To those persons who think that they are being oppressed for speaking out and demonstrating against the Iraq War should read "The Illusion of Victory, America in World War 1" to see what real oppression is. Some things in the opening chapters are vigilante patriotic groups sanctioned by the government placing wiretaps, bugging person's homes, and rummaging through their homes and businesses without warrants looking for "evidence" of disloyally. Anything they found was turned over to government agents. These private groups and the government security agencies that sanctioned them just ignored the Bill of Rights and no courts stepped in to stop them.There was extreme censorship. College professors, newspaper editors and reporters, private citizens stating their views, and lawful groups opposing the war or the draft were thrown in federal prison for up to two years or more without a fair trial. Public demonstrations by peaceful anti-war and anti-draft groups were attacked by "patriotic" groups with the government's blessing. The police would just stand by and then arrest the marchers for inciting riots after their beatings. There were even some cases where soldiers in civilian clothes were being directed by uniformed officers to attack and beat these marchers.
By those standards the Dixie Chicks, the liberal press, the Hollywood "elites", and the usual suspects of the left are getting off very easy. Incidentally, DemocRATs controlled the presidency and the congress at this time.
Posted 7 December 2003
My take in the story about appointing a gay Priest to be an Episcopal Church Bishop is that the leadership of the Episcopal Church decided in the past that it was acceptable for its Priests to be openly homosexual and to sanction same sex marriages/unions. It is now too late to ask the question if a gay Priest can be a Bishop. If the man is fully qualified to be a Bishop and then to deny him an appointment solely because of his sexual orientation would be discriminatory and hypocritical.
Once you start saying that homosexuals are acceptable in the hierarchy of your organization you cannot use their homosexually as an excuse to deny otherwise qualified individuals to the ranks of the leadership. This whole issue would be like the US Military saying that homosexually was acceptable if you were a private but not if an NCO or Officer.
This is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences, otherwise known as being bitten on the ass.
Posted 14 September 2003
I am so sick and tired of people like this who tell me that I am not forfeiting enough of my personal wealth to take care of the poor and that is my responsibility to do so. I pay half of my income in taxes already; do they also want the other half? This appeared in the Daily Oklahoman and my reply to this writer as follows:
Daily Oklahoman, August 31, 2003
Point Of View: Nation Has Obligation To The Poor
By Rev. J. Bryan Hehir
WITH the immediate danger of war behind us, attention in Washington, D.C., has turned back to domestic issues, as broad proposals are being pressed, pushed, debated and decided. The dominant debates are about fiscal policy, taxes and spending, but a broad question in play in these discussions is government's responsibility to the poor.
Poverty has multiple roots and many manifestations in issues areas such as nutrition, housing, health care, education and employment. Gaps in any of these areas threaten human dignity and leave unaddressed human needs. The very young, the elderly, women and immigrants are the most vulnerable to these gaps in American society.
It is the duty and responsibility for agencies such as Catholic Charities to serve the poor, to give voice to their needs and to advocate for policies that help them. According to Catholic social teaching, society as a whole is responsible for the common good, and, therefore the major sectors of society -- government, the market, and private institutions -- have obligations to people suffering from poverty.
The publication of the Bush administration budget earlier this year catalyzed debate about the consequences of proposed policies upon the government's responsibility for the most vulnerable members of American society. A detailed analysis in The Washington Post opened with this statement: "President Bush has embarked on a far-reaching campaign to transform the federal government's relationship with the nation's poor, seeking to tip control over social services to the states, reduce the funding of some programs, and require more proof that low-income people are eligible for public help."
The consequences of these tactics could severely restrict the government's role of support for poor families and children. Consider the debate over proposed changes in the federal-state Medicaid program, which supports the social needs of 44 million people.
A central part of the Bush administration plan is to move away from the federal-state funding formula where the federal government matches state spending on an open-ended basis. The current system, which is under fire, guarantees increasing federal funds for the increased cost of increased participation in the program, new technologies, new medical threats and inflation.
The administration's Medicaid proposal is an invitation to states to accept a "cap" on that open- ended guarantee. The invitation is made attractive by an increased federal contribution in the short term, followed by the prospect of reduced federal spending in the long term.
