressure on the terrorists is the only thing that will keep their attacks from our soil.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments. This posting can also be viewed at: http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.
Dan
Over the last several days the world has witnessed incredible carnage in the name of religion. Fox News reports “Indian police said Sunday that the only surviving gunman told them he belongs to the Pakistani militant group Lakshkar-e-Taiba. The group is seen as a creation of the Pakistani intelligence to help fight India in the disputed Kashmir region. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, has also operated in Kashmir. Both are reported to be linked to Al Qaeda.” In that part of the world, religion is inextricably linked to politics and foreign policy.
We are also hearing reports that Muslims across the Middle East are condemning the violence which has killed more than 170 people. These “conscientious Muslims” are afraid that the violence will tarnish the image the world has of Muslims. I find this attitude astounding to the point of hilarity. Palestinians have been shelling Israeli settlements for years. The only reason they have not amassed the kill rate of the Lakshkar-e-Taibi is because they are so inept. They keep shooting small rockets into the Israeli settlements with no idea where they will land.
When you compare the average Muslim extremist attack with that undertaken in Mumbai last week, it is like comparing the bush league with the majors.
The BBC reported that the planning for the Mumbai attacks was extensive. At least one ship was hijacked and used as a mother ship to transport the attackers close to shore. They then went ashore in dinghies in two to four-man teams to conduct their attacks. The targets were preselected. All indications are that the attacks were rehearsed and well choreographed. The attackers were very well armed for the selected targets to affect maximum casualties. While a large number of people were killed, it doesn’t look like those killed were completely random victims. The attackers were specifically looking for people with American and British passports. They also specifically targeted the residence of an Israeli priest who had frequent Israeli guests.
This attack shows a high degree of planning and coordination, possibly with the complicity of elements of Pakistani Intelligence.
On the other hand, looking at the average Muslim extremist; young Muslims, mostly young men, are more than willing to strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up along with anyone who happens to be close by. But this is in the name of – well, I don’t know what they are trying to accomplish – I guess they are trying in some perverted way to advance Muslim principles. In my view this is a prime example of cowardice, not on the part of the suicide bombers, but on their handlers. If it is so glorious to die for Allah, why are they recruiting the young, passionate believers? Why do they not prove their devotion and blow themselves into the arms of their 72 virgins?
While fanatics can and often do create havoc, they are not the major concern for America; rather, it is the calculating and organized groups that may or may not be affiliated with Al Qaeda. However, certainly Al Qaeda has been an inspirational influence in the world of Islamic terrorism. The planning that took place before the Mumbai attacks reflect the thoroughness of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the planning did not take nearly as long, but it was certainly as thorough. This shows that the enemy is still willing and capable to undertake the requisite planning for a successful attack.
What really worries me is that the exact same scenario can be used right here on American shores with only a few alterations to the plans. These highly coordinated groups would like nothing better than to conduct a successful attack against a high profile event.
With a change in administration and a change in national emphasis the next couple of years will tell how the world of terrorism views the United States. If we are viewed as ineffective or uncommitted to the war on terror we can expect renewed targeting of US assets, if not on US soil itself. Vigilance and pressure on the terrorists is the only thing that will keep their attacks from our soil.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments. This posting can also be viewed at: http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.
Dan
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Statism in America
Friends,
My wife subscribes to a publication put out by Ligonier Ministries called Tabletalk. In addition to daily bible devotionals, each month it contains numerous articles written by leading Christian authors. I read one in the August edition written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Founder and Chairman of Ligonier Ministries entitled “Statism.” In it he notes that he asked Dr. Francis Schaeffer his “biggest concern for the future of the church in America?” Dr Schaeffer said immediately, “Statism.” Dr. Sproul goes on to define statism as a world view philosophy that the federal government is the ultimate authority removing God from His position of supremacy.
A subset of this philosophy is the devolution of authority from statehood to statism. I am not going to address the removal of God from the public square, even though the evolution of the “separation of church and state” has certainly played a major role in this trend. Instead, I am going to look at the evolution of American society as an entitlement society, thereby moving ever forward to statism.
In the early years of the US the country was, for the most part, an agrarian society. Key among the characteristics of this society was self reliance and dependency on family. Each family knew that if they were to make their way in life they would have to do it themselves and maybe with assistance from their neighbors, if they had neighbors. Not in the equation was the government.
Over the last 200 years, it has become more acceptable and even expected for government to hand out those essential elements of survival as basic subsistence with no strings attached. This tendency became more evident under the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Barry Goldwater phrased it well when he said, “The government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”
In a speech Johnson gave at the University of Michigan on 22 May 1964, he discussed the ills of America and called on the students to work toward solving those ills. Among other things, he pointed out the “crushing weight of poverty,” the overcrowded, understaffed classrooms with out- dated curricula.
To solve these problems, he it would “require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines federalism as, “the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center.” This is the concept that the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.
So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?”In his speech, he urges the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals. No one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as we tried to “distribute the wealth” as is being touted by Senator Obama.
Our country had been on an ever-steepening slide toward statism since the New Deal days, but Johnson accelerated that slide. It was further accelerated to include the commercial side our lives under President Carter when the Community Reinvestment act was passed. This forced mortgage companies to make loans that were questionable, at best. This placed a lot of bad loans under the umbrella of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
President Clinton took up the mantle of statism by “encouraging” lenders to make loans available to disadvantaged borrowers to make home ownership more available. This resulted in massive numbers of people buying homes they could not afford. Remember when the Clinton Administration changed the depository regulations for banks in the early to mid ‘90s? You could buy HUD housed for pennies-on-the-dollar. I contend that these actions were a direct result of the Federal Government’s push toward statism.
Now we can fast-forward to a few weeks ago when Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac imploded (along with a number of very large financial institutions). The Democrats are blaming the current administration for this implosion. Talk about mendacity! They are the ones that caused the crisis but are putting the blame directly on the Republican administration.
