Over at the AFB, my friend, Mike Tams, posted this entry yesterday. I'm going to provide the link to Katie's Dad's entry here, as well that posted on the same topic at VA's.
This story is an all too familiar story for your's truly. And though I can't say that my business, my employees, nor my family have been nearly as negatively impacted financially speaking as this particular contractor and those associated with him has, I can say without hesitation that all of these have indeed suffered at the hands of cheap, illegal, mostly Mexican labor...
Months back my brothers and I discussed this very topic and the negative impact my interests had suffered on several occasions due to the influx of illegal Mexican construction workers in my area over the last couple of years. Interestingly, while I was away over this past weekend, I managed to get a visit in to one of my good friends whose initials, MB, I'll use from here on out. MB also has his own business, and he employs about six people full-time I think.
MB and I were in his office along with his wife and my two employees just shooting the breeze. I don't recall exactly who or what got the conversation started, but somewhere along the way we began discussing the illegal alien situation. I made a statement to the effect of "ah, don't fret it, man, come November 1st it's reckoning time. He asked what I meant so I told him that November 1st is when Oklahoma's tough immigration legislation goes into effect...thanks to the defeat of the amnesty bill. This legislation, as I related to MB, deals not only with illegals, but with their employers as well. And the fines incurred by the latter for employing illegal aliens get substantially stiffer with each offense so that it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify employing illegal aliens.
The reason I tell that story is because MB said something to me in the wake of my little rant that hit home pretty well. He said that there was a time in the not so distant past when he himself had thought pretty highly of these Mexican illegals because he considered them to be hard workers, pretty reliable, and overall to have good work ethic. His next statement, though, put his initial statements into proper context; he said to me that "I think I'm over that now." Of course we got a good laugh out of it, and certainly I agreed with MB that I had held some of his very views concerning Mexican illegals until I got properly educated.
I've complained to my brothers at the AFB before about the fact that finding good (American) help these days is extremely difficult. And believe me, it doesn't matter how much you pay them; that's not the issue. This being the case, I ran into a situation a couple of years ago wherein two of my four employees quit work (that is, they quit working altogether, for anyone), leaving me with a workload that the three of us left could not handle on the schedule predetermined for, and agreed to by us. I was turned on to a young Mexican immigrant who was supposedly legal and of age, and I hired him. It weren't very long before I realized that I'd made a mistake, however.
I was a little suspicious of him to begin with, so as is my general approach to things like that, I simply listened more than I spoke. And eventually he let out more information than he intended, as per the usual. He had a distinctive accent, but he spoke english very well. The fact was that he had been here several years with his parents who came here illegally. As it turned out he was only 16 years of age, he had no driver's license, no insurance, no tag and no registration in his name. As he was commuting about sixty miles a day, one way, I asked him, upon learning some of these facts: "you realize, do you not, that you're going to get stopped one day during your commute to or from?....what are you going to do when you get caught? His answer was simply this, and in these exact and nonchalant words: "go back to Mexico!"
I approach my nationality in the same sort of way that I approach my immediate and extended family members. Which is to say that while I may complain about the way certain of them act from time to time, and while I may curse their actions on occasion, they are my family so I consider myself allowed. Whereas, someone else had better not curse them with me being present unless they care to get an earfull from your's truly. And it works the same way with my countrymen. We're all Americans, and while I may complain about this and that which Americans do, or about this and that which the President does, that doesn't give an illegal alien license to curse them, or to complain about them in any way, shape, or form. And here again, they had better not in front of me. Well, this young Mexican employee of mine made that mistake, saying some very unflattering things about our President and Americans in general, and very boldly so in my very presence. Not only was he 'biting the hand that fed him' in a direct sort of way, but indirectly he was biting all the hands that feed him, and I didn't like it, no; not one bit! You can use your imaginations to conclude what happened next.
I remember well when these illegals began to arrive here in relatively small numbers. At that time there was enough work to go around for everyone, and in many cases customers were forced to wait as long as a month on some of us contractors to get to their jobs. I'd like to discuss more about how that a certain amount of independency on the part of contract laborers works very well to the advantage of not only the contractor in question, but also to that of the customer. But that's yet another subject for another discussion. The point here is that these illegals began arriving here in very small numbers, and under extremely difficult circumstances. So much so that myself and other contractors I know not only welcomed them against our better judgments, but we loaned them essential tools they needed yet did not have, as well as to help them to find places to live and to help them get jobs, and all sorts of things like that. Such I guess is the nature of many Americans.
While I certainly understood the idea that mass immigration to this country of any kind, and from anywhere was bad (just remember, anything done in the extreme is bad), I still felt sorry for these individuals who were 'just trying to make a better way for themselves and their families.' It was only a couple of years, and several very strained relations between myself and some of my former accounts, before their numbers increased exponentially in my area and they began to compete with me for many of the jobs that formerly I would only have had Americans to compete with. The difference being, of course, that Mexican illegals pay no taxes and they're generally not held to the same standards by law that American contractors are held to. Therefore they can charge as little as half our prices and still come out ahead of us in the end. And of course a general contractor, or a homeowner, or whomever is enticed by these potential savings to their own pockets, so they hire the illegals to do their jobs many times when they would otherwise prefer American labor over Mexican labor.
This all came to a head (but it was far from the only incident of its kind I had personally experienced) when I secured a large commerical contract with one individual who later reneged on his obligation about two days before the actual work was to begin. The exact same Mexican illegal, along with his somewhat larger crew now, had come in and undercut my bid by about half. When I learned of this I immediately got on the horn with some of my nativist friends and we began to start to make phone calls to I.N.S., and to some of our state legislators, expressing our severe displeasure with the immigration situation in our State and our area. This was before we kicked out the democrat bums who had held power in our Congress during the entire existence of this State, and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature that started work on correcting this immigration deal immediately.
Now here's the deal, this same crew is still out and about undercutting contractors like myself, and funneling in new illegals almost on a daily basis. This has effectively caused a great power shift to take place wherein myself and others like me either have to give up some of our independency, or to cowar to the implicit (sometimes explicit) threat that "ok, we'll just get the Mexicans to do it, and they'll do it whenever we say to do it, and at a cheaper rate too." Since I'm not really one to cowar to anyone, and since I enjoy the independency that my profession provides me, not to mention that I understand certain aspects of it, as I said before, that actually works to the advantage of the customers themselves, though it's hard for them to see it unless someone points it out to them, I have since been dedicated to ridding this State first, and the nation second, of these illegals whose compass oughta be pointing south.
But there's a lot more to it than these personal experiences I've had, of course. So very jealous am I of my liberty, my independency, and the ideas of government that have secured them to me in my own State, that I don't even like to see Americans from other States moving into and establishing permanent residency in mine, particularly folks from some of the more liberal States in this nation. And indeed, as I've discussed before with Mike and Edmund, and as my crew will confirm, I don't hesitate to make this known to these migrant Americans whenever I happen upon them. My approach to them on an individual level is usually to give an extreme example of some goofy individual moving in on us from somewhere up in the northeast. Invariably these individuals bring with them inordinate and fallacious ideas of government learned in their former environment and they begin to assert them upon their establishment of citizenship within this State. Their goal is to 'improve upon' what Okies have long since determined to be their own self-governing methods. Our State looked so very inviting to them until they lived amongst us for awhile and finally decided that we're just too d*mn independent here, not to mention that the idea of 'self-government' means just that down here in flyover country - the government of oneself and of one's affairs and concerns without undue influence from on high.
This is generally the line of thought that I engage with these migrants. And of course I also let them know that "we have enough nut-jobs of our own; we don't need anymore moving in on us, so if you have those kinds of ideas that you need to improve upon what Okies have already settled in this State, please leave them at the door because in the end you're destroying the very foundations of the things you found so attractive about our State before you decided to move here."
Now, if I have those kinds of negative feelings about migrant Americans moving into my State generally, how much more must I have the same kinds of feelings with regard to immigrants from other countries? And I ask you, where am I going wrong?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Over at the AFB, my friend, Mike Tams, posted this entry yesterday. I'm going to provide the link to Katie's Dad's entry here, as well that posted on the same topic at VA's.
I hope and trust y'all will not mind my going in something of a different direction temporarily until I get myself caught up on what's been happening on the blogosphere (or my chosen corner of it - btw, it's ok to refer to a given section of a 'sphere' as a 'corner', just think of it in Biblical terms and we'll be alright) during my four or five day absence. At the moment of the writing of these words I've now been online for about two hours reading a few entries from other blogs (Vanishing American in particular) and I find myself rather struck by how quickly information is disseminated across this medium.
Much in contrast to the soap opera style 'news' and 'information' shows on today's mass media outlets where one may return after a long stint away and generally take up right where he/she left off weeks, months, or even years before, my chosen corner of the 'blogosphere' is a different baby altogether, as y'all well know. And this entry will be dedicated to speaking to that topic...