These debates are complex and play out over time, but embedded in the debate about the details of Medicaid is a fundamental vision of how a society conceives of its duties to those individuals and families with unmet socioeconomic needs. Arguments that say that relying ever more on a motivation of charity and on charitable institutions will create a morally superior society fall short. By focusing on charity, they miss the necessity of strategies based on obligations of justice.
Finally, there is the inevitable discussion of the moral limits of the market. These include the fact that the market is relevant only to those with the minimum resources to enter it.
The moral limits of the market require that its indispensable function in an economy be supplemented by a broader social policy, designed to address those issues and those individuals whose basic needs are not met by the dynamics of the market.
The appeal of the market as a savior of the poor confuses an accurate assessment with a basically adequate policy. A growing economy providing jobs with living wages is the long-term solution to poverty; the 1990s showed this dynamic at work.
Now, with uncertain economic indicators and talk of "jobless recoveries," local social welfare agencies continue to face shortages in food supply, in emergency assistance for rent and mortgage payments, in the ability to provide counsel and solace to those in need. There is also a concern that the role given to charitable groups in a society of this size will far outrun their capacities to deliver necessary assistance.
Our belief is that, regarding the role of government and the role of the market in providing for the general welfare, it is the poor who have the greatest claim on our resources. We hope, and we believe, the poor will be given that priority.
Hehir is president of Catholic Charities USA and former dean of Harvard Divinity School. Hehir will present "Catholic Social Vision and the Public Agenda" from 7:30 to 9 p.m. Tuesday at the Catholic Pastoral Center, 7501 Northwest Expressway.
My reply:
With all due respect to the Reverend J. Bryan Hehir and his Point of View Article "Nation Has Obligation To The Poor" I do not see anywhere in the Constitution of the United States any clause about the federal government having any power to spend my tax money on charity for anybody. Despite the 45% + of his salary the average American pays in all taxes to all levels of government, the average American is also the most generous givers to charities in the world.
The best way to create more jobs and provide for the less fortunate of society would be for the United States to return to the Republic our founding fathers gave us and get the federal government out of our daily lives and wallets. With taxes supporting only the powers the Constitution granted to Congress our personal and national wealth will increase dramatically and everybody benefits.
More government spending means the taking of more taxes from already overtaxed producers and so will create a more poorer society.
Posted 31 August 2003
The idea of reparations for Slavery is so stupid that it should be laughed out of town whenever and wherever it shows up. First Chicago and now LA will require businesses that do business with the city has to disclose if they ever had any connections for Slavery. Many of the large DemocRATic controlled cities are also considering such nonsense. Critics, myself included, say this is a fishing expedition for reparations advocates to find business firms to be targeted later for lawsuits and shakedowns.
Some of the facts are that the first Slaves were imported to the New World were the human refuse from the streets of England. They were sold to brokers, usually ships' masters, who made a profit reselling them at their destination. This was a type of Slavery known as indentured servants that were bound to a term of service for a certain number of years before being freed.
When the first Africans were sold into bondage almost immediately some colonies and later all Northern States prohibited Slavery. Land grant legislation created by Congress to encourage western settlement also prohibited Slavery and eventually Slavery was exclusive to the Southern States where Slaves were used in very labor-intensive agriculture.
Slaves were usually owned by private individuals, no Slaves were used in infrastructure building public works such as tunneling and railroad building for the simple fact that Slaves were too valuable to risk death or injury. Just hire a day laborer and if he gets killed or injured then hire another one. You could not just put down a Slave like a horse if he was seriously injured or too old to work because Slave codes in many Southern States protected Slaves from harsh treatment and mandated humane care. The State had the power to take away Slaves from abusive owners. Many owners would follow this code even if not required by law because it was the right thing to do and lack of concern about a Slave's welfare could lead to rebellion against the owner or at the very least runaway Slaves.
So the conclusions are that Slaves definitely did not build any infrastructure and add to national wealth in the Northern territories and States because Slavery was outlawed there. Slaves barely added anything in the public infrastructure in the South either and did not really add that much to personal wealth because, as stated above, Slaves had to housed, clothed, and feed from cradle to grave, even if they were not productive because of extreme youth or age or injury.
