Ever since the early part of the last century, our Constitution has gone through many changes.  Judges on Supreme Courts throughout the nation and in the nation's capital have taken it upon themselves to determine what the Constitution "really" means.  Under the new edited version, people don't really have a right to private property, because any local municipality can confiscate that property at any time and sell it to the highest bidder who will then demolish it, along with several other houses in the neighborhood, and turn the entire area into a shopping mall or hotel or casino, etc.

Late last week, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that foreign fighters who are not from Iraq, and who have never stepped foot in the United States, who's only connection to our country is that they are trying to destroy it, are protected by our constitution, and have the right to a public trial.  This idea is so asinine as to be completely laughable, if not for the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in their favor! 

On the one hand, we have liberals claiming that trying to export our way of life to other cultures is a bad idea.  Yet on the other, they claim that "all men are created equal" applies to...all men (and women, and children) on the entire planet!  If the latter is true, then we have a duty under the constitution to make sure that all men are free all over the world.  But this is really not the goal of liberals, because they really don't like to get involved in foreign conflicts, even when those conflicts directly affect our nation.  They are not interested in seeing all men made equal under our constitution.  Rather, their interest is in weakening our constitution so it's not so much of a threat to countries ruled by evil men.  If we make nice with them, the theory goes, they will have no reason to be mean to us.

I don't know if liberals are truly ignorant of the purpose of our constitution (which would be the nicer answer), or that they are blatantly opposed to it.  And I'm not talking about your average run-of-the-mill do-gooder liberal.  I'm talking about those who's job it is to stand in Congress and rape Americans of their hard-earned money to line their pockets and call our troops names - those very same troops who are right now giving their lives so these people can continue to go on their rants about how "evil" the American "empire" is, and how "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."  It is this liberal ideal of moral equivalence that was behind the 5-4 decision to grant terrorists constitutional rights.

But it's this same idea of moral equivalence that propelled the California Supreme Court to rule in favor of sodomites everywhere, claiming that they have a constitutional right to marriage.  I use the word "sodomite" on purpose, because there is a long history of this kind of activity, reaching a sort of climax in the town of Sodom, an ancient city on the banks of the Mediterranean Sea, that was completely given to acts of homosexuality.  If one reads the account as given in the Bible, one will notice that the entire town, and everyone in it, was engaged in this activity.  When two male strangers entered the home of one of the town leaders, the entire town turns out that night to hold a party in their favor, to initiate them to the ways of the town.

Everyone - men, women, and children, were turned into "sodomites."  The goal of the true "sodomite" is to make everyone like themselves.  They don't just want equality with heterosexual men - they want to subvert the latter.  While I'm not going to say that all sodomites prey on young men and boys, it is true that many of them do.  Just look at what happened with the Catholic church in recent history.  How is it that all these supposedly "godly" men, who grew up wanting to become priests and do the work of God, could become so perverted as to prey on the most innocent among us?  I believe it is because these same priests were turned in the same way they sought to turn other young boys.  This activity is self-perpetuating.  So in ruling that Sodomites can marry each other, they pave the way for yet more sodomites to be "born", and eventually they will overtake the natural order of things.  This is not a fear; it is a fact based on history, both recent and ancient.

The question is how far we will let the courts go before we decide to take action to limit them.  These people who deem it their duty to single-handedly change the constitution should be held in contempt of the people, and thrown out of their black robes.  They should be in jail, not sitting on benches taking salaries from honest tax-paying people.  I sincerely believe we are headed for a constitutional crisis, brought to us by judges.  Previous crisis's were the result of bad policies enacted by Congress, or by a failure to act, but this next one will come from the honored men in black.  What will be the catalyst?  I don't know.  I only know that at some point, the American people will rise up as one and decide we can no longer live under their rule.  We want our country back!  The only question is how many more of our rights will we lose before that fateful day comes?

When liberals aren't championing the cause of the helpless victim, they're playing the part themselves.  Such was the case with David Letterman when he proclaimed that the government must "do something" to combat global warming.  Note to David:  they already are.  That's why gas is $4 per gallon and rising.  This is the government idea of doing something.  To liberals, it's not the outcomes that matter, but the good intentions.  The government has mandated new fuel standards in cars making them even less safe.  They've mandated auto makers to make cars so small and fuel efficient that no one in their right mind would want to drive them under normal circumstances, but these definitely are not normal.  They've also mandated a certain amount of ethanol to be grown and used, taking up land that would normally be used to grow crops for food.  So, Dave, ease up.  The government is doing something - the wrong thing.

