Where's the Anger?

Update: Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, today lifted Mr. Obama's drilling ban as well as issuing a separate order preventing the US from enforcing that ban. The ruling was as a result of a law suit filed by several offshore service and supply companies in Louisiana. BP was not a part of this suit. (H/T The Maritime Sentry)

I keep hearing about how Americans are angry at BP over this oil spill. I look around and the only folks I see being actively angry about it are the talking heads in the MSM and ones who get their news almost exclusively from those same talking heads.

I am not angry at BP. It was an accident. How should anyone be angry about an accident? I will admit to being a bit upset about the way Mr. Obama and his administration are bungling and hampering the clean up efforts. I am also flabbergasted at how anyone thinks it is legal or Constitutional for Mr. Obama to demand that BP not pay dividends to it's shareholders or to command them to put 20 billion dollars in an independently administered fund for reparations. Where exactly are Mr. Obama and his administration finding the authority to do these things?

The message here isn't that BP shouldn't make appropriate reparations, they should. But rather that those reparations should be in accordance with the law, not whatever Mr. Obama says. Last time I checked, the president doesn't make the law, they may only approve or veto laws proposed and approved by the Congress. Has that changed since Mr. Obama was elected? What am I missing here?

In addition, I would like to know what those actions on the part of Mr. Obama and BP are saying to the business world in general. To me it appears that the message is, you are no longer working for yourselves, but rather for the government. Your profits are no longer your own, the government will tell you how that money is to be used.

"They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? "~ Psalm 64:5

An Interesting Encounter

I had planned to post today on the BP oil spill. On my thought that the spill was an accident and that we have liability laws in place already to deal with those affected by the spill, so why is it necessary for BP to agree to put 20 billion dollars into an "independently" managed account for that purpose? Would 20 billion be more or less that BP's liability under current law? And why is this administration actively hampering local efforts to minimize the impact of the spill? But I had to go to the post office.

As I approached the post office, I saw several very large signs saying "Impeach Obama". Many of the signs had a large photo of Mr. Obama with a little Hitler type mustache. I thought, this looks interesting, but as the post office was almost closed, I went inside to buy my stamps first.

When I came back out, I approached the booth to ask about what they were doing. I discovered this was a booth staffed by followers of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. Now, Mr. LaRouche has been running for president since nearly before I was of voting age. He has been derided by both liberals and conservatives of my acquaintance, and upon reading some of his literature, I can see why, he has some rather unique views. But that's not the point of this post either.

While I was speaking to the gentleman at the booth, an older woman (by which I mean a woman in her 50's or early 60's , I would guess) came up to the woman at the booth and tried to remove some of the materials from the booth, while declaring that the photo of Mr. Obama was wrong and should be taken down. The woman at the booth reacted strongly and soon they were yelling at each other. When the yelling turned to swearing, I told the man to whom I was speaking -"that's it, I'm done here." At which the two women ended their confrontation, both threatening to call the police on each other.

I did stick around a bit to talk to the woman. She said she had been nearly run down by someone in a car while manning the booth in a similar situation less than a week ago and someone else had attempted to tear down her signs earlier that day. She was very passionate about her opposition to what this president and administration are doing to this nation with regard to debt and a few other things, as am I.

I have always viewed swearing as indicative of a lack of self control. It occurred to me that this woman, having had her life threatened less than a week ago for doing this same thing was very brave to continue, but also that she was not in any condition to man such a booth. Instead of asking the objector exactly what it was to which the older woman objected, she escalated into a shouting match, accusing the older woman of being a Nazi. Was this because she has now associated all dissent with her own position as a threat, or because she has always associated all dissent as a threat? She owned to having been a hippie on the 60's.

Perhaps the older woman was simply objecting to the photo on the grounds that it was disrespectful to the office of the president. In that I would agree. I would have also agreed that the folks at the booth had the right to display it, but would have asked them politely to respect the office by removing it. Perhaps not, since at one point the woman manning the booth yelled:"Yeah, well I was out here trying to impeach George Bush every week for the last 8 years, where were you then?" but the point is we'll never know. She wasn't given the chance to calm down and state her objections in a civil manner.

