The Fourth of July marks 233 years since the 13 colonies seceded from England and became an independent nation. England attempted to block the colonies attempt at secession with military force, but were not able to do so as the colonists won a long and bloody war of secession. 233 years after secession, England is one of our greatest allies. Every year on July 4, we celebrate self-determination and the right to choose one's own government, and the choice made by the colonies to secede from a nation that no longer respected their liberties.
Today, we celebrate George Washington and the colonists as patriots, but that certainly was not the universal view at the time. Had the 13 colonies failed in their attempt to secede from England, our history books would be very different, teaching us that Washington was a traitor and a criminal - just as we now view Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The winners do write the history books, after all.
The irony does not escape me, though, that we view the Revolutionary War and the War Between the States in a completely different light. In both cases, a group of states decided that continued union with a larger entity was destructive to their liberty, and declared that they would be seceding from the larger entity. In both cases the larger entity used military force to prevent the secession. In the first case, the secessionists won the war. In the second case, the secessionists lost. That makes all the difference in how history sees both: secession was moral and patriotic in 1776 but secession was immoral and treasonous in 1860.
The popular and simplistic view of the War Between the States is that a benevolent Yankee army invaded the Confederacy to free the slaves. It was a humanitarian mission to ensure racial equality and end a grave injustice. But Abraham Lincoln's own white supremacist views are conveniently ignored, as was the political charade that was the Emancipation Proclamation. The War Between the States was not about ending slavery. It was an armed conflict over the role of federal power as opposed to states' rights and whether states were really sovereign entities with control over their own affairs.
The federalists won the war, which set into motion the ever-expanding power of the federal government at the expense of both states' rights and individual liberty. The men who founded the country would be shocked at what they see today, when truly local issues such as elementary education are debated in Congress and both major party candidates for President advocating their own views of a single national solution for a nation that stretches across the continent and has a population of over 300 million people. That is unfortunate.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- The First Amendment
The new "Transformers" movie was released last week, based on the 1980's cartoon that was based on a line of toys. Transformers was one of several such cartoons, one of which (G. I. Joe) will also have a movie later this summer. What is interesting is that those types of cartoons were actually illegal in the 1970's. It was illegal to make a cartoon based on a toy line.
Then Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980. President Reagan, unlike far too many people at all levels of government, was actually literate and could see that the literal, word for word text of the First Amendment did not place speech into separate categories, protecting some forms of speech and not protecting other forms of speech. President Reagan then gutted the regulations and restored protections for commercial speech that never should have been removed in the first place and were never legally valid.
President Reagan's defense of free speech had a significant effect on the popular culture that continues to this day, with the movies being released based on popular 1980's cartoons. But it's also worth considering the economic impact of President Reagan's policy. How many jobs did President Reagan create just by allowing these cartoons to be made? This includes not only the people involved in drawing, producing and doing voice acting for the cartoons, but also the people who were making the toys, shipping the toys around the country, marketing the toys and so forth.
Free speech is a fundamental right and must be protected from those in government who would wish to restrict it for their own personal agenda. In this society, free speech is the primary means of holding government accountable and exposing bad behavior by politicians. Commercial speech may not seem important to some, but once the precedent is established that government can restrict some speech, that precedent can then be used to restrict other speech. This is why free speech must be vigorously defended and why President Reagan deserves praise.
There is another important reason why President Reagan's policy was needed. The ban on cartoons based on toy lines was always illegal. That is clear to anyone reading the literal, word-for-word text of the First Amendment, text that needs no "interpretation" and is simple enough for anyone to comprehend. Government simply cannot be allowed to break the law, because the rule of law is critical for the preservation of our freedoms. A government that ignores the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any terrorist or foreign aggressor could ever be.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. -- Exodus 20:3-4
Late last week, a famous pop singer passed away unexpectedly. Within an hour, top story on the web sites for CNN, Indianapolis Star, Fox News and the New York Times was that singer's death. This was even the case with the BBC, which I generally find to be a more professional news service than American media, so that was especially disappointing.
My problem isn't that the story was covered or even that it had a front page link. It was newsworthy. My problem is with the placement of the story as if it is the most important news story of the day. This individual had a significant impact on the pop culture, but does he deserve to be placed above the continuing crisis in Iran (which reminds me of Tiananmen Square in 1989), the saber-rattling by North Korea, the bombing in Baghdad that same day that killed several people, the subway train crash, and a number of other news stories? No.
This is not meant to be a dig against the singer, which is why I have avoided mentioning him by name. The problems the singer had in his personal life aside, it is understandable why many people would mourn his passing. Many people loved his music and he was undeniably talented. My main point is about priorities of news organizations and (more importantly) the rampant idolatry of celebrity in this country.
Celebrities are the gods that modern society worships. We seek out movies that feature our favorite celebrities, as well as purchase their music and follow their exploits in tabloid magazines and gossip web sites. (The disgusting depravity of the tabloid industry is another topic.) We shower adoration and praise on celebrities, when we're not tearing them down. We feel as if our lives are somehow more important if we come into contact with a celebrity.
It's important to note that one does not have to bow down before something, pray to it, and think it has some supernatural power for that thing to be a god in your life. For many people, money is their god, and Scripture is very clear (see Luke 16:13) that we cannot serve God and money. For others, it may be a something else. The things in our lives that can be gods are far too numerous to list, because the list is almost infinite.
Now, does this mean that all music, movies, sports, television and so forth are to be avoided and all enjoyment of such things is the worship forbidden by Scripture? No, but it is used in an idolatrous way much more often than we want to believe. Christians need to think very seriously about how we view our entertainment, and whether the way we view celebrities crosses the line into idolatry. We need to think seriously about whether much of what we do with images is a violation of the Second Commandment. This society is so saturated with celebrity worship that we don't even recognize what is truly going on. Christians must search the Scriptures and pray for God to reveal our sins, especially our secret sins.
Now that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is the most recent politician mired in a sex scandal, where will his career go from here, and what does this mean for the political landscape?
First, it amazes me how some of these politicians think they can get away with committing adultery, especially in the 24-hour news cycle where information is transmitted into living rooms and computer screens almost instantly. Taking off on Father's Day to see his mistress showed a despicable level of disrespect for his wife and (worse) the Father he is supposed to be representing on earth.
Does this damage the credibility of the Republican Party? Some may want to claim it does. It certainly reduces Sanford's credibility and shatters the trust voters have placed in him. After all, if his own wife can't trust him, how can voters? But this isn't the story of a political party. This is the story of one politician who acted wickedly and should be a man and face the consequences for it. This doesn't have anything to do with the logical merit of arguments on sexual morality, nor does it have anything to do with the Republicans who do not treat their marriage vows like something to be tossed aside when thosw vows are an obstacle to lust.