With the $700B bail-out, not to mention the billions spent to bail of earlier failures, we have steepened the slippery slope to complete statism to almost vertical. Treasury Secretary Paulson is now going about buying large blocks of bank stocks, putting the Federal Government right in the middle of the market square. In many cases, the banks have no choice about the purchase. The federal government is, in effect conducting a hostile takeover. While I am no constitutional scholar, there seems to be a serious constitutional issue here.
I have urged my Congressman and Senators to vigorously oppose these measures. Congressman Lamborn has done so. Unfortunately, our two senators supported the bail-out. Each and every citizen in America has had a huge debt burden placed on them. We have now sunk to not only the concept of individual statism, but now commercial statism has put a pall over our entire economy.
It is time that we put people into office that will vigorously work to reverse this trend and get us back on the track set out by the Founders.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
My wife subscribes to a publication put out by Ligonier Ministries called Tabletalk. In addition to daily bible devotionals, each month it contains numerous articles written by leading Christian authors. I read one in the August edition written by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Founder and Chairman of Ligonier Ministries entitled “Statism.” In it he notes that he asked Dr. Francis Schaeffer his “biggest concern for the future of the church in America?” Dr Schaeffer said immediately, “Statism.” Dr. Sproul goes on to define statism as a world view philosophy that the federal government is the ultimate authority removing God from His position of supremacy.
A subset of this philosophy is the devolution of authority from statehood to statism. I am not going to address the removal of God from the public square, even though the evolution of the “separation of church and state” has certainly played a major role in this trend. Instead, I am going to look at the evolution of American society as an entitlement society, thereby moving ever forward to statism.
In the early years of the US the country was, for the most part, an agrarian society. Key among the characteristics of this society was self reliance and dependency on family. Each family knew that if they were to make their way in life they would have to do it themselves and maybe with assistance from their neighbors, if they had neighbors. Not in the equation was the government.
Over the last 200 years, it has become more acceptable and even expected for government to hand out those essential elements of survival as basic subsistence with no strings attached. This tendency became more evident under the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Barry Goldwater phrased it well when he said, “The government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”
In a speech Johnson gave at the University of Michigan on 22 May 1964, he discussed the ills of America and called on the students to work toward solving those ills. Among other things, he pointed out the “crushing weight of poverty,” the overcrowded, understaffed classrooms with out- dated curricula.
To solve these problems, he it would “require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines federalism as, “the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center.” This is the concept that the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution.
So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?”In his speech, he urges the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals. No one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as we tried to “distribute the wealth” as is being touted by Senator Obama.
Our country had been on an ever-steepening slide toward statism since the New Deal days, but Johnson accelerated that slide. It was further accelerated to include the commercial side our lives under President Carter when the Community Reinvestment act was passed. This forced mortgage companies to make loans that were questionable, at best. This placed a lot of bad loans under the umbrella of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
President Clinton took up the mantle of statism by “encouraging” lenders to make loans available to disadvantaged borrowers to make home ownership more available. This resulted in massive numbers of people buying homes they could not afford. Remember when the Clinton Administration changed the depository regulations for banks in the early to mid ‘90s? You could buy HUD housed for pennies-on-the-dollar. I contend that these actions were a direct result of the Federal Government’s push toward statism.
Now we can fast-forward to a few weeks ago when Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac imploded (along with a number of very large financial institutions). The Democrats are blaming the current administration for this implosion. Talk about mendacity! They are the ones that caused the crisis but are putting the blame directly on the Republican administration.
With the $700B bail-out, not to mention the billions spent to bail of earlier failures, we have steepened the slippery slope to complete statism to almost vertical. Treasury Secretary Paulson is now going about buying large blocks of bank stocks, putting the Federal Government right in the middle of the market square. In many cases, the banks have no choice about the purchase. The federal government is, in effect conducting a hostile takeover. While I am no constitutional scholar, there seems to be a serious constitutional issue here.
I have urged my Congressman and Senators to vigorously oppose these measures. Congressman Lamborn has done so. Unfortunately, our two senators supported the bail-out. Each and every citizen in America has had a huge debt burden placed on them. We have now sunk to not only the concept of individual statism, but now commercial statism has put a pall over our entire economy.
It is time that we put people into office that will vigorously work to reverse this trend and get us back on the track set out by the Founders.
As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.
Dan
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Points to Ponder
Friends,
I normally do not post email exchanges but the one below from a friend was very interesting and I thought I would share it. It is done so with her permission.
Enjoy
Dan
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:34 AM
To: 'Daniel C. Lanotte'
Subject: Points to Ponder
Hi Dan, The Dems and press are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber by showing he has no plumbing license, yet he said he worked for a plumbing company- has he ever actually said he worked for the company as a plumber? He may fill some other role in the company. There are also other routes to learning plumbing beside Union ones of which he may have availed himself, and it is the union that is screaming the loudest right now because they supported Obama.
At our caucus, all I heard was “So and So should be our nominee because he is electable”. Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.! And stop letting the liberal press pick our candidates by suddenly promoting the man they think is most defeatable (or will “suck up” to them- pardon my French). McCain quite suddenly became the front runner after much hype in the press created a “Bandwagon” effect among Reps causing Mitt Romney to pull out. In (public) high school back in the late 50s/early 60s we had a class called “Problems of Democracy” in which we learned propaganda techniques and how to spot them and avoid believing them over our common sense. Bandwagon was one, “The Big Lie” was another whereby a lie is told often enough that people believe it (Joseph Goebbels’, Hitler’s propaganda minister’s, favorite technique). All one need do is listen to Obama or Biden (who said in his debate with Gov. Palin that Obama did not say he would meet with Achmadinijad and was never called on it, but you could see by the look on Palin’s face that she was appalled)- if their lips are moving, they are lying. McCain has done his share of “misstatements” too, and it is time we, including the press, start calling a lie a lie and start pointing out blatant efforts at propaganda.