So what should the government do to combat global warming?

Well, that's a good question, but there are others we should ask first.  I'm in school, and being taught to do a lot of "critical thinking."  So let's see if I can come up with some "critical thinking" type questions.  Hmmm...O.K.  First, "Is global warming real?"  Second, "If global warming is real, how can we tell whether or not it's being caused by humans?"  Third, "Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?"

Is global warming real?  What's the evidence that global warming is really going on?  Is that evidence conclusive?  There have been numerous books written on the subject from both sides, and I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the subject.  After having read numerous books on the topic, I'm not entirely convinced that the evidence is conclusive.  That's not to say that there is nothing going on.  Certainly some parts of the globe are experiencing warming, but other parts of the globe are actually cooling down.  Some of the areas that are experiencing the biggest warming trends are large cities where concrete and steel trap the heat.  Satellite data over the same areas, however, reflect no (or minimal) atmospheric warming, yielding the conclusion that the warming is happening on the ground rather than in the atmosphere.  So - is global warming real?  Maybe; maybe not.

Well, what if it is real?  Shouldn't the governments of the world act to combat global warming just in case?  Well, the question is whether or not we can do anything.  Is global warming caused by humans, or are there natural causes for global warming?  Here we have actual data to support the idea that global warming has natural causes.  Several years ago, Discover magazine did a story about the coming "mini-ice age" caused by global warming.  The theory is that all these melting glaciers will enter the oceans, and disrupt the currents, causing lots of cool, fresh water to collect in the northern oceans.  As part of the story, they state that this sort of thing has happened in the  past, and that it is a normal earth cycle.  This time, however, is different.  This time, it's being caused by evil humans polluting the environment.  Wait - so every other time before, it was caused by nature, but this time, if it does happen, it will be caused by pollution.  Does this sound like fear-mongering to you?  What evidence have they gathered in the last thousand years that would lead them to believe we're doing something different this time?  How do they know?  There have been periods of global warming in the past, before we had cars and used oil for anything other than lighting at night.  And yet this time, unlike every other time in the past, it's being caused because we're driving gas-guzzling cars that support the evil oil tycoons.  To liberals, it's plain as day:  BP is destroying the planet!

But are they really?  OK, let's just say for the sake of argument that global warming (should that be capitalized?  Global Warming?) is real.  OK.  Fine.  Let's also say that we are doing it.  Is it necessarily a bad thing?  Is global warming destructive?  To listen to the pundits and scaremongers, global warming will destroy the planet.  It will leave this rock a desolate wasteland after massive extinctions drive the rest of us to starvation.  That is, those of us that don't get washed away by floods in some areas or starved by drought in others. 

Well, I'd like to point out here that scientists still have no good answer as to what makes clouds form the way they do.  They can't tell us with any kind of accuracy what the weather will do a week from now.  How can they proclaim what will happen to the planet in twenty or a hundred years?  The earth goes through cycles.  Everyone knows this.  And yet, when those cycles start, environmentalists claim that we are the culprits, and that those cycles wouldn't be as severe were it not for human activities.  They can't know that.  There is no way for them to determine what the weather would be were we not here.  It's only speculation, and they are pushing governments to make decisions based on that speculative science.

Again, we have evidence from the past that any global warming would actually be a good thing.  If the glaciers melt, that means more fresh water for farming and agriculture, which means more crops, which means the world can now support more life.  Yes folks, have as many kids as you want:  global warming will ensure we have enough food to support all 15!  More water on the ground means more evaporation (more water evaporates when the weather is warmer), which means more rain, which means more greenery.  Ever heard of the rain forests of central America and central Africa?  Now picture foliage like that in more places.  Is it possible we could see deserts shrink?  Well, it's at least as likely as the famine, dread, and horror forcasted by the environmentalist-socialist movement.

So eat!  Drink!  Be merry!  And if you can afford it, drive that big SUV!  And pray for more global warming.  Maybe Washington D.C. will become so hot that government officials will be forced to leave and go get real jobs.