Adultery holds an interesting spot in how Americans view morality, according to a Gallup poll. 40% viewed sex between an unmarried man and woman as immoral, 45% viewed having a baby out of wedlock as morally wrong, and ironically only 30% viewed divorce as morally wrong. But adultery was viewed as morally wrong by 92% of people answering the poll. The answer seems obvious: with adultery, there is a clear victim: the spouse who was betrayed. The others are viewed with more of a "live and let live" attitude because those involved are consenting adults. Biblical teaching, of course, trumps public opinion on what is and is not moral.
Sanford proclaimed that he planned to remain in office, invoking King David as an example of someone who fell from grace and then was redeemed. This comparison indicates that Sanford does not have remorse for committing adultery, only remorse for getting caught. If Sanford wants to emulate King David, his first priority should be to show remorse for his sin, not immediately speak of how he expects to be redeemed and how he will remain in office. King David suffered greatly before his ordeal was through and his remorse was real.
Sanford is an embarrassment to his state and his party, and his dreams of being President are probably over. It's time for him to leave politics, at least until he gets his life in order, realizes how serious his sin is and truly repents.
I attended the Bloomington Traffic Commission meeting last Wednesday because of an item on the agenda that interested me: the proposal to increase the speed limit on Tapp Road from the current 30 mph to 40 mph.
Immediately before that, the commission voted to approve increasing the time allowed for a parking space on South Gentry street from 15 minutes to two hours. The commissioners supported the change and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council, but I was disappointed by the comments of one of the commissioners disparaging the reasoning of the petitioner, Olympus Properties. There was no reason to ridicule the reasoning behind requesting the change, especially since that individual supported the change. It indicates an arrogance that is unwelcome in public servants.
The Tapp Road speed limit drew the most interest. The city's engineering department reported that studies of the area show that most people are driving between 36 and 40 mph already, that there is more than enough stopping distance on the hill for people traveling 40 mph, and that there is more than enough distance for people to see when pulling onto Tapp. (See a Google map of the area.)
I spoke in favor of the change. The speed limit was 40 mph before the city annexed the land a few years ago, so there is no reason it cannot return to the higher limit. It has been my observation that people tend to drive at the speed the road can handle, whether the speed limit is lower or not. For example, I try to go the speed limit on South Walnut and people are whipping by me. Going the speed limit there can actually be a traffic hazard.
One of the commissioners brought up that there is an elementary school in the area, and wondered if increasing the speed limit would be safe for area children. In reality, no children are going to be walking to school along Tapp, since all of the neighborhoods where children would be walking from are north of Tapp, and the school is well north of Tapp.
The proposal passed 4-2 and was forwarded to the City Council for approval. The two who voted "no" expressed concern for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area, and were also "sad" that the justification for changing the speed limit was the comfort and convenience of drivers. While Bloomington is a very pedestrian-friendly city, we do need to be vigilant in keeping the city as walkable as possible. The city plans to install an underpass where walkers will pass under Tapp when it is increased to 4 lanes, and the roundabout is a natural "traffic calming" device at the bottom of the hill. It would be nice to see sidewalks extended, especially to the trail a bit west of the Southern Pines neighborhood.
This is a good proposal, returning the speed limit to what it was before and well within the margin of safety. It is also consistent with the plans to increase capacity on Tapp in the next year. The City Council should approve it when it comes before them in a couple months.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. -- Romans 1:22-25
Last year, I came across a YouTube video of a group of hippies wailing for dead trees, mourning the destruction of plant life.
The video is amusing, because the people are acting so foolishly. After all, it's just another plant. Trees do not have souls, and are not made in the image of God like mankind. Trees cannot even provide the kind of companionship one has with a pet such as a dog or cat, and trees cannot suffer or feel pain. Why mourn for them? Upon deeper examination, though, this video is not funny at all. It is very sad.
A significant portion of the environmental movement is about worshipping the earth itself, rather than being good stewards of what God has given us while having dominion over the earth. We see this in statements that elevate nature over man, such as a recent letter to the editor that implied that animals are somehow more noble than humans.
This is why I have serious reservations about many evangelical churches embracing "social justice" issues like environmentalism without any sort of discernment and warning about the paganism that is interwoven into the environmentalist movement. Pastors and elders are placed into positions of authority by God to shepherd His flock and guard against serious sin like idolatry. But when Christian churches abandon discernment for what is politically popular at the moment (as if Jesus Christ, crucified by the Romans at the order of His own people, cared about what was popular) they are playing with fire in more ways than one.
As I said before, we are to be good stewards of what God has provided for us. We should not wantonly pollute or destroy the natural environment. Economic progress has brought pollution, but it has also brought a significant increase in health, longevity, quality of life and wealth. To the extent we can reduce pollution and be good stewards, we should do so, and there should be reasonable limits in place to protect the environment. We must never forget, however, we have been made in the image of God and we are commanded by God to have dominion over the earth and everything on the earth. (See Genesis 1:28)
Sports Illustrated has a feature on NBA draft busts, including Shawn Bradley, the #2 pick in the 1993 NBA Draft by the Philadelphia 76ers. Here, draft position means everything. Even on draft night, many people scratched their heads and wondered why Philadelphia would choose Bradley over Anfernee Hardaway. If the 76ers wanted to go big, Vin Baker would have been a better choice. But was Bradley truly a bust?
As the #2 pick in the draft, he certainly was a poor choice. But Bradley had a solid career in the NBA, averaging at least 3 blocks per game for five full seasons and the lockout-shortened 1999 season. He was also a decent rebounder, especially when you consider his per-minute average. Had he been chosen toward the end of the first round, the perception of his career would be very different than it is today. The problem is that Philadelphia took a gamble on Bradley instead of taking a much safer pick. Bradley certainly can't be faulted for Philadelphia's bad choice.
Joe Smith is another player whose reputation was harmed by his position in the draft. He also had a solid career, but was a step behind Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess. While we can look back with hindsight and see that Kevin Garnett was the best player in that draft, he was an unproven player and had only played in high school. There was no guarantee he would be able to handle the pressure of playing at an NBA level with the intense schedule and heavy travel. Clearly, he adjusted very well, and is an obvious pick for the Hall of Fame.
The most memorable draft bust is Sam Bowie, who was infamously chosen ahead of Michael Jordan. Jordan led Chicago to 6 NBA championships and would have formed an amazing duo with Clyde Drexler, much like his dominating partnership with Scottie Pippin in the 1990's. Portland drafted for need instead of taking the best player available, which is fine toward the end of the first round or in the second round, but foolish for a lottery pick.
The 2009 draft is tonight, and it will be interesting to see in a few years which picks were bad choices and which picks wind up being a great find. San Antonio has scored a couple times with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, both of whom were key pieces to world championships. It may be a cliché, but hindsight is always 20/20. What looks like a safe pick may not be, and a player chosen late may turn out to be the best player in the draft. Tonight's decisions will have a big impact on what the NBA looks like a few years from now.