If you take a look at the economy of the Southern States you will find that that region of the country was always poor as compared to the Northern States, even up to the late 20th century. So I conclude that not only did Slavery not add anything to the national wealth but that Slaves dragged down the national wealth in the areas of the country where they were allowed.
I really believe that the self appointed Je$$ie Jack$on type Black leaders do not want the money but the issue. They know that if reparations were ever paid that would be the end of their wealth and political power. Affirmative actions and other aids to Blacks would be dismantled because non-Black Americans will say that we are now all equal. No more special treatment because of race, no more money for the race baiting poverty pimps.
Posted 15 August 2003
I was listening to a talk radio show today and the host was interviewing the chairman of some Black Reparations organization that participated in Washington last week. When the host said "Ok you got Florida and other southern States plus an equivalent payment of 40 acres and a mule per person with interest; would that be enough?" The guest said that would be good enough for a down payment. You could give these people the GNP of the entire country and they will still keep coming back for more. The way he talks you think that the entire country was build using only slave labor. The guest swore to take his case to the ICC criminal division if the US Courts refuse to hear it.
The second was that he claimed that 95% of the Black people in America still have their "slave names" so they still have that slave mentally. The host did point out that they could legally change their names like the guest changed his to some African name. Unfortunately the host did not say that in Anglo-Saxton and western tradition that free men have a last and first name while serfs and slaves have one name.
Back in the middle ages, serfs were identified by one given name. Well and good if you were the only "Thomas" in town. If there were more than one Thomas, they would become known by their craft such as Thomas the Tailor or Thomas the Blacksmith. Later when their descendents became free men, those names became Thomas Taylor and Thomas Smith. Today if you see a last name that spells or sounds like a craft such as Wright, Boatman, Farmer, or Carpenter that is a clue what the family business was centuries ago. The freed slaves knew that and they also picked their last names after their craft or adapted the last name of his former master since he was known in the area that way already. Others picked last names like Freeman or names from the Bible.
Actually if you bother to look back in American history the United States, as a nation, never imported one slave. Slaves were bought to the New World by the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and English. The US Constitution prohibited the import of slaves. Even the Confederate States Constitution prohibited the import of slaves from anywhere except the United States. Of course individuals smuggled slaves into the US (still do today) but they are breaking the law and will be arrested and tried when caught.
My conclusion is that reparations are payments that must be made to persons who have never been slaves by other persons who have never owned a slave, who have never believed in or condoned slavery, and are not descended from anyone who ever owned a slave. If I were a mindless liberal and brainwashed that the white race is evil reparations would make perfect sense to me. But since I am a self-educated thinking free man the whole thing is just rubbish to me.
Posted 1 September 2002
Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the late USSR were all built on the backs of the people with lies, myths, and what we call today "junk science". The common people were told that they were supermen, the new worker, the master race, and rulers of the world. But the only way that the people could get there was to surrender their rights and wealth and follow the self appointed elites. Oh, and never mind how the elites got to be the elites because the ends justify the means and to question why things are that way is treason and a crime against the people. These current hard times, the people were told, will pass only when all the enemies of the State, foreign and domestic, are vanquished.
Not much have changed, the modern left is still dishing this stuff out and, unfortunately, too many people are buying it and willingly give up their freedoms and wealth for security. Those of us who resist are the new enemies of the people and we must not just be silenced, but destroyed "for the children". I am sure there are bunks in a yet to be built reeducation camp waiting for all free thinking men and women. Or a spot in a mass grave when we tell them we ain't going peacefully like the Jews did in Germany.
One of the things that the Nazis of Germany and the modern left have in common is that both want to label people by their color and other elitist selected characteristics including political views. The modern leftists wants to make the so called "proper thinking" oppressed peoples "protected classes" and entitled to special rights. In the Nazi's case, it was to separate the Master Race from the inferior ones and the "protected classes" were the ones who did not end up in the gas chambers.