Over at VA's is posted a Monday entry on this very topic: Fluff and nonsense. VA notes in the post that though there is certainly an element of demand for what is termed 'cotton candy news,' in spite of that she also encounters, as I do, a lot of people of different walks, educational backgrounds and so forth, who generally despise this kind of 'news.' This causes her to question on some level why it is that the MSM engages itself in this kind of insignificant news coverage.
Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the education and experiences of the media people themselves. In short, it's what they know, all they know, and all they've ever known. And when there's a shortage, or a perceived shortage of 'newsworthy' stories to cover, these media outlets invariably revert back to what they know and understand best - entertainment.
Of course VA is discussing in the post a general problem across the MSM, but she does mention two specific examples - Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton - of the MSM's incessantly engaging itself in this kind of 'news coverage,' and she wonders on some level why this is. I think the 'cotton candy' euphemism is an appropriate one, and if we take thought to where it oughta lead us, it strikes up a pretty fitting analogy as well I should think.
We've often heard today's 'news' and news coverage referred to as a circus. But a carnival or a fair might be a better way of describing it in some instances. There is an atmosphere as well there should be at these carnivals of fun and entertainment. We associate certain ideas with certain things, and the carnival atmosphere is meant to be one of fun and entertainment. But why is it that news coverage seems to be increasingly more 'entertainment' oriented at the expense of the dissemination of knowledge of the useful kind?
I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. I think this is a more pervasive 'trend' than many of us realize. It seems to me to touch virtually everything; this 'entertainment' style of the sharing of information and knowledge. Those of us who complain about it are simply not interested in those kinds of 'facts,' or that kind of 'news' because we see it for what it is - irrelevant to real news and current events.
Now, I'll say here that I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is from Adam. I do know who Paris Hilton is because I've heard her name mentioned countless times. But beyond her being the heiress to the Hilton hotel dynasty (or whatever it is) and the fact that she was recently jailed for some kind of personal misdeed, I know very little of her as well, and that's the way I'd prefer to keep it so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to educate me on this point. lol But my main point here is that I for one am apt to know a lot more about some relatively obscure character in American history, what they did and didn't do, and so on, than I'll ever likely know about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton despite the MSM's incessant coverage of these irrelevant types.
And what I mean to say here is that I'm not nearly as comfortable in the carnival atmosphere as I used to be. That kind of 'fun and entertainment' is to me reserved for special and limited occasions. While I'm there and while I'm purposely seeking entertainment and pleasure I'm also willing to pay exorbitant prices for cotton candy and candied apples, and etc., as well as to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a fifty cent toy in a 'game of chance' where the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the carnival and against the individual player. I'm willing to do this because I seek entertainment in that instance, but that instance is very short-lived.
The same principle applies I think to the media and the kind of news it generates nowadays. I only wish to be 'entertained' occasionally, and it's on those limited occasions that I'm willing to pay the exorbitant rates that go with that entertainment. This probably explains why I don't particularly care for cable news. Occasionally I'll turn it on when I get the hankering to be entertained. But having been thoroughly entertained over the course of a couple of hours or so, then I'm generally good for weeks or even months.
I suppose, on the other hand, that this form of media (the blogosphere) might be said to be a form of 'entertainment' itself. And that some of us just prefer this kind of entertainment to that which the MSM engages itself in providing. In this case the MSM has its audience and participants, and the blogosphere has its audience and participants, and both have their games and sideshows that draw and captivate the attention of the attendees and observers. And in this case it all depends on what interests the individual attendee; does he prefer to shoot darts at a wall full of balloons at a dollar a dart, or had he rather shoot a basketball into undersized hoops, or to toss rings onto bottle necks, or whatever?
VA devotes most of her thoughts on this to the idea that the 'educational' establishment has more or less contributed to the desire among many to be entertained in this manner and in this kind of a 'carnival' atmosphere. People are generally going from game to game, bag of cotton candy in hand, seeking to be entertained at the expense of seeking out and desiring useful knowledge. And I think that this all begins at home where parents, seeking entertainment and fun themselves above all, and working a significant number of hours (for those who actually do still count it their duty to provide for their own entertainment) to satisfy their desire to be entertained, pass this on to their children who grow up in a home atmosphere where self-indulgence is paramount to everything else. Then they attend schools and churches where this self-indulging entertainment values system is promoted and encouraged as well.
But I would make a great distinction between the two forms of 'entertainment' if in fact both may be described on some level as such. True, I'm entertained by what goes on in this corner of the blogosphere much more that what goes on throughout the MSM. But I'm not simply entertained by this, nor is it simply entertainment that I seek in frequenting it. No; what I seek overall is to absorb and to disseminate useful knowledge. And this more or less determines what blogs I find to be interesting, and what blogs I find to be less than interesting. Generally speaking, if the contents amount to little more than an extension of what the MSM is providing, then your blog isn't going to interest me much. I can be entertained that way through that source if that's what I seek. But if that's the kind of 'entertainment' your blog is intended to provide, you're going to have a hard time competing with the 'big boys.'
In any event the question still remains, why is it that the MSM engages in this kind of 'entertainment news' so frequently? And as I said before, I think part of the reason lies in the fact that this is all they know; this is the kind of 'news' that the MSM and most the folks involved have been used to providing for decades now, and it's just natural that they'd revert to it very frequently when they feel there is a shortage of 'newsworthy' stories out there to report on. It's also notable that to the MSM that which is considered 'newsworthy' would be determined by their predispositions about the value of a given piece of news. While I may question the value of reporting incessantly on the personal misdeeds of one Miss Lindsay Lohan, who is just a name to me, I think that the MSM folks may well believe that their interest in Lindsay Lohan translates to our interest in her. If they think it newsworthy to report on her life, then we must think it newsworthy as well, right? Wrong!
I could give a hoot about what Lindsay Lohan is doing these days, whoever she might be. But if you wish to discuss with me the goings on with folks who have an impact on all of our lives to some extent or the other, then I'm likely to be more attentive.
But since I have a very short day ahead of me today, as far as my work goes, I'll be back in a couple of hours to post a couple more items as well as to continue to play some more catch-up on the blogosphere. Until then, y'all be good and keep on entertaining yourselves with useful information and knowledge.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Dear Readers, my apologies for my recent absence. As was said in the previous post, our late trip down to my hometown was supposed to be more business than pleasure. And indeed, that's the way it ultimately turned out.
Our intentions were to cram four days worth of work into three, and to spend the fourth relaxing with the extended family. And we were well on our way to accomplishing that goal until we ran into a (major) problem Saturday which ultimately cost us about 12 hrs. additional work.
Fortunately I caught the problem by 8:00 am Saturday morning given that the job location is quite off the beaten path. I spent the next four to five hours attempting to rectify the situation before everything closed at noon, Saturday, as we were scheduled to be back home and ready to start a new project Monday morning.
In any event things worked out fine. We finished up at about 9:00 pm last night, and by a little past 10:00 we were loaded and on our way back home, arriving here at around 2:00 am.
That said, I've only had time to make a couple of blog rounds this morning. Not surprised at all am I, though, that there's been some good stuff posted as well as some interesting conversations at either place. After I've had a chance to make all of my rounds, I'll be putting something up here at Webster's that will hopefully be as interesting, if not to generate the same kinds of quality discussions. And of course some of you may be wondering when Part IV of the Ron Paul series will be posted. I hope to get back to that soon as well.
I also have a couple or three ideas for additional features here at Webster's which I've mentioned to CTO, but we need to discuss in more detail. One of them will require a good deal of initial research from your's truly, so the great likelihood is that there'll be something of a lengthy delay in getting that feature up and running. The other ideas simply require the technical assistance of CTO to get them up so they should be coming shortly.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'm glad to finally be back home and back online. I'll be posting something more relevant either tonight or early in the morning, so y'all stay tuned.
Posted by Terry Morris at 8:57 AM
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Friends, just wanted to inform you that I'm out of town and will be most probably until Monday of next week. We're at Dad's mixing business with pleasure, but it's supposed to be more business than pleasure. We'll see how that works out.
After we rolled into town yesterday at around 4:30 pm local time due to the delay of the arrival of some essential materials we were waiting for back home, Dad took me out to his shop building and introduced me to his newly acquired, thoroughly non-'jap-junker' motorcycle; his new Harley Davidson. After I gave it good lookover and climbed on it to see how it felt, he started the thing up for me, and let me tell ya, it was the sound of 'sweet music.'
If he could manage to sell his better-half so easily on the propriety of his acquisition, I think the pleasure part of our trip might be more, well, pleasurable. lol
Anyway, I'll be in and out while we're here, but you'll be seeing less of me until next week. Y'all be good.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Often I wonder whether 'worldview' gets its due consideration when we discuss the ways and means of correcting and rectifying some of our most egregious mistakes over the last, say, 140 years. I would even go further back in time, but to date it back to the 'constitutional' overthrow of some of our more vital foundational constitutional principles seems to me a good place to look.