A frequent complaint of some on the Left is that churches do not pay property taxes, and are therefore getting a "subsidy" from the government. They argue that churches should pay their "fair share" rather than getting "special" treatment. Should churches pay property taxes, or should we maintain the status quo?
I would argue that subjecting churches to property taxes is a bad idea. The excesses of some Christian merchants aside, Churches are not profit-making entities. Many smaller churches struggle to make monthly expenses like salary and mortgage. Subjecting churches to property taxes would be a major burden on many smaller churches already struggling to get by and would therefore be a restriction on religious freedom. It is important to note that (generally speaking) the larger a church is, the more likely it is to either compromise on or be in rebellion against Biblical doctrine.
In addition, it is important to note that in Indiana, local government is on what is called a "frozen levy." Basically, a unit of government (such as a city, county or township) can collect X dollars per year and the tax rate is computed based on assessed evaluation to get the total budget. Adding churches to the property tax rolls will not increase the money to local government at all. Property taxpayers would see a small reduction in property tax bills, which most likely would not be noticeable at all.
Churches, like private charities, are generally classified as 501(c)3 not-for-profit organizations. Also like private charities, churches also benefit society through collections for the poor and so forth. Churches are one of the major sources of contributions for charities such as Backstreet Missions (which operates a homeless shelter) and the local Crisis Pregnancy Center, which operates the Hannah House to give women and their infants a place to stay in addition to providing things like diapers and formula.
If churches are top be added to property tax rolls, the only way to be fair is to tax charitable organizations such as Middle Way House and the Salvation Army rather than picking and choosing which nonprofits pay taxes and which do not. In Monroe County, a huge swath of land that is exempt from property taxes is owned by Indiana University. If the university paid property taxes, that would have a significant impact on property tax bills.
Some have complained that it is "unconstitutional" to exempt churches (or mosques, synagogues, temples, and so forth) from taxation. It isn't. So long as government does not show favoritism by picking and choosing which religions (or denominations) to exempt and which to tax, there is no "respecting an establishment of religion" and therefore no Constitutional problem.
What would be unconstitutional is for government to decide which churches can be exempt from property taxes based on the doctrinal commitments of the church. A former member of the Bloomington City Council said the following on Monday:
Grants and property tax exemptions are granted but they should not be granted to organizations that don't meet community standards as expressed in their anti discrimination ordinances and property tax exemptions should not be granted universally to that class.
Of course, the city of Bloomington's anti-discrimination ordinance includes protections for "gender identity" and homosexuality. Under this proposal, churches that submit to Biblical teaching that sodomy is sinful would not be exempt from property taxes, but churches that bow to the city's embrace of Political Correctness would not be taxed. Churches that do not allow women to be pastors and elders would also be subject to taxation.
This kind of doctrine-based discrimination is clearly and plainly unconstitutional. I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that a former member of the city council would be advocating this discrimination. Either all churches should be exempt from property taxes or none should be, and the government cannot pick and choose based on the personal views of elected officials, or what elected officials decide is politically expedient at the moment.
Finally, despite the claims of some, exempting churches from taxation is not the same as a subsidy. If I do not take $10 from your wallet, I am not "giving" you $10 - I am letting you keep what is yours. (Or in the case of churches, what was donated.) If I hand you a $10 bill and you place it in your wallet, that is a subsidy. Church members are already taxes, both on income and property so there is no need to tax the money twice. (Those who rent, of couse, pay property taxes indirectly.)
I am completely opposed to churches (or parachurch organizations such as Christian schools) taking any money from government. With government money comes government strings, and it is foolish to take money from a government that will eventually demand doctrinal compromise as a condition of getting that money. Churches and parachurch organizations should never put themselves in a position where they must choose between the money they have become addicted to and their doctrinal commitments. "Conservatives" who support grants to faith-based charities or churches, or vouchers for Christian schools, foolishly gamble religious freedom for short-term monetary gain.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:02 AM
Note: This guest editorial contains a factual error. I said "anti-abortion terrorists may have killed dozens" but the number is actually less than 10. While one death is far too many, accuracy is important. I regret the error.
Printed in the Bloomington Herald-Times, June 19, 2009.
On May 31, anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder murdered notorious abortionist George Tiller, who has been a target of numerous protests and legal action by abortion opponents for years. Roeder's crime was especially heinous, shooting Tiller to death in a church and traumatizing Tiller's family. Whatever one thinks of abortion, there is no excuse for using murder as a means of opposing it. Abortion is a great tragedy, but the anti-abortion movement is dedicated to stopping it through peaceful, legal means.
Some have claimed that abortion opponents are guilty by association in Tiller's murder, because we use words like "murder" to describe abortion and we have compared the 50 million unborn children killed by America's abortion industry to the estimated 6 or 7 million killed in the Nazi Holocaust. They have said that this kind of "violent" language encourages acts of violence against abortion providers and support staff. That argument intentionally avoids the reality of abortion, sweeping valid arguments under the rug under the guise of a false "civility."
If abortion-rights advocates want me to stop calling abortion murder and comparing it to the Holocaust, they are going to have to convince me that abortion is nor murder and that the unborn child developing in his mother's womb is not a human being. Anyone who has honestly viewed pictures of a developing fetus knows that is simply not true. I am not going to stop proclaiming the truth simply because there are mentally unstable fanatics who will use violence and terrorism to accomplish their goals.
It is important to develop perspective. Anti-abortion terrorists may have killed dozens, but the abortion industry has killed 50 million and continues to kill 1.2 million unborn children each year. Just a few blocks south of the county courthouse, Planned Parenthood kills unborn children each Thursday. There were over 4500 abortions in Monroe County between 2000 and 2005, an average of nearly 15 a week, every week. Tying to make all abortion opponents somehow guilty by association because we are telling the truth about what abortion is will not erase the blood guilt of the abortion industry and the politicians who have defended the "right" to murder children in the womb.
In the mid-1990's, a number of anti-abortion organizations signed a "pro-life proclamation against violence" (see www.all.org/article.php?id=10357) and abortion opponents have consistently denounced anti-abortion terrorism, repeatedly stating that while the slaughter of the unborn is a great evil, it needs to be ended through peaceful, legal means. Attempts to tie peaceful anti-abortion organizations to terrorism is not only borderline libelous, it is stunningly hypocritical.
President Obama has called for more "civil" discourse in discussing abortion. Both sides of the abortion debate can and should be civil and respect those who disagree with us. However, calls for "civility" should not be used as an excuse to obscure the truth about abortion. Hiding the truth is not civility, it is cowardice. If you want to know the truth about abortion visit the Center for Bioethical Reform web site at www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html and take a look for yourself at the results of "freedom of choice."