Posted 14 July 2002
When men first gathered together in tribes they were all hunter/gatherers. They followed the herds and the changing seasons to survive. They did not have many processions or permanent homes. These early socialists shared the times of plenty and also times of starvation. Anybody who was weak or old and could not keep up got left behind because the group was more important than the individual.
Later when man learned how to domesticate animals and raise crops, he settled in permanent villages. It was at that point that the two primary concepts of capitalism were founded; surplus and specialization. What specialization means is that each man did what he did best. Some farmed, some hunted, and some made tools and weapons. When surpluses are created (where production outdoes demand) the tool and weapons maker could trade with the hunters and the farmers for food.
That freed up the farmers to tend larger herds and cultivate more land, he did not have to spend his personal time and resources to make tools. Same with the hunter, he could spend more time in the field without having to take time out to make his own weapons. Another bonus was that practice makes perfect and so specialists can produce more and better quality products that a jack-of-all-trades, produce profits and build up personal wealth, and expand trade to other villages.
Capitalism benefits everybody, there are resources to care of the old and sick and the entire community becomes richer. That sets the stage for science, arts, and music since the community does not have to fight day by day just to survive any more. Socialism will return us to the modern version of hunter/gatherer; we have all seen the pictures of the long lines for scarce and poor quality goods in the former USSR. It is every man for him and must fight to stay alive for one more day. No personal or community wealth, and no profits, resources, or motivation to make the world a better world to live in.
Posted 20 May 2002
I really do not have a problem with changing demographics in the US as long as these newcomers become full and functioning citizens that preserve and protect the Constitution and our capitalist system. The problem I am having is that the growing minority races and cultures do not seem to appreciate how a self-governing free society like the US is supposed to work. They think because they are the minority they should have special protections that ignores the 14th Amendment and refuse to assimilate into society. This is a new self-imposed segregation even worst than the Jim Crow laws that were overturned years ago. This could lead to the type of bloody infighting and "ethic cleansing" like what is happening all over the world.
Not helping the matter is a bunch of bed wetting guilty white liberals that cater to them and tell how rotten this country is. The joke on these liberals is that as the minority gains more political power and populations growth one day the minorities will not need them anymore and will take over their government jobs, academic positions, and political offices. Until immigration, both legal and illegal, is brung under control, affirmative action and implied quotas are appealed, federal infringement on the Bill of Rights is turned back, and everyone is educated about the Constitution and how the federal government is suppose to work this country will be destroyed from within and be all set for the picking by, say, the People's Republic of China.
Posted 14 March 2002
Why is it that the socialist/fascists want American citizens to carry national ID cards but when we go to vote the same socialist/fascists say no ID is needed? If aliens, legal or illegal, voted for Republicans rather than DemocRATs you would see a full bench press by the Unions and the national liberal press whores to strongly control immigration and round up the illegals.
The big joke on immigrants, legal and illegal, was that the most racist, bigoted, and hostile organization to them was the same Labor Unions that pretend to support them now. The same labor law passed in 1948 that allowed the States to choose Right To Work (Open Shop) or Closed Shop also outlawed the Union Shop.
The Closed Shop allows an employer to hire anyone they want but that employee has to pay dues to a Union if a labor contract so states. This applies whether they become a member of the Union or not. The Beck Decision by the Supreme Court says that non-Union members in Closed Shops have to pay only the costs of collective bargaining, but the Unions generally ignore this.
Under the Union Shop contracted employers could only hire Union members. That gave Union leaders unequal labor, economic, and political power. Since the Unions could set the membership requirements usually only white native-born males could be members. Minorities, woman, and immigrants had to find dead-end, lower paying, and dirty jobs elsewhere.
The Union could also limit size of membership and so create artificial labor shortages that kept competitive wages high if several similar business firms were in the same general area. They could also get away with all this because of favorable laws passed by their DemocRAT puppets at the State and Federal legislative levels. Many of these laws have been repealed or thrown out in court since the 1950s. One of the last that needs to go are federal laws that does not allow the Unions to be held liable for crimes, even murder, committed by their individual members in labor disputes even if the leadership urges them on. Lets see any other group or organization get away with this.