Our economy has already had one leg cut out from under it.  When the Fed decided months ago to print new money out of thin air, it had the expected effect of making the dollar weaker in world markets.  This raised domestic prices on fuel and groceries, and limited the buying power of consumers and businesses.  Couple that with an increasing demand for oil and a decreasing supply, added to the increased food prices due to the fact that more farm land is now being used to grow corn for ethanol, and we have a potential crisis in the making.  And all this after the housing "bubble" has already burst, hurting financial institutions across the country.

As if all this wasn't enough, our U.S. Congress is set today to vote on a bill that would rescind tax breaks for oil corporations.  That's right folks, they're not giving us a tax holiday at the pump; instead, they're going to force oil companies to increase prices even more.  Rather than vote to open up new sources of oil in our country (something that would have a near immediate effect on the price at the pump), they are acting to further vilify the oil companies.  Over the last year, as gas prices have continued to soar, Congress has been worse than useless.  They are acting to force us into "greener" cars, force us into hybrid cars, or force us out of cars altogether in favor of mass transportation or single-conveyance vehicles such as scooters, mopeds, etc.  Yet they have done nothing to actually reduce the price at the pump by increasing supply, or reducing regulations to make it easier for oil corporations to open new refineries.

These actions are completely unconstitutional.  There is no constitutional mandate to protect the environment.  There is, however, a primary directive to protect our right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  It should not be up to the government to decide what kind of vehicles we drive, or how good the gas mileage is in those cars, and the constitution does not leave those things within the purview of the government on any level.

There are, however, several things Congress could do.  As stated above, they could move to open new sources of domestic oil.  The United States has over 1 trillion barrels of domestic oil that remains untapped because of government over-regulation.  But opening these oil fields would have a negligible effect if we do not also move to open new refineries to handle this added influx of oil.  Another thing Congress could do is rescind, at least temporarily, the regulations mandating all the different grades of fuel that are to be sold in various parts of the country.  I think there are 13 different grades of oil that must be sold throughout the country due to varying EPA regulations.  By temporarily suspending these regulations, oil companies would be able to save money on the refining process, and those savings could then be passed on to the consumer.

However, the Democrat-controlled congress is loath to do any of those things because they would "damage the environment."  The Democrat party is controlled by the environmentalist movement, which believes it is the role of the federal government to protect the environment against "evil" corporations who will otherwise destroy it.  I would like for any of them to site from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding document anything that comes even remotely close to giving the government that kind of regulatory power.  They can't, because there isn't any.

Passing legislation to open new oil fields would have an immediate impact.  First, it would signal to the Saudis that we are declaring independence from foreign controls over our own policies, but that's political.  Economically, it would have an immediate impact on oil futures, because people would realize that we are serious about increasing world supply, and the price per barrel would immediately begin to decline.  Within a very short time, we would see those prices reflected at the pump, especially if Congress follows up by doing other things to ease our pain when it comes to oil.

Another thing Congress could do is put a stop to this charade called "ethanol."  Ethanol is one of the biggest frauds ever to be hoisted upon the American people.  First, it causes more pollution than old-fashioned gasoline.  Second, it destroys more of the environment than it protects, and third, it is directly linked to higher food prices which cause more poverty in more places, and poverty is also linked to destruction of the environment.  Ethanol perpetuates the cycle of destruction, and does absolutely nothing to fix any problem.  But liberals don't care about real problems, they only care about making themselves look good, and having good intentions.  Who cares about the outcomes, as long as you have good intentions. (How many crime shows have we watched where one spouse says to the other, "But honey, I did it for you/us!")  This Democrat-controlled Congress is ruining the economy because they care about the world.  But if there's no money for clean-up projects, who's going to care about the world then?  Well, I guess it won't really matter as long as we're all living in tents and riding bicycles.