Scott Roeder is no different than the al-Qaeda terrorists that destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001 and if he is convicted of murder by a jury of his peers after a fair trial, he should be executed. But while we seek justice by punishing Roeder for his lawless actions, we should recognize that George Tiller was no hero. Instead, he was a mass murderer. He did not, however, deserve to be gunned down by a terrorist who thinks he is doing God's work.
David Letterman provoked a great deal of criticism last week when he personally attacked Sarah Palin's daughter with a crude "joke" that she was "knocked up" during a Yankee's game by one of the Yankee's players. Letterman finally apologized, and the next few weeks may determine whether this damages his career or if the notoriety helps him in the ratings. There's not much to say about the "joke" that hasn't already been said, but the determination of some Leftists to defend Letterman deserves to be addressed.
Letterman stepped over the line with a crude and sexually themed "joke" that personally attacked the family of a political figure. While elected officials and candidates for public office can expect to be attacked, personal attacks on a someone's family should be off limits. Why is this so difficult to acknowledge? Why are some Leftists so determined to defend Letterman's personal attack on Palin's daughter? Do they hate Sarah Palin so much that they truly believe that any attack on her is somehow justified? Letterman at least showed some class in his apology, something many Palin-haters seem incapable of doing.
One common "defense" is that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh insulted ex-President Clinton's daughter on his TV show 16 years ago. First, how is a 16 year old insult relevant to a discussion of what Letterman said in 2009? Second, this is what is known as a "tu quoque" logical fallacy. Instead of addressing whether something is appropriate or not, the person using this "argument" points out that someone else did the same thing. Limbaugh's insult (while inexcusable) is completely irrelevant to the logical validity of the criticisms of Letterman.
One of the primary themes of Barack Obama's campaign for President has been for more civility in public discourse, a shying away from the personal vindictiveness that has defined national politics for so long. Yet, despite all the flowery rhetoric, Obama's promise of civility is looking more and more like a fraud. There has been little or no effort to restrain the worst impulses of Obama's supporters, especially though public calls for civility by Obama or his top aides. If Obama wants to prevent a decline in his credibility, he would do well to publicly rebuke many of the hate-filled rants and against Palin and others that have nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personal vindictiveness.
You won the election, Leftists. Don't you think you can dial back the anger meter now?
On a forum I frequent, a poster made a remark about former House speaker Newt Gingrich converting to Roman Catholicism. The question was this: How is it that a 3 times married, twice divorced guy fits in with Catholics?
That is a good question, since it underscores the mistaken view many people have about Christian theology. Your statement, applied consistently, would automatically exclude anyone of converting to Catholicism or joining any Protestant church, because "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
In fact, Jesus said in Mark 2:17 that "they that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." What is the point of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross if His church is going to turn away repentant sinners as unworthy of the gospel? If someone has truly repented of his sin, then that person should be accepted, by any Bible-believing church he wishes to attend.
We see this in the Apostle Paul's letter to the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians 5, The Apostle Paul scolds the church by writing: "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." Paul scolds the Corinthians for being "puffed up" commands them to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
But in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, Paul commands the Corinthians to forgive the wicked man and restore him to fellowship. The reason he is to be forgiven and restored to fellowship is because he has repented of his wickedness. The application, of course, is this: if someone has repented of his wickedness, any Bible-believing church is obligated by Scripture to forgive him and restore him to fellowship.
The Prodigal Son is another example of forgiveness. The son demanded his inheritance from his father, a terribly hateful act that is basically wishing his father was dead. After wasting away his fortune, he goes back to his father's house to ask if he could be a servant, because his wickedness has made him unfit to be a son. Instead, the father (a representation of God) completely restores his son (a representation of repentant sinners) to the household.
Does that mean wickedness such as adultery is OK? Of course not. The Bible is very clear that marriage is to be honored, and that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. In return, the church is to love Christ and be faithful to him. As marriage is a picture of that relationship, the Bible often describes idolatry as people "whoring" after other gods.
What it means is that Christians are sinners saved by grace, and that we have a loving and merciful God who will accept with open arms anyone who repents of sin and accepts His Son as both Savior and Lord. No matter what we have done, and no matter how vile our wickedness, there is no sin that the blood of Christ cannot wash away of the sinner is repentant.
Many abortion rights advocates have become unhinged over the last couple weeks since an anti-abortion terrorist murdered notorious abortionist George Tiller. They argue that pro-life rhetoric, especially statements that abortion is murder, incites violence and those making the argument are also to blame for Tiller's death. A few abortion rights advocates in Bloomington, however are taking another position, as seen below:
If ST had half the conviction in his cause that your average ELF-er does, wouldn't he burn Planned Parenthood to the ground and therefore save some children?
Believing that abortion is the equivalent of murder and then not doing anything to stop murder is immoral.
If I knew that a murder was about to be committed I'd do everything I could, including using lethal force, to stop it.
I do not believe that abortion is the equivalent of murder. If I did, I'd burn down the local Planned Parenthood for starters and then I'd start shooting abortionists in the fucking face.
The hypocrisy of these statements is so brazen, I am surprised that people actually have the audacity to make those arguments. What is happening here is that a few extremists are creating a fantasy world where anyone who believes abortion is murder is automatically immoral, no matter what he does. This dishonest "standard" of morality places pro-lifers in an impossible catch-22.
By not engaging in terrorism to stop abortion, an abortion opponent is immoral for allowing murder to take place. However, the second someone actually does commit an act of terrorism to stop abortion, the exact same people harshly condemn the terrorist and the people who supposedly "incited" the violence. This is an incredibly dishonest argument that deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule.
Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense sees right through this foolishness. Moral standards do not change based on what is politically convenient at the moment, no matter how much time abortion rights advocates spend fantasizing about it. Either it is moral to use lethal force to stop abortion or it is immoral to use lethal force to stop abortion. The two standards cannot possibly coexist, and are certainly not interchangeable based on political expediency.
Abortion is murder and it is a great and terrible evil. At the same time, it is not justifiable for abortion opponents to take the role of judge, jury and executioner for those who murder unborn children. God has granted the "sword" to the civil authorities, not to fanatics who (like Osama bin Laden) seek to force their will by maiming and killing their opponents. To the extent that the civil authorities have failed to stop the abortion holocaust (and to the extent that some have even encouraged it) they will be held accountable by the God that entrusted them with that authority.
The anti-abortion movement should hold firm to the foundational moral principle that all life is sacred. To their credit, mainstream pro-life organizations do just that. When someone commits an act worthy of death, that execution should be carried out only after the murderer has been convicted by a jury of his peers after a fair trial. As wicked as it may be for the law to protect the "right" to abortion, we must not give in to bloodlust and anarchism. Abortion must end, but it must be stopped through peaceful, legal means.