Here is the point of this post. There are good reasons to oppose the current administration, from their profligate spending to their openly socialistic agenda. We don't have to be conservatives or liberals to oppose either of those things because they are detrimental to either side, but we cannot become so used to seeing opposition that we cannot find those points of common interest around which to rally.

We, as Americans are better than that. We must be. If we are to regain our freedoms, and restore our Constitution, self control is an absolute requirement of the folks doing the ground work. Stern resolve and self control can accomplish what the most impassioned rhetoric cannot. We must, as a nation, reject the greed of the entitlement mentality along with the security offered by the "nanny state" mentality. We must embrace the philosophy of personal responsibility and stand for the individual freedom promised by the republic founded these 200+ years ago with all it's attendant risks.

In the words of "America the Beautiful: "Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law."

"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved."~ Psalm 15

TEA Partier attacked for protesting government spending

Who do you think is the most likely to be acting in good faith? The TEA partiers or those who oppose them?
I think that good manners are an indicator of character. (Not proof of good character, but an indicator) This sort of thing is yet one more clear indication of who is possessed of good character in this national debate. Another indicator, in my opinion, is who leaves the protest area clean.

" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. "~ Matthew 7:15-17

A Thankful and Thoughtful Memorial Day

This post is made with my sincere thanks to those who have given their lives in the service of freedom.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and all the others in which We the People have been privileged to engage over the last 200+ years. All these freedoms, which are dependent on the character of a responsible and informed public to maintain. Freedoms, maintained by a (mostly) volunteer military force. This voluntary service is, in many ways. the essence of a free republic.

The freedom to bear arms is nothing more than a reassurance to our military and our countrymen that, should it be necessary, the citizenry can and will take up arms to defend our nation when and where the military may not be enough. It is to our credit that the armed services of this nation have proved more than adequate to meet the military needs of the United States to this point in history.

May we, as a nation, on this Memorial Day, rededicate ourselves to the maintenance of the freedoms so many have died to preserve. May we bestir ourselves to study our founding documents and light anew the brush fires of freedom in the hearts of men and women across this nation. And may we recognize that if we do not preserve our freedom here, it will not be found elsewhere.

Let us recognize that freedom includes the freedom to fail and to fail spectacularly.

Let us remember that silence is cowardice where speech is stifled.

Let us remember that responsibility is the shared duty of the people of a free republic.

And let us remember that Freedom is never free and that this day is for the remembrance of those who paid for these freedoms of ours in blood.

"They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."~Ronald Reagan

"Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil. "~ Psalm 90:15

Don't Ask, Don't Tell vote scheduled as early as this week

Ethical = morally correct and honorable.

The Congress is once again up to sneaky tricks. They are planning to vote on the repeal of the the military personnel eligibility act of 1993. Knowing that this legislation should be subjected to a full debate where it would be unlikely to pass, they have instead chosen to attach this legislation as an amendment to a Defense Authorization Bill in an attempt to sneak it under the noses of the American people. It is my understanding that a vote on the legislation to repeal the prohibition against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military could take place as soon as this Thursday or Friday. (Not DADT [Don't Ask, Don't Tell], although that is what it is commonly called. DADT is catchier than the military personnel eligibility act of 1993.)

In my opinion, it is unethical to require people who have volunteered to give their lives to defend this country to have be changing clothes, showering and/or sleeping in the same accommodations with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner. The stress of combat is no place to add that sort of uncertainty and pressure into an already volatile mix.

The military personnel eligibility act of 1993 was passed unanimously by the Congress in 1993 because they recognized, as did the American people, the real and ethical implications of allowing that situation to occur. (Would it be acceptable to put men and women together in showers and barracks? No. Common sense dictates that such a situation would create unacceptable levels of risk for all involved even without the added pressures of combat stressors. Then why should it be acceptable to do this?) They also recognized that many of those currently serving(by some surveys up to 40%) would refuse to continue to serve under such conditions and many would opt not to enter military service at all who otherwise would have.