    There exists in the world today something called the Marketplace of Ideas in which ideas, like products, are introduced for public consumption.  Those most popular, and most valuable, will remain while lesser ideas will be discarded.
    In this setting, it would certainly seem plausible that a government (ours, for example) would endorse a certain set of ideas:  those ideas which would help that form of government to continue to future generations.  Sadly, this is not the case in the United States of America.  For nearly fifty years, our country has conducted an idea experiment that has proved detrimental to our national health.
    In the 1960's, an idea which had served this country well for its entire history was removed.  That idea was the free expression of religion.  The fact that prayer and Bible reading were removed sent a clear message:  no longer would our government endorse religiosity in the United States.  The fact that our beliefs had just gotten us through two world wars didn't seem to matter.  Religion was the idea of the past; evolution was to be the wave of the future.
    And what a future it's been!  In the last fifty years, we have seen divorce rates sky-rocket along with un-married pregnancies, drug use, suicide, homicide, etc.  In fact, every negative indicator has went up since 1960, and every positive indicator has gone down.  In the 1990's, SAT scores got so low that they re-vamped the test.  Our children are litterally getting dumber by the minute!  Yet the amount of money we keep throwing at the problem keeps going up.  It seems an election cycle doesn't go by without a new bill being passed on education, yet the problem keeps getting worse.
    The classroom is the Marketplace of Ideas.  It's the first place where people begin to grasp the bigger world around them.  And in this marketplace, the Big Idea is the idea of evolution.  Evolution has replaced the Bible and prayer.  And when someone talks about "Intelligent Design", that's just a feint to establish a National Church.  But if creation and evolution are opposites, doesn't that make evolution the State-sponsored Religion?  
    In countries where evolution has been the majority-accepted philosophy, not one of them has become more liberal in the freedoms they allow people.  Evolution has always been used to oppress people.  It was the excuse Adolph Hitler used in the 1940's to kill nearly six million Jews. He believed the blond-haired, blue-eyed person was the highest evolved being on the planet.
    If evolution is true, why has it destroyed so many lives?  Aren't we taught that truth is supposed to be a good thing?  Isn't truth right up there with justice and honesty?  And if the Bible is false, why have so many lives been made better by it?  Look through the pages of our nation's history, and tell me which has been more successful...the Bible, which saw us through every major conflict we've ever faced, including two world wars, or evolution, which was what our nation embraced when we faced Viet Nam?  Which idea has led to the greater success of our country?  Which idea has led to our greater long-lasting happiness?  After 50 years, I think it's time to scrap evolution.

     I'm beginning to get worried about my conservative friends out in radioland.  I've been listening to talk radio for a long time.  I was listening when talk show personalities like Sean Hannity promoted Arnold Schwarzenegger over the more conservative Republican because he was "more electible."  Now true conservatives in California are lamenting the fact that they voted for him.  They should have voted their conscience.  They should have done the right thing regarless of the consequences, but they didn't, and now they're paying the price.
    Let that be a lesson to the rest of us as we fast forward to the 2008 elections.  Currently we have three viable Republican candidates:  John McCain, Rudy Juliani, and Mitt Romney.  Of the three, Mitt Romney is the most conservative, but to hear most of the callers and talk show hosts tell it, this is actually a liability.  His conservatism (not to mention his "out of touch" Mormon religion) make him unelectible.  But wait a minute...I thought the country was more conservative than liberal.  I thought "conservatism wins every time it's tried."  The real problem is that we try to vote for someone that's more "middle of the road," so he's liked by liberals and conservatives alike.
    But is the middle of the road necessarily a good thing?  I contend that it is not.  Our country is leaning more and more left all the time.  Our government continuously grows bigger and bigger and bigger, with no end in sight.  So what is "middle of the road" today was considered far left only a few generations ago.  If we continuously elect Republicans who are "middle of the road," we will find ourselves becoming a socialist nation, all the while claiming we are conservatives.  Do we really want smaller government?  Then vote for a small government conservative!  Are we really pro-life?  Then vote for a pro-life conservative!  At some point, those of us who call ourselves conservatives have got to stand up for what we believe in, or we aren't true conservatives.  (What does that make us...CINO's?)
    I don't care what Mr. Juliani did after 9/11.  So what if he reduced crime in NYC?  Where does he stand on abortion?  Sodomite marriage?  Big Government programs?  IS HE A CONSERVATIVE?  If not, then he's not getting my vote, I don't care how "electible" the media says he is.  And while I'm at it, here's a clue:  If the media likes the Republican candidate, don't vote for him!  There's something inherently wrong about a candidate that's constantly trying to schmooze the press.  All he's doing is looking for votes.  A true conservative would be honest about what he really believes, media be ... well, you get the idea.  And a true conservative voter would do what's right in the ballot box, and let God worry about the consequences.
    Are you a true conservative?

