Some Changes to Blog Roll

Please welcome Ann Barnhardt to the list.  Ms. Barnhardt brings brings a refreshing passion to the conservative cause.  Nobody has to ask Mr. Barnhardt to "tell us how you really feel."  She does that in spades.

The Ugly Heart of the Left

I recently had a chat with the pastor of our congregation. He made the statement that our church, meaning the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America was a "social justice" church. Now, "social" deals with the community. When costs are socialized, that means that they are spread throughout the community, usually in the form of taxes. "Justice" on the other hand is a very individual thing. Only individuals can sin, and only individuals can be judged. Can you imagine an entire community being charged with a crime and put in jail? Thus, social justice is a meaningless term which sounds very noble and high minded, but is actually used to shield a suite of Leftists notions from those who would force the Left to explain them.

Similarly, "sustainability" is such a code word. The article today in the American Thinker today entitled Sustainable Nonsense by Jeffrey Folks provides an good road map of where the Left wants to take us on this journey to "sustainable" energy.

When applied to energy, for example, sustainability has almost nothing to do with the ability of certain fuels to meet the nation's needs over an extended period of time. With the advent of hydraulic fracking, it is obvious to all, including experts at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, that America possesses enough reserves of natural gas to meet our energy needs for at least a century. Our reserves of coal are even greater. Yet neither of these fuels is deemed "truly clean" enough to be a sustainable fuel by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, nor by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, judging from his words and actions.

In line with the environmental lobby, the Obama administration has the odd notion that sustainability can be brought about by restricting consumption alone. Driving a full-size Cadillac with a 4.6L V-8 engine, 208" frame, and a cargo capacity of almost 19 cubic feet leaves one with a respectable fuel efficiency of 15 mpg city, 23 mpg highway. That must seem practically criminal, however, to the planet-saving fuel misers in the Obama EPA. A compact hybrid with a reported fuel economy of 51 mpg city, 48 highway may seem to some a better, more sustainable option. But why not a bicycle with no fuel consumption at all? Why not walk and avoid those harmful manufacturing practices necessary to produce a bicycle? Why not walk barefooted and avoid shoes? There is no limit to how far the left will go in stripping us of our liberties and reducing us to Gandhian poverty.

In the 1930s, before much of the South was electrified, and even after for quite a period, most poor farm families used wood stoves to cook their food, and wood or coal stoves to warm their homes. I am amazed that my grandmother was able to bake cakes and breads to perfection without knowing the temperature of the oven.  But, how does burning wood or for that matter, horse dung, fit in with the notion of "sustainability" since these fuels contribute to pollution and global warming?

The ultimate frontier, or "solution," is to legislate the removal of human beings from part or all of the earth's surface. More than a few environmentalist leaders, including our current national science and technology advisor John Holdren, have advocated the reduction of human population to what they consider a "sustainable" level. What the left intends in this regard varies from one policymaker to another (from current global population of nearly 7 billion to somewhere between two billion and a few hundred million, or even none), but in nearly every case the concept of a "sustainable" population involves reductions that cannot be achieved by voluntary means.

One thinks that the real problems of the Left are that they never learned the lessons taught in kindergarten. They never learned to share. Instead, they see the world being utilized by so many, and think how wonderful it would be for them if there were fewer people with whom to share the world's abundance. They are like spoiled children asking their parents why they had to have the other children, and not accepting the answer.  Of course, being adults, they are able to hide behind high minded notions, and noble sounding language, even from themselves.  But at the end of the day, deep in the core of their being, this is the ugly truth of the Left.

Meanwhile, the truth is becoming apparent to almost everyone who pays attention:

"Sustainability," like all pretentious verbiage, is not simply used to suggest a meaning that is not there -- it is also used to hide meanings that would be obvious if not obscured by an impenetrable abstraction. The reality that "sustainable" is meant to mask is simply this: that the earth possesses enough conventional energy resources to supply even an expanding global economy for decades if not centuries to come; that those resources may, over time, become more difficult to exploit, whether for geologic, political, or economic reasons; and that, in time, other sources of energy, some of them now unknown, will supplant fossil fuels, and that those sources will in turn be supplanted by yet other forms.

The War on Guns: Messin' with Texas

The War on Guns: Messin' with Texas

Contrary to what you may have heard, you can apparently mess with Texas, and get away with it. That once great republic has apparently been wussified as well.

Way up North has a little more on this bill at Feds Threaten Texas No Fly Zone. Apparently someone in Texas has some intestinal fortitude, just not Sen. Patrick, (R Houston).

Why the TSA believes it has the right to do to innocent private citizens what constitutes sexual assault is beyond my understanding. If someone on the street decided to do this to passersby, they would be arrested, and rightly so. So, in asking for a warrant before the Testicular Stroking Agency (TSA) can grope an individual and take nude pictures of them seems quite reasonable.  What am I missing?

He is Risen!

He is risen indeed!

There is an article over at the American Thinker today, entitled Testimony Wrought in Blood. It is not a new argument, but if one is not familiar with Christian Apologetics, he will perhaps not have run across it yet.

Besides the Gospels themselves, and the writings of Paul, several books may interest you:

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel presents a journalists investigation into the truth of Christianity.

and

What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza.

My take?  As a fallen men and women, we can not look God in the eye (speaking figuratively.  God is not a man after all.)  He will turn his head away from us in shame, not want to see us.  But because his son took our sins upon himself, God now looks through the filter of the Christ, and sees us as his children.  We can look God in the eye, as a child would.  We can become a child of God!  As a first step, all we need to do is confess our belief.