It is good that the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, an amendment to California's state constitution preventing government from recognizing homosexual marriage that passed with the support of 70% of black voters. But why is it good?
Think about smoking. We as a society have discouraged people from smoking because it is very harmful, both to the smoker's body and to the people who have inhaled secondhand smoke. We have we raised the cigarette tax, educated the public and banned smoking in "public places" to influence fewer people to light up. This is not because we hate smokers and want to persecute them, but because society is trying to protect them.
This is very similar, but with far more serious implications. Homosexuality is condemned throughout Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments and is eternally destructive to souls. Male homosexuals have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases than the general population. Putting a stamp of approval on homosexuality as if it is just a different lifestyle choice is an act of hatred, not tolerance.
Keep marriage as it was designed by God from the beginning: a lifelong, monogamous, commitment of one man and one woman.
Note: This letter was not intended to advocate for government restrictions on smoking. I brought up restrictions on smoking to make a comparison. Unfortunately, there are only 200 words allowed in a LTTE, so I do not have room to explain every point, especially when there are two different topics being compared.
Hotair.com reports that a blogger for Playboy published a list of conservative women they'd like to "hate-f**k" - in other words, a rape fantasy. It is one thing to insult or personally attack political opponents, but this is just beyond the pale. This misogynistic sicko is actually advocating that women who disagree with him politically should be subjected to sexual violence and terrorism. Is this what we expected from Leftists when President Obama promised a much more civil tone in political discourse?
Of course, this is not new. Three years ago, Ann Coulter spoke at IU Auditorium on the Indiana University campus. In addition to trying to shout her down, a number of Leftists near the back of the auditorium chanted "we want rape" on several occasions. This is sick and depraved. As I said at the time, what if notorious traitor Jane Fonda spoke at IU and "conservative" students led that despicable chant? You better believe there would be numerous forums, lectures and teach-ins about sexual violence, and the students who chanted would likely be subject to disciplinary action. Coulter carries a gun, so what if someone charged the stage, given the chants and previous aggression toward her?
This is not new. Back in 1995, Leftist commentator Nina Totenberg said of Senator Jesse Helms, "if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will." She was basically saying that Helms - or one of his grandchildren - deserves to die. What if someone had assassinated Helms or murdered one of his grandchildren? Would Leftists who are now screeching about anti-abortion rhetoric have held Totenberg responsible for that murder? As unacceptable as it may be to wish death on a political opponent, wishing that a political opponent's grandchildren suffer and die from a lethal disease is sick and depraved.
Of course, let's not forget the Leftist who made national news by hanging Republican candidate for Vice President Sarah Palin in effigy. Let's also not forget USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, who said about Clarence Thomas in 1994 that " I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease." Let's not forget that a prominent Democratic Party activist in Monroe County wrote last fall that "We will make sure that the Republican tyrants own their failure, and that the tree of liberty is refreshed with their blood."
We've heard a lot about hate speech over the last couple weeks. Substantive arguments about highly controversial issues may be uncomfortable to some, but they are not hateful and they are not an incitement to violence. Openly fantasizing about political opponents getting raped and murdered is an incitement to violence and should be strongly condemned by everyone at all points on the ideological spectrum.
Four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that government may take private property for use by private developers, a case that shook the very foundations of private property rights and the Fifth Amendment. Now, in the city of Bloomington, another property rights case is being decided that could define how government relates to its citizens. Over 30 years ago, the city of Bloomington built a footpath between the homes of two property owners. One of the original property owners, Shirley Jablonski, says that city officials told her "the city had an easement and could take the land" according to the Herald-Times.
But the city of Bloomington never had an easement to build a footpath on private property. Now, the city claims that it has acquired the use of the land through "adverse possession." However, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last year that government may not use adverse possession to gain control of private property, making the city's legal "argument" even weaker. Even if that maneuver were permissible under Indiana law, it is trumped by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which clearly prohibits these kinds of takings. For more, see my earlier post and my column from two years ago.
It is critical that Jablonski and Jeff Sagarin win this case, for two reasons, First and most importantly is that if the city of Bloomington wins, the Fifth Amendment will be severely weakened. If the city of Bloomington is allowed to keep this property that they never had a legal right to use, a dangerous precedent will be established putting the private property rights of every single citizen of the United States in danger. Sagarin and Jablonski should not be forced to tolerate trespassers on their land on a path that is shockingly close to Jablonski's windows.
Second, the city of Bloomington obtained the land for this path by fraud. As I noted in the first paragraph, the city lied to Jablonski when they told her they had a right to the path. The city managed to cover up the fraudulent acquisition of land for over thirty years, until a search of records found that the city never had an easement to build the path. It would be an abomination to the rule of law if the city of Bloomington is allowed to keep the path after obtaining it through fraudulent means. Bloomington mayor Mark Kruzan is a thief, pure and simple, and should be behind bars.
The United States of America is not a nation founded because of a shared ethnicity or heritage. The United States of America was founded to secure liberty for her people and the generations that followed. The founding document of the United States is beautiful because it defines and places strict limits on the power of government. Many of the rights protected by the Constitution are "negative" rights, meaning that the Founders assumed all men are created equal and have those rights at birth. Therefore, the Constitution does not grant rights we already have. Instead, it forbids government from infringing on those rights.
Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan is defending the city's so-called "right" to keep the property of an 81 year old woman despite the fact that the city obtained that property by fraudulent means. It is the implications of this case that should frighten every American, because it is an attack on all of our private property rights. Kruzan's actions are not only against Jablonski and Sagarin, but against the Constitution itself. His illegal, anti-American behavior should be firmly rejected by the courts. It is unfortunate he will not face criminal penalties for his actions.
The murder of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, plain and simple. While Tiller's practice of abortion was an abomination and should be illegal, private citizens should not take the role of judge, jury and executioner for a practice that is (sadly) legal. If Scott Roeder is convicted in a court of law after a fair trial by a jury of his peers, he should quickly be put to death. I said the same thing eleven years ago when abortionist Barnett Slepian was murdered.
I have no doubt that there will be attempts to restrict the content of speech in the future, using Tiller's murder as justification. Whether it is called "hate speech" or whether the excuse is that calling abortion murder is "inciting" violence, attacks on free speech are coming. The pro-abortion Left is already laying the foundation for that.
Nonetheless, I will not stop proclaiming that abortion is murder. Why? Because the plain and simple truth is that abortion is murder. Abortionists murder unborn children by dismemberment for profit, a truly evil act. The anti-abortion movement has made it very clear for many years that violence is completely unacceptable as a means of opposing abortion.