-WindCaller

 

The United States is a unique country. We truly are, as Michael Medved says, “the greatest nation on God’s green earth.” And we have earned that title through blood, sweat, and tears.

However, there are more Americans than ever before who take our prosperity for granted. In fact, there are even those who oppose prosperity. They speak of “corporate greed” as though it were a sin for companies to make money. They truly believe we are wrong to horde that money, and that we instead should “share the wealth” with those less “fortunate” than ourselves. CEO’s who land multi-million dollar deals are simply more fortunate, not necessarily better, than anyone else. They just happen to have won “life’s lottery.”

The solution to all of this injustice is to force them to share their prosperity in the form of taxes and government programs. It’s also the same mentality by which they conclude that illegal immigration isn’t wrong. It’s just another way to share the wealth. Since most liberals inherited their prosperity for free, they think no one should have to work to earn the kind of life we have here. It ought to be free for all.

It’s also the same mentality they use to argue we shouldn’t send our best machines and our most well trained soldiers to war, because it wouldn’t be a “fair fight.” We need to level the playing field between American troops and the al-Qaida insurgents. (I don’t like calling them Iraqi insurgents because most of them aren’t from Iraq. For the same reason, I think the term “civil war” is erroneous!)

It’s not “fair” that our military should go in and beat them so badly. In fact, because our military is so superior, we shouldn’t go to war at all. Using this kind of thinking, it’s easy to see President Bush as evil. He’s just a big bully using the American military to push the rest of the world around. The biggest thing wrong with the war on terror is that it will make the rest of the world even more jealous, so they will hate us more than they already do, thereby creating more Jihadists, and generally creating more enemies.

Because we are so superior, this line of thinking goes, it’s morally impossible for us to wage a just war. So it is not the exception, but the rule that our soldiers will commit atrocities. We should just expect it, which is the reason why they are being followed by reporters and lawyers everywhere they go. Don’t you get it? – American superiority is EVIL!

It’s also why they see conservatives as contributing to a culture of corruption. Because we believe in the greatness of our country, we must be bad people who haven’t yet realized that we’re supposed to play nice, and be generous with our money. We have to look out for those less fortunate than ourselves. That’s why every tax cut is a tax cut “for the rich.” Since every tax increase helps the poor, by cutting taxes, we’re taking that money away from the poor and giving it back to those who actually, you know, earn it. So when we vote for lower taxes, we’re voting for giving seniors dog food. We’re voting to cut school lunches, etc.

If these imbecilic idiots had their way, they would tax 100% of everyone’s money, so no one would have an unfair advantage over anyone else, and these bumbling benevolent buffoons would have complete control over who gets what, thus making sure everyone is happy. They would shut down our military like Clinton tried to do because military in the hands of the superior is inherently bad, and they would give our enemies every piece of technology they want because it would level the playing field. Gee, don’t you think the world would be a better place if Democrats were in control? Oh, and did I mention free health care for all?

In the space of just days we've heard about congressmen and pages, and we've heard of two different school shootings involving sexual perverts.  Almost everyone today knows someone, or is related to someone, who was molested.  A few years ago we saw the Catholic church reeling with accusation after accusation, many of them true, of young boys who had been molested by the very ones they looked up to for spiritual guidance.

Teachers, preachers, parents, and political leaders have all been branded with the scarlet letter.  It now seems that there is no truely safe place in the United States for children.  This problem has now grown to epidemic proportions.  When will it stop?  How did it start in the first place?

It starts because men (and now women, too) do not have enough character to run from temptation.  It continues because, when it happens, the victims feel too ashamed or too weak to stand up to the people committing these crimes.  It also continues because the family members (often wives) don't want to face the truth about what they know is going on, if they would just be honest with themselves.  It also continues because, when men like this man in the Amish community see what they are becoming, they hate it, and want to change, but don't see any way.  They hide behind a false front, hoping no one will notice what lies just beneath the surface.  This man evidently couldn't take it any more; couldn't take the shame - the ridicule that he knew would follow if he allowed himself to be arrested.  His self-imposed death was his self-imposed judgement against himself.  He felt that was all he deserved.  He was a tormented soul, searching for release.