As I make my way around the 'traditionalist' blogosphere I often note what seems to me a tendency to long for days-gone-by that really weren't that long ago, and may not have been as good as they could have been, or as good as we perceive them to have been; or as 'traditional' as we think them to have been. Often these longings are for times which fall within the span of our own lifetimes, which is natural I suppose, given that we're most acquainted with, and attached to that which we've actually witnessed and experienced and feel a personal connection with. And I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone.
Indeed, I can remember when I was still in H.S., and even in grade-school -not so awful long ago- and I often fondly reflect upon those times as something of an 'age of innocence.' Much of that reflection has to do with the relative innocence of my mind at that age, of course, and the way that this youthful innocence of mine perceived the world around me. Much of it has to do with the environment I was raised in as well - a good, moral family and community structure with much emphasis placed on being good and doing good, as opposed to the self-indulgence and the materialism that seems to rule now. I was also raised in 'small-town-rural-America,' and that in itself had a profound impact on the way I viewed the world around me, as well as the way I remember that time, not so long ago...
During the early part of the 1990's I was serving in the U.S. Air Force, stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK. At that time there was a nation-wide effort underway among the homosexual community to have the words 'sexual orientation' entered into all the 'non-discrimination' laws of local governments, and Anchorage was one of the cities wherein this push was happening in full force. I remember it well because as a completely committed member of the opposition to this movement, I counted it my duty to brave sub-zero temperatures and adverse weather conditions to make sure I had done all I could possibly do to stop the progress of these measures. In the end, as I've related before at the AFB, these initiatives passed, but the very next election cycle literally every member who had voted for them was summarily removed from his/her seat and replaced by new members who repealed those laws. Those were the 'good ol' days.'
That battle was won, but the larger war is ongoing and we traditionalists have incurred some significant losses along the way. I look back on those days, as well as the days of my childhood and think to myself how wonderful those times were given that abjectly immoral behaviorisms were not only not encouraged, but they were put down by an overwhelming display of moral rectitude from the vast majority of Americans when the time came. One of the faults we seem to have, though, is that the 'goodness' in us seems to supercede our instinct to survival once a movement like that is perceived to have been effectively put down. And in the end, rather than to go that 'extra mile' making certain that these things will not arise again anytime soon, we tend rather to have sympathy for those we've defeated, and to even help them back up. I often think of it in terms of a fist-fight wherein having neutralized your opponent's ability to cause you harm at that moment, conscience (or something) convinces you to let the poor soul up; often even to help him up, brush him off, and send him on his way. And I cannot help but to think that often this is a huge mistake. And yes, I've had the misfortune of having to do it all over again.
We look back with fondness to yesteryear because relative to today it was a fine, one might say even an 'innocent' time. Yesteryear was a time when we seemed to have possessed more grit, more determination, more goodness, more everything that may be said to be good and wholesome, and 'American,' and of course, less of everything else. The America of yesteryear would not have allowed the moral degeneration and degradation we see today to have occured. No; it would have put it down thoroughly, convincing the licentious movement that it had better not come back for more if it knew what was good for it. And there is a great deal of truth to that.
However, when we traditionalists long for days-gone-by we should not fail to recognize that those times and those generations we generally laud as better than ours are partly responsible for what we're experiencing today. I have always thought of the 'greatest generation' label put to the WWII generation as extremely misplaced. It was this generation, was it not, that effectively brought in 'social security,' and the 'welfare state?' I don't concern myself with whether their intentions were 'noble' in this cause; the effects are what they are, and in my opinion they speak poorly of themselves. And certainly there must have been those 'traditionalists' who were absolutely opposed to these measures, longing themselves for 'days-gone-by' when Americans were more self-reliant, and when they had rather starve than to take a government handout.
In another time traditionalists rose up and vehemently opposed the proposal and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and the 15th amendments following the war between the States, warning that the effect would be detrimental to all this nation was founded on. And it was traditionalists who shouted in opposition to the introduction of progressive education in America, raising cautions themselves against the probable and long-term effects this 'new deal' would have on this country, her laws and institutions, and on the minds and hearts of her people.
Nevertheless, here we are in the year of our Lord, 2007, and of our nation's 'independency' the 231st, and progressive government education of our impressionable youth, once just a fancy of some obscure group of liberal minded nobodys, is now just an accepted norm with majority America. Indeed, I would venture an 'educated' guess that in stark contrast to this once 'unAmerican' style and methodological approach to education in this country, the American psyche has now been thoroughly indoctrinated to the supposed 'superiority' of this thoroughly liberal educational philosophy. But this is not enough, the march must go forward say the liberals. Indeed it does, for how many of us have witnessed the disgusting rise of government funded 'early childhood development centers' across the fruited plain?; and even in small-town-USA, accompanied by the happy consent of the parents and grandparents of these helpless two and three year old unformed and uncultivated minds.
It's a tragic set of cause-effect events which have happened in our nation over the last 160 years or more. Traditionalists have been there all along like 'voices crying in the wilderness': "repent, repent!," but to no avail. The most that traditionalism has been able to do, it seems to me, is to slow the progress enough to avoid all-out armed conflict between the warring factions...most of the time. But the march of progressivism; of liberalism, and of abject moral and cultural degradation seems to have moved forward pretty well unimpeded to this point. We find ourselves in a nation, as well as influenced by its socialist tendencies, that our founding generation simply would not have recognized in any meaningful way. And it seems we must ask ourselves how much further we may stray before we reach the point of 'critical mass'?
The 'worldview' of our founding generation -that which is responsible for the creation of this nation in its pure form- was much, much different than is ours. Today worldview seems to get little direct notice even among 'traditionalists.' At least that worldview of the nation's original creators gets little direct attention. Often it seems that the worldview of the generation of my grandparents is equated with that of the founding father generation. But is this true? Is this consistent with the facts? We may say with little reservation that the worldview of my grandparents' generation was certainly closer to that of the founders' worldview than is ours. But still it can be shown that there was already a wide gulf between the two. And in fact, were the founders capable of transcending time and observing the two, they would probably recognize little in either largely consistent with their own. Just as we look back to those days of our youths with such a longing that 'if only things were that good today,' and so we should since it is the 'good' of those days we so long after, we should as well look past those days to the days before them, and the days before them, and so on until we arrive at the time when the pureness of this nation, of its laws and institutions; of the very worldview of its people reigned supreme.
In the year of our Lord, 1833, and of this nation's 'independency,' the 57th, "America's Schoolmaster," the honorable and learned Noah Webster, published these words in the preface of his work: "History of the United States":
The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of Republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct Republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian Religion.
Later in this little volume Webster makes these equally remarkable assertions:
Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian Religion. Men began to understand their natural rights as soon as the reformation from Popery began to dawn in the sixteenth century; and civil liberty has been gradually advancing and improving as genuine Christianity has prevailed....the religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government...
Certainly we must look to our government as well as our churches and note a marked movement away from orthodoxy in both. We may look back twenty, thirty, even to fifty years ago and wish that our churches were now as uncorrupted as they were then. But do we not recognize that 'uncorruptedness,' that 'pureness' in them only as we contrast it with the corruption we see and witness today? Might we not travel back to Webster's time and truly find that 'almost all the losses to civil liberty in this country owes its origin to the prostration of the Christian Religion?' May we not further conclude that 'Americans first began to lose sight of the true origins of their natural rights as soon as the movement away from orthodoxy began to dawn in the 19th century; and civil liberty has been gradually diminishing and deteriorating as prostrated Christianity and other religious impurity has prevailed.'
It may not be popular to say these things in today's pc dominated America, but since I'm not one to toe the pc line, and since I am definitely one to strongly resist further advances of this pc dominated culture we find ourselves in, I'll say it, and let the chips fall where they may. My friends, there is a unique worldview that has always been consistent with genuine American traditionalism, and I think we should probably reach back further in time to discover it in its purest and its simplest form. For I think that therein lies the very key to our salvation.
As has been said before: "Worldview is everything!"
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Over at VA's is posted this interesting entry from yesterday. In this excerpt from her post she astutely observes:
Now may we please put an end to the illusion that Obama can 'transcend race' and be a 'uniter' because of his mixed heritage? This was my feeling about him from the git-go; he is a divider, and despite his half-white ancestry, he has a grudge against majority America.
Simply put, I agree...
I was flipping through the channels and happened to catch the first part of the Monday night Hannity and Colmes replay. That part of the show was dedicated to covering the democrat primary debate. One aspect of their coverage was on the Fox News live-feed piped in from some location here in the U.S. I'm assuming (lol) where there was a room full of 'average' folk who were to observe the debate as it transpired, and to offer their assessments of how each of the candidates fared as compared to the rest once the debate had ended. Naturally a lot of focus was put on the two most popular demo candidates, Hillary and Obama.
The interesting thing about the consensus among this rather 'diverse' group of participants, and as the Fox host kept reiterating, was that the overwhelming majority of them claimed to have come in preferring Hillary over Obama. Whereas when all was said and done in the debate, about the same number of participants, and most of the same people as far as I could tell, claimed to have changed their minds, now preferring Obama over Hillary. And their reasons for were interesting in light of some other blogging efforts done previously, particularly...