If President Obama is serious about a more "civil" dialogue on abortion, he will harshly denounce his own supporters for their rhetoric and demonization of abortion opponents. I doubt that will happen, though.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. -- Matthew 5:11-12
The Left is becoming more and more unhinged after an anti-abortion terrorist murdered notorious abortionist George Tiller on Sunday. The line they are repeating over and over is that abortion opponents share the guilt because we "incited" the murder through our rhetoric, especially with our statements that abortion is murder. Following are two borderline libelous statements made about me on a local discussion forum by a political opponent who has been obsessed with me for the last decade.
Anti-abortion violence is a powerful deterrent to the practice of abortion. A lot of doctors simply won't perform abortions because they fear violence against them as a result and the killing of Dr. Tiller is going to powerfully reinforce that and drive more and more abortion providers out of the marketplace.
And, of course, that's exactly what Tibbs and the rest of the anti-abortion crowd are doing right now. There isn't a single one of them that doesn't think that the killing of Dr. Tiller is a good thing, including Tibbs.
Yes, and it is precisely the mentally ill who are subject to incendiary and institative triggers, such as the reckless and persistent vocal equation of abortion with murder.
Tibbs and his ilk know exactly what they wanted to and could accomplish with their rhetoric. What other tragic outcome could be imagined?
So let's pull back the curtain and examine what is really going on here.
First, abortion is a great evil and an abomination to a holy and righteous God who condemned the wickedness of those who sacrificed their children to the pagan god Moloch by setting the children on fire. God says that this act was so evil that it did not even enter into His mind. (See Jeremiah 7:30-31, Jeremiah 19:3-5 and Jeremiah 32:35.) The abortion industry has murdered 50 million unborn children, and many advocates of legalized abortion know of their guilt before God. When they attack those who condemn the evil of killing the little ones made in His image, the ultimate target of their scorn is God Himself.
The second thing we need to realize is the shameless hypocrisy in these condemnations. The abortion industry is swimming in the blood of 50 million babies, a figure that far outpaces even the Nazi Holocaust. It is pure hypocrisy for advocates of "reproductive choice" to screech about a few murders by anti-abortion fanatics. What is really going on here is that this is an opportunity for those who have vigorously defended "reproductive choice" or served in the abortion industry to soothe their own blood guilt by pointing to the far lesser crimes committed by anti-abortion fanatics.
There is another motivation in play, and that is to use intentionally incendiary rhetoric to bait abortion opponents into saying something in the heat of the moment that we will regret later. This political "gotcha" tactic is also shameless in its hypocrisy, considering how many of these advocates of "reproductive choice" have fallen all over themselves praising President Obama for his statements about a more civil dialogue. If Obama were serious, he would harshly denounce the abortion rights advocates smearing the entire anti-abortion movement for the murderous actions of one fanatic.
This is also a direct assault on free speech. Abortion-rights extremists claim that when abortion opponents identify abortion as murder, we incite violence. If we are not intimidated into silence by these smears, eventually laws will be proposed to silence the speech that the statists view as "dangerous." We have already seen laws against "hate speech" in Canada. Nonetheless, the truth does not incite further wickedness. Abortion is murder and we must continue to speak the truth about the terrible wickedness of killing over 1.2 million children every single year.
The murder of George Tiller was evil, and if the terrorist responsible is convicted by a jury of his peers after a fair trial, he should be swiftly put to death. The vast majority of abortion opponents have nothing to be ashamed of, because we despise anti-abortion terrorism. Many prominent anti-abortion groups have condemned the murder of George Tiller. The smears against abortion opponents is nothing more than a red herring by abortion-rights advocates who are desperate to hide the truth about what abortion really is.
On Sunday, an anti-abortion fanatic murdered infamous abortionist George Tiller, who had been the target of legal action and protests by abortion opponents for years. Here are some of my initial thoughts, that I will expand on later.
First, this was an act of terrorism. Abortion is a great evil, but must be stopped through legal and peaceful means, not lawlessness, murder and terrorism. We cannot have people taking the law into their own hands and waging a campaign of terrorism, even for a "good" cause. We need to respect the rule of law and the legal process. If anything, the anti-abortion movement stands for equal rights under the law and the protection of the innocent, not acts of terrorism. If the shooter/terrorist is convicted after a fair trial by a jury of his peers, he should be executed.
Killing abortionists accomplishes nothing. Someone will step in to take Tiller's place. After all, we have 1.2 million abortions taking place every single year in this nation. The abortions that Tiller has performed are statistically insignificant to the total number of abortions that have taken place over the last 36 years. Random acts of violence do nothing but damage the cause of protecting all innocent human life from fertilization to natural death. Terrorism discredits the anti-abortion movement and puts us on the defensive, and increases the tension on the "front lines" where people picketing abortion clinics try to convince women going in to give their babies a chance at life.
Second, it is important to keep perspective. Abortion is a great and terrible evil, and well over 50 million unborn babies have been killed by America's abortion industry. One act of violence by a lawless fanatic does not erase or even begin to approach the evil of abortion, and opponents of abortion should not shy away from proclaiming that abortion is evil and an abomination to a holy and righteous God. If abortion-rights supporters are offended by the use of the word "murder" they should seek to convince abortion opponents why abortion is not murder, instead of seeking to intimidate abortion opponents into silence by endlessly screeching that such "violent" rhetoric causes these violent acts. Violent and crazy will always find a way to be violent and crazy, regardless of the "cause" various thugs are claiming to support.
Third, the idea that abortion opponents have to "own" this is laughable. I have a record stretching back years that violence is not the solution to abortion, and the vast majority of the pro-life movement shares my position. The latter is a well-known fact, especially to all of the people screeching that abortion opponents are responsible for this act of terrorism. It amazes me that these people can praise Barack Obama's call for more civil discourse on abortion and then throw out these smears that they know are false. What hypocrisy.
Finally, we have heard for years about how George W. Bush waged an "illegal" war in Iraq and how Bush is responsible for a huge number of civilian deaths in Iraq. We have heard about how Bush should be put on trial for "war crimes." What if an unstable fanatic assassinated Bush, bombed a military recruiting station, or followed the advice of the little gem below? Would the entire anti-war movement be called on to "own" the murder? We all know the answer is "no", and the hypocrisy is obvious.
"nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Two years ago, the city of Bloomington approached Jeff Sagarin and informed him they were going to be upgrading the footpath that goes through his yard, connecting his street to Greenwood Avenue to the north. The city claimed it had an easement for the footpath, so Sagarin began researching, and made a shocking discovery. The city never had an easement to put a path through Sagarin's yard, and there is no legal documentation that the city has any right to use Sagarin's property for public use. When the city refused to budge, Sagarin filed a lawsuit. The case finally went to court late last month.