I feel sad for him, knowing what awaits him on the other side.  Also sad because I know Someone who could have helped him.  If there is one constant thread throughout the Bible, it is that God is in the life-changing, destiny-altering business.  If he had only known...God's "peace that passes all understanding" was available to him!  If only he had known that "we've been made more than conquerors!"  The Bible tells me that, as a Christian, I don't have to be a slave to sin -- any sin!

You know, it's interesting:  liberals like to talk about things like forgiveness and redemption.  That's why they say they're against the death penalty.  "People can change," they might say.  And yet they hate hearing Christians talk about a God Who is in the business of helping people do just that!  Isn't that weird? 

The problem is, they want to change people from the outside in.  Change his environment, and you change the person.  But any farmer will tell you that you can dress a pig up in a fancy outfit, put all kinds of pretty perfume on it, and it will still get back in the mud the first chance it gets.  When God changes a person, He does it from the inside out.  Maybe that's why liberals are constantly fighting a losing battle:  their philosophy only goes skin deep, whereas conservatism is bone deep.  It's not just what we believe:  it's who we are!

- The Windcaller 

I chose the name "WindCaller" because I doubt if my posts will be read by a whole lot of people.  With so many other blogs out there, why would people willingly read mine?  I certainly want people to read what I have to say.  And I wouldn't write it if I didn't think anybody at all would read it.  So if you're reading this, "Thank you!"

Well, now that I've got that out of the way...what to say?  This being my first blog and all, there's a lot that needs to be said.  Why didn't the topic selector include an "all of the above" choice?  For what I'm writing about includes more than just the subject of "faith and family."

However, since that is the topic chosen, I will try to limit my words to that topic.  First, faith is failing in our families:  our faith in God, our faith in each other, and our faith in our government to do what it is supposed to do.  In writing this post, I am assuming that the readers will be mostly conservatives, and mostly "Christians."

As such, we hate driving down the road and seeing "X-mas trees" for sale.  It is indicitive of our society:  Christ has been taken away.  He was once very prevalent, but little by little, like a bad cancer, He has been iradicated from our society.  We are invited to practice religion in private, but it should go no farther than that.  To suggest otherwise would be to "push religion down their throats."

To a large extent, we have accepted it.  How long does it take for people to recognize that we are Christians?  I'm not suggesting everyone should go around wearing Sunday clothes with cross lepel pins on them, with a 20-lb. King James 1611 Bible under our arm when we go to the grocery store, but then, it sure wouldn't hurt either.

I look at old photographs, and I see people that were dressed much nicer than the way we dress today.  As I say that, I can here the naysayers in my head repeating the oft-heard slogan that people weren't treated as well in those days either.  Blacks drank at different water fountains than whites, bla, bla, bla.

OK, so we weren't perfect back then, but I think we were a lot closer than we are today.  Which is worse:  having blacks and whites drink at different fountains, or seeing a couple of sodomites kissing, and one of them wearing a dress?  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not condoning the treatment of black people back then.  And no (since I'm on that topic), the Bible doesn't condone slavery either.  But we were, as a general rule, more moral.

The Bible was a much more well-read book than it is today.  And since I'm on that topic, let me ask you, Mr. or Miss, or Mrs. Conservative, when is the last time you read your Bible?  Do you have to wipe the dust off before you take it to church or synagogue?  Is it just a paperweight?  How can we expect the world to understand our faith if we don't show them any?

Having faith is more than wearing a cross around your neck.  After all, even Madonna wears a cross.  Christianity is more than just symbolism.  It's the substance of faith that carries our prayers to heaven when we take the time to get on our knees and send them.  And if we chose to live a life of prayer, the world will not help but notice it.  And as they see that our God is a God who answers prayer, they will not help but be able to respect it.

Why doesn't the world believe the Bible?  Because they don't see it being lived in us.  Why do liberals disdain religion?  Because the only examples they see are of fake religiosity that goes to church on Saturday or Sunday, then promptly goes on unaffected throughout the rest of the week.  I think it's high time we showed the world just how real our God is.

-Windcaller