Unions have never been more than 45% of the American workforce and they have fallen to 13.5% in 2001 according to government statistics. Union members also usually vote at least 40% for Republications despite the fact that almost all of members' political dues are spent on DemocRAT candidates.
The only growth has been in the public sector where nearly 4 in 10 government workers were union members in 2001, compared with less than 1 in 10 private employees. Hopefully the days of the large greedy and anti freedom Labor Unions are near an end, at least in the private sector.
Posted 12 Feb 2002
I am getting so tired hearing the DemocRATs and their liberal allies whining about "rule of law", "abuse of power, "due process", "constitutional rights", etc. These concepts of freedom and self government did not seem to matter much when Klinton and Reno was in office or when they were trying to steal the 2000 election and trying to take away our Second Amendment and other rights despite the fact that no guns were used in the hijackings.
I especially object to their protests of the FBI and other agencies rounding up only Arab men. That is profiling and we sure can't have that!!!!! It was not big-breasted blond women from Norway who hijacked those aircraft. It sure was not Zulu tribesmen from the Veldt of South Africa either. Nor South Sea Islanders. They were all Moslem men from the Middle East. To investigate other racial groups when there is no proof that anybody but Moslem men from the Middle East would not only be a waste of resources and manpower but some would be terrorists might be missed. One observation that most of the national press does not mention that since the roundup there have been no more terrorist attacks in the US except for Anthrax, which I think is a home grown terrorist using 9/11 as a cover.
I wonder if we would still hear this whining if Algore were president? I say not and I even think we would hear a loud noise to trust the government and "trade freedom for liberty" like the Germans did when they voted for the Nazi party. Why do these socialist/fascists think that "freedom" and "security" have to be mutually exclusive? I don't.
Posted 17 Jan 2002
TO THE EDITOR:
J. Davis ("Your Views," Oct. 17, 2000) refers to the clear choice in the voting booth being the true Christian, and she raises the ugly specter of the abortion issue, calling people who disagree with her "pro-abortion."
I would like to inform Davis that no one is pro-abortion. Those of us maligned by her simplistic view of politics as platform for religious homogenization consider ourselves pro-choice. We are in favor of a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. Does Davis actually believe pro-choice voters like me are rooting for women to get out there and get abortions? Does she think we follow the statistics, hoping that abortions climb to an all-time high this year? This kind of demagogical claptrap is exactly the kind of polarizing, the-world-can-only-be-seen-in- black-and-white ideology that continues to divide our country into smaller and smaller fragments.
I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. I do not advocate the death of anyone, though I'd be willing to bet Davis, like most other anti-choicers out there, supports the death penalty.
While Davis sees a clear choice for the "God-fearing person with a Christ-centered life," I continue to be baffled by anyone -- especially a woman -- who would willingly turn over control of a woman's body to a bunch of rich, old, white men who live in a completely different world than most of us do.
B. H. M,
Shawnee, OK
My reply:
B. H. M ("Your Views," Oct. 22, 2000) claims she is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If B. H. M is pro-choice….
Does that mean that women should have the choice to decide if she wants to apply her public schools taxes towards private school tuition?
Does that mean that women should have the choice to decide what kind of firearm she wants regarding model and type and how many bullets a magazine holds?
Does that mean that a women should have the choice to stay in or leave the Social Security System?
Does that mean that women should have the choice whether to buy regular or reformulated gasoline?
Does that mean that a woman should have the choice to build a home or business on land the government has taken unconstitutionally because some rodent, insect, or other vermin lives there?
These and many other choices and freedoms have been taken away from us by an out of control federal government. To add insult to injury we are taxed almost 50% of our income to support the erosion of our choices and freedoms. None of the above, including control of abortion, is not among the constitutional functions of the federal. It does not matter if it is the right or moral thing to do; it is not allowed except if chosen by the States, who are also victims that have lost their tenth amendment rights and choices. Remember that November seventh and vote for freedom.
TO THE EDITOR:
J. Davis ("Your Views," Oct. 17, 2000) refers to the clear choice in the voting booth being the true Christian, and she raises the ugly specter of the abortion issue, calling people who disagree with her "pro-abortion."