How could anyone not take this great gift of grace?

Happy Easter!

Taking a Break

You may have been wondering where I have been.

I have decided to take a break.  While there are always events I can comment on, the fact is that I have said everything I felt compelled to say.  At the same time, I realize I have been preaching to the already converted.  I have not changed any one's mind, or to my knowledge gotten anyone to even rethink their positions.  Of course, you only see the final product, and not the inner workings, so you could be forgiven for thinking that I am the same.  But I assure you, I have over the years pondered both sides of the argument, and have changed my mind based on better evidence many times.  And while the pundits are paid for this, and do a better job than I can do, I need to see to my family.

I also must confess to a certain melancholy, born of a loss of faith that there is anything that we can do to stop what is going to happen.  The Lord has judged our generation, and found it unworthy, I fear.  It probably isn't fair, but the Republicans have only two years to start fixing things.  So far, they have claimed to have a plan, but they have done precious little to show us what it is.  Everyday they waste is more political capital lost.  Everyday the Democrats can keep socialism alive is that much less ground they need to pick up before they go on another tear against our liberties.  People will not long remember how bad Pelosi was, and soon enough she will be back setting the agenda, and passing legislation with no regard for the Constitution.

The Constitution.  When a Republican (in name only) like Lindsay Graham can say with no apparent irony that "Free speech is a nice idea, but we are at war!" I wonder if it is well and truly a dead letter.

In any case, I need to step back, refresh, and get my bearings.  Oh, and smoke a pipe or two while that remains legal.

Are the Best of the Free Life Behind Us Now?

Do you sometimes get the feeling that nearly everything is illegal? Could be here is the reason why :#links.

Each time the State ratchets up its desire to control people, it makes the penalties stiffer and stiffer.  The seat belt laws are a good example.  First they just put seat belts in the cars, and there were the ubiquitous public service announcements telling you that they might save your life.  Quite a few folks bought that argument, and started to wear seat belts.  That was as far as the insurance industry could go in "nudging" you.  They had no way to monitor your use of seat belts, so couldn't really give people who used them better rates.  People accepted these public service announcements, and generally made up their own minds about whether to wear seat belts, and when. 

But there always seems to be a nanny willing to make a law.  The next phase was seat belt laws, but they promised that these would only be enforced if the officer had another reason to stop you.  More people started using seat belts more consistently, because now the law compelled you to do so.  And Americans have typically been a law abiding people.  But what a cost to freedom.  Does the State really have a right to tell you to wear seat belts, in service to insurance companies?  A liberty minded person might ask what else they think they have the right to tell you, and in service to what industries?  Can the State, like the Pope, tell its citizens to eat fish on Friday because the fishing industry needs a boost?  More importantly, are citizens not adults who can determine for themselves when to wear a seat belt?  But that was not good enough, as it turns out.

The next phase was that the police could set up road blocks and give you a ticket if you weren't wearing your seat belt.  Oh, and while you were stopped, they could ticket you for any other violations they might find.  Many people felt as if they were living in a police state.  Frankly, I think they are right.  In making laws compelling seat belt use, the State infantilized the entire population, essentially assuming that everyone was like a child who had to be nagged to eat his vegetables, and had to be kept away from the sweets until he had eaten all on his plate.

The same ideas seem to apply with regards to the serious, and strictly adult decisions regarding weapons.  In the nanny State of North Carolina, you can not practically take your weapon off your property without a permission slip from the State.  North Carolina is an open carry State, nominally.  But if you do open carry, you will be arrested, your weapon confiscated, and you charged with something.  Going about to the terror of the pubic is always a good one.  Then there are the numerous "gun free zones" meaning "criminal empowerment zones," where crossing an invisible line makes you no longer a law abiding citizen, but a criminal.  If you walk into a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol while carrying a gun for which you have a concealed handgun license, suddenly you become a criminal.  What has changed?  Were you a responsible person before, but inside this building you suddenly become a crazed killer?  Does the restaurant have mind control rays?  The State, having finger printed you, run a background check on you, and ensured that you knew the law, can't seem to trust you to know where and when you might need to carry your weapon.  You must be told each of the seemingly thousands of places where you must disarm, for reasons that make no logical sense.  Guns don't belong in classrooms.  Why?  Guns and alcohol don't mix, even if the one carrying the gun doesn't drink.  Guns in banks are a bad idea because they are afraid you might try to rob the bank?  And why don't guns and theaters mix?  Oh, its because the sell sugar laden products that might get you on a sugar high and drive you crazy, right?  But then why are grocery stores not a "criminal empowerment zone?"  Enough, already.  New York has some very strict laws, and getting a permit to carry is not an easy process.  But once you have a permit, you can carry pretty much everywhere.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard an old song by Merle Haggard, and had to wonder the same thing:

Is the best of the free life behind us now,
Are the good times really over for good.
                        -Merle Haggard

Porretto Nails The One

Francis W. Porretto has been running a series of posts over at Eternity Road, the latest of which is The Shape of Things to Come, Part 5: The Worse the Better. I highly recommend you go over and read all of them, but especially this one. You may have noticed that the lies, half truths, the dissimulations, and the obscurations have been coming faster and faster. To take one example, his proposed budget for FY 2012 is not a balanced budget in the real world. How can the claims made by The One, and supported by the Democrat Party be squared with reality? Porretto explains how in this chapter of The Shape of Things to Come. It also explains why arguing with Marxists is futile. The only value in it is to highlight for those willing to listen the utter irrationality of the thinking on the Left.