I have forgotten the names of some of the other forms of propaganda, but they include one very commonly used by the Dems, possibly named “Substitution”- accuse the other guy of what you yourself are doing to refocus blame on your opponent. The Dems (Barney Frank and others) started this whole mortgage mess by forcing loans to go to many, especially the poor, who could not sustain the payments and were doomed from the beginning to eventually default on them. Now that it has hit the fan, the Dems accuse the Reps, the Bush Administration, of causing the entire mess when it was primarily the Dems who started it.
Another form of Propaganda is the use of celebrity to gain prestige for your candidate/cause. Get enough Hollywood luminaries to speak for your guy and the other guy looks like a “Nobody”. And who wants to vote fore a “Nobody”.
Just my 2 cents worth for the day.
My Reply:
S ,
There are certain issues on which you and I will respectfully disagree. This is not one of them. There are a lot of us who were very surprised when Romney pulled out as soon as he did. We have all come to the conclusion that the press “fell in love” with McCain because they saw Romney as a tougher competitor and unbeatable. Notice how soon they turned on McCain as soon as he became the only Republican in the game. They want Obama to win. This is not just my ranting. The MSM has bought into the “Globalization Effect” to the extent that they have sold their souls to make it happen.
Another area you have nailed it on is “Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.!” This is another area where a number of us are working. The primary target for 2010 is Senator Salazar. He is identified as one of the most “suck-up” Kennedy Democrats in the Senate. I email him on almost every issue that comes up. To his credit, he never ignores me; he has always responded with a position paper. To his detriment, he is almost always on the wrong side of the Constitution. Most of his positions are not Constitutionally supportable. As you know I am just a simple carpenter and if I can recognize unconstitutional behavior that should be an indication that a lot of other Coloradoans will be able to do the same. I have saved all of his emails and have the evidence to back up my contention.
You also talk about “The Big Lie.” Boy! Is that an accurate assessment. I would like to refer you to two articles. The first is by Mike Gallagher on Townhall.com (first attachment). He does an excellent job discussing this issue. The second article you should have received last night on one of my postings and is available at http://carpentersmate.blobspot.com/. Andy Pico has been called “Mr. NORAD” because of his years of experience and astute insights into national defense/security. His study into “The Big Lie” of global warming has drawn a lot of fire from “experts” who are sucking on the big money bottle. In my book, that is something of which to be proud.
Thank you for your comments. With your permission, I would like to pass this exchange around.
Dan
Daniel C. Lanotte
dlanotte@falconbroadband.net
719-683-5506
I normally do not post email exchanges but the one below from a friend was very interesting and I thought I would share it. It is done so with her permission.
Enjoy
Dan
From:
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 6:34 AM
To: 'Daniel C. Lanotte'
Subject: Points to Ponder
Hi Dan, The Dems and press are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber by showing he has no plumbing license, yet he said he worked for a plumbing company- has he ever actually said he worked for the company as a plumber? He may fill some other role in the company. There are also other routes to learning plumbing beside Union ones of which he may have availed himself, and it is the union that is screaming the loudest right now because they supported Obama.
At our caucus, all I heard was “So and So should be our nominee because he is electable”. Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.! And stop letting the liberal press pick our candidates by suddenly promoting the man they think is most defeatable (or will “suck up” to them- pardon my French). McCain quite suddenly became the front runner after much hype in the press created a “Bandwagon” effect among Reps causing Mitt Romney to pull out. In (public) high school back in the late 50s/early 60s we had a class called “Problems of Democracy” in which we learned propaganda techniques and how to spot them and avoid believing them over our common sense. Bandwagon was one, “The Big Lie” was another whereby a lie is told often enough that people believe it (Joseph Goebbels’, Hitler’s propaganda minister’s, favorite technique). All one need do is listen to Obama or Biden (who said in his debate with Gov. Palin that Obama did not say he would meet with Achmadinijad and was never called on it, but you could see by the look on Palin’s face that she was appalled)- if their lips are moving, they are lying. McCain has done his share of “misstatements” too, and it is time we, including the press, start calling a lie a lie and start pointing out blatant efforts at propaganda.
I have forgotten the names of some of the other forms of propaganda, but they include one very commonly used by the Dems, possibly named “Substitution”- accuse the other guy of what you yourself are doing to refocus blame on your opponent. The Dems (Barney Frank and others) started this whole mortgage mess by forcing loans to go to many, especially the poor, who could not sustain the payments and were doomed from the beginning to eventually default on them. Now that it has hit the fan, the Dems accuse the Reps, the Bush Administration, of causing the entire mess when it was primarily the Dems who started it.
Another form of Propaganda is the use of celebrity to gain prestige for your candidate/cause. Get enough Hollywood luminaries to speak for your guy and the other guy looks like a “Nobody”. And who wants to vote fore a “Nobody”.
Just my 2 cents worth for the day.
My Reply:
S ,
There are certain issues on which you and I will respectfully disagree. This is not one of them. There are a lot of us who were very surprised when Romney pulled out as soon as he did. We have all come to the conclusion that the press “fell in love” with McCain because they saw Romney as a tougher competitor and unbeatable. Notice how soon they turned on McCain as soon as he became the only Republican in the game. They want Obama to win. This is not just my ranting. The MSM has bought into the “Globalization Effect” to the extent that they have sold their souls to make it happen.
Another area you have nailed it on is “Isn’t it about time (PAST TIME) that Reps start picking the right man and making him (or her) electable.!” This is another area where a number of us are working. The primary target for 2010 is Senator Salazar. He is identified as one of the most “suck-up” Kennedy Democrats in the Senate. I email him on almost every issue that comes up. To his credit, he never ignores me; he has always responded with a position paper. To his detriment, he is almost always on the wrong side of the Constitution. Most of his positions are not Constitutionally supportable. As you know I am just a simple carpenter and if I can recognize unconstitutional behavior that should be an indication that a lot of other Coloradoans will be able to do the same. I have saved all of his emails and have the evidence to back up my contention.