The city's excuse for keeping the land that they never had any right to use is that they have obtained a right to use the land through adverse possession. The city claims that since the path has been used by the public for well over thirty years, the use of the path automatically defaults to the city. While adverse possession has a history in common law, it clearly does not apply here. The supreme law of the land in the United States is not common law, but the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment trumps common law, adverse possession, or whatever other lame excuse the city (or its defenders) wish to use to defend this egregious attack on private property rights.
Indeed, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that government cannot claim land by virtue of "adverse possession" in a ruling last August. The court stated in a footnote on the bottom of page 14 that "we would observe that the application of adverse possession seems particularly inappropriate and perhaps inequitable when a governmental entity is involved, especially in light of takings jurisprudence and our system of property rights." (See the PDF here.) A paragraph from the court's ruling is below:
In its brief, the State notes that in light of the holding in Fraley v. Minger, “it appears that governmental units that are exempt from taxation may never acquire property through adverse possession.” Appellant’s Brief at 14. We agree with the State in its assessment of law with regard to this consequence of the statute. Our Supreme Court made clear in Fraley v. Minger that the adverse possession tax statute may not be totally disregarded. Insofar as the State is exempt from paying property taxes, enforcement of the adverse possession tax statute therefore precludes any governmental unit from acquiring land through adverse possession. There is no exception in the adverse possession tax statute for governmental units that are exempt from paying taxes. If an exception is to be made, it is for our legislature to so provide.
So why is it permissible under the law for individuals to acquire land through adverse possession, but not government? Of course, the most important reason is that it is against the law. Furthermore, government benefits from a unique position that private citizens do not, and that is the ability to make laws. Pointing to a case where one believes an individual has unjustly claimed the property of a neighbor is not nearly as serious as the government doing the same thing. In the former case, an "injustice" has been done between two people, but in the latter case government has set an incredibly dangerous precedent by tossing aside basic Constitutional rights. It is essential for the preservation of liberty that the government have fewer rights than private citizens, not more.
If the government takes a piece of property from a private landowner, and the landowner protests, requiring that the landowner prove that the land was not taken illegally rather than forcing the government to prove that the land was taken legally opens the door for massive abuses of government power. There is absolutely no evidence that city government took the property legally from the person who owned the land in the early 1970's and the city of Bloomington admits that fact. There is absolutely no evidence that the city has provided "just compensation" as required by the Constitution. Until that evidence appears, the city's confiscation and continued use of Sagarin's property is illegal.
The city and its defenders argue that the path is necessary for the safety of children in the neighborhood. That may be a reasonable argument, but does not and can never be an excuse for ignoring the rule of law and casting aside our Constitutional rights. What if we knew of a plan by Islamic terrorists to bomb an elementary school? Many of the same people defending the city's "right" to Sagarin's property would be taken aback in horror if we suggested that we should torture Islamic terrorists we have in custody to get their plans and prevent the bombing, for the sake of the children.
If we are truly concerned about the welfare of neighborhood children, we should vigorously and aggressively defend the Constitution and the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. As I said two years ago when this controversy erupted, a government that ignores the rule of law is far more dangerous to our liberty than any Islamic terrorist. The foundation of our system of government is the Constitution, establishing that the nation's highest authority is a system of laws rather than the whim of a legislature or executive. The United States of America is not a nation founded because of a shared heritage or ethnicity; the US is a nation founded to secure the blessings of liberty for her people. One need look no further than the genocide committed by the Soviet Union to see the inherent dangers in elevating the state over individual liberty.
Last Monday was Memorial Day, and there is no more obscene way for Bloomington Mayor Mark Kruzan to disrespect the men who have given their lives to defend liberty around the world than to attack the Constitution the way he has. With this brazen attack on the Fifth Amendment, Kruzan has urinated and defecated all over the Constitution and desecrated the graves of all those who died around the world defending liberty, proclaiming his "right" to do so in the name of "the children" and public safety. Why does Mark Kruzan hate America?
When Osama bin Laden orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks and murdered thousands, he did not take away a single liberty from the American people. If Kruzan's jihad against the Constitution succeeds, he will have done more damage to the Constitution than Osama bin Laden could have ever hoped to do on September 11. It is my firm belief that government officials who knowingly and intentionally violate someone's constitutional rights should face criminal penalties for their crimes against the Constitution. Mark Kruzan should be behind bars, not sitting in the Mayor's Office.
If the city of Bloomington believes it is in the best interest of the public that the "secret sidewalk" remain on Sagarin's property, the answer is simple. The city should exercise eminent domain and purchase the property through the proper legal channels. The city should then publicly apologize not only to Sagarin, but to every citizen of the United States. After all, if the city wins this battle, a legal precedent will be established that greatly weakens the Fifth Amendment. Setting the dangerous precedent that some Constitutional rights can be tossed aside "for the children" weakens all of our Constitutional rights and moves us closer to the very tyranny this nation was founded to escape.
A picture of the "secret sidewalk" is below, for context. Source: Google Maps.
President Barack Obama shamelessly invoked identity politics with his pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayer. The Associated Press reported that the President claimed that "a Hispanic on the court would mark another step toward the goal of 'equal justice under law.'" Why would that be, Mr. President? how does the skin pigmentation of a nominee move us closer to equal justice? Are the white males currently on the court unable or unwilling to advocate for equality under the law, by virtue of their skin pigmentation?
Obama's remarks are consistent with the racist remarks that Sotomayer herself has made. The Family Research Council pointed out that Sotomayer once said that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." As Rush Limbaugh pointed out on his radio program, imagine if John Roberts said the same thing, but flipped "white male" and "Latina woman" instead. Do you honestly think he would be on the Supreme Court today?
Even some conservatives have fallen into this silly political correctness and shameless racial pandering. A prominent anti-abortion group said in an email alert opposing Sotomayer's nomination that "we applaud the fact that Obama has nominated a Hispanic woman to the court." Why? Is she somehow more qualified by virtue of her skin pigmentation? Conservatives are playing a dangerous game when we bow to identity politics. The first danger is alienating supporters who reject identity politics, as well as reducing our credibility to oppose it in the future.
Some "conservatives" will no doubt argue that Republicans need to support or at least not openly oppose Sotomayer's nomination in order to win Hispanic votes. Hogwash. Democrats are much better at playing identity politics than Republicans, and they actually believe it. If given the choice between the real deal and a pale imitation, voters will choose the real thing. It strikes me as condescending and a little bit racist to claim we need to support a Hispanic SCOTUS nominee to get Hispanic votes. The way to win the votes of Hispanics (or blacks, or whites, or any other group) is to explain that Republican policies, grounded in conservatism, are the best way to empower the individual to be the best he can be. If we're going to sell out our core principles and play identity politics, what justification is there for the Republican party to even exist?