I would like to inform Davis that no one is pro-abortion. Those of us maligned by her simplistic view of politics as platform for religious homogenization consider ourselves pro-choice. We are in favor of a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. Does Davis actually believe pro-choice voters like me are rooting for women to get out there and get abortions? Does she think we follow the statistics, hoping that abortions climb to an all-time high this year? This kind of demagogical claptrap is exactly the kind of polarizing, the-world-can-only-be-seen-in- black-and-white ideology that continues to divide our country into smaller and smaller fragments.
I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. I do not advocate the death of anyone, though I'd be willing to bet Davis, like most other anti-choicers out there, supports the death penalty.
While Davis sees a clear choice for the "God-fearing person with a Christ-centered life," I continue to be baffled by anyone -- especially a woman -- who would willingly turn over control of a woman's body to a bunch of rich, old, white men who live in a completely different world than most of us do.
B. H. M,
Shawnee, OK
My reply:
B. H. M ("Your Views," Oct. 22, 2000) claims she is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If B. H. M is pro-choice….
Does that mean that a women should have the choice to decide if she wants to apply her public schools taxes towards private school tuition?
Does that mean that a women should have the choice to decide what kind of firearm she wants regarding model and type and how many bullets a magazine holds?
Does that mean that a women should have the choice to stay in or leave the Social Security System?
Does that mean that a women should have the choice whether to buy regular or reformulated gasoline?
Does that mean that a woman should have the choice to build a home or business on land the government has taken unconstitutionally because some rodent, insect, or other vermin lives there?
These and many other choices and freedoms have been taken away from us by an out of control federal government. To add insult to injury we are taxed almost 50% of our income to support the erosion of our choices and freedoms. None of the above, including abortion, is not among the constitutional functions of the federal. It does not matter if it is the right or moral thing to do, it is not allowed except if chosen by the States, who are also victims that have lost their tenth amendment rights and choices. Remember that November seventh and vote for freedom.
All I can say to JG's letter about Social Security in the 6 June Daily Oklahoman is that he is a poor misguided fool if he depends on the government to "take care of us" and believes anything the president, a proven liar, says. First there is no budget surplus, the government just saids there is one but they cannot prove it with solid and honest numbers, it is just a projection. If a private business firm or person tried the same thing, they could go to jail for cooking the books.
Second, Social Security was never intended to be a full retirement pension benefit but as a job creator by allowing older people workers to "retire" and remove them from the job market. Retirees were still expected to be responsible for their own welfare by living on their assets and savings with Social Security filling in the monetary gap between working and retirement. Recall that Social Security was founded in the midst of the great depression as part of numerous other New Deal programs (minimum wage, Aid to Dependent Children, etc) that has lead this country down the path to socialism and government dependence.
One of the myths of Social Security is that we all have individual "trust accounts" where the money we pay is duly deposited every payday. The truth is that Social Security is a direct transfer from working people to retired people with any surplus money collected added to the general fund to be spent by Congress on other things. The problem coming up is that by 2014 or so the baby boom generation (including yours truly) will be retiring and the ratio of workers to retirees will become one to one, or less. Not the eleven to one when Social Security was created or the six to one now.
So to do nothing like the Democrats want to do is to see Social Security either disappear (The supreme court has ruled that the government is under no obligation to pay benefits), we all pay much higher taxes to support it at current levels, or drastically reduce benefits. Gradual privation will be the only thing to save it for future and current workers and should eventually be eliminated when the baby boom hump dies off. If entitlements are held at current levels, future generation will face tax rates of 80% + just to support them. That is not counting other spending such as the armed forces. I simply do not see future workers standing for that, no matter how much left wing indoctrination they get in the public schools.
Just like any other illegal pyramid or Ponzi scheme the first payers in the program reaps the windfall, getting much more back than they paid in and workers near the bottom are left holding the bag.
JG, Midwest City, OK
FAIR USE NOTICE: This website contains some copyrighted material, which is reproduced under the Fair Use Provision of Title 17, U.S.C. Section 107, and is posted for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. This material is posted without profit for the benefit of those who, by accessing this site, are expressing a prior interest in this information for research and educational purposes.