You also talk about “The Big Lie.” Boy! Is that an accurate assessment. I would like to refer you to two articles. The first is by Mike Gallagher on Townhall.com (first attachment). He does an excellent job discussing this issue. The second article you should have received last night on one of my postings and is available at http://carpentersmate.blobspot.com/. Andy Pico has been called “Mr. NORAD” because of his years of experience and astute insights into national defense/security. His study into “The Big Lie” of global warming has drawn a lot of fire from “experts” who are sucking on the big money bottle. In my book, that is something of which to be proud.
Thank you for your comments. With your permission, I would like to pass this exchange around.
Dan
Daniel C. Lanotte
dlanotte@falconbroadband.net
719-683-5506
Friday, October 17, 2008
Audacity of Mendacity - Guest Article
Friends,
The following article was written by Mr. Andy Pico, who has been published on these pages in the past and, I hope, will be so many times in the future.
Enjoy,
Dan
Our country is on the verge of potentially electing a new Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid together with The One’s sidekick, the Bumbling Biden, with the most radical, socialist agenda this country has ever seen in national politics. The Triumvirate could have a potentially filibuster proof senate majority able to ram through whatever far left radical measures dictated to the Triumvirate by their political backers within such groups as ACORN (currently under investigation for massive interstate voter fraud), Moveon.org and such Soros funded groups.
This coalition has a radical, leftist agenda that has nothing to do with preserving individual freedom, full employment, a robust economic climate or any of the key moral or social values this country has developed. Their entire methodology is built on deceit, fraud and intimidation of political opponents.
This Triumvirate has manufactured a great economic message focused on the current meltdown of the financial markets, aided and abetted by a complicit press which combines economic illiteracy with historical ignorance. The seeds of the current financial crisis were planted by the Democrat administration of Carter in the Community Redevelopment ACT and expanded by Clinton with the assistance of ACORN to strong arm lending institutions into making bad loans. The brief period of Republican control was unable to reform this coming, and predicted, financial meltdown due to Democrat obstructionism in Congress and in the courts.
Bill Clinton - "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
I certainly would not be one to call the Former President a liar.
The facts, unreported by a complicit press, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, (the former executives of these failed institutions are currently part of the economics team on Obama’s campaign staff), “regulated” by Democrats and provided campaign contributions with taxpayer guaranteed funds to Democrats. Obama, in his extraordinarily short time in the US Senate, managed to skim the 3rd largest amount, barely behind the Democrat chairman of the committee which oversaw those organizations. While technically legal, this defines the worst kind of corruption.
That the architects of our current financial crisis are likely to be rewarded with political control and given the responsibility to fix their own mess is one of the travesties of the scandal that is the current journalistic abandonment of any pretense of standards or integrity. That the Bumbling Biden could utter the most outrageous and complete fabrication of the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon and our involvement there along with the utter fantasy of his proposed intervention, and not be held to account by a press more interested in investigating 25 year old traffic tickets by Governor Palin’s relatives and whether Joe has a current plumber’s license, has to rank as one of the most despicable failures of modern and corrupt journalism.
The economic measures being proposed by those who have brought you this looming recession will repeat the governmental economic idiocy that ushered in the Great Depression.
Here in Colorado the Democrat candidate for the Senate is one of those responsible for restricting energy development resulting in high gas prices and utility bills, based in part by the fraud of man-made global warming and extreme environmental over-regulation. His possible election will not only reward his own complicity in our economic problems but help hand a filibuster proof Senate majority to this radical and irresponsible Socialist Triumvirate.
Rarely has so much been at stake. On positions of the economy, conduct of the war, worldwide anti-terrorist operations, opposition to the state sponsors of international terrorism, energy development, phony climate control, misguided tax policies and most of all, a culture of death which will include taxpayer funded abortions; this Radical Triumvirate is far outside of the political mainstream.
Do not reward this Audacity of Mendacity with political victory and the near dictatorial control over our economy by economic illiterates. Here in Colorado, vote to elect Doug Lamborn, Scott Starin, Wayne Wolf, Marilyn Musgrave, Mike Coffman, George Lilly and John Lerew to their Congressional seats; Bob Schaffer to the US Senate; Sarah Palin for Vice President and that other guy running with her for President.
Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist.
As always, your comments and discussions are welcome
The following article was written by Mr. Andy Pico, who has been published on these pages in the past and, I hope, will be so many times in the future.
Enjoy,
Dan
Our country is on the verge of potentially electing a new Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid together with The One’s sidekick, the Bumbling Biden, with the most radical, socialist agenda this country has ever seen in national politics. The Triumvirate could have a potentially filibuster proof senate majority able to ram through whatever far left radical measures dictated to the Triumvirate by their political backers within such groups as ACORN (currently under investigation for massive interstate voter fraud), Moveon.org and such Soros funded groups.
This coalition has a radical, leftist agenda that has nothing to do with preserving individual freedom, full employment, a robust economic climate or any of the key moral or social values this country has developed. Their entire methodology is built on deceit, fraud and intimidation of political opponents.
This Triumvirate has manufactured a great economic message focused on the current meltdown of the financial markets, aided and abetted by a complicit press which combines economic illiteracy with historical ignorance. The seeds of the current financial crisis were planted by the Democrat administration of Carter in the Community Redevelopment ACT and expanded by Clinton with the assistance of ACORN to strong arm lending institutions into making bad loans. The brief period of Republican control was unable to reform this coming, and predicted, financial meltdown due to Democrat obstructionism in Congress and in the courts.