The members of the population who choose that lifestyle and also wish to serve in the military are simply demonstrating that they do not understand the meaning of the word "sacrifice" by pushing this agenda through. And I don't think that the numbers that choose that lifestyle and wish to serve in the military will make up for the numbers of active duty soldiers who have said they would not re-enlist if this law is changed.

That Congress has chosen to attach this measure to a military funding bill, rather than vote on it as a separate measure is a show of cowardice. Our military personnel deserve better. Let's give them better in November. But until then, call your Congressmen in Washington and let them know what YOU think. The number is: 202-224-3121

"For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. "~ Isaiah 9:16

New Mosque in the Town of Wilson

I attended the meeting of the Town of Wilson Board on Monday. I spoke at that meeting as well, even though I knew what would happen. I knew, going in that this was simply going to be a vote on whether or not the building that is to be used as a mosque was up to code according to town ordinances. The board graciously allowed everyone to speak, who had signed in to do so, even though the majority, myself included, were not town residents.

Of the 6 residents who spoke, 4 were in favor and 2 were opposed. Of the 19 non-residents who signed in to speak, approximately 12 were opposed and 5 were in favor. (I say approximately because I honestly could not decipher what two of the speakers were saying. Sometimes this was because of their presentation, or a poor quality microphone(or perhaps timidity at speaking to a group) and sometimes it was due to accents. We have an increasingly diverse population and sometimes a heavy accent make it a bit difficult to understand a speaker.

The problem is that none of the speakers were addressing Town of Wilson ordinances. (Except one older gentleman whom the board corrected as his understanding of the ordinances was in error.) My own 3 minutes, was attempting to address the sovereignty issue that I have written about on this blog before. I believe that, by allowing this mosque to come into existence without giving a proper respect to the governing aspect of the religion of Islam, the board is, in effect, ceding United States sovereignty over that piece of property in perpetuity. This may seem like an absurd position to some, but I hope to explain it in another post. (I also intend to address it in my blogtalkradio show: Irate, Tireless Minority. It's 30 minutes on Wednesdays at 1:30pm.

As is so often the case, when a community becomes concerned enough about an issue to speak up and make a difference, it is too late to participate in the political processes concerning that issue. People go to a town board meeting, which is disconcerting for the board members because the meetings are usually deserted, get up and speak to an issue in a way that can have no affect on the outcome of that issue, because the board must deal with only the limited bit of the issue that they have any say over, in this case, building ordinances. The board is not allowed to take most of the speakers views into consideration, and this board commented to that effect, saying the use of this building as a mosque was approved months ago, you should have spoken then. Unfortunately, the word didn't go out into the community until long after that decision was approved.

So, having brought along his lawyers to assure the board that the building either was, or soon would be, in compliance with all Town of Wilson ordinances concerning a public building, the good doctor (who will, as a matter of course, be donating the land this mosque occupies to Allah in perpetuity to be used as a mosque,) was to have his permit granted. The board voted unanimously to approve the conditional use permit. The people who came to speak, one way or another all went home dissatisfied with the government process and feeling like they had been made fools of(even those who spoke in favor, because it was clear that their speeches were not to the issue at hand either) and that their government officials are corrupt or hold the people in disdain or are simply ignoring them.

I don't think they are/do. I think they are doing a job by the rules laid out for them, but that those rules are so alien to most people that the ordinary citizen becomes disenfranchised by their use. Surely there must be a better way to get some citizen input on issues like this which become volatile after it is too late to address the core issue. I don't know what that would be. Perhaps the media needs to get better at doing their jobs and actually inform people before it's too late for the community to have an informed debate on controversial issues. The media was present in droves. I counted 8 cameras. Most of them stayed only long enough to get the sound bites they needed for their story and then left before the vote. Why would they stay? They know what is going to happen, they've been to enough of these types of meetings before.