John Savage wrote about this (very observable in this gathering) preference among the American electorate for 'style over substance,' assigning to it the domineering quality of the "Triumph" of style over substance. And I think it notable that he doesn't limit the effect to liberals only. Moreover, that he identifies precisely what I observed; the exact sorts of responses to the questions posed of the host - which this 'style over substance' idea would predict - to the effect of "why did you prefer Obama over Hillary?;" "why did you change your opinion during the debate." John writes:
As an admirer of certain media critics, foremost among them Neil Postman, I’ve frequently criticized the way that style reigns over substance in the media. Like Postman, I think the triumph of style over substance (henceforth SOS) is a very bad thing, but it’s also not something we can expect to change. At best, we can hope that the news media (which currently has a stake in the avoidance of real issues) will stop reinforcing SOS by focusing on the style displayed at presidential debates at the expense of the issues. But to a large extent, SOS is an unavoidable direct consequence of television as a medium, of which Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." The message of the TV medium is entertainment, which when applied to politics produces SOS – presenting oneself as honest, optimistic, unflappable, and responsive to constituents, among other things. In addition, most Americans want to get the impression that the candidate stands for Mom, baseball, and apple pie. Principles that are universally honored are prominently displayed, whereas unpopular principles, as well as mutually conflicting principles, are hidden...
Almost to the person, when asked to answer the question, this is the kind of answer they gave. "Obama was just more believable;" "I felt a connection with Obama;" "I think he (Obama) showed his leadership abilities because he was more believable, and I connected more with him," and such as that. While on the other hand the consensus about Hillary's believability, her 'disconnectedness' with the average person, and so on and so forth, and therefore her capacity for leadership was found to be wanting. One young caucasion male even referred to Obama as "Charismatic." I guess in his youthful exuberance he forgot how offensive that is to say about a 'black leader.'
There was also the desire expressed of one person in the audience that the two of them team-up, to which the majority of the rest of the group seemed to heartily approve of. Sean Hannity posed the question of whether the members, given such an alliance, would prefer Obama or Hillary as the top-dog? And once more the group reconfirmed their newly formed 'convictions' that they should prefer Obama to hold that distinction.
But the point I'm really driving at here is that indeed I think John is right that 'style over substance' is triumphant in today's American politics, and probably for the exact reasons he offers us in his excellent post. Not that I think either of them to have any firm attachment to any 'principled' stand that I would in any way approve of, but I came away from that segment of the show thoroughly convinced that to these people the debate between Hillary and Obama was nothing more or less than a competition between them for who could project the more favorable image; whose personality was most approvable to them. And Obama won that contest hands down. It saddens me that people tend to place so much value on their emotions, but I guess that's just the way it is.
Thanks to VA, and to John for continually providing us with some outstanding, thoughtful, and pretty darn accurate commentaries.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The first and second editions to this series having posed what we've now come to know as the 'big question' still under our investigation, the second of which having concerned itself with what we might learn of Paul's character, his integrity, and how those match up against what the man is saying publicly about himself. You will recall that in the first and second entries we uncovered that Ron Paul thinks of himself as 'the champion of the Constitution,' and I think our investigation thus far has called more into question whether this can truly be said of the man than it has served to answer it either in the affirmative, or in the negative. Therefore, let us keep the question in mind as we continue to uncover who this Ron Paul character truly is.
In this edition, once more keeping in mind this question of whether Ron Paul may rightfully claim to himself the appellation 'champion of the Constitution,' let us take our investigation to yet another level. Let us lay a foundation to begin to open more to exposure what would appear to be Paul's underlying principles; that which governs the man in the way he conducts himself in his public life, and most probably in his private life as well. And let me say for the record that I'm interested in Ron's private life no more or no less than I am any other serious presidential contender's private life. Which is to say that a person's private conduct will generally teach us something about how he/she will conduct himself publicly. But Ron Paul has an extensive record of public service that we may appeal to, and it is there that we shall continue to concentrate our efforts within this series...
All of you know by now that Ron Paul is the Congressman representing the 14th district of the great State of Texas. And of course we're all well aware by now of the fact that Congressman Paul thinks of himself as the 'champion of the Constitution,' as has been restated numerous times. As far as the latter goes it seems to me that anyone serving in his capacity might (justly to their own minds) claim to themselves that distinction. And on that note I'd bet that many who serve in that capacity or at that level of government tend to think of themselves to some extent or the other in that way.
It seems to me natural, therefore, to question further whether this distinguishing characteristic is itself as worthy or as noble as it sounds? Certainly at first blush the appelation 'champion of the Constitution' seems to be a pretty laudable distinction reserved as it were for those select few having marked themselves worthy of the high thoughts which its mere mention naturally brings to mind. But on a closer inspection is the descriptive truly as noble and as worthy an appellation as it seems on the surface? Does the question here posed not depend on what one considers to be the 'core principles' and 'values' which the Constitution itself is founded on? What if one believes that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing document,' subject itself to the rapid changes of society? Would the person believing that about the Constitution not think of a 'champion' thereof as someone who recognized this quality inherent to the document; someone whose public life is marked more or less by a recognition of this principle as well as a voting record to support and perpetuate it? These are the kinds of questions we must keep at the forefront of our thoughts whenever we entertain the notion that one may rightly be described as 'the champion of the Constitution.'
Now, if it appears to some that I'm being a little obsessive about this idea of championing the Constitution, I can only say that it appears to me that this is a very important question which needs to be answered to the fullest extent possible. Indeed, I think that everything about the man under our investigation more or less centers around this idea about him. The concept itself extends to the furthest reaches of who this man Ron Paul really is. And since our series is itself intended to answer this most fundamental of questions, then it follows that to answer that question of who the man truly is, we must concern ourselves as particularly as possible with this attribution he notably claims to himself. Therefore we may expect that the remainder of this series will in one way or the other revert back to this fundamental question of whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be 'the champion of the Constitution.'
At the site "On the Issues" you may have noted at the bottom of Paul's page that he ranks as a 'moderate libertarian' on the VoteMatch chart. There is also a quiz provided for you to take to see where on that chart your political philosophy falls. Most of you can probably guess pretty accurately as to where you'd wind up on the chart, but I would still encourage you to take the quiz as a way of matching your position up against Paul's as well as some of the other candidates. And yes, in case you were wondering, I did take the quiz, and I wound up (not at all surprisingly to myself) way to the right of Paul being myself denominated a 'hard-core Conservative.' I ended up in the same block on the chart as the 'Constitution party' candidate, so it would appear for me, if this chart is at all accurate, that the description 'champion of the Constitution' would better fit that party's candidate than it would Ron Paul. And this is what I mean about the accuracy of the appellation being more or less 'relative to' one's political philosophy. While I believe strongly in the idea of there being 'absolute truth,' as opposed to there being 'relative truth,' still I understand that one's 'truth,' whatever it may be, is measured against some standard for determining it.
But to get on with our investigation now that we've hopefully managed to establish some guidelines that will be helpful to us in discovering who the man truly is, let us narrow our scope to yet another of Paul's apparently guiding philosophical approaches to government...
While I can't say that one's 'moderation' ranks high with me on certain things, particularly on political matters, I will admit that Paul's brand of moderation does have a certain appeal to it. And while Paul's brand of 'moderation' is in some ways intriguing, we must not fail to acknowledge that the term 'moderate' in his case is a qualifier of his 'libertarianism.' Irregardless of where one searches, Paul's underlying libertarian philosophy is everywhere notable, at least insofar as I've independently conducted my own investigation of the man.
John Savage and I recently had a discussion about the differences between a traditionalist's idea of 'self-government,' and that of a libertarian. And while I may have gone too far in stating somewhat emphatically that libertarians generally concern themselves not with how one's exercise of 'self-determination' affects others, nonetheless I believe that the common libertarian refrain on this subject - no one has the right to harm another in the exercise of self-determination - falls pretty short of an actual commitment to the idea. (Notable here as well is the oft repeated libertarian refrain that they seek 'the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary.' We've had that discussion before at the AFB, but I'll repeat here that the refrain itself seems to me to be somewhat overly vague. Not to mention that as stated it would seem to apply to libertarians in no particularly exclusive way, for I too seek the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary. And I'd be willing to bet that many of you who would not denominate yourselves 'libertarians' believe nonetheless in the concept.).
But that's only relevant here as pertains to Mr. Paul and how strictly he holds to the libertarian idea of 'self-government,' as I said, to be distinguished from the Conservative idea of same. In this sense is Paul rightly denominated a 'moderate libertarian?' That is, can it be said of Paul that his idea of 'self-government' is less extreme than the more 'radical' elements of the libertarian philosophy? Further to the point, can Paul's idea of self-government be said to be closer to a traditionalist conservative's idea of same than that of a strong libertarian? His position on the chart seems to indicate that his idea of 'self-government' would fall virtually in the center of a triangular shaped chart consisting of points liberal, conservative, and libertarian. But what does this mean within the context of our investigation?I should like to cover that ground more particularly in the next installment of this interesting series. And while I know that I'm raising more questions than I am providing answers for, I trust that you'll agree that these are worthy questions which a proper investigation into the depth of our subject does indeed warrant.
Hopefully to this point in our investigation we've at least managed to raise important questions about who this man really is which will ultimately lead us to a more thorough pursuit and investigation into the matter. One thing that I think cannot be said is that we've wasted any efforts thus far. So, until the posting of the next edition, I bid you all a happy and an affectionate: good hunting!...
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.
In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.
If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol
I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.
Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).
Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.
Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.
By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.
But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
First of all let me thank both VA and John Savage for posting links to Webster's on their excellent blogs. And let me say again that if you've not yet visited them, which I trust most of you have, then please do. I assure you it will not be a wasted endeavor. You may find links to their blogs permanently posted in the right sidebar of this one. So there's no excuse for not visiting them.
And I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that it is due in large part to their posting of the link to Webster's that this blog itself has enjoyed already a significant number of visits from folks who would otherwise not have come here. So once again my sincere thanks go out to both of them.
Second, I'd like to direct your attentions to the AFB, which itself has its own separate link provided in the right sidebar of this blog. You may use that link, or if you prefer you may use this one to go to the specific title to which I'm directing your attentions - Time to discharge your civic duty - posted by my friend, MT. And as he says: "what are you waiting for; go sign that petition!"
Third, and finally, CTO, why is the coding missing in the post section of the blog? Would you be so kind as to put it back in because at this moment I'm having to copy and paste it from other post titles, and I'm starting to get a little aggravated! Not to mention that as you know all too well, this necessity is eventually going to lead most likely to my messing something up real bad. ;) Please help.
In the first edition to this series I posed the 'big question' which you see in the titles of that post, and again in this one: Who is this Ron Paul Character? In addition, I gave you some bit of insight as to what you might expect in this as well as future editions to this series. And of course you'll recall my mentioning that the series itself, once completed to my satisfaction, would likely contain anywhere from three to five separate entries or more.
But before we get on with the meat of the subject let me also make you aware that I'll be embedding links from post to post in the series to assist anyone who happens to link up to a single entry, yet is unaware that there are others in the series. The 'Part 1,' Part 2,' and etc., designations should help us in that regard, but I imagine that before all is said and done here there will be the distance of days as well as unrelated topics separating the connected entries. Therefore, if you happen to be a regular reader, just ignore the minor inconvenience this presents you. Otherwise, use the provided links when needed, that's what they're there for.
And now, let us begin our investigation into who this Ron Paul Character truly is, as opposed perhaps to who we've been led to believe he is by himself and/or by others...
It seems like as good a place to start as any to open our investigation by attempting to answer one question which I posed in Part 1 of this series: Is Ron Paul really who he says he is? And a good place to open that investigation up would be, it would appear, to determine what it is that Ron Paul is saying about Ron Paul, as opposed to what others are saying about him. As to that latter part, we will most assuredly get to it later. But for this entry let us concentrate our efforts overall, once again, on what the man is saying about himself publicly.
In the opening paragraph to Part 1 of this series you may recall that I described Ron Paul as a "self-styled Champion of the Constitution," and that I later made a second mention of this designation. My source for that information about Rep. Paul, as well as other information about the man destined to make its way into this series directly or indirectly, is a site which I provided a link to in one of my posts a couple of weeks back. If you'll click on the link to that site provided here again for your convenience, it's just a matter of properly navigating the site (which I'll leave to you to do) to get to that revelation of Mr. Paul about himself.
I'll admit here that I'm rather turned off by individuals claiming to themselves such distinctive attributes as Mr. Paul chose to do at the late Presidential debate in June of this year. Truly it seems more appropriate to me to allow others to make these bold claims about oneself while the designee himself concentrates his efforts on supporting the claim rather than asserting it. It may just be a matter of a display of improper decorum, but it still tends to raise suspicions in me as it has something of an offensive quality to it. To be fair to Paul though, I understand the desire and the need to separate and distinguish oneself from the rest of the pack in a public debate between Republican Presidential contenders wherein one might find himself, as Paul, a relative unknown certainly must have - little recognized. Still, the traditionalist in me finds it somewhat distasteful for a 'bonified leader' under virtually any circumstances to engage himself in such self-promotional displays as Paul here did. My idea of a 'true leader' in this regard being someone possessing internal qualities of character which would rather tend to resist such impulses, strong as they may be under certain circumstances. But I can let that slide if in fact Paul truly is what he says he is - "The Champion of the Constitution." So is he? Is Ron Paul truly THE champion of the Constitution as he says? That's the question before us, and to answer it properly we must take our investigation of the man to yet another level.
Of course the preceding paragraph reveals, if nothing else, that to this point in my own investigation of Rep. Paul he's rather behind the eight ball so to speak given that he has at least one strike against him and none as yet for. So, for our purposes here our subject (Paul) has some ground to make up. This shouldn't present him with too much of a problem given that his career in public service has been rather marked, if I may say so, by this very 'champion of the Constitution' description afforded himself. And in point of fact this very thing is what has led to some of his Congressional colleagues casting other laudable characteristics at his feet. Ron Paul has been referred to (among his colleagues mind you), among other things, as 'the most principled man in Congress.' Further, it is said of Mr. Paul that he simply will not vote for a bill which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And there's certainly something respectable to be said of that quality which he seems to possess in a much superior way to the vast majority of his Congressional peers. While it may be said of the majority of his colleagues that 'they rarely saw a bill they wouldn't vote for,' it might be said of Ron in contrast that 'he never saw a bill that didn't raise suspicions as to its specific authorization by the Constitution.' As for me, that latter is a truly distinguishing mark that at very least evens the score for Ron once more.
Having now brought our investigation back, in fairness to Ron, to more of an even keel let us proceed by investigating Ron's principled stand on some of the key issues. Once again I would direct your attentions to the link provided above. Having successfully navigated the site to Paul's page, and under the heading "Ron Paul on Principles and Values," we find Congressman Paul's 'principled' belief as pertains to the first amendment.
The question is posed:
"You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?"
And here is Paul's answer:
"I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level."
Ignoring the obvious misquote of the first amendment, assuming that Paul is simply paraphrasing here, I'll concentrate more on the meat of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly he seems to be saying that he believes that the 'establishment clause' in the first amendment should be read and applied more literally than seems to be the habit of that body as well as that sphere of government which he finds himself a member, albeit an often dissenting member of. On this point I would agree with Paul wholeheartedly, and notably to this investigation on this very point he seems to hold indeed to the distinguishing designation: Champion of the Constitution. However, this to me is something of an oddly simplistic view coming from a man having been the particular recipient of such accolades from different quarters of being a 'true intellectual.' I think to get a true and accurate reading of exactly where Congressman Paul stands on this issue of church and state we need the question to be posed in a more particular sense. Since the context of a Presidential debate does not necessarily lend itself to expounding upon a stated view of a given subject, we must ultimately take our investigation elsewhere.
However, Congressman Paul has given us herein enough of an insight into his overall view of the subject to warrant, in my opinion, some measure of breaking down the elements of his answer in that context in order to assist us in answering our own questions which may well come to mind in reading his answer. As an example my mind was naturally led to ask, given the fact that we do have laws in place restricting the exercise of religion, would Paul consider it appropriate for the Congress to 'write' laws consistent with the non-prohibition clause of the first amendment? In other words, if the first amendment may be read in part as "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." and in light of the first amendment's express prohibition on Congress to 'make no law respecting an "establishment" of same,' would Congressman Paul consider it proper (or 'constitutional) of the federal Congress to write laws which tend to encourage and assist in Congress' resisting the apparently overwhelming urge among its members to create laws in actuality restricting the 'free exercise of religion?' And if so, should that 'writing of such laws' at the federal level tend to reflect the general sense of the People, or should it tend more to protect 'the free expression of' minority religions represented by relatively small segments of this society at the expense of the majority and the 'free expression' of its religion? What little I'm able to glean from his statement leads me to believe that he thinks it improper of Congress, and perhaps actually "unconstitutional" to write and pass any law 'respecting' religion period, effecting an 'establishment' thereof or otherwise.
I think Paul more or less answers these questions of ours, though, when he offers his thoughts on how best and at what level of government these questions should be dealt with generally speaking. Here again I tend to agree with Paul on the idea that these questions should be dealt with in more particular ways at the State and local levels of government. But that's just not the reality of our situation at present. You have to have a strong federal stucture in place to support this idea, and that we just don't currently have. More often than not these questions when dealt with in a more appropriate way at the lower levels are challenged in the courts and at length the federal government decides the issue on a grand scale. And in this process the central authority tends rather to side with the minority (often a very small and insignificant minority) on this question of the free exercise of one's religion.
By virtue of this fact we are rather left with bare remnants of the original design of this government which cannot be said to have possessed any appreciable fear or determination that it should arm itself and its minority citizens against encroachments on its powers and their rights via restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian Religion in particular. While it is all well and good to remind ourselves from time to time of the original intent of the founding generation in demanding a 'bill of rights' be attached to the Constitution, we should also, and in compliance with the underlying reasons for those reminders of ours, seek out practical means for returning our government to that original intent while in the meantime working to halt the degenerative process so pervading our government and her institutions. In this sense I think it possible that Ron Paul may more accurately be said to be something less than 'THE champion of the Constitution,' for a true and a committed 'top of the food chain champion' of anything or any worthy cause, would firmly adhere to the genuine sense in which the cause in question is to be maintained and furthered. And I think it may be said of the first amendment that a genuine reading of same would yield that indeed the federal Congress, while being expressly forbidden from 'making any law respecting an establishment of religion,' is rather encouraged to, than being prohibited from making laws of a non-prohibitionary type with respect to the 'free exercise thereof.' For what good is the statement "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." without the force of law to uphold and guarantee it against violations of the principle? Some may claim that the Constitutional provision itself is enough. But this does not square with the reality that the provision of the first amendment has proven to be of little use in prohibiting the actual practice thereof.
These laws should of course, as I said, reflect the general sense of the citizenry while taking into account the necessity of preserving our form of government in very particular ways as it cannot be stated too often nor too forcefully the irrefutable fact that the general consists itself in particulars. So, while I tend to agree with Paul's approach as stated, that these questions should be dealt with at more of a local level under a 'more perfect' scenario, I should think that given our current situation on this question the reality evinces that Paul's approach to addressing this question, as stated above, while it may have been an appropriate and a capable one 150 years ago is certainly less than so now. I should further think that such an approach, once more, given our current situation, would rather tend to provide opponents of the Constitution inroads to overthrowing its sacred principles which we must maintain at all costs.
If Congress is considered by its members and by the People in authority over them authorized by the Constitution to 'write laws' on questions of religion and morality, which I certainly think may well be said to be the case, and if in fact a proper reading of the Constitution itself does yield that conclusion to be consistent with the truth of the matter (not necessarily with the way it is applied) then to me the better, not to mention the more 'Constitutionally consistent' approach is to place less emphasis on what one considers a prohibition on that authorization, and rather to use one's 'pulpit' to emphasize the duty of Congress to write such laws adhering to the true sense of the Constitution, and to the general sense of the population under its governance. Does it rise to the level of an 'establishment of religion' for the federal Congress to acknowledge by law the right of the State and local authorities to themselves authorize prayers in the local schools? Or is it rather that such laws strictly adhere to that clause of the first amendment which has in it an implicit authority for the federal Congress to guarantee by law that it (the federal Congress) shall never write or endorse a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' in schools or elsewhere? Is this not the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read? Is this not the restriction on itself that the federal Congress is bound to acknowledge lawfully as inplicit in the first amendment? If indeed it is, and if Paul holds a view contrary to this, then it follows that it must be said of Paul on this issue that he is wrong. And if that is the case, then we have at least one reason to believe that Congressman Paul is not the 'champion of the Constitution' that he claims himself to be, as well as further calling into question his qualifications for being the next President of the United States. On the other hand, if this is the case, and if Paul's statement reflects a view consistent with the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read, as well as lawfully applied, then it may be said of Paul that he is in this particular truly what he says he is - THE Champion of the Constitution - as well as securing to himself his rightful place among the Presidential contenders.
In the foregoing discourse we have endeavored to discover whether Ron Paul, while certainly being rightly denominated in some sense "A" 'champion of the Constitution,' may be wrongly denominating himself "The" champion of the same, at least in the sense that we've investigated the matter here. As I said before I can forgive Paul for what I consider to be an inappropriate display of self-promotion IF indeed he can truly be said to be what he claims to himself, though I would certainly advise him against restating the offensive gesture too forcefully as well as too often. During the course of this investigation, and for the reasons offered here among others we will surely cover, my mind is led to question and further investigate whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be all he says he is. Therefore, my conclusion to this point in our investigation is that Paul inadvisedly expressed something of a rather high opinion of himself as well as of his own sense of self-importance in his introduction of himself at the late debate, unnecessarily raising doubts in the minds of some, including myself. And while I'm sure that this conclusion of mine is likely to bring some unfavorable comments my way, nonetheless this is my conclusion. But as I said in Part 1 of this ongoing series now well underway, I welcome your input as my conclusions about Paul and his statements may certainly prove to be misguided as well as misplaced.
In any event I would once again encourage you to leave a thoughtful comment to this post whether you happen to agree with the conclusions I've drawn or not. And also that you would return to read the third edition to this series which will be coming shortly. In the meantime, and if you haven't done so yet, do utilize the link I've provided here to further educate yourself on this man, Congressman Ron Paul. I look forward to your participation as certainly and as has been promised, this series while being paused for the moment, is most assuredly:
To be continued....
Friday, July 20, 2007
Up until just recently I had never heard the name Ron Paul before, or at least I don't recollect ever having heard it. And I really wonder whether a significant percentage of traditionalists had ever heard of this self-styled "champion of the Constitution" prior to that fateful moment when he and Guiliani famously butted heads back a few months ago.
Is Ron Paul who he says he is? Is he the man that others, advocates and adversaries, portray him to be? Can it truly be said of this Champion of the Constitution designate that he is indeed the foremost in that regard of all the presidential contenders? These I think are very relevant questions. And though I do not wish to detract in any way from the excellent work already done on the subject by others whom I highly respect, I should like to at least open an investigation independently done for my own personal purposes, as well as for those readers interested in learning more about the respective contenders perhaps having yet to discover certain already available means to assist them in that endeavor...
In doing so I eagerly invite and implore the readers of this entry (as well as others that will follow on the subject) to engage the conversation so as to inject some degree of proper balance into what in some instances may well amount to an actual misrepresentation of Paul's position on a given issue, and/or, a miscalculation on my part or the parts of others here engaging the conversation, of Rep. Paul's core principles and how they may be good or bad for the country, particularly if elected President, in our estimations.
To this point I have done some 'extensive' independent research on Ron Paul. And I've used various means provided and available to me from a variety of sources to assist me in doing so. Yet, I do not consider my investigation as yet to be anywhere close to exhaustive. Therefore, my approach to this question of "who is Ron Paul?," as regards this blog's purpose (contained in the left sidebar under the heading "blog description"), and as my mind foresees it, is likely going to consist of a 3, 4, perhaps even 5 part series on the subject, this post being the first in the series.
I don't want to put any firm number to it though because I'm simply not sure how many editions the series will ultimately prove to consist of beyond the absolute certainty I have that it will consist of more than this one; at very least two. Depending on the level of involvement from the readership among other variables not precisely predictable, certain questions might be raised which would require one or more additional posts than would be necessary or proper in the absence of those questions, concerns, refutations, or whatever. I will state, however, that while avoiding fixing a firm number to it, I will not allow the series to extend beyond a number of posts that I would loosely describe as a 'maximum,' it being my persuasion that a pretty thorough investigation of the whole view of the matter may be conducted within the confines of a 'high-end' number of posts. Anything over-and-above of which would most probably amount to little more than redundancy.
I should like to make clear as well that I do not intend to get to the meat of the question(s) in this post, as you discerning readers have probably already realized. I have chosen to open the conversation this way for a specific reason which I don't feel it necessary to share at this point. I imagine most of you can figure it out for yourselves anyhow, so there's really no need in my explaining it to you. However...
Being myself attached to the idea of 'capitalism' insofar as it adheres to a moral code of conduct inhibiting the tendency to excess, I own that I should like to utilize the principle to attract a wider readership via what I'm betting will be an increase in traffic to the blog given the level of interest in Paul's campaign. And incidentally, if you're feeling somewhat betrayed having now read this revelation of mine, I would simply remind you that neither is anyone forcing, nor is anyone even asking you to stick around if in fact you don't like what you see and read here. I would also point out that this is a more honest and a straight-forward approach than some bloggers would be willing to initiate. And I trust that most of you will see in this honest approach a quality that is somewhat endearing as well as perhaps refreshing. If not then I bid you a respectful and an affectionate farewell wishing you the best in your continued searches and pursuits on this as well as other subjects of interest. On the other hand, if you do in fact like what you read here and choose to stay around awhile, I welcome you with open arms to Webster's, as well as welcoming, as I said, your particular and unique input.
To close this installment of the series out let me say that I've been thinking on doing something of this sort for a couple of weeks now. Only over the last few days, however, have I put some serious thought to it, particularly as to how it might ultimately shape up. As I've said, I have some resources that I'm using to familiarize myself with Representative and Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, his history, his family, his philosophical approach to government, and so on and so forth. It will be from these sources primarily that my perspective on Mr. Paul's positions will be derived and offered to you in the series of posts forthcoming. And as I've already said, I encourage all of you to join in the discussion. This post is now entered into the record as part 1 in the series bearing the title "Who is this Ron Paul Character?" It is intended to get us thinking on the subject, as well as to finally initiate the somewhat belated process.