Bill Clinton - "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
I certainly would not be one to call the Former President a liar.
The facts, unreported by a complicit press, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, (the former executives of these failed institutions are currently part of the economics team on Obama’s campaign staff), “regulated” by Democrats and provided campaign contributions with taxpayer guaranteed funds to Democrats. Obama, in his extraordinarily short time in the US Senate, managed to skim the 3rd largest amount, barely behind the Democrat chairman of the committee which oversaw those organizations. While technically legal, this defines the worst kind of corruption.
That the architects of our current financial crisis are likely to be rewarded with political control and given the responsibility to fix their own mess is one of the travesties of the scandal that is the current journalistic abandonment of any pretense of standards or integrity. That the Bumbling Biden could utter the most outrageous and complete fabrication of the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon and our involvement there along with the utter fantasy of his proposed intervention, and not be held to account by a press more interested in investigating 25 year old traffic tickets by Governor Palin’s relatives and whether Joe has a current plumber’s license, has to rank as one of the most despicable failures of modern and corrupt journalism.
The economic measures being proposed by those who have brought you this looming recession will repeat the governmental economic idiocy that ushered in the Great Depression.
Here in Colorado the Democrat candidate for the Senate is one of those responsible for restricting energy development resulting in high gas prices and utility bills, based in part by the fraud of man-made global warming and extreme environmental over-regulation. His possible election will not only reward his own complicity in our economic problems but help hand a filibuster proof Senate majority to this radical and irresponsible Socialist Triumvirate.
Rarely has so much been at stake. On positions of the economy, conduct of the war, worldwide anti-terrorist operations, opposition to the state sponsors of international terrorism, energy development, phony climate control, misguided tax policies and most of all, a culture of death which will include taxpayer funded abortions; this Radical Triumvirate is far outside of the political mainstream.
Do not reward this Audacity of Mendacity with political victory and the near dictatorial control over our economy by economic illiterates. Here in Colorado, vote to elect Doug Lamborn, Scott Starin, Wayne Wolf, Marilyn Musgrave, Mike Coffman, George Lilly and John Lerew to their Congressional seats; Bob Schaffer to the US Senate; Sarah Palin for Vice President and that other guy running with her for President.
Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist.
As always, your comments and discussions are welcome
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life
Friends,
The following article was requested by a Colorado publication that may or may not use it. It is a bit long, but I thought I would make it available.
Dan
When I was asked to write a piece on “Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life,” I was flattered and immediately accepted the request. Then I looked around for source material and came to the realization that I have not written on an assigned topic in many years. I always get the urge to pontificate on a subject and sit down and “tickle the plastics.” Bounding one’s thoughts can be a bit confining and, therefore, daunting. Well, they say you will usually find something when you are not looking for it; and that is exactly what happened. I came upon an editorial by Chuck Colson titled “What’s the Matter With Canada?” on Townhall.com., and it instantly gave me some clarification as to why we must defend the American way of life. This article, discussed below, shows how one group can erode the rights of another.
Before I go too far, it might be appropriate to define what I see as the “American Way of Life.” In today’s world I see this as a moving target. We can point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and then add our modifiers such as equal opportunity, affirmative action and the like. Being a strict Constitutionalist, I prefer to look at the American Way of Life as those tenets envisioned by the Founders. I believe they looked at America as a place where there was little in the way of government intervention and regulation. They were individualists who felt free to express themselves in whatever way they were moved. This included the freedom to express their belief and love of God and Christ. They understood that it is the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for his family. It was, and still is, the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for the security of his country. I see the American Way of Life as an individual way and not a way dictated by government or special interests, whether they be religious or commercial. The founders were bounded by the cultural mores of the day and certainly did not envision the cultural changes that we have seen come about. I would advocate the return to the mores of fear of God, patriotism, and the centrality of the family.
Each and every one of us should be able to think of any number of reasons to defend our way of life. The short list should be the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Before 1773, there had never been the concept of a country that ruled by the consent of the governed. In that year, the colonists began taking control of their own destiny when their protest against the king’s tea tax prompted them to action in the form of the Boston Tea Party. The crown had been levying onerous taxes on the colonists to recoup the cost of the French and Indian war that had ended ten years before. As the independence movement progressed and then was articulated by the Declaration of Independence, penned mostly by Thomas Jefferson, Americans began to “think out of the box” and into a new concept of government. The first experiment in government, the Articles of Confederation, failed to meet the needs of the new country. This experiment evolved into the US Constitution, that magnificent document that places restrictions on the federal government, not the states. However, the states demanded greater guarantees of the freedoms of the citizens, and, in 1789, the first Congress proposed 12 amendments to the new Constitution. The first two were never ratified. These involved the number of constituents for each Congressman and pay for Congressmen. The next ten were finally ratified by ¾ of the states in 1791 and became known as the Bill of Rights. The amazing aspect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they both restrict the powers of the federal government. This was a totally new concept.
Our precious freedoms and rights have prompted us to go to war a number of times since those struggling years immediately following our independence from Great Britain. Our first war as a independent nation is a good example of the young nation’s conviction that its autonomy with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were worth defending at all cost . Only 30 years after we thought the fighting was over, the British navy was in desperate need of men and supplies under the crush of the war with Napoleon. They were regularly raiding American shipping and war ships to obtain supplies and sailors to fight the French. We could not stand by and passively allow our ships, shipping, and sailors to be plundered from the seas. We went to war to defend our freedoms and our sovereignty. Even though the war was officially declared a tie, it showed that the young nation was not one to trifle with.
Each war we have fought has been due to drastic and sudden threats to our freedoms and sovereignty. But what about those insidious “under the radar” threats? Those threats are just as real as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Both the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks were perpetrated upon US soil due to perceived injustices by despots’ intent on world domination. Japanese naval forces attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 for the purpose of destroying the US Pacific Fleet and, ultimately, our way of life. This would have left them free to wreak havoc across the Pacific while their partners-in-evil did the same across Europe and North Africa. And then on September 11, 2001 a group of evil men, guided by despots, used four airliners to kill over 3000 innocent people who had done no harm to the perpetrators or their bosses. Both of these attacks were carried out because evil men wanted to end our way of life.