There must be a better way to bring controversial issues like this before the people without making everyone involved look like fools. What could have been a respectful dialogue resulting in a productive solution, now ends with resentment and bitterness all around. The doctor who purchased the land to be used as a mosque was upset. He said "why is it that when you want me to be your doctor, I am a good guy, but when I want to put up a mosque, I am a terrorist?" Those who support the mosque will feel out of sorts with their neighbors who do not. Those who opposed the mosque will feel that their government has turned against them by allowing such a threat into the community. Those who attend the mosque will feel threatened, leading, no doubt to the very behaviors that concern those who opposed the mosque. The United States loses theological (Theological de jure and possibly real sovereignty de facto)sovereignty over yet another parcel of real estate to Allah in perpetuity and everybody goes home unhappy. It's a sad day in America, when the community cannot come together and put off or re-visit the vote on such a divisive issue until an understanding is reached that allows everyone to be able to live with the results of such a vote.

For those who would tell me that a mosque is not a threat to any community, I will say that you need to study more. I will not say that there aren't things which could be agreed to by the Islamic community to mitigate that threat in a way that would satisfy most communities, as I believe that there are. I will not say that Islam is not a threat to it's neighbors, by it's very nature, because there are simply too many examples world wide that it is. I will not condemn individuals, but there is enough evidence to make the claim that "Islam is a religion of peace" ridiculous on it's face. Unless, of course, you are using the Islamic definition of "peace" which is "submission to Allah". For those who assured the group, particularly the members of Christian clergy, that "we are all worshipping the same God". No. We are not, and if you think we are, then I suggest that you have not done your homework.


This could have been handled differently and it should have been. I think there is a way to move forward that would both meet the community's need to feel safe and the Muslim community's wish for a place of worship. Although, I must concede that I doubt the Muslim community would even consider my suggestion, since they don't have to and the United States is pleased to continue in it's ignorance regarding the dictates of the theological government of the "citizens of Islam".

" Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

I and my Father are one.
"~John 10:24-30

Arizona's "New" Law

There seems to be quite a lot of uproar about Arizona's "new" law. I have to wonder how many of those protesting so vociferously are aware that this "new" law is nearly the same as the federal law that has been on the books for some time now. The only difference is that Arizona, tired of waiting for the federal government to do their job and actually enforce the federal law, has made it possible for agents of state level law enforcement to do that job too.

The lack of enforcement on the federal level seems like just one more indicator that the federal government of this nation has broken the contract with the people. The people elect legislators who are to govern "by the consent of the governed". These legislators all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I don't see a whole lot of protection or defense out of the Obama administration or the 111th Congress for that venerable document, nor much respect for the governed either. Breach of contract is a serious thing in business, how much more grave is it when the breach is between We the People and those who have been elected to do our will.

I also can't help but wonder how many of those protesting this "racist" and "inhumane" law have really thought through the issue of illegal immigration. I have stated my opinion in previous posts to this blog and others. My opinion is basically that illegals are an overall detriment to this country. They drag down the character of her citizens and provide fodder for gangs and other groups that engage in illegal activities. Their children cannot expect legal employment or education, as they lack a social security number. The adults cannot perform the duties of citizenship for fear of being discovered and deported. Those who employ them are tempted to treat them as slaves, knowing that these people have made victims/slaves of themselves by coming here illegally.

I have to wonder, too, how these protesters can square their "humanitarian arguments against the pleas of those families left behind in Mexico? I am also very tired of everyone denigrating Christians for what they perceive as unchristian behavior, when, by my observations, most of those who claim the title of Christian today have no idea what they believe or why aside from some lovey dovey, goody-goody, "a Christian must be nice to everyone and never say anything mean" requirement.

True Christianity confronts evil and does not remain silent when people are behaving in a way that harms themselves or others.

"This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." ~ John 12:6