I shall now see it through to the end, and I hope you'll chime in...
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics
Thursday, July 19, 2007
I remember one Christmas in particular when I was about twelve or thirteen I had asked for a new bicycle. Back then money was a little tight and a new bicycle was an item that was somewhat hard to come by. And though I didn't really expect to get one, I nonetheless had hopes that maybe, just maybe I would get one this Christmas.
At this time Mom and Dad had divorced, both having subsequently remarried. I lived with Dad while my younger siblings lived with Mom. In the small town where Dad and I lived my great uncle on Dad's side (who passed away recently, incidentally) owned a hardware store still bearing his name today where Dad and I would frequently (almost daily) stop in for a visit with my uncle, if not to pick up some needed item.
My uncle, having served in the Navy during WWII, and having gone to battle with the Japanese himself sustaining several injuries as well as witnessing the death of some of his friends and comrads during these battles, had lots of lingering misgivings and ill-feelings toward the state of Japan. And at the time of this particular Christmas -around 1977 or 1978- our trade relations with the state of Japan had improved to the point that it seemed virtually everything was now 'Made in Japan.'
Dad and my great uncle often expressed their displeasure with this movement toward trading with the Japanese, referring often to Japanese made products as 'junk,' or more specifically "Jap-Junk." Japanese made cars and motorcycles, as an example, were referred to as "Jap-Junkers." And to be frank, much of it was in actuality "junk."
As I recall I spent this particular Christmas Holiday at Mom's house. And I remember very well seeing that brand new bike sitting in front of the tree on that most memorable Christmas morning. I was so excited and pleased to see it that I could barely contain myself. Indeed, Mom had worked and saved to provide me and my siblings with the best of gifts we could ever have hoped for. And while I can't recall the exact timeline of the events as they transpired this Christmas morning, I do recall very well an incident taking place which I still have much regret about...
At some point that morning I set aside all my other gifts to focus my undivided attention on that most excellent of gifts I had received, my new bike. And as I was giving her a good going over, quietly noting each and every minor imperfection in her most beautiful whole contruction, I eventually ran across a stamped impression in the frame somewhat concealed by paint which read: "Made In Japan." At which point, unaware of my surroundings, I let out a disgusted: "It's a Jap-Junker!," along with some other bits of poorly chosen verbiage such as "it's gonna fall apart on me," and the like. I was soon to regret those words.
The problem was that Mom, deriving a great deal of pleasure from quietly observing my close and excited inspection of her gift, was attentively watching every move and listening to all the 'oohs and ahs' I was uttering up to that fateful point. And I can hardly recall a moment in my life that ever I felt so low as that moment at which I realized how hurtful this exclamation of mine was to her, unintentionally so as it was.
At length the story of this unfortunate incident made its way back to Dad who promptly sat me down and gave me some much needed instruction on bridling my tongue, as well as of being more attentive to my surroundings, and of course thinking before I actually speak. And Dad's very obvious disapproval as well as his disappointment in what I had done was enough in and of itself to sink my sense of worth to the depths of self-loathing. But I think perhaps the best lesson was in seeing and realizing how hurtful this had been to Mom, who had put so much effort into providing us with with some very memorable gifts that Christmas among others. It was incidents like that one which finally led to my realization of what a sorry piece of self-indulgent work I truly was.
But one of the happy endings to the story is that the new bicycle proved to be an extreme exception to my ill-expressed perceptions as to its quality and durability as it provided me with miles and miles of riding pleasure, not to mention enduring some extensive measure of abuse and neglect. And how, you may be asking, did I account for that most notable attribution stamped into its framework? Well, as I recall I purchased a sticker of an American flag and placed it over the offending revelation. "Out of sight, out of mind." lol
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Many moons ago, around the time that I finally began to wake up and to realize that I might oughta get more serious about life (that was about the time that I joined the military), I began to immerse myself in the study of what became for me a genuine love, almost an obsession - the study of American History, particularly early American History.
This being for me an absolutely independently sought out endeavor given that it was really the only way in which I knew of or had the means to pursue it, there was no real outside influence to speak of leading me to the pursuit of what I'd call now 'revisionist history.' Oh, prior to this stage of my life I had made short work of a pursuit for higher learning at a two-year college relatively near my home. And there it was that I enrolled in an 'American History' course wherein the professor - who was very good at proffessing...his view of American History - and I got off on the wrong foot from day one.
I'm going to pause and throw some props over Dad's way here because as I've noted on occasion over at the greater blog, during my upbringing he was very good at dropping little bits of wisdom here and there perfectly suited to the stage of development that my mind and my deportment had reached at a given moment. Dad, being a very capable educator in my opinion, seemed to have had an innate understanding about how best to communicate an idea to an unrefined mind and to cultivate the seeds of knowledge he had so early planted in what I hope may be said to have been 'good ground.'
Of course, what I was getting at with regard to my college profess-or is that he was rather a liberal sort of fellow, and my dad being the excellent father he was (and is) had at least prepared me enough to recognize that more or less instinctively. So from about the third day or so of attending his classes, I pretty much wasn't listening to anything he had to 'profess' except as it gave me cause and opportunity to challenge his assertions.
Before I go too far here though, I want to turn y'all on to yet another intriguing piece you should at least find interesting, if not altogether absorbing. As for me I certainly found myself becoming more and more of the latter as I read VA's take on the situation. And to wet your appetites just a bit here, I'll insert an excerpt from her excellent post; says she:
One of the liberal ideas which has taken hold in our society is that any difference or separation is 'discrimination' and a violation of the principle of equality, which principle must be absolute. This is a bad idea which has had far-reaching consequences. We have re-interpreted equality to mean absolute sameness, which is not possible, whether between races and ethnicities and nationalities or between men and women. It was not discrimination to have all-male schools or clubs, or all-female schools. And division of labor was simply a common sense way to divide up the necessary work: women excelled at certain things, and preferred certain tasks, and these were the 'women's work.' And yes, there are always exceptions who feel at odds with the traditional roles, but a few exceptions, no matter what liberals say, do not justify throwing out all the rules.
Certainly we all have our own personal experiences which tend to create in us certain predispositions on various subjects. And my case in this regard is no different than anyone else's. But I'm ever mindful of and thankful for all those little seeds of wisdom Dad was so very capable of planting in my youthful mind, because later on they would come to bear, if I may be so bold as to say it, some pretty good fruits.
One of the seeds that Dad early planted in my mind was that 'this nation was originally founded on Christian principles,' and that's about the extent to which the idea developed during my formidable years. Dad was not as concerned with giving me specific examples -and looking back on it I don't know that they would have taken anyhow- as much as he was with establishing a broader context for the idea which he seems to have rightly calculated would likely lead to an independent investigation of the matter for myself when I was more ready to absorb it.
Eventually I most certainly was led to make some independent discoveries therein which at length caused me to further investigate my faith as well. And I can claim without the slightest reservation that I never learned so much about the Christian faith in church as I did in investigating America's early history, by a long shot even. I certainly don't want you to misread what I'm saying here. I'm NOT saying stop attending church. I am saying though that American churches are more or less corrupted these days particularly in the way in which they tend to avoid making the irrefutable connection between their profession of faith and its early and significant influence on Americanism.
In VA's piece posted over at her blog, I think she identifies one way in which the church in America has indeed succumbed to the pressure of radical feminism. And that I may describe here, for lack of a better way of putting it, as attempting to make 'equals' of men and women in all things. As VA writes, and as my experience certainly confirms, women tend to be more 'emotional' than men, or to rely more on their emotional take on a given situation than are men who tend to be less emotional and more inclined to reason through a matter. Of course I'm speaking in generalizations here, and I certainly do not deny the exception to the rule on both sides of the equation. But as has been said before, it's a poor policy to govern according to the exception.
I'm purposely trying to avoid adding anything to what VA has already said because I'd really just like for you to go over and read her wonderfully 'masculine' post on the subject. But I can hardly keep from giving at least my 'two cents worth,' with regard to 'church and state' and the worldview responsible for this nation's founding...
We read early on in the Holy Scriptures that it was 'not good that man should be alone,' and that God in turn made him an help meet for him. As far as our reading of the account goes, it is not long after this that man's helper (woman) is separated from her husband wondering about in the garden of Eden all alone. And it is in this wondering vulnerability that the serpent approaches and eventually beguiles Eve in the absence of her husband. And it was all an emotional thing as the devil knew that Eve, being the weaker vessel and having likely received her instruction on God's prohibitions from her husband, was the much more approachable of the two given that Adam had received his instruction directly from God.
Essentially, Satan knew that the way to corrupt the whole of the human race was to cause Adam to sin, and the easiest way to do that was to go through his wife who was much more capable than Satan was of beguiling Adam, at least in a direct sort of way. And in light of VA's piece on the subject, doesn't it seem that there are some real parallels between the biblical story of original sin and that of the ongoing saga of our women more or less wondering about in the American garden independently of their husbands? Might we eventually, as were our original parents, be banished therefrom? Time will tell, I suppose.
This'n oughta be fun...
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Recently the question was raised on another blog of whether conservative people tend to be more disposed to sin than their liberal counterparts. And if you've been keeping up with the conversation on the subject you probably realize very well by now that I strongly resist the proposal as such.
I'll reiterate that I'm intrigued by the question, and now that I've had some more time to reflect upon it I reckon that's because the question itself as raised would likely never have occured to me, my predisposition being rather something different altogether. As I said during the discussion, I believe all people rather equally disposed to sin. Some just recognize it more within themselves than do others. And quite frankly, I think it much more reasonable to assume that folks who recognize their sins as sins are therein drawn to conservatism whereas those who do not recognize their sins as such are drawn more to liberalism for obvious reasons.
And yes; I admit that I have certain predispositions about most things just as everyone else has; that I'm not as 'open-minded' as some would have you believe they are. However, I think it may not be too 'self-righteous' to say of myself that I may be described as 'open-minded' in one particular sense, and that is that I recognize and own that I don't know everything, that I could in fact be and often am wrong; and therefore I do actually strive to govern my thoughts and reflections, and even my conversations by that knowledge...
Personally I think this may truly be the only practical sense in which the idea of 'open-mindedness' can be thought of, or can be put into actual practice. Many times I think we may be too willing to set our principles aside in an attempt to be more open-minded about certain things. Other times I think that some of us find this rather easy to do given that our 'principled' foundation may be a little shaky, or poorly established. But generally speaking I think it wise to be cautiously open-minded about certain ideas which at least give the appearance of requiring it of us.
On the other hand, I find little wrong with individuals approaching a given question with a certain set of predetermined biases. And in point of fact, I don't really think it possible to approach a given question in exclusion of some bias or predisposition toward it, even if that 'predisposition' amounts to virtually no predisposition. And yes; you are right in assuming what I'm definately implying and that is that all of us must enter upon an investigation of a question predisposed to believe a certain way and therefore to disbelieve in the opposite. For one cannot believe in a certain thing and in its opposite at the same time anymore than one can believe in something and in nothing at the same time.
Sometimes it's just a matter of being thick headed that causes us to roundly reject an idea that may well have some merit to it. Other times it may simply be a matter of confusing the meanings of certain terms within a given context. Whatever the case may actually be though, it would serve us all well I think to approach certain questions with a good deal of moderation, for it's hard to reason with someone not willing to engage the reasoning process. And of course one may well be in the right on a given question, yet have a poor way of expressing it. In this latter sense the reasoning process is extremely helpful in developing and refining one's argument for or against a given question. And I certainly can't see much wrong in that, for if one is on the right side of a given question yet has a poor way of expressing it he may as well be on the wrong side of same since his poor expression of ideas warrants little attention of his listeners. Surely I have found myself in this very predicament a time or two, if I may be so bold as to proclaim that I actually have been right on occasion.
But there's yet another beneficial aspect of the reasoning process. And that is with respect to those who happen to be on the wrong side of a given question. For if these individuals are in the wrong yet willing to engage the reasoning process, they may be led eventually to adopt the right side of the question, having recognized their error via the reasoning process. The point of course being that wrong or right, persons generally hold a perspective on virtually everything. And they do well to exercise their gift of reason in contending for and refining that perspective.
You're probably wondering "what has this to do with the title of the post?" And recognizing that this may well be the case, I'm going to attempt to offer you the best answer I have. I started out with the idea in mind to establish a foundation upon which to rest the argument I'm about enter upon. Somewhere in the midst of that process my mind was led a bit astray with thoughts certainly having some relation to the subject at hand, yet of more of a distant kind than I first intended. I recognized this early on and quite nearly convinced myself to start over. Then I thought "nah, let's just see where this takes us," and here we are. So I'll leave the preceding up and allow you to determine whether there's anything in it worthy of note.
But to finally get to the point, you may have read in the previous post Liberal vs. Conservative Morality my long-held conviction that virtually all, if not all laws are founded in a moral perspective; someone's moral perspective. Whether you have or haven't read this in the former post is really of little consequence, however, because herein I intend to retrace most of those steps as well as to take the idea somewhat further. So I propose that we get this thing underway...
First of all, and to follow the lead of my friend, John Savage, I should like to pre-establish some boundaries within which to confine the subject, else we could get way off into left field quick, fast, and in a hurry. The way in which I will attempt to do that is to explain that whenever I use the term "moral" I'm not necessarily claiming the thing to which I'm applying it to in fact be moral. Indeed, within the context of this argument I will often use the term as it applies to what many of you, and even myself, would probably consider to be "immoral." The most important thing to keep in mind in this regard is this - I'm merely pointing out that the term "immoral" comes from the root "moral," and in that sense it is a moral perspective, albeit not necessarily squaring with your or my idea of morality.
Now with that in mind allow me to restate the argument for you: It is my contention that "virtually all, if not in fact all laws are founded in a moral perspective; someone's moral perspective." This is not to say that I believe that all laws are "moral," of course, it is to say, however, that I believe all laws, or essentially all laws to have "morality," someone's morality, as their basis. Essentially my firm belief is this, that when any law is considered it must necessarily be considered to be right or wrong, good or bad. And the very essence of morality is indeed in drawing a distinction between right and wrong. If a law is said to be good then it may also be said of those assigning the description to it to be a moral law; whereas if a law is said to be bad, that law may be said to be an "immoral" law by those who assign to it the quality of 'badness.' In any event there is a moral value to both.
My contention is simply this, that as laws must necessarily be considered on their rightness or wrongness, and the distinction between right and wrong being the essence of morality, then it follows that all laws must necessarily have a moral foundation, and here again I will reiterate, not necessarily mine or yours, but someone's moral foundation. It may not be my morals that a law is founded upon; it may not be yours; it may not even be the majority's moral perspective that a given law is founded on, but it is someone's moral perspective. It is someone's idea of what is 'right,' as opposed to what the same person would consider to be 'wrong.' This is my contention.
If this idea has any truth to it, and I certainly believe it does have a lot of truth to it, then I would suggest to you that the implications of it are extensive and profound. My belief is that were the majority of Americans to understand this concept (which to me seems very logical) it would likely and most probably totally revolutionize the way we approach lawmaking. And I think perhaps in a very good and meaningful way.
We have all heard it said innumerable times that "you can't legislate morality." This has become something of a popular refrain in America, most particularly amongst our illustrious leaders, and it's not just liberals who are regurgitating it. I believe it emanates from a liberal perspective as opposed to a conservative one, but this does not mean that conservatism has not been infected with and actually in some cases embraced the disease. Indeed, I think it can be shown that conservatism has been infected to a great extent thereby. But is this reasonable; is it even logical?...
Certainly I believe it is neither reasonable nor logical to proclaim that "you cannot legislate morality," as a defense for, well, legislating morality; for legislating a different set of moral standards. The argument itself, as I've noted before, is self-defeating, for it claims as irrefutable truth the very opposite of that which it is actually intended to do - defend the practice of legislating morality. And irregardless of whether it is a liberal or a conservative "morality" that is being legislated, you can pretty well bet your bottom dollar every time that indeed someone's morality is being legislated; that someone's morality is being imposed upon someone else having a different morality.
Liberal folk tend to think of themselves as possessing something of a higher righteousness one might say. This of course leads them to believe that their morals (whether any of us denominate them such) are the superior morals. In this strict sense they are not much different than we conservatives are. Certainly if we're honest with ourselves we'll acknowledge that we think our morals superior to those of liberals. For if we didn't, why would we prefer them over liberal morals? That being the case it's really just a question of whose morals are the better morals; of whose morals more consistently square with reason and logic and with the higher authority.
And here's where the implications are profound. If indeed there's no getting around the fact that someone's morals are going to be imposed on someone else, then why should conservatives buy into the liberal idea that you can't and shouldn't legislate morality? If you must necessarily legislate morality, then what's reasonable about trying to avoid doing so? To my mind it is no more reasonable of a conservative to attempt to avoid imposing a moral perspective on a liberal than it is for a liberal to falsely claim that he is not imposing his morals on conservatives. Both are irrational from my perspective. But the conservative shall always, under those notions and conditions, get the short end of the stick. For in the very process of attempting to avoid an imposition of conservative morals, the conservative himself more or less aids and abets the liberal in establishing an imposition of his morals upon his counterparts. As I said, someone's morals are going to be imposed, which should have us asking ourselves this extremely pertinent question: whose morals is it we'd prefer to have imposed upon ourselves.
I believe that if there's anything at all worthwhile to be taken from this commentary it must be that it is simply not a logical point of view which promotes as fact the abjectly false claim that morality cannot be legislated. And if my suspicion is right that this idea emanates from a liberal as opposed to a conservative perspective on the subject, then I think it may safely be said that in this one vital particular liberalism is an unreasonable and an illogical political doctrine little worthy of serious recognition by any reasonable person.