Another example of evil people intent on taking over a culture is what is happening in Europe today. In France, militants riot at the threat from their legislature that they are going to have to work for the government support money they receive; at least that is the cover story. Just who are these French militants? The press uses the term “militants” as a euphemism for Muslim radicals. Paris police cannot even enter certain sections of the city or the surrounding area unarmed. In October and November, 2005, the violence was so brutal that thousands of cars were burned and several police were killed. On 14 November of that year, President Jacques Chirac pledged to create greater opportunities for the young people, showing the militants that they had won. French officials cite evidence that Muslim extremists are being pipelined to the Middle East for training and being returned home to conduct jihad. [1]
The expansion of Muslim radicalism in Europe has brought along with it immigrant enclaves where Sharia (Islamic) law rules. How many of us really understand Sharia law? I certainly do not, but I know a few of their tenants as illustrated by the following cases-in-point:
1. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped
2. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
3. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to extract legal revenge – physical eye for physical eye.
4. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Sharia itself. Good examples of this are the death sentence against Salmon Rushdie for Satanic Verses and the threats against the Danish cartoonists that just drew a likeness of Muhammad.
5. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. This has been an on-going effort since Muhammad was alive. [2]
While these provisions have not been accepted in the US to date, slow encroachments are making their way into our society.
For example, On August 03, 2008, in a news release by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new agreement with Tyson Foods eliminates Labor Day and the instatement of Eid al-Fitr as a holiday. Eid al-Fitr celebrates the end of Ramadan and falls on October 01 this year. [3]
A recent expose aired on Fox News outlined a number of “honor killings” perpetrated by Muslim men on their daughters and sisters here in the US. These killings are acceptable forms of punishment under Sharia law. Fortunately, our rule of law brings these killers to justice, but what about the floggings that are permitted under Sharia law? When a woman or man is murdered there is bound to be a body or an individual missing. But what happens in the case of a flogging when the victim does not come forward to notify the police of the assault? It’s likely that in many instances these crimes go unpunished.
The ever creeping encroachment of Sharia law is overtaking the societies of Europe and Scandinavia. Examples can be cited from any of the western European countries. In Great Britain, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that he believes it is legitimate to have entire enclaves within the country that are Muslim only, where Sharia law can be practiced exclusive of British law. Having two legal systems in force side-by-side is an untenable situation.
But what happens when the rights that we have come to cherish are eroded ever so slowly over the years? Specific Sharia law is not the only assault on our freedoms. A possibly more insidious intruder into our free America is political correctness. I fear that this is what has happened to Canada, culturally our nearest neighbor and relative. A Canadian writer and popular blogger, Mark Steyn, wrote a book, America Alone, where he describes how America’s fight against global terrorism is basically a solo act. Maclean’s magazine, a popular news magazine in Canada, printed excerpts from Steyn’s book, and then the carrots hit the fan. Chuck Colson explains what happened like this: “Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam ‘subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt [4].’” This criticism is so strong, that both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have been brought into the fray. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not pursue legal action but the BC body is, complaining that Steyn’s book “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” As of July 21, a ruling had not been issued. While Maclean’s has the resources to fight the BC Tribunal, the average Joe next door who makes a derogatory statement about Muslims does not. As Colson explains, Maclean’s was given a kangaroo court without a jury. They are so afraid of offending the Muslim community in Canada that they have traded in free speech for some kind of cheap appeasement [5]. This is the level to which the Canadian ideal of political correctness has sunk. The average guy next door could expect the same. With the current attitude of the Canadian judiciary in British Colombia he is convicted before he gets to trial. But wait; why is there any necessity for a trial in a country with free speech? This is only partially a rhetorical question. The reason for the trial is the slow, steady decline of the acceptance of basic freedom of speech in Canada.
Remember the cartoons that were drawn by the Danish cartoonists showing caricatures of Muhammad? How many times have you seen them printed in the US? The State Department condemned their publication in the Danish press. Where was the ACLU during this furor? They were characteristically silent. The American press does not want to run afoul of the State Department and the ACLU. However, during this time, the press was perfectly willing to cover every sordid detail of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. This shows the lengths the press will go to appease those who want to erode out freedom of speech.
We have allowed our freedoms to be so eroded that they do not look like the same freedoms that the Sons of Liberty fought for. Are we going to go the way of Canada? Each of us is responsible for exercising our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable freedoms.
In this article, I have only addressed a few examples of our eroding freedoms but there are others that are appropriate to mention:
· If we exercise our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to express our belief in the tenants of Christianity and Biblical standards we are criticized for being intolerant irrespective of the intolerance of the Muslims or the atheists. If we are critical of the treatment of women at the hands of Muslim men, we are racist.
· Today, in many school districts, the discussion of the world having been created by God is completely out of the question. Only evolution is allowed in the discussion.
· In many schools there are Muslim clubs but Christian clubs are not allowed.
· Our children are not allowed to pray in school because it may be construed to be advocating one religion over another or one parent or student finds it offensive. The rights and religious preferences of the Christian are not allowed to be considered.
· If we advocate controlling our borders, we are called racist and/or isolationists.
· If we believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman, we are called intolerant homophobes.
These are but a few of the freedoms that are slipping away. Make no mistake; there is a deliberate, concerted effort to make this happen. If you look around at the US today, you will find that there is a very big difference in the American way of life as envisioned by the Founders and the American way of life of today. This is a process that has been in progress for approximately 150 years.