When it comes to Constitutional law, I could pick a number of people who are more than qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The Constitution is a clearly written, simple document. There is no need to read through 500 pages of case law covering over 200 years to comprehend Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the 14th Amendment's clear statement that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." We do not need someone with empathy, who is willing to see things from another's perspective and form public policy. That is what legislators are supposed to do. A judge's job is much easier: read the literal, word-for-word text of the law you are applying, then make a ruling consistent with that text.
President Barack Obama made a major gaffe in speaking about a potential Supreme Court nominee, declaring that a potential nominee needs to "be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living." With this statement, Obama displayed extreme disrespect for the rule of law and the Constitution and a fundamental misunderstanding of the American system of government. This should be of great concern to every American.
Our system of government is brilliant in its simplicity. The highest legal authority in our land is not a king, a president or an elected legislature, but a document that defines the powers of government and what government may and may not do. If the President, the Congress, or state or local government attempts to do something not allowed by the Constitution, that action has no legal authority. While the Constitution can be amended, the amendment process is slow and difficult, intended to preserve our system of government against the whims of popular sentiment.
The best way to "interpret" the Constitution (and any law) is with a literal, word-for-word reading of the actual text. It is not up to a judge, whether a county judge or a Supreme Court justice, to determine whether a law "works" or not. The judge's only responsibility is to determine whether the law is being followed in a manner consistent with the literal text of the law. If the law needs to be changed, the appropriate legislative body should pass an amendment to the law fixing any unforeseen problems. If a "judge" changes the law based on a personal opinion of whether it "works" or not, we cease to be a nation of laws and we instead become a judicial oligarchy.
Monday was Memorial Day, a day we honored all those who have fought and died in defense of our liberty. By so flippantly tossing aside the rule of law, Barack Obama showed obscene disrespect for the men and women who have died in defense of liberty. After all, the rule of law is the foundation of our liberty. Obama should apologize to the families of those who have lost loved ones in war, and promise to nominate a justice who will make rulings based only on a literal, word-for-word reading of the law and the Constitution. If a "judge" changes the law by juridical fiat because that "judge" thinks it does not "work", our Constitution has been shredded and burned. That cannot be tolerated, and any "judge" who would do that should be rejected by a vote of 100-0.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." -- John 15:13
Yesterday was Memorial Day, when we honor all those who have fallen in defense of our country. From the men who pledged their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to allow the nation to secede from England to the "doughboys" sent to Europe to "make the world safe for democracy" to the soldiers who died fighting the brutal regimes of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, men have fought and died with honor for more than two centuries to defend our liberty. This Memorial Day, how best can we honor the memories of those who have fallen in defense of liberty?
The answer is easy. The best way to honor those who have fallen in defense of liberty is to carefully guard our liberty against any attempt to take that liberty away. We have seen government grow, take away more of our liberty, regulate more of our lives and take more of the money we earn. The excuses for this vary, and include increased government surveillance powers in the name of national security, increased regulation of our vehicles and businesses to protect us from ourselves, restrictions on property rights in the came of protecting community character, and restrictions on First Amendment rights (including regulating the content of political speech) in the name of "clean" campaigns.
All of this shows great disrespect for the men who died defending our liberty, whether to secure independence, or defeat evil in the form of Nazis and Communists. When we give up our liberty voluntarily, the sacrifices of those who died defending liberty become meaningless. What is the point of sending soldiers to defend liberty when we are going to give it up so easily? If we're serious about honoring our fallen on Memorial Day then we need to aggressively seek to roll back government power, giving the American people more ability to run our own lives free of government interference.
The New York Times reports that many prosecutors resist requests by inmates for DNA tests. While there is a legitimate interest in not overburdening the justice system by allowing inmates to tie things up in court, I believe that this again represents a fundamental flaw in the way this society approaches the criminal justice system. Instead of seeking justice as a goal too much of law enforcement sees this as some kind of game with wins and losses, and wants to win as much as possible. This is incredibly destructive to justice itself and to our Constitution.
On principle, we always want to make sure that the correct person is punished for a crime. In addition to the inherent unfairness of punishing someone for a crime he did not commit, the guilty party does not see justice for his crimes and more innocent people will likely become victims of the real criminal if he is allowed to remain on the streets. The least important (though still significant) reason to pursue justice rather than convictions is not to waste taxpayer money by incarcerating someone who has committed no crime.
The Times reports that University of Virginia School of Law professor Brandon L. Garrett's analysis of 225 DNA exonerations found prosecutors opposed DNA testing about 20% of the time and that "the DNA test identified the real culprit" in 98 of the 225 cases. If the real culprit committed crimes after the innocent person was punished in his place, what would those 20% of prosecutors say to the victims who were vulnerable because he punished the wrong man? Morally speaking, is that prosecutor not an accessory to those additional crimes?
The most disgusting and morally bankrupt argument in the article is a concern by prosecutors that DNA testing "undermines hard-won jury verdicts." Again, the goal should be seeking justice, not a "victory" as if this is some kind of game. For example, if I were to be convicted of participating in Nazi atrocities, would that "win" mean anything? Considering I was not even born until 28 years after the end of World War II, the answer is an obvious and resounding no to anyone with any intelligence whatsoever.
As I have noted before, if you watch campaigns for elected prosecutors, you will see candidates touting how many people they have put in jail and how many convictions they have "won" as their accomplishments. Little to nothing is said, however about justice, only convictions. Obviously, we want to elect a prosecutor who is a skilled lawyer and will surround himself with skilled lawyers, so that they are able to put people away when those people commit crimes, for the good of society. But it is just as important to have a prosecutor with the discernment to know when not to prosecute and the integrity to not prosecute when it is politically unpopular.
One of the good things that has come of the criminal conspiracy by disgraced, disbarred ex-prosecutor Mike Nifong is that it raised awareness among the public that there are cases where the accused have actually committed no crime, and that law enforcement is as vulnerable to corruption as any other human being. But the prevailing popular sentiment is still to assume guilt and lock people up. It is important to educate the American people of the dangers of this attitude.
The primary goal of any prosecutor is to seek justice. Imprisoning an innocent man and letting the guilty go free by stubbornly refusing to examine things like DNA evidence is a disservice to the victim, the wrongly accused and society as a whole. It is also critical that we vigorously and aggressively defend civil liberties and due process. On September 11, 2001, a group of al Qaeda terrorists attacked this country and murdered thousands because of their hatred of freedom. When we toss aside justice, we are waving the white flag of surrender in the War on Terror.
The Fourth of July marks 233 years since the 13 colonies seceded from England and became an independent nation. England attempted to block the colonies attempt at secession with military force, but were not able to do so as the colonists won a long and bloody war of secession. 233 years after secession, England is one of our greatest allies. Every year on July 4, we celebrate self-determination and the right to choose one's own government, and the choice made by the colonies to secede from a nation that no longer respected their liberties.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- The First Amendment