I have always hated being told that there is a problem. I would rather be told that there is a solution. OK, here it is. It is incumbent upon all Americans to exercise their freedoms and speak out in no uncertain terms when those freedoms are trampled. Our elected officials need to hear from each of us, individually, that we are displeased with the direction our freedoms are going. When freedom-loving organizations such as Colorado Family Institute ask for a signature on a petition to stop the erosion of one freedom or another, sign it. In addition, write your Congressmen and Senators. Frankly, my Congressman and Senators are tired of hearing from me. That is unfortunate because I am certainly not through writing and expressing my views. I hope you are not either.
References:
[1] John Anderson, “France Says Extremists are Enlisting Its Citizens,” Washington Post Foreign Service, October 19, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801632_pf.html
[2] The American Thinker, Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for all Societies, August 03, 2008, http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
[3] Speechless – Silencing the Christians, Tyson Foods Warms up to Islam, August 03 2008, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=202506
[4] Townhall.com, What’s the Matter With Canada? , July 21, 2008, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2008/07/21/whats_the_matter_with_canada
[5] Mark Steyn, America Alone, The End of the World as We know It; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2006
The following article was requested by a Colorado publication that may or may not use it. It is a bit long, but I thought I would make it available.
Dan
When I was asked to write a piece on “Why We Must Defend the American Way of Life,” I was flattered and immediately accepted the request. Then I looked around for source material and came to the realization that I have not written on an assigned topic in many years. I always get the urge to pontificate on a subject and sit down and “tickle the plastics.” Bounding one’s thoughts can be a bit confining and, therefore, daunting. Well, they say you will usually find something when you are not looking for it; and that is exactly what happened. I came upon an editorial by Chuck Colson titled “What’s the Matter With Canada?” on Townhall.com., and it instantly gave me some clarification as to why we must defend the American way of life. This article, discussed below, shows how one group can erode the rights of another.
Before I go too far, it might be appropriate to define what I see as the “American Way of Life.” In today’s world I see this as a moving target. We can point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and then add our modifiers such as equal opportunity, affirmative action and the like. Being a strict Constitutionalist, I prefer to look at the American Way of Life as those tenets envisioned by the Founders. I believe they looked at America as a place where there was little in the way of government intervention and regulation. They were individualists who felt free to express themselves in whatever way they were moved. This included the freedom to express their belief and love of God and Christ. They understood that it is the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for his family. It was, and still is, the responsibility of each man to protect and provide for the security of his country. I see the American Way of Life as an individual way and not a way dictated by government or special interests, whether they be religious or commercial. The founders were bounded by the cultural mores of the day and certainly did not envision the cultural changes that we have seen come about. I would advocate the return to the mores of fear of God, patriotism, and the centrality of the family.
Each and every one of us should be able to think of any number of reasons to defend our way of life. The short list should be the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Before 1773, there had never been the concept of a country that ruled by the consent of the governed. In that year, the colonists began taking control of their own destiny when their protest against the king’s tea tax prompted them to action in the form of the Boston Tea Party. The crown had been levying onerous taxes on the colonists to recoup the cost of the French and Indian war that had ended ten years before. As the independence movement progressed and then was articulated by the Declaration of Independence, penned mostly by Thomas Jefferson, Americans began to “think out of the box” and into a new concept of government. The first experiment in government, the Articles of Confederation, failed to meet the needs of the new country. This experiment evolved into the US Constitution, that magnificent document that places restrictions on the federal government, not the states. However, the states demanded greater guarantees of the freedoms of the citizens, and, in 1789, the first Congress proposed 12 amendments to the new Constitution. The first two were never ratified. These involved the number of constituents for each Congressman and pay for Congressmen. The next ten were finally ratified by ¾ of the states in 1791 and became known as the Bill of Rights. The amazing aspect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that they both restrict the powers of the federal government. This was a totally new concept.
Our precious freedoms and rights have prompted us to go to war a number of times since those struggling years immediately following our independence from Great Britain. Our first war as a independent nation is a good example of the young nation’s conviction that its autonomy with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were worth defending at all cost . Only 30 years after we thought the fighting was over, the British navy was in desperate need of men and supplies under the crush of the war with Napoleon. They were regularly raiding American shipping and war ships to obtain supplies and sailors to fight the French. We could not stand by and passively allow our ships, shipping, and sailors to be plundered from the seas. We went to war to defend our freedoms and our sovereignty. Even though the war was officially declared a tie, it showed that the young nation was not one to trifle with.
Each war we have fought has been due to drastic and sudden threats to our freedoms and sovereignty. But what about those insidious “under the radar” threats? Those threats are just as real as Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Both the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks were perpetrated upon US soil due to perceived injustices by despots’ intent on world domination. Japanese naval forces attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 for the purpose of destroying the US Pacific Fleet and, ultimately, our way of life. This would have left them free to wreak havoc across the Pacific while their partners-in-evil did the same across Europe and North Africa. And then on September 11, 2001 a group of evil men, guided by despots, used four airliners to kill over 3000 innocent people who had done no harm to the perpetrators or their bosses. Both of these attacks were carried out because evil men wanted to end our way of life.
Another example of evil people intent on taking over a culture is what is happening in Europe today. In France, militants riot at the threat from their legislature that they are going to have to work for the government support money they receive; at least that is the cover story. Just who are these French militants? The press uses the term “militants” as a euphemism for Muslim radicals. Paris police cannot even enter certain sections of the city or the surrounding area unarmed. In October and November, 2005, the violence was so brutal that thousands of cars were burned and several police were killed. On 14 November of that year, President Jacques Chirac pledged to create greater opportunities for the young people, showing the militants that they had won. French officials cite evidence that Muslim extremists are being pipelined to the Middle East for training and being returned home to conduct jihad. [1]
The expansion of Muslim radicalism in Europe has brought along with it immigrant enclaves where Sharia (Islamic) law rules. How many of us really understand Sharia law? I certainly do not, but I know a few of their tenants as illustrated by the following cases-in-point:
1. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped
2. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
3. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to extract legal revenge – physical eye for physical eye.
4. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Sharia itself. Good examples of this are the death sentence against Salmon Rushdie for Satanic Verses and the threats against the Danish cartoonists that just drew a likeness of Muhammad.
5. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad. This has been an on-going effort since Muhammad was alive. [2]
While these provisions have not been accepted in the US to date, slow encroachments are making their way into our society.
For example, On August 03, 2008, in a news release by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new agreement with Tyson Foods eliminates Labor Day and the instatement of Eid al-Fitr as a holiday. Eid al-Fitr celebrates the end of Ramadan and falls on October 01 this year. [3]
A recent expose aired on Fox News outlined a number of “honor killings” perpetrated by Muslim men on their daughters and sisters here in the US. These killings are acceptable forms of punishment under Sharia law. Fortunately, our rule of law brings these killers to justice, but what about the floggings that are permitted under Sharia law? When a woman or man is murdered there is bound to be a body or an individual missing. But what happens in the case of a flogging when the victim does not come forward to notify the police of the assault? It’s likely that in many instances these crimes go unpunished.
The ever creeping encroachment of Sharia law is overtaking the societies of Europe and Scandinavia. Examples can be cited from any of the western European countries. In Great Britain, even the Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that he believes it is legitimate to have entire enclaves within the country that are Muslim only, where Sharia law can be practiced exclusive of British law. Having two legal systems in force side-by-side is an untenable situation.
But what happens when the rights that we have come to cherish are eroded ever so slowly over the years? Specific Sharia law is not the only assault on our freedoms. A possibly more insidious intruder into our free America is political correctness. I fear that this is what has happened to Canada, culturally our nearest neighbor and relative. A Canadian writer and popular blogger, Mark Steyn, wrote a book, America Alone, where he describes how America’s fight against global terrorism is basically a solo act. Maclean’s magazine, a popular news magazine in Canada, printed excerpts from Steyn’s book, and then the carrots hit the fan. Chuck Colson explains what happened like this: “Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress charged that the content of these excerpts about the expansion of radical Islam ‘subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt [4].’” This criticism is so strong, that both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have been brought into the fray. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not pursue legal action but the BC body is, complaining that Steyn’s book “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” As of July 21, a ruling had not been issued. While Maclean’s has the resources to fight the BC Tribunal, the average Joe next door who makes a derogatory statement about Muslims does not. As Colson explains, Maclean’s was given a kangaroo court without a jury. They are so afraid of offending the Muslim community in Canada that they have traded in free speech for some kind of cheap appeasement [5]. This is the level to which the Canadian ideal of political correctness has sunk. The average guy next door could expect the same. With the current attitude of the Canadian judiciary in British Colombia he is convicted before he gets to trial. But wait; why is there any necessity for a trial in a country with free speech? This is only partially a rhetorical question. The reason for the trial is the slow, steady decline of the acceptance of basic freedom of speech in Canada.
Remember the cartoons that were drawn by the Danish cartoonists showing caricatures of Muhammad? How many times have you seen them printed in the US? The State Department condemned their publication in the Danish press. Where was the ACLU during this furor? They were characteristically silent. The American press does not want to run afoul of the State Department and the ACLU. However, during this time, the press was perfectly willing to cover every sordid detail of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. This shows the lengths the press will go to appease those who want to erode out freedom of speech.
We have allowed our freedoms to be so eroded that they do not look like the same freedoms that the Sons of Liberty fought for. Are we going to go the way of Canada? Each of us is responsible for exercising our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed unalienable freedoms.
In this article, I have only addressed a few examples of our eroding freedoms but there are others that are appropriate to mention:
· If we exercise our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to express our belief in the tenants of Christianity and Biblical standards we are criticized for being intolerant irrespective of the intolerance of the Muslims or the atheists. If we are critical of the treatment of women at the hands of Muslim men, we are racist.
· Today, in many school districts, the discussion of the world having been created by God is completely out of the question. Only evolution is allowed in the discussion.
· In many schools there are Muslim clubs but Christian clubs are not allowed.
· Our children are not allowed to pray in school because it may be construed to be advocating one religion over another or one parent or student finds it offensive. The rights and religious preferences of the Christian are not allowed to be considered.
· If we advocate controlling our borders, we are called racist and/or isolationists.
· If we believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman, we are called intolerant homophobes.
These are but a few of the freedoms that are slipping away. Make no mistake; there is a deliberate, concerted effort to make this happen. If you look around at the US today, you will find that there is a very big difference in the American way of life as envisioned by the Founders and the American way of life of today. This is a process that has been in progress for approximately 150 years.
I have always hated being told that there is a problem. I would rather be told that there is a solution. OK, here it is. It is incumbent upon all Americans to exercise their freedoms and speak out in no uncertain terms when those freedoms are trampled. Our elected officials need to hear from each of us, individually, that we are displeased with the direction our freedoms are going. When freedom-loving organizations such as Colorado Family Institute ask for a signature on a petition to stop the erosion of one freedom or another, sign it. In addition, write your Congressmen and Senators. Frankly, my Congressman and Senators are tired of hearing from me. That is unfortunate because I am certainly not through writing and expressing my views. I hope you are not either.
References:
[1] John Anderson, “France Says Extremists are Enlisting Its Citizens,” Washington Post Foreign Service, October 19, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801632_pf.html
[2] The American Thinker, Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for all Societies, August 03, 2008, http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
[3] Speechless – Silencing the Christians, Tyson Foods Warms up to Islam, August 03 2008, http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=202506
[4] Townhall.com, What’s the Matter With Canada? , July 21, 2008, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckColson/2008/07/21/whats_the_matter_with_canada
[5] Mark Steyn, America Alone, The End of the World as We